U.C. vs A.C.

Only watched a couple of Gundam U.C. shows,but compared to A.C. (entertaining, it is undeniable), it seems to have a more earthy, realistic feel. U.C. seems to hold more truely to the Gundam themes of politics and war.. A.C. stuff is visually impressive and animated well and has reasonably good drama and plot, yet it feels as if series like Seed and Wing have become character obsessed more than anything..

Take for example Mwu La Flagga. The Hotshot playboy mobile armor pilot gets killed in the final few episodes of Seed defending the Archangel. A commendable ending, and yet the creators decided that he was too popular with the fans to die. Same with Dearka. The only reason the creators made him switched sides was because his character wasn't cool enough, which led to a decline in Buster Gundam model sales..

I'm not trying to be a critic or anything, as I haven't watched much U.C. other than Gundam 0083, but it seems Gundam A.C. is more interested in selling it's characters and riding on interpersonal dramatics to succeed, rather than just telling a story which U.C. seems to have done better.

In anime, there's almost always going to be an obvious good guy and an obvious bad guy, or a 'never give up' character or a supercool poser type of character... I wonder if kids who are into anime these days pick up on these patterns of behavior and the ideals that these shows try to portray, and I worry if they fully break out of it, out of ideals and ideas that they can mimic or superficially understand, but can't truly know because their never in such a situation, because it's really a subtle, illusive reality..

I guess i'd seem worried about a relatively clear issue of media illiteracy, but it's more myself that I wonder about, if maybe I am to some extent subconsciously trapped by such ideas about life, whether they are 'good' or not. Because blind emulation is not healthy.. do I have any reliable ideals to go by? And which of these can I lay claim to? I have felt most shifty as of late.

If a good deed is done, then why was it done? Conditioning, Subtle or overt self-interest, Conscious Altruism, Innate Goodness? Is it any less good if it is a conditioned act or a conscious one? Can the level of goodness be determined by the depths to which one has considered his motivations and principles?

And if, in front of you, something 'good' can be done, but you sense, at the edges of your consciousness, your own self-interest egging you on, do you do it without wondering if God is frowning on you? Does it lead to no good end if your motivations are divided and impure, or is the sad ending attained by a series of actions increasingly driven by self-interest? Do you do that 'good' deed without deliberating about whether your self-interest blinds you to the right course of action, and sometimes wait till you don't feel you are blinded, by which time the chance to act has passed? Or maybe, that you are selling your soul unknowingly by acting in self-righteous self-interest?

At this point in time, one key belief I have about the idea of loving someone, be it family, friends, or a special somebody, is that what you do for that person has no 'you' in mind.. It's done entirely in the interests of seeing that person happy and safe.. But what does that mean? Conscious denial of the self, or does it come naturally, unthinkingly? Is there such a thing as an unthinking, natural act of selflessness that doesn't stem from conditioning of some sort? Man is not perfect, so his love is not perfect either?

Three hundred and sixty one degrees of floating eyeballs, feather like movements and a meaningless agility makes a poor sum.

Wow. the first sentence of cryptic bullshit on my blog!