I'm not the fan of this series myself but when I'm browsing around I found this.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=2232641513655663&id=1708920062694480&sfnsn=mo
What the meaning of this?

I mean, one of the first things we learned about Reina was that she had a crush on the music teacher. And Kumiko had a couple awkward moments with that trombone guy over their relationship. Whatever else was going on, there was always that element in the background.

It always felt like there was some weird internal struggle in that show. Lots of people just say "fucking yuribait" and leave it at that, but it never felt that cynical to me. It's like there was some artistic dispute over the direction of the series, or maybe the creators were trying to say something I just haven't been able to understand.

last edited at May 2, 2019 5:11AM

Hibike Euphonium is not yuri anymore?

It never was. Books are 100% het. Girls relationship was always meant to be just a close, intense friendship. The fact author has no clue how close, intense friendship between girls look like and instead wrote something close to 2 girls dating is different matter. The fact KyoAni was actively downplaying het parts (few crucial moments that were showing Kumiko liked the guy in season 1 already were cut or changed to look as if she didn't care that much about him), while portraying girls relationship in very romantic way, didn't help either. From what I know, they actually didn't add anything to make them gayer, they were already like that in the books. So despite source material always being about het romance, it seemed like KyoAni tried to change that part, but didn't quite go full yuri route either. Whatever there was some disagreement between stuff or with author, is hard to tell, but what we got feels like trying to be both ways and failing at either.

Or at least that is what I heard from people who read novels, so take it all with the grain of salt.

It's kyotoani, of course it was yuri bait. It always is with them. Good thing i already totally squashed any hopes i have of yuri being a thing in hibike euphonium.
What bothered me the most was people's comments in that recent pv people saying all that yuri thing was crap tho. I know it's just random people on the internet, but still. It's not the fans' fault for making yuri ships, kyotoani always baits us. ;w;

Well just watch Lize to Aoi if you want yuri... as for me, I'm glad I dropped the main series in s1 because that element in the background was a mess from what I've heard in s2 and the new pv makes me not want to watch the last movie anymore. Why? because despite all the chemistry between the girls, according to this author and the pv is just youth and it only takes one confession from the guy to be like "well, I guess this is how it is lol"

last edited at May 2, 2019 2:12PM

I'm not usually against subtext, so my main problem with Hibike wasn't that it was "bait", but that it was bait AND switch

This. that's the worst kind of subtext. Kumiko barely gave any fuck about Shuuichi throughout the anime and now she's head over heels for him? that's some serious levels of forced romance crap. I don't blame the author tho, I blame KyoAni for attempting to create the shittiest yuri subtext ever.

As far as I'm concerned, Hibike! Euphonium is about a hopelessly gay girl who keeps developing crushes on straight girls.

Kumiko comes off as extensively gay and not the least bit interested in Shuuichi through both seasons. If this changes in the new movie, well, that's just shitty writing at this point. They made a conscious decision to code Kumiko as gay for two seasons.

And let me say, I don't hate Shuuichi, far from it... I just don't care about him and that's the worse part, like take away Reina or Asuka subtexty moments and we still have WAAAAAAAYYY More character development from Kumiko and all the side characters (to the point where 2 of them get their own movie) than him (unless I missed a huge character arc about him in s2?), so if this is how it's mean to be, it feels like "Well, it can't be helped :l... I mean, he confessed and we know each other for so long so I guess I'll try?" so it's impossible to feel happy for them even if you take away the yuri parts... In fact, the people most happy about this are the yuri haters and that tells you more about bad writing than anything else.

last edited at May 2, 2019 9:14PM

It always has and always will be yuribait, when they sunk the ship in season 2 people jumped to Liz and the Blue Bird but they are just not learning from history. It's just angst and adolescence not worth the effort.

It's just angst and adolescence not worth the effort.

Speak for yourself. When I watch KyoAni, I expect one of two things: angsty adolescence, or wacky hijinks paired with not -quite excessive fanservice.

Hibike appeared from the outset to be in the former category, and I have to say it has not disappointed one bit.

not yuri anymore

Kumiko going out with Shuuichi in the source material was known since S1. I don't know that the anime was ever explicit enough to override that and call it actual yuri.

On the other hand, per this tweet from the anime thread a while back:
https://twitter.com/ultimatemegax/status/1115692715772141576
In the latest volume of the novels, Kumiko and Shuuichi break up. So it's still up in the air whether Kumiko's really hetero.

Although I do agree with the notion that the series (Kyoani in general) isn't really worth getting invested in. Even Liz and the Blue Bird wasn't particularly interesting on the characterization front, it's only noteworthy yuri-wise due to the production values. Basically, I'd say keep expectations low but wait for stuff to actually come out before deciding if Kyoani shit is "yuri"/"not yuri".

I too got some spoiler like, after the confession of Yuuichi apparently they don't even kiss and in the novel they have a date twice and then break up because she wants to focus on music.... REALLY what was the point of that poor guy? I actually feel bad for him, the series wouldn't change without him.

There's also more heavy subtexty flirting in a new pair but because this is what it is I will just take it as fooling around and not spread it further.

last edited at May 3, 2019 10:19AM

Hibike is kind of a sore subject for me as well... I'm not usually against subtext, so my main problem with Hibike wasn't that it was "bait", but that it was bait AND switch. Meaning that even though, in S1, the "main" sapphic pairing (i.e. Kumiko x Reina) by far outperformed the het pairings (i.e. Hazuki's crush on Shuuichi and Reina's crush on Taki) both in terms of screen time, chemistry and (mutual) UST, only the latter were explicitly acknowledged as romantic, while zero sapphic pairings or even feelings were ever explicitly acknowledged throughout the story.

This. The anime's focus was on the girl's interactions with each other, it's like it's a yuri work with het subtext in it. The guys only ever show up to tell people that it's not a yuri work, otherwise, they really don't have any impact on the story. I bet if you remove every scene witha guy in it, it'll still be a complete anime. Even Taki doesn't have much screen time, just there to remind people they're practicing for a competition. The anime was focused on girls interactions then suddenly bam, het all around. Like, the heck are you guys even doing. If you don't call that yuri baiting I don't know what is.

Liz is a story that essentially stands on its own. It's not an adaptation of any of the books, watching the TV anime isn't necessary to understand it, and it tells a complete story that needs no sequel.

No, it's an adaption of the chapters from the book the tv anime skipped over.

Naturally everyone is entitled to interpret things how the want.... but Naoko Yamada specifically said that Liz to Ao Tori is not a romance movie. She stated in an interview that she likes making platonic relationships look romantic. She very directly said that there is no actual romance going on between the girls...

Yeah it's that bad. She doesn't even allow it to be up to interpretation.

That aside, I want to defend KyoAni just a little and say it isn't completely yuribait. They did adapt Kobayashi-san, which is overtly yuri both in the manga and their anime adaptation. Can't wait for season 2.

They won't live the Euphonium disaster any time soon though.

Just because they adapted Kobayashi-san, doesn't mean they're suddenly not responsible for the bait and switch that is Hibike. If my friend smacks me across the face, and then offers me ice cream, does that mean I was never slapped in the first place?

If Naoko Yamada really said that and meant that, I'm very disappointed in her. That's basically a big middle finger for the LGBTQ+ audiences. But it's not like it should be a big surprise. Obviously, hijacking the aesthetic of queer romance for moe / sexy points and then discarding it / denying it is what we should have come to expect from mainstream media by now.

Well no, but the statement "they only ever slap me in the face" would be incorrect. They also gave you ice-cream once.

Sadly she did say that. Though I would argue that she didn't really care about whether it was LGBT or not. She generally just prefers to play with romantic cinematography even if it is platonic to her. It's been a long tradition among some directors. The only thing that upsets me specifically is that she is admant about it. Other directors would have the decency to leave it open to interpretation. That is what a good writer/director/artist does. You can only gain from letting people interpret more into it. As opposed to popular opinion, inclusivity never harms the product. Only shoehorning it in does...

Well what author says in outside source is irrelevant as per death of the author. At least in case of Liz to Ao Tori we can wholeheartedly discard what she said and interpret it on its own merit. So it isn't like her saying it made any yuri interpretations invalid. Doesn't make her approach to it any less shitty though. I mean "I'm making it look like yuri romance on purpose, but no homo" is not something you say to endear gay people to you.

last edited at May 4, 2019 2:36PM

When I love you doesn't mean I love you

Well what author says in outside source is irrelevant as per death of the author. At least in case of Liz to Ao Tori we can wholeheartedly discard what she said and interpret it on its own merit. So it isn't like her saying it made any yuri interpretations invalid. Doesn't make her approach to it any less shitty though. I mean "I'm making it look like yuri romance on purpose, but no homo" is not something you say to endear gay people to you.

Hence why I said everyone is entitled to their interpretation. In my case, I take the director's vision very seriously, so this makes it blatantly non-yuri to me. In a franchise that was build on het, I don't really feel a big sense of loss in this regard anyway. Can't hurt me when I never put my hopes up... lol

Again, I want to stress this, it was not about the yuri aspect. She said she generally just likes to portray platonic relationships in a romantic way. It's her style. I haven't seen too many of her works, but she is very good at this subtle romantic stuff. Usually she doesn't have perfect control over the story and meaning however, so the romance might be more real in other works.

My point was that I can't be expected to sing the praises of someone who was a dick to me, just because they do something nice for once. Not that Kyoto Animation is an isolated example.

Certainly. Likewise it would be hasty to only measure someone by their mistakes and ignore their good deeds though. As far as I can see, KyoAni's staff and directors are actually big fans of yuri. They simple are very much caught in a world where it neither sells nor gets widespread appeal, so they do what they can with works like Euphonium that are het, but very strongly yuri-esque.

Kobayashi probably got a pass because it has something for everyone and is mostly family values centered (and just absurd enough to distract from any sexuality related debates).

Though I would argue that she didn't really care about whether it was LGBT or not.

So? She doesn't recognize that pulling a stunt like this with a sapphic pairing has a different weight than with a het pairing, as heterosexuality isn't underrepresented or marginalized in media. This betrays either comfortable ignorance or possibly contempt for the LGBTQ+ community. But the intentions aren't really the point (and they're impossible to prove); a statement like that speaks for itself.

In my book treating het and homosexuality the same way is far better than the alternative of looking down on one in particular. I would get just as upset if this happened in a het romance I really enjoy.

last edited at May 4, 2019 2:52PM

death of the author.

Please don't use that phrase like it constitutes an argument...

last edited at May 4, 2019 2:55PM

I could understand the same line of thought about something like Nanoha, but making something like Hibike is a really strange way of showing how much you value sapphic love. Not that I want to kinkshame anyone.

Well with Nanoha pretty much everyone from the mangaka to the voice actresses are in agreement on it, so it's subtext that has surpassed text.

How else would you justify them actively cutting on the het scenes and pushing the yuri subtext to the limit?
Actually now that I think about it... I'm pretty sure I read that Naoko Yamada was involved in a lot of creative control of the first season. That might explain a lot...

uncertain posted:

death of the author.

Please don't use that phrase like it constitutes an argument...

Good thing it's a fact, not argument.

death of the author.

Please don't use that phrase like it constitutes an argument...

Good thing it's a fact, not argument.

Are you seriously going to claim that an essay written by one person from over 50 years ago is the universally accepted truth? Well okay then. You may follow Barthe's principles, but not everyone should. It's a one-sided view of literary works.

BugDevil posted:

death of the author.

Please don't use that phrase like it constitutes an argument...

Good thing it's a fact, not argument.

Are you seriously going to claim that an essay written by one person from over 50 years ago is the universally accepted truth? Well okay then. You may follow Barthe's principles, but not everyone should. It's a one-sided view of literary works.

Well it depends how you look at it. I actually used to think death of the author is just a lazy way to ignore what author is saying and make up your own interpretation. But turns out it isn't like that and most people simply misunderstand what the idea is actually about. It's not about disregarding author completely, but rather, what they say about their work has no more value than what anyone else says. Only thing that should matter is text. If author wanted something to be include in their work, it should be included in the text. Similarly if they didn't want something to be there, they shouldn't have put it there.

That being said, obviously author is person who know best what they work and intention is about. Most authors (cough J.K. Rowling cough) have good grasp of their work and can be good source of information about it. So most of the time, there's no real reason to not take their word into account. If you want to get better understanding of reasons and creative choices of something, you pretty much have to start looking into outside sources.

That's why I never said you're wrong for taking that interview seriously and basing your interpretation of the movie with it in mind. I actually only brought up death of the author, because in your previous post you worded it in a way that sounded like that interview completely invalidated possibility for yuri interpretation, so I wanted to give you a out, but in your next post you explained that you take authorial intent seriously and I respected that.

The point of death of the author is that instead blindly following author's word, you should be focusing more on actual text and making your own interpretations based mainly on it. If what author says is contradicted or not directly in the text, you have the option to disagree with them. You're free to listen, but you're not obligated to take their word as gospel. You shouldn't be required to do research on author's live or looking for their commentary etc. in order to understand what they wanted to convey and meaning behind their work. Everything you need should be present in the text. Also authors are humans too and they can make mistakes. Even If someone had intention to show a certain thing, they can still fail to properly express it in the text. And going back to Euphonium is a perfect example of it. Yamada said movie is no homo, but that in no way invalids reading it as homo, because the text she created, supports that interpretation. She is free to talk about what her intention was, but she has no control over what people will interpret from her work.

It might came out wrong, because it was the first time I ever used it in the conversation, so I had no clue how to react to uncertain's post, especially since their attitude was pretty rude too.

last edited at May 4, 2019 6:17PM

@Nevri
Hmm... I am glad I asked, because now I got a much clearer picture of your viewpoint. It's good to see that you have a more nuanced approach to it than your initial post suggested. While I am rather sharply on the opposite end of the spectrum and put authorial intent above any interpretation of outsiders, I do understand the need for interpretation, especially if the author is not available to explain it or if they contradict themselves (which happens far too often sadly).
Sometimes merely by copying or imitating something an author can accidentally make a statement about a topic as well, so there are exceptional cases where interpretations are superior to the author's own intent.

I find this particular case rather one-sided however. The souce material is het, the director actively put the subtext in there knowingly without the intent of making it true. It was not an accident. It was all intentional. An intentional contradiction is not a true contradiction, it's a stylistic choice. Of course more goes into a production than just the director's intent, so there are more influences like the writers, the story-boarders and the artist's passion itself.

Ultimatly having a different interpretation in such a clear cut case is not much better than fanfiction though. I don't believe Liz to Ao Tori is any more legitimately yuri than the original seasons by that logic. You could easily interpret and fanfictionalize season 1 into a yuri story as well, yet it's universally agreed that it's yuribait. I can't honestly see the true difference. It's authorial intent in the season vs. directorial intent in the movie. Both are equally damning for the product.

I am almost a bit envious of your philosophy here that allows you to disregard these things for a better experience. Indeed, for most people who don't know the context, that interpretation of the work is all too real, so they will never even experience doubt. It's yuri until proven otherwise... I suppose. Haha.

last edited at May 4, 2019 6:28PM