What did they mean by this?

What did they mean by this?
They showed every other character acting just as they always had but all of a sudden they showed her outright rejecting the character she was.
The TV series handled her progression as her being more willing to let the her labor take more damage but she still loved the thing and took care of it as always, maybe something happens in the background but there's no hint to why she seems to dislike her past self to this point.

Attached: [DeadFish] Patlabor 2_ The Movie [BD][1080p][AAC].mp4_snapshot_01.25.24.887.jpg (1102x597, 105K)

Patlabor 2 is garbage and not fun, focuses too much on politics. Best to ignore its existence.

>changing the best quality of the cutest character
into the bin it goes.

Sometimes I wonder if you people are baiting with every word you type, or if you simply happen to be mentally handicapped. How is she rejecting her form self? She simply states that she wishes to develop as a person. How are you too retarded to get this, especially given the context of the conversation? She chooses friends, love interests, her position as a policeman and the responsibility she took by taking the job, over her license to pilot a labor. She isn't rejecting anything. She's merely rearranging her priorities and acknowledges for more important things to exist, e.g. the safety of the citizens she swore to protect. If doing the right thing means that she loses her license to pilot Alphonse, then that's how it is. It would be character assassition if her response had been anything different you mouth-breathing nigger.

Wow they really murdered noa's character.

That movie made me realize how much of a pretentious hack Oshii truly is.

Ignore Oshii haters

She's not a policeman anymore at that point, the scene being her rejecting her former self is strengthened by the scene at the start of the movie where she no longer holds any attachment to Alphonse.
The first movie had a similar setting where the last part of the story is them doing something that's basically outside the law and there is a real risk of them branded as criminals because of it, but Noa was not bothered by any ideas of that, she was only bothered that Alphonse might be compromised.
Saying saying she chooses friends, love interests, her position as a policeman and the responsibility she took by taking the job, over her license to pilot a labor from that scene is bullshit because she already risked everything in a previous event without saying she doesn't want to be stuck as "that chick who's in love with labors" her whole life.

Literal mouth-breather. Her best friend and arguably love interest still, despite the sitaution they've found themselves in, asks her if she wants to risk losing her license over doing the right thing. Did it ever occur to you that this might hurt her personally? That she's self reflecting and wondering
>Why would anyone even assume that I am not willing to do the right thing? Do they seriously think that I would let people die just so secure my position as a labor pilot? Is that how people perceive me and my attachment? For me to be this shallow?

I already said that they've been in a similar situation before in the first movie and she and Asuma had no reservations in doing the right thing, even at the end of the first movie where she gets told her labor wasn't strong enough to beat the Zero, instead she laid out a plan that involved letting the Zero get closer and risk her labor and herself in order to beat it. Why would Asuma and Noa suddenly start to second guess themselves?
Their characters have already been established like the rest of the SV2 as always willing to do the right thing because they're "heroes".

>and she and Asuma had no reservations in doing the right thing
And yet she is still asked this particular question in Patlabor 2, giving her an indea of how people perceive her and what they think her actual motivations are. Really, are you illiterate or pretending to be?

But that isn't how Asuma should perceive her, which is the entire point.

Asuma is the one who asked the question and her answer was "I don't want to encourage that side of me." It's not about how people see her, she herself pointed out that it's how she sees herself.

No it isn't. The OP is bitching about her response, not the question that is being posed. If he had a problem with Asuma's question, then he should have said so. But he doesn't. What he whines about is her "rejecting her former self". Stop moving the goal post for him.

You realize that you can hate yourself for doing things that other people hate about you, right? Even if you don't hate them yourself, you still have plenty of incentive to change. If you're a wife beater then you might still want to "not encourage that side" of yourself because it hurts those you cherish. Not because you have a problem with beating your wife. Guess I should have expected you to be autistic.

The response doesn't exist without the question, and you legitimized the response by saying it was a response to a question that questioned her priorities.
So if the question is illegitimate then so is the response.

Her response to Asuma's question is, translated literally, "I don't want to be sweet to the part of me that likes Labors." even regardless whether she's saying this because of others or herself, she's literally saying she doesn't want one of her established character traits. Again, this is besides the point of losing a labor license since they've been in a similar situation before and just now starts to doubt themselves for no reasons shown in the movie.

The two scenes in the movie that involves her motivations are early in the movie where Asuma offers her to ride Alphonse again and she says "I don't need to anymore." and the one in the OP. It's less about doing the right thing vs losing her labor license and more about her relationship with labors which she apparently don't want anymore.

Patlabor 2 isn't even Patlabor. I don't watch Patlabor for fucking GitS.

It's a more serious take on the later episodes of the original OVA stop being a brainlet.

The question itself doesn't dictate the response. And he specifically whines about her not claiming to love labors more than anything. He whines about her reflecting on your own actions and behavior, hence he wanted the response to be a different one, not the question. Learn the difference.

>even regardless whether
That's not how dialogue works. You can't simply look at that sentence in a vacuum when her first line literally addresses the way her behavior is being perceived by others. She literally applies a label to herself, a label that stems from the way other people perceive her as an individual. You are quite ltierally too retarded to understand basic human interaction and that individuals can start to question their own actions and character traits because of how other people treat them. It shows character growth, growth that stems from her reflecting on her own actions. Perfectly appropriate given the grim tone of the film, and the fact that she had already been an Alphonse loving child for 70 or so episodes.

TV series is not connected to movie series.
My problem is that the movie does not at all present any reason for Noa not wanting to be the "Labor loving girl", we see apparent character growth but we don't at all see what pushes this growth because the movie is mostly about fake peace vs real war. All we get is the establishment that the story takes place some time after the usual setting and "She's grown up and doesn't want to be a labor loving girl."

She answers Asuma's question in a much more personal tone than how he asked her, he almost just casually asks if she has any doubts of doing the right thing and she answers with a reference of her old self. Just because she's worried about how others might see her doesn't mean she's not rejecting her old self.

>TV series is not connected to movie series.
Excuse me, but if you differentiate between the two in that manner how, in the name of god, do you think you're in a position to bitch about a character trait that was never even established in Patlabor 1 and 2? If you look at them in a vacuum, then the characterization of the cast members is being reset for the film. Hence you shouldn't even think of Noa as someone with an unhealthy attachment to Alphonse. Therefore your entire line of crticism doesn't even make any sense. I am not gonna bother with this any longer.

Not him but I thought the movies were sequels to the OVA's. In which Noa's love for Alphonse comes through.

As far as I am aware, the movies are at least in some way connected to the rest of the franchise. However, if they aren't to him, then he should assume for the movie characters to start with a blankslate. Makes no sense to criticize them for being different when the "TV series is not connected to movie series".