Talk:Lelouch Lamperouge

Death of Lelouch Status

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
---I think for multiple reasons the status of lelouch in the end or rather on his bio should be that he most likely lives. first we can start off by thinking about how he would live. There are only two ways he would live. One is that he absorbed c.c. code but that would be wrong since i believe she would die. The most likely way for him to live is that that was not really him but c.c. in disguise. This is logical for two reasons. One it is already shown that a perfect replica of lelouch is possible in the world for when his maid disguised herself as him to make sure his absence from school was not noticed. It has also been shown that she has taken his place before (although only as zero). The second is when his sister touches him as he is "dead" and she merges conciousness with the person. That ability is exclusive to c.c. (or people with the code) alone and has never been shown to happen with anyone else. People may argue that during the scene of him being stabbed c.c. is shown praying but that really does not amount to much as in many animes, most likely including this one i cant think of an example off the top of my head, they tend to play with scenes in order to mislead the viewer and add that twist. From that train of though we go into thinking: so if he had lived what would he do. the most obvious is what happened. He would go into hiding. Now how would the most known face in the world hide? The very fact that you do not see the face of the driver and that he is hiding every part of him is basis enough for the theory that he is a live. Since if he was alive and obviously that well known anyone who would see him would panic therefore a disguise of that magnitude is required. The third main point is in what c.c. says. She says according to the subs shown that geass the power of kings leaves people in solitude and also sais that that is not entirly true ending with a question aimed towards lelouch. Using all the previous facts and 99% probability of them being true or at least the most logical then we can say that she is talking to him directly. We can infer from the very fact that she is saying that it is not true that the power of kings leaves people alone that obviously she means that he is not dead or alone because he is with her. To discredit the other scenarios here are the reasons why they most likely arent true. In general the main question is why nunally is capable of merging conciousness with lelouch. That alone hints that the scenario above is logically the best case. The thought that she is talking to herself is logically false by her very wording. Once again why would she say that to someone who is alone and dead. (yes i can think of a few good b.s. reasons but none that are really valid and only lower the probability that that is the correct scenario). second is her talking to his spirit. It has already been brought up although deleted that technically the people she has spoken to have been alive. the third scenario that she is talking to the driver of the cart is strange in what does the person who wrote that mean. is the person implying that the driver is simply a driver in which case what she sais to him would make no sense since shes telling a random person. or is the person infering that the driver is lelouch. To conclude the mosy likely scenario is that he is alive for those reasons and i cannot think of any other logical way it would go. There are many infered scenarios but none that hold this much basis and would leave more questions then answeres. Such as if he did die why is it that nunnaly merged with his conciousness. Why did c.c. say what she said in that wording as if he was alive. common sense dictates that she is saying he is alive and not alone but with her. for the sake of the people who watch this and have not thought of those reasons above i think someone should post them since i do not have the ability to do so myself. I think the viewers have the right to those deductions if the subject is going to be brought up at all since once again through them the most probable scenario is that he is alive although yes the other ones still hold a small probability. It would be unnecesarily be keeping viewers guessing who would want more truth out of the ending. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo8913 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC) ---I have to give another reason for him being alive. He absorbed his father's code when he killed him, thus becoming immortal. That's why the second season is R2 R.R. Lelouch Lamperouge in Japanese (from what I heard) translates into a name with the initials R.R. I agree completely with your analysis of the final scene though just not how he survives. Also another thing to bring up, Orange does not seem bothered with his death, which probably means he knew Lelouch was immortal and that's why he's smiling in what seems to be the same area as Lelouch and C.C. ---Right since that was the most controversial part (him dying) i could not completley say what the most likely circumstances were when he died. That scenario is also one i did not think of however im not sure if thats true for a few reasons. one is im not sure if he really did absorb his code. im pretty sure when his father died he was being killed off by peoples wishes or something in the world of c.c. therefore not being absorbed. i can back this up because as he is being absorbed into the world of c.c. both charles and marianne go through the same fate if somehow it was different charles would have been absorbed differently then marianne therefore concluding their fates where the same, which was being absorbed into c.c.'s world. also though this could be optional if you do absorb the code your geass gets replaced by the immunity of geass and its clearly shown that lelouch uses his geass multiple times after. The reaction of Orange was also one i wanted to use as a basis for support but there was not enough strength in it as opposed to the other reasons to bring it up but since it has ill elaborate on that. The way Orange reacts is also a good indicator that lelouch is not dead as well as marianne not being dead. Orange ends up in the same scenery as lelouch (ironically picking oranges) and seems satisfied with the ending of things. If we continue to go off of the train of thought regarding reactions then there are a few irregularities which support lelouch being alive (though once again these are reactions therefore do not carry as much support as the original 3 reasons but add positivley to the speculation that lelouch is alive). Chronologically we start with Orange.He seems perfectly satisfied that lelouch is about to die and you would think he would be at least a bit sad. And now suazku. He appears to truley think lelouch has died and that he killed him (that becomes important later on though). Next is lelouch as he is dying he seems utterly at peace which is fine but still a litte strange. What really is noteworthy is what he says after he merges conciousness with nunally. He sais that he destroys and creates worlds yet why would he say that to his sister who he cares most for right as he dies. It sounds more like someone who is disconnected to the world would say but not really lelouch. Then we go into Orange again as he is at peace with anya in the same scenery as c.c. and the "cart driver". c.c. seems completley content with things and that contentness as well as what she sais is more then screaming that lelouch is alive with her. the reason suzaku's reaction is important is because he is the only one that is not content and if we take precedents into account then having plans that exclude people is a lelouch specialty. Therefore what i mean is that everone besides suzaku was in on the plan. more support for this can be found if you consider that suzaku is the only one that is left with a role therefore he is the only one that would need that motivation of having killed his best friend. i will address the anomaly of c.c. praying in the chapel. though i dont want to admit it does show support for lelouch dying but is just as i said earlier an anomaly. That is because she appears distressed and what she sais leads us to believe that he really is dying and also the timing would disprove that she is not in place of lelouch. However why would she react that way then say what she sais later. i do not consider this to be true and really do think it is only a trick and a rather cheap one since it is a stand alone scene and an anomaly which does not fit into any other scenario other then lelouch dying but once again does not support what she sais later on making it stand alone. no other scenario has enough support and if everything was weighed lelouch not dying would by far have more since lelouch dying only has the support of visually seing him dying and the c.c. chapel scene. Though you can laugh and say wait isnt visually seing him die enough? not when an anime decides to make death immune (the code) and fooling the viewers a constant throughout the anime. do i even need to bring up mao? to be honest both him abosrbing charles code and c.c. impersonating him are valid since both can fit but logic disproves the first (either by the creators not supporting it enough or a mistake of theirs creating a mismatching ending) but would make more sense and be more probable then the second if it were true. if more support can be found that lelouch is immortal then i would agree. it would be nice if you could elaborate your reason on the title of the anime. i thought it stood for rebellion two. those producers sure are tricky. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo8913 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC) If he was he wouldn't still be able to use his geass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.207.75.219 (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Ok, this is what I got that proves how Lelouch has the Code and Geass, because unlike C.C., and Charles, who lost their Geasses because the people who contracted them died, Lelouch didn’t obtain C.C.’s Code and thus kept his Geass, while having the Code he obtained from Charles when he tried to strangle him. Lelouch therefore has achieved CODE GEASS.--Aramaeus (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Okay I think thats impossible but I'm not compelety sure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.248.221 (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC) look i know everything i said up there is lenghty but you should take your time to read it and actually understand all of it because if you did you would already realize that the only hope and viable way for him to be alive is for c.c. to be his replacement. the rule goes regardless of who you get it from you must sacrifice your geass for immunity to geass, its transference. and once again he did not absorb anyones code. here are two more facts for support i didnt mention because i figured the so many ones up there would have given people a clue. dont you think they would have made a big deal about that long ago read the second comment i made all of that explains how thats impossible if you payed attention to the anime. let me guess he absorbed marianne as well right? since they both dissapear the same way. if you want to argue oh but he was touching him! no he also let go now wouldnt that be convienent if you didnt have to touch someone with the code to absorb it. second point lelouch has made physical contact with people before and has not given hallucinations to them either also supporting the he does not have the code fact(kiss with karren). look i want him to be alive and i know he is alive and the only real bulletproof way for him to be so is through c.c. taking the stab. there are just to many contradictory points for the way you guys are thinking of. the only possible hole which, is barley one due to the way animes are produced, is that c.c. was supposedly in the chapel saying that as he was killed. even then her reaction afterwards and what she sais is completley contradictory and like i said earlier an anomaly which stands alone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo8913 (talk • contribs) 06:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC) Ok with the code, it doesnt activate when you first get it, it triggers when you die, examples are when C.C. gets her code from the nun the nun kills her, next Charles his didnt activate until Lelouch shot him, and Lelouch's triggered when he was stabbed, this caused the hallucinations when he touched Nunnaly, and because his code wasnt active before he was stabbed, he was still able to use his geass.--Aramaeus (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Alright guys, these text walls are all well and good, but unless you have conclusive PROOF that is not based on interpretation and reading between the lines, we CANNOT add it here. I don't care how well you can interpret the signs or predict the future. I don't care if you color-matched the cart driver's hair with Lelouch's. Unless we see CONCLUSIVE PROOF that he is alive, such as actually seeing him in person indisputably, we cannot add it to Wikipedia. Just like how even though we thought that Nunnally survived, we had to list her as dead until it was revealed that she was alive. End of story. the_one092001 (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2008 (UTC) hm thats interesting and it could work if thats how the rule works well then i concede that if you have to die in order for that to happen then i will agree. just one question is are you sure he absorbed it? i mean how do you argue your way out of him wishing for both marianne and charles to be destroyed by c.c. world. if you want to say that it was when he was touched he did let go and dissapeared in the same way as marianne so did he absorb marianne to? also i do not think it will work if he let go to begin with. to theone092001: sure you want proof? c.c. said whoever said the power of kings was lonley isnt exactly right right lelouch? (as she looks back towards the cart driver). how is that not proof it is exactly her saying he is alive and if its not then please tell me what it is? i mean if aramaes over there is right then it should be more then evidence to support that theory and should even get its own mention that he absorbed charles code and should be looked into. and either way the c.c. switch bodies theory is also a possibility. the point is not that we dont know its how we know he is alive and are justifying it. if you want to bring up nunally as an example then there was absolutley no evidence to support that she was alive (at least none viable) so of course you had to do that i mean its not like someone said hey shouldnt we be doing this schneizel... nunally? unless you can argue against that one line then its more than enough implied that he is alive and should at least get some some mention in that article. i mean why put up those crazy theories that shes talking to his ghost or cart driver etc that have no absolutley no basis compared to the ones here. i mean even putting up the cart driver is crazy because why would she say right lelouch to the cart driver? if you say because thats the option of lelouch being alive then put that down rather then cart driver. if your going to put up that its left up to the reader to decide and give options all im saying is to put that as an option since either way your speculating to begin with. i hope you take this into consideration if you have the ability to change whats written there. im not asking to blatently say out of some crazy fan need for him to be absolultey declared alive im just saying that it should be an option as well to the already speculative comments posted there or just delete those and declare him dead since at that point you would just be denying an equal possibility out of spite for us or me here. ive watched other animes that have some similar disputes and saw their wiki pages and they at least have some mention of the most implied possibility of whatever but this one does not and gives three non supported reasons and even excludes the most heavily implied. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arturo8913 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC) please at least take this one thing into consideration that the comment in the article is this: She then speaks to Lelouch, leaving the viewer to decide if she is talking to herself, Lelouch's spirit, or the driver of the cart that she's on. why is it that the comment sais that she is talking to lelouch then makes a complete 180 and gives the option (to the reader who can read between the lines) that no she wasnt talking to lelouch she could have also been talking to herself despite me saying that she was talking to him or even better she could just be saying that wierd comment to some random person driving a cart and addressing him as lelouch which, once again does whoever wrote that mean that the driver is lelouch or not is the person trying to mislead people? the whole comment is just flawed please take that into consideration and i hope that it is rewritten in a better way. Do you want to know what "proof" is on Wikipedia? Proof is SEEING Lelouch's face. SEEING it and HEARING him talk to confirm that he's alive. Implying this or that doesn't count as proof unless it is substantiated later, which this has not been. The problem with these theories is that people always take the information that could possibly support their theory while discarding everything that doesn't. For example, if Lelouch were still alive, why hasn't C.C. given up her Code to him? She's happy, and he accomplished what he wanted to do. She still presumably wants to die, so why didn't she do it? She didn't look up at the driver, she simply inclined her head up a few degrees and is actually looking at the sky. She used to look up when she was talking to Marianne, so justifiably, it could be said that Lelouch is in spirit form somewhere. It would have been a prime opportunity to do so without interference. The comment means that she is addressing Lelouch, and then specifies that it is unclear how she is doing so: either directly (if he's the cart driver), indirectly (in spirit form, like Marianne) or just figuratively (to no one other than herself). The point is this: without conclusive proof, such as a picture or unequivocal statement that he is ALIVE in some form, we cannot say that he is alive. Talking about every offhand conspiracy theory about how he is alive is pointless, because the only conclusive evidence we have points to his death. At best, we can say it's ambiguous, but we cannot say anything more that might support his living through the attack. the_one092001 (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Also remember that the only reason C.C. was able to talk to Marianne was because of Marianne's geass allowed her to communicate to C.C. through her heart, so theres no way that she could be talking to lelouch indirectly.--Aramaeus (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2008 (UTC) i will not argue with the point that proof is seeing how can i? i will concede to that and will not argue on any point that lelouch is deffinitly alive and i agree theories are theories and if for integrity reasons wiki or you do not acknowledge any of them as fact fine (though not concpiracy theories thats just out of place there is no concpiracy in this). now can we should move on to something more up to wiki standards becasue we can argue that he is deffinitley alive or not all day and that would not be the point of what we are sincerely trying to do which is to merley get the option that he is alive in there not the fact because it is not a fact. no one will argue or put up concpiracy theories though there is no concpiracy in them and talking about them or putting support in there would create to much text when it can be simply listed as a possibility that she was talking to the cart driver who could have been lelouch or not. i like how you said if she is talking to the cart driver (lelouch) now all im asking is that we clarify that. as i mentioned before that sentence is highly flawed and needs restructuring it does not even say that lelouch is the cart driver and has other flaws as well. i mean your clearly more capable then the person who wrote that and you have to notice that someone reading that would get more "why would she be talking to the cart driver" then apperently the implication that the cart driver is lelouch if we were reading it literally. it is misleading the reader and not fit for a wiki article to simply imply that the cart driver is lelouch. that is all im asking that the assumption that lelouch is the driver be lifted and be replaced by him being the cart driver or if needed having both that she is talking to the cart driver and that she could also be talking to lelouch who could be the cart driver. "She then speaks to Lelouch, leaving the viewer to decide if she is talking to herself, Lelouch's spirit, or the driver of the cart that she's on." she then speaks to lelouch? that is implying that lelouch is alive then goes on to say that she is speaking to herself so just kidding i meant she could also have been speaking to herself about lelouch. yes she could have been talking to the cart driver but does this person mean only the cart driver or is this person implying the cart driver is lelouch, which is misleading and should not be in there. the sentence doesnt even give the situation first but rather just assumes that the reader knows what theyre talking about. im done talking about theories because your right they are only that and have no concrete facts therefore this sentence needs restructing because bit has and misleading implications as well as contradictions. the sentence restructured would be more like: She then speaks on top of a hay cart with a mysterious driver saying that the power known as geass brings one solitude is not quite accurate ending with "right, lelouch?" as she nods her head up leaving the viewer to decide if she is talking to herself, his spirit, lelouch as the mysterious cart driver, or simply the cart driver. really its just a basis but all thats being asked is that it is changed to something more fitting. i am not arguing with you anymore on any point i want to clear that up since i think we had misunderstandigs that we were arguing about if he was really alive or not i agree there is no fact that he is alive all that is being said in that sentence is what c.c. said and that it leaves the viewer to guessing as to if she is talking to herself the lelouch as the cart driver or the cart driver or the spirit. it is not contradictory anymore or misleading. it is simply saying that it leaves the viewer to decide for himself what really happened and why c.c. would say something like that. im not arguing with you im just asking this of you thats all this is a request that a sentence be fixed.Arturo8913 (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC) dont say that aramaeus it will reveal the fact that theory has found its way into the sentence and then itl make theone realize that if we insist on putting that lelouch is the cart driver that that is also a theory because it would say he lived just like its a theory that she can talk to the dead. so now thanks we have no chance of having lelouch living as a possbility and most likely the part about her talking to the dead will be erased as well since both are theories. I would cut out any mention of the cart driver as that seems to almost unfairly hint that Lelouch is alive. I'm all for (and indeed I support) stating that the ending was ambiguous, but it should be done neutrally: more like describing how she addresses Lelouch, leaving the viewer to decide whether or not Lelouch is still alive. Emphasizing the cart driver just continually hints that he could be the Lelouch, whereas the actual scene doesn't put very much emphasis on him at all. the_one092001 (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Sorry, I'm a bit new to wikipedia and I actually do agree with theone here in the sense that since the ending doesnt give us a straight answer, so we should leave it as neutral like he said and not try and give false hope.--Aramaeus (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Crazybob12345 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC) I think that the information at the end of both C.C and Lelouch's profile should be changed... it was confirmed C.C was talking to herself by the official code geass mobile site which explained her line at the end that was addressed to Lelouch.. I think whoever is editing this page seriously should know that too.. plus all the magazines and the writer himself Okouchi in an interview with a magazine said "His life had not been in vain. That was why he smiled in the end" also the Nunnally scene is explained by the site as well, stating her blindness can see through peoples hearts.. If you do not believe this information, There are scans of the interview from the magazine and the website you can go yourself and see.. so officially, Lelouch should be dead. Crazybob12345 (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Currently, this article has quite a few grammar errors, especially in the narration of the second series' events. Please consider looking through them. It could also use a little summarizing, one example being the last section where the subject of C.C. on the cart was sort of repeated. On the subject of Lelouch's death, shouldn't there at least be a "Date of Death" in the summary column as there used to be? Because whether he's really alive or not, he is, at least officially, dead. I'm all for the_one092001's viewpoints. Songofthehawk (talk) 08:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC) Crazybob12345 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Can someone edit the profiles of C.C and Lelouch? It is implied he is alive and that he could be the driver? .. when it is confirmed he is dead, Lelouch's profile on geass.net says: He accomplished Zero Requiem in exchange for his own life. Crazybob12345 (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC) ************************************************************************************************* The finality of Lelouch's death has been officially confirmed. Whoever keeps editing the page to remove the new information regarding this issue, please stop Edit: and for the love of God, don't try to revert posts on this page. e_e Zero Requiem (talk) 23:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC) ^As far as I know it hasn't. If you're talking about the continue 42 okouchi interview that people seem to be pushing as proof these days, you should actually try reading it. The interviewer basically asks if lelouch is dead and asks if the ending was happy in one question, and Okouchi remains ambigous about Lelouch's death status but does says he considers it happy and understands that fans could interpret it differently. He doesn't confirm either way.146.6.33.218 (talk) 04:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC) No, hun. You're misinterpreting it. It is up to the viewer to decide whether they emotionally consider it to be a happy ending or not. (IE, was the ending of Romeo and Juliet happy?) He confirms that Lelouch is dead dead many times over in that very interview. Zero Requiem (talk) 05:06, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Seriously, what? Have you actually read the japanese? I'm not sure what interview you read, but if you read the same one I did, it's pretty plain as day what Okouchi meant. 146.6.33.230 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC). Per curiosity, what is it exactly that you think he was 'plain as day' about? Zero Requiem (talk) 16:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC) The interviewers mention/question that Lelouch is dead and proceed to ask him if the ending was happy or sad. Okouchi doesn't answer the death question and talks about how he considers the ending a happy ending and says it is open to interpretation. If you note the word choice throughout the entire interview, Okouchi never explicitly states that Lelouch remains dead, but instead uses ambigous wording whenever referring to his death. He never explicity states "Lelouch is dead" or "Lelouch is not dead," even when the interviewers turn the topic of conversation directly to that matter. From your unwavering belief that Lelouch is dead, I can only fathom that you have not actually read the interview, but a poor translation. However, your blatant violation of the 3 revert rule leads me to believe that you don't even care what I have to say or what the truth truly is. There is no "finalty" to Okouchi stating that Lelouch is dead. I might be more tolerant if you were to change to wording to something like, "In continue 42, when discussing Lelouch's death, conversation seems to imply that Lelouch did indeed die. However, Okouchi avoids explicitly confirming this and uses ambiguous wording in the same interview."146.6.33.229 (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Aside from the fact that he's on the magazine's updated 'death' list and on the official Geass*net website, C.C.'s profile states that her time with Lelouch has 'come to an end' (and those alone should stand to reason), I'll post one of a few quotes from the interview here to support myself; "-----Some unresolved mysteries still remain. Okouchi: From the very beginning, [I/we] never planned on explaining everything. In fact, if you ask me, I think we might have overdone the explanations. While it's undeniable that Lelouch's story has ended with a full stop, the other characters' stories are still on-going, and it's not like the world [of Code Geass] itself has come to an end either. [I/we] didn't want to end it by closing it up for good." Lelouch's story has ended with a full stop. That is not in the least ambiguous. Again, one of a few quotes. If you're still reluctant to accept it, I'll be happy to post you more. Zero Requiem (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Hmmm. That's not the best translation, but it's decent enough, I suppose. Lelouch's story has come to a full stop != Lelouch is dead. That's interpretation is simply what you seem dead set on wanting to believe. Again, despite the quality of translation, this only serves to further what I was saying, Okouchi doesn't explicitly say "Lelouch is dead," he remains ambiguous. Several stories end with the central character living on; it's only the story that ended not necessarily the life. 146.6.33.229 (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC) If it says he's dead on the website, then we list him as DEAD. No matter the ambiguity. He gets listed as dead, just as Nunnally did even when those conspiracy theories were flying around. I don't care how ambiguous Okouchi was, the fact of the matter is if the website says he's dead, we say he's dead. Plain and simple. the_one092001 (talk) 09:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Crazybob12345 (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC) He is dead.. it is confirmed in the magazine with a scan with his name on it.. this is not ambiguous at all.. and for the person who said that's claiming not the best translation, then please read this since you can read Japanese.. look at the name at the end.. http://img401.imageshack.us/my.php?image=continuev42deathlisttc5.jpg Crazybob12345 (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC) It's not ambiguous in the least. The quality of the translation is irrelevant as long as it gets the same basic concept across which, as you have acknowledged, it does. Okouchi, in that question, is very VERY obviously using the term 'story' in the same way as 'saga', 'journey', 'life' . Dear God, he's not talking about the 'story' itself. (Elsewise, he wouldn't have mentioned that the other characters' 'stories' are still going...what, are the Black Nights all writing novels here? e_e) Lelouch. Is. Dead. There are SO MANY direct references to it that I really cannot believe that anyone would have so much denial as to blatantly go up against the creators' word. Hyper-analyze, pick apart, make their own statements into something completely different. You want to know why they've never actually said (or been addressed about it for that matter) "Lelouch is dead"? It's because they didn't even anticipate it being perceived as being ambiguous; in that very same interview, (and I'm far too ill-motivated to go back and find where right now) Okouchi said that they didn't want to end the show with mysteries. There was no ambiguity intended. Zero Requiem (talk) 01:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC) How do we want to word the sentence? "Confirms finality of death" is shitty word choice. I think it's pretty good how it is @ "Okouchi explains that lelouch's death is the price he needed to pay etc." and including the death list. Seems like interview has a lot of controversy as to Okouchi explicitly saying "Lelouch is dead." Since it is kind of implied, saying "confirms finalty of death" definitely is OR, another reason to avoid that usage. Please discuss and resolve.24.174.75.197 (talk) 05:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC) "Confirms the finality of his death" is a fine word choice. Unfortunately since fans are confused over whether or not he possesses immortality, simply stating that he is dead doesn't denote that he really is dead dead, so it needs to be imparted how dead Okouchi considers Lelouch. While he never actually says "Lelouch died" in the way that would satisfy skeptics, he does confirm numerous times over through different word choice that Lelouch is, indeed (and not immortally) dead. Perhaps a direct quote to replace "Confirms the finality of his death" would satisfy everyone's denial? Zero Requiem (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC) -->While he never actually says "Lelouch died" in the way that would satisfy skeptics<-- And that's the problem. Since he doesn't say that, saying "Confirms the finalty of his death" is definitely OR. Gotta avoid the OR. Plus, the guy up there claims your translation is less than perfect and that okouchi is ambiguous throughout the interview (don't know how trustworthy that is..., but definitely at least somewhat true since once eff-ing topic is a controversy hellraiser). Direct quotes aren't gonna work here unless we get somebody to do a stand up job on translation. I would feel _a lot_ more comfortable with "Okouchi confirms Lelouch's death, explaining that it is the price he needed to pay (etc. + deathlist)." Jesus, we have his name on a goddamn death list, no need to get bent out of shape over the word finality; I simply cannot accept it how it is now. I still think the best way to tackle this is "Okouchi explains that Lelouch's death was the price he needed to pay to create his better world. In addition, the name "Lelouch vi Britannia" is included in the magazine's final death list." Not verbose, no extrapolation from the interview at all into the realm of OR (thus keeping NPOV), and solid lelouch death evidence. Can't get any better than that.24.174.75.197 (talk) 06:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Just for the record, I have a very, very accurate translator -one of the most respected and cited on the internet as far as Geass goes. As a matter of fact, I'd be heavily willing to bet that a lot of the translated information on the Geass wiki pages comes from their translations. However, I understand that not everybody will accept that, especially in a situation like this. I'm not really certain what everyone's problem with the word 'finality' is, since death normally is indeed final. I would like to direct reference the interview in lieu of the whole statement, but since people seem to be finding every means possible to discredit my information, I can't use a translated quote. However, I will agree that, for the time being anyway, I as well would feel comfortable with "Okouchi confirms Lelouch's death, explaining that it is the price he needed to pay (etc. + deathlist)." Agreement? Zero Requiem (talk) 06:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Hmm, not 100%. However, I'm tired of wikipedia making me a nervous wreck and i've got to rest up for my midterm tomorrow, so be it. Let's use the compromise, because it's definitely better than what we have now. Finally, I just wamt to say you put too much faith in your translators. You never know when they're slanting translations towards their own bias (subconciously, even), especially when you consider just how ambiguous of a language Japanese is by default.24.174.75.197 (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC) (Wikipedia is making you a nervous wreck..?) I can personally attest that this person would never let a bias slant their translations. In fact, they're one of the most respected -...wait, didn't I already go over this part? Zero Requiem (talk) 06:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC) And I'm supposed to believe you why? After this many days, still no name/link to where you're getting this from. But w/e you're pretty confident, so you're probably telling the truth. I just can't tell anymore these days. People disregarding WP policy left and right, the lack of citations, the OR (and people defending their OR, how ridiculous does that get), the non NPOV, the edit wars, the vandals... most of all, WP:NOTE. Most of this article is excessive (uncited, no less) plot summary and cruft in the first place, people need to learn to respect WP policy, or just leave. ARU HAIRU TTN! >_> (j/k, buddies)24.174.75.197 (talk) 07:07, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I'm not revealing who they are because I don't want them harassed. >_> You can see how much carnage has taken place here, imagine what would become of the situation if I released a name. Anyway, I'm whole-heartedly guilty of countless WP infractions, I'm sure. Not denying it. I joined a week ago because, as much as everyone else didn't want to hear it, I wanted to get this new information out there. I didn't want to necessarily read a book on the ins-and-outs of Wikipedia. I think that's probably true of the majority of us -we just want to inform. So that said, WP Policy raped? Yeah, guilty as charged. x3 Have at thee. Zero Requiem (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I've read this interview. Nowhere in it does he confirm that Lelouch has infact died or at least remainded dead. I'm sorry zero requiem but you're just trying to take vague comments and pass them off as undeniable proof. All i'm seeing is a few vague quotes like "Lelouch's story comes to a stop", ok this outright confirms hes dead? Whether he gained the fathers code or not this holds true as his story is finished. Whether he lived or not his story is finished. Of course "Lelouch Vi Brittania" would be listed as dead because hes dead to the world whether he goes on with CC or actually died there. Him having to sacrifice his life to make his world occur could be interpretted as him actually dying there or him having to completely abandon them to live as a code, either way technically a sacrifice. I think he probably died because his sacrifice becomes cheapened if he lived but thats only one viewpoint, i'm willing to accept there are many and not trying to force mine on everyone else. I still say the ending is ambiguous as there is good proof for either outcome to be completely valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGreatKhan (talk • contribs) 05:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC) If your story comes to a full-stop while the stories of everyone else continue, then you are either dead or in a coma, yes. It's not at all vague. Deathlist should be an automatic confirmation -Lelouch Lamperouge and Lelouch vi Britannia are the same person. If he had 'died unto his old self,' then it wouldn't be a death at all, and thusly, it wouldn't be listed. CC's profile on Geass*net also states that 'her time with Lelouch has come to an end'. Working on getting a screenshot. (Also, please sign your posts. People on Wikipedia tend to be persnickety about things like that.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero Requiem (talk • contribs) 08:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC) could you just stop trying to represent your interpretation on this matter as a fact? There's a reason Okouchi is avoiding words like dead and killed in not just this interview, but all the others. Also, magazine writers will assume things and write in their own interpreations to matters. notice for example how the connection of ragnarok is included on that death chart. Despite the fact they have no idea what it is other than it's basic function, they've listed it among the "dead". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.222.244 (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) This issue has long since been resolved. This is not my interpretation of what the interview said. It just simply is what it said. The magazine writers have also not included their own interpretations because they don't paraphrase Okouchi; the interview is a direct quote. He doesn't refrain from using words like 'dead' and 'killed,' in fact he uses them many times over. But besides that, it doesn't seem matter what the author says to you guys who refuse to accept his death, you just dismiss it anyway. Zero Requiem (talk) 03:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I'm just telling you the scan of the death chart is pointless and should be removed. 132.162.222.244 (talk) 6:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.72.132 (talk) Ridiculous argument. It is absolutely not pointless. Death chart stays. Zero Requiem (talk) 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, because the death chart has been 100% right, all the time. Remember when Nunnally and Sayoko were up there? There's so much more evidence that Lelouch is alive than that he is dead. I think we should just remove the death chart and the confirmation by Okuichi and just say that although it appears that he died, it's left ambiguous. Agent Chieftain (talk) 19:38, 30 November 2008 (UTC) We've already been over this many, many times. Please read. Zero Requiem (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC) When Lelouch died, /a/ cried. Now STFU 85.166.224.77 (talk) 11:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC) In reference to the citation made about the October Newtype, taking Okouchi's statements to mean that the ending is meant to be ambiguous is a misinterpretation. What Okouchi meant (and ironically, what he said) was it is up to the viewers to decide for themselves whether the emotion of ending was 'happy' or 'sad'. He did NOT mean that it is up to the viewers to decide what happened. The events are concrete; you are to decide whether the events that occurred are of negative or positive connotation. (IE., Was the ending of Romeo and Juliet happy or sad?) Zero Requiem (talk) 23:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC) All right, who's the fucking idiot who placed this?!?!?!?! The aftermath is narrated by Kallen, who ends up forgiving Lelouch and explains how the world is much better off with all the energy being focused on reconstruction. Want to Subscribe? Lelouch IS NOT DEAD, here is the explanation: 1. He killed his father and he has his code, but it gets active when the user dies. Remember, in C.C.'s memories she says: "Please, get out of my body" reffering to the Geass when she dies for first time and realizes that she is inmortal. Well the Geass gets active in Lelouch when he dies. 2. C.C. is talking with Lelouch... think again: She never talks again with Marianne when she dies completly or she never talks or see Mao when he dies, so... Lelouch is alive. 3. In this final scene C.C says: "The power of Geass brings loneliness...thats not quite right is it, Lelouch?" So... if Lelouch is not alone anymore and is with C.C... he must to be the wagon driver, ne?, look how C.C. nods her head in the direction of the wagon driver =) 4. R2 = R.R. in japanese the "L" letter is pronunced like a "R", so If all is pronuntiation we have this: R.R. = L.L (In english) = Lelouch Lamperouge so... he is inmortal. Another exponation with the pronuntiation is C.C.'s name... it's never have been revealed, but her name must to be Elizabeth, ¿why? C.C. = Sissy = Some people calls Sissy to woman called Elizabeth. Just a pronuntiation game. 5. Lelouch traspassed his memories to Nunally before "die"... only a user with a powerful code can do it... we know that C.C. can do it, but not Lelouch, so... He is Immortal.... --Lelouchzero (talk) 02:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure who wrote it, but I changed it back. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Some fanboy troll, obviously. Zero Requiem (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC) ---I have read about lelouch and nunally merging conciousness. This is for the people who think he is dead. Nunally don't have telepathy because in the whole serie she don't show that power and you are telling me she acquire the power magically in the final episode please that bs and you know it. So tell me other reason how lelouch merge conciousness without the code. AND NUNALLY DON'T HAVE POWERS IN THIS SERIE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sexta Espada (talk • contribs) 02:30, 3 February 2009 Who are you to go against what the creator of Code Geass has said? If it's confirmed officially, no matter what you or any other heartbroken fan thinks, Lelouch is dead. Perhaps she received the vision because she was so close with her brother when it all boils down to it. It's left for the viewer to decide for a reason, and look what that has done, it's made a lot of people edit out the official references of Lelouch's death and so on. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 3:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC) There is no evidence to support that Lelouch ever transferred his memories to Nunnally. They touched hands, but none of the other characteristics of memory transfer ever appeared, such as Nunnally being incapacitated. Given that, it appears more likely that it was simply a montage or internal realization on Nunnally's part about her brother's motivations. This is similar to the after-death scenes in Gundam SEED, wherein the protagonist is "visited" by his deceased lover/important person. The interaction is not real, but is an internal resolution and realization of what that person would have wanted. Plus, no evidence has been provided conclusively (and I mean conclusively, not implied) showing the Lelouch is still alive, or even possesses a Code. Screaming and whining with conspiracy theories doesn't help your credibility or the validity of your points. the_one092001 (talk) 02:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Can these help to resolve the argument? Below are links to photos of pages in the official R2 guidebook where Lelouch's death was mentioned, followed by translations of the passages. http://img261.imageshack.us/img261/9436/sdc10129zy5.jpg http://img122.imageshack.us/img122/4991/sdc10132zg4.jpg http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/385/sdc10135ff7.jpg http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/9171/sdc10136sn8.jpg http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/6913/sdc10147uy8.jpg From Lelouch's character profile page: "Lelouch, who gathered not just his sister's but the sins of all of his kin, tells Suzaku that he wants him to kill him. And, atoning for his sin of killing his father by becoming Zero and devoting himself to world peace. That is Suzaku's wish. Pierced by Suzaku's sword, Lelouch dies with a satisfied smile on his face. The curtains are lowered in the history of one boy who performed the perfect "evil" to the end." From Suzaku's character profile page: "For those two who bear the heavy sin known as killing their fathers, they share the belief that they can forgive each other by imposing the greatest punishments on themselves. Death for Lelouch who wishes for a tomorrow with his sister, life for Suzaku who wishes to atone for his sins through death. Suzaku, who accepts the weight of Zero's mask, gives his gratitude to Lelouch. For the fact that he can atone for his sins. For the results of fulfilling his own wish." From Nunnally's character profile page: "In the end, Nunnally isn't even allowed to bear her brother's sins. Until right before her brother dies, she seems to want to hate him for that. Upon realizing the truth behind her brother's actions, Nunnally clings to her brother's corpse and wails. And then, she succeeds her brother's will and starts walking together with Suzaku, who has become Zero, down the road as a ruler who creates peace. Because that alone is the one and only thing she can do for her brother." From time line chart: "Emperor Lelouch, during the parade before executing the rebels in Japan, is attacked by Zero and perishes." From Turn 25 synopsis: "However, Suzaku, masquerading as Zero who is thought to have died in the war before, appears and stabs Lelouch to death with a sword in front of the crowd." -Atashi (talk) 04:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC) -Chisame-Haruhi Takahashi- If lelouch is really dead, why are there videos saying lelouch is still alive, there's proof on it?.. I'm so confused in the ending! What the hell did they trying to imply with that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.60.241.214 (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC) It's an open ending. It means that if they decide to revisit the series in the future, they could bring back Lelouch in some form or another if they wanted and still have some justification for it, although as stated, they have no plans of doing so since they declared Lelouch's story to be "finished." However, since his death was CLEARLY shown in the final episode (stabbed then bled out), and no conclusive proof of his survival was shown, we must treat him as dead even though many do not believe it to be so. the_one092001 (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC) Why not simply list him as dead, using the official materials as a guide, and add the caveat that other characters who have been listed as officially dead have been brought back in the past, thereby satisfying the "Lelouch is dead" group, while acknowledging those who believe the official sources have said that about other characters in the past. Both views are represented, with the official status given its due weight, and no bending of the information or people's personal opinion's entering the picture, only factual details on his death and previous character's listings as dead. Just a thought. Anyone else feel this has any merit? Astraeos (talk) 04:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC) Nope. That kind of information is pointless and would only serve to confuse the reader. It would just add more fuel to the troll fire. Zero Requiem (talk) 02:00, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Seriously guys. If there is a section this long arguing about whether or not Lelouch is dead, I think it would be appropriate to mention at least that there is some controversy among the fans surrounding whether or not he is dead. That much is not contestable. Personally, I there seems to be adequate support for the idea that Lelouch is alive. My understanding of the death list is that it is a list of the characters believed to be dead by those in the Code Geass universe. That would explain why Nunnaly was listed as dead earlier but then turned out to be alive. Also, I think it's interesting that it lists the name Lelouch vi Brittania.... That aspect of Lelouch's character, the prince/emperor of Brittania, is certainly dead. Furthermore, there is a fair bit of ambiguity in the last scence with C.C. (Seriously, if she was addressing the spirit of Lelouch why would she do it with some random cart driver listening??) This is by no means conclusive evidence of him being alive, I am simply trying to illustrate that there are other ways that this information can be interpreted thus validating the argument that the controversial nature of Lelouch's death should receive some mention. Gem19806 (talk) 23:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Here is a little food for thought (perhaps useful for the Death description in the article). In Disc one of the DVD box set for the first season Director Taniguchi states clearly (at 8:10-8:46) that this series was supposed to be vague and ambiguous, and that much of it was left up to the viewers to decide for themselves. I don't have a "dog in the hunt" in this and quite frankly couldn't care less whether this character is dead or in some undead state of immortality, it's immaterial. However, based on the R2 Collection Book's info, the Newtype interview with Taniguchi, and numerous other references to this character's fate (which I've read translations of) I think it's safe to assume he's supposed to be something of an Anakin Skywalker type figure. Where the persona known as Anakin dies and becomes Darth Vader, that sort of thing is somewhat popular in mythological tales. Especially in Asian culture where it is common for a character in a story to become a demon, a ghost, or some other kind of supernatural entity. The person "dies" but their body or essence lives on (The Ring, The Grudge, One Missed Call, PS1 game Silent Hill, etc.), so I find it quite plausible for this character to be "alive" in accordance with this kind of story-telling style and still have the story come to a close. The company who produced this show (Bandai/Sunrise) is notorious for this kind of thing from what I understand. With that said, I think it would be prudent to add a small line or two stating something to the effect of "Lelouche vi Britainnia's is dead, his story finished, however, CC's ending monologue has left the final fate of Lelouche Lamprouche open for the viewer to decide." I realize there is a valid concern over trolls with this type of entry, but that's gonna happen no matter what. This series has some of the most pernicious fanboys/girls I've ever encountered and I'm shocked at the level of animostity some of them show towards each other and people who just happen to like this show but have a different opinion then their own. Also, please keep in mind that here at wikipedia it doesn't matter is the information is "official" or not so long as it's factual. As the poster above has pointed out, it is a fact that there is a controversey surrounding the "he is dead" point of view as being the only acceptable one. There are others. There is the Taniguchi viewpoint; that being that the viewer decides for himself/herself, and there is the "he's alive" group which I must say I don't agree with, but their opinion is as valid as anyone else's due to the fact that we're dealing with a work of fiction here, not scietifically proveable facts. Tetragrammaton (talk) 07:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Dear God, how many times must this be corrected before people accept the CORRECT interpretation of Goro Taniguchi's interview? He did NOT leave the events of the ending ambiguous. He left the TONE of the ending ambiguous. Big difference, definite ending. One canon = One source of 'fact'. Personally I had originally included this tidbit because I thought it could possibly help qualm some fan debates and misconceptions, but after a many-month-long edit war I and TheRoguePeguin agreed to leave out this factoid entirely because readers confuse the intended meaning so rampantly, so I vote that either we remove it once again as not to cause confusion or state clearly that Taniguchi left the CONNOTATION of the TONE open for interpretation versus the actual events.Zero Requiem (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Why the hell are you so adamant in the article saying that Lelouch is 100% certainly, undeniably dead? As far as I know, Ōkouchi is the only person behind the series that said Lelouch is dead. He may be the head writer, but what he says is not the end-all-be-all of what is canon in Geass. You're acting like the "he's alive" theorists are just grasping at straws, and that they have no case. The only argument for "he's dead" is "Ōkouchi said he is." I think the article is fine the way it is-Lelouch appears to die, and Ōkouchi says that's what happened, but Taniguchi says it is open to interpretation, which he has done in every damn series he's directed thus far. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and the article is neutral as it is now. Agent Chieftain (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Just as the only argument for "he's alive" is pure fan speculation. Neutral or not, the article is erroneous as it is now. In fiction, what the creator(s) say to be true is considered canon. Fan speculation isn't. Both Goro Taniguchi and Ichiro Okouchi have stated explicitly that Lelouch is dead, and that the tone of the ending is up to the viewer for interpretation. Perhaps it seems like the theorists are grasping at straws because they are. It's fine for you to draw your own conclusions apart from the canon but it is not fine to assert that your own conclusions are canon. Zero Requiem (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I never said that Lelouch's survival should be treated as canon. While I personally believe that Lelouch is still alive, I agree that the article should not say that is the case. I said that the article should say that he dies (which he does), but the ending is left open to interpretation, thus taking a neutral stance. You are the only person I know of who claims that Taniguchi said Lelouch is 100% confirmed to be dead. However, I can't read Japanese, so I don't know what the article actually said. Agent Chieftain (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not sure what 3rd-hand site you're getting your information from then. Please read my earlier comments concerning the accuracy and integrity of the translations. I'm fairly certain I posted the translations as well. I whole-heartedly do not feel like reposting any of this and would greatly appreciate it if people read the discussion before commenting on it. As you will find, everything has been sorted out and it is unproductive to fuss over it. Zero Requiem (talk) 08:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC) He may not be dead. The audience is supposed to pick up all the "clues" which suggest that he obtained his father's Code when he "erased" him and thus, can't die. Jeremiah and Suzaku were in on the plan to fake his death so that Suzaku (as the 2nd Zero) would restore hope to the world and Lelouch can go into hiding with C.C. who suggests that neither of them have to be alone anymore. There are several videos on YouTube which show what the "clues" are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.242.204.66 (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC) As nice as that may be, YouTube isn't a reliable source when compared to Taniguchi's own words. And as far as those 'clues' go, it's all WP:OR, like it or not we only put what is confirmed. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Since Zero_Requiem and others are pushing their own point of view here (as evidence by his/her username no less), allow me to refresh your memories as to what NPOV means; The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with the conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic found in reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic, each must be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted to be "the truth". Instead, all of the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, and not just the most popular. An article should not assert that the most popular view is the correct one, nor should this be implied by mentioning some views only pejoratively. Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. Policy shortcut: WP:YESPOV The neutral point of view neither sympathizes with nor discourages its subject, nor does it endorse or oppose specific viewpoints. Also, it doesn't represent a lack of viewpoint, but is rather a specific, editorially neutral, point of view — it is not aimed at the absence or elimination of viewpoints. Wikipedia is filled with reliably sourced non-neutral statements, so the elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy solely on the grounds that it is "POV". Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but should not endorse any particular point of view. Instead, articles should provide background on who believes what, and why, and on which points of view are more popular. Detailed articles will often contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but these, too, must studiously refrain from taking sides. Sunrise released a statemnent in Gekka's Animedia magazine which states; [1] Translation: "You have all shown us a lot of kind appreciation in making the DVDs and CDs so popular. We were truly blessed to have such passionate fans…truly, thank you all. Like we have said before, Lelouch may have died (?) but Geass itself will not. The show has just ended, yet we feel it might be a good idea to make something else. In any case, we might be able to announce something in the near future…" The (?) is not my addition it is as it appears in the article. Sunrise is a reliable source of information as is Animedia magazine and Sunrise's statement IS A CONFLICTING VIEW with that of Okouchi. In addition, Taniguichi DID NOT say it was the tone of the end that was up to the viewer to decide, he states simply to the interviewer in Newtype that the END is up to the viewer to decide. Therefore adding that it was the Tone, or the feeling, or anything else is pure speculation and opinion on the part of editors here and thus in violation of the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. Therefore I will undo any revisions which attempt to push the "he's dead and that's it" POV ad infinitum, and I will report anyone who continues to push this kind of POV to a moderator. I realize that some of you here are also members of animsuki, the user Setsubo Bunny has made it clear that he/she will come in here and change this entry to fit the animesuki POV. In all fairness, I will also undo (and report) any more of the "He's alive" edits that keep cropping up here. There is NO credible source which states this character is alive...deal with it. Like many of the heroes/heroines of Sunrise anime, they are never dead or alive at the end, it is usually up to the viewer to decide. Witch Hunter Robin, Gundam 0079, and others follow this unofficial trademark of Sunrise anime. AFAIK, the new Gundam-Unicorn series may even have Char Aznable and Amuro Rey in it, even tho those two characters "died" at the end of the anime movie Char's Counterattack. The point here is that Sunrise is notorious for bringing back poplular characters in their shows, thus their statement in the January 2009 issue of Animedia about how Lelouch may have died (?). Perhaps the Sunrise quote should be used in place of the Taniguichi one since it is clearly a contradiction to what Okouchi said about Lelouch definitely being dead. I'll let some of you try and hammer that out before I choose to get involved.Tetragrammaton (talk) 21:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC) Given that the 'Zero Requiem' is what is in question here, it's pretty amusing that you think my username evidences a specific point of view. (On that note, it's also pretty amusing that you're implying that I'm trying to push an "AnimeSuke POV".) In the first place, your side of the argument has been presented many times (read the preceding 893576946675 edits) and defeated each time. Each point you have presented (save one, which is outlandish) has already been negated, so I would recommend to ALL of you that you READ the discussion above before deciding to provide 'new' arguments. It's very annoying to have to continually put down little spurts of replicating mis-info over and over again with the same logic. Regardless, I will once again outline your answers for you here: -First and foremost, the argument that Taniguchi and Okouchi stated that they intended to leave Lelouch's death open to interpretation is invalid because the basis for it is taken out of context. Elaboration: there are a lot of things that get lost in translation. In most cases what is lost is benign and winds up meaning /nearly/ the same thing in English as it does Japanese, needing no further explanation. This is one of them. As I have presented many, many, many times before in this discussion, when Okouchi and Taniguchi said that the end is meant to be left ambiguous they did not mean to infer the EVENTS of the end, but the TONE of the end. (IE., a similar example: 'Is the end of Romeo and Juleit happy or sad?') It is particularly readily obvious in the context of Okouchi's interview, in which he gives his personal interpretation of the afore-mentioned ambiguity. More proof to back this up? In a word, everything. Among many other things: the R2 Official Guidebook lists him as dead and also states "The curtains are lowered upon the history of one boy who performed the perfect 'evil' to the end.", C.C.'s profile on the official GeassNet website (mobile website) reads (of C.C.) that "..her time with Lelouch, who was able to forgive and accept her, came to an end, but the memories created with him has, without doubt, saved her from eternal loneliness.”", and most recently C.C. gives an epilogue in the Special Zero Requiem Edition DVD where even she laments that Lelouch is dead. Everything in canon suggests (proclaims) he is dead and does not even hint otherwise. -Before I go any further (and here's an English composition lesson), the "( )" in the Animedia scan denotes that the containing text is outside of the original quote, written in the writer of the article's own words. And no, a magazine in and of itself is not a credible source of canon. -That said, unfortunately the NPOV only stands when the debate in question exists within the CANON realm. Otherwise all aspects of anything in any work of fiction could be refuted by anyone and Wikipedia would just become a giant cesspool of conflicting information. AKA., if NPOV stood outside of canon in a work of fiction I could gather enough supporters to argue that Gandalf is canonly gay with Frodo to have it cited in a 'reputable' news source and reference it in Wikipedia, thereby changing the entire world's perspective of Wizard x Halfling propensity. Since this debate exists (nor is even is implied to exist) nowhere in CANON, NPOV does not apply. Summary: The entire debate is a misunderstanding over a case of context that was lost-in-translation. Regardless of what fan speculations may exist, the fact remains that the tone -not the events- of ending was meant to be left ambiguous. The literality of his death has been canonly been confirmed many, many times over and there should be no reason for Wikipedia to imply otherwise. I do not feel threatened at all by your desire to report me for violating your personal point of view -you're not the first. I've been through this discussion with the mods many times before and have yet to be discredited. On that note, unless you have anything original to bring to the table I think it's fair to assert that you are the one liable for being reported. Though I do not feel the personal obligation to do so yet since you did, after all, present one new point. Zero Requiem (talk) 08:19, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've archived this because it's gotten out of hand. This is not a forum to discuss Lelouch's death, nor the place to attempt to discredit the sources based on beliefs one way or another. Wikipedia reports the facts, and in light of the fact that no source has explicitly stated that he may have survived beyond a question mark I dismissed below, no further discussion on this matter should occur unless new sources pop up. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

This may have already been brought up, but I don't suppose the videos of the uncut ending have any impact on this do they? Tigerlotus (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Lelouch's death

I know you really probably don't want to hear this, but I have facts and proff that show that Lelouch is still alive and I think you could add it to the article.

First, upon Lelouch's death, he transferred his memories of his plan to Nunnaly, Just as C.C has given her memories to Lelouch. Also let it be known that C.C also had to die once for her true immortality to begin, thus the picture of her laying on the floor of the Chapel bleeding all over the place.

Second, Lelouch has killed his father, so technically that should give him his fathers code, as Charels gained his code by killing V.V.

Third, C.C always felt that death would have been better then eternal life. In the altar when she was praying, she commented that Lelouch was making the "Ultimate Sacrifice" Now, knowing C.C, I think she would mean never being able to pass on, since that was even her wish.

And Fourth, It would be contridictory for C.C to deny that having the power of the king leads to a life of lonliness, if he, or she, were in fact, alone. With that said, I believe that Lelouch is alive somewhere, or, in fact, could have been the one driving the wagon.

Please consider these things.. I just want it to be put out there that there is even the smallest possibility of Lelouch's survival. --Akumi Katsuya (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Akumi Katsuya

In a word, no. That's original research and it will not be added. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Since it is ambiguous, I'm agreed with not adding it as a fact, but we should note the physical similarities shared by the cab driver that are shown. A good citation for this would be a youtube video of the last scene, like this one for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdb674lLlFk. This would stick closer to the facts without pushing any one conclusion, and also allow the reader to decide independently upon viewing the cited source.

Another, perhaps more appropriate option could be to add another section to the page specifically addressing this issue. Perhaps add a "controversy" subsection, in which the contextual clues can be noted while at the same time noting that no official source has confirmed his survival. The question is important for the interpretation of the show, so leaving the controversy unaddressed entirely on the official page actually withholds all the facts from the readers who don't happen to look at the talk page, so an unbiased noting of the debate should be included in some capacity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.141.244 (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Tone of the ending

Seriously, stop the damn textwalls and drop the ridiculous fight. This isn't a forum to discuss if Lelouch died, nor is it the place to try to disprove that notion. Every source says he's dead. That is fact. Nothing else will be reported and the quite unnecessary amount of drama here isn't going to change the fact. The "(?)" in the Animage quote is not part of the original quote. The parentheses indicate that the text inside the parenthesis comes from the writer's own mouth. Therefore, there is no uncertainty. Also, stop trying to pin happy or tragic or anything like that to the interpretation. It comes across as opinion. That it's open to interpretation is enough. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:01, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

So that problem is resolved, but the problem still exists that the context of those particular statements was lost in translation, and wording it the way it is now is misleading. (Not to mention repetitive, because it's the exact same thing Okouchi said.) It wasn't lost in translation from Jap to Eng so much as it was from Writer/ Director to fanbase. No, it shouldn't have been lost, but unfortunately what would have been the simple obvious meaning of the statement has been largely obscured by an over popularization of fan theory. Thus in order for it not to automatically denote something that isn't canon, it must be clarified. The events of the ending are not open to interpretation; whether it was 'happy' or 'sad' in the fans' eyes is. And yes, 'happy' and 'sad' are Okouchi's exact words. If you don't like my wording certainly feel free to re-word it more cohesively, but I cannot accept it as it is now as it is misleading. Zero Requiem (talk) 01:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The Original Quote

Could the quote from the director about the viewers' interpretations of the ending possibly be added to the article? - Pokemega32 (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

It's already there. I thought this discussion was over. Why are we still talking about this? Anyone else want to bring more repeat complaints to the table? Zero Requiem (talk) 01:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

MIDDLE NAME

DOES LELOUCH LAMPEROUGE HAVE A MIDDLE NAME?--0000ZERO (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that his name is Lelouch V. Britannia. So his real name begins with the letter V UeArtemis (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be right as vi is pronounced the same as V. in Japanese. Yet, we can savely assume as well as look it up in the supporting literature, that it is actually Lelouch vi Britannia, since all members of the imperial family bear such a strange or less strange particle in their last name - Odysseus u Britannia, Schneizel el Britannia, Cornelia & Euphemia li Britannia, Ricardo von Britannia and so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.134.211.135 (talk) 06:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Lelouch vi Britannia

Lelouch's real name is Lelouch vi Britannia, not Lamperouge. It was long ago suggested on the talk page that the article be renamed to reflect this, and there was no disagreement. Could someone please get around to this?

http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lelouch_Lamperouge&oldid=242463833#Lelouch_vi_Britannia_vs_Lamperouge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.245.176 (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Page not Moved  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 20:04, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Lelouch Lamperouge → Lelouch vi Britannia —

• Lelouch Lamperouge It's a pseudonym, and he's better known both canonically and amongst fans by his real name, Lelouch vi Britannia (note lowercase nobiliary particle). A move was suggested over a year ago with no objections but no one made it happen; there's a link in the talk page. Could someone do that, please? User:79.69.245.105 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose The character uses either Lelouch Lamperouge or "Zero" through most of the series, even though both names are aliases. He rarely used the name Lelouch vi Britannia until the very end of the second season. Even the official websites lists the character as "Lelouch Lamperouge" for both the first and second seasons.[2][3][4][5] —Farix (t | c) 02:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose there is no proof provided that he is better known by this name, and I highly doubt that statement. He is usually referred to as Zero or Lelouch Lamperouge in the source material, so it is very unlikely that he is known by the rarely used "real name" (what is a real name in fiction anyways?). 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It's a pseudonym he uses for as long as it's convenient. The current page's name would be like naming the Doctor (of Doctor Who) John Smith. I agree there's difficulty defining a "real" name, but the fact is it's Lelouch's acknowledged name and he assumes it again as soon as there's no longer any point hiding under a fake name. As early as the first episode we learn Lamperouge isn't his real name, and again, he discards it in favour of his own when ordering the Britannians to kill themselves.
  • He also makes a distinction between Lamperouge and vi Britannia several times; Lamperouge is the name he uses when he's "lying to himself" as he puts it, when he's "dead".
  • "Lelouch vi Britannia" is his first name, Zero his terrorist alias, and Lelouch Lamperouge his "secret identity". Incidentally, has anyone else noticed a few problems with the "alias" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.170.189 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • No it would not be like renaming The Doctor to John Smith, in the first place "The Doctor" is an alias, his real name is not the Doctor, it has never been revealed (although it has been alluded to several times), in the second place, in the majority of cases he is called The Doctor not John Smith, unlike this character who is not called Britannia most of the time.
    • This request is like renaming Jason Bourne to David Webb. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Fictional Twins?

I admit I haven't kept up with the spin-off mangas and OVA, but I really don't see how Lelouch is considered a fictional twin. Delete? The Shady Red Lamp (talk) 23:32, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

There is a Rolo in a spinoff manga that is Lelouch's twin. I don't see how relevant is that for the article though.Tintor2 (talk) 02:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

His Name

It is clearly stated in the article itself that his "real name is Lelouch vi Britannia." Given this fact, why IS the article not listed under it as such? It is his actual name. Lamperouge is a pseudonym he assumed to hide from would be assassination during his years in exile. So even though the discussion was archived and closed; would somebody please tell me WHY this is the case? Why is the article NOT listed by his real name? It's like listing President Dwight D. Eisenhower under his nickname Ike Eisenhower. I am not trying to restart the change campaign, I am only asking why this entry is listed as it is. Jason Palpatine (talk) 10:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lelouch Lamperouge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210095233/http://www.mania.com/code-geass-lelouch-rebellion-r2-part-4-also-wle_article_119422.html to http://www.mania.com/code-geass-lelouch-rebellion-r2-part-4-also-wle_article_119422.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Jun-Fukuyama.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lelouch Lamperouge/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Tintor2 (talk · contribs) 17:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: TeenAngels1234 (talk · contribs) 22:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Stay tuned.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• "For the original video animation Code Geass: Akito the Exiled, director Kazuki Akane told the artists to dress them in just their underwear so they would not be able to hide their weapons, but as it was too pathetic, he told the staff that they were going to have to wear only their underwear." Can you explain this better?
  • Reworded.
• "sense of ethics.[12][13][14][15][16] One such example was.." Is the interruction needed?
  • Reworded. This is quite a controversial section so it tends to be edited a lot. Guess I'll try requesting for protection in the future.
• "Ōkouchi discussed the idea that while Lelouch is not a person who fights for justice, he would ally with other forces to rescue either Suzaku, C.C., or Nunnally." Source?
  • Done
• "Fukuyama regarded Suzaku's new persona as Zero as his own way of paying for his sins. Suzaku killing Lelouch was decided by the staff ever since the series began." Wait. Wasn't Zero Lelouch new persona? Also, the last part is already mentioned in the previous section.
  • Reworded. Suzaku becomes the new Zero in the Code Geass finale to kill Lelouch as part of their requiem pan.

@Tintor2:. Sorry for the delay.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 11:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@TeenAngels1234: No problems. Thanks for helping with the grammar.Tintor2 (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

• The whole Code Geass: Lelouch of the Rebellion R2 is too long and detailed.
  • Cut
• "but starts hallucinating memories from Rebellion". Rebellion in italics, I think?
  • Removed
• "who starts punching him in anger until he falls asleep when C.C. claims that she is the one who wants the resurrection and not Lelouch." This sentence is too long and complicated. Also: maybe "she is the one who wanted" is better?
  • Revised
• "Taking place 7 years after Zero Requiem while in the same alternate continuity of Re;surrection, Lelouch comes across Sakuya Sumeragi, the current princess of Japan and the child of Shery Me Britannia who is on the run from Neo Britannia, a nation formed by Britannian remnants who wished to restore the nation back to its prime of Charles' vision." Same. This is a looooong sentence.
  • Revised.

@Tintor2: That's all for now.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 16:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC) @TeenAngels1234: Thanks. Revised everything.Tintor2 (talk) 17:17, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Okay. So, I just have to do a final reading of this article. Please, be patient. It's a relatively long article and I've been busy. If everything's fine, I'll pass it, since I already think it meets all the criteria.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, again. Now. The article is well-written with a good prose. The topic is clearly described even if I didn't remember a single episode of the show. The sources are good. Passing it.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)