SocraticMethod
Ex ACFer
- AKA
- ticalmc2k2
For some reason after all these years I've never thought about or known what Aeris is looking at (some electric panel?) in the intro to the game. What is it and why is she interested?
What is Aeris looking at in the intro?
- Thread starter SocraticMethod
- Start date
I've always thought she was getting high on Mako fumes.
- AKA
- Rishi
flowers aren't the only plants in her catalogue
- AKA
- Ite
Well... if we're talking literal line of sight, either she's looking at a brick wall or through the fourth wall (straight into my heart) but I agree with Odysseus, it's suggested by the next shot that her focus was on the corroded mako pipe and it's magical innards. Sad to think that all her life, her version of communing with the Planet was reaching out to processed mako...
- AKA
- Ody
See, this is the real reason she knows the plot ahead of time in the remake.
- AKA
- Rishi
SocraticMethod
Ex ACFer
- AKA
- ticalmc2k2
Is it possible then that Aeris was really just a makohead and had delusions of grandeur? I mean, she was wrong after all about Holy right? The lifestream saved everyone, not her materia. She was always just talking to nobody as well. And I think the Turks were just trying to get her into rehab. Elmyra just enabled her addiction.
She could also have been a dealer? She sold "flowers" in scummy back alleys and somehow had enough money for a nice house in the slums where citizens do nothing but praise her.
#magiccrackpottheories
Last edited:
- AKA
- X
So, I've actually been thinking a lot about this lately given that it came up when I was writing my big tl;dr.
The original game, we've just got a vast emptiness of space and it's after twisting and swirling through the void of the starscape that the stars become little sparkling points of mako energy and we see Aerith's face just materializing seemingly from nowhere as the opening to the story. It's not a coincidence that the very last thing we see in the game (post-credits notwithstanding) is a brief moment that same scene – which could be either a flashback, or a memory, or possibly even that first pivotal moment happening all over again.
It's a bit odd, but I think that the design purpose is actually that Aerith is supposed to be looking at the player.
It's meant to instill this lingering sense that she never got to know the REAL person behind Cloud's cobbled together psuedo persona before her life was stolen away from her. From the in-game story perspective, that's Cloud's real self, but from the game design perspective, that's the player who's just interacting by playing as Cloud's character. That's why there's a sense that in that moment she's not really looking at the stuff that's in front of her, but rather she's looking past it. It's why the next thing you get the "blinks and sort of snap-back-to-reality" break from that moment then moving into the narrative of the story, and also why the game ends by giving YOU a final glimpse of that same very first formative memory of someone you lost – because that's not a moment any of the characters in the game saw. It's there because that's YOU, they player's, first memory of Aerith.
All of those things are designed with the intention that you as the player have a connection & memories relating to Aerith that feel like they extend ever-so-slightly beyond the framework of the narrative itself, so that your emotions to her fate in the story feels more real, and it helps to connect you to the emotions that Cloud experiences in the story.
From an in-universe perspective, I think that it's just a moment of her being lost in thought, not so much looking at the little break in the wall piping, so much as just contemplating things about life before heading out to sell flowers the same sort of way some people might look in a mirror and have a little moment of self-reflection before going off to work.
X
The original game, we've just got a vast emptiness of space and it's after twisting and swirling through the void of the starscape that the stars become little sparkling points of mako energy and we see Aerith's face just materializing seemingly from nowhere as the opening to the story. It's not a coincidence that the very last thing we see in the game (post-credits notwithstanding) is a brief moment that same scene – which could be either a flashback, or a memory, or possibly even that first pivotal moment happening all over again.
It's a bit odd, but I think that the design purpose is actually that Aerith is supposed to be looking at the player.
It's meant to instill this lingering sense that she never got to know the REAL person behind Cloud's cobbled together psuedo persona before her life was stolen away from her. From the in-game story perspective, that's Cloud's real self, but from the game design perspective, that's the player who's just interacting by playing as Cloud's character. That's why there's a sense that in that moment she's not really looking at the stuff that's in front of her, but rather she's looking past it. It's why the next thing you get the "blinks and sort of snap-back-to-reality" break from that moment then moving into the narrative of the story, and also why the game ends by giving YOU a final glimpse of that same very first formative memory of someone you lost – because that's not a moment any of the characters in the game saw. It's there because that's YOU, they player's, first memory of Aerith.
All of those things are designed with the intention that you as the player have a connection & memories relating to Aerith that feel like they extend ever-so-slightly beyond the framework of the narrative itself, so that your emotions to her fate in the story feels more real, and it helps to connect you to the emotions that Cloud experiences in the story.
From an in-universe perspective, I think that it's just a moment of her being lost in thought, not so much looking at the little break in the wall piping, so much as just contemplating things about life before heading out to sell flowers the same sort of way some people might look in a mirror and have a little moment of self-reflection before going off to work.
X
Prism
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- pikpixelart
She’s definitely a daydreamer in that moment.
For the sake of the tone, she’s looking at the camera to build a human connection with the player, contrasting with the grand industrial display of Midgar flyby shot.
But that’s the boring answer! These replies have been one hell of a fun ride, gotta say.
For the sake of the tone, she’s looking at the camera to build a human connection with the player, contrasting with the grand industrial display of Midgar flyby shot.
But that’s the boring answer! These replies have been one hell of a fun ride, gotta say.
SocraticMethod
Ex ACFer
- AKA
- ticalmc2k2
I think the theory that she's breaking the 4th wall is giving the team too much credit and overthinking it.
Occam's Razor: She's the in-universe version of a meth head.
Occam's Razor: She's the in-universe version of a meth head.
S.L.Kerrigan
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- molosev
Or she just appeared, from the Lifestream, traveling from life to death(hell) like the lady from the movie "Parking". 
- AKA
- X
So, disconnected from the specific theory in question, I think that this mindset on analysis of media (books, films, games, etc) is really common, but extremely odd.
I get that when you're reading a book, your English teacher obsessing about things like, "What do the blue curtains represent in chapter 3?" is annoyingly nitpicky and oftentimes an over-focus on artistic intent. A lot of the time, those curtains being blue is just a meaningless detail and they aren't always a metaphor for something that the author is trying to convey non-verbally.... However – depending on what you know about the author, there's always something worth analyzing. There are going to be times when analyzing the color of the curtains that they use IS VERY important, because there is an intentional metaphor there, or there's a cultural connection of some kind that will tell you why those choices were made. I think that there is a common misconception that stories are just sort of pieced together by whatever works, and that those details get lost on large collaborative projects like games. Most visual storytellers are INSANELY meticulous about the things that they put together, and when there are project & design leads for software development or people working on films, they're exceptionally focused on their art form communicating all sorts of things on multiple levels all the time.
Guillermo Del Toro's movies are a great example of this sort of direction and artistic design being insanely detailed both the broad metaphors as well as down to the individual designs, and also things like intentional use of color:
For Final Fantasy VII though, especially in the 1997 era of gaming before performance capture & procedural generation – literally every single detail that is anywhere in any part of the game was intentionally designed by someone. Especially with Final Fantasy VII being on the cutting edge of the advent of FMV and 3D graphics, I think that if anything we often don't look at some of those details & think about them nearly as deeply as the people who created the game did 98% of the time. Sure designs and things change as a project is developed, and not everything get polished or delivered as they would have liked, but just like with movies – that's just a part of the reality that comes with the process.
When you're talking about the opening FMV of the game though... I don't think that there's any part that's obsessed over more by the designers, because it establishes the initial tones and is the thematic opening of storytelling for everything that they're going to do that follows. The fact that the very ending of the game wraps back to that moment means that it's DEFINITELY something that they took a lot of time and care in creating. If anything the Final Fantasy teams are known for being insanely OVER meticulous about details that no one else is going to consider as a consumer.
Not every detail is always going to have meaning, and not every interpretation is going to match what the writers/designers/producers were going for, but I think it's really odd that you'd ever think that you're giving those teams, "too much credit" for assuming that they thought really heavily about things and how they're presented in a project that they're all passionate about long before the world ever sees it. Most forms of media for people that involves storytelling isn't just a job that they do out of obligation or a piece of casual entertainment to the people who make them. Sure there are people who just make mindless popcorn flicks or games just to turn a profit, but when it comes to things that are deeply meaningful and successful at storytelling – that's rarely going to be the case.
X
AllGoodInMyHood
Pro Adventurer
- AKA
- TomTom
Since Midgar in OG and in Remake was stripped from any natural life and Aerith is an embodiment of nature, I believe she was just trying to get that "breath of nature" from Lifestream.
Last edited:
SocraticMethod
Ex ACFer
- AKA
- ticalmc2k2
So, disconnected from the specific theory in question, I think that this mindset on analysis of media (books, films, games, etc) is really common, but extremely odd.
I get that when you're reading a book, your English teacher obsessing about things like, "What do the blue curtains represent in chapter 3?" is annoyingly nitpicky and oftentimes an over-focus on artistic intent. A lot of the time, those curtains being blue is just a meaningless detail and they aren't always a metaphor for something that the author is trying to convey non-verbally.... However – depending on what you know about the author, there's always something worth analyzing. There are going to be times when analyzing the color of the curtains that they use IS VERY important, because there is an intentional metaphor there, or there's a cultural connection of some kind that will tell you why those choices were made. I think that there is a common misconception that stories are just sort of pieced together by whatever works, and that those details get lost on large collaborative projects like games. Most visual storytellers are INSANELY meticulous about the things that they put together, and when there are project & design leads for software development or people working on films, they're exceptionally focused on their art form communicating all sorts of things on multiple levels all the time.
Guillermo Del Toro's movies are a great example of this sort of direction and artistic design being insanely detailed both the broad metaphors as well as down to the individual designs, and also things like intentional use of color:
For Final Fantasy VII though, especially in the 1997 era of gaming before performance capture & procedural generation – literally every single detail that is anywhere in any part of the game was intentionally designed by someone. Especially with Final Fantasy VII being on the cutting edge of the advent of FMV and 3D graphics, I think that if anything we often don't look at some of those details & think about them nearly as deeply as the people who created the game did 98% of the time. Sure designs and things change as a project is developed, and not everything get polished or delivered as they would have liked, but just like with movies – that's just a part of the reality that comes with the process.
When you're talking about the opening FMV of the game though... I don't think that there's any part that's obsessed over more by the designers, because it establishes the initial tones and is the thematic opening of storytelling for everything that they're going to do that follows. The fact that the very ending of the game wraps back to that moment means that it's DEFINITELY something that they took a lot of time and care in creating. If anything the Final Fantasy teams are known for being insanely OVER meticulous about details that no one else is going to consider as a consumer.
Not every detail is always going to have meaning, and not every interpretation is going to match what the writers/designers/producers were going for, but I think it's really odd that you'd ever think that you're giving those teams, "too much credit" for assuming that they thought really heavily about things and how they're presented in a project that they're all passionate about long before the world ever sees it. Most forms of media for people that involves storytelling isn't just a job that they do out of obligation or a piece of casual entertainment to the people who make them. Sure there are people who just make mindless popcorn flicks or games just to turn a profit, but when it comes to things that are deeply meaningful and successful at storytelling – that's rarely going to be the case.
X
Well for starters I was making a joke, hence the second part of my comment.
But, I do think you are putting artistic intention where it doesn't seem to be in this specific case. It's not a "mindset" nor a generalization I apply to "insert things here". I kinda don't appreciate changing the intent of my words to make it seem like that, and then explaining to me as if I don't understand that artists use symbolism and how it works lol.
I liked reading your theory but I just don't buy it. I don't think they intended that interpretation at all. There's also a phenomenon of seeing symbolism and meaning in great works that were never intended. I just think this is one such case.
Last edited:
Nandemoyasan
Standing guard
- AKA
- Johnny
It's a fire. She stands up and blows into her hands. She sells flowers for a living, which uses her hands.
She's cold you idiots.
She's cold you idiots.
- AKA
- X
Sorry, I didn't intend to imply that it was a mindset or generalization that you had applied to <insert things here>. That's why I edited the quoted text to be <insert things here> instead of the theory, didn't include the second part, and also mentioned that my response wasn't specific to what was stated. I didn't want to connect the point I was making solely to the theory that I'd written or to your specific joking response to it.
Since you'd mentioned it, I wanted to use it as an opportunity to comment about the not-uncommon perspective that the audience thinks about the art more than the artist does. While that's something that does happen – especially with fandoms – I think that it's most often that the audience thinks about it differently & felt that there're some interesting things to consider on the topic in general when we're all engaged in doing exactly that for something specific.
X