Talk:Scar (Fullmetal Alchemist)

Untitled

Why is Scar tagged as a fictional priest? While he is a fanatic, what he does is considered heresy by his faith. I would hardly consider him a representative of it. 64.241.37.140 19:17, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It says in the article that Scar killed the Rockbells in cold blood, and then goes on to describe how he was enraged when he killed them.

I agree, it's heavily implied that Scar killed them in a fit of blind rage. 71.215.96.137 (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Villain?

I think calling Scar an anti-villain is a mistake. An anti-villain is a character who does good deeds for an evil purpose. Scar is the exact opposite. He does evil deeds for good intentions. Calling him an anti-hero would make more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.46.164.220 (talk) 04:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, you just have your definitions mixed up:

"At its most basic, the Anti Villain is a villain with heroic goals, personality traits, and even virtues"

"The Anti Villain thus typifies the tendency to humanize a villain as opposed to the Anti Hero's tendency to darken the hero. Side by side it can become hard to tell them apart, but the villain can usually be distinguished either by having less screen time or by having a tell, like thinking Evil Tastes Good, and because they have "vision!" In extreme cases, they aren't evil at heart, they've just had it rough, are misguided or are just doing their job. The only reason some would even be considered evil at all is because they're the Designated Villain. Despite this humanizing characterization they are rarely less dangerous; heroes won't know what to expect when their enemy offers cookies and then attacks their reputation, without giving them an excuse to rationalize killing them."

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AntiVillain

The main point is that an Anti-Villain is a virtuous antagonist, which is exactly what Scar is, whereas an Anti-Hero is a corrupt or just plain dark hero. SLIGHT SPOILER WARNING. Scar becomes somewhat of an Anti-Hero later on in the second anime, but he's an anti-villain throughout the very first anime and for the majority of the second. I have not read the manga yet though, so I can't comment on that, but given that the point of Brotherhood is to stay as close to the manga as possible, it's pretty safe to assume he is the same in it. Valethar (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Name

Episode 40 "the scar" Scar's brother calls him "Al" 16 minutes 15 seconds into it, should this be added into it? 69.19.14.21 (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This information was added to introduction; it needs to be verified and references made. DavidDouthitt  (Talk) 03:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That never happens. 131.191.112.162 (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

2nd Anime References

It's becoming a trend for editors to add references to events in the 2nd series that have yet to happen (i.e. Shou Tucker being killed by Scar before the episode had aired, or most recently General Armstrong's appearance). Considering Scar's article chronicles his entire fictional history as of where the manga is, currently, the entire sub-header should not read 2nd series (or anime) because those events haven't happened in the 2nd series just yet. Though we can be sure they will, they haven't, and to subcategorize all of the events that have happened in the manga as also occurring in the 2nd series would be false (for the time being). Only when appropriate, should we reference the 2nd anime series, it is still in progress and something might be changed. This particularly means events that have already happened in episodes that have already aired; note how Rose shoots Al in Liore, which DID not happen in either the 1st anime or the manga, but only in the 2nd anime.

Yes, the 2nd anime will more closely follow the manga (more particularly the later volumes after Maes Hughes' death), HOWEVER, just because it is likely that we'll see (currently) manga exclusive characters in the 2nd anime series or know how certain events may very well play out, doesn't mean we can say that characters appear in or events were depicted in the 2nd series before any of those episodes have aired. Please refrain from referencing the 2nd series if the 2nd series hasn't actually yet depicted what is being referenced.

Also, if everyone else could keep an eye out for these references as they occur.
-- Watemon (talk) 05:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

mass murderer?

Serial killer would be more appropriate term, he does not kill large groups of people at the same time, rather attacks many separate victims (in this case: state alchemists). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.219.188.205 (talk) 23:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

In several encounters he does kill large groups at the same time. During his original quest to kill state alchemists, he also killed whoever got in his way when he was attacking the alchemists. There were several reported cases where he killed lots of people at once. Then there is the transmutation in Lior, where he killed about 1000 soldiers in one go. Now as to whether that is mass murder or just warfare (or if there is even a difference) is a whole other question. Rifter0x0000 (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)