I agree with all of this, but that doesn't change what I said, on the contrary. If he added it as an afterthought or while planning the finer details of the plot (which is likely, as this is what his breaks are used for), it makes it unlikely that he created that panel of Guts fleeing on horse with Casca 4 years before with the one from volume 28 in mind. It would have to be the other way around for this reasoning to work. It's not a big deal like you said, but I still don't believe it's the case.Borgoff said:Well, it wouldn't be impossible for him to improvise it into a script he's already written. In fact, that type of thing looks like something he came up with as an afterthought. I'm sure he has most of, if not the whole story already mapped out. I don't think it's impossible to assume he could've looked back on previous volumes if he didn't think to do it from the beginning. This isn't a big deal though.
Well, I think it's far-fetched actually, even in regard to the "Griffith changes into the Moonlight Child at full moons" theory. But it's good that you posted it anyway, every speculation is welcome even if it turns out to be unlikely. About the panels looking alike though, there's a major difference: the scene you posted shows Guts and Casca going away, after the reader was shown large shots of their escape. They just become less visible as they disappear behind the horizon. The one with Zodd on the beach is quite different in this respect.Borgoff said:If we're going to fly off the handle thinking Griffith is like the holy trinity/werewolf I don't think it's too far fetched to say those panels look very much alike and are obviously in place to serve some purpose.
Well, he just replied to your post. It's not like you were still writing it when he posted, so that means you had already said what you wanted to.Iscariot said:I was going to continue on about the moon's reflection, but Griffith cut that short.
You can post humorous stuff and all, it's cool. But there should be a clear distinction between jokes and elaborate, educated speculation, as well as between facts and wild, baseless speculation.Iscariot said:Believe it or not, I'm usually a pretty logical person. I see your point, strong significance isn't worth corrupting, even with fun. Just hope this doesn't mean I have to abandon my attempts at being jocular...
Anyway guys, I'd like really to hear more serious thoughts about the Child/Griffith relationship instead of these mini-arguments.