Does Either Fullmetal Alchemist HAVE To Be Superior?
Hiromu Arakawa's Fullmetal Alchemist is a globe-trotting fantasy epic about religion, imperialism, genocide, and free will, as two brothers attempt to rebuild their broken lives. Its two animated adaptations are similar but vastly different upon closer inspection and fans have debated which one is better for years.
In 2003, Director Seiji Mizushima, writer Shou Aikawa, and Studio Bones made Fullmetal Alchemist, an adaptation of the manga that was still being written at the time. Once the anime caught up, Aikawa penned an anime-original story that diverged heavily from Arakawa's story, and it wasn't until 2009 that Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood faithfully adapted the story. The most common consensus is that Brotherhood is a major improvement and a superior story, one with a more grand conclusion with tons of characters and a phenomenal final arc. There's also a contingent that believes the original series was a far darker and more daring series that took more risks and played with more fascinating ideas.
Which Brother Got a Better Ending?
A common criticism of Brotherhood is that the first five or so episodes are too quick and that they blaze through the plot that was already covered in the 2003 series. To be honest, this criticism often feels more like a concession to the fanbase of the original rather than a real critique of Brotherhood.
The original did have a lot more episodes between the start and the moment that the two anime diverge, but the original also had a lot more filler and a slower pace. That isn't to say that the pacing was an issue, but just that the storytelling was different. In retrospect, the pacing feels inconsequential to how well these stories progress. It's all about the tone.
A lot of anime is
Read more on gamerant.com
