Evangelion Characters vs Plot

[strawhatpatriot]

Just as a preface, forgive me if this thread has been created, isn't needed, or should be moved. It's my first thread, and created it because I felt it deviated a little bit from other discussions.

But without further adieu...

--
I don't know if this is a term or not, but Evangelion has what I like to call a "closed plot". Basically, the story itself is too wrapped around and focused on the characters, that there is a dissonance between them and the world they live in that would probably be exposed greatly had the world building been expanded on.

In simpler terms: if you were to go more in depth with the rest of the world and its locations and people, it wouldn't add up well with the rest of what we've been shown.

With Evangelion specifically, an example is Misato; Not only with how she got the job in general, but also the whole "promotion" to Major. Who was at the Major position before? How do the positions in the organization work?

* Now here's where the "exposed" part comes in. What if there were to be greater detail with regard to NERV? How would Mistao's ranking increasing work?

--
Another work of art that has a similar problem is the video game Final Fantasy VIII (8). I don't know if you guys have played the game, but it works similar in regards to how the world seems so closed off.


So when you have a story like this, you kind of need something to help explain or excuse it. Evangelion was special in that the was headed into "living outside of the story" - that is, the story became a driving force for the characters, rather than the characters being a tool for the story.

To add on (albeit in more complex terms) the story seemed to be a physical meta-commentary as well (or deconstruction).

So basically, I wanna discuss what you guys think about stories like this in general (list some examples), and whether or not the series would be a lot less well-received in your eyes/in general if weren't for the full-on switch in direction that the series went on.[/list]

[Reichu]

So when you have a story like this, you kind of need something to help explain or excuse it.

"It's a story" pretty much covers everything. There are so many ways to tell one, something like NGE doesn't need to "excuse" these sorts of choices.

Also, the examples you provide give me the impression that you're confusing "plot" for "setting". NGE is first and foremost a character drama. It definitely builds an intriguing world, but the world is but a stage for the drama to occur on, not something that exists for its own sake. Arguably, I think it is better this way, since stories that put setting before drama tend to be extremely empty spectacles.

[Monk Ed]

Arguably, I think it is better this way, since stories that put setting before drama tend to be extremely empty spectacles.

Like what? For comparison.

[Reichu]

Like what? For comparison.

Well, the Star Wars prequels are always an easy target... Meticulously detailed settings, but the characterization is terrible and any drama that happens is laughable.

Avatar is another easy target. Of overall much higher quality than Star Wars I-III, but it still exists to realize a setting first and foremost, so whatever good ideas the story had end up buried in mountains of plot and character cliches.

I'll even use something I like as an example: Pacific Rim. Great world-building, but the characters weren't really utilized to their full potential. The most compelling drama in the movie was Mako's flashback. (She should've been the main character, really, but LOL HOLLYWOOD.) A lot of the other stuff can be a little embarrassing to watch.

That aside, I do recognize that stories can put setting first and still be compelling. It's just a matter of achieving the right balance of ingredients. But clearly the setting doesn't have to be primary.

For whatever reason, audiences nowadays seem to be trained to be the ultimate nitpickers, looking for the tiniest cracks in the illusions that storytellers put before them. But in a lot of cases, these nitpicks aren't over anything that impact the core of the story and what it's trying to achieve.

I remember Guillermo del Toro talking about audience interpretations of Pan's Labyrinth that impose non-fairy tale rules to what clearly should not be viewed through such a lens. In a fairy tale, you don't worry about whether or not the main character is actually suffering a psychosis that's making her see fauns and faeries. It's a goddamned fairy tale. DON'T YOU PEOPLE HAVE ANY WHIMSY AT ALL?

Evangelion, alternatively, is a character drama where things like "how does Misato have her job?" and "why isn't anyone getting therapy?" seriously don't matter. They can be fun to debate in a purely frivolous way, but they don't actually matter. The plot and setting is a contrivance (in a good way). The characters are by mandate all broken human beings, run through a literal script so that certain feelings can be conveyed and ideas explored. This is perfectly valid story-telling.

[Monk Ed]

For whatever reason, audiences nowadays seem to be trained to be the ultimate nitpickers, looking for the tiniest cracks in the illusions that storytellers put before them. But in a lot of cases, these nitpicks aren't over anything that impact the core of the story and what it's trying to achieve.

YES. I remember going through a phase like this something fierce, and then I realized what it was doing to my ability to enjoy the stories.

[s]Ironically[/s], when I think of ultimate nitpickery, I always think of this (#091). (Was originally "ironic" because I thought it was you, not thewayneiac, who said that part about the impossibility of the physics.)

Evangelion, alternatively, is a character drama where things like "how does Misato have her job?" and "why isn't anyone getting therapy?" seriously don't matter. They can be fun to debate in a purely frivolous way, but they don't actually matter. The plot and setting is a contrivance (in a good way). The characters are by mandate all broken human beings, run through a literal script so that certain feelings can be conveyed and ideas explored. This is perfectly valid story-telling.

I find often that even frivolous background details can be interpreted to have meaning on the story. I haven't thought much about the former but the latter in particular is one I see tons of meaning in. It could be read, ultimately, as a clue on Gendo's character, goal, and motivations: to the fact that the stated goal of the Evangelions and therefore their pilots is just a cover, to the fact that Gendo sees the world as a broken mess not worth fixing but instead abandoning, and also a criticism of a culture of authoritarianism because nobody ever speaks up about the lack of help the Children get. Maybe Gendo didn't bother to seek therapy for the pilots, thinking it wouldn't matter because he was going to fix everything with his one grand finale, and all his efforts and resources were better spent there -- an "it doesn't matter what happens in this life, all will be made right in the afterlife by my hand" mentality. "The ends justify the means" in spades.

[Mr. Tines]

I always think of this (#091).

I just tweaked your link to go direct to the indicated cut (adding "#cut091" to the URL).

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

At one point stories of men who flew in the air like birds stretched the believability of the audiences they were told to. Now no one even thinks it’s weird to be pooping from 40,000 feet in the air at speeds of 570 mph. Believability changes from one person, generation, or era to another. To get nitpicky about things we humans simply haven’t figured out how to do yet is pointless. Just so long as the story and characters are compelling, I’m pretty much up for whatever a narrative throws at me.

[NemZ]

I remember Guillermo del Toro talking about audience interpretations of Pan's Labyrinth that impose non-fairy tale rules to what clearly should not be viewed through such a lens.

To be fair, by setting the film in a very serious historical backdrop where much of the film's drama and tension actually come from he drastically undercuts the ability to just handwave things away as just fairytale logic. The film practically demands that the viewer try and figgure out what REALLY happens despite the child's imaginative viewpoint, so calling foul on that is kinda dickish.

To bring it back to eva, that would be like being shown Toji having some wildly imaginative hallucination, then cutting back to the real world where the Bardiel battle is now over but without actually having seen it. We would obviously be left to assume that whatever really happened was somehow symbolically represented in the previous scene, and of course we'd have a thread or two with at least 10-15 pages of posts arguing about it, because evageeks gonna geek.

[Reichu]

NemZ: I'm not sure what's "dickish" about it. There's no rule stating that the fantastic cannot incorporate elements from the real world.* [s]It seems to be generally true these days that audiences are unwilling to surrender themselves to fantasy unless it's (A) dark and gritty and generally lacking whimsy like SoIaF, or (B) frivolous, supremely unchallenging entertainment. I'm not completely sure why this is.[/s] [LOL, nevermind, I just remembered that fairy tale dramas are the other big thing on television these days. Ignore everything I said.]

*(For instance, The Chronicles of Narnia were set against WWII. I suppose this means that no one can be blamed for completely missing the point and assuming everyone's adventures were PTSD-induced hallucinations. Granted, I don't know much about Narnia, so maybe they were.)

The OP definitely reminded me of del Toro's lament, with "When you have a story like this [NGE / FF8], you kind of need something to help explain or excuse it."

[NemZ]

Yeah, but usually that involves someone either leaving the mundane world behind somehow (such as Narnia, as you mentioned) or finding that the magic whatever is some sort of secret underground thing that's just always been there (most of the fantasy shows). Pan's Labyrinth on the other hand keeps flipping back and forth in such a manner that makes it clear the girl is just imagining an adventure for herself as a reaction to her new situation, especially when these adventures have mundane consequences that drag the viewer back from the whimsy such as when she gets in trouble for ruining her new dress thus potentially leading to a dangerously undermined position for her and her mother. The film's structure prevents the audience from maintaining a suspension of belief necessary to take the fantasy at face value... and since he directed the film it's a dickish thing to complain about because if he wanted it otherwise it's his fault for not making it work.

The OP on the other hand just seems to want more world building and focus on the larger narrative, which clearly Anno just stopped giving a shit about halfway through. It's a valid complaint (eva definately is a bit of a bait-and-switch), but it does rather miss the point of the show.

[LordThaeon]

I'd agree with the OP to an extent.

Yes, Evangelion is a deconstruction of the mecha genre that focuses more on character psyche than robot fights and etc. But that doesn't change how details matter in a story and Hideki Anno was good with giving these details until he gave up halfway through the series.

After all, thematic and symbolic meaning are derived from a good and concise story. They're not substitutes for a story with insufficient details or weak narrative coherence.

In short, details matter and adding more to evangelion's background and story would not hurt the series at all. In fact, the right details could add to it's themes and meanings or give better insight into character actions that are desperately needed.

For instance, more detail is needed to explain how the UN, Japan or SEELE let Gendo keep his job after learning that his plan to fight the angels was to recruit his abandoned, untrained and uninformed son to pilot a machine that he's never seen before against the Angels. There is a such a thing as being relieved of command for incompetence after all.

Also, explain how the MP Evas are not broken or OP; why Seele needed Nerv if they had these unbeatable monsters in the works; or why Seele gave every single key to Instrumentality (Rei, Lance of Longinus, Unit 01, Adam, and later Kaworu) to Gendo knowing that he was going to betray them.

[Monk Ed]

For instance, more detail is needed to explain how the UN, Japan or SEELE let Gendo keep his job after learning that his plan to fight the angels was to recruit his abandoned, untrained and uninformed son to pilot a machine that he's never seen before against the Angels. There is a such a thing as being relieved of command for incompetence after all.

We did get that explanation: the Marduk Institute. Anyone higher up enough to know the truth behind Marduk probably knew enough about the real reason.

Also, explain how the MP Evas are not broken or OP; why Seele needed Nerv if they had these unbeatable monsters in the works; or why Seele gave every single key to Instrumentality (Rei, Lance of Longinus, Unit 01, Adam, and later Kaworu) to Gendo knowing that he was going to betray them.

• Seele created Nerv as its executive branch and only took matters into its own hands after it became clear that Nerv had gone rogue. Nerv served many purposes that were relevant all the way up until the final days, which for that matter included making it possible (such as through Ritsuko) to create these unstoppable monsters in the first place.
  
• It's possible, I think likely, that Seele didn't know Rei's true nature.
  
• At the time they "gave" Gendo the Lance and Unit 01, they still trusted him. He wouldn't have been in the position he was in the first place if they didn't. It actually took a long time for them to accept the fact that he had betrayed them, even after significant evidence had mounted. This is hardly unbelievable behavior -- in fact, it's all too normal.
  
• Seele never gave him Adam. When they found out what happened to Adam, they killed Kaji for diverting it into his hands.
  
• The situation with Kaworu is subject to much debate with numerous competing theories, not worth getting bogged down in in this topic.
  

[NemZ]

Also note that the entire instrumentality plan was Gendo's idea that he pitched to them in the first place, so of course they trusted him with it... at first.

[LordThaeon]

We did get that explanation: the Marduk Institute. Anyone higher up enough to know the truth behind Marduk probably knew enough about the real reason.

• Seele created Nerv as its executive branch and only took matters into its own hands after it became clear that Nerv had gone rogue. Nerv served many purposes that were relevant all the way up until the final days, which for that matter included making it possible (such as through Ritsuko) to create these unstoppable monsters in the first place.
  
• It's possible, I think likely, that Seele didn't know Rei's true nature.
  
• At the time they "gave" Gendo the Lance and Unit 01, they still trusted him. He wouldn't have been in the position he was in the first place if they didn't. It actually took a long time for them to accept the fact that he had betrayed them, even after significant evidence had mounted. This is hardly unbelievable behavior -- in fact, it's all too normal.
  
• Seele never gave him Adam. When they found out what happened to Adam, they killed Kaji for diverting it into his hands.
  
• The situation with Kaworu is subject to much debate with numerous competing theories, not worth getting bogged down in in this topic.
  

The Marduk Institute is somewhat of a "handwave" entity considering that's honestly a front for Nerv's higher ups (which includes Gendo, Fuyutski and maybe Ritsuko). It's not so much about the picking of Shinji, but how his recruitment and training (or lack thereof) was handled with the absolute worst timing. I guess we're not supposed to think about why SEELE wouldn't replace Gendo with this clear case of incompetence, bad planning and idiotic treatment of a valuable chess piece.

Also why was Shinji largely ignored until the last minute while Asuka (whose relatively disposable compared to Rei and Shinji) was trained from toddler-hood to pilot her Eva? Wouldn't it make more sense to train Shinji so that he's more useful when the time comes? Or to indoctrinate him in the same way that Rei was indoctrinated? Or to leave him with someone who'd prepare him for what Gendo has in store for him?

I thought that SEELE had been working for Instrumentality already and Gendo simply joined them after marrying Yui? Also, how did they create and install 9 S2 organs into the eva series when a previous attempt to install an S2 organ into an Eva created a Dirac sea (whether or not that was due to sabotage is up to debate)? Why not abduct and murder Gendo as soon as they realized that he'd betrayed them?

Once again, adding more details wouldn't hurt or else your characters may seem retroactively idiotic or outright stupid. Which undermines any narrative importance that they're supposed to have and creates a disconnect between what the audience sees and what the story tells us.
Case in Point: SEELE and Gendo seem like idiots for their unjustifiable and illogical actions and methods whether than manipulative antagonists that should be feared with any actual threat being a result of plot contrivance (MP Evas for example).

[Reichu]

Being able to work out every last detail of the story so that everything makes logical sense and no holes can be uncovered is more of a luxury than a necessity. As an audience member nitpicking everything from a comfortable distance, and emerging from the modern culture of extreme audience pandering, it might be easy to forget that NGE was created under the pressure of commercial deadlines and other such limitations. Decisions had to be made to funnel resources into what was considered important at the expense of what was less important.

The turn that NGE took halfway through is what resulted in it having such immense impact and influence, so clearly Anno did something "right".

[Monk Ed]

LordThaeon, I could continue to dive deeper and deeper into detail with you but it's starting to get to a level of detail and bloat that is inappropriate for the topic at hand. I'll say this instead: Acceptable answers that don't amount to "Everyone is an idiot" are easy to find if you're willing to work with the story instead of against it.

And the extra detail can indeed hurt. Adding background details takes time, both to figure out and to portray, and finding time for it all in the story necessarily includes taking into consideration how it affects the pacing and how much of it the audience will retain anyway, not to mention how much most of the audience will even care. Another good reason not to include such details is the risk of making mistakes when it broaches topics the authors don't understand -- leaving it out leaves the audience free to fill in what makes the most sense to them to facilitate the story as told, which is how I approach filling in the gaps.

Also note that the entire instrumentality plan was Gendo's idea that he pitched to them in the first place, so of course they trusted him with it... at first.

To clarify for the audience (that's you, dear reader), Gendo proposed the Instrumentality project plan, not the goal. (After taking a project management course I now understand the ocean-wide distinction between the two.)

[LordThaeon]

LordThaeon, I could continue to dive deeper and deeper into detail with you but it's starting to get to a level of detail and bloat that is inappropriate for the topic at hand. I'll say this instead: Acceptable answers that don't amount to "Everyone is an idiot" are easy to find if you're willing to work with the story instead of against it.

And the extra detail can indeed hurt. Adding background details takes time, both to figure out and to portray, and finding time for it all in the story necessarily includes taking into consideration how it affects the pacing and how much of it the audience will retain anyway, not to mention how much most of the audience will even care. Another good reason not to include such details is the risk of making mistakes when it broaches topics the authors don't understand -- leaving it out leaves the audience free to fill in what makes the most sense to them to facilitate the story as told, which is how I approach filling in the gaps.

I disagree, but this isn't the place and I don't feel like going into full detail about the matter.

All I'll say is that there are aspects of the story that do need to be detailed to the audience or else there's a disconnect. For instance, even working with the story, I can't help but say that Gendo's handling of Shinji and his recruitment are filled with too many holes to where I don't question Gendo's methods or thought processes.

[NemZ]

TL, to answer your questions briefly:

1) They do chew him out, but let it slide because it worked.
2) Shinji wasn't meant to be there at all, but Rei's accident forced his hand.
3) Nope; they learned from the attempt; and because it was easier to just take the whole geofront.

[Reichu]

All I'll say is that there are aspects of the story that do need to be detailed to the audience or else there's a disconnect.

"Need" is a very strong word, especially considering NGE wasn't made with a non-Japanese audience in mind in the first place. The problems you have were clearly not problems for the viewers making the show a phenomenon in Japan. In fact, these "problems" have probably contributed to the franchise's enduring success.

If you get stuck on this kind of minutiae and let it impact your enjoyment of works, it could be that you need to learn to let go, or otherwise find (or just create) stuff more in tune with your very discerning tastes. Media creators should not be enslaved to audience pandering in this horrible age of entitlement we live in.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

^ Exactly. We Western audiences do seem to have different narrative requirements than Asian audiences. Aristotle’s Incline and all of the theory written around how the mid-point scene is vital to a three act structure is all thrown out the window in Japanese works. Many Japanese classics like The Tokyo Story or even Godzilla (1954) lack a mid-point scene and a clear-cut three-act structure, whereas many American classics exemplify the mid-point scene’s importance within an overt three-act structure.