Fanservice in Evangelion: Good or Bad?

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Heh. I like how we keep going to Rebuild to discuss fanservice. Especially 2.22. I haven't even seen it, but just from what's being tossed in a non Rebuild thread, and from what I actually have seen in 1.11, there seems to be much better examples of well executed fanservice out there than

New Theatrical Edition  SPOILER: Show

a lingering low-angle shot of Rei's bare behind in 1.11 or whatever they're doing with Asuka in 2.22.

My stance on fanservice has always been the same as my stance with everything else. If it's not doing something important, or if it's distracting from anything important, it should probably be removed.

What is important to a film you ask? It changes by the scene, so it's hard to pin-point. But since we all "love" this man's work so much, let us turn to Michael Bay for some obvious examples of pointlessness within storytelling.
(I know that's a low blow considering we're discussing Evangelion, a work that is clearly superior. But just hang with me for a moment.)

Michael Bay blows stuff up. It doesn't matter if the story called for something to be blown to bits, or if breaking Guinness World Records on pyrotechnics would help the plot any, or even if actually blowing up Pennsylvania Avenue would put the president in harm's way, he's gonna blow stuff up. We've seen one of the few scripts he made from scratch, Transformers 2, and it wreaked of tiresome explosions, robotic panty fetishes, and bestiality throughout. All this with a very weak plot. (If one can even argue it had a plot.)

Let's look at the first Transformers film. (since we already know the second film sucked.) Michael Bay's push for more and more needless action left absolutely no room for plot exposition. As a result, the audience in focus groups and test screenings didn't know what was going on. With the actors gone, Bay was forced to digitally create an entirely new scene where the Autobots rambled on about where Bumblebee was, the importance of the war, and something about a cube being stuck into Optimus. This way, the audience would know that the film did actually have a plot in it somewhere.

Even the exposition scene felt only remotely important. If anything, I felt like I was being spoon-fed information about the plot, and therefore, it made me feel as if my intelligence was being underestimated. This become even more apparent when you realize that any one of the previous action scenes could have easily introduced some of this exposition without even needing to sacrifice any of the action for it. But Bay's "Ooh, look! Explosion!" camera kept any of that from actually happening.

What does any of this have to do with fanservice? Well to be honest, I feel like explosions are a different kind of fanservice. True, it's not sexualized, and therefore not quite as stereotypical of a fanservice as a panty shot or boobs in the face, but it services fans nonetheless. And yet there's a point where we call "foul" on Michael Bay's overindulgence in the flame-fest.

Likewise, something like a panty shot or boobs in the face can distract greatly from something important a film is trying to do. And especially with film, time is money. If 40+ labor intensive frames of panty animation doesn't get a point across other than "She wear white cotton", then the shot is pointless to the rest of the story, and might even hinder from any exposition from being relayed to the viewer until the filmmaker if forced to create something like Bay's "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scene with his boring babbling robots. (<---Heh, that sounds like a circus act.)

And it's not all that hard to come up with meaningful sexualized fanservice. Even Superman's line "Pink" in the 1978 movie could be considered meaningful fanservice. It relays important information (what Superman can and cannot see through) between the film's two main characters, as well as gives us a chance to let us giggle at Superman looking at pink panties.

Does the sexualized fanservice in 2.22 accomplish any of this? I don't know, I haven't seen it yet. But from what I have seen of 1.11, there does seem to be better examples of fanservice out there than the fanservice found in the New Theatrical Editions. Now I'm not gonna form an opinion of 2.22, because I haven't seen it yet. After I see that, I'll have more on it.

And Please Use A  SPOILER: Show

Please?

Is it wrong to have meaningless fanservice? That's up to the viewer. But like NemZ said earlier, it sure doesn't help. (Again, this is not my judgment on 2.22. That would be ridiculous, I haven't seen it yet.) As for myself, when making a short film I don't spend time or money of a shot that could be rendered meaningless to the story. Fanservice or no.

[MiltyWay]

Fanservice can be great, or it can just be ridiculously too much to handle or care about.

I like the service in Evangelion, they do tend to cater to the fans a bit though, but what I like about some of their fanservice is it /is/ a art. Some of the shots just HAPPEN to be like that.

SPOILER: Show

like when Shinji and Asuka are in the same bed in a part of 2.22

it just looks more realistic to show body language, and since the main character has such a hard time connecting with anyone, and not really having physical contact, in my opinion, it's supposed to let the viewers connect with the main character

SPOILER: Show

the subtle movements and the awkward words while their on the bed disccusing why the pilot the eva

.

I dunno maybe I just read and find an excuse to make anything artsy, but you have to remember that some of the service serves as reflection of what a teenager wants to see too. The main gear for audience are teenagers, the main population being male.[/spoiler]

[Taekmkm]

If art was profitable, it wouldn't be art.

[MiltyWay]

If art was profitable, it wouldn't be art.

You have a point there, but if art isn't profitable how do artist make a living? I'm not arguing back and sorry for straying off subject matter, I'm just morbidly curious to know your stance on it.

[Taekmkm]

Day jobs, second jobs. Same as most most actors/actresses and any media worker. There are exceptions, extreme exceptions as there are for everything else.

Begging is also profitable. Very profitable.

[Oz]

If art was profitable, it wouldn't be art.

Then how do you explain Avatar? Don't simply throw random ideas like this around on these forums - especially when it has nothing to do with the topic.

[Taekmkm]

You're calling Avatar art?

[Halicat]

...I concede that in both examples it could be an attempt to symbolize her emotional walls coming down, but if so I must say that the choice of symbol is poor because the media competes with the message.

THIS. You just summed up exactly why I hate those services so much

[Oz]

You're calling Avatar art?

No matter what you think about the film (I've avoided watching it) it is still art because all films are art by definition (an artistic medium).

It's getting awfully tangential here ...

[oOoOoOo]

I agree with Monk Ed that something like a panty shot can be a tone-setter. Although I personally would have "shot" the scene differently, it did create some intimacy in my mind.

Although I went on a big rampage about male-oriented vs. female-oriented fanservice, I'd still like to see a bit more naked Shinji. I'll clarify in this Rebuild spoiler (not that it gives away any of the plot):

SPOILER: Show

We see Asuka from a rather "yay vagina!" camera angle, but with the blueish, moody lighting it instantly reminded me of a hot night where I'm tossing my covers off and sleeping in a state of undress. But I wish they'd show similar things for Shinji. Both Shinji and Asuka are pretty vulnerable and uneasy (in their own way) when they're lying beside each other, back-to-back, but with the way they filmed her panties, it feels too much like the film is assuming the audience is 100% straight male and doesn't want to see anything but lady-panties. Like Monk-kun was hinting at, we get a feeling for Asuka's vulnerability and need by showing her rather exposed. It isn't the badass nakedness of her kicking scene, but a more curled-up nakedness. She's making her body smaller, not taking an aggressive stance. So showing her in a state of undress can drive that home. But what about Shinji? How does he react to her showing up? Does he get an erection? I imagine for a boy his age, the complete lack of control he has over his erections must be a source of embarrassment and shame, if not confusion. A bulge shot would be nice, as aside from fanserving those who want to see that, it would put Shinji in an equally vulnerable place. They're both in the same boat, really.

I'd rather the camera be "neutral". By all means, show me panties and naked flesh, but be even-handed about it. Boys and girls alike see their own private parts on a daily basis when they get dressed, but the dressing scenes (even in the TV show) often seem to focus on the girls. Like Rei's underwear falling around her feet. Shinji's definitely not ultra-confident about his own body, and I think it'd drive that point home if there was more "fanservice" of him. They do the jokey toothpick scene, but they don't do it so often in serious scenes.

Granted, straight males want to see naked females more than straight females want to see naked males, so there's obviously going to be more focus on the female body, but... the camera should not be tied to the male or female gaze unless it is serving the purpose of another character.

Here's a Kaji example from Rebuild:

SPOILER: Show

Misato and Kaji are drinking, and Misato's hammered and whining and they're hinting at how they'd like to fuck but maybe they shouldn't, and how tough it is on the kids. She's leaning across her chair and the camera's really lingering on the curves of her body. But we see Kaji's eyes looking, looking away, looking back, and I think that is the perfect way to do a "sexy" shot.

If art was profitable, it wouldn't be art.

Many of the greatest artists in European history just did commissions for popes and kings. The greatest masterpieces of all time were often not done for the sheer love of art, but literally done for "the man".

[Taekmkm]

Oh, so you're playing the semantic card. K. Tell Ebert that too, he seems to have trouble with that at times.

[Oz]

Umm. Essentially you were exploring what is art and what is not. You started it, man. That's a nice way to dodge my response and completely detract the attention from what we were discussing by namedropping Ebert (who barely has any relevance).

Let's try to get back on topic. Even though there was an excessive amount of SAAVICU SAAVICU in Rebuild it never really bothered me. Asuka's new plugsuit could/should have been different, but I'm not that bothered by it. The film was still rather effective so it is not as if the fanservice decreased the film's impact on me.

[Halicat]

Here's a Kaji example from Rebuild:

SPOILER: Show

Misato and Kaji are drinking, and Misato's hammered and whining and they're hinting at how they'd like to fuck but maybe they shouldn't, and how tough it is on the kids. She's leaning across her chair and the camera's really lingering on the curves of her body. But we see Kaji's eyes looking, looking away, looking back, and I think that is the perfect way to do a "sexy" shot.

When I seen that, I was like this:

SPOILER: Show

"Oh look, he's being the gentleman and not looki-oh there he goes, wait he's not anymore, wait, there he goes again! Gentleman fail."

Couldn't help but find it hilarious and a GOOD example of how fanservice can contribute. I disagree with the need for the

SPOILER: Show

butt shot before Asuka goes into Shinji's room; I felt it was obtrusive and placed more importance on her as an object to stare at than as a person with feelings by sticking it in during a moment she was feeling awkward and opening up. Same with the stupid shots of her breasts as she was talking. They already got her vulnerability across with her see through top and butt shot you see when the camera pans to her feet, the rest was overkill.

Fanservice makes me feminist-rage sometimes, and I certainly don't think combating it with more male fanservice is good either.

[Killer Bee]

"How old is the girl in that painting?" "Huh? It's a painting. It's not a real girl." "That doesn't matter - anymore. You can't make depictions of underage girls." "Underage? What age is that?" "Um, we really don't know. It's an abstraction." "But here's another painting, depicting me shooting someone. Of course it never actually happened...." "Oh, that's perfectly all right. Depictions of murder are acceptable."

Just wanted to chime in and say I agree with you. I won't repeat what I'm sure hundreds of posters have mentioned about America's tolerance of violence and intolerance of sexuality; but the American media is entering a stage right now where it fears anything that can possibly be misconstrued as pedophilia. I guess it's just another form of political correctness gone mad.

It's like going to Great Britain and acknowledging every black person you meet as an "African-American." Everyone's too afraid of offending everyone else, and if enough people complain about naked depictions of underage anime characters, then the politicians will step up and stamp it out, artistic freedom be damned.

[Eva Yojimbo]

If art was profitable, it wouldn't be art... Day jobs, second jobs.

Hogwash. I guess you don't consider Mozart and Bach artful? How about Shakespeare? Hitchcock?

[Thanatos]

Hogwash. I guess you don't consider Mozart and Bach artful? How about Shakespeare? Hitchcock?

While I won't get into it here, as it strays off topic, it is interesting to consider the compromise an artist makes when they choose to take a commercial path, and how it will alter their ability to be a "true artist" to some degree.
See Campbell's functions of the artist from Myths to Live by, or his ideas in Mask of God: Vol.IV Creative Mythology



Anyway, I thought this would be a great opportunity to give my thoughts on a topic I was too lazy to search for. Though after reading most of Yojimbo's thoughts, anything I say would merely be repeating his words.

I do however understand the OPs feelings here concerning the fanservice and how it may act as a barrier of sorts to those less acquainted with anime.(Though personally I think giant synthetic robots fighting each other would scare them away first.) And while I can sympathize in your willingness to have others experience this work, I can't; however, rationalize altering it in any way, even if that change would result in it reaching a much larger audience.
Of course this relates back to some of the points of the commercial artist, particularly in our time, since their corporate masters essentially do what you are suggesting to works across all mediums; which is too limit creativity and expression in order to increase marketability.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

I do however understand the OPs feelings here concerning the fanservice and how it may act as a barrier of sorts to those less acquainted with anime.

That makes sense, but I'm not sure if non-anime works are completely free of fanservice elements. Burn Notice comes to mind as a live-action show with rather pointless fanservice in it. And there are, of course, other works where the fanservice elements do help to tell the story, like Sin City or even classics like Hitchcock's Psycho.

I guess because anime is, well, animation, people have a tendency to relate that to children's entertainment. So fanservice elements just might seem to stick out more to people in anime than in live-action works.

I mean, we're talking about fanservice, and we haven't once mentioned anything non anime related. (Mainly it's been about 2.22.) I guess that shows us how much we actually don't notice fanservice in shows our culture is more used to as a whole.

[Sachi]

SPOILER: Show

Same with the stupid shots of her breasts as she was talking.

This is more or less a throwback to the original series with the similar scene.

[Eva Yojimbo]

While I won't get into it here, as it strays off topic, it is interesting to consider the compromise an artist makes when they choose to take a commercial path, and how it will alter their ability to be a "true artist" to some degree.

This assumes they can't be artful inside of a limiting confine, which isn't always the case. Classic Hollywood directors had to work inside the confines of a Hollywood Studio system that gave infinitely more power to producers than directors, yet people like Hitchcock and Ford mastered the system and created outstanding art because of it more than in spite of it. The real trick has always been for artists to find a way to appeal to the "groundlings" (as Shakespeare called them) as much as the learned elite and "judicious". The best have usually found ways to do this. Sometimes limitations aid rather than prohibit creativity, like composers who had to work inside of forms.

[Thanatos]

This assumes they can't be artful inside of a limiting confine, which isn't always the case. Classic Hollywood directors had to work inside the confines of a Hollywood Studio system that gave infinitely more power to producers than directors, yet people like Hitchcock and Ford mastered the system and created outstanding art because of it more than in spite of it. The real trick has always been for artists to find a way to appeal to the "groundlings" (as Shakespeare called them) as much as the learned elite and "judicious". The best have usually found ways to do this. Sometimes limitations aid rather than prohibit creativity, like composers who had to work inside of forms.

Agreed sir. Though I suppose I was a little vague, Campbell was speaking mostly in terms of artists in the traditional sense; painters, sculptors, poets, playwrights, etc. I think it still applies to modern artists across all mediums though.
In our time, one way to overcome this is to accept it and work within those confines as you said. And an actual advantage to this today would be if you are very successful, then you can reach a point where you can do what you like; i.e, finance your own film, start your own label and so on. Where as in say Kurosawa's day, under the studio system, he saw very little profit from his works, and several times his films almost bankrupted the studio.

And you raise a good point about those limitations or negative aspects being adopted and actually strengthening the work. I mean look at Eva, a lot of the greatness of that series comes from Anno's dissatisfaction with the anime industry, the fans, and himself.


@ FreakyFilmFan4ever - When I think of fanservice in animation it usually doesn't bother me, but it rarely adds to the experience. Which is funny because when I think of fanservice in terms of live-action American films, I only think of positive examples. Which is ridiculous, since there is more garbage floating around in American cinema than Japan can ever hope to achieve.
But look at Tarantino's Kill Bill, that is fanservice to the extreme, yet at the same time it is relevant to the narrative. Or how about the best example, Leone's Once Upon a Time in the West. In either film, if the viewer is a diehard fan of the genre, or in Tarantino's case genres, than it is an absolute joy to watch.
I feel obliged now to offer some examples of fanservice in anime that enhances the viewing experience; Sayonara Zetsubuo Sensai, Lucky Star, Genshiken.

In the end, it boils down to what you said with Westerns basically equating all anime into cartoons for children. With that mindset they encounter a panty shot of a 16 year old girl and are disgusted, but when they flip on MTV and get aroused watching a 16 year old scantily clad girl dancing its' okay, or when the obligatory sex scene appears its' acceptable.