How do you feel about Shinji ending up with Mari?

[nerv bae]

Isn't it stated by Ritsuko that only awakened Evas can go to the Anti-Universe? As such, Eva 13 and 01 can go since they are awakened, 08's nomming of an Adam's Vessel apparently awoke it enough to go in there too.

This doesn't sound familiar to me and I can't find it on the Arqa transcript. Closest thing I can find is Ritsuko stating that the Wunder cannot enter the Anti-Universe, as she plays with her tablet on the deck after Gendo bounces with Units 01 and 13.

[Jornophelanthas]

My question remains: but why tho?

There are some plausible in-universe arguments that we could deduce.
Maybe the Anti-Universe is a place where the normal laws of physics do not apply, and normal humans - even those protected by advanced technology - instantly unravel. Actually, scratch that! It is not a "place" at all, because space seems to be relative there. Upon entering, Shinji can instantly transfer from Unit-08's entry plug to that of Unit-01 through an act of will, simply because of his connection to Unit-01. Not to mention that Gendo claims that human senses cannot perceive the Anti-Universe in its true form, and instead construct experiences from the person's memories. So we know that the normal laws of physics do not apply. From here, it is hardly a stretch of the imagination to suppose that normal humans (or human technology) cannot exist or survive there.

Add to this the concept of AT fields enveloping beings with souls, and serve to both isolate it from its surroundings and hold its physical form together, and the premise that Evangelions and Angels have the strongest AT fields in the universe, AND to follow that up with the premise that awakened Evangelions have even stronger AT fields than that, it becomes plausible why these super-powered Evangelions could still exist in a place where nothing and everything exists at once.

I can also give a meta-textual explanation.
Are you familiar with the narrative concept of the Hero's Journey? It is the basic blueprint for the genre of the heroic epic, which includes books, movies, fairy tales and myths from just about all known civilizations. These story patterns are so pervasive because they speak to the human subconscious. One of the staples found in many such stories is the moment where the hero crosses the threshold into the underworld / afterlife / realm of the gods. The hero must leave his normal (mortal) life behind and pass into the unknown, to confront the king of the underworld / death personified / the gods and be challenged to prove his worth.

Shinji is that hero. The Gates of Guf are that gate to the underworld. Misato and the rest of humanity represent that mundane life that needs to be left behind.

That is why it is narratively necessary why Misato cannot enter. And that is also why it is narratively necessary for Mari to not be present during Shinji's confrontation with Gendo; she is not the hero, and the hero must face his greatest challenge alone.

And then there is this...
If you keep arguing "but why tho" on every element or twist of the plot, you are no longer suspending disbelief on the story, and you are rejecting it for being fiction. Why do giant artificial god-cyborg-clones that can end the world exist when it's obviously nonsense? How could SEELE have appointed someone as treacherous as Gendo to such an important position? Why didn't anyone explain where the Angels come from and why they are so freakish? Why do all the girls have such big eyes and such small noses? Why does everyone look at these moving drawings with accompanying noises and pretend it is a story about people?

At some point, you just have to conclude that you reject the story and/or that the previous telling was better. But if you do, you no longer have any real standing to discuss the story's contents.

[AlphaZero]

About Shinji and Asuka:
I simply don't think they're parting away for good for a couple of reasons. Plot wise because in the last seconds Shinji and Mari are still in minus space about to exit it and reunite with the rest in the real world. Parallel wise there's the whole Hikari explaining to Rei 6 the meaning of sayonara and says it's a magical word you say when you want to see each other again. That's the word Shinji uses with Asuka and her alone instead of saraba.

About time loop:
For me a loop was obvious however this is the way I think it works. 1st Timeline - EoTv -> loop -> 2nd Timeline - D&R+EoE -> keeps looping an uncountable number of times -> ?? Timeline - Rebuild. The loops start with minimal and small differences then they multiply and become bigger in scope until they reach the Rebuild timeline. The souls of the characters are always the same retaining part of the experiences in previous timelines which would explain why they are overall more stable like Misato being a Lieutenant Colonel in Rebuild instead of Captain compared to NGE. Why the loops happen? Don't know but I think Gendo might've accidentally caused the loop somehow. However I could be completely wrong so who knows.

[Jornophelanthas]

Shinji and Mari are still in minus space about to exit it and reunite with the rest in the real world

I do not believe that is the implication of the final scene.

In order to exit the Anti-Universe back to Evangelion-earth (now free of Evangelions), one needs to traves the Gates of Guf. That can only be done with Evangelions. The only one who came out of there was Asuka, and she was still in an entry plug.

Aside:

SPOILER: Show

Since Unit-02 was destroyed and Asuka was pulled out of its entry plug by Original!Asuka, this was NOT Unit-02's entry plug. Instead, it must have been the entry plug of Unit-13 that was implied to house the retired Original!Asuka, which Gendo must have used to replace Shinji after the events of 3.0. This could have all kinds of implications about Asuka's soul and identity, but that's too deep to go into here.

However, all Evangelions were destroyed/sacrificed during Shinji performing Neon Genesis Evangelion (and Mari's subsequently bringing in and destroying all the Evangelions that were still on the Earth side of Guf). So there was no way back.

Bear in mind, also, that Shinji explained to Rei exactly what he was about to do: using the power of Unit-01, Unit-13 and the Spear of Gaius to create a new world without Evangelions, and at the same time purging all (other) Evangelions from existence. This is the act of Neon Genesis Evangelion. In other words, he birthed a new universe inside the Anti-Universe (which could be seen as the womb of worlds), while leaving the old universe intact and in a situation where it could recover.

Shinji and Mari never went back. They went into the newly created Evangelion-free world to discover all the new possibilities there. Rei and Kaworu are presumably also still there. Perhaps a fragment of Asuka too, but that would be Original!Asuka, and not Shikinami (who was sent back through Guf). Gendo and Yui willingly expended their souls in the sacrifice to create the world, so they are NOT there, so in a way this new world is Shinji's sibling.

It is exactly by not returning that Shinji broke the loop. He can now meet new people in new circumstances, and be shaped by new experiences. Mari kind of exemplifies that to the viewer, because she is new to the franchise and (intentionally?) left unknowable to us.

Why the loops happen? Don't know but I think Gendo might've accidentally caused the loop somehow. However I could be completely wrong so who knows.

We're starting to drift off topic here, but I have an answer to the why of the loop. The state of the universe (or at least humanity) is reset at the end of Human Instrumentality every time, as a result of the same decision made by Shinji, who always ends up in the position to make that decision. Every loop, his personal and emotional development progresses in the same way (or similar enough ways), shaped by the same other people in his life with the same (or similar) hang-ups and character flaws.

While no iteration is truly identical to the previous ones, Shinji's upbringing and experiences ultimately lead him to choose the same outcome of Instrumentality every time.

[nerv bae]

Aside:

SPOILER: Show

Since Unit-02 was destroyed and Asuka was pulled out of its entry plug by Original!Asuka, this was NOT Unit-02's entry plug. Instead, it must have been the entry plug of Unit-13 that was implied to house the retired Original!Asuka, which Gendo must have used to replace Shinji after the events of 3.0. This could have all kinds of implications about Asuka's soul and identity, but that's too deep to go into here.

Correct; in 3+1 Unit-01 ejects Asuka's entry plug from Unit-13, from the same Unit-13 chamber that Unit-08 ejected Shinji's entry plug from in 3.0.

[Archer]

There are some plausible in-universe arguments that we could deduce.
Maybe the Anti-Universe is a place where the normal laws of physics do not apply, and normal humans - even those protected by advanced technology - instantly unravel. Actually, scratch that! It is not a "place" at all, because space seems to be relative there. Upon entering, Shinji can instantly transfer from Unit-08's entry plug to that of Unit-01 through an act of will, simply because of his connection to Unit-01. Not to mention that Gendo claims that human senses cannot perceive the Anti-Universe in its true form, and instead construct experiences from the person's memories. So we know that the normal laws of physics do not apply. From here, it is hardly a stretch of the imagination to suppose that normal humans (or human technology) cannot exist or survive there.

You are misunderstanding my criticism. I am not saying that there is no possible in-universe explanation or justification, I am saying that the rules are not clearly defined and consistently set up, and don’t really follow any thematic pattern. Evangelion is obviously a work of fiction and the writers can make up any rules they want for how a particular fictional construct works… but if they aren’t clear and consistent then I have no reason to care.

I can also give a meta-textual explanation.
Are you familiar with the narrative concept of the Hero's Journey? It is the basic blueprint for the genre of the heroic epic, which includes books, movies, fairy tales and myths from just about all known civilizations. These story patterns are so pervasive because they speak to the human subconscious. One of the staples found in many such stories is the moment where the hero crosses the threshold into the underworld / afterlife / realm of the gods. The hero must leave his normal (mortal) life behind and pass into the unknown, to confront the king of the underworld / death personified / the gods and be challenged to prove his worth.

My problem with your interpretation is that your logic is backwards. The “hero’s journey” is descriptive, not proscriptive: it is something that is used to describe and analyze how elements and characters fit into a conventional narrative template, NOT a list of check-boxes that, once they’re all ticked off, constitutes a good, well-written story. Merely having a meta-narrative role in the hero’s journey does not automatically constitute a good character: the role they play must be consistent with their established characterization, and their relationship with the hero must be properly developed for the audience to actually care and feel invested. In Star Wars, for example, if Obi-wan was just some old guy in the desert that taught Luke how to use his lightsaber, and the intimate connection he has with Luke’s past and with Darth Vader is never established, then we have no reason to care when Luke decides to go after Darth Vader to avenge Obi-wan’s death. While we can understand on a metanarrative level that the hero must pursue the villain to avenge the death of his mentor, we have no context to understand why Luke, the person that exists within the universe of Star Wars, is personally motivated to avenge Obi-wan’s death because their relationship is never properly developed beyond the most barebones “mentor-student” role. Of course, in the actual movies, Obi-wan isn’t just Luke’s mentor: he’s the last link to Luke’s hidden past, and the one degree of separation between the Luke and Vader. With his death, the only way Luke can learn more about his past is to confront Vader directly. The story conveys a very well-established reason within the narrative for why Luke chooses to pursue Vader, to justify the metanarrative construct of “the hero must avenge the death of his mentor”.

So when I ask the question:

What about Mari’s characterization prior to the last 15-20 minutes of the movie justifies her being cast as a “messenger” or spirit guide for Shinji?

I think I am fairly clearly stating that my issue with her is that her established character traits and relationship with Shinji has little relation to the metatextual role that she plays. You merely pointing out that she needs to play the role because hero’s journey is not a counter-argument that Mari is actually a good, well-developed character. In fact, it’s the opposite: if the only possible justification you can come up with is “it’s narratively necessary to fit he hero’s journey”, that’s a sign of a poorly written character whose only purpose is to move the plot forward without any regards for whether or not that fits their existing characterization and established relationships or the themes of the work.

For example, by your logic, the reason Shinji must go into the anti-universe to fight Gendo is because Shinji is the hero, and he must pass into the unknown to challenge Gendo, the king of the underworld/death personified/the gods, in order to prove his worth. Yes, in a metanarrative sense, Shinji must confront Gendo because he’s the hero, and Gendo’s the villain, and the hero needs to defeat the villain. But this is reductive and completely backwards, missing the point of what actually makes the audience CARE about the conflict: properly-established character motivations and relationships. When Shinji goes to confront Gendo, he isn’t doing it to extinguish some nebulous force of evil in order to cross an item off his hero’s journey checklist: he is going to directly confront his estranged father face-to-face, a person who is also a reflection of Shinji himself, representing the kind of person he could become if he continues down a path of despair. Their conflict is well-established in their individual characters, in the relationship between them, and in the greater themes of the series. THESE are the elements that make a good, compelling story, the explanations I’m looking for when I ask, “but why tho?”. You retorting that it ticks the checkboxes of the hero’s journey is not a counter-argument to my assertions that these characters are poorly developed or apparently inconsistent.

If you keep arguing "but why tho" on every element or twist of the plot, you are no longer suspending disbelief on the story, and you are rejecting it for being fiction. Why do giant artificial god-cyborg-clones that can end the world exist when it's obviously nonsense? How could SEELE have appointed someone as treacherous as Gendo to such an important position? Why didn't anyone explain where the Angels come from and why they are so freakish?

This is a straight-up logical fallacy that is frequently used to defend writing inconsistencies or plot holes in works featuring fantasy elements. You are conflating a criticism of execution with a criticism of the premise. And, not to mention, bringing up examples that are actually ARE mostly internally consistent, and require little hand-waving*. Just because I am willing to suspend disbelief and accept the premise that magic exists in a fantasy world does not mean that I must accept inconsistent writing, such as a character behaving differently with how they are characterized in order to incite conflict or otherwise advance the plot with no explanation given in-universe, or a character using a new power that was not set up or foreshadowed in order to defeat a major threat that would have been otherwise insurmountable. Claiming that doing so is “rejecting it for being fiction” is just a deflection of criticism for bad writing.

Just gonna quote myself from another thread, where I articulate what I think the disconnect here is. The context is slightly different but it very much hits on the same ideas:

Took me a bit to parse what you meant by this… I’ll rephrase it in a way that’s clearer to me in case anyone else was also confused by the wording:
“Criticism of the Rebuilds isn’t rooted in a lack of a clear authorial intent or message; in fact, a character’s motivation or perspective is often stated quite specifically, bluntly and precisely. The problem is that the intent is communicated, in large part, ONLY through expository speech, and is not effectively communicated emotionally through character action or behavior.”

This really hits the nail on the head here, because I’ve noticed that this disconnect is at the core of a lot of the back and forth vs discourse here. I don’t mean to call out anyone specifically here, just using these as illustrative examples of the case in point: […]

The “critics” are arguing that the some theme/message/character motivation/etc. is poorly conveyed (unstated implication: through character action or behavior or emotion or etc.) and when the “defenders” see that (admittedly not 100% precisely stated) argument they rebut that said theme/message/character motivation/etc. is literally clearly stated in the text. But this completely misses the point of the original criticism, which was never about the existence of authorial intent as told through expository dialogue, but rather about how well it is executed/conveyed/reinforced by the events of the story. Technically both sides are right, it’s just that “defenders” pointing out that XYZ is literally stated in dialogue or exposition isn’t a counter-argument to the “critics” claim that the Rebuilds are poorly written, because the accusations of poor writing aren’t rooted in a lack of clearly identifiable theme/message/character motivation, but rather in how said theme/message/character motivation is actually conveyed or reinforced emotionally by the events of the story.

* Footnote: Consistency of NGE’s premise

SPOILER: Show

Why do giant artificial god-cyborg-clones that can end the world exist when it's obviously nonsense?

While the existence of Evangelions at first seems to be a plot contrivance to justify having giant robots fighting giant monsters (as is the case in, for example, Pacific Rim, and probably the vast majority of giant robot appearances), they are actually fully justified in the premise:
- In Episode 1, it is clearly established that Angels are extremely resistant (though not completely immune) to conventional damage, and that Evangelions are the only reliable way of dealing with them, because they can neutralize the Angel’s defensive barrier with their own. This, too, seems like a plot contrivance meant to justify why Evangelions have to be used, until it’s revealed that AT fields are actually a physical manifestation of the psychological barriers between individuals, something that ties into one of the core themes of the show.
- The fact that they are humanoid appears to be a purely metanarrative contrivance because giant humanoid robots are a staple of mecha despite being obviously impractical IRL. However, this is actually explained by their origin as human-Angel hybrids.
- But why tho, you may ask, when that’s not how cloning and hybridization works in real life? How can humans and weird alien monsters possibly make a viable hybrid? Well it turns out THAT is actually explained too, by the fact that humans and Angels actually share a common origin.

As long as you can accept the core fantasy premise that all life on Earth in NGE descended from an alien egg (instead of being an emergent property of natural chemical processes as is likely the case in real life), the rest of the premise is actually fairly clearly and consistently established in such a way that requires little hand-waving.

How could SEELE have appointed someone as treacherous as Gendo to such an important position?

I don’t believe it is ever directly stated that SEELE appointed Gendo to his position. But for the sake of the argument, let’s say that they did. While the timeline of Gendo’s life and his personal motivations aren’t 100% clear, the following facts are obvious:
- Gendo is already the leader of Gehirn, the organization that eventually got renamed to NERV, BEFORE Yui’s accident.
- Gendo did not start acting against SEELE’s agenda in favor of his own agenda until AFTER Yui’s accident.
Even if we assume that SEELE did appoint Gendo, then there’s no inconsistency, because he was loyally dedicated to their agenda at the time. Throughout NGE, though, Gendo’s treachery escalates, and SEELE not only makes it clear that his insubordination will not be tolerated, but actually follows through on their threats when Gendo takes it too far, sending in the military to slaughter him and all of his men.

Why didn't anyone explain where the Angels come from and why they are so freakish?

Because in-universe, nobody knows where they come from. Thanks to auxiliary media, we the IRL audience are aware that Angels are actually aliens that spawned from a “Fruit of Life” (as opposed to humanity, which spawned from a “Fruit of Knowledge”). However, all the information the characters have comes from the (fictionalized) Dead Sea Scrolls. The Dead Sea Scrolls are like the Bible: it’s not a book written first-hand by an omniscient creator, it’s a book written by humans trying to interpret alleged supernatural events, humans who don’t have a full picture of what’s going on and are just piecing things together as best as they can with their puny human brains. That’s why SEELE is applying Biblical terms to everything in the first place, despite we the audience knowing the Angel’s origins to be extraterrestrial, rather than religious or spiritual. The only thing that really needs to be hand-waved here is that Angels happen to explode into a giant cross of light when they die. Out of universe, it’s because Japan really loves the foreign exoticism of Christian imagery; in-universe, it’s just a complete coincidence, though it probably reinforced SEELE’s beliefs that the Angels were religious/spiritual in nature. Narratively it doesn’t matter much anyways, since the Christian symbolism is in reality little more than window dressing.

[Jornophelanthas]

I don't like engaging in discussions that go in this direction, for reasons of personal preference.

My interest is in discussing the symbolism, the meaning (hidden or otherwise), the psychological development of the characters and the philosophical implications of Neon Genesis Evangelion, End of Evangelion and Rebuild of Evangelion.

However, it is no fun having such conversations with someone who could at any point be willing to make it fall flat with the cop-out "Well, I think it's just bad writing".

[Archer]

If you don’t like engaging in this kind of discussion, fair enough, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But seriously, you’re going to call well-justified criticism of the writing with cited textual evidence a cop-out? Especially when I am not criticizing the writing in general and using that criticism to blanket dismiss a thematic reading, but am citing specific evidence that in my opinion fail to contribute to a specific purported theme? I could similarly say that it’s a cop-out to ignore literally the most important part of telling a story, which is, ya know, to tell a compelling story, constructing a consistent narrative and compelling characters that will capture the interest and investment of the audience while also contributing to the overall thematic message.

Symbolism means absolutely jack to me if the author fails to tell a well-written story. If it can’t even engage me on a shallow surface level, why should I care about what the author is trying to SAY? If this isn’t how you enjoy stories then that’s just a difference in personal opinion, but to imply that it’s somehow invalid to discuss a movie on the merit of its writing when execution falls well under the umbrella of the thread title because you personally don’t find it important verges on bad faith. It’s the difference between rejecting the validity of specific arguments by calling into question the quality or completeness of their provided supporting evidence, and rejecting the validity of an entire avenue of argumentation because you personally don’t care for it.

[Konja7]

If you don’t like engaging in this kind of discussion, fair enough, we’ll just have to agree to disagree. But seriously, you’re going to call well-justified criticism of the writing with cited textual evidence a cop-out? Especially when I am not criticizing the writing in general and using that criticism to blanket dismiss a thematic reading, but am citing specific aspects that in my opinion fail to contribute to the claimed theme? I could similarly say that it’s a cop-out to ignore literally the most important part of telling a story, which is, ya know, to tell a compelling story, constructing a consistent narrative and compelling characters that will capture the interest and investment of the audience while also contributing to the overall thematic message.

Symbolism means absolutely jack to me if the author fails to tell a well-written story. If it can’t even engage me on a shallow surface level, why should I care about what the author is trying to SAY? If this isn’t how you enjoy stories then that’s just a difference in personal opinion, but to imply that it’s somehow invalid to discuss a movie on the merit of its writing when execution falls well under the umbrella of the thread title because you personally don’t find it important verges on bad faith.

I'm pretty sure people who want to discuss symbolism and other aspects find the story well-written and compelling. After all, they won't care about the symbolism if this wasn't the case.

I agree that saying "cop-out" was too much, but it could be tiring to debate when the other person's answer is summed up in "it is badly written", especially if you want to focus on other topics.

[Archer]

I'm pretty sure people who wants to discuss symbolism and other aspects find the story well-written and compelling. After all, they won't care about the symbolism if this wasn't the case.

I agree that saying "cop-out" was too much, but it could tiring to debate when the other person's answer is summed up in "it is badly written", especially if you want to focus on other topics.

That’s the thing though: my argument isn’t “because I think the Rebuilds are poorly written, discussing its symbolism and other aspects is completely pointless”. That would be making a blanket dismissal of an entire avenue of argumentation based on my personal value judgment of what is and isn’t important, which isn’t what I’m here for. And personally I think I’ve been pretty clear with how I’ve been presenting my opinion while respecting the inherent validity of symbolic/metatextual interpretation:

Again, not saying your interpretation is wrong, or even that it’s something not directly intended by Anno and co. In fact metatextually Mari being the catalyst for change is fairly transparent and based on CRC interviews and such, arguably undebatable. Like, it is a matter of fact that her inclusion was intended to shake up the status quo, she is a very obvious symbolic catalyst for change in the Rebuilds.

If the title of this thread was “What does Shinji and Mari’s relationship symbolize?” or something along those lines, I’d agree that discussing writing and execution would be a little more out of place (but even then, still well within the bounds of the thread subject). But given that the thread title is actually “How do you feel about Shinji ending up with Mari?”, I think it’s more than fair to raise the argument that a purely symbolic/metatextual analysis, while not inherently invalid, also doesn’t paint the full picture. After all, Shinji and Mari aren’t just arbitrary actors in the meta-narrative of the hero’s journey, they are characters who exist inside a narrative, who should have consistent and believable motivations for their actions and behavior.

when the other person's answer is summed up in "it is badly written"

I think this is a little bit reductive. While I have made the value judgment of “it is badly written” as a matter of convenience, I believe I have also provided a clear-enough argument with enough specific evidence such that the value judgment can be easily removed, and the core argument considered thusly:
“I think it is badly written because the way Mari’s character is established, and the way her relationship with Shinji is established, does not sufficiently support the intended metatextual reading because XYZ textual evidence.” If you think that my argument itself wasn’t clearly articulated, I would appreciate knowing that. I greatly value clarity of thought and expression, and if my thoughts and arguments aren’t being accurately conveyed by my language then I am doing something wrong. In fairness, going forward I should probably try to avoid making overtly subjective statements like this that can easily be mistaken for being the totality of the argument itself, but ultimately disagreeing with my value judgment is not a counter-argument to the core points I am making. There’s two possible responses to this:
1. “Your analysis is incorrect - there is actually ABC textual evidence that directly supports the symbolic and thematic reading” <— the answer I’m hoping for, because I would love to be proven wrong, and to be shown that there’s actually a side to the characters that I overlooked due to my negative emotional response potentially biasing me to overlook subtle character moments. I want to make sure that I’m not missing anything that could change my opinion.
2. “The fact that the symbolic and thematic reading is not supported by textual evidence does not bother me” <— the answer that I inevitably get 99% of the time, which is disappointing to me (as someone who WANTS to be wrong in my judgment of the Rebuild’s writing quality per my personal metrics of characters/plot points/relationships being given sufficient setup and justification) but at least gets to the root of the issue, which is that we will never be on the same page and will just have to agree to disagree.

The whole point of my line of questioning is, ultimately, to reach THIS:

I don't like engaging in discussions that go in this direction, for reasons of personal preference.

Explicit confirmation that we are not on the same page, that I’m not missing anything, and that there’s really no point in further engaging because I know that the other person does not have the answers I am looking for.

[Konja7]

I think this is a little bit reductive. While I have made the value judgment of “it is badly written” as a matter of convenience, I believe I have also provided a clear-enough argument with enough specific evidence such that the value judgment can be easily removed, and the core argument considered thusly:

Yeah. I'm sorry. I was too reductive in that part. It wasn't fair to dismiss your argurment that way.


In itself, I don't feel the relationship between Mari and Shinji is badly written, because I don't think there is a lot of relationship between them (unless we assume years passed between them meeting in the beach and the train scene in the epilogue).

Mari represents a new beginning and relationship (without the previous emotional baggage) for Shinji and they will start to know each other in the future. I found that idea interesting and compelling.

[Jornophelanthas]

The whole point of my line of questioning is, ultimately, to reach THIS:

I don't like engaging in discussions that go in this direction, for reasons of personal preference.

Explicit confirmation that we are not on the same page, that I’m not missing anything, and that there’s really no point in further engaging because I know that the other person does not have the answers I am looking for.

I agree with your conclusion that we are not on the same page, and that I do not have answers for you.

I disagree that this necessarily implies that you are "not missing anything". Just the fact that I don't enjoy disseminating your points about what does and does not constitute bad writing in Rebuild of Evangelion - and therefore refuse to perform that chore - does not imply that I submit to your opinions by default.

Please do not push your premises on me.

[Konja7]

No need to be so defensive.

I think we've all made our perspective clear at this point.

[Archer]

I agree with your conclusion that we are not on the same page, and that I do not have answers for you.

I disagree that this necessarily implies that you are "not missing anything". Just the fact that I don't enjoy disseminating your points about what does and does not constitute bad writing in Rebuild of Evangelion - and therefore refuse to perform that chore - does not imply that I submit to your opinions by default.

I can see how my statements would could be interpreted to mean that not caring to respond automatically implied that you accepted my conclusion. This was not my intention, and I apologize for being unclear. You’re correct that a lack of a clearly articulated counter-argument isn’t the same as incontrovertible proof that I am right, because there is the possibility that there is evidence out there that simply has not been assembled into an articulate counter-argument.

Please do not push your premises on me.

Throughout this argument you have repeatedly dismissed my premise, accusing me of arguing in bad faith - that because I disliked the Rebuilds, it must be because I am inherently biased against the Rebuilds, that I am rejecting them for being fiction, and that my premise that execution matters in storytelling is a “cop-out” for not wanting to engage in a purely metatextual discussion. All this despite the fact that I have clearly articulated the specific qualities I liked about NGE that I feel are largely missing in the Rebuilds, while also acknowledging and praising when they are present in the Rebuilds. On the other hand, I have been (in my opinion) respectful of your premise that metatextual analysis matters, merely disagreeing with your conclusion because I feel that metatextual analysis that isn’t based on textual evidence isn’t sufficient to provide the full picture. I never implied that you were wrong for liking the Rebuilds, or that not caring about the same story elements I do constituted some flaw in character. I think you’re the one forcing your premise onto others by implying that anyone who doesn’t value the same things you do is automatically arguing in bad faith.

[Jornophelanthas]

During my previous stint in these forums (which was pre-3.0), I constantly found myself arguing against people who aggressively held to the point that Rebuild was inferior and should be disregarded, for various reasons, including the very existence of Mari. Some of them also tended to argue that because Rebuild was obviously bad, any further discussion of it was pointless, and would derail any forum topic with this argument.

I must have subconsciously conflated your position with these vaguely remembered posters from years ago (and the opinions they held at the time). This was not fair to your argumentation, and I apologize for my poor reactions.

I will just stay out of topics pertaining to approval/disapproval about Rebuild for now.

[Blockio]

Time for everyone here to take a big old chill pill. This thread is going into lockdown until both sides of this arbitrary line in the sand have gotten over themselves and stop tossing adhom accusations at each other.

[ChaddyManPrime]

Shinji should not have been rewarded, that is all.

[BernardoCairo]

That's actually an interesting and unique statement. Would you care to elaborate?

[AlphaZero]

However, all Evangelions were destroyed/sacrificed during Shinji performing Neon Genesis Evangelion (and Mari's subsequently bringing in and destroying all the Evangelions that were still on the Earth side of Guf). So there was no way back.

My views toward the ending have changed since then. I think that the last scene is half lie half true as in Shinji & Mari are now their proper age(Mari's body could be a clone that's why she's 28 and not 60) which is true(taking Asuka's final shot into account). However there's some fakeness and deception to it like the POV of the scene is actually the Anti-Universe's, they're running opposite the sea up the beach instead of a train station and Shinji did see a vision of the other characters but that's because he's about to see them again. I see what you're saying but there're a couple of issues with it. First of all the act is called Neon Genesis not Neon Genesis Evangelion because the point it is that is a new beginning without Evangelion(plural)(I'd write it with an s but it's a Japanese term not the actual Greek word, like Pokémon), it just makes no sense to name it after the thing you get rid off. Second I don't think Shinji's words should be taken so directly, when he said new world I think he meant it as a completely different current world(symbolically) because he got rid of the units and anything tied to them. Thirdly the Anti-Universe is purely imaginary, abstract, etc. It has existed eternally alongside the real Universe and therefore it would make no sense to create another universe. Another real Universe would be redundant and a universe with imagination and reality combined would be too chaotic to exist. Fourth if Shinji & Mari left everything behind it would support the idea that Shinji chose complete escapism and I don't think these movies ever intended that to be the case.

We're starting to drift off topic here, but I have an answer to the why of the loop. The state of the universe (or at least humanity) is reset at the end of his Human Instrumentality every time, as a result of the same decision made by Shinji, who always ends up in the position to make that decision. Every loop, personal and emotional development progresses in the same way (or similar enough ways), shaped by the same other people in his life with the same (or similar) hang-ups and character flaws.

While no iteration is truly identical to the previous ones, Shinji's upbringing and experiences ultimately lead him to choose the same outcome of Instrumentality every time.

That's not an answer but a theory and you have provided no evidence to back it up. Let's assume you're correct then what's the variable? If he's surrounded by the same individuals which leads to the same experiences which leads to the same outcome then the loop is never going to break. Finally, as written before, if Shinji left everything behind it would support an escapism message and it also portrays it as if the cast are the problem.

[ChrisTamv]

I'm going to copy - past this from another thread:

Almost two years have passed since this movie's release and, for me at least, the only interpretation of the ending that makes sense and agrees with the many important details and clues in these last few scenes is that Shinji doesn't literally create a new world, nor does he reset the world or turn back time (as he says so himself). He merely wishes that all Evas stopped existing from that point onwards.

No one loses their memories, no one else should even logically have come back to life outside of Asuka (not even the people inside the FoI), and the red contamination around the Earth only disappears because it's caused by the presence of Angels / Evas (recall Neo NERV's flying ships, how Bethany Base in 2.0 where Angels were being experimented on was guarded by Pillars, how Asuka in 2.0 after being infected by the 9th started emitting this same exact contamination and had to be contained with the Pillars), and so when all Evas, including the FoI (with their also distinctively red color) scattered around the world disappeared, so did the contamination.

Ultimately, only Shinji and Mari who promised to everyone to come for Shinji (and is probably also paying the debt to her best friend Yui by doing so) remain stranded inside the Anti Universe with no Eva to get them out. Because the Anti Universe connects fiction (the Eva universe), with reality (hence why the Giant Rei that came out of the Doors of Guf was so realistic - looking), that's where these two eventually end up, in our world, where the figures of Rei, Asuka, and Kawuru that Shinji sees across the train station are merely visions and are closely framed as such.

That's my interpretation of the ending. In regards to whether Shinji and Mari are together in the end though... I really don't want think that's the case. Despite how weird & out of nowhere this this comes (as I don't believe there is a time skip between the train scene and anything that came prior), we even got official confirmation from 3.0+1.0's VA Director that the train scene wasn't directed romantically.

I would however be lying if I didn't point out that there are romantic implications here. But proof of a romantic relationship? No. Everything in the last scene can be interpreted from a non - romantic angle. From the entire purpose of Shinji's and Mari's interaction being to show the contrast between past and present Shinji. Between the Shinji in the Wunder, where Mari first called herself as the "beautiful girl with big boobs", who was still lost, in a bad state of mind, who still had a hard time communicating with people, to the Shinji at the train station, who doesn't have a problem casually joking around with people and even women, something that's absolutely a first for the character.

It should also be highlighted that Mari acts flirty with everyone, and that the handholding was really not portrayed flirtatiously or delicately: it's just Shinji taking the initiative and Mari with him towards the future, outside towards the real world.