robersora wrote: Evangelion is a work that lives
in part due to the unanswered questions. That is what makes it interesting.
Maybe I'll ad an "apparently unanswered" in my quote.movieartman wrote:1.) i dont really agree, the original series did answer a hell of a lot more than what most people give it credit for, the only things left really unanswered is the stuff about seele, and the origins of adam/lilith.
Although in my book there would be a lot more to explore, you're right. The main-plot line does stand pretty firmly in regards of answered and non-answered questions ratio. But you have to look for them and they won't be handed to you in a straight-forward manner. Also, I don't think we would debate certain details here on the forums, almost 20 years after it's airing, if everything was that clear. Yes, we are an obsessive bunch, but I think you get the point.
movieartman wrote:and even if everything was spelled out that would not make it a run of the mill mecha show as its still vasltly more complex and detailed than the majority of said shows out there
But that's why I said in part. Evangelion is mainly about it's characters, which are very complex and that's why the series is so intriguing in the first place. But to me, a part of the fascination stems from the fact, that answers regarding the main plot are not told straight-forwardly.
movieartman wrote:even if 2.0 was more generic than the rest of the franchise that doesn't make it bad or even flawed just.... simple, less complex... no i can't even agree with thoose as being appropriate descriptions of 2.0, ANYTHING will seem more generic and less complex by comparison to EOE, just cus everything isn't on that level that doesn't mean its a bad film or a flawed part of the franchise
i don't even have a real answer here, its not generic in anyway shape or form.
generic to me is like f__king A good day to die hard, 2.0 hell even 1.0 the most simple and non complex part of the franchise is leagues above such.
You're totally right. But I never said, 2.0 was bad or flawed. That was not my point. Hell, I had an awesome time with that movie! But I compared it to the original series, and that's where the weaknesses become apparent. Even if you only take the lighter "Action-part" of the series and compare it to 2.0, 2.0 comes out as the weaker, more superficial work.
I did
not compare it to your conventional Hollywood-Action movie, because, of course 2.0 is leagues above. But I think I made that comment clear when I wrote
(It still has plenty to offer compared to a Naruto, of course)