But before I fire off a snarky letter to their corrections department, self-righteous in my Eva knowledge, I thought I'd run my claims and corrections past you all since I'm not actually 100% sure about some of my claims (especially the re-used vs new animation claim).
The article in question ( http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/01/21/movies/21roundup-20_RVW.html ) makes a number of dubious comments, I think.
> That 1995 anime revolutionized the giant-robot genre and spawned a billion-dollar franchise
It's well into the multi-billions now; it passed the billion mark way back in the '90s. (Matt Greenfield of ADV claimed in 2006 Eva had grossed at least $2 billion, and the 2 new movies have increased that by at least $100 million.)
> which may be why the films keep being released in the United States, even though the adult-oriented story never made much of an impression here.
I suppose it depends on what 'impression' is. If impression is defined as general popularity like _Titanic_ or gifted with a massive Disney-style release like _Princess Mononoke_ or _Spirited Away_, then that is true. But as anime go, it was extremely popular in the US, routinely appearing at the top of best-seller lists, and made ADV's financial fortune - fans sometimes quipped that ADV (the largest anime distributor in North America before its recent collapse) was 'the house that Eva built'.
Indeed, that _1.0_ and _2.0_ even appeared in theaters, despite the runs being doomed to financial loss and Oscar ineligibility, is a remarkable tribute to Evangelion's enduring popularity in America - Funimation wanted the licenses *so* badly that they were willing to meet Studio Khara's crazy demands for theatrical runs.
> it reuses some animation from the TV series but appears to be mostly new. (That’s not as cynical as it sounds: the earlier “Evangelion” films consisted entirely of re-edited TV footage.)
This is mistaken on many levels. Only one Evangelion movie, _Death & Rebirth_, reused animation. _End of Evangelion_, _1.0_, and _2.0_ were all brand-new animation. (Money and time were no longer an object.) The reviewer is perhaps misled because _1.0_ re-animated many scenes from the TV series, faithfully enough that one has to compare them side by side to see that they actually are new animation; perhaps he made a similar error when claiming _2.0_ re-used animation from the TV series.
> But to what point? If you don’t already know the story — about young robot pilots being used to battle mysterious “angels” that threaten to destroy Earth — the film, which recasts events from roughly the middle of the TV series, will make no sense.
Not a correction but a comment - well, yeah. What do you expect? Would _Empire Strikes Back_ make a whole lot of sense to someone who hadn't seen another _Star Wars_ movie or at least knew who the characters were?