Well, you kinda said that people would like this only because IT'S EVA. So i was somewhat offended by that. (That's why shutting you up) But you probably(?) didn't intended that.

And i wasn't trying to say: " You are not true Eva fan if you dislike this film!" either. I kinda wanted to give you some answers. (Well, it turned out to be in "more hostile form" than i originally intended)

And i can see why you are upset about this film in some form.

So the specific expectations that you had which were not fulfilled are more important to you than responding to what the director is actually trying to do? Fine, if that's the way your mind works. But sure, it's hard to take at first, yet you can see that it's very well done once you accept what's happening.

Have you watched it more than once yet? More people than usual have commented that this is a film that really needs to be watched several times.

pwhodges wrote:Have you watched it more than once yet? More people than usual have commented that this is a film that really needs to be watched several times.

This. I've seen the movie five times and I'm still noticing new things every time I go through it.

Well, here's the thing:

It did not fulfill my expectations, yes. But because the time shift changed the themes/tone of the story, and dropped a lot of plot points, and broke what I consider the heart of the story, and what always resonated with me: character interactions. What was "picked up" felt artificial, and all this only to have SHOCKER and MOAR EVAS AND SHIPS (and impacts and lances and arms).

And I did respond to what Anno did with the movie: I did not like it.

That's the whole point of my post: it's OK if you don't like it. You can understand it AND not like it too. I'm sure I'm not the only one that got pissed at the dropped storylines and hurt at the way characters were handled. And yeah, that's how my mind works, whatever that's supposed to mean.

Maybe Anno just wanted people to not like it, just like he designed Rei to be too cold and unrelatable, the Evas too complicated to become action figures, and plugsuits too revealing to ever be cosplayed ...and failed miserably. I dunno.

So yeah, it did broke my expectations and got a response from me, just a negative one. And of course as an old EVA fan I wanted to make sense of it, and I know it's "designed" in a smart way, but I also know everyone dissing Shinji (and not even Kaworu giving real explanations) is unconvincing, and Shinji's decision to take the lances is retarded. The plot is forced on those points because he didn't care: he just wanted to get to post apocalyptic Nerv and show more impacts and evas. I also know he doesn't even have to make sense because we'll fanwank sense to the plot if it kills us.

Now, I know repeated viewings changes things. I know one "digests" things better, and multiple times I've found myself loving things I hated at first, or adoring things I only liked. Yes, I've tried this with Q, and while I've gotten to appreciate some scenes and repeated others just to absorb the details scattered for things like "what happened in the time skip", I've found myself still disappointed, still figuring out why some things changed at all.

Anyhow, your mileage may vary I guess and you're all welcome to like it, but I know I didn't and I thought this was the thread to vent it out (so please, keep the "YOU'RE WRONG THIS IS BRILLLIANT" to a minimum). Oh and I don't think I'll reply further, if only because I'm at work and I wasn't supposed to use my time this way on the first place.

Gendou WILL KILL YOU! wrote:And then Anno goes full autist and makes EVA a scifi with ships and SPAAACE.

Just picking up on this one point -- funnily enough that was my reaction to the first 2.0 trailer when we had the Eagle transporter making a guest appearance, and marked the point when I went from being guardedly positive about that film to having a bad feeling about it. I'd rather Anno did a direct homage to Space:1999 or a Wings of Honneamise -- the Next Generation in its own continuity if he really wanted to do that sort of thing.

Giji Shinka wrote:It is speculated that the scenes from 3.0 preview are shown as flashback(s) (montage) in 4.0.

But that speculation is without any firm foundation (i.e. is better described as wishful thinking); if we get anything more direct than the Reiquarium images were, I'd personally be mightily surprised.

@ Gendou WILL KILL YOU! : Well, if the part that you felt wast the most important in Evangelion was the character interactions, for sure you will find disappointed with Q, I'm afraid there is nothing you can do about that.
Maybe you can enjoy the relationship between Kaworu and Shinji, which is pretty much the only one rpesent in Q, even if personally I can't manage to appreciate it since I constantly have the nagging feeling that Kaworu didn't told everything to Shinji and was manipulating him with half-truths and omissions.(I'm not saying that he's EVIL, but that he really and genuinely wanted Shinji's happiness, but his happiness in his eyes passed by Instrumentality, notice that he never even once mentioned SEELE to Shinji and was only talking about thwarting NERV's plan? Or how when he explained what the Human Instrumentality Project was about, he never once said that he think it was wrong, unlike in the Anime when he said it clearly and is the reason he asked Shinji to kill him?)

Gendou WILL KILL YOU! wrote:that's how my mind works, whatever that's supposed to mean.

Different people like or expect stories to be told in different ways, is all I meant. I was probably trying to prompt a separation of the extent to which either (1) you didn't like the story, or (2) you didn't like the way the story was told, or (3) you felt that it was not a well done example of that type of story-telling.

you're all welcome to like it, but I know I didn't and I thought this was the thread to vent it out

It is, and of course you can not like it; it's merely interesting to (some of) us who do like it to determine in more detail what other people don't like about it, as that may extend our own understanding and appreciation of it.

I watched the movie... Slowly stood up... emptied my full glass of whiskey as I forgot it was there due to not having any time to take my eyes off the screen... Went to bed... and starred at the ceiling for quite a while.
Part of me hated it, and part of me liked it. I mulled it over for a few days, then decided to watch again (and many times since then) Got on the forums and saw some points that I didn't notice myself and the more I watched the more I liked it. Eva makes you think and speculate in a way that no other film does, and it's a lot of fun to put your pieces of the puzzle together.

In the end, I think it was a bold move and for the most part, it worked. I feel for those who think that it has gone well off the rails though.

But.. If there is another 14 year gap or any large time skip between 3 and Final I will be very dissapoint..

3.33 is a film that, granted, may be somewhat difficult to like. However, regardless of personal taste or not, it is undeniably a good film. It would be like somebody watching Star Wars IV and disliking it. The thought of that is unthinkable, right? That may be because you loved the film. If somebody watched it and hated it, it simply wasn't to their taste. However, there is no denying that it is a good film, regardless of personal taste.

I think that the concept of good or bad movie, is merely stated by majority. If majority voiced that they liked it, it will be considered good. That's just it.

pwhodges wrote:Have you watched it more than once yet? More people than usual have commented that this is a film that really needs to be watched several times.

That's not really a term of endearment. If I took a cleaver and started sawing my arm off, yeah after a few cuts I wont feel a thing but I will have done significant damage to my arm.

That's not an appropriate comparison. Watching a piece of cinematography for the second time that you didn't like is far different from causing yourself physical harm.

Nuclear Lunchbox wrote:That's not an appropriate comparison. Watching a piece of cinematography for the second time that you didn't like is far different from causing yourself physical harm.

Some in here would disagree

I'm not sure if I agree that the characters in Q feel artificial; or at least, not anymore artificial than they did in the series prior to Q.

What do I mean by that? Am I conceding that the characters in the New Evas are horribly written? No. No, I'm not. But I would suggest that there are some here who's subconsciousnesses have been projecting the original TV series onto these films. In some cases this is clear, like whenever someone complains that "Q is no End of Evangelion." (<-- That comparison still makes no earthly sense to me, BTW. With as many times as Impact is started in this series, it's becoming more and more clear that every time it happens doesn't mean it's gonna resemble EoE.)

But in other cases it may not be so clear. People may still subconsciously equate Shikinami with Soryu, or at least project Soryu's history onto Shkinami. This would occur to an even greater extent if the character in question remained relatively unchanged in the first two Eva movies, like Misato. Viewers may still feel in some small way that they can assume that Misato has just as confused an emotional attraction to Kaji as she did in the TV series, not because the new movies suggested that she did, but because the movies didn't give us any reason to think differently from our thoughts in NGE about their relationship yet.

I'm pretty sure we all know that this isn't the correct way to read a separate continuity. (Unless you buy into the Sequel Theory, which, for the sake of argument, we will not discuss here.) But with most of the imagery in the new movies staying consistant to the older TV series, it's hard for our brains to refrain from some slight projection of the old onto the new. We see this pop up in other discussions where Reichu has to remind people that even something like A.T. Fields may not mean the same thing or even operate in the same way as they did in the older TV series, simply because the new movies hasn't given us the explanation for them that fits within its own canon.

What does this mean for Q? Well, if your brain is trying to equate the struggles of the character in the two continuities without you noticing throughout all of films 1 and 2, then when the series goes entirely off the beaten path by movie 3 your brain is missing all of the little details it's been used to projecting onto the new movies.

Does this mean that the characters in the new movies are all shallow and artificial because they're lacking the older details? No. No, it does not. It means that your brain has been so distracted by trying to subconsciously project the details from the older series onto the new movies that it wasn't paying attention to the less obvious newer material being presented in the new movies. (And Evangelion tends to relish in implementing details that weren't noticeable or seemed inconsequential at first. Hardly anyone watching NGE for the first time remembers Rei saying "I am not a doll" in Episode 22 until it hits even harder in EoE.) I remember constantly trying to remind people that Shikinami had character development in 2.22 because most of the people didn't notice it and instead noticed the lack of traditional Soryu character development. The development (or comparative reduction thereof, due to the enhanced focus on Shinji) in characters like Misato or Gendo weren't noticed in 2.22 because what was expressed in their characters didn't obviously stray from the beaten path of the original series, seemingly allowing the viewer's subconscious to continue projecting the older character into the newer ones...

...Until Q.

Q enhances the issue of viewer projection because it suddenly disallows the audience from projecting NGE stuff by presenting the viewer with something never before associated with the original source's canon. And if your brain's subconscious was so busy projecting small details from NGE throughout all of 1.11 and 2.22 that it failed to pick up the nuances of the newer material presented in those films that both develop the characters and lead up to the emotional states of the characters in 3.33, well, that's not the fault of the filmmakers or the films themselves, now is it?

This is probably why re-watching 1.11 and 2.22 with the events of Q in mind is so helpful. It forces the viewer to eschew original canon from NGE, even down to his subconscious, and pick up the newer nuances much more readily than he did before.

^
So, in sum, this is Anno's new super-robot epic and the only reason to use the likenesses of familiar characters was to bait people into watching it under false pretenses.

The characters are all recognizably the same ones they've always been, with maybe the exception of Misato (and, er, Maya I guess). To say the new series is only using "likenesses" is to get into "organic webshooters mean he isn't Spider-Man!" type silliness. I agree with FF4E that the original series trips people up with preconceived notions, but by and large Rebuild concerns itself with the same things as NGE. The latest entry even ends with a scene that is vintage Eva to drive that point home.

Mr. Tines wrote:^
So, in sum, this is Anno's new super-robot epic and the only reason to use the likenesses of familiar characters was to bait people into watching it under false pretenses.

Or in some people's cases NOT watch it & still feel as if their opinion on said films is a valid or constructive one. It isn't.

-Tines takes a cheap shot at the new series
-Somebody points out how he isn't informed enough to even understand what it is he's critiquing
-Someone else asks, if Tines is this dedicated to beating up on it, why not just watch the damn thing already?
-Tines goes quiet and slinks away.

Evageeks is a story that repeats.

Can't a guy just summarise a tl;dr wall of text to confirm what was being said without getting snarked at?

Warren Peace wrote:Evageeks is a story that repeats.

This is dying to be sigged...