The first two minutes of this feel very dishonest to me. I won't even get into if I agree with him or not, cause his description of Rebuild as far as entertainment vs art film goes seems inaccurate to me. I have my own view of the films, he's free to have his own.

What I'm more inrerested in is why he'd state the things he does, and what exactly he is hinting at with things like "stuff investors wanted in the film".

Before I get into my thoughts more deeply I think I'll just leave this here and see what people think. I love Anno, but of all the interviews I've seen/read this one sticks out as the one where he seems to be talking about something completely different than the films I've actually seen.

https://youtu.be/gOCMSUbsG-8

Obviously don't know how accurate the subs are, and I don't speak Japanese. Think that should be noted.

I think it's an easy line to take out of context when really all he's saying is the obvious: "I can't just selfishly make whatever I want, investors want a return on their investment and have conditions (new Evas and new character), the staff have thier own ideas and input (this is good, this is bad, this doesn't make sense), and the audience have expectations that we have to meet and/or challenge."

It's very easy to cling to one sentence and read it as a subtle jab or a sense of being jilted when, in conjunction with everything else he's saying, he's just saying it's a group effort to please an audience and not a dictated exercise in self-gratification.

The similarity of NTE to blockbuster entertainment and its divergence from what felt raw and subversive about the original is pretty obvious before going off of the creator's statements.

Given the budget of animation, and especially those with the scope & technical ambition of NTE, there isn't a single project that isn't at the behest of maximizing returns and placating the anxiety of investors. This has pretty much always been the case, but you have new lamentations from the likes of Oshii and Konaka about how series which once pushed boundaries are now too frightening to the risk-aversive anime ecosystem of today, and would never get the greenlight from current studio heads. The way people talk of a bygone Hollywood resurgence of auter-driven cinema in the 70s-80s is a pretty good analog.

Recent interviews about NTE discuss scenes that "go too far" getting cut out after screenings attended by executives. How much else this applies to the creative decisions of NTE and what kind of concessions had to be made are highly speculative, but it's been consistently stated in interviews from 3+ years before NTE began that it would be more accessible to a larger filmgoing audience compared to NGE of yore.

Although many point to Q as some kind of proof that the "more mainstream" intention of NTE was a red herring/troll all along by mastermind Anno, you only have to look at VA interviews in the press cycle before Thrice where they promise Thrice will be more understandable, and communicate at length the production staff's surprise so many found Q impenetrable, and even go out of their way to assert that the original plan to release Q & Thrice simultaneously (which obviously didn't work out) is the reason that Q on its own is hard to swallow, not any sort of subversion for the sake of it.

Axx°N N. wrote:Although many point to Q as some kind of proof that the "more mainstream" intention of NTE was a red herring/troll all along by mastermind Anno, you only have to look at VA interviews in the press cycle before Thrice where they promise Thrice will be more understandable, and communicate at length the production staff's surprise so many found Q impenetrable, and even go out of their way to assert that the original plan to release Q & Thrice simultaneously (which obviously didn't work out) is the reason that Q on its own is hard to swallow, not any sort of subversion for the sake of it.

Q was never a subversion just for the sake of it though? Anno isn't Ryan Johnson, he wont pull the rug out from under you "just cause lol gotchya!", he was trying to teach a lesson in that one movie that you can find happiness even after the mistakes you made, even among the shattered remains of a dead world. I don't doubt that being on its own for nine years without Shin was definitely part of it, but Q would've been jarring and difficult to swallow regardless simply because it's juxtaposed right next to Ha.

TheFriskyIan wrote:Q was never a subversion just for the sake of it though? Anno isn't Ryan Johnson, he wont pull the rug out from under you "just cause lol gotchya!", he was trying to teach a lesson in that one movie that you can find happiness even after the mistakes you made, even among the shattered remains of a dead world. I don't doubt that being on its own for nine years without Shin was definitely part of it, but Q would've been jarring and difficult to swallow regardless simply because it's juxtaposed right next to Ha.

I agree, that's just the perspective some (imo erroneously) have about it. Likewise, there are still people who tout Thrice as some kind of vindictive/bitter "own"/diss on *insert strawman here*.

Q was meant to pull the rug from under the audience, but it wasn't supposed to keep them frozen in the air cartwheeling for several years.

The NHK Documentary kind of elaborated on Anno doing what "needed to be done" over what he "wanted to do." They mainly focused on Anno rewriting Shinji's depression in the first half of Shin Eva.There might have been other things they touched on, but that was the most obvious one to me.

I think that by saying, "investors won" we're not giving Anno enough credit here. Steven Spielberg was always able to keep investors happy while still making something he enjoyed, despite whatever changes needed to be made in the process. The same thing goes for Hideaki Anno. Just take a look at his Shin Godzilla production as an example. Toho wanted Anno to make a Godzilla movie, and Anno eventually agreed to it. Toho wanted a successful Godzilla movie, so they suggested that Godzilla not breathe any atomic breath in the movie in the wake of the Fukushima disaster. Anno, seemingly more aware of the entire point of Godzilla, says the atomic breath stays. Anno wanted Godzilla to have multiple heads and the ability to fly at one point, and Toho rejected that idea. Anno realized that if Godzilla's "Final Form" was closer to the classic design, then he could do almost whatever he wanted with the other forms. It's really a tug and pull between artists and investors, both proposing, approving, and rejecting ideas. Anno could look at Shin Goji and say, "I had originally wanted Godzilla to have multiple heads, but Toho refused." Similarly, Toho could say, "We initially didn't want to use Godzilla's atomic breath for this movie, but the man we wanted to direct the film insisted on keeping it." In the end, both parties are happy with the result, despite whatever it was that they "wanted" to do.

I can't imagine the process for conceptualizing Shin Evangelion being that much different.

kuribo-04 wrote:The first two minutes of this feel very dishonest to me. ... Before I get into my thoughts more deeply I think I'll just leave this here and see what people think.

As previous posters have noted, in this interview Anno explains that when making creative decisions for NTE he prioritized investors, the audience, and his close co-workers, all before himself. I haven't watched many Anno interviews or read much about NGE / NTE production behind-the-scenes, so I lack context to understand what you think is dishonest about the first two minutes of this interview. Seems honest and straightforward to me? Looking forward to your deeper thoughts.

I don't think he's speaking exclusively about NTE though. The implication from the thread is that NTE was somehow compromised and isn't "true Anno" somehow, when he's just making a general statement on his art philosophy of the last 20 years as opposed to his brief art movie phase 1997-2000.

In any kind of high-budget production, the producers will have some influence on the movie. It's not a negative thing but requires thoughtful collaboration between the creative staff and financial backer since there is a lot at stake between parties. They would obviously work in favor of Anno's original concepts, but probably involve more commercial values, such as adding more action sequences, including a song there, or less rambling dialogue of the characters. Obviously, it seems like a restriction but might help polish some areas and reduce creative self-indulgence.

Anno says in this interview, that's what making films is all about. I think he's speaking to artistic indulgences and mitigating certain things to make a commercially viable final product. I feel like this post's title is a bit disingenuous. There's nothing to suggest that it's not what he wants to do.

mastafishere wrote:Anno says in this interview, that's what making films is all about. I think he's speaking to artistic indulgences and mitigating certain things to make a commercially viable final product. I feel like this post's title is a bit disingenuous. There's nothing to suggest that it's not what he wants to do.

I think so too. He makes a distinction between commercial films and art films, where full artistic liberty is the desire and point and agreed upon well in advance of funding. My impression of what Anno was saying is that, yes, there were things he initially wanted to do differently, but he set out on this project knowing fully that it would be a consensus project, and went into it valuing the feedback he'd receive on what would and wouldn't be commercially sound.

Axx°N N. wrote:Recent interviews about NTE discuss scenes that "go too far" getting cut out after screenings attended by executives.

Can you link to such an interview? I can't find any mention of such a thing in any of the interviews I've found. Waiting until animation is at a screenable stage to decide it goes too far is incredibly wasteful, though it's been known to happen.

NAveryW wrote:Can you link to such an interview? I can't find any mention of such a thing in any of the interviews I've found. Waiting until animation is at a screenable stage to decide it goes too far is incredibly wasteful, though it's been known to happen.

Sorry for the confusion, it was actually from the extended Anno NHK documentary, and I do recall an interview too, but I'm not sure, so I'll keep trying to find it. In the NHK doc, it was a screening for non-production staff, ie, on the business, marketing and merch side, who saw a circa 2018 version of the A Part that was significantly altered and shortened in the final cut, despite full voice acting. In the same documentary, scenes being scrapped after much work was put into them (though I'm unsure if they were finished finished, but sounded like it) was surprisingly frequent for Thrice's production.

Axx°N N. wrote:

NAveryW#934276 wrote:Can you link to such an interview? I can't find any mention of such a thing in any of the interviews I've found. Waiting until animation is at a screenable stage to decide it goes too far is incredibly wasteful, though it's been known to happen.

Sorry for the confusion, it was actually from the extended Anno NHK documentary, and I do recall an interview too, but I'm not sure, so I'll keep trying to find it. In the NHK doc, it was a screening for non-production staff, ie, on the business, marketing and merch side, who saw a circa 2018 version of the A Part that was significantly altered and shortened in the final cut, despite full voice acting. In the same documentary, scenes being scrapped after much work was put into them (though I'm unsure if they were finished finished, but sounded like it) was surprisingly frequent for Thrice's production.

These people are "studio staff" and were watching the pre-viz cuts with the non-VA dialogue recordings. Their roles are stated as Publicity, Office Manager, and Archivist, and had never seen previews before in their employment there and they thought it was strange that they were allowed to give opinions at all.

"Recent interviews about NTE discuss scenes that "go too far" getting cut out after screenings attended by executives" is a gross gross gross misrepresentation and embellishment of that. Office staff are not executives, they didn't demand any cuts or changes; the floor was opened to outside opinions and adjustments were made based on the opinions they asked for.

but it's been consistently stated in interviews from 3+ years before NTE began that it would be more accessible to a larger filmgoing audience compared to NGE of yore.

I also just wanna add that 1.0 came out in 2007 and NTE was announced in 2006. There were no interviews about NTE before 2006, let alone 2004 or earlier.

Szmitten wrote:These people are "studio staff" and were watching the pre-viz cuts with the non-VA dialogue recordings. Their roles are stated as Publicity, Office Manager, and Archivist, and had never seen previews before in their employment there and they thought it was strange that they were allowed to give opinions at all.

"Recent interviews about NTE discuss scenes that "go too far" getting cut out after screenings attended by executives" is a gross gross gross misrepresentation and embellishment of that. Office staff are not executives, they didn't demand any cuts or changes; the floor was opened to outside opinions and adjustments were made based on the opinions they asked for.

You're right, and by non-production staff I was meaning to correct myself, not to insist those roles are executive roles. I didn't say anything of demands, but I can see how that might come across as being insinuated; I didn't mean to suggest executives dictated anything or that anything removed or rewritten wasn't voluntary on Anno's part.

I think I may be conflating two different things here, as I recall VA voice-acting and finished scenes being referred to, not rough cuts or simulations. Unless I can turn up what interview it might have been, I might actually just be conflating the Utada interview itself with the screenings from the doc in terms of executive feedback; apologies for my memory.

Szmitten wrote:I also just wanna add that 1.0 came out in 2007 and NTE was announced in 2006. There were no interviews about NTE before 2006, let alone 2004 or earlier.

I also appear to have conflated things here. I think I was working off interviews from the 1.0 CRC (the ones at the end with Tsurumaki and Anno) where a new Eva installment is referred to as having existed as a concept from as far back as 2000, and was conceived of as being "G Gundam"-esque in terms of intent, appeal, tone, etc. This was well after Rebuild came out but in my memory it equated to press that existed beforehand instead of recollections after the fact. I think the 1.0 CRC is also where there's the first statement that NTE in the form as we know it was also intended to be more digestible.

Thanks for the corrections.

Axx°N N. wrote:The similarity of NTE to blockbuster entertainment and its divergence from what felt raw and subversive about the original is pretty obvious before going off of the creator's statements.

I dunno about that tbh.

I'm gonna come back to the topic when I find the time. What I found "dishonest" (which maybe sounds more negative than it should) is that I think Anno's self expression is absolutely still a priority. Or at least I would guess so. Guessing is all I can do.
But with the exception of sexual angst (which is less prevalent) themes in NGE and Rebuild are similar, even if presented differently.
I mean c'mon, the Shinji Gendo confrontation is a key sequence in Shin Eva and basically a resolution to on of the main thematic concerns of the entire franchise.

I guess I wish Anno had elaborated a little more on what he meant, but I have a hard time believing he isn't still putting personal thoughts and concerns to film when there's such an obvious throughline in his Eva work.
And I don't think fanservicey elements that are sure to attract large audiences necessarily change the core of a movie. Especially when Eva was fanservicey and and full of spectacle to begin with.

His statement kinda came from left field for mey cause filmmakers having to juggle personal wants and investors' wishes is completely normal and common. For him to go out of his way to make a big thing about it it seems like there would be a big difference to how he approached Rebuild. Thing is I just don't see it outside some superficial stuff.

Anyway probably coming back to this topic.

Also this doesn't matter at all at the end of the day. I'm just trying to understand Annoy maybe gain some insight into the film's creation and alleviate my initial confusion. But at the end of the day take an artist's words for what they are. The work should always be the main source imo, even above the words of people involved.

TheFriskyIan wrote:Q was never a subversion just for the sake of it though? Anno isn't Ryan Johnson, he wont pull the rug out from under you "just cause lol gotchya!"

I dunno about Ryan Johnson, but I thought Rian Johnson did an amazing Star Wars film.

mastafishere wrote:I feel like this post's title is a bit disingenuous. There's nothing to suggest that it's not what he wants to do.

Actually I'm quoting him there.
Not that he doesn't want to do what the film actually is, but that what he specifically wants to do isn't the concern.

nerv bae wrote:Looking forward to your deeper thoughts.

I hope I could clarify a little.