I believe Mari is another (guardian) angel figure in Eva

[BernardoCairo]

I didn't say there couldn't be any intention behind her character at all since Anno didn't come up with her

Read what you wrote again. The points you brought up to dismiss the OP's interpretation pretty much amount to: "Anno didn't have anything to do with her and she is only there for commercial reasons". Even if that's true, there's intention behind her character and the guys who created her could have easily taken some inspiration from Kaworu. He raised his points on why that could be the case, based on actual material from the movies and all you did to counter it was to say that he was reading too much into it, kind of trying to shut down the discussion.

Also, don't quote entire posts, please. And avoid double posting.

[Blockio]

Mar·y Sue (noun)
(originally in fan fiction) a type of female character who is depicted as unrealistically lacking in flaws or weaknesses.

That's a pretty terrible definition of the term. It is the way in which it is most commonly used these days, which will be the reason why Oxford lists that, but much like if someone calls you "literally Hitler" on the internet, it is not a useful definition for anything other than flamewars.

What a Mary Sue actually is, is a structural problem of a story, not a character archetype. Mary Sue, the original, which is the standard that I argue the term should be held to compared to whatever it has degraded to these days, was a parody of at the time common tropes in fanfiction: A character on whose presence the entire plot hinges, who is always the lynchpin of whatever is going on, devoiding other characters in the narrative of their agenda. Meanwhile, the definition you are using is the one largely coined by dudebros angry that female characters are allowed to do things in media; in your mind, flip Mari's gender around and sincerely ask yourself if you would still be complaining about her even a fraction as much if she were a guy. Seeing how Shinji gets away with far more things just falling in his lap in NTE with few people ever complaining about it, I strongly suspect that the answer, assuming a genuine effort, would be a fairly definitive "no".
If you want a more longform explanation of the subject matter, I strongly suggest you watch OSP Red's video on the matter.

[Asunji_Yuko]

SPOILER: Show

Mar·y Sue (noun)
(originally in fan fiction) a type of female character who is depicted as unrealistically lacking in flaws or weaknesses.

That's a pretty terrible definition of the term. It is the way in which it is most commonly used these days, which will be the reason why Oxford lists that, but much like if someone calls you "literally Hitler" on the internet, it is not a useful definition for anything other than flamewars.

What a Mary Sue actually is, is a structural problem of a story, not a character archetype. Mary Sue, the original, which is the standard that I argue the term should be held to compared to whatever it has degraded to these days, was a parody of at the time common tropes in fanfiction: A character on whose presence the entire plot hinges, who is always the lynchpin of whatever is going on, devoiding other characters in the narrative of their agenda. Meanwhile, the definition you are using is the one largely coined by dudebros angry that female characters are allowed to do things in media; in your mind, flip Mari's gender around and sincerely ask yourself if you would still be complaining about her even a fraction as much if she were a guy. Seeing how Shinji gets away with far more things just falling in his lap in NTE with few people ever complaining about it, I strongly suspect that the answer, assuming a genuine effort, would be a fairly definitive "no".
If you want a more longform explanation of the subject matter, I strongly suggest you watch OSP Red's video on the matter.

Frankly, that's got to be the most delusional, reaching cope I've ever seen. "iT's bEcAuSe yOu dOn'T LiKe wOmEn!!" No, it's because I don't like boring, shoehorned characters, and you're using baseless claims of sexism to dismiss legitimate critique of and to defend a poorly written, poorly implemented character.

Moreover, the term "Mary Sue" has absolutely nothing to do with how much the plot hinges on the character, I have no clue where you're getting that definition from and I'm unable to find any source that defines it as such. Multiple people have already explained this to you.

As far as the video goes:
1. 0:15 No, the definition she lists does not cover "basically every hero." Most heroes, at least at the start of their arcs, have a ton of hurdles and obstacles to overcome. The classic first part of the hero's journey.
2. 1:41 oh hey, look, the typical definition of Mary Sue. She's better than everyone at what they do, beautiful, talented, but no one's mad about it because she's just so amazing. And she's disliked because she's got nothing other than that, a really boring character.
3. 3:41 Notice the video creator says "I think..." and then explains why she thinks a "Mary Sue" is not really a character archetype, and more or less requires her to be the protagonist (i.e. how the story "flows around" her, like Rey in the Star Wars sequels). While Mari definitely isn't the protagonist, the way the video describes "Mary Sue" fits her to a tee.
4. 3:45 "it's not something that exists on the level of a character trait..." this is absolutely false. The narrator literally started out by describing a character written as unrealistically flawless.

The rest of the video whines about how women get the short end of the stick when it comes to the "Mary Sue" label (even when it's perfectly valid). (Although I do agree Goku is a Gary Stu along with most other shonen protagonists.)

Finally, Shinji is pretty much the opposite of a Mary Sue. He fucks up all the time and a ton of things do not come naturally to him at all. He has a ton of baggage and backstory that draws us in. Communication, not reaching out, being happy - all of which Mari excels at (and none of the other characters do, INCLUDING the female ones). Hello? She bypasses the problems most of the characters have and which made Evangelion interesting from the beginning.

[Axx°N N.]

It seems kind of ironic to me that the dogpiling here against Asunji is using the charge "you're using Mary Sue in some personal subjective way and thus not in an objective, correct way" and then ... using the term in a way I've never, ever, ever encountered in my life and that seems, like ... more to do with personal feelings than objectivity.

It's the definition of pedantry to take a term, completely extricate it from its most commonly held agreed-upon meaning and application, and point to its origins alone. Try doing that for any other word--it's totally pointless. Who gets to decide that's the one true meaning, if not the dictionary? Language works by consensus, and definitions change. In a random polling, the way most people would recognize the term (and so for all intents and purposes, demonstrates the reality of the term in daily life) is contrary to how it's being gatekept here as this, anyway, weirdly specific usage that is relying on some caricature of people not even part of the conversation ... "other people I don't like are so stupid" is so totally irrelevant at all times.

And if the term has been used in various ways to refer to various things, as every definition attests (eg, Wikipedia noting it doesn't have to be the main character) why not accept the intended usage here by Asunji in good faith?

But that's not even the point. All of this is such needless technicality. Why did Asunji using this one word constitute their entire argument being thrown out like a baby with the bathwater? This kind of hyperfixation is like when someone approaches an entire argument to point at one typo and render the whole thing moot. Or, you know, a classic ad hominem attack.

[Konja7]

Frankly, that's got to be the most delusional, reaching cope I've ever seen. "iT's bEcAuSe yOu dOn'T LiKe wOmEn!!" No, it's because I don't like boring, shoehorned characters, and you're using baseless claims of sexism to dismiss legitimate critique of and to defend a poorly written, poorly implemented character.

I mean, the president of the class or Kensuke are pretty flawless in 3.0+1.0 too, but I don't see people calling them Mary Sue (or Gary Stu).

The issue with Mari seems to be that people tend to expect Eva pilots to have flaws or emotional conflicts. However, even if she was the 4th Eva pilot, she is still a pretty minor character in Rebuild movies.

Mari could lack flaws, but I don't think she's boring. Mari is a funny character in her pretty reduced role.

Moreover, the term "Mary Sue" has absolutely nothing to do with how much the plot hinges on the character, I have no clue where you're getting that definition from and I'm unable to find any source that defines it as such. Multiple people have already explained this to you.

In Star Wars, many people have called Rey as a Mary Sue. The character has flaws and make mistakes, but that hasn't stopped that criticism.

That's why people say the Mary Sue term could be used in pretty different ways.

[Blockio]

It's the definition of pedantry to take a term, completely extricate it from its most commonly held agreed-upon meaning and application, and point to its origins alone. Try doing that for any other word--it's totally pointless. Who gets to decide that's the one true meaning, if not the dictionary? Language works by consensus, and definitions change. In a random polling, the way most people would recognize the term (and so for all intents and purposes, demonstrates the reality of the term in daily life) is contrary to how it's being gatekept here as this, anyway, weirdly specific usage that is relying on some caricature of people not even part of the conversation ... "other people I don't like are so stupid" is so totally irrelevant at all times.

And if the term has been used in various ways to refer to various things, as every definition attests (eg, Wikipedia noting it doesn't have to be the main character) why not accept the intended usage here by Asunji in good faith?

At the end of the day - because the popular definition of the term is absolutely useless as a method of literary analysis, because it has been watered down to the point of being a meaningless buzzword intended to exist without possibility of a factual rebuttal; and since this is a forum that intends to focus on literary analysis, if you're going to use terms that once meant something and have since been watered down, you're going to be called out on using them as meaningless buzzwords instead of making an actual argument.

The problem is not personal interpretation, the problem is using a lot of big words to say nothing of value in general discourse, let alone of value to analytical debate.

And, to the point of why the definition cited is complete dogwater - under that, a character with zero redeeming qualities who is a constant asshole to everyone and does nothing to move the plot, yet is still lauded by everyone as absolutely crucial would not count as a Mary Sue, because by that definition, being a Mary Sue requires not having meaningful faults. I seriously hope I do not need to explain why that is absolutely fucking useless as a definition of the term with that example given.

[Asunji_Yuko]

At the end of the day - because the popular definition of the term is absolutely useless as a method of literary analysis, because it has been watered down to the point of being a meaningless buzzword intended to exist without possibility of a factual rebuttal; and since this is a forum that intends to focus on literary analysis, if you're going to use terms that once meant something and have since been watered down, you're going to be called out on using them as meaningless buzzwords instead of making an actual argument.

You could provide a factual rebuttal by pointing out flaws or challenges in Mari's character. But the fact is that you can't, because she has none. So instead, you're going on and on about this literary definition strawman while throwing in "dudebro" ad hominems.

And, to the point of why the definition cited is complete dogwater - under that, a character with zero redeeming qualities who is a constant asshole to everyone and does nothing to move the plot, yet is still lauded by everyone as absolutely crucial would not count as a Mary Sue, because by that definition, being a Mary Sue requires not having meaningful faults. I seriously hope I do not need to explain why that is absolutely fucking useless as a definition of the term with that example given.

I don't get what the point of this argument is. Being "a constant asshole to everyone" is a pretty big character flaw, & doesn't fit the definition of a Mary Sue. Whether they're lauded as being crucial doesn't matter if they aren't actually crucial (i.e. do nothing to move the plot).

I mean, the president of the class or Kensuke are pretty flawless in 3.0+1.0 too, but I don't see people calling them Mary Sue (or Gary Stu).
In Star Wars, many people have called Rey as a Mary Sue. The character has flaws and make mistakes, but that hasn't stopped that criticism.

That's why people say the Mary Sue term could be used in pretty different ways.

Hikari and Kensuke never face anything at the level the EVA pilots do. They're even more minor than Mari is. They're struggle-free, but they're never really challenged so their flawlessness is pretty inconsequential. Mari faces the same challenges that traumatize and nearly kill the major characters (that are Eva pilots) and she scoots by like it's a walk in the park. She's included with the other pilots but she stands out in the worst way.

Rey is 100% a Mary Sue, and she actually fits the bill since she's the protagonist. She has few meaningful flaws. She instantaneously learns the Jedi mind trick that we only saw a seasoned master use in the series. She beats Kylo Ren in a lightsaber duel despite never having held one before let alone use one in combat. I think that was mostly in The Force Awakens, TLJ had a ton of flaws as a movie but Rian Johnson tried to tone her down....though it didn't work and she's able to escape pretty unscathed. Can't remember TROS.

[Blockio]

First things first, let me clarify a thing here - I did not call you a dudebro, I said that the definition of the term you are using is one largely coined by dudebros. Important discintion.

I don't get what the point of this argument is. Being "a constant asshole to everyone" is a pretty big character flaw, & doesn't fit the definition of a Mary Sue. Whether they're lauded as being crucial doesn't matter if they aren't actually crucial (i.e. do nothing to move the plot).

....wait hold on. Run that one by me again.
You think that a character who does nothing to deserve people liking them, yet people do still consider them the best person ever, is not a Mary Sue!?
That is like.... the single fundamental trait that the entire thing hinges on, a character whose portrayal in the story is not proportional to how they actually act or what they achieve. I'm genuinely at a loss here how someone so fundamentally does not understand the thing they are talking about.

I don't even need to respond to anything else here, that's the heart of the problem right here. If you just go through characters with a fucking checklist without even looking at the larger implications of how they act vs how they are received by the other cast and how they are portrayed by the story, there is absolutely no point to any of this.
In your head, according to everything you have said in this thread, a character who is good at what they do, nice to other people and subsequently liked by other characters is somehow bad, while a character who does not do that but is still being treated as such somehow is not??? What the fuck sort of looney logic is that

[BernardoCairo]

Hikari and Kensuke never face anything at the level the EVA pilots do. They're even more minor than Mari is.

Honestly, I disagree. Kensuke is, by all accounts, much more important than Mari, especially in the last film. While Mari is mainly there to enrich the battle scenes and has almost nothing of value to say, Kensuke is the one who takes care of Shinji and ultimately introduces him to a new way of life. Kensuke is the adult who listens and guides Shinji responsibly and who has a great impact on his way of seeing the world and his relationship with his father. He's also one of the guys who fights the hardest, as the village's protector...

(Although I do agree Goku is a Gary Stu along with most other shonen protagonists.)

By the way, this is BS. Anyone who has read Dragon Ball, particularly the first 16 volumes of the manga, knows that Goku is nothing like this. The whole point of his character is that although he is good-hearted and naive, he is extremely selfish and irresponsible. He doesn't really fight for others most of the time and has no common sense when it comes to basic human relationships. And on top of that, he's literally the underclass who has to earn his power through various training regiments and masters throughout the series.
Nothing like Mari...

[Konja7]

Rey is 100% a Mary Sue, and she actually fits the bill since she's the protagonist. She has few meaningful flaws. She instantaneously learns the Jedi mind trick that we only saw a seasoned master use in the series. She beats Kylo Ren in a lightsaber duel despite never having held one before let alone use one in combat. I think that was mostly in The Force Awakens, TLJ had a ton of flaws as a movie but Rian Johnson tried to tone her down....though it didn't work and she's able to escape pretty unscathed. Can't remember TROS.

However, Rey has conflicts and emotional problems. For example: her abandonment issues and her inability to let a fantasy go, which exist since The Force Awakens.

That's why I said the definition of Mary Sue isn't clear. Each person seems to have their own interpretation of "flawless" or "perfect".

[Blockio]

Which is adjacent to the point I am making; being flawless (or some approximation thereof) is not the cause, it's a symptom. It's one way in which the condition that is a Mary Sue can manifest.
(for the record, I don't think that Rey is one - badly written yes, but not in a way that constitutes Sue-ness; if she were to be counted as one, arguably so would Luke since his character and character arc hits many of the same hallmarks that people commonly point to for Rey, and I have yet to see anyone make that particular accusation)

The core component of a Mary Sue is to be (imaginary confetti here) SPECIAL (more imaginary confetti) in a way that other characters are not. This does not mean in-universe characteristics; it's the way the story treats the character relative to the characters around them that matters. The easiest way in which that happens is a character that has no complexity to their arc and is only praised for what amounts to their general existence without needing to do anything for it - this is where the misconception comes from that having no character flaws is the cause rather than the symptom, since media literacy is a genuine skill that for various reasons is not taught or otherwise acquired equally, and communicating nuance is very difficult, so over time of it being the default example, it has shifted to be misidentified as the defining characteristic.
As the previous paragraph already says - this is a difficult space to navigate, and a lot of discourse is muddy and imperfect, so I do not fault anyone for operating under that misconception. I do, however, ask for people to listen when additional nuance is brought in, because that misconception does not lend itself to meaningful debate of any sort, since at this point it is used largely as a bat to swat other parties in a debate with rather than being used as a good faith tool of analysis.

Back on topic; this is not the only way in which that particular structural problem manifests. Another way it manifests (one that I personally consider a much more severe example), one that I have alluded to in earlier posts, is a character being treated as if they had no flaws, in spite of their objective presence; as one may have gathered, I use the term rather sparingly, but my favorite two punching bags of Gundam sidestories each have an excellent example of this: Astray's Lowe Gule, and 00F's Fon spaak. The former is a blatant war profiteer with the story trying its level best to pretend that it is totally fine if he is doing the things that the main work is quite adamant are terrible; the latter is just a garden variety sociopath, a complete asshole to everyone who is openly against the goals of his organization and has purposefully, unambiguously betrayed them on multiple occasions, yet everyone in it still trusts him unconditionally. he also survived a bomb collar one time, but that's neither here nor there. These are the marks of an actual traits of a Sue, and the very reason why the term carries such connotations of being a problem; merely a too perfect main character is boring. There are plenty of boring important characters out there, yet noone raises that much of a fuss about them; the thing about being a sue is that they are a problem in a way that extends past themselves, because the problem is not actually the character, the problem is the way the story treats the character.
This, incidentally, also shows up in the aforementioned examples, and is the final nail in the coffin for both: they keep showing up in places they have no business being in, being presented as/retconned into being the singular solution to otherwise complex problems that would ordinarily be in the dominion of other characters, whose importance is therefore undermined.

This last bit is also why I don't believe Mari can be called a Mary Sue in good faith; what does she do on her own that would otherwise have been the job of someone else? she doesn't steal anyone's show at any point, she is just there as a plucky support, the only time she really does something big is during the final battle when everyone else has something crucial to their character arcs going on.

You're free to dislike Mari - but doing so, I will ask for you to properly articulate the why, so the rest of us can also have something from it instead of just hearing the same hollow phrases repeated that everyone here has heard so many times already

[Asunji_Yuko]

The core component of a Mary Sue is to be (imaginary confetti here) SPECIAL (more imaginary confetti) in a way that other characters are not. This does not mean in-universe characteristics; it's the way the story treats the character relative to the characters around them that matters. The easiest way in which that happens is a character that has no complexity to their arc and is only praised for what amounts to their general existence without needing to do anything for it - this is where the misconception comes from that having no character flaws is the cause rather than the symptom, since media literacy is a genuine skill that for various reasons is not taught or otherwise acquired equally, and communicating nuance is very difficult, so over time of it being the default example, it has shifted to be misidentified as the defining characteristic.

In terms of how the story actually treats Mari rather than her in-universe characteristics, the most glaring example would have to be how she leads Shinji off into a happy life in the end, despite having almost no interactions with him. There were many characters who could have done this and who had a much bigger impact on Shinji (Kaworu, Rei Q, Asuka). But Mari as the one in the finale with the protagonist makes no sense.

You're free to dislike Mari - but doing so, I will ask for you to properly articulate the why, so the rest of us can also have something from it instead of just hearing the same hollow phrases repeated that everyone here has heard so many times already

You're being willfully obtuse, because I've articulated why I dislike Mari numerous times:

From the description of Mari in your first post, she sounds incredibly dull with no depth, character arc, or relatability. No insecurities, no hang ups, is great at pretty much everything

She doesn't have any obvious problems, flaws, or weaknesses in any of the movies...She wasn't written as a perfect and happy character because she's an angel, like Kaworu, or has some kind of deep, meaningful backstory, as OP has speculated. She was written as such because ultimately, no one knew what to do with her because she was shoehorned in per the request of a producer.

This last bit is also why I don't believe Mari can be called a Mary Sue in good faith; what does she do on her own that would otherwise have been the job of someone else? she doesn't steal anyone's show at any point, she is just there as a plucky support, the only time she really does something big is during the final battle when everyone else has something crucial to their character arcs going on.

This is totally wrong. Another user pointed this out:

If "stealing protagonism" is a hallmark, Mari hits that checkmark too--and that's not according to interpretation, it's according to production interviews that went into detail about how Mari was inserted into narrative space Asuka previously occupied. Part of Mari's negative perception as a Mary Sue isn't so much that it's bad in itself, it's exactly that it "stole protagonism," reducing everyone else's screentime no matter how brief the appearance per film. That's the crux of many a critique here on EGF alone, but it's yet again a common one elsewhere.

And I'll give you a specific example and compare it to the original to explain why she 1) steals the show and 2) weakens the story overall.
She's put in lieu of Asuka in the second movie against Zeruel.

In the original, this was a pretty important loss for Asuka in terms of her character development (downward spiral, that is). She loses, and she loses big time. For someone who places all of her self worth in her ability to pilot, it's devastating. Then when Shinji fights Zeruel and almost losing, he manages to body Zeruel - but not without losing himself within the Eva when it goes berserk (and THEN learning about his own problems and the nature of the Eva while merged with it). Everyone loses something in that fight.

Now consider how the fight went in the Rebuild. Mari is able to pierce Zeruel's AT field by entering "beast mode" with a little help from Rei. The Eva loses its arms but no one loses anything else. So really, Mari emerges unscathed and undergoes no development, and she steals an important part of Asuka' AND Shinji’s development. That's a pretty big sin in Evangelion.

[Blockio]

In terms of how the story actually treats Mari rather than her in-universe characteristics, the most glaring example would have to be how she leads Shinji off into a happy life in the end, despite having almost no interactions with him. There were many characters who could have done this and who had a much bigger impact on Shinji (Kaworu, Rei Q, Asuka). But Mari as the one in the finale with the protagonist makes no sense.

I have three things to say here.
1) I keep being baffled by the absolute inability of people to read any positive-natured relationship of differing gender to be anything other than romantic
2) I am not actually positive if "perfect happy life" is entirely the thing that this scene is going for; not like corporate office life is all fun and games, especially not in Japan
3) Have you perhaps considered that that is the entire point? Kaworu, Rei and Asuka are all people that Shinji has tried to be with and it did not work because they are so deeply intertwined with an awful past, so he's turning over a new leaf? Not being stuck in the past is THE major theme of Shin, and yet people completely miss that when the ending hits you over the head with a fence post for it

And I'll give you a specific example and compare it to the original to explain why she 1) steals the show and 2) weakens the story overall.
She's put in lieu of Asuka in the second movie against Zeruel.

In the original, this was a pretty important loss for Asuka in terms of her character development (downward spiral, that is). She loses, and she loses big time. For someone who places all of her self worth in her ability to pilot, it's devastating. Then when Shinji fights Zeruel and almost losing, he manages to body Zeruel - but not without losing himself within the Eva when it goes berserk (and THEN learning about his own problems and the nature of the Eva while merged with it). Everyone loses something in that fight.

Now consider how the fight went in the Rebuild. Mari is able to pierce Zeruel's AT field by entering "beast mode" with a little help from Rei. The Eva loses its arms but no one loses anything else. So really, Mari emerges unscathed and undergoes no development, and she steals an important part of Asuka' AND Shinji’s development. That's a pretty big sin in Evangelion.

So your complaint is ultimately that NTE is not NGE.
That's the only thing I'm getting from all of that. You don't like Mari because she changes things that you think should be the same. Even ignoring the fact that Shikinami is rather pointedly not the same as Soryu to begin with, so that whole argument is fallacious from the start, did you forget the fact that Asuka was already out of commission by the time of the 10th (who is also not Zeruel, by the by)? She's had her devastating loss already, it was being inside Unit 03.

I'm sorry but that is a complete nonstarter of an argument.

[Asunji_Yuko]

I have three things to say here.
1) I keep being baffled by the absolute inability of people to read any positive-natured relationship of differing gender to be anything other than romantic
2) I am not actually positive if "perfect happy life" is entirely the thing that this scene is going for; not like corporate office life is all fun and games, especially not in Japan
3) Have you perhaps considered that that is the entire point? Kaworu, Rei and Asuka are all people that Shinji has tried to be with and it did not work because they are so deeply intertwined with an awful past, so he's turning over a new leaf? Not being stuck in the past is THE major theme of Shin, and yet people completely miss that when the ending hits you over the head with a fence post for it

1) I didn't mention anything romantic, nor would the ending really need it.
2) It’s an improvement over what he had before...
3) "Themes" don't make a forced, hamfisted ending not forced or hamfisted.

So your complaint is ultimately that NTE is not NGE.
That's the only thing I'm getting from all of that. You don't like Mari because she changes things that you think should be the same. Even ignoring the fact that Shikinami is rather pointedly not the same as Soryu to begin with, so that whole argument is fallacious from the start, did you forget the fact that Asuka was already out of commission by the time of the 10th (who is also not Zeruel, by the by)? She's had her devastating loss already, it was being inside Unit 03.

I'm sorry but that is a complete nonstarter of an argument.

My complaint is that Rebuild's story is weaker than the original for two reasons.

1. Overall weaker character development, with the sole exception of Kaworu (and maybe Rei? Not sure on that one). Shikinami is definitely distinct from Sohryu, the most glaring is her much less developed background. As for Misato and Kaji, did we see any romantic tension between them? It's been a while since I've seen the second Rebuild so I'm not sure.

2. Unclear basic plot points. There were some things that required researching and discussion in the original but the basic plot points were at least coherent. The second Rebuild is less coherent than its equivalent in the original and then it goes totally off the rails in the third. The fourth was good when it slowed down but has the same problems as the third in the second half. Never had to read the Evageeks wiki to understand the basic plot of the original Eva.

I think the biggest hurdle the first 2 Rebuilds was covering 24 episodes (or arguably more) in 2 movies with an additional new character. They were spread way too thin, and most of the problems could've been solved either by reducing the number of characters or at least not introducing a new one. They tried pleasing too many people, but I guess it's a moot point now.

[Blockio]

3) "Themes" don't make a forced, hamfisted ending not forced or hamfisted.

....................
I really can't blame the people who jumped ship on the forums anymore if that is the state of media literacy shaping debate on here. Jesus christ.

[ChrisTamv]

1. Overall weaker character development, with the sole exception of Kaworu (and maybe Rei? Not sure on that one). Shikinami is definitely distinct from Sohryu, the most glaring is her much less developed background

I wouldn't call Shikinami's background "much" less developed, but she's certainly inferior to her original. I agree on Rei, Kaworu and I'd add Gendo to this list too as well as some secondary characters. Others like Shinji get close to their originals' development level too.

As for Misato and Kaji, did we see any romantic tension between them? It's been a while since I've seen the second Rebuild so I'm not sure.

Yep, there was romantic tension between them in 2.0.

2. Unclear basic plot points. There were some things that required researching and discussion in the original but the basic plot points were at least coherent. The second Rebuild is less coherent than its equivalent in the original and then it goes totally off the rails in the third. The fourth was good when it slowed down but has the same problems as the third in the second half. Never had to read the Evageeks wiki to understand the basic plot of the original Eva.

I would say the Rebuilds' plot is both more unclear and more incoherent than the original's, but the difference really isn't big. Granted it's kinda unfair to compare the 2 directly since the original has had the luxury of being around for much longer, having its ending outright replaced once and much of its lore elaborated upon further in outside media, I must say that the Rebuild's plot gets incoherent to a large extent towards the middle-end of the last 2 movies.

[BernardoCairo]

Ok guys, this is getting extremely off topic. If you want to continue this discussion, I suggest moving it to the NTE's interpretation of the characters thread. As for here, we're done.