Ok, I'm officially requesting split now. Probably from This Post
Gamer_2k4 wrote:It's easier to like because of the film format.
True as well, but even within film people have preferences; comedy, action, romance, sci-fi/fantasy, etc.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:I'd guess the majority of Star Wars fans have never read the books, and I'm almost positive that the majority of LotR fans have never read those books. But the movies were spectacular for each, and that's often enough to make fans of people.
Are you suggesting the hardcore LotR fans are fans... because of the films? You do realize that the films would never have been made (you're talking about the most ambitious film project ever undertaken) without the absurd popularity of the books.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:But beyond that, what criticism can you put on the two works?
Apart from their nil thematic substance... not much. What I mean to say is they're perfectly crafted stories meant to entertain. But in terms of art as a means of expression to say something relevant about... well, anything, they're pretty void. And anything that is there is just a result of their archetypal nature.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:something that NGE appears to promise but doesn't really live up to. (There's action, but it's by the bye, instead of being the central point of the show.)
Again, NGE going against the mold. Choosing to subvert genre/medium/type expectations, and for artistic purposes no less!
Gamer_2k4 wrote:They both have religious symbolism as well.
Tolkien clearly stated that there is no symbolism or allegory intended in LotR.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:But you know what? Frodo doesn't want to it,
Frodo's much more accepting of his epic quest in the books.
Gamer_2k4 wrote: but he's not a whiny little tool like Shinji.
He's also not a 14 year old human boy.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:He buckles down, pushes his personal feelings aside, and does what it takes to get the job done.
Yes, which is the classic "hero" archetype. Either a chosen one or a nobody is destined/picked to undertake an epic MacGuffin quest, and along the way is allowed to perform many heroic acts and grow and become a better/stronger person from the trials and toils - because afterall, isn't that what we idealize life as?
Again, NGE goes against the mold for artistic purposes. It chooses to depict what the vast majority of teenagers are: selfish, irresponsible human beings who think of themselves first and who have a ton of problems as it is with being caught between childhood and adulthood and all those raging, confusing hormones.
Gamer_2k4 wrote: Granted, LotR isn't as psychological as NGE, but it still demonstrates the feelings and emotions of various characters as they go through different trials.
One thing that bugs me about LotR, even more so now on second reading, is the homogenized personalities of the characters. So the feelings are all very base and simple ones. Nothing you don't see in even the lowest form of fiction.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:Only difference is, Tolkien managed to do this without making the characters thoroughly unlikable.
I always like the criticism of NGE that it's characters are "unlikable". Nevermind that a big majority of the best novels and films that deal in character studies deal with very unlikable people. Another anime pioneering step for Anno and NGE.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:LotR is every bit as deep as NGE, maybe more so,
LotR is deep on the created mythological level and not much more. No, I don't want it to seem like I'm shortchanging it, because Tolkien's feet of imaginative creativity is one of the most remarkable accomplishments in the creative arts. That said, on a thematic, substantial, and formal level it doesn't even approach the depth of NGE.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:and really one of the only possible criticisms of it is that it's "too wordy."
Indeed. One thing Tolkien loses that served him so well on The Hobbit was a whimsical wit and extremely economical storytelling. Granted, LotR is meant to feel more epic, but too much of it seems like filler just there to make it seem that way.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:but in any given scenario, not all children are going to be emotionally unstable people with no parents to speak of, who are begging for meaning in their lives.
Well, we're not talking about "all children" but children in their particular (or very similar) situations. And given the well established situations, I think most any sane person can agree their actions are extremely normal.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:And arguably, while depression IS a legitimate human emotion, it's not really a legitimate emotion to attribute to a 14 year old.
Are you f'in kidding me? Teenagers are, by the very definition, extremely moody. Again, it's the hormonal thing. They overreact to situations as it is, but give them troubled pasts (which IS a common thing), and then put them under emotional stress like no normal kids have to deal with (imagine being 14 and being sent to war), and again, their descent into depression is not only normal, but arguably foreseeable by any logical stretch.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:They're kids! They should be playing with Legos or riding bikes or something!
Yes, but instead they're risking their lives to save the world by piloting analogs of their mothers against invading monsters.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:having legitimate human emotions does not mean that you're a normal human being.
I'd say it kinda does. Unless you want to define "normal human beings". "Well adjusted" is just often a way of saying "well programmed by external conflicts and able to ignore the paradoxes of external and internal paradoxes".
Gamer_2k4 wrote:But not all people have debilitating emotional issues, despite what NGE appears to show.
Go check out war veterans and see how well they adjust after the war. They've made films about that too. And then consider what the kids in NGE are going through is even more traumatizing.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:Isn't it ironic, then, that Shinji tries to find his "essence" by piloting an Eva, and realizes at the end that he's had it all along?
That isn't what Shinji realizes. He realizes that he can change his personal reality, and that he alone has the power to define "him". That is VERY existential, which essentially says that our personal realities are relative and we make our own meanings and purposes in life.
Gamer_2k4 wrote:Isn't that the opposite of existentialism?
The value in the fact of mere existence sounds like Sartre's Nausee.