Quality of NTE containment thread

[roblucci01]

I can give valid reasons why NTE is a hot mess and why poorly written aspects of it drag down the experience far more than anything we saw in Episode 24'.

So can I, and I have; I think it is worth asking though the extent to which these flaws take away from the overall experience and also the ways in which NTE's good qualities make it worth watching despite its flaws. Case in point, Dragonball GT was hotly discussed for decades and typically derided until people could actually sensibly compare it to something else, after which it gained greater appreciation among the fandom for its characteristic of having actual consequences (something Toriyama and Toyotaro have essentially failed at implementing into the story even to this day).

Cancelling the production of an entire movie, but still making it a part of your canon? Poor decision. Going out of your way to create a new character only to not utilize it properly, while making it an integral part of everything that differentiates your new product from your old one? Stupidly confusing.

I agree with these points.

Continuing to introduce new characters only to not develop them in any meaningful way, while your protagonists have to go through sudden changes for lack of screen time? Questionable.

I've seen this argument made against NTE quite frequently, but in creative media it's pretty rare to find instances in which all characters are given meaningful development. I've also seen shows like The Walking Dead (particularly earlier seasons) that attempt to overdevelop characters, and it just causes the story to lag. Even NGE was not capable of fully fleshing out all its characters. I still think Kensuke piloting Unit-03 and perishing to Unit-01's dummy system would have been a better way to utilize his character, because all he wanted was to pilot Eva. Such a decision would have removed the audience's ability to find comfort in the parts of the story that are rooted only in fantasy. Instead it's Touji, who we know already kind of hates Evas because of what they did to his sister. But the development for him had already crescendoed because he came to accept Evas as the only way to stop angels, forgiving Shinji in the process. Kensuke's potentially great character development never really saw the light of day... that is, until recently, I would remind everyone.

Making everything confusing for the sake of it and nothing more? Well, I can keep going...

I don't think it's reasonable to say they were intentionally trying to troll the fans with their storytelling. Like you previously mentioned in your first point, it definitely seems like NTE was intended to be much larger in terms of screentime than it actually ended up being. I even said like a decade ago, to cover all of the details and backstory they would have needed at least five movies. Honestly, with a lot of what got introduced in Shin, maybe six. But what I gather from watching 3.0+1.0 is that it was probably a much bigger project than they even had time or money for, but the pieces of a grandiose story were definitely there. And if we're being totally honest, original NGE is still very flawed in its writing, particularly with Seele/NERV/Keel/Gendo/Kaworu and their one hundred+ endlessly convoluted scenarios for producing the Third Impact, which all require a million moving parts to pull off, but can apparently be seemingly adjusted at the last second because the plot? Fan theories have made all of this easier to digest over the years as well as providing some fascinating answers, but it's still indefensible, and I wish people would just accept that already.

You bring up "the fandom" and how they'll hate NTE unjustifiably because they "need the coping mechanism of EOE," but aren't you interpreting Thrice as a coping mechanism? You say you'd rather watch it than EoE because of how it makes you feel. Is it a better coping mechanism, therefore you're more correct? How can you presume to know someone else's relationship with the original in a way where you can confidently say it's less healthy?

Okay, this is a valid point, and perhaps it was poorly worded for me to say that EoE as a coping mechanism reflects the whole viewerbase. I can certainly say that it's clear to me that it is the case for some fans. I have had discussions with people online and personally about NGE vs NTE, and one pattern I notice with a lot of the people I talk to who aggressively hate NTE is that they consume too much media and have some kind of block that prevents them from appearing desirable and attaining sexual success. That's just an observation, but PLEASE, do not assume I am talking about Evageeks, I don't know any one here. It's an anecdotal reference to one of my friends, and I didn't want to mention it because it makes me kind of uncomfortable to do so. Some others have attacked NTE and its supporters in a way that I think is unbecoming of a good anime community. So yeh, I can confidently state that there are some people who do in fact conclusively have an unhealthy relationship with the original series.

As far as whether NTE makes for a better coping mechanism, sure, that's a hypothetical conversation that could be had. Most media provides for some form of escapism to begin with. For me I would go with Christmas Carol. You mentioned Wild Strawberries and I will take your recommendation in the spirit it was intended.

Well, I don't see why you wouldn't want to watch something well done, superb or beautiful in and of itself, and would rather watch (these are my own feelings) poorly directed, poorly paced clunky exposition and action scenes just because it ends with characters smiling and happy, as if that's in and of itself a benchmark for being morally correct.

I am being taken out of context. As I stated earlier,

If you were to put End of Evangelion and Shin Evangelion in front of me and said, "Okay, right now you're going to watch one of these movies", I would honestly choose the new one. Because I prefer how it makes me feel vs End of Evangelion. EoE Shinji doesn't resonate with me as a 28 year old adult. He lacks self-control, which is evident from the scene in which he masturbates over comatose Asuka.

I really hope you aren't expecting me to justify why one version of the protagonist resonates with me and the other one doesn't.

If NGE is making an unrealistic case for what people are hiding in their psyche (I personally don't agree), I'd say Thrice is making an unrealistic case about how it's solved.

That's fine, I really don't see Neon Genesis Evangelion as being the end all, be all on human relationships and psychology. At the end of the day, even in the 1990s, when Anno and the other writers were supposedly at the peak of their artistic passion, they were trying to sell a product. They didn't have PHDs. A lot of people in the world just aren't like Shinji or Asuka or Misato and can't identify with them (at least to a great extent). That's why I feel like Evangelion alienates viewers. And no, before anyone tries to bring this up, I am not trying to put forth the idea that I like NTE because it is more marketable to normies.

Ok, but how? I've seen long, detailed write-ups of how Asuka was failed, I don't see any arguments here for why justice or honor was done.

I am talking about their relationship. And the reason you're not seeing "long, detailed write-ups" on their relationship is because it's more or less evident why NTE bookends it the right way. Simply put, Shinji finally tried to understand Asuka. Both in reality and instrumentality.

I want to type more at length about Asuka Shikinami as a whole, and what I think Anno was intending when he wrote both her and Rei in the new story, but I'll leave that for another time.

So much of the NGE vs NTE discourse (the fact that it is most commonly regarded as a vs discourse itself is a problem - if you are hellbent on one being better than the other, it is only natural that bad takes are going to follow) is rooted in nostalgia goggles and an inability to differentiate between personal first impression and other valid interpretations. Of course, it is only human to stay one's ground, defend the things you like and try to give reasons for the things you dislike; however, both of these all too quickly escalate into their extremes, which leads to threads precisely like this one where the very title and premise is already a prime example of bad faith media criticism, the work being fundamentally called into question on its artistic merit, placing the burden of proof on those liking it to justify their enjoyment, rather than being allowed to stand on its own feet.

To loosely quote Overly Sarcastic Productions' Red on the matter; if you're looking for things to be upset about in a story, you will find them, and if a culture develops around dragging things down, there will be little gain from discussing media in that circle.

I agree with this, and I think some of the comments I have seen in this thread underscore why any sort of discussion around NTE is a zero sum game. You just can't win.

[Konja7]

The argument being made seems to be: someone can only be wrong or misguided if they prefer NGE to NTE, because it's somehow a fact they can only come to this destination through biased, faulty, poorly thought through means.

I understand you dislike people could be so defensive about NTE, but the criticism to NTE could be pretty annoying too. I mean, a lot of times people make it sound like only a dumb or shallow person would like NTE more than NGE.

Not to mention that people is pretty defensive to NGE too. I'm pretty sure there are NGE fans with the argument that someone can only be wrong or misguided if they prefer NTE to NGE.

Not to say you're unaware, but just to be clear, the title was given by the mod who split the thread. Nonetheless, I don't see what's wrong with discussing something's artistic merit as a premise. Nobody is putting the burden of proof on those who disagree, it's just a mode of analyzing something; I don't think my dislike needs to have anything to do with anyone's like, or in any case, if my dislike calls anything into question, it would no matter what the thread is titled, right? So again, it comes down to this notion that the dislike is inherently wrong.

When this thread was created, the movie wasn't even released outside Japan. We only have summaries.

This thread was created because people didn't like the concepts they were hearing, so they thougth NTE lack artistic merit from the beginning.

[Archer]

I've seen this argument made against NTE quite frequently, but in creative media it's pretty rare to find instances in which all characters are given meaningful development. I've also seen shows like The Walking Dead (particularly earlier seasons) that attempt to overdevelop characters, and it just causes the story to lag. Even NGE was not capable of fully fleshing out all its characters.

Certainly not every character needs to be fleshed out - for example I don’t really think the Wunder bridge staff needed super deep backstories to develop their characters, their importance to the overall narrative is fairly limited. In your example, Kensuke in NGE is a side character whose role in the narrative basically ends once the plot starts to escalate. He doesn’t need super deep development because his role in the story is relatively minor, and in fact it’s his absence (rather, the collective absence of him, Toji and Hikari AKA the “civilian” stand-ins in Evangelion’s relatively small character roster) in the later episodes that has a greater impact on the story.

I can only assume Bernardocairo is referring to Mari with his comment, because she’s the only major addition aside from the Wunder bridge staff, and in her specific case it is absolutely inexcusable to introduce a character who’s supposed to play such a big role in both the narrative and themes and the resolution of the story, and just NOT do anything to even explain her presence beyond some vague implications that raise more questions than they answer. And personally I DO think that her and Asuka would’ve gotten more time to shine in the “lost” version of 3.0, but as of now that’s all irrelevant speculation which doesn’t change the fact that in the movies we got, the amount of development she gets is highly disproportionate to the role she plays in the plot. This is where the accusations of being a plot device stems from, she does a lot of important things with little explanation or justification except the implication that there’s more to her than it seems, except this “more” is never explored or elaborated.

it definitely seems like NTE was intended to be much larger in terms of screentime than it actually ended up being.

Nah, it’s definitely Game of Thrones syndrome where the original plan was to push out a quick trilogy but the story grew well beyond the scope of the original plans. The story they ended up trying to tell is certainly at least 2 movies longer than what we got (I still stand by the idea that 2.0 is basically like two and a half movies jammed into the runtime of one) but I don’t think it was ever intended to be a cinematic monstrosity - it’s just the way it turned out.

[Axx°N N.]

If you mean "here" more broadly than this topic...

Should've been more specific, I was meaning the quoted words themselves.

I really hope you aren't expecting me to justify why one version of the protagonist resonates with me and the other one doesn't.

I just wanted to press back on what I perceive as a dichotomy being made of "EOE lovers" and "Thrice lovers" being placed on some kind of personality or maturity compass.

And the reason you're not seeing "long, detailed write-ups" on their relationship is because it's more or less evident why NTE bookends it the right way. Simply put, Shinji finally tried to understand Asuka. Both in reality and instrumentality.

I disagree that it's self-evident, otherwise there wouldn't be hotly contested back and forth across EGF on this topic. Even if Shinji trying is what makes it more morally correct than any aspect of their interactions in NGE & EOE, and let's for the sake of argument say that it is, there's still potential fault to be had over its artistic value, as something can have good values but fail as an articulation of those values, and to my mind this thread is about the articulation.

I understand you dislike people could be so defensive about NTE, but the criticism to NTE could be pretty annoying too.

I don't dislike anyone defending NTE, I've seen many posts I love here from people praising NTE. If "people describe NTE as if only shallow people can like it" is in reference to this thread itself, I don't see it. Someone finding a film stupid isn't harassment of its appreciators.

What I don't like is for criticism to be stifled, and if anyone finds criticism annoying, I don't see why they can't give the criticism its own space to thrive and simply ignore it. Criticism itself is open to criticism, as logical fallacies exist and there's such a thing as a better or worse analysis, but I take issue with assumptions being made about the motivations behind an opinion. I don't claim anything about why someone likes NTE, and yet I consistently see overtures suggesting those with a bone to pick with NTE are biased, have a warped perspective, wearing nostalgia goggles, etc. If the topic is NTE's artistic merit, I don't see how speculating on the qualities of its fans or detractors adds much to the topic.

When this thread was created, the movie wasn't even released outside Japan. We only have summaries.

This thread was created because people didn't like the concepts they were hearing, so they thougth NTE lack artistic merit from the beginning.

We had the full transcript of the dialogue and scene-by-scene description, amounting to a partial script. I don't see what that has to do with current criticism, and I also don't see why it's not legitimate for someone to not like a concept before they view something, bearing they keep an open mind.

[roblucci01]

I disagree that it's self-evident

I don't understand how you can disagree that it's self-evident. Part of what I am saying is in the script.

Asuka: This might be the last chance, so I'm gonna ask... Did you figure out why I tried to punch you?

Shinji: Asuka, it's because... when you were in Eva-03, I didn't make any real decision. I didn't want to be personally responsible for saving you or killing you.

Asuka: So you have grown up a little.

As for Asuka's part of the Instrumentality sequence, it's a little less evident, but we still know that Shinji is witnessing what is going on with her.

Asuka: I don't know Papa. Mama's not here either. So you don't need anybody, Asuka.
I have to be okay with no one being around.
Because it's painful if I don't do that.
Because life is pain.
I'll pilot the Eva.
Even if people hate me, even if they bad-mouth me...
Once I can pilot the Eva, it won't matter.
Because that's all I'm worth.
I don't need anyone.
I have a strong body and mind.
So praise me! Notice me!
Give me somewhere I belong!
I really am lonely.
All I really want is a pat on the head.

EDIT: I am citing arqacrypha for the sourcing on the translation.

Even if Shinji trying is what makes it more morally correct than any aspect of their interactions in NGE & EOE, and let's for the sake of argument say that it is, there's still potential fault to be had over its artistic value, as something can have good values but fail as an articulation of those values, and to my mind this thread is about the articulation.

What exactly is your point though? I just find myself reading philosophically wordy non-arguments. Is your argument that because you don't like the writing in Shin Evangelion, Shinji and Asuka's conclusion is entirely not worth mentioning and should be disregarded? Or are you saying that because you think Asuka Shikinami was developed poorly as a character, Shinji learning more about her is pointless? Please elaborate.

[Archer]

Not him, but this:

Asuka: This might be the last chance, so I'm gonna ask... Did you figure out why I tried to punch you?

Shinji: Asuka, it's because... when you were in Eva-03, I didn't make any real decision. I didn't want to be personally responsible for saving you or killing you.

Asuka: So you have grown up a little.

is a prime example of showing instead of telling. I guess you could say it’s self-evident in that the authorial intent is literally spelled out word-for-word, but IMO it doesn’t feel like it’s backed up by anything of substance. We don’t see how Shinji actually grows and comes to this realization, he just states it as if it should be obvious. What does he experience exactly where THAT would be the obvious and logical conclusion he should draw? If it weren’t literally spelled out word-for-word, is that the same conclusion viewers would reach just from analyzing the textual evidence?

Is your argument that because you don't like the writing in Shin Evangelion, Shinji and Asuka's conclusion is entirely not worth mentioning and should be disregarded? Or are you saying that because you think Asuka Shikinami was developed poorly as a character, Shinji learning more about her is pointless?

Personally, I see no inherent value in having a payoff if the setup isn’t there to build up its importance. Like, okay, we got some backstory exposition and a cheap resolution in the last 15-20 minutes of the movie… so what? This doesn’t retroactively make Shikinami a well-written character, and it’s not going to retroactively make me invested in her relationship with Shinji, and if I’m not invested in her or her relationship with Shinji, why should I care about the payoff to it? It seems like the difference in opinion comes from you putting intrinsic value on the existence of a conclusion in and of itself, whereas myself and many others are more concerned with the execution of the setup, and feel that having a conclusion where the writer literally spells things out word-for-word is unsatisfying and unearned, especially in the context of Evangelion where one of its key defining traits is how much of its themes and meaning are ultimately left up to audience interpretation.

[Axx°N N.]

I don't understand how you can disagree that it's self-evident.

Archer already articulated everything well, but yeah, I thought you were suggesting it being well done is self-evident, not that it exists as matter of fact in terms of subject matter.

[nerv bae]

Not him, but this:

Asuka: This might be the last chance, so I'm gonna ask... Did you figure out why I tried to punch you?

Shinji: Asuka, it's because... when you were in Eva-03, I didn't make any real decision. I didn't want to be personally responsible for saving you or killing you.

Asuka: So you have grown up a little.

is a prime example of showing instead of telling. I guess you could say it’s self-evident in that the authorial intent is literally spelled out word-for-word, but IMO it doesn’t feel like it’s backed up by anything of substance. We don’t see how Shinji actually grows and comes to this realization, he just states it as if it should be obvious. What does he experience exactly where THAT would be the obvious and logical conclusion he should draw? If it weren’t literally spelled out word-for-word, is that the same conclusion viewers would reach just from analyzing the textual evidence?

There are two good reasons for Asuka to have tried to punch Shinji in 3.0: his roles in the Eva-03 fiasco and in Third Impact. By the time of this scene in 3+1, after his several cycles of growth and setback since the fiasco, and after spending time with Asuka in the village, I think it is actually pretty obvious to him and to the viewers that she's upset about being left at the mercy of the 9th Angel thanks to his inaction. So, it isn't that Shinji's growth enabled him to realize this truth in this scene -- this truth is probably something he came to understand well before this scene, maybe even as far back as his pyramid tantrum in 2.0, albeit subconsciously -- but instead that his growth enabled him to confront this truth and state it out loud in this scene. In other words, this dialogue is valuable less for the (obvious, in my opinion) truth it conveys and more for its demonstration that Shinji's growth has enabled him to admit out loud something he feels hideously guilty about.

[Archer]

Just adding a little side-note on why I think Asuka Soryu works where Shikinami just doesn’t: it literally goes all the way back to Soryu’s introduction, where she acts like she’s better than everyone else (especially Shinji) but is immediately put into a situation where she is forced onto roughly even footing with Shinji once they both get into Unit 2. And of course that scenario itself has some fairly blatant sexual tension, with her accusing Shinji of peeking when they’re changing into plugsuits and then being confined together in a tight space in skintight suits. I mean it really goes hard and heavy into the idea that Asuka is going to be a major love interest. It introduces her, establishes the dynamic between her and Shinji, and then shows that despite her abrasive personality there’s clearly some degree of chemistry between them that has the potential to develop into something more. While it’s pretty heavy-handed in its intent, from a writing efficiency standpoint it’s an excellent hook to establish Asuka’s character and her relationship with Shinji.

Shikinami on the other hand is almost like the polar opposite: she swoops in and single-handedly destroys the clock Angel, which honestly kinda justifies her superiority complex: after all, if she’s capable of killing an Angel all on her own with no apparent difficulty, isn’t she kinda right that she’s objectively more capable than Shinji and doesn’t need his help? It also gets rid of the introduction to their character dynamic, so now the basis for their relationship isn’t really set up until later, and when it does come it feels kinda off because the initial scenario where they were forced to cooperate and show some chemistry is gone now. Not to mention, Shikinami is much more openly lovey-dovey than Soryu ever was, which makes for a bigger disconnect in me understanding what, exactly, she sees in Shinji.

Whereas NGE gives a solid justification for why she might be into him despite her better judgment, and goes on to make it clear that any feelings she might have about it are highly repressed, in 2.0 that initial justification is gone and she’s inexplicably less reserved about her feelings. Instead of being an independent character who has understandable conflicted feelings about Shinji, Shikinami feels like a cliche’d love interest who’s mostly attracted to Shinji because he’s the main character.

The strange thing is according to the 2.0 CRC’s, they were actually planning on keeping Asuka’s introduction nearly identical but had lost the key frames from Ep 8, at which point a decision was made to go in a completely new direction. So it’s possible that Shikinami actually could have felt less poorly set up if not for a simple inventory screw-up.

[Konja7]

Whereas NGE gives a solid justification for why she might be into him despite her better judgment, and goes on to make it clear that any feelings she might have about it are highly repressed, in 2.0 that initial justification is gone and she’s inexplicably less reserved about her feelings. Instead of being an independent character who has understandable conflicted feelings about Shinji, Shikinami feels like a cliche’d love interest who’s mostly attracted to Shinji because he’s the main character.

I think Asuka feelings toward Shinji in 2.0 are related to the family care and normality she receives from Shinji (it isn't coincidence that she mentioned Shinji's food in 3.0+1.0). We know that she had never felt that care in her life.

In itself, I've never have problem to believe Asuka romantic feelings toward Shinji. I'm a lot more confused about Shinji sudden romantic feelings in 3.0+1.0.

The strange thing is according to the 2.0 CRC’s, they were actually planning on keeping Asuka’s introduction nearly identical but had lost the key frames from Ep 8, at which point a decision was made to go in a completely new direction. So it’s possible that Shikinami actually could have felt less poorly set up if not for a simple inventory screw-up.

I'm not sure a different set up was really necessary. I mean, Asuka will still be a supporting character in 2.0, so she doesn't really need a lot more chemistry with Shinji.

[Archer]

Oh yeah, I’m not saying that there aren’t retroactive justifications that can be applied to explain why she’s attracted to him based on subsequently revealed information; I’m just saying it’s not set up in the moment, and thus I find it difficult to get invested in compared to NGE. Conversely I’ve never needed much justification for why Shinji is attracted to her… she’s a hot girl sending him some serious mixed signals and he’s a hormonal teenage boy. Hell, even in NGE I can’t pinpoint much to his side of the attraction beyond that, in direct opposition to Rei or Misato who have some fairly obvious Freudian reasons. Maybe it’s just because I’m a guy and find that perspective very easy to relate to without specific textual justification, lol.

I’m actually also completely fine with Asuka being relegated to a secondary character instead of being the deuteragonist like in NGE. I just think that in that scenario they should’ve gone all the way, properly age her up and resolve all her hang-ups off-screen (in my pitch her backstory would be completely ignored), and re-cast her romantic feelings toward Shinji as the silly schoolgirl crush of a confused 14 year old. This would actually go well with her introduction as a superior/dominant figure, in which she transforms from a “negative” kind of superiority (arrogant, bratty teenager) to a “positive” kind (mature, adult mentor/role model). But this is just me rambling on about my fan fiction ideas again.

[BernardoCairo]

I can only assume Bernardocairo is referring to Mari with his comment, because she’s the only major addition aside from the Wunder bridge staff, and in her specific case it is absolutely inexcusable to introduce a character who’s supposed to play such a big role in both the narrative and themes and the resolution of the story, and just NOT do anything to even explain her presence beyond some vague implications that raise more questions than they answer.

Yeah, but not only Mari. There's also Asuka, of course. Shikinami is pretty much a new character and similarly to Mari, they don't do a single thing with her. She's so insignificant to the overall plot that one could probably swap in any character in her place and the narrative would be intact. But not only that! 2.0 also makes sure to reintroduce Kaji, who's a MAJOR player... Until he dies off screen, of course. Then Kaworu shows up and a new version of Rei, despite this other characters being completely lost in the script already.
Usually, when we're talking about a movie trilogy or tetralogy, it's expected for the characters introduced in the first movie to end up being the protagonist all the way through. Going by that mindset, Shinji, Misato and Rei should be up there, right? But what happens to these characters? Well, Misato gets lost in the middle of the hot mess that was 2.0 and then goes through off screen changes and Rei barely shows up in most of 2.0 (watch it again and pay attention to this, if you don't believe me) and then is split into two separate characters, with only one having a satisfying conclusion. Finally we have Shinji, who is no longer the focal point of the story in 2.0, until he becomes again in 3.0! However, that doesn't mean anything as his character has to undergo an insane change in five minutes just for the 3.0+1.0 script to work. It amazes me how NTE Shinji throws the concept of character progression out of the window. He is now primarily a tool for Anno to express what he's feeling at the moment and that's it. But because of the different real-life "timeskips" between the production of one film and the other, he ends up being an incoherent character, who is tossed from one idea to another and barely evolves as the story progresses (until the last five seconds, in which he becomes a Buddha as a figure out of nowhere, of course).
Even some of NGE's secondary characters feel like they have more meat to their stories and the way it was presented to us than these NTE MAJOR players.

[Archer]

I’d argue that Kaji isn’t really a major player… in NGE he serves a fairly major role in driving the plot along but in the Rebuilds… what does he do exactly? His relationship with Asuka is removed entirely (IIRC due to runtime constraints as per the 2.0 CRC’s) and the flashbacks that better characterize his relationship with Misato are part of the chunk of episodes that are skipped over by the Rebuilds. Even him motivating Shinji to get in the robot is replaced by Mari. I think his “conclusion” - being killed off-screen in between movies to little consequence (compared to his death in NGE, which is arguably THE event that kicks the downward spiral past the point of no return) is fitting for a character of his importance in the Rebuilds.

If you’re arguing that if they weren’t gonna go anywhere with him, then they shouldn’t have included him in the first place… while I don’t disagree, I’ve also come to accept that it is inevitable that the Rebuilds were going to include certain characters or ideas solely because they were present in NGE, and not because they have a clear purpose in the new narrative. And as far as needlessly inserted characters go, Kaji really isn’t egregious enough to trip my radar. I think Ritsuko is probably the worst offender, because her shooting Gendo feels like it’s being framed as this cathartic moment, completely ignoring the fact that Rebuild Ritsuko completely lacks the deep personal motivation that drove NGE Ritsuko to the point that it’s never even implied that she was ever romantically involved with Gendo. As poorly developed as it was, at least Shikinami’s relationship with Shinji was established in the text. Ritsuko on the other hand is little more than a background character in the Rebuilds, about on the same level of relevance as the bridge bunnies, so giving her this kind of conclusion that ONLY makes sense in the context of NGE Ritsuko is by far the most egregious example of an unnecessarily and unearned conclusion.

which leads to threads precisely like this one where the very title and premise is already a prime example of bad faith media criticism, the work being fundamentally called into question on its artistic merit, placing the burden of proof on those liking it to justify their enjoyment, rather than being allowed to stand on its own feet.

@blockio

I’m not gonna speak for everyone in this thread, since I certainly haven’t read every post here, but I think this is a mischaracterization of what the argument is even about. Whether something has “artistic validity” has nothing to do with anyone’s subjective enjoyment, unless the person in question feels insecure in enjoying something which they fear might lack “artistic validity”, and thus feels the need to justify their enjoyment in the face of criticism. For example, I think the Marvel movies have little artistic value beyond being popcorn cinema, but that doesn’t mean I think other people shouldn’t be allowed to enjoy them for what they are - popcorn cinema.

The problem arises when “I like the Rebuilds because it has a happy ending, unlike NGE” (completely valid opinion that needs no further justification, that I happen to completely disagree with) is conflated into “The Rebuilds are better than NGE because it has a happy ending” (an assertion that has no validity without a supporting argument or justification). And for the record the inverse of that statement (“NGE is better than the Rebuilds because it has a bleak ending”) is equally invalid without an argument to support it.

Personally I have no real interest in trying to refute someone’s personal preference in a thread whose title implies a critique of the work based on textual evidence. To me at least, “artistic validity” translates to me as “the core themes/ideas of the work, and how well the story execution supports those themes”. Subjective feelings don’t really have a direct bearing on that discussion, IMO. If your assertion is that you still enjoy it, despite it being poorly written… well, nobody said you COULDN’T like it. If your assertion is that you enjoy it because you think it ISN’T poorly written, your enjoyment is still valid but it’s on you to justify why you think it WASN’T poorly written, in light of the many clearly articulated arguments to the contrary.

[nerv bae]

I’d argue that Kaji isn’t really a major player… in NGE he serves a fairly major role in driving the plot along but in the Rebuilds… what does he do exactly? His relationship with Asuka is removed entirely (IIRC due to runtime constraints as per the 2.0 CRC’s) and the flashbacks that better characterize his relationship with Misato are part of the chunk of episodes that are skipped over by the Rebuilds. Even him motivating Shinji to get in the robot is replaced by Mari. I think his “conclusion” - being killed off-screen in between movies to little consequence (compared to his death in NGE, which is arguably THE event that kicks the downward spiral past the point of no return) is fitting for a character of his importance in the Rebuilds.

Kaji's death has tremendous consequences. He would have deployed the Wunder as an ark to protect life away from the earth, but in his absence Misato repurposes it as a warship to assault NERV. In this sense, the events of 3 and 3+1 unfold as explicit consequences of his death. You could argue that Gendo succeeds in carrying out his Instrumentality plans regardless, and so Kaji's death is inconsequential in that sense, but I think that has more to do with how Gendo is written as omniscient and infallible and less to do with Kaji.

[Archer]

I’m talking more about consequences for the characters, not the direction of the plot.

In NGE, he’s established to have an intimate connection with Asuka, Shinji and Misato, and his death is directly responsible for their respective downward spirals and directly changes how they act towards each other. And because his relationship with each of them is well set-up beforehand, it informs why the characters react the way they do to his death.

In the Rebuilds the most you can say is that he’s responsible for Misato’s offscreen changes between 2.0 and 3.0, but because their relationship isn’t developed to the same degree, and because the change happens off-screen, it really doesn’t have the same impact.

With regards to my original comment where I say that he’s a major player in the plot in NGE, I mean that even before his death, he takes many direct actions that influences how the story progresses and has an impact on the other characters. His death is impactful BECAUSE he’s a major player, not the reverse. Personally, I don’t view the consequences of inaction through death, no matter how wide-reaching, as something denoting a “major player”, especially when as you say it doesn’t really matter anyways when Gendo is there to push the plot along in the direction it needs to go regardless of Kaji’s actions.

[Axx°N N.]

I can't imagine someone who never watched NGE getting anything whatsoever except exposition out of Kaji's presence in NTE. He's there for one film, then is treated mythologically without it really being demonstrated or warranted, because the treatment is mostly through instructive dialog; ie, "viewer, please feel this way. These characters do!" But there's little reason to care that it's Kaji specifically who did all these off-screen plot things, because we don't stick around with him enough. That's a problem far bigger than being an excusable loose remnant of NGE. The whole thing with Asuka and Shinji is really similar in that most of it is instructive; "do you (Shinji/audience) remember why I'm so upset?" Then the apology comes from Shinji later, and so the exodus of the whole conflict is through instructive dialog. I think nerv bae's reading of Shinji's line reflecting his character progression is legitimate, but I don't see the argument as being against any lines ever indicating specifically, bluntly and precisely a character's understanding of something, or that it can't itself signal development. The problem is when, in absence of these lines, nothing else is picking up the slack of communicating them emotionally, versus purely informational or didactic speech.

Anecdotes taken as the grains of salt they are, multiple people I watched it with didn't really get what Asuka's deal was, or more like they didn't understand why they were expected to be interested when the film would signal how important the conflict is supposed to be. Because of the time-skip, so much that doesn't need to be is made obtuse and relegated to being indirect; Asuka sulks, stalks, narrows her eyes at Shinji, but can't the audience assume this is just because of Wille loyalty? She force-feeds him in a brutal way that harkens to the incident in question, but for all we know this is how battle-hardened she is in a situation like this, and maybe she would force-feed anyone unwilling to, Shinji himself an irrelevance, because the years have made her some kind of drill instructor in temperament. We're put at a decade's worth disadvantage and then are refused to be able to linger with the characters much on top of that. The retroactive facts of the matter when they come (ie, 5 seconds of Kaji, 5 seconds of Kaji Jr., Asuka reminding Shinji of his failure, Instrumentality) feel like they're less interested in exploring or imparting an immersive sense of character, or feeling like actual revelation, than they are justifying things backwards so that everything makes sense in terms of straight formula. The Asuka Instrumentality scene went by so quickly no one I watched it with took it as anything but something they were being subjected to and alienated by, which surely couldn't have been the intention of the scene on paper. There's something unrewarding and paradoxical about even the idea of psychedelia being used for pragmatic purposes, a rule-free way of making sure character motivations are all lined up to compensate for a deleted chunk of the narrative.

[Settie]

"viewer, please feel this way.

This is one of if not the biggest issue i had with NTE while looking back on it. It just uses NGE as a crutch so heavily in order to give actions by characters any emotional weight that it's baffling that they were made by the same people. It becomes particularly blatant and problematic in trice as near the end it just straight up gives up any independence from NGE and attempts to make the ending of trice be the definitive ending of Evangelion as a whole. All while ignoring the fact that, while characters may share the same name between continuities, they're completely different characters in a different story. By skipping the grunt work of making compelling characters on their own rather than rely on copious amount of nostalgia is, for me at least, why NTE failed to deliver. On its own the meta commentary could've worked if it was backed up by its own characters rather than going "ya'll remember NGE right?"

[Archer]

I think nerv bae's reading of Shinji's line reflecting his character progression is legitimate, but I don't see the argument as being against any lines ever indicating specifically, bluntly and precisely a character's understanding of something, or that it can't itself signal development. The problem is when, in absence of these lines, nothing else is picking up the slack of communicating them emotionally, versus purely informational or didactic speech.

Took me a bit to parse what you meant by this… I’ll rephrase it in a way that’s clearer to me in case anyone else was also confused by the wording:
“Criticism of the Rebuilds isn’t rooted in a lack of a clear authorial intent or message; in fact, a character’s motivation or perspective is often stated quite specifically, bluntly and precisely. The problem is that the intent is communicated, in large part, ONLY through expository speech, and is not effectively communicated emotionally through character action or behavior.”

This really hits the nail on the head here, because I’ve noticed that this disconnect is at the core of a lot of the back and forth vs discourse here. I don’t mean to call out anyone specifically here, just using these as illustrative examples of the case in point:

Assertion:
I don't understand how you can disagree that [Shinji and Asuka’s conclusion] is self-evident. Part of what I am saying is in the script.

Rebuttal:
I thought you were suggesting it being well done is self-evident, not that it exists as matter of fact in terms of subject matter.

Assertion:
Kaji's death has tremendous consequences. He would have deployed the Wunder as an ark to protect life away from the earth, but in his absence Misato repurposes it as a warship to assault NERV. In this sense, the events of 3 and 3+1 unfold as explicit consequences of his death.

Rebuttal:
I’m talking more about consequences for the characters, not the direction of the plot.

In NGE, he’s established to have an intimate connection with Asuka, Shinji and Misato, and his death is directly responsible for their respective downward spirals and directly changes how they act towards each other. And because his relationship with each of them is well set-up beforehand, it informs why the characters react the way they do to his death.

In the Rebuilds the most you can say is that he’s responsible for Misato’s offscreen changes between 2.0 and 3.0, but because their relationship isn’t developed to the same degree, and because the change happens off-screen, it really doesn’t have the same impact.

From another thread:

Assertion:
And then there is Mari: Mari is a midwife, separating the child from the (womb of the) mother and delivering him into the world. This is her role in the very last scene of 3.0+1.0, and it is why it is relevant that she pulls him out of the station and into the city, by his hand. It is also extremely relevant that Shinji needed to be willing to take her hand when she held it out to him. It emphasizes his growth that he is ready to be pulled out by her.

Rebuttal:
Again, not saying your interpretation is wrong, or even that it’s something not directly intended by Anno and co. In fact metatextually Mari being the catalyst for change is fairly transparent and based on CRC interviews and such, arguably undebatable. Like, it is a matter of fact that her inclusion was intended to shake up the status quo, she is a very obvious symbolic catalyst for change in the Rebuilds.

My concern with this reading is that her involvement in the change is purely mechanical, and that it’s not reflected on an emotional level. If we say that the literal act of leaving the minus realm and entering the real world is a metaphor for growing up and moving on from Eva, then Mari’s involvement in literally guiding Shinji out of the minus realm is NOT reflected on a metaphorical level, as she does NOTHING to aid him in growing up and moving on from Eva - she’s entirely absent from the segment of the movie where that happens!

The “critics” are arguing that the some theme/message/character motivation/etc. is poorly conveyed (unstated implication: through character action or behavior or emotion or etc.) and when the “defenders” see that (admittedly not 100% precisely stated) argument they rebut that said theme/message/character motivation/etc. is literally clearly stated in the text. But this completely misses the point of the original criticism, which was never about the existence of authorial intent as told through expository dialogue, but rather about how well it is executed/conveyed/reinforced by the events of the story. Technically both sides are right, it’s just that “defenders” pointing out that XYZ is literally stated in dialogue or exposition isn’t a counter-argument to the “critics” claim that the Rebuilds are poorly written, because the accusations of poor writing aren’t rooted in a lack of clearly identifiable theme/message/character motivation, but rather in how said theme/message/character motivation is actually conveyed or reinforced emotionally by the events of the story.

[Konja7]

The “critics” are arguing that the some theme/message/character motivation/etc. is poorly conveyed (unstated implication: through character action or behavior or emotion or etc.) and when the “defenders” see that (admittedly not 100% precisely stated) argument they rebut that said theme/message/character motivation/etc. is literally clearly stated in the text. But this completely misses the point of the original criticism, which was never about the existence of authorial intent as told through expository dialogue, but rather about how well it is executed/conveyed/reinforced by the events of the story. Technically both sides are right, it’s just that “defenders” pointing out that XYZ is literally stated in dialogue or exposition isn’t a counter-argument to the “critics” claim that the Rebuilds are poorly written, because the accusations of poor writing aren’t rooted in a lack of clearly identifiable theme/message/character motivation, but rather in how said theme/message/character motivation is actually conveyed or reinforced emotionally by the events of the story.

I guess this happens because many "defenders" feel the authorial intent was executed/conveyed/reinforced in a pretty good way. It is somewhat difficult to discuss that topic, because it depends almost exclusively on personal opinions and expectations.

For example: In my case, I have almost none of the problems you have with the way the authorial intent was conveyed. I really like the way the message of the story was executed.

[Archer]

I guess this happens because many "defenders" feel the authorial intent was executed/conveyed/reinforced in a pretty good way.

Personally, I haven’t seen any arguments for how it is executed well (beyond merely pointing out that the authorial intent is clearly stated), but admittedly I have not read the post backlog from between the Japanese and international release, and do not comprehensively read every post in these threads, either. And before Blockio chimes in, asking someone to defend why they think something is good is very different from asking someone to defend why they enjoyed something. There’s plenty of things I enjoy which I openly acknowledge are kinda trashy and have little artistic merit, and conversely there’s a lot of things that I can recognize as quality art but you couldn’t pay me to sit through them without falling asleep.

I don’t mean any of this in a patronizing manner, I genuinely want to just get a better grasp on where your opinion is coming from. Is the crux of your argument that clearly stating the authorial intent and not having it be directly contradicted by anything that happens is sufficient to call it “good”? Or do you believe that there IS a deeper thematic support for these ideas that “critics” aren’t seeing? If it’s the former, then we’ve reached the core of the disagreement in that we have very different expectations for what constitutes a well-executed story. If it’s the latter, then it should be easy to formulate a clear argument citing the specific moments that you think contributes positively to expressing the authorial intent.

Generally the way I approach my argument is by establishing why I thought X character/theme was handled well in NGE, establishing that all or most of what I thought made them good in NGE is missing in the Rebuilds, and if applicable, suggest an alternative that I personally think would have worked better, thematically, within the constraints of the Rebuild’s narrative and structure*. This raises another point of contention: is the fundamental disagreement in that you think it’s not fair to judge specific elements of the Rebuilds by comparing them to NGE?

I’m genuinely curious on the perspective of the “defenders” side of the argument, because I have written and read MANY “critic” responses that break down specific issues they have with the executions of the characters - a pretty far cry from “lol rebuilds suck cuz not NGE” - yet haven’t seen any compelling counter-arguments for why these characters are actually well-written (again, not the same thing as arguing that you liked the characters), beyond responses merely pointing out the authorial intent.

For example: In my case, I have almost none of the problems you have with the way the authorial intent was conveyed. I really like the way the message of the story was executed.

So the thing is, broadly speaking on a very high level, I actually do think the Rebuilds executes on the authorial intent (that being, Anno’s retrospective on Evangelion as his magnum opus) fairly well - or about as well as it could have, given the movie format, the troubled production history and multiple rewrites, and the god-awful release schedule. But as an actual self-supporting narrative I think it’s generally poorly written, and has some specific elements (hi, Asuka and Mari! hi, Shinji and Wille’s characterization in 3.0!) that are just hilariously off the mark to what I assume must have been the authorial intent. I feel about the Rebuilds much the same way I feel about Avengers Endgame; as a send-off to the MCU and a goodbye to Cap and Iron Man, it’s about as good as it could realistically get given the constraints of being a Hollywood movie that features like 30 heroes and needs to close out on a dozen different plot lines. As a movie judged by its own merits, outside of its status as the conclusion to a decade long plot line though, it’s incredibly poorly written. Of course the difference is that Avengers Endgame is explicitly the last chapter of a saga, while the Rebuilds were kinda pitched as their own thing separate from NGE. Only, 3.0+1.0 is very unambiguously Anno’s goodbye to all of Evangelion, rather than being a derivative but nonetheless mostly isolated and self-contained narrative that we were initially led to believe it was intended as.

* Footnote 1: Shikinami vs. Soryu

SPOILER: Show

Asuka is my prime example here. I am fully aware that within the constraints of what the Rebuilds were trying to do, and given her MAJOR role in NGE, it is pretty much impossible to make Shikinami an equal to Soryu. My argument isn’t that Shikinami is a poorly written character because she can’t ever hope to measure up to Soryu; it’s that she is written inconsistently and has no clear role in the narrative, thus her big “conclusion” at the end, with full backstory dump, feels rushed and unearned compared to how shallow her character is up to that point. Also, that the way the Curse of Eva is treated and her characterization in 3.0 and beyond does not support the supposed authorial intent of having her being a “mature” foil to the “immature” Shinji.

In turn, my proposed “solution” - to properly age her up into an adult in 3.0 - addresses all of the reasons I think she is poorly written. Any silliness in her character in 2.0 is obviously just the result of her being a hormonal teenager; she would be able to properly act as a “mature” foil to Shinji, by both looking like an adult and acting in a firm but fair manner to Shinji; and, best of all, because she gets over her problems off-screen like the rest of Shinji’s aged up friends, her backstory and character development becomes completely irrelevant; obviating the need for lengthy exposition on her background and personality and motivations.

My proposed version of Asuka Shikinami still isn’t gonna measure up to Soryu, but it would be a new take on Asuka that not only fits within the format/structure constraints of the Rebuilds, but in fact explores a new take on Shinji and Asuka’s relationship that could have never happened in NGE. IMO, “adult Shikinami” would’ve been separate and not equal to Soryu, but narratively has the potential to be a good character in her own right.

I will never stop shilling this idea because to me it’s the most emblematic of the Rebuild’s lost potential in actually being a well-constructed reimagining or variations on a theme of the characters and ideas of Evangelion, instead of having a lot of interesting ideas that get botched in execution.