A remake or a sequel?

[pwhodges]

Well, some people can find ways to interpret anything any which way, and good luck to them, but beyond a certain point it starts to feel like a completely futile effort.

My main argument against sequel and loop theories is that they don't add anything useful, and are thus entirely unnecessary and a waste of time.

[Rosenakahara]

@Chuckman
We already DID see hints of other realities, i still stand by that death+rebirth took place in a separate reality from the rest of the series, while still being linked to them in its own way some of the stuff in there just doesn't fit so that right there has already established this is something that can happen within the eva.......multiverse i guess it is now?

[pwhodges]

Different continuities are just that. Death is just weird, and I'm hesitant to use it as an argument for anything at all.

[Chuckman]

My main argument against these theories is that they don't add anything useful, and are thus entirely unnecessary and a waste of time.

I've heard this before and it bores me. Time circles and multiversal shennanigans add all sorts of philosophical possibilities.

What does "add anything useful" even mean? None of this is useful. At the end of the day we're spending thousands of hours and the word count equivalent of a legal library arguing over the inner depths of a cartoon with bouncy titties.

This seriousness leaves me aghast. The formality. The limitation. Why? What purpose does that serve?

Oh God, continuity. I hate that word as much as I hate canon. Continuity is a concern for the guy who draws the backgrounds or the guy who makes sure all the shots have the same level of water in a glass on a film set.

[Sorrow]

As I’ve stated before, every possible “clue” to a sequel theory is completely usurped by the narrative for completely different uses. Anno’s work usually does more than just leave tiny visual indicators of things.

but it's not impossible[s]---[/s]or even hard[s]---[/s]to present this imagery that implies sequel, but also give it a meaning that works on its own to possibly subvert any intentions being inexplicable any other way, and therefore dead give aways. Or so people who haven't seen the original can still understand the work on its own.

I'm not saying it is the case, but it's possibly what we've been dealing with.

Now this isn’t to say that Eva Shin won’t come down and break everyone’s minds open with all sorts of actual evidences of a sequel universe. But we gotta let Eva Shin do that it it’s own way, rather than trying to talk over the points these previous movies have been trying to make all along with our own brand of theories/fanfiction/whatever.

But why say "no!" when you acknowledge the last film could do as such. If you want the film to do it "its own way", then you have no place and no point telling other people that their theories are unfounded and pointless, or presenting your own, because you're only interested in what the film says, and not the community. That means you too.

Also, it being possibly evident in the final film is sort of the point. Everyone is looking for these hints, subtle or blatant, as to what might be the truth of the matter. This way no one can say "where the hell did that come from!? There was no evidence of that, Anno just tacked it on!" People will say "Nope; Anno doesn't just throw out any old twist and pretend he's a good writer. Look, it's been hinted at all along". If it was only evident in the final film and nowhere else, it would feel cheaper. The fact we can trace it back would make us appreciate it more. No one likes to find out the whole thing was just a dream, unless they could see hints of it looking back.

That's not to say it is the case, just if it were then no one can feel cheated.

[pwhodges]

This seriousness leaves me aghast. The formality. The limitation. Why? What purpose does that serve?

It helps keep me sane; but of course I realise that you need have no concern for my sanity. As for formal - well that's just me, innit. Also, I don't seem to have limited myself that completely, seeing as I've managed to make a small foray into fan fiction - who knows where it might lead me?

[Sorrow]

My main argument against sequel and loop theories is that they don't add anything useful, and are thus entirely unnecessary and a waste of time.

So when you asked for a possible reason in a previous thread, and Sachi offered a possible answer, you still think it doesn't have any potential to have a point? Not to mention, it's legitimacy has nothing to do with whether you think it has a point, or whether anyone else does, but whether Anno does. People who consider sequel theories are guessing at Anno's intent with possible clues, not trying to support what they think is just a good idea.

You are basing your dismissal on what you think would make a good story? That has less credibility, surely?

[pwhodges]

You are basing your dismissal on what you think would make a good story? That has less credibility, surely?

For you perhaps; not for me. But then we are allowed to disagree in any case. I will still look at your arguments, as I've looked at arguments for this in the past. None of them have yet convinced me, and I am currently unable to think of one that would (based on existing evidence, that is).

[Bagheera]

Anno isn't going to hand you the answers on a platter and "Anno didn't hand us timeywimey bullshit on a platter" isn't evidence against timeywimey bullshit going on when there clearly is.

There is? Like what?

Anno is never going to explain anything to you.

But in past works he explained everything to us. I mean, in EoE he had Misato and Fuyutsuki dump explosition on us by the mouthful. Seele too, far as that goes. Yes, we had to chew on it for awhile to ultimately connect all the dots, but in the end very little of substance was left unsaid.

@pwhodges I don't even care about "proving" the "sequel theory" "correct". I will be triumphant if I can get one person to acknowledge that in the absence of explicit confirmation of something within the text of the film itself and not in paratext or metatext or an interview, the work is open to interpretation and both sides are equally valid.

The "both sides" mantra is garbage. It's relevant when there's a dispute between two individuals and there's no hard evidence to work with (meaning you have to get both sides -- or rather, all sides -- of the story to render an informed judgement on the matter), but when it comes to assessing what's on the screen and what isn't, and what's a reasonable interpretation of such and what is wishful thinking, there are no "sides". There's just reasonable interpretation and wishful thinking.

This seriousness leaves me aghast. The formality. The limitation. Why? What purpose does that serve?

It's mainly about keeping the story and its themes on track so they don't meander all over the place and lose the story's message. So far a sequel approach (or a loop approach, or a multiverse approach, or whatever) doesn't appear to add anything to any of the things Anno's been pushing in the ENT series thus far. I mean, other continuities wouldn't have any bearing on Shinji's learning to love himself in the story at hand, so shoehorning them into the current narrative wouldn't seem to add much to the story. Naturally, Anno might have any number of ideas up his sleeve that change things around for the next movie, and once it's out we can reassess things in light of that. But based on what's out there as of now . . .

Edit: Sorry SSD, you posted while I was typing. I'll shut up on the matter.

[Sorrow]

From a different thread:

For you perhaps; not for me. But then we are allowed to disagree in any case. I will still look at your arguments, as I've looked at arguments for this in the past. None of them have yet convinced me, and I am currently unable to think of one that would (based on existing evidence, that is).

But I don't believe anyone is trying to make believers out of anyone else. Some are saying "it's possible", and others are saying "it absolutely is not!"

A person proven wrong when they say "maybe", and still considered other alternatives, will respond with "ah, I guess that wasn't where it was going then", and they lose nothing.

A person proven wrong when they say "no", and tried to make everyone else out to look like idiots, has some apologies to give and wind up looking like fools.

That isn't to say believe in anything anyone tells you or suggests, but there are things within the films that can be taken as potential evidence, and will support the sequel/loop theories if it becomes more evident/concrete in the final film.

All I'm trying to ask when mentioning the sequel theory is how will you respond if you turn out to be wrong after all the nay-saying? I'm not trying to convert you, as I only consider it a possibility myself, not a fact. You consider it a fact, or speak as though you do, that it isn't Anno's intent.

[Rosenakahara]

From a different thread:
But I don't believe anyone is trying to make believers out of anyone else. Some are saying "it's possible", and others are saying "it absolutely is not!"

A person proven wrong when they say "maybe", and still considered other alternatives, will respond with "ah, I guess that wasn't where it was going then", and they lose nothing.

A person proven wrong when they say "no", and tried to make everyone else out to look like idiots, has some apologies to give and wind up looking like fools.

[s]the shipping debate with korra right now in a nutshell[/s]
This is generally my stance on sequel, it might be a thing but if it isn't then i don't mind, i just love Eva and like talking about it.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Anno is never going to explain anything to you. Anno isn't going to hijack Kaworu and spew some crap from a videogame to explain everything.

Funny thing is that there are spots in almost all of Anno’s works were he “lays down the law,” as it were, within terms of what’s going on in his narrative. Misato spells out key plot points clearly in the car ride scene in EoE, as does Gendo in parts of EoTV.

And Eva isn’t the only one of Anno’s works where someone explains key plot points towards the end of the film. At the end of almost all of Anno’s works audience’s have had to wrestle with undeniable facts that were once proposed as unsolvable mysteries by the narrative itself, such as:

SPOILER: Show

The Gunbuster has, for all intents and purposes, a heart.
Nadia is a space alien, and the Gargoyle are not.
The “14 Days” episodes in Kare Kano don’t elude to early gestation.
The day at the beach is probably the last time Hiromi will see her High School friends in Love & Pop.
We know the girl’s true birthday is December 7th in Shiki-Jitsu.
The Middle Manager used to be a part of a Glamor Rock band in Ryusei Kacho.
Cutie Honey’s love can literally conquer all in Cutie Honey.

This isn’t to say that Anno doesn’t leave parts of his narratives (and therefore his universes) visible, yet unexplored. Leaving details unexplored is essential to keeping the magic of story-telling alive. It helps keep the audience wondering as they’re wandering. It helps the story be more than just popular for about a year. It helps keep the importance of the narrative relevant to future generations. But for plot points such as “Humans are the 18th Angel” or “Evas as we know them have existed before we did at some point, somehow” (one alteration of a sequel theory) are plot points that Anno would conventionally place rather blatantly in his narrative somewhere, generally towards the end of his narrative (Eva Shin, maybe?), even while using expository dialogue if needed.

[pwhodges]

All I'm trying to ask when mentioning the sequel theory is how will you respond if you turn out to be wrong after all the nay-saying?

I respond to the totality of the information of which I am aware. If I turn out to be wrong that will be because new evidence has been presented (and there's one more film in which this can happen) which is incontrovertible. That will not in itself change the fact that the evidence that is currently available has in every instance got a simpler explanation.

You consider it a fact, or speak as though you do, that it isn't Anno's intent.

No, I consider it the most likely possibility.

[Sailor Star Dust]

2 pages of Sequel talk in this thread split from Until You Come To Me.

[Sorrow]

If I turn out to be wrong that will be because new evidence has been presented (and there's one more film in which this can happen) which is incontrovertible.

I agree with you that what is currently available is disputable as far as supporting the loop/sequel theory, but you will still have been guilty of overlooking the evidence presented (not the issue) and treating others as though they were silly/stupid for looking into it (the issue), if the "evidence" does turn out to be as such.

The nay-sayers have all made their position clear, so repeating it when new "evidence" rears its head isn't going to help except to set yourselves up as superior minds who aren't susceptible to believing in, or considering, idiocy - which can come crashing down later on.

If you don't wish to make judgement calls and instead wait and see what the final film does indeed bring, then there is no need to tell others that what they think is ridiculous and unfounded, unless you have a better possibility to compare it to, with more compelling proof. Not considering the possibilities and instead denying them all until the final film gives us all the answers[s]---[/s]or not[s]---[/s]doesn't make one more intelligent, it only makes you cursory.

[Chuckman]

Funny thing is that there are spots in almost all of Anno’s works were he “lays down the law,” as it were,

Gross anatomy. Plot. Of course that's explained.

The meaning he leaves us to conclude on our own.

[pwhodges]

If you don't wish to make judgement calls and instead wait and see what the final film does indeed bring, then there is no need to tell others that what they think is ridiculous and unfounded, unless you have a better possibility to compare it to, with more compelling proof.

Pot, meet Kettle.

[FreakyFilmFan4ever]

Gross anatomy. Plot. Of course that's explained.

The meaning he leaves us to conclude on our own.

First of all, I agree with that. Whereas there are some strong clues as to how he wants his audience to feel about particular matters in NGE, the last scene of EoE does leave the ball in the court of the viewers watching. Here’s a situation. Here’s how it effected the main cast, especially the main protagonist. What do you, the viewers, think about the decision the protagonist made?

Now, whereas I can totally see NTE making a direct follow-up question to NGE’s question (a “spiritual sequel,” in a sense), and have considered that possibility for quite some time (Is the film asking us what we think of the protagonist’s decision in NTE as opposed to the one in NGE?), the idea that NTE takes place way down the timeline in the same canon of events, even they would be separated by the collapse of the entire known universe followed by its re-expansion and re-evolution, is a bit of a logical stretch in my opinion. Also, a situation like that being in the film, in any way would directly relate to the plot of the movie, not only the film’s meaning. So, yes. A character might need to come and explain the aspects of the plot that physically link the two canons together. On the other hand, some form of inherent ideological linkage between the two is to be expected, especially for a work as complex as Anno's Evangelion.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

I'll reiterate what I've been saying, which is that we won't know if all this is a sequel until we can see it in its entirety. It's too ambiguous at the moment.

[Sorrow]

Pot, meet Kettle.

Very good, but the slight difference is crucial.