Evangelion: Pretentiously deep?

[Szmitten]

Typing that last part out a rather sick (kinda) thought occurred to me: It would've been quite ingenious on Anno's part to intentionally engineer the flaws into the series to keep people interested in it for so long.

To be brutally honest, this is a view that I've had and maintained for quite a while now.

[Eva Yojimbo]

To be brutally honest, this is a view that I've had and maintained for quite a while now.

Is it a bad thing though?

Alanis Morissette's Ironic:

How is it a song about irony contains almost no examples of irony but just bad luck... However, it's rather ironic that it doesn't... Unintentional flaw, or intentional brilliance?

YOU DECIDE!

[BrikHaus]

Typing that last part out a rather sick (kinda) thought occurred to me: It would've been quite ingenious on Anno's part to intentionally engineer the flaws into the series to keep people interested in it for so long.

To be brutally honest, this is a view that I've had and maintained for quite a while now.

I think you guys are going a little overboard on this one here. Anno has admitted that he didn't exactly know how his story was going to end when he first began. I found it very doubtful that someone without a full story in mind would be able to intricately manipulate intentional flaws just to keep fans talking for over ten years. It's not as if he's the Vladimir Nobokov of anime.

[Eva Yojimbo]

Brik, I'm not suggesting it is. Rather, I'm suggesting that perhaps instead of succinctly answering many of the mysteries, Anno chose to leave them there. It's a possibility. I think there's 3 sides to this:

1. The flaws were intentionally engineered into the series so as to confuse fans and keep the series interesting for them.

As you stated, I feel this idea is a bit over-doing it, and don't personally believe this.

2. The flaws came up in the design of the series itself and were left unanswered as to intentionally confuse fans and keep the series interesting to them.

This, however, has an element of probability to it. There's many things in the series that would've been easy to answer within the series itself - so you have to wonder why Anno didn't do it...

3. The flaws came up in the design and left there unanswered simply because the creators didn't notice them or didn't care about them.

I think this is the most truthful answer. And if we're talking about the flaws in general I think some fall in in 2, but the majority of them fall under #3.

[Szmitten]

Whereas I'm more inclined to #2, or something similar. More like they noticed the flaws/plotholes, turned it into a "mystery" and integrated it into the plot. Shinji's school uniform turning into a plugsuit and the explanation for it is the most obvious example.

[Sailor Star Dust]

"the creator's just didn't have everything planned out" and how much of it is "they wanted to give it interpretational freedom". Too much of NGE seems very carefully planned for me to believe the latter is entirely true. I think near the end Anno felt he either had to go into detail explaining the ins-and-outs of the narrative or get to the core of why he created NGE in the first place. Because the latter was infinitely more important to him, that's what we're left with. But that also leaves quite a few holes in the fictional universe for us to fill.

I personally think they DID have things planned out (to an extent) but wanted to have some freedom with it (motivations, etc) as they went along.

Typing that last part out a rather sick (kinda) thought occurred to me: It would've been quite ingenious on Anno's part to intentionally engineer the flaws into the series to keep people interested in it for so long.

To be brutally honest, this is a view that I've had and maintained for quite a while now.

Agree.

[Carl Horn]

I think we're coming, perhaps, from different philosophies on what "art" is. I say "so-called works of art" not because I don't believe some works are worthy of being called art, but out of the perception I regard them as art because I "so-call" them art; to other people, they may not convey any such sense. I think art is an action or an effect felt within people; it isn't something that exists independently in any physical "work" of art. I find it more clear to say that craftsmanship and art exist in two entirely different realms. I don't regard art as meaning craftsmanship of exceptional technique or quality; in other words, that once craft achieves a certain level, it should be regarded as art. Astounding human achievements of craftsmanship have failed to inspire people. I'm dubious of attempts to create theoretical qualifications or definitions for art ("To be considered art, a work must meet these criteria...")--again, not because I don't think art exists, but because you can have a painting pass through the hands of kings, put it in a museum in midtown Manhattan, value it at a hundred million dollars, and there will still be many people--nice, intelligent, even cultured people--for whom it does nothing personally. Craftsmanship is an inherent quality of a work; a work has a certain structure, certain materials, regardless of what people think of it. Art, by contrast, is a very real and supremely important feeling that exists--or doesn't exist--only in people. These "people," of course, potentially (a craftsman may not feel their work is art) include the artists themselves, not only their audience.

Everyone has thoughts, feelings, and emotions. When someone experiences the emotion of sadness, they don't say "my art is sadness", they say "I feel sad". Art is not merely the thoughts and emotions behind something, it's the way in which these ideas are expressed. Anyone can say "I feel sad because because X happened to me", it takes an artist to express this feeling and experience effectively through some kind of medium.

Without the medium, in which craft and knowledge goes into, there is no art. If we view it as a language, art is the language by which something is expressed. The craft used to construct the language is the method in which it is said - its articulation. There's a million different ways to say "I feel sad", the artist's job is to select the best method of expressing this feeling throuh his chosen medium.

The initial thought/emotion which is articulated by the craft, expressed through the medium, IMO, is what art is.

To give an example I'll go back to Meshuggah (I use what I know). They rely almost entirely on rhythmic effect to create their music. There's almost no melody or harmony in anything they do. Rhythm, in its nature, is an aspect used to create music. Music is the medium by which ideas or feelings can (try to) be expressed, but rhythm is just an aspect of it and part of music's language.

When Meshuggah's ideas pertain to the language of music itself, and not to any aesthetic principles (emotions, among other things), then is that still not art? IMO, it's not enough for them to say "Well, we're going to create a polyrhythmic piece where the drums are doing X and X, the guitars/bass follow a certain cycle and break-down to come around and link with the drums at the end."

THAT'S the idea, but is that art? The art is in how these ideas are expressed through the music. Even though the expression is almost entirely intellectual/cerebral, and is only elaborating on the language of music, is it still not art?

I would say again that the art is not in how the ideas are expressed through the music, but in yours or the artist's perception of how those ideas are expressed through the music. There is no more a single language of music, after all, than there is a single human language; the tone scales of one culture, the sense of what makes a good or evocative construction, may leave another completely indifferent. People respond to the music that has meaning to them, regardless of whether it's considered to meet the standards of the Beatles or Bach. To merely be told that they don't appreciate "true art" doesn't really make the case.

Art can and does exist without agreed-upon standards of craft or medium or language. It has to, because--for whatever evolutionary reason--the human tendency has been towards cultural difference rather than uniformity. Art is an internal phenomenon of the human search for meaning, a meaning that was likely sought and found with equal profundity in the "works" of nature, even before humans developed methods of representation. One can advocate for standards in craftsmanship ("this bridge needs to be designed to carry a certain load") much more convincingly than standards in art ("this bridge needs to be designed to be beautiful").

I'm not at all convinced that the achievement of Evangelion is due to its technical merits, structure, or construction--indeed, it has often been argued (though I wouldn't make this argument) that Evangelion as a craftwork fell short by "industry standards." What made Evangelion worthwhile, and, I believe, what made it connect with so many people, was the lack of filtration, of barriers between Anno's emotions and what showed up on screen. His willingness to feel through Evangelion was the key artistic gesture of the entire series. When it first came out on TV and in the theaters, Evangelion felt raw, real, dangerous—you felt not the mask art is supposed to wear, but the face.

[BrikHaus]

1. The flaws were intentionally engineered into the series so as to confuse fans and keep the series interesting for them.

2. The flaws came up in the design of the series itself and were left unanswered as to intentionally confuse fans and keep the series interesting to them.

3. The flaws came up in the design and left there unanswered simply because the creators didn't notice them or didn't care about them.

I see. I guess I misinterpreted what you guys were saying. Personally, I have to say that number three is the most logical. The big problem is that once the show starts airing, they can't go back to earlier episodes and fix continuity errors (like Shinji's shirt to plug suit transformation), instead they just have to press on and finish the thing. If they had the chance to go back and fix plot holes they would have done so. No sane person (is Anno sane, perhaps not) would say, "Hey let's leave this flaw in our series alone to make the fans think it's a mystery."

[Sailor Star Dust]

I agree that #3 works the most, though I think its more like Gainax didn't notice the errors (24', though I think its safe to say the "Chigau! Kore wa...Ririsu!" Wasn't so much about Lilith, but something being different than K-kun expected.) and not so much that they didn't care.

(like Shinji's shirt to plug suit transformation)

Where was this??

[BobBQ]

(like Shinji's shirt to plug suit transformation)

Where was this??

When Shinji is absorbed by Unit 01 in E19, he's wearing his school clothes, but when they show the inside of the entry plug in E20, there's a plugsuit floating there.

[Eva Yojimbo]

I would say again that the art is not in how the ideas are expressed through the music, but in yours or the artist's perception of how those ideas are expressed through the music.

But what, really, is the difference here? The artist doesn't need a perception of how they're expressed because they know what they're expressing. On the part of the listener, however, it is about perception. There's a great number of people who'd listen to Meshuggah and say "that's not music - that's pure noise" because of an ignorance of what's going on. So not only is it the artists' responsibility to say what they want to say in the best way possible, but it's the audience's responsibility to pick up on what's being said. Taking into consideration the artists' intent.

There is no more a single language of music, after all, than there is a single human language; the tone scales of one culture, the sense of what makes a good or evocative construction, may leave another completely indifferent. People respond to the music that has meaning to them, regardless of whether it's considered to meet the standards of the Beatles or Bach. To merely be told that they don't appreciate "true art" doesn't really make the case.

I didn't mean to imply that there was. And its the idea that different musical languages has developed that furthers the idea about whatever standards we DO create are merely subjective in the first place. But music doesn't exist without an intention to create it. And most music doesn't exist without a base to stand on (Western style of music, African music, Eastern music, etc).

Art can and does exist without agreed-upon standards of craft or medium or language. It has to, because--for whatever evolutionary reason--the human tendency has been towards cultural difference rather than uniformity. Art is an internal phenomenon of the human search for meaning, a meaning that was likely sought and found with equal profundity in the "works" of nature, even before humans developed methods of representation. One can advocate for standards in craftsmanship ("this bridge needs to be designed to carry a certain load") much more convincingly than standards in art ("this bridge needs to be designed to be beautiful").

This very much reminds me of the EoTV of NGE:

With no limitations you're allowed absolute freedom. But you feel afraid, uncertain, because you don't know what to do.

If I give you a ground below you, you now feel more secure, but an aspect of your freedom is taken away in that you have to stand on the ground.

Art is very much the same way. We create standards, and in essence, limitations to the way things should be. Why? Because we wouldn't be comfortable if we didn't have some kind of base to stand on, and judge things by. Can art exist without rules and standards? Yes. But then doesn't quality become immeasurable? I believe it does on any kind of objective level.

I'm not at all convinced that the achievement of Evangelion is due to its technical merits, structure, or construction--indeed, it has often been argued (though I wouldn't make this argument) that Evangelion as a craftwork fell short by "industry standards."

Well, myself and others would vehemently argue this point. But before I did, I'd love to get a good analysis from someone who feels this on why they think it did fall short on those merits.

What made Evangelion worthwhile, and, I believe, what made it connect with so many people, was the lack of filtration, of barriers between Anno's emotions and what showed up on screen. His willingness to feel through Evangelion was the key artistic gesture of the entire series. When it first came out on TV and in the theaters, Evangelion felt raw, real, dangerous—you felt not the mask art is supposed to wear, but the face.

I can agree with this. This very closely relates to my "What's the Big Deal With This Evangelion?" thread, but largely, I feel you're right.

My proposition though is that once those feelings are felt, and processed, analyzed, and understood - what else is there to gain out of NGE? People become interested in the narrative because the series effected them in some way. They become increasingly interested when they start digging deep into the mysteries contained in the narrative.

I do believe you're correct in what initially draws people to NGE, but in terms of what keeps them coming back to it, I believe has much more to do with the structure of the narrative and the fictional world itself. That can be analyzed on a level seperate from the "real meaning" behind NGE. And on that level I do think it succeeds extremely well.

However, my only objection is that I'd still argue it requires the craft of the artist in order to deliver these things at all. Look at NGE, ask you what parts effect you, and then ask yourself why. Would those things effect you so much if Anno had taken less time in developing the idea through NGE?

[Coded to the Core]

I think the problem here is one of finding objective depth, and of interpreting the creator's intentions. You mention that we're trying to point out things that the creator never knew existed - how do we know what he knows and didn't though? How are we to objectively determine what was put there with creative intent, and what is simply being "fished out" by our own subjective interpretations?

Well , When you watch the show what do you see ? , You see "Anno's" Vision . Everything he wanted to include there , He included .. So the depth is some what limited , Yes it's there though it's there , As for " How do you objectively determine "Creative Intent" and "Fished out " , Look Let's go back to a simple basic fact you rather have forgotten , Evangelion is a visual work of art . A Japanese Animation , It's a work of creativity and Art , (BTW: Art exists and as a artist i should rather understand that) , Now as far as "Fished out " , I Believe nothing is fished out by our own interpretations , It's rather the way you recieve the idea's anno had included in his creative work . Therefore ; You can only understand as far as what you can see and be sure about it's truth , Other work is merely guessing , All of this "Guessing" -yes it's guessing and trying to find something that 2 people sometimes just cant find at the same time And it's "Depth" - .

I'd disagree here, depth can be in the ideas, but how those ideas are presented is equally important. Someone might have a brilliant revelation about the truth of the universe - but unless he's able to articulate his revelation through whatever means he chooses, that revelation becomes pointless except to him.

Because the language of communication itself is even subjective, it becomes about being able to say something in the best way the person knows how. This might seem to conflict with my ideas about how "artists know nothing to its audience", but I think I'm saying something different here. An artists' responsibility is to express what they want to express through whatever means the best way possible. This is the reason they make art. What I'm saying doesn't have anything to do with pandering to an audience, but the articulation by which they're able to express their ideas.

To remove art entirely from this discussion Coded, you can easily insert "ideas" and "language/communication". Ideas are expressed through these means. Without a level of articulation by which they're expressed, the ideas are lossed in the communication. An artist's job is one of the communicator, and his responsibility is to articulate his message in the best way possible.

Okay let's talk about the depth of the content , You say the only way "You" can understand and feel that depth is by firstly understanding the concept these idea's are being expressed with , Such as The script and the visual art. But don't you see my point .. It's that if there where no depth in the idea's in the first place then there would not have been any depth felt thru the show . No matther how those idea's have been expressed ! .. (It's complicated) So THE depth comes from the idea's before it comes from the art . You see a Good "Deep" idea let's say philosophy such as in NGE well be understood no matter how it's being expressed however there should not be that much options as "How to express that idea of depth in the show " . Because it's a simple plot out-line that should be rather understood by the audience before they start looking for the deeper answers and questions . And we dont judge the depth of the show by those "deep answers and questions" Because everyone see's them in diffrent way ! you see it's impossible to say that this show is deep to everyone , And there's no point in trying to convince people because they view and understand these deep Questions in diffrent way therefore ; The depth of the show should not be judged by them , And i have to say you are judging the show by them which is not fair .

My argument is simply that if you strip away the entirety of the narrative - the fictional universe, the plot, the characters, etc. all your left with are the ideas. As you've said, the ideas themselves come from various branches of philosophy and psychology, so if we were to compare these ideas to the works of great philosophers/psychologists, how would they hold up?

This is where I think NGE would fail by comparison. Its ideas are not "deep" enough to be written in a non-fiction book about philosophy or psychology. In reality, it just borrows pre-existing ideas and gets to the root of what the creator wanted to extract from them.

This means there has to be something else to give it "depth". IMO, it's the way in which these ideas are told through the narrative that give it depth. I also think the narrative contains depth on its own without the ideas, but the reverse is not so true (you seem to disagree). NGE, like many works can be analyzed from many different angles and judged on many different standards. If we were to break down the elements within the show we could likely all provide opinions on why it either succeeds/fails on those standards. But we're talking in broader, more generalized terms here.

So .. You see the depth in the show not by the philosophy factor , But by the way the idea's are being expressed in the show ? .. Thats what your saying .. ?

I think the thing about NGE, and this is one of the things I personally praise it for, is that it doesn't offer up easy explanations. The questions you're pondering is questions almost everyone ponders from time to time. To give some fly-by-night answer would diminish the value of the work itself. And I think it shows tremendous respects to the subjects in question that it didn't try to answer the questions it presented.

This were i agree with you , And i truly find you to have almost the same idea's and aspects about the show as me . It rather asks more Questions than it answers .

This is where I disagree. I think the hushing of that line is significant. And when I discovered what I *believed* to be the final line, the significance of it was revealed to me. And personally, I don't believe "I love you" or "I need you" answer every question in that scene:

1. It's entirely outside Gendo's personality to say something like that, especially at that point in time.
2. Ritsuko's reaction is a very strange one. It's so subtle you might not notice it, but that's NOT the reaction of someone who had heard what would've been an obvious lie to her. That line meant something more to her as well.
3. Going by the VA's statement, something that would "totally defeat" Ritsuko is not a simple lie like "I love you" or "I needed you". There had to be something that hurt her deeper than that.

Once again, what I believe the answer is provides a real explanation for everything in that scene and even beyond it. IMO, the depth to which that single line goes into, IMO, made it worth hushing.

1 - We never 've seen Gendo's personality in the show , I mean in a way were you can truly say he well and he wont do that .

2 Ritsuko always loved Gendo as far as i know so it would rather hurt her now that she looks at what's happining around and how have Gendo let her down and "used" her , So she it's common sense that she well not believe him and she well be hurt , Even though she probably loved him .

Seriously , There's way more deeper idea's and scenes in NGE To look at as to judge the depth of the show so you SHOULD know that the creator maybe have simply tried to confuse the viewers and point out how Risuku and Gendo's relationship is complicated .

Yeah, but these are the more "fan interpretational freedom" aspects of the show and I don't think these add real depth.

Yes i s'ppose your right .

Thanks

[Coded to the Core]

Eva Yojimbo : It seems you think that because Gainax has great artists , They succeded in Showing the depth of the show , But you should understand that anno was probably only insrtucting the Artists in Gainax to what he wants them to draw But i dont think he said "How" , And my point is This proves that the depth of the show comes from the idea's and not the way they're being expressed .

[Eva Yojimbo]

Well , When you watch the show what do you see ? , You see "Anno's" Vision . Everything he wanted to include there , He included .. So the depth is some what limited , Yes it's there though it's there , As for " How do you objectively determine "Creative Intent" and "Fished out " , Look Let's go back to a simple basic fact you rather have forgotten , Evangelion is a visual work of art . A Japanese Animation , It's a work of creativity and Art , (BTW: Art exists and as a artist i should rather understand that) , Now as far as "Fished out " , I Believe nothing is fished out by our own interpretations , It's rather the way you recieve the idea's anno had included in his creative work . Therefore ; You can only understand as far as what you can see and be sure about it's truth , Other work is merely guessing , All of this "Guessing" -yes it's guessing and trying to find something that 2 people sometimes just cant find at the same time And it's "Depth" - .

Well, I disagree that we fish nothing out through our own interpretations. So much of NGE is left open without thourough explanation. That's why we end up with people coming to conclusions such as "NGE is just one big Biblical allegory" or fanwanks like the "Duel of the Seeds" and all kinds of stuff.

Yes, we all see "Anno's vision", but don't think that our own personal interpretation doesn't play a major role in what we get out of NGE. Reichu has summed this part up for me before (sorry for the loose paraphrase) in saying that, yes, we've all seen the same thing, but what keeps us coming back here is that in many cases we all disagree on what exactly we did just see. That means that it's not just about seeing "Anno's vision", it's about figuring out what "Anno's vision" was. Yes, we may understand a great deal of his vision, but that doesn't mean we've yet to understand all of it. Hence the reason there's still so much discussion on the series.

Okay let's talk about the depth of the content , You say the only way "You" can understand and feel that depth is by firstly understanding the concept these idea's are being expressed with , Such as The script and the visual art. But don't you see my point .. It's that if there where no depth in the idea's in the first place then there would not have been any depth felt thru the show . No matther how those idea's have been expressed ! .. (It's complicated) So THE depth comes from the idea's before it comes from the art . You see a Good "Deep" idea let's say philosophy such as in NGE well be understood no matter how it's being expressed however there should not be that much options as "How to express that idea of depth in the show " . Because it's a simple plot out-line that should be rather understood by the audience before they start looking for the deeper answers and questions . And we dont judge the depth of the show by those "deep answers and questions" Because everyone see's them in diffrent way ! you see it's impossible to say that this show is deep to everyone , And there's no point in trying to convince people because they view and understand these deep Questions in diffrent way therefore ; The depth of the show should not be judged by them , And i have to say you are judging the show by them which is not fair

How can I put this in a different way?

Let me make an analogy:

Deep lyrics cannot make shallow music complex.
Complex music cannot make shallow lyrics deep.

The idea of a "song" is the combination of lyrics and music. So often, even if the music or the lyrics themselves are not inherently deep, the two working together in combination can enhance the effect of both.

This is what I'm saying in regards to NGE. It's the combination of the ideas (the emotional element) and the craft (the intellectual element) that combine to give NGE depth.

The philosophical/psychological ideas themselves are not enough to give the show real depth. NGE does not cover any new territory in these areas, and that which it does cover has been covered much more extensively in non-fiction psychology/philosophy books.

The cinematic craftwork itself maybe interesting and a great study to those interested. But without the ideas that it helps to express, most aren't interested, and they become meaningless.

It's only when these two are combined that both become more interesting because they enhance the other.

So .. You see the depth in the show not by the philosophy factor , But by the way the idea's are being expressed in the show ? .. Thats what your saying .. ?

I'm saying the philosophical/psychological ideas alone are not enough to give the show depth, yes. You should ask yourself: If Anno published these ideas in a book, and somehow I read them, would I've really been interested if the entirety of the fictional universe was stripped away?

If the answer is "yes" then you should really check out the philosophical and psychological ideas that inspired the show. Because you can read non-fiction works that go into much more depth than NGE does on the ideas expressed within the show.

If the answer is "no" then you should really ask yourself what makes these ideas so interesting. The only answer is that they're enhanced by the craftwork that created the fictional universe that carries them.

1 - We never 've seen Gendo's personality in the show , I mean in a way were you can truly say he well and he wont do that .

2 Ritsuko always loved Gendo as far as i know so it would rather hurt her now that she looks at what's happining around and how have Gendo let her down and "used" her , So she it's common sense that she well not believe him and she well be hurt , Even though she probably loved him .

Seriously , There's way more deeper idea's and scenes in NGE To look at as to judge the depth of the show so you SHOULD know that the creator maybe have simply tried to confuse the viewers and point out how Risuku and Gendo's relationship is complicated .

1. I'd say we get to see quite a lot of Gendo's personality in the show. Especially during his "confession" to Yui. Remember, as much is said in NGE through visuals as through dialogue. Gendo never says "I love you" or "I needed you" even to Shinji. Why would he to Ritsuko: Someone who was obviously less important to him? Remember also, at this point, he was still obsessed with seeing Yui again. So "I love you" or "I needed you" just doesn't fit.

2. You're correct here, but there's even another layer to it. Ritsuko hated her mother. For more reasons than one, IMO. She wanted desperately NOT to end up like her, yet everything she'd done throughout the series had followed directly in her mother's footsteps. That line, under my interpretation, not only sums up Gendo's and Ritsuko's entire relationship, but is the final step to Ritsuko becoming just like her mother (remember, just before Gendo shot her she mentioned her mom "betraying her" with Casper's refusal to self-destruct).

So no, I DO NOT BELIEVE and WILL NOT BELIEVE that hush was put there just to confuse the fans. If we're to believe that, where does it end? Well, maybe ALL the ambiguities in NGE were put there to confuse us, eh? I don't believe that either. I strongly believe there's a deep significance behind that line from all angles.

It seems you think that because Gainax has great artists , They succeded in Showing the depth of the show , But you should understand that anno was probably only insrtucting the Artists in Gainax to what he wants them to draw But i dont think he said "How" , And my point is This proves that the depth of the show comes from the idea's and not the way they're being expressed .

Most everything that's drawn has to be approved by someone. And just like in real movies I imagine the level of creational freedom varies from project to project. It seems to me from everything I've read that Anno had a pretty tight reign on things as far as NGE went. He had a pretty clear vision (especially towards the later episodes) of how he wanted the series to unfold. I think the clearer his vision became, the more he not only told people "what" to do, but "how" to do it.

It's only speculation on my part, but I imagine that's why the budget ran so tight and the last episodes took so long to complete to where they had to rush to get them completed.

[BLACKANGEL32076]

3. The flaws came up in the design and left there unanswered simply because the creators didn't notice them or didn't care about them.

I think this is the most truthful answer. And if we're talking about the flaws in general I think some fall in 2, but the majority of them fall under #3.

I agree with this for no other reason than Eva is mainly the story of Shinji, Misato, Rei, and Asuka, the people that made them what they where when we are introduced to them, and how they interact with the people they encounter after that. Everything else is, for the most part, just window dressing. There are exceptions to this, namely Ritsuko’s destroying the Rei-clones and why she really did it. In the end, however this is the story of what’s going on in their heads and hearts.

[Victorthebattousai]

It's "depth" is non-existent. Not because of pretentiousness on the creator's part. Eva's story is complicated only to aid the characters. The creators have said, many times, that Eva's STORY wasn't meant to symbolize anything, or to be meaningful. Eva's meaning is supposed to come from the characters, not some psycho-babble mixing of Christan themes. That was simply a way to push the characters forward.

One of the interviews I read said that if they knew Eva would get into the US with such force, they probably would have used something else. They chose Christianity simply for it's look and feel. Japan doesn't know it, so it's "mysterious". The only story element that really has any meaning, I think, is the idea that we are created by our interactions with others.

Now, this isn't to say that Eva wasn't deep, it was deep in a different way. It shows the human soul, usually in a depressed state, and it shows it fairly correctly, especially the Manga. My friend suffers from depression quite often, and it was strange, because I can read Sadamoto's work, and 30 mins later, my friend says the exact same thing as Shinji(the night after his first party)

Fans seem to ignore what the creators say on this, and still swear that it was meant to have a great meaning. Fans can make it what they want(one of the good qualities of Eva's story). We create our own ambiguities, our own mysteries, and even our own answers to those mysteries. But, in truth, these things were not intended by the creators. They made it so we could make it our own, but there is no "real" depth to it, just the depth we ourselves create. (Haha, that sounds like an Eva quote lol)

I myself am a Christian, and let me say that I love everything about Eva, characters, music, art, except Eva ITSELF. Too much unnecessary sexuality(though Sadamoto's seems much better), unnecessary gore(I am learning to draw manga, and write stories, I understand why it's gory, but there are other ways of conveying the horror of battle), and it's twisting of my religion. But fans only give the anti-eva people more ammo, when they scream up and down that eva has meaning. One Christian writer I once read online said "why is it, if Eva has no effect on it's viewers, that it's fans fight so hard over it's meaning?". We try and say that Eva's twisting of religion doesn't mean anything, and yet, we fight harder for it's meaning than anything else.

Sorry for the long post lol.

[Reichu]

some psycho-babble mixing of Christan themes.

Most of the religious crap in NGE = not specificially Christian.

[Mr. Tines]

We try and say that Eva's twisting of religion doesn't mean anything

Apart from the fact that NGE is heavy on the SF tropes -- in a world where manipulating souls is just another engineering discipline, it's religion-irrelevant. The transcendental themes are driven off a technological, rather than a spiritual basis.

More here.

[slothen]

This post might come off as a little confrontational, but its not my intent. I'm just confused at what you're trying to say, thats all.

The creators have said, many times, that Eva's STORY wasn't meant to symbolize anything, or to be meaningful.

I agree that the NGE isn't supposed to be an allegory for anything, but that hardly means it isn't meaningful.

Eva's meaning is supposed to come from the characters, not some psycho-babble mixing of Christan themes. That was simply a way to push the characters forward.

If by "push the characters forward" you mean that the Christian themes and imagery are used to give some structure and rationality to the plot, and the plot is what makes stuff happen to the characters, and then the characters react to said stuff and we observe it, then yes. Still, you're assuming that there has to be some sort of overarching "moral to the story." That moral is different for different people, and is drawn from the experiences of the characters. The plot itself, the end of the world, certainly is just a story. It doesn't need to have meaning, its just a story. But its still an interesting story that we want to know more about.

One of the interviews I read said that if they knew Eva would get into the US with such force, they probably would have used something else. They chose Christianity simply for it's look and feel. Japan doesn't know it, so it's "mysterious".

We know this. Most users on this forum know this. Sure we talk about the story in terms of its religious elements, but thats only to understand the story better.

The only story element that really has any meaning, I think, is the idea that we are created by our interactions with others.

This isn't really a story element, its merely an observation about reality thats applicable everywhere, not just in the anime.

Now, this isn't to say that Eva wasn't deep, it was deep in a different way. It shows the human soul, usually in a depressed state, and it shows it fairly correctly...

I think we need to be careful on how we use the word "deep." I'd say if something is deep, then it addresses and deals with issues that are more important or larger than the anime itself, and that after dealing with these issues, it provides no clear cut answers to the questions it may raise along the way. By that definition, NGE is "deep," and there's not pretense in it.

Fans seem to ignore what the creators say on this [on what exactly? humans being depressed or are you back to the christian symbolism and imagery thing? -slothen], and still swear that it was meant to have a great meaning. Fans can make it what they want(one of the good qualities of Eva's story). We create our own ambiguities, our own mysteries, and even our own answers to those mysteries. But, in truth, these things were not intended by the creators. They made it so we could make it our own, but there is no "real" depth to it, just the depth we ourselves create. (Haha, that sounds like an Eva quote lol)

a lot of these things we delve into here we can never be sure of. When someone creates a universe and tells a story, there always will be more going on in that world than can be told in the story or fully explained. Some storytellers leave out anything that doesn't directly pertain to the main story, but the inclusion of unexplained elements or unrelated elements adds a layer of realism. So although we'll never know if our speculations were right on the money, its safe to assume that there are some answers to the questions we have. Some of the questions we have the creators asked themselves, we'll just never know the answers for sure.

But fans only give the anti-eva people more ammo, when they scream up and down that eva has meaning. One Christian writer I once read online said "why is it, if Eva has no effect on it's viewers, that it's fans fight so hard over it's meaning?"

This is only because most people hate NGE, while the few that like it really love it. So there are a lot of anti-eva people and they don't understand, care, or like NGE, they focus on the superficial stuff (like the imagery). Why the hell would you care what those people have to say about it anyway? I surely do not.

We try and say that Eva's twisting of religion doesn't mean anything, and yet, we fight harder for it's meaning than anything else.

"We" meaning you and who else? I don't really see anyone fighting hard for the meaning of NGE's use of Christian imagery.

[Eva Yojimbo]

Uhhhh, nearly all of NGE was an allegory that came from Anno's depression. It ended up being an expression of his views on that subject among a great many other things (human relationships and psychology in particular). But how the hell do you say it isn't an allegory? Hell, 25/26 as well as all of EoE pretty much confirms that it is...


RE: Victor

I think this pretty much disproves your idea that NGE wasn't supposed to symbolize anything and have any depth. This quote came directly from Anno:

"I tried to include everything of myself in Neon Genesis Evangelion -- myself, a broken man who could do nothing for four years.

A man who ran away for four years, one who was simply not dead.

Then one thought:

"You can't run away,"

came to me, and I restarted this production.

It is a production where my only thought was to burn my feelings into film.

Either the series is one about hormonal, depressed teenagers fighting weird invading aliens with giant robots or there is actually more depth to it than that...



And I still argue that a great deal of NGE's depth comes from the great skill that was put into its craft. As much as many anime fans don't like to admit it, anime is widely considered a 2nd rate art form for a reason. That's simply that there just aren't an exorbitant amount of talented film-makers within the genre compared to others. That's why when truly great works come along it's really something to celebrate.

NGE is one of the few that not only is head and shoulders above other anime productions in terms of the craft that went in to it, but the vast majority of everything else out there in other genres.

I say again that it's the meticulous care and detail that went into the making of NGE (the intellectual element), as well as the crafting of the story and characters (the emotional element) that combine to create one truly memorable work of art. Taken seperately they each might not be worth a whole lot, but together they're truly something magical, and create a work of quality art that has real depth.