A remake or a sequel?

[Sailor Star Dust]

The giant humanoid outlines on the ground that resemble the MP Evas are what keep me hanging onto the sequel theory. I haven't read a good non-sequel theory explanation for them.

There have been:

Sigh, because it needs repeating:

1) Kaworu knowing Shinji: Either they met as children (see also the GoS2 and GD Manga) or Kaworu already knew about Shinji like in Episode 24.

2) The chalk outline on the beach: It's "a leftover from Second Impact" according to the Entry File 1 book. The fan speculation goes that it's a brunt out Adam. Taking the speculation one step further, the 4 Adams could be 4 of the Eva units. (Although some think 4 Adams = 4 of the Eva pilots.)

3) The blood streak on the Moon: compare EoE's to 1.11/2.22. They're not the same. At all. A scrapped storyboard in 2.0 Complete Records Collection showed the 1.0/2.0 Moon bloodstreak as a result of Second Impact.

[Lonecow12]

The new movie is called You Can (Not) Redo...

Come on that all but confirms it is a sequel.

[Sailor Star Dust]

The new movie is called You Can (Not) Redo...

Come on that all but confirms it is a sequel.

Nope, check out this thread: http://forum.evageeks.org/thread/12363/Official-30-title-You-Can-Not-Redo/

"Redo" can have a lot to do with the characters owning up to their mistakes (Shinji causing Near Third Impact), moving forward from the past (Asuka and Eva-03), etc etc.

[qu4d]

The new movie is called You Can (Not) Redo...

Come on that all but confirms it is a sequel.

You can see the NOT in the title, right?

[Lonecow12]

Nope, check out this thread: http://forum.evageeks.org/thread/12363/Official-30-title-You-Can-Not-Redo/

"Redo" can have a lot to do with the characters owning up to their mistakes (Shinji causing Near Third Impact), moving forward from the past (Asuka and Eva-03), etc etc.

Like all the previous titles it has multiple meanings. It's pretty obvious it is referring to the world inside the film and outside as well.

Pretty clever tounge-in-cheek move from Khara.

EDIT: Wow fast posting today. The NOT in parenthesis can be read two ways. It is NOT a remake or it Is a remake.

If you are saying it is NOT a remake then that means it IS a sequel. You argued against your own point, my fine feathered friend.

[Bagheera]

Like all the previous titles it has multiple meanings. It's pretty obvious it is referring to the world inside the film and outside as well.

Pretty clever tounge-in-cheek move from Khara.

EDIT: Wow fast posting today. The NOT in parenthesis can be read two ways. It is NOT a remake or it Is a remake.

If you are saying it is NOT a remake then that means it IS a sequel. You argued against your own point, my fine feathered friend.

Eh? No, she's been arguing it's not a sequel. If it's not a sequel it is a remake, which means her argument holds up just fine.

(personally, I think this might be Khara's way of telling us it's not a sequel: you can not redo, ergo 1.xx could not have happened post-3I since it's obviously a do-over (i.e. a redo). But if you can't redo that means it has to be a remake, so sequel theories go bye-bye.)

[Lonecow12]

Eh? No, she's been arguing it's not a sequel. If it's not a sequel it is a remake, which means her argument holds up just fine.

(personally, I think this might be Khara's way of telling us it's not a sequel: you can not redo, ergo 1.xx could not have happened post-3I since it's obviously a do-over (i.e. a redo). But if you can't redo that means it has to be a remake, so sequel theories go bye-bye.)

I understand this is confusing with all the (NOT) stuff, but she said, "You see the word NOT, correct" or some such thing.

So she is saying the title reads "You can NOT Redo".

Ergo by her own logic she is saying It isn't a remake, so it must be a sequel.

I understand that she is against the sequel idea, which is why her argument, bringing up the NOT flies in the face of what she has been arguing for this whole time.

If the title was "You can (NOT) sequalize." and then she said "You noticed the NOT in there right". Then her argument against a sequel would make sense.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just having a little fun with your words. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Let's not get our feathers in a ruffle.

EDIT: I even confused myself, and put "Remake" instead of "Sequalize." lol

[Bagheera]

I understand this is confusing with all the (NOT) stuff, but she said, "You see the word NOT, correct" or some such thing.

So she is saying the title reads "You can NOT Redo".

Ergo by her own logic she is saying It isn't a remake, so it must be a sequel.

That doesn't follow. Redo =/= Remake. Obviously you can remake, since 1.xx is in most respects a carbon copy of episodes 1-6. You can't say they can't do it because it's been done. It's a semantic game in some respects, since a remake is a redo in many ways and a sequel need not (and usually doesn't) revisit old material. But since that's exactly what 1.xx does it gives the title a somewhat different meaning; it is a remake, which obviously means it exists, so "you can (not) redo" loses some of the meta elements to its meaning. It only really makes sense if you apply it to the story itself, and that means it can't be a sequel -- the fact that it's repeating some of the same events means it can only be a remake.

I'm not trying to be a jerk, I'm just having a little fun with your words. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. Let's not get our feathers in a ruffle.

I don't think anyone's feathers are ruffled here. I'm just noting that your claim above isn't true.

[Lonecow12]

That doesn't follow. Redo =/= Remake. Obviously you can remake, since 1.xx is in most respects a carbon copy of episodes 1-6. You can't say they can't do it because it's been done. It's a semantic game in some respects, since a remake is a redo in many ways and a sequel need not (and usually doesn't) revisit old material. But since that's exactly what 1.xx does it gives the title a somewhat different meaning; it is a remake, which obviously means it exists, so "you can (not) redo" loses some of the meta elements to its meaning. It only really makes sense if you apply it to the story itself, and that means it can't be a sequel -- the fact that it's repeating some of the same events means it can only be a remake.



I don't think anyone's feathers are ruffled here. I'm just noting that your claim above isn't true.

Well like you said it's all mostly semantics. I don't think you can really say A SEQUEL IS THIS and and SEQUEL ISN'T THIS. Just because it covers the same ground doesn't mean it HAS to be a remake. Until we know the final endgame we can't say.

Using definitives is a dangerous game. A game I've lost many times.

[Warren Peace]

I don't know what you've done to get him that testy. Bags is usually so easy-going and relaxed.

Using definitives is a dangerous game. A game I've lost many times.

I love these sentences. I want to hear them delivered by an actor like Sean Bean.

So far, the films have offered ways in which the "(not)" does and doesn't apply. You could give reasons why characters are or aren't alone and have or haven't advanced. Anno explores outside and inside the parentheses.

This "redo" business is very interesting. At the very least, it (seems) to point to the film being self-conscious of its status as a re-something, which is appropriate. If you're gonna resurrect Evangelion, it's gotta be to comment on the original show. Looking forward to seeing what that commentary is. Everyone who thinks they know will be made a liar by the end, I'd say...

[Son of Lilin]

There have been:

Leftover from 2nd impact? Works for the sequel theory, since it assumes the NGE 2nd impact is the EoE 3rd impact.

[Reichu]

Leftover from 2nd impact? Works for the sequel theory, since it assumes the NGE 2nd impact is the EoE 3rd impact.

I assume you mean NME 2nd Impact, which is emphatically its own unique event and not in the least bit synonymous with EoE's 3rd Impact.

[Son of Lilin]

I assume you mean NME 2nd Impact, which is emphatically its own unique event and not in the least bit synonymous with EoE's 3rd Impact.

I did mean NME, and whether or not they are different events has not yet been made explicitly clear.

[Seele00TextOnly]

...

[Ornette]

We also saw a flashback of Rebuild's 2nd impact, with 4 lances and 4 "Adams", it was nothing like EoE's 3rd impact. And, being that there are people who "lived through" 2nd impact, not having been turned into LCL, that doesn't seem to line up with what is made explicitly clear in EoE.

[Reichu]

There's also the stain on the Moon, which, in NME, is so small that it isn't visible from Earth.

[hellrasinbrasin]

I think and this is just my two cents -- that what we have seen in these 2
Rebuild films is the 1st Act of the current "Loop" --

SPOILER: Show

that in fact although some minor events are playing out differently or as they should have in the 1st cycle (Tv-Series) we are seeing the TRUE Instrumentality Project is now unfolding...

[Sailor Star Dust]

Regarding the remake vs sequel argument:

「ヱヴァンゲリヲン新劇場版」は、リニューアルでもリメイクでも続編でもない。このプロジェクトには、回顧の意味はいっさいない。これは新時代を開拓するための、最新作だ！

"Evangelion New Movie Edition" is not Renewal or a remake or a sequel. This project's meaning isn't recollection of everything. This conspcious new production in the new age is meant to be trail-blazing!

(2.0 and 3.0 article here: http://www.ntv.co.jp/kinro/lineup/20121116/index.html )

I'm reminded of this:

"The new story takes place in the same period as the 1995 TV series, but the plot is completely different," producer Toshimichi Otsuki elaborates. "This isn't a remake or a quick fix. It's a totally new production."

[bobbyfischer's ghost]

I get a not found message when I click the 2.0 and 3.0 article link.

[Hyper Shinchan]

I get a not found message when I click the 2.0 and 3.0 article link.

Remove the closing parenthesis.

Anyway this sounds a lot like those other ambitious statements, I guess that I'll just sit down, wait and see what Khara will effectively show us in the next two films.