|
Bisse posted:In a futuristic mecha anime with cybernetic organisms being manufactured by the state in a convoluted plan to liberate/enslave humanity depending on your viewpoint, in a world where there exists a floating rorschach orb that submerges you in a black sea of nothingness, where Antarctica is a red wasteland and where the Spear of Destiny is a major plot point, the thing that upset you most and where your immersion breaks is that the Dead See Scrolls may differ slightly from the real life version of them. I'm not a Christian. I'm not sure what I am. I just didn't understand why they chose to name their plot device after something real. Like I already said, naming the Angels whatever means nothing because there are more versions of "angels" in fiction than you can shake a stick at. That's because they don't exist and so people are free to make up whatever they want, be it Michael the jackass in Supernatural, blond superman Michael in DC, tiny red-haired Michael in Angel Sanctuary or big breasted, thong-wearing Michael in Bastard!!!. Although jvempire's explanation does make a kind of sense and I hadn't thought about that until he brought it up. So I'm willing to just accept that was the motivation for naming their plot device thusly. quote:To answer your questions of 'why': Oh I knew that going into it. Eva fans I'm sure are fully aware of the backlash against it ad chief among the criticisms is the ample amount of faux symbolism. Also I had no idea Greed was on a cross. Father does look rather like a very typical depiction of God though. Facepalm Ranger posted:Why should they live in a city called Tokyo(-3)?! Why didn't they just make up one? Why do they talk about Lilith and Adam?? It sounds cool or interesting or fits the theme of the story according to what the writer says fits. The Dead Sea Scrolls didn't ruin the series for me. :/ It was just confusing, like everything else in the damned plot. it's why I tried to ignore all the fluff and enjoy all the characters being miserable. I think I just went in with my hopes too high, having heard lord knows how many accounts of how great Eva is and how much it changed peoples' lives. I wanted to find a new series I loved, that I could devote myself to, that I could see myself buying memorabilia for long into the future. With the plethora of games, manga, soundtracks and everything else, NGE was a franchise I could sink my teeth into. Then I wasn't quite as blown away as I had hoped. That was honestly one of my major criticisms of Eva too in fact, the music. Music is very important wheN i decide which anime I love the most and with "Cruel Angel Thesis" as the OP, I expected a lot of awesomeness from the OST. No such luck. (and the less said about a lot of the covers of "Fly Me To The Moon" the better. I'm a fan of Ol' Blue Eyes) NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 10:31 on Jul 18, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 10:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
I can't imagine how you can say Eva's soundtrack doesn't have a lot of awesomeness. Decisive Battle, The Beast, Angel Attack, A Step Forward Into Terror and a bunch of others are all incredibly memorable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
This is literally the first time I have ever seen someone complain about the EVA OST. Can't please everyone I guess!
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 11:06
|
|
|
I can only imagine people really disliking EVA coming into it now because the whole 'angels are actually aliens and it's all super-technology' thing is widespread all over the Internet. It's possibly the least interesting take on EVA possible and, really, makes EVA lose a ton of its narrative punch without the crazy religious bent. The main antagonist isn't a sad, lonely man facing down the natural order itself to get his wife back, it's just some guy who found the on switch for some alien technology, basically, and sets a whole different tone and set of conventions and expectations for the story. I've said this a few times in the thread though.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:The Dead Sea Scrolls didn't ruin the series for me. :/ It was just confusing, like everything else in the damned plot. it's why I tried to ignore all the fluff and enjoy all the characters being miserable. It's really not that confusing. Nothing in Eva is out right confusing if you want to pay attention to it. Problem is you wanted to watch it because of people watched instead of just stopping when you no longer enjoyed it. Also the level you wanted to get into it before watching it (based of what you said here) is boarder line unhealthy. It's probably best that you didn't like it for your wallet's sake. Keep rollin'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 11:19
|
|
|
The anime's explanation for the Dead Sea Scrolls is that it was a SEELE-backed team who originally discovered the scrolls in 1947. SEELE had what they considered irrelevant and unimportant information in the scrolls released to the public, while they kept a lot of important stuff under wraps, which is presumably the scrolls they refer to during their meetings. This was inspired by the fact that when the anime was made, some of the real-life Dead Sea Scrolls were still unavailable to the general public. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
Facepalm Ranger posted:It's really not that confusing. Nothing in Eva is out right confusing if you want to pay attention to it. I do like to leap headfirst into things. It's because I'm an argumentative sort and like to be able to pick a "side" in issues I see brought up a lot in the circles I frequent. I did it with Gundam most recently - I watched most of the series so I could finally decide for myself which series were good or bad instead of constantly reading my fellow anime nerds sniping at each other about the UC Master Race and that SEED was the spawn of Hitler and Satan and only yaoi fangirls liked Wing and 00 was the Second Coming of UC greatness. (most of that was bullshit, although everything I ever heard about Destiny was true) So it was with Eva, a Love It Or Hate it series. I wanted to see if I loved it or hated it. Turns out I kinda just sorta liked it and I miss the money I spent on those DVDs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Well at least you're aware of yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 11:39
|
|
|
NTV (one of the partners of Khara in the production of the new film series) will be broadcasting all three movies starting on 8/22 during their Friday night movie slot. (1.01 on 8/22, 2.02 on 8/29, 3.03 on 9/5) Past broadcasts have been linked to announcements/releases with this series, so we may have some news on 9/5 to look forward to. (The older movies will also be airing on NTV in a different timeslot, but that has no easily apparent relationship at this point.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
It's less obvious now because many of the cultural references are a) Japanese and b) at least a decade old at this point, but Evangelion is loaded with cult, conspiracy theory, and New Wave science fiction references. All of those things love appropriating historical events and religious imagery and twisting them to their own uses. You wouldn't get mad at Indiana Jones for making the Ark of the Covenant into a super-weapon, would you? I sometimes feel like the series has built up such a reputation for being a ~serious work of art~ that people forget how unabashedly cheesy its film and literary ancestors are. It's influenced by Michael Crichton and Harlan Ellison novels, and the same tacky British TV show that inspired X-COM -- if Eva were made from scratch today, there'd probably be an episode named after a Dan Brown novel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:17
|
|
|
Inspired by Michael Crichton? Do you happen to know which book? Maybe Sphere since that was his only foray into more psychological stuff? Other than that, I think Crichton would cry if he saw Eva because Crichton's science, on account of him being a doctor, was ridiculously hard. Eva's more along Science Fantasy like Star Wars. I'm a huge Crichton fan BTW. I'd be intensely curious to know if that statement is true. (by the by, while I vastly prefer the Jurassic Park novel for a variety of reasons, people who praise the film while deriding Crichton's writing should check out the credits. He co-wrote the screenplay. Notice he had nothing to do with Lost World's screenplay though while the same guy from JP1 worked on it. So I think we see plainly who had all the talent and made all the great dialogue in the first JP film) e: mr. stefan posted:The episode with the computer virus angel is basically a point by point riff on The Andromeda Strain. Hm...I honestly don't remember that episode very well. I only read The Andromeda Strain once also. Still, I'll take your word for it. NikkolasKing fucked around with this message at 15:42 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:35
|
|
The episode with the computer virus angel is basically a point by point riff on The Andromeda Strain.NikkolasKing posted:Other than that, I think Crichton would cry if he saw Eva because Crichton's science, on account of him being a doctor, was ridiculously hard. Eva's more along Science Fantasy like Star Wars. This is a dumb thing to say because most actual content creators don't get upset at a work not being something it's not attempting to be, and Eva is at no point trying to be a Hard Science Extravaganza. The science in the show is deliberately nonsensical and self contradictory to make a point about NERV being a bunch of people who have no idea what they're dealing with, who are very clearly not as in control as they think they are. Babysitter Super Sleuth fucked around with this message at 15:46 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:38
|
|
|
Few questions that have been on my mind after my rewatch: Is it ever established how/why we know the names of the Angels, or are they wholly made-up code names by men? Are they laid out in the Dead Sea Scrolls? Where do the Angels "appear" before they attack the GeoFront? Is it assumed they materialize out of nowhere, or do they fall from the moon or some poo poo? Is the only real source of the "it's actually aliens" theory the videogame?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
What I want to know is why SRW makes a big deal about each individual Angel showing up when every other MotW gets reduced to trash mobs to be mowed down by the dozens.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:43
|
|
|
DrPop posted:Few questions that have been on my mind after my rewatch: No, in the series I think the only place the first several Angels are named is the recap episode (except Adam and Lilith  ) so either of your ideas is plausible.quote:Where do the Angels "appear" before they attack the GeoFront? Is it assumed they materialize out of nowhere, or do they fall from the moon or some poo poo? Sometimes out of nowhere, sometimes they seem to have crept up on NERV without explanation. Except Sandalphon, the baby Angel in the volcano. quote:Is the only real source of the "it's actually aliens" theory the videogame? Yeah, another strike against it IMO. Tuxedo Catfish posted:It's less obvious now because many of the cultural references are a) Japanese and b) at least a decade old at this point, but Evangelion is loaded with cult, conspiracy theory, and New Wave science fiction references. All of those things love appropriating historical events and religious imagery and twisting them to their own uses. What New Wave references are there, except Instrumentality and "The Beast that Shouted Love at the Heart of the World"? I don't get much of a Moorcock/Disch/Delany vibe from the series.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
DrPop posted:Is it ever established how/why we know the names of the Angels, or are they wholly made-up code names by men? Are they laid out in the Dead Sea Scrolls? The Angel attacks are foretold by the Dead Sea Scrolls; I don't know if this is ever directly stated as such, but they are pretty explicitly described as a prophecy of Second and Third Impact and of the coming apocalypse, and considering the Angels are a key part in all of that... well, it's not much of a stretch, in any case. As for the Angel names I don't think anyone in the show actually names any of them except Kaworu; the rest are either from episode titles or external sources. Rebuild takes this one step further and has several new Angels who are never named at all. DrPop posted:Where do the Angels "appear" before they attack the GeoFront? Is it assumed they materialize out of nowhere, or do they fall from the moon or some poo poo? The Angels exist in a dormant, vestigial form that's almost impossible to detect until they awaken. Remember Magma Diver? That was NERV's attempt to recover/capture an Angel before it attacked. DrPop posted:Is the only real source of the "it's actually aliens" theory the videogame? There's probably something about it in Anno's original pitch, which I think is documented somewhere, or at least recounted in an interview. Of course, said pitch also includes stuff like the Evangelions themselves being relics of an ancient civilization and other stuff that gets contradicted by the show, so...
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
Pureauthor posted:What I want to know is why SRW makes a big deal about each individual Angel showing up when every other MotW gets reduced to trash mobs to be mowed down by the dozens. Probs cause they're awesome. DrPop posted:Few questions that have been on my mind after my rewatch: idk man make something up that sounds cool
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
I just love watching people talk about Eva and all it's stupid intricacies. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:05
|
|
|
Reminder that the "Angels" are actually Apostles in the original Japanese.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
I kind of wish they went into more how they were a photonic lifeform rather than carbon based like us. They were sapient photons, living light.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:It's influenced by Michael Crichton and Harlan Ellison novels, and the same tacky British TV show that inspired X-COM Don't talk poo poo about UFO.  One of my favourite things about Evangelion is how it shows how obvious a Gerry Anderson fan Anno is, half of the vehicle and city designs could have come straight from Thunderbirds or Stingray. Sakurazuka fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 17:20
|
|
|
If I remember right several Angel names show up on the computer displays in NERV but nobody actually says the names.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 18:17
|
|
|
Shinji Ikari is my wife
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 20:16
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Hey Eva thread, do you guys know if there are ever any 35mm screenings of End of Evangelion, or hell any evidence of surviving 35mm prints? The last sign I could find was a screening in 2006.... seems such a shame that the world only gets to see something on the scale of 2001 in nasty compressed dvd. I don't have much hope for a blu ray release cause of the rebuild, but maybe someday... Mia Wasikowska fucked around with this message at 22:38 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:Inspired by Michael Crichton? Do you happen to know which book? Maybe Sphere since that was his only foray into more psychological stuff? Man, Michael Crichton's relationship with science was anything but "hard." He was good at technobabble but that was largely it and also he was a complete shithead. (Which doesn't influence his writing but makes it hard to enjoy.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Sakurazuka posted:Don't talk poo poo about UFO. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slYW7kkHyI4 The UFO intro is basically a proto-EVA in terms of aesthetics, right down to flashes of white text against black intercut with quick cuts of official looking things happening.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:47
|
|
|
3 posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slYW7kkHyI4 Between that and the Big O opening that has really similar music and style to this, I feel like sometime I really gotta check it out to see why there were some Japanese animators that loved that show.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 22:50
|
|
|
That intro is probably the best thing to happen to 70's TV. It's creaky as gently caress (unsurprisingly for a show of its age) but has some genuinely creepy moments. The costume designs are hilarious in the way only 70's shows can be though. GA also seemed to be a big fan of the bad guys being unknowable, cold, alien intelligences around the time of doing this and Captain Scarlet (his all-round best work), shame he went back to pantomime villains for Terrahawks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Man, Michael Crichton's relationship with science was anything but "hard." He was good at technobabble but that was largely it and also he was a complete shithead. (Which doesn't influence his writing but makes it hard to enjoy.) I fail to see how his science wasn't hard considering all he does typically is go into lavish detail about stuff that is very much real and then adds his own twist. Jurassic Park for example is full of stuff that definitely existed and could be done but then he added his own unique spin on the whole thing. He made it all sound completely plausible which is a testament to his writing ability. He loved technology contrary to popular belief and knew a hell of a lot about it. The description of the underwater habitat in Sphere for example was excellent and very accurate. quote:Sphere (1987) This time, the extraterrestrial threat is underwater, in a spacecraft discovered by the U.S. Navy more than 300 years after it landed on the sea floor. Real-life astronaut Michael Collins, who reviewed Sphere for Book World, waxed enthusiastic about Crichton's ability to explain how oxygen under pressure becomes toxic to humans. "These details, rather than the characters, make this book seem more believable," he wrote. And, to be frank, how do we know most celebrities aren't shitheads? Look how long Mel Gibson was a fan favorite before his career went down the toilet. I care less about a writer's personality than what he's writing. (although it does help I more or less agree witH Crichton's views in a lot of areas, mostly to do with human illusions as to our own importance)
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:09
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I fail to see how his science wasn't hard considering all he does typically is go into lavish detail about stuff that is very much real... Because his understanding of much of the technology is poor at best. His own 'twist' usually makes no sense. It's fun science fiction but if you think that is hard science I don't know what to say to you. Like this isn't a case of "it's your opinion." If you think his books are hard science fiction you're wrong, despite the fact that he isn't using far future technology. His science fiction is about as 'hard' as the Matrix. I mean gently caress dude, he wrote State of Fear. Are you seriously going to argue State of Fear, where he compared climate change research to Soviet party-line executions and said "“open and frank discussion of the data, and of the issues, is being suppressed" is hard science? Or hell dude, Prey. Do you really think Prey is a remotely realistic look at nanotechnology? Not even "nanotechnology with a twist", just any sort of realistic look at the concept at all? There are some pretty good books out there which actually go into the science of his books and how flawed or implausible or downright comical they are. It's fine for what it is: A fun justification for light science fiction. However it is the opposite of hard fiction. ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:25 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:13
|
|
|
And Congo was about human-ape hybrids and Airframe had no science fiction in it at all. He wrote several different types of novels, some harder than others. I'm inclined to believe the guy with an MD from Harvard knew a thing or two about science, I dunno. As for State of Fear, I never did finish it. I'm in the general camp of liking "old Crichton" more than "new Crichton" as the last book of his I really liked was Lost World. Didn't care for Timeline, Prey or State of Fear, the first and third of which I never finished. Timeline was okay I guess, a lot of cool stuff about medieval history.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:28
|
|
|
Man I really loved Sphere as a kid. Please don't say it was actually bad all along 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
NikkolasKing posted:I'm inclined to believe the guy with an MD from Harvard knew a thing or two about science, I dunno. "Science" isn't a magical catch-all field where you know one thing about science and suddenly are an expert at everything, especially considering his studies were never in most of those fields. He was an MD. He also believed in astral projection, aura viewing and clairvoyance. Being educated doesn't go hand-in-hand with with being educated about all subject matter. Nate RFB posted:Man I really loved Sphere as a kid. Please don't say it was actually bad all along It was fine science fiction, it just isn't "hard" science fiction at all. There's nothing wrong with that. Crichton himself described his writing as "airport fiction." Crichton himself however was a tremendous shithead on a personal level and some of that leaked into his writing. (State of Fear being the biggest and most neon-glowing example of this.) ImpAtom fucked around with this message at 23:38 on Jul 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:32
|
|
|
Well I will concede since you aren't making GBS threads on his writing, which is more than I can say for a lot of people on this board. I'm in no position to show how his science was super-accurate, I just was basing my own laymen view off of what I had read. (stuff like the link I posted earlier and various other discussions I've had over the years) So fair enough about his stuff not being hard sci-fi, my apologies. Nate RFB posted:Man I really loved Sphere as a kid. Please don't say it was actually bad all along Sphere is easily his best book IMO. I've read most of his stuff at this point and it's still #1.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:42
|
|
|
^^ straight up, I read that book when I was like ten years old and reread it so many times that my original copy is in like six pieces. Rest in peace.Nate RFB posted:Man I really loved Sphere as a kid. Please don't say it was actually bad all along It's not bad, it's good. But the science isn't what you'd call good. Like in the cockpit area they talk about the chairs that are filled with water and cover your body and say it's to protect against g-forces because water is incompressible. But that doesn't make a lick of sense in reality. Sounds cool though. In timeline he goes balls to the wall crazy with some wacky quantum physics baloney. He even says so himself: "I asked my QP pal if this stuff was at all believable and he said hahaha no way dude" he picks a point where the real science stops and he makes stuff up after that, and it's cool and good because it's science fiction. A lot like evangelion. Sounds fancy and maybe even believable, but really it's horseshit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Didn't Crichton also write a book about "men can be raped too  "? Yeah I guess he was a little bit of a shithead. Though I guess it could be worse; I'd rather have a climate change denier than Orson Scott Card.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Disclosure was, on the surface, about the very real problem of men not being taken seriously when they try to bring up sexual harassment at work. The book is really about a company conspiracy and the hero was just a scapegoat and the whole sexual harassment thing was a smokescreen. People accuse Crichton of many things, misogyny being one of them, but these people really should read Book Lost World then see Movie Lost World. Book Sarah Harding is a badass who shoots a raptor while riding on a motorcycle. What' smore she's actually competent at her job in studying animal behavior. Movie Sarah Harding establishes her credentials when she went up to the unknown animal's nest and dicks around with said unknown animal's young.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
That doesn't really say anything about the author though. I don't really buy much of Crichton's misogyny arguments, he does seem to be okay with women, but he had so many problems there isn't really much need to compound them with more. "This person was critical of me so I'm going to include them in my book as a small-dicked pedophile rapist" is like one of the most hilariously petty things ever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Nate RFB posted:Man I really loved Sphere as a kid. Please don't say it was actually bad all along I still like the movie. Saw it when I was 8-9, had no idea what was going to happen (I read the book the following summer), and was on the edge of my seat the entire time. When I rewatched it recently, it wasn't as good as I remembered, but I still thought it was pretty decent. Even when I was 8 I noticed the mistake in the code thing, though. I felt super-smart when I noticed it wasn't in the book. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2014 00:49
|
|
