:;()$&@"\The Anime Pub/:;()$&@"

^sounds like good times Charan.

Saiki k, gintama and konosuba :D, i imagine tears of laughter.

Peace,

-Boem-

FOUND IT!!!

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Oh, it definitely meant something. I was one of the people content with the ending of the TV series, completely. I got it, or at least I got it enough to think, yes, that's where this should end. To me, the far more externalised visual orgy of End of Eva was overkill but I think a lot of people needed to see for themselves the larger impact (haha) of Shinji's decisions during Instrumentality. The Rebuild movies are just pandering really. It's nice to see some iconic scenes reanimated and the soundtrack is incredible but Rebuild loses a lot of the rawness in the series.

I personally can see a lot of it meant something, but I also don't doubt that a lot of it didn't. It's got a lot of symbolism in there for what the writer is trying to convey, but it's also got a lot of stuff, symbolism or otherwise, that is just thrown in there to make you think about stuff. The loose ending was a great representation of what this show was all about. You did some research and found a lot of what the last two episodes meant, but I certainly didn't catch it when I watched it and the most memorable moment for me 15 years later was the masturbation and strangulation scenes.

And to me, this was what made it great. It gets away with shoving symbolism down your throat by just jamming in so much that it's really up to you to decide how much of it is fluff and how much of it is the actual "moral of the story", for lack of a better word. It was definitely very finely crafted as you mentioned. If I did my own research, I'm sure I would come to my own conclusions about what the last two episodes meant that would be at least slightly, if not completely different from what you got.

Even at the current state for me having done no research whatsoever and working off of memory from 15 years ago, the biggest takeaway for me is completely different from what you got. It was an Adam and Eve ending, where Shinji was reconstructed first as the Adam and he consciously or subconsciously decided to only bring Asuka as Eve and presumably nobody else. The final question of the show was to put yourself in Shinji's situation and ask yourself how much you would bring from your world and how much you would leave behind.

It got me asking a lot of interesting questions. One of the darker questions I asked myself was, "Well if they're already dead, is it morally better or worse to reconstruct the starving children in Africa?"

"

North2 wrote:

This is a lot harder to pull off than it seems. The show was overall coherent enough to keep the audience moving forward to reach a conclusion, yet it was incoherent enough that you have no idea what happened throughout the show even after watching the whole thing. I can't even tell if any of it was supposed to mean anything, yet I can't help but feel that maybe all of it meant something.

whats hard to pull off is to have the pieces of a seemingly incoherent narrative neatly fall into place and make perfect sense in a final, climactic revelation (doesnt mean it has to be a happy end and that everything has to be explained, but it needs to make sense overall).
when it comes to visual media, the movie "21 gramm" is an excellent example of that, or the nolan movies.

and of course every movie/ book, whatever is being authored and manufactured by someone, so every little detail, arguably ever single WORD or prop is there for some reason. but then we might as well go on and interpret the "details" in a michael bay movie....someone put them there, someone must have thaught something when he put it there...therefore it must have meaning and intentionality, hm?

"

鬼殺し wrote:

I approached Eva not as an animation first and foremost but as a text written by someone going through serious trauma. To me Eva illustrated a live, real-time breakdown portrayed through the anime medium. Just as Shinji broke down, Anno broke down, and to a lesser extent so did Gainax.

seems our perspectives on and approaches to media are simply too far apart.
text, trauma, character-studies...i dont even believe in that.
as i wrote: all these stories (of genesis, of the mythical origin of man) had been told 3000 years ago. thats why the contemporary attempts to weave another myth just strike me as...utterly misplaced. its like someone writing fanfiction on the bible/ gilgamesh, whatever myth - myth-fanfiction.
on the "psychology"/ character-study: god knows i was a unreasonable angry, angsty brat at the age of 14, everyone was, but then you f*cking grow up (the kids in this series arent even 14 years old, mentally, more like 6 years). thats a phase, not the human condition.
yeah, life is hard, life is unfair, people suck, the world is a cruel place and we are all just a sad clown or ants in gods eyes...but if one really cant handdle it, feel free to end it (thats actually something eva mentions at one point: the freedom to commit suicide)
- or f*cking suck it up, find a meaning and (the illusion of) happiness in any of the legion of amenities this world offers so generously.
in general, i simply cannot respect or even aknowledge "depression". its just so ungrateful to be gifted with life and then reject it. its like spitting in ones mothers (or gods?) face.

"

鬼殺し wrote:

So the query 'what if there's nothing more' is immediately dismissed because the 'something more' is the presence of the religious symbols themselves coupled with a ridiculously heavy focus on character psychology over almost everything else.

ill just say this one last thing on "symbolism": symbols (apart from road-signs) only refer to themselves, the only and ultimate symbols we are left with are the nike-swoosh or the apple-apple.
looking at a symbol these days and actually suspecting a deeper meaning behind it is straight up dyslexic, sorry.
(just on a sidenote: we could circle back to heidegger and his "ontology" of being here...however, his thoughts are easily dismissed by the comparative studies of ethnologists like descola or the practical theories of baudrillard)

"

鬼殺し wrote:

There is no denying Eva deep-dives into the human psyche, and goes probably as deep as it can within its own constraints.

yeah, yeah...the "psyche". how lucky we all are to have one. makes every single one so unique. and it is soooo deep.
goffmann and bourdieue amusingly easily dismissed this with one-liners in sidenotes:
- having a soul is something one chooses to believe in
- the success of psychology is based on its apriori of accrediting ANYONE a unique personality.

eva examplifies this: even the f*ck-ups, the utterly dysfunct, especially those are still SOMEBODY with a soul worth exploring.
i wonder what nietzsche (whom you brought up) would have said about that...(probably that psychology is the new christianity)

"

鬼殺し wrote:

Overall I'd say you're just not a character-focused viewer and that's fine. But it does limit your judgment of these things when you're unable to see past other factors.

character-based narratives simply serve the purpose of affirming to its viewers that such a thing as "character" existed.
funny, isnt it? people looking at a fictional work on a screen to see themselves confirmed.
that might be the reason why the brutally honest character-study in watamote (which i enjoyed) caused some outrage.

Paolo, I think you should stop at this point. I don't know how long you've been around in the forum, but I can assure you: you won't be able to win this discussion against charan. The only thing dragging it on could lead to is breaches in the code of conduct which would either get your posts removed or this thread locked. And while I honestly don't care too much about the former, the latter would be somewhat upsetting.

You are already starting to contradict yourself multiple times in your own post by the way.

Example 1: You mentioned the freedom of suicide while in the next sentence you were talking about how you can't acknowledge rejection of one's life.
Example 2: You said you don't believe in character studies yet said in the end that you enjoyed the character study that was watamote.
So you basically robbed two of your own arguments of all meaning they (presumably) had.

As for the points you made:
1. I think that even in Michael Bay movies most things have a meaning... sure, most of the time the meaning is just something like "explosions look cool", but if they had no meaning at all, then they wouldn't be there unless they were left on the set by accident.
Also, if you like stuff with seemingly incoherent stories where everything makes sense in the end, then I can highly recommend the anime Punchline to you.
2. Most people do grow up, as you said, but some don't. Some people simply don't change, I even know some of that kind. As for the freedom of suicide... I'm not sure if you thought about this, but ending one's life takes a tremendous amount of courage. It's one of the most courageous, yet most cowardly things one can do as a human being. Having the possibility to do something does not mean being able to do it.
3. "A symbol is a mark, sign or word that indicates, signifies, or is understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship" -Wikipedia
The very definition of the word symbol disproves your point.
4. I honestly don't even know what you're trying to say here.
5. As far as I know, character based narratives use the personality and interactions of their characters to drive the story forward as opposed to the story driving the character progression. Of course the focus is on the characters in that case. And I don't think people are watching it to see themselves confirmed. I dare say that people watch fictional work for entertainment purposes first and foremost.

Just my thoughts on this matter.



Ah, so you were looking for Devilman Crybaby, Solwitch. I haven't seen that one yet, so I didn't know... the only ones I could remember that would fit the description you gave have a lot of... "plot". I heard that it's full to the brim with biblical references that are semi-important to the story though, which is why I will likely not watch it for quite a while.

"

FCK42 wrote:

You are already starting to contradict yourself multiple times in your own post by the way.

Example 1: You mentioned the freedom of suicide while in the next sentence you were talking about how you can't acknowledge rejection of one's life.
[...]
As for the freedom of suicide... I'm not sure if you thought about this, but ending one's life takes a tremendous amount of courage. It's one of the most courageous, yet most cowardly things one can do as a human being. Having the possibility to do something does not mean being able to do it.

oh well, suicide...so beloved by the existentialists and poets...such a deep philosophical problem...so romantic!
oh wait, whats that, in the late 19th century already some nitpicker did an empirical examination of suicide as a SOCIETAL phenomenon rather than an existential, individual choice? and whats that - there are patterns and categories of suicide? in other words: there is a sociological primat over the individual "choice"? how inhumane!

"

FCK42 wrote:

Example 2: You said you don't believe in character studies yet said in the end that you enjoyed the character study that was watamote.
So you basically robbed two of your own arguments of all meaning they (presumably) had.

because watamote is honest and it is a glorious blend of theme and medium, so it has artistic value as much as it has credibility.
watamote isnt a character-study of a character but of a no-body. it doesnt glorify its nobody but is content with simply portraying her. thats honest.

"

FCK42 wrote:

I think that even in Michael Bay movies most things have a meaning... sure, most of the time the meaning is just something like "explosions look cool", but if they had no meaning at all, then they wouldn't be there unless they were left on the set by accident.

and it is the same with eva: the meaning or rather "reason" behind everything is the writer, it is painfully obvious.

"

FCK42 wrote:

2. Most people do grow up, as you said, but some don't. Some people simply don't change, I even know some of that kind.

why would anyone care? why is the "psyche" of the dyfunct appropriate as a topic of entertainment-media?
like anyone genuinely cared in their everyday-lifes...but then people turn to (fictional, entertaining) videogames and movies to learn and to sympathize with the less-fortunate...
the more media fictionalizes the misery of the less-fortunate, the more it speaks of moral bankcruptcy.

"

FCK42 wrote:

3. "A symbol is a mark, sign or word that indicates, signifies, or is understood as representing an idea, object, or relationship" -Wikipedia
The very definition of the word symbol disproves your point.

and how does that contradict what i wrote? it actually reaffirms what i wrote: a symbol signifies an idea....cant you see how the symbol is pointing back to itself and nothing but itself in the attempt to signfy? note the grammar in this definition: the symbol is set as the subject.
this totally differs from the ontology and universal symbolism of for example totemistic or animistic ontologies...but i wont go there.

just ask yourself this:
what does a name MEAN?

I only started reading this thread from the last page and I don't really plan to look further back, but to me it sounds like you're just arguing against everything for argument's sake. But hey, that's fun sometimes so I'll join in a little.

"

PaoloPinkel wrote:

and it is the same with eva: the meaning or rather "reason" behind everything is the writer, it is painfully obvious.

This is one point I would vehemently argue against since it's the whole point of everything I mentioned. The reason behind everything in Eva is the viewer. You're just being utterly unbending in the range of interpretations of Eva that can be right or wrong, in that you view everyone trying to find a deeper meaning of the show as pretentious and your dismissive attitude as the only correct way.

I don't think your dismissive view is wrong, since you just fall in the "none of this had any meaning at all" part of the spectrum of how much of it had a meaning. 鬼殺し falls on the "most, if not all of it had a meaning" side at the other end of the spectrum. I fall somewhere in between. And I don't think any of us are wrong in our interpretation. The problem with you is that you're going further and rejecting other peoples' interpretations with a hateful tone.

The fact that everyone got drastically different interpretations of this show proves to me that the reason of the show is the viewer, not the writer. If it was about the writer, then we'd have a much more coherent story and it'd probably be a lot worse for it.

"

PaoloPinkel wrote:

why would anyone care? why is the "psyche" of the dyfunct worthy of being the topic of entertainment-media?
like anyone genuinely cared in their everyday-lifes...but then people turn to (fictional, entertaining) videogames and movies to learn and to sympathize with the less-fortunate...
the more media fictionalizes the misery of the less-fortunate, the more it speaks of moral bankcruptcy.

This is another part that shows your rejection of other peoples' views. You don't find the psyche of another person worthy of a show, but clearly others do. If there are people out there that are interested in it, then it's worthy as a topic of a show.

When a show explores the psyche of an individual, it allows people who are completely unable to even imagine what it's like to catch a glimpse of it. It lets you walk a mile in another person's shoes. For example, a very common trope is the orphaned child being unwanted by the world. I'll just go with Gundam: Tekketsu no Orphans as the example here since it's literally part of the title. It's probably a good example anyways since it only scratches the surface of the psyche.

I've been loved for my entire life, and it would be impossible for me to tell what orphans who never get adopted goes through. The show first lets us see how low they value their lives and why they feel that way. It then shows us how that affects how they view everything else. It shows what it feels like to lose any feeling of agency for your own life, figuratively or literally. It shows how having a purpose for living might be more important than life itself if you view the world this way.

This is something I can get from a mostly action-packed show that's much closer to a Michael Bay movie than a more character-focused one. When a show explores deep into the psyche, it allows you to walk not just a mile, but a whole marathon in another person's shoes. It allows us to experience a part of something that we would otherwise never be able to experience in our entire lives, simply because we are not them.

"

North2 wrote:

The fact that everyone got drastically different interpretations of this show proves to me that the reason of the show is the viewer, not the writer. If it was about the writer, then we'd have a much more coherent story and it'd probably be a lot worse for it.

sure. its ambivalent and that leads to different understandings which might in turn lead to arguments.
however: what is the point in making something completely ambivalent? i have the same problem with the ending of 2001: a space oddyssey; it is just random images pilled on top of each other in a crazy montage - yes, it could contain the meaning of it all, it could be the smartest thing in any movie ever - but it could also just be random bullsh*t. to me, its just lazy and bait for pseudo-intellectuals, so ill simply dismiss it.
symbols were not always ambivalent. if a symbol becomes ambivalent (different interpretations) then its dead.
take the cross: the ancient romans, the first cultists of christ, people of mediaeval times knew EXACTLY what the cross refered to. doubting it (or in ancient rome at some point confessing to it) was blasphemous, interpreting it was a delicate concern for an elite few.
and today we have gangsta-rappers telling us how they make their money selling women, drugs and guns and murdering the rivals (not very christian by any stretch) but hey - their diamond-studded goldchain with the cross-pendant and the occassional "forgive me lord i have sined, YO", "only god can judge me, mothaf*ckers" testify to their earnest faith, riiiiiight?

the typical gangsta-rapper examplifies the hollowness of symbols more effectively than any scholar ever could: swoosh on his jacket, cross on his chain.

when the ancient augurs looked at something as ambivalent (to us) as the flight of birds or a carcass, they knew EXACTLY what it meant.
when we see a swastika, we know exactly what it stands for.

so...when we see a cross...what does it stand for exactly, unless you are a monk?

"

North2 wrote:

This is another part that shows your rejection of other peoples' views. You don't find the psyche of another person worthy of a show, but clearly others do. If there are people out there that are interested in it, then it's worthy as a topic of a show.

thats because i dont make light of other peoples misery.

"

North2 wrote:

When a show explores the psyche of an individual, it allows people who are completely unable to even imagine what it's like to catch a glimpse of it. It lets you walk a mile in another person's shoes.

why would i even want that? i appreciate the fact that i am at good mental health.
if you are serious about that, then try going without food for 48 hours. "walk a mile" in the shoes of someone who actually knows what hunger, real hunger, feels like.

seriously, imagine beeing confronted with a psychotic or otherwise suffering person and telling them: "ive always wondered what it looks like inside your mind, id like to experience that...."
i am sorry, but what you wrote is just obscene and cynical.
there are horrors that are beyond expression - and if you are lucky enough to not be affected by them you should be grateful.

That's...just even more of complete rejection of other peoples' values. By your logic, Schindler's List is a sinister movie. You are not doing anyone a favor by not watching Schindler's List to see a part of the horrors of the Holocaust. You're simply choosing to remain neutral by trying your hardest to not be exposed to it. It's just turning your head the other way and pretending it didn't exist.

What these shows do is it exposes varius problems to many people that they didn't know existed. If you simply choose to not expose yourself to what it's like to be depressed, then you'll have a hard time telling apart from when someone's feeling down and when someone's seriously depressed and suicidal. You won't have even a general idea of what could happen in their head if you tell them to just, "cheer up and smile more". I've personally made that mistake, and until I watched a show about depression I did not even know that it was my mistake.

Here's an example that's maybe easier to understand. If there was just one person that watched Angel Beats and became an organ donor, then that's a positive for society.

Cheers! I'm pretty amazed that this thread's been going strong since 2013.