Talk:The End of Evangelion

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on The End of Evangelion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.animetourist.com/page1290.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://j-pop.com/anime/a_13_theatrical/picks0.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gainax.co.jp/special/evamovie/kobe-e.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110225130014/http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/01/17/alan-moore-hideaki-anno-genre to http://www.comicsalliance.com/2011/01/17/alan-moore-hideaki-anno-genre/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pulp-mag.com/archives/6.03/flcl.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:00, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on The End of Evangelion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110803055632/http://www.mania.com/neon-genesis-evangelion-special-edition-movies-box-set_article_77113.html to http://www.mania.com/neon-genesis-evangelion-special-edition-movies-box-set_article_77113.html
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/68BMASmtY?url=http://www.mania.com/neon-genesis-evangelion-renewal-evangelion-dvdbox_article_75523.html to http://www.mania.com/neon-genesis-evangelion-renewal-evangelion-dvdbox_article_75523.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303052611/http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/top_tens/archive03.html to http://archive.sensesofcinema.com/contents/top_tens/archive03.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:43, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

"Love is destructive." and "I need you." listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Love is destructive.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#Love is destructive. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect I need you.. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 4#I need you. until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

Dominicmgm (talk) 23:39, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Consistency of title translation convention across Evangelion-related articles on Wikipedia

I preface the following with recognition that, for novelty, the creators of the franchise intentionally gave a different name to instalments of the franchise in their western release to what would be the accurate translation of the original Japanese title. I assume this intention provides justification for putting the English-market title for each instalment in the article titles even where the original Japanese-market release is what is being discussed foremost, or the Japanese-market releases of the work as a synecdoche for all releases of the work.

1995-1996: The TV series. The Japanese title of the series, 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, translates (liberally) to 'Gospel Of The New Century'. In the west it is titled 'Neon Genesis Evangelion'.

1997-1998: There was then a project to create an Evangelion Feature film. This project was released in several goes, at varying stages of completion, all under the banner of '新世紀エヴァンゲリオン 劇場版', which translates to 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie' (or 'The Feature Film' instead of 'The Movie'; take your pick). These 'several goes' are as follows:

• March 1997: A preview movie. The Japanese title, 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン 劇場版 DEATH & REBIRTH シト新生, translates to 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie: Death And Rebirth'. Some Japanese publicity materials also feature English titles 'Evangelion:Death' and 'Evangelion:Rebirth' for the two parts. In the west it is titled 'Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth'.
• July 1997: A movie that serves as an alternate ending to the TV series. The Japanese title, 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン劇場版Air/まごころを、君に, translates to 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie: Air / Sincerely Yours'. In the west it is titled 'The End Of Evangelion'. I don't know whether the title 'The End Of Evangelion' was ever used in the original Japanese release's graphics and materials but it was definitely not the primary title used e.g. in advertisment posters and announcements there, at the time or since.
• March 1998: The final, collated version of the film. The Japanese title, 新世紀エヴァンゲリオン 劇場版 DEATH(TRUE)²/Air/まごころを、君に, translates to 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie: Death(True)² / Air / Sincerely Yours'. Japanese publicity materials also bear the English title 'Revival Of Evangelion'. In the west this was originally released on home video in the USA as 'Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Feature Film', but since then the convention has become to split it into two features, 'Death(True)²' and 'The End Of Evangelion' with no intermission linking them like the 'Revival' release has - this is the case on the 2019 Netflix streaming release, for example.

This can be gleaned already from the pictures used in the articles for the above. I think the articles can be amended to make the difference in titles between markets clearer since, for instance, the section on 'Revival' in the 'Death & Rebirth' article until I amended it just now suggested that 'Revival Of Evangelion' was "re-named" to 'Evangelion: The Feature Film' on its blu-ray release which is incorrect as 'Revival' was always a secondary title to distinguish that last stage of the over-arching 'Gospel Of The New Century: The Movie' project in the first place and the blu-ray set bears the name of the work in Japanese as it was originally given in Japanese upon its theatrical release. I don't own the recent 2021 USA blu-ray box set, but if this sentence was referring to that box set and not the 2015 Japanese one & the western-market title 'Neon Genesis Evangelion: The Feature Film' is being used for the collated discs, as it was never called 'Revival Of Evangelion' in the west in the first place, it is incorrect to describe the feature as being 're-named' from 'Revival' as both markets are then still using the original title given to the work in each market. I think there are examples like this in the body of each of the articles for the above that omit or conflate the Japanese/English naming conventions described above, that could be amended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmbroseCadwell (talk • contribs) 20:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Removed quotations

I've removed the following quote boxes per WP:MOS; these boxes draw undue attention to the material, forming a kind of bias. I'm leaving them here for the benefit of future editors who may find them useful. See the article history for full attribution. Baffle☿gab 22:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

We will never offer the answers, even in the theatrical version. As for many Evangelion viewers, they may expect us to provide the 'all-about Eva' manuals, but there is no such thing. Don't expect to get answers by someone. Don't expect to be catered to all the time. We all have to find our own answers.

—Hideaki Anno

But when all is said and done, Hideaki Anno's comments on Evangelion are that it is a message aimed at anime fans including himself, and of course, me too. In other words, it's useless for non-anime fans to watch it. If a person who can already live and communicate normally watches it, they won't learn anything. ... Don't drag the past around. Find the next thing that interests you. ... It's always better to let something that has finished [Evangelion] end.

—Kazuya Tsurumaki

A little while ago, I finally saw the theatrical version of Evangelion (I'm writing this in August). It was obvious that the people who created it didn't love the story or the characters, so I'm a little disappointed. But the dramatization, the movement, and the editing were superb. When the story led into the self-improvement seminar, I was nearly fooled for an instant. I don't know if most people enjoyed it, but as a writer, I was able to take home something from it.

—Nobuhiro Watsuki

References

Baffle☿gab 22:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Extensive Japanese in lead

The Japanese text in the lead sentence is so long it seriously damages the readability of the prose. The video game manual of style has this guideline:

In the first sentence, only include a parenthetical foreign language equivalent when the game/topic is not primarily known by a Latin alphabet title. Move the parenthetical to a footnote if the non-English name is not critical to understanding the topic. It is recommended that unless the Japanese name (kanji/kana) is critical to the understanding of the topic, one should place it in a footnote to the official English title.

I think we should do the same for this article. I moved it to a footnote, but this was reverted. I don't understand the reason given, that the title is "the correct one, technically" — no one is saying that isn't the correct title in Japanese and putting it in a footnote doesn't suggest that. Popcornfud (talk) 20:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@Popcornfud: You're right. Mea culpa. You can do it. Just remember that it's The End of Evangelion (IIMN) and maybe to use the templates even in the footnote.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 00:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

OK. Which templates do you mean? Popcornfud (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I mean, the template for the Japanese.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 09:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not entirely sure what you mean there, but I've restored the footnote. Let me know if there's a problem with it. Popcornfud (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I edited it. Maybe it's better in this way.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Short description

@Popcornfud: I don't really see an issue with mentioning the directors' names in the SD, even if it exceeds the limit by a character or two, given how much value it adds to the description. I have reinserted the names for now, but feel free to undo this if you disagree and discuss it here. QuestFour (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that it makes the short description overlong. It should be under 40 characters, as explained at WP:SHORTDESC. You would need a very good reason to persuade me that the short description should be longer than that — it's called a short description, after all. Remember that shortdescs are primarily there to help readers quickly find the topic they're looking for, and including the directors' names doesn't help much there. Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

The thing is that it does disambiguate the topic further, as opposed to just stating the that the topic is a film and its year of release. The former presents a much less vague and a full rounded, yet relatively short, description. And as SDESC is not a policy nor guideline and its content, although helpful, is not to be strictly followed, I think using the current description is fair and more suitable as mentioned above. QuestFour (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

The thing is that it does disambiguate the topic further

From which other 1997 anime film called The End of Evangelion does it disambiguate? Popcornfud (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't need to be another film with the same or similar name to mention the director's name; as I said above it adds more value and makes it less vague. QuestFour (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

But you're arguing that it's helpful for disambiguation reasons. Is it or isn't it?

Clearly we can keep adding detail to the short description to "add value and make it less vague" — we could write, for example, that this topic is a Anime film by Kazuya Tsurumaki and Hideaki Anno released on 19 June 1997 and part of the Neon Genesis Evangelion series starring Megumi Ogata, Kotono Mitsuishi, blah blah.

This is (I hope you agree) a plainly ridiculous example, but it does add more information and make the shortdesc less vague, so why not do it?

The answer is that longer shortdescs quickly get into diminishing returns. Their function is to allow readers to get a very quick overview of the most fundamental and distinguishing concepts of the topic. For my money, "1997 anime film" does that just fine, and the directors' names adds very little value at a non-trivial cost (it dramatically lengthens the description).

I like to use the "grandma test" for these. If someone mentioned End of Evangelion in a conversation and my grandma said "End of what? What's that?", then the answer "Oh, it's a 1997 animated movie" would answer her question — whereas "it's a 1997 film by Kazuya Tsurumaki and Hideaki Anno" would just be silly. Popcornfud (talk) 18:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

You're kind of being pedantic here. As I said, stating the directors' names actually does add value with little to no repercussion in regards to the information page, but if you're that insisted I won't quarrel with you on this, so you may do whatever you see fits. QuestFour (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Popcornfud that "1997 anime film" is sufficient. WP:SDNOTDEF says that a short description is not a definition and to "avoid jargon, and use simple, readily comprehensible terms that do not require pre-existing detailed knowledge of the subject". I find the directors' names something that requires pre-existing detailed knowledge. The juxtaposition of timing (the release year) and the genre (anime) is sufficient to me. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I also agree. Mentioning the name(s) of the director(s) would be eventually useful as a disambiguation from another 1997 movie with the same title, but that's not the case.--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

About the unreliable sources tag

Dani Cavallaro's publications have been designated as generally unreliable sources in this discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard. Citations to her work can be replaced with more high-quality ones or removed, and the tag can be taken off once complete. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Dani Cavallaro is a shoddy scholar, and there's plenty of other analysis on this film as it's not exactly an obscure film. I've added a few suggestions above and will continue to add more. Much of this article will have to be re-written. Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

This article is not exactly based on Cavallaro. As I said on the discussion, I disagree, but just in case we have to remove some notes at most. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

What exactly is a “post-apocalyptic shoreline”?

Could there be a better way to describe the post-Third Impact… plain thing? 138.124.131.202 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

2001 image

The use of File:2001-Sunrise.png in this article is extremely misleading. Despite being designed specifically to look like 2001: A Space Odyssey, the image isn't from any of the works being discussed. It should either be removed, replaced with a public domain still from the 2001 trailer, or captioned in a way that tells readers what they're looking at. hinnk (talk) 23:10, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

The fact that is not a direct screenshot from the movie doesn't change the quality of the image IMHO. It pefectly portrays Kubrick and Anno sizigy. If you think otherwise, you can upload a file from yourself. Maybe even a double screenshot with 2001 and Anno space images. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I mean, let's not exaggerate, the way to perfectly portray Kubrick would be with Kubrick. If you can't think of a way to present the image within the style guidelines for images and captions, it shouldn't be used. hinnk (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I honestly don't see any problem in uploading it. TeenAngels1234 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2024 (UTC)