REAL ending, was:Re: [EVA] Final Genesis (SPOILERS)
robday at rph.health.wa.gov.au
Tue Feb 29 15:07:47 EST 2000
George Chen (quoting me in places) said :
<snip my postulations>
> Actually, the history goes something like this:
> Director Anno creates a series. Drafted an ending with EOE's
> style/context/plot in mind (something that's suppose to be *very* dramatic).
> He ran out of time/money to produce the final few eps. Under pressure, he
> produce the TV 25/26 to get some of his rough ideas across. And most fans
> go, "Huh?".
> Promised Rebirth which is what he wanted to be the ending, and ran out of
> time again and produced EOE....
A lot of the first draft material didn't get into the series, including
the ending, true. I have read that Director Anno, when questioned at a
conference about the TV ending being rushed due to lack of time/money,
denied this vigorously. OK, in the immortal words of Mandy Rice-Davies,
"Well he would say that, wouldn't he". But still, Michelangelo's first
cartoons for the Sistine Chapel were not the same as the final product.
He learned and grew during its making, as I am sure Director Anno did
during the TV series.
Just because the original storyboard ending was not used in the TV series
does not make the TV ending wrong, or even inferior. I agree that
subsequent use of that ending in EoE shows Director Anno was still keen
on it, and that supports the idea that he was forced to drop it because
of outside factors.
Why EoE then ? Fan pressure, money pressure (remember the tax evasion
issue; Gainax seems to have needed funds for some time), the hope that he
could do it better next time - and thus more fully communicate his
original idea ? Probably all of the above.
But Director Anno has never publicly resiled from the TV ending. He
could easily blame lack of funds if he wanted to, but he hasn't (to my
knowledge, anyone else know differently ?).
Why ? Maybe he *likes* the deliberate ambiguity of the TV ending. I
> > Is the first ending now invalid ? Or changed ?
> > Is it changed by someone (even Director Anno) writing in a filmbook after the
> > change of heart ?
> TV ending is valid, just the thought is not complete. EOE get Mr. Anno
> thought across more clearly. And what is Evangelion all about? Human
Even more so (IMNSHO) about the lack thereof. And the need to make up
one's own mind. I think the ambiguity of the original ending complements
this idea very well; perhaps more so than an ending with a plot et al.
And what is completeness ? Director Anno was a different person when he
made EoE, perhaps a happier/sadder/better/worse person. His ideas
certainly evolved (as his further projects have demonstrated).
> Also, just curious Rob... have you seen EOE yet? I am sure it is a matter of
> opinion on which one you *like* better (TV 25/26 vs. EOE), but don't you
> think EOE did a better job in telling the story and expresses Mr. Anno ideas
> as an ending?
No, I have not seen it yet. And before you all go A-HA! He can't discuss
EoE because he hasn't seen it, let me remind you I am not trying to tell
you anything about what went on in EoE. I have carefully restricted my
discussion to things I _have_ seen. But further, my point is not that
the TV ending is better than/different to/the same as the EoE ending.
I am here talking about my interpretation of the TV ending, and in
support of that, trying to show how it *does* give us what Director Anno
wanted. Maybe not all of what he wanted, or even what he decided later
would be better, but still a true reflection of his intentions at the
time. I am also, inter alia, trying to discover if there is anything
intrinsically incompatible between the EoE and TV endings, which was
where I entered this thread. (See my reply to MugenHunter).
Sorry to be so long winded there, but intelligent comments deserve
robday at cyllene.uwa.edu.au
Accept the possibility of all things,
and the certainty of none.
More information about the oldeva