Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question[edit]

The last scene in the first part shows a boy that looks like Kaoru floating next to what looks like a floating, petrified angel. What is the significance of this scene and how does it fit in? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.97.131.91 (talk • contribs) .

Intermission Song[edit]

I know the first song was a "calmer" version of CAT, but what was the name of the Waltz like song that was also part of the intermission. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.244.227.192 (talk • contribs) .

Title?[edit]

Considering that the Japanese title includes the full name of the series, I'm wondering if this article should be retitled Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death and Rebirth. What do you think? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically what is "original research" in this article?[edit]

Specifically what is original research in this article? Explaining what is different in the film itself? That's sourced from the film and is as much "original research" as saying "Death & Rebirth is largely a clip show made up of recycled animation, plus the first third of End of Eva"--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, only all of it. It makes comparative statements between two different things, and is unsourced indoing so. You can't source it from the film, as you need to make comparisons between the two. You can't source it from the film alone! How do you refernce that a scene wasn't in the original? The section is the very definition of original research, and the removal of such a justified template without any attempt to fix the issues is not helpful, neither is your edit summary. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we could also fix this issue by saying VVVVV's edits are unnecessary trivia and that they should just be removed. Do we really need to mention each frame that got even slightly modified ? Folken de Fanel (talk) 17:46, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who sometimes removes trivia from articles, I don't think it's "trivia" as such. In its current form as blatant original research it could be interpreted as such, but with the right sourcing, compression and rewriting into prose format, it would be valid, relevant information - thats the difference for me. Really it depends on the relevance of the difference to the work (i.e. is it substantial, or just a minor tweaked frame or two), and the all important sourcing. It's hard to defend the removal of the information, but I'd remove it because its original research rather then trivia. That said, any reduction of the section would be an improvement Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've just had a look at the diff, and I've changed my mind - it really was excessive trivia, and hard to argue it was anything other then original research. Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As you said in your first message, the ideal way to mention the modifications would be with a general statement, maybe 2 or 3 lines long (and sourced, of course). But not in the form of excessive frame by frame descriptions. That's what i meant. Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to remove it, I agree now that I can't force it on there, do what you think is best. I shouldn't have been so heavy-handed sorry I was getting frustrated. Though seriously;...how is this "helping people"? There was a list of changes made in it, and now it just says essentially "death and rebirth is a clip show with some new animation"? What exactly was gained my removing it? I mean remove it....but I don't understand why. (check out my userpage, I'm a card-carrying Inclusionist)--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, whats gained by including it? I'd say the changes were insignificant to warrant such a large amount of text. The changes aren't on the scale of say, rebuild 1.0, which not only compressed some events, but completely changed/added others compared to the original episodes, and will certainly get some reliable sources for the changes once it's out on dvd in english. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. The changes are the only reason people buy Death&Rebirth anymore; its really a clipshow and should stay out of print. How can you *possibly* compare this to Rebuild 1.0 ; that's a complete remake, like comparing Gundam Wing to Mobile Suit Gundam. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on, Rebuild 1.0 is nowhere as different from the TV episodes as Gundam Wing to MSG. Oh, it has all-new animation and does some rearranging of events in a way that is insignificant unless the later Rebuild films deliberately make the minor differences into Chekhov's guns - as opposed to completely different plots. (I've never seen MSG, but looking over the plot summary, it doesn't resemble my memories of GW at all.)
(Personally, I think the changes are interesting because they add to characterization - especially for Asuka - and the redone scenes are informative about the decline in production standards, and also about possible retconing such as the changes in the 2nd Impact footage. Besides, what else is there to say about D&R except quotidian commercial details and the changes? But RSs would be nice, yes.) --Gwern (contribs) 00:41 17 November 2009 (GMT)

I suggest we merge the two infoboxes and removing the DVD boxset of revival. and the information being part of "release".Bread Ninja (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support making ReVival a subsection of Death and Rebirth's article. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:18, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would seem to be the best course of action. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 17:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the course of action already happened, i believe you all made a mistake. this the very reason why i wanted to merge all three but of course the decision is up to you guys.

  • 1. Death and Rebirth
    • Death
    • Rebirth
  • 2. The End of Evangelion
    • 25'. Air (EPISODE 25': Love is destructive.)
    • 26'. まごころを, 君に Magokoro wo, kimi ni; A Pure Heart for You (ONE MORE FINAL: I need you.)
  • 3. Revival of Evangelion
    • DEATH(TRUE)²
    • 25'. Air (EPISODE 25': Love is destructive.)
    • 26'. まごころを, 君に Magokoro wo, kimi ni; A Pure Heart for You (ONE MORE FINAL: I need you.)

seeing here it makes more sense that revival were merged to EOE.Bread Ninja (talk)

Delay[edit]

The production delay worth mentioning? http://www.ex.org/2.3/10-news.html --Gwern (contribs) 15:34 14 December 2009 (GMT)


just saying[edit]

this is missing information about other versions of Evangelion: Death, for example, Evangelion: Death (true).

revival of evangelion was only a remake of death (true)2 and added along with End of Evangelion, it was just a box set. So it's best to merge the infoboxes together instead of keeping them both separate. Also there's not much of 'individual' notabilityBread Ninja (talk) 19:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accolades[edit]

http://afufu.net/freewill/2008/03/anime-reviews/ has the following quotes:

“The Ultimate Composition of the Ground-breaking Epic is Finally Here.” –Wizard Magazine'
 “The Anime Event of a Lifetime” –Play Magazine

Good leads. --Gwern (contribs) 21:29 30 January 2010 (GMT)

Move article to "Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth"[edit]

As title suggests, i suggest we move the article to "Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth" since there are more reliable sources know it as such. Also the dvd cover also has it as "Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth". Does anyone else habe a say in this?Lucia Black (talk) 04:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

if i dont get a responce within a few days. Ill probably be bold about it since it seems like i cant find any RSs that have it as "Evangelion".Lucia Black (talk) 05:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

reviews[edit]

Adding review here.

So far only two.Lucia Black (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Context?[edit]

I know the death threat and graffiti are next to the Reception section ,but can someone at least write something in the actual article about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.131.52.204 (talk) 23:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Neon Genesis Evangelion: Death & Rebirth. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 19:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neon_Genesis_Evangelion:_Death_%26_Rebirth&oldid=1204241568"