Theory and Analysis Talk:Eva-00's Soul

I'd prefer not having full Eva designations in page titles if possible. Partially because they include that awful "U" word, but mostly because writing all of that out gets awfully annoying. Here, something like, "The Soul of EVA-00" seems nice and succinct. (I like "of" better than "in".)

Also, should these sorts of pages have their own namespace? Part of me thinks it would be A Good Idea. --Reichu 18:19, 10 August 2007 (EDT)

As it is, "The Soul in Evangelion Unit-00" falls under "T" for "The". This can't be right, so would "Evangelion Unit-00's Soul" (or something similar) be better? This isn't anything to worry about now with just a handful of articles, but it may be rather confusing when more are added. --Eva Yojimbo 10:36, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

moved from forum...

[1]

While it is gratifying to see that you have conceded that the evidence strongly favors Rei 1 over Naoko, I still have some serious reservations with how you have presented the pro and cons of this issue; namely that you a: have omitted mentioning some of the strongest evidence favoring Rei 1, and b: have conceded too much (even while admitting that it almost certainly wrong) to the Naoko heresy, which I contend is entirely bogus and baseless.

I'm not sure how best to deal with this; if I had written this analysis myself, I would have gone about it quite differently (i.e., my starting assumption would be that all the real evidence points to Rei 1, while the pro-Naoko "case" comes down to a faulty assumption (that Unit-00 may have been after Gendo and/or Rei, when, in fact, the actual target of its tantrums was Ritsuko, and Ritsuko alone). I don't know whether editing your analysis could salvage it to my satisfaction, or should I just write my own presentation on Unit-00's soul (would competing analyses of the same issue in the 'Theories and Analysis' section be an acceptable option?)--Shin-seiki 08:29, 6 October 2007 (PDT)

Can't say much about the "B" pro-Naoko stuff; it won't be removed. Just giving as thorough a run through of the pre-Naoko side as possible, before then deconstructing it thoroughly. Just explaining "this is what the Naoko theory says" does not mean "conceding" to it, if the "counterarguement" part then lists how most of these points are refuted. As for "A"; please, what are the "ommitted mentionings of the strongest evidence favoring Rei 1" that wasn't listed? I'd like to put it in there if there is something I missed. --V 17:47, 6 October 2007 (PDT)

One thing that I noticed that was left out (don't know if this is what Shin-seiki is referring to) is during the cross sync test in ep14, Asuka raises a fuss about not taking part in the experiment, Misato appeases her by saying she wouldn't want anyone using Eva-02 anyways, but then to herself, Misato says that Eva-02 wouldn't work anyways. Not sure what she meant by this exactly, but I'd always thought that it was because neither Shinji nor Rei would be compatible with Kyoko. Since Rei is a special case, we're left with Shinji. If Shinji isn't able to sync with Kyoko, why would he be able to sync with Naoko?

Also, it may be worth noting that some of the people who still cling to the Naoko in Eva-00 idea have such a unique interpretation of the events in the series, that there's no chance of any mutual agreement about nearly everything discussed about the show. I remember some member on EMF and I had a super long debate about this, and every point that I make is countered with a "I don't think that's how it worked", also, refusing to acknowledge any source that isn't the show itself doesn't help. --Ornette 18:53, 6 October 2007 (PDT)

I did consider that it my (stalled) analysis of episode 14 itself: the problem I ran into was: Misato doesn't know Evas have souls; I speculate that they just divided internal monologues up between Misato and Ritsuko; otherwise, as Ritsuko is generally the only one "in the know", it would have amounted to LONG stretches of solely Ritsuko-dialogue. They make the point that Asuka might not work in another Eva....but Shinji works ok in hers, and they delivered it fairly sloppy. --V 19:00, 6 October 2007 (PDT)

I added some of the missing evidence that Shin-seiki was talking about: the episode 25 script identifying floating Rei as Rei 1, and Eva-00 seeing Ritsuko as Naoko. But, in the end, the actual conflict here is that as it stands, the article is understating the strength of the evidence. What Shin-seiki is saying, and I've been saying all along, is that the evidence presented in the article, even before I added the additional material, is strong enough to warrant the conclusion that Rei 1 is the soul of Eva-00 without the use of weasel words like "probably", and that the article should say so. Things like "never explictly stated" are not the proper standard to use in Evangelion. --thewayneiac Oct. 08, 2007. 21:11 EDT.

1. Very good info on the script information thanks
2. the "Mistaking Ritsuko for Naoko" thing doesn't really hold up with the screenshots so I've removed it: it's an obscure angle on Ritsuko from Episode 14 which doesn't really seem to be intentional on the animator's part at all, and in either case, Ritsuko was far more visible in Episode 05 already.
3. Make no mistake, the "unofficial yet official" stance is "it's Rei 1", the point was just made that "they never came out and actually said that, but dear viewer, consider it Rei 1". The article already comes down solidly on the Rei 1 side, and it doesn't need to be made more conclusive than it already is. --V 18:28, 8 October 2007 (PDT)

On second thought, a blanket statement "it's possible EVa 00 mistook Ritsuko for her similar looking mother Naoko" seems pretty good, and universally applicable; my issue was just with the poor quality of the animation cells leading me to believe they didn't animate a hint or something, but "thematically" it might be possible. --V 18:32, 8 October 2007 (PDT)

I hope you are okay with this form; thanks for going to the trouble of getting the images, I just thought they ultimately wouldn't be of help. Would you like anything changed or shifted around?--V 18:40, 8 October 2007 (PDT)