i post le thread
yuji be my skype friend pls
>>3889489
I'm too shy to talk, besides, I can't speak English properly, not to mention the fact I don't have a microphone. Why would you want me to be your Skype friend?
>>3889494
because you are a goddamn sexy beast yuji
>>3889494
we can just chat, no mic or anything
pls yuji im alone and it feels bad
>>3889528
I don't have friends, I am just well acquainted with certain associates that choose to socialize with myself. I don't feel an attachment on the level to speak of them as if they were friends. The word friend has lost it's meaning over time and the concept is drifting even further in the vast sea of people. Your meaning of the word friend and my meaning could possibly be two polarizing concepts. You could mean someone you like to be around and I could interpret someone willing to sacrifice themselves just for your well being. I'm not particularly fond of being around people so it can't be the former and I don't think I would save another so I doubt the latter. Why sacrifice myself for another when I can do more than they can? Perhaps I am just interpreting the question differently again. You could be inquiring as to if I am one to follow the flock of sheep or if I would wallow in dissonance for regret. The jump could be a leap of change and the cliff could be precipice of faith that one may have to descend to reach that change. Would I change myself merely because some people that I think I know have changed or would I remain the same? Would I cast my individuality aside to feel bliss with the crowd or would I hold my entrails as they spill against the tide? You ask me this question and I can not bring myself to answer it. While in thought I may do one but in action I may another. Would you do what you think; would you jump that cliff for your friends I ask? Would you?
yuji
>>3889550
PEOPLE WHO ANALYZE EVANGELION LIKE THEY WOULD ANY OTHER SHONEN (REALISTIC PLOT ETC) ARE ON THE WRONG TRAIL FROM THE BEGINNING. YOU HAVE TO REVIEW AND UNDERSTAND IT AS AN EUROPEAN ARTHOUSE FILM AND NOT LIKE A SHONEN ANIME. EVA JUST TRIED TO CREATE AN ANIME WITH THE NON-NARRATIVE NATURE OF EUROPEAN ART CINEMA. IT'S POSSIBLY MORE USEFUL TO BE EDUCATED IN FILM THEORY THAN BEING AN ANIME CONNAISSEUR IF YOU'RE GOING TO WATCH IT. WHILE MOST PEOPLE NAIL HIM WITH SIGMUND FREUD, THERE IS ALSO A NOTABLE PORTION OF LACAN IN HIS WORK; HE WANTS TO PULL THE ANIME AUDIENCE IN FRONT OF THE MIRROR, MAKE ANIME AWARE OF ITSELF, DECONSTRUCT IT LIKE ANY OTHER ART FORM. EVANGEELION WAS AN ATTEMPT TO ENNOBLE ANIME AS A LEGITIMATE FORM OF ART.
ASO IS A SIMPLE COMPARISON, BUT ON A DEEPER LEVEL IT'S REALLY MORE COMPARABLE TO BERGMAN'S PERSONA IN MOOD AND STRUCTURE. I IMEDIATLY UNDERSTOOD EVANGELION AFTER WATCHING PERSONA, IT JUST FELL INTO PLACE FOR ME LIKE A MISSING PUZZLE PIECE.
I THINK THE MOST TRAGIC ASPECT OF EVANGELION IS THE FACT THAT ANNO WANTED TO CREATE HIGH-PROFILE ARTHOUSE ANIME AND TOTALLY CRUSH THE GENRE AND OTAKU-ISM IN PARTICULAR, YET IRONICALLY THE NEXT GENERATION TOTALLY ABUSED HIS INNOVATIONS FOR THE EXACT OPPOSITE. WHEN EVANGELION WAS A DECONSTRUCTION OF MECHA ANIME, ITS STEREOTYPES REGARDING PLOT AND CHARACTER, POST-EVA PRODUCERS USED THEM TO GENERATE NEW CLISHÉES AND GENERATING A COMPLETLY NEW OTAKU-DOM, 1000 TIMES MORE INTENSE THAN THE ONE BEFORE. THIS WAY, ANNO IS PARTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF ANIME, FILLED WITH MOE AND MEDIOCRE SHONEN SERIES. IT'S PRETTY NOTABLE THAT THE SUPERFLAT WORLDGEN-TYPE WAS INSPIRED BY AND ULTIMATELY NECESSARY BECAUSE OF EVANGELION....
>>3889555
good triple
>>3889550
filename
here's your ebin upboat :DD
>>3889603
:D
pic related, its ":D"
>>3889555
GRRAHHUUUUUU
IN ROBOT
GHHHAAAAARRRRRRRTOROROROOOOOO
GO SHINJI
GHFFHHHHHGGFFF
ROOOBOOOTTT
IIIINNNNN
>>3889635
>'Afraid'? 'Can't speak English properly'? I don't understand.
If you were to use logic as the consensus definition of it guides you, you would understand that words mean things and while thinking, you naturally transform symbols into concepts when you process language. This is called reading comprehension.
>>3889654
Huh?
W-why did you put that as a response?
This seems somehow rather rude.
Let me rephrase:
Why would you be afraid of even an IM?
You should be able to trust anyone you'd 'meet' on [s4s] to be nice to you, of course.
And what do you mean when you say you can't speak English properly?
Do you mean 'conversationally'? Having conversations like that would only help your English.
>>3889675
>This seems somehow rather rude.
I meant to be funny, not rude. You seemed to be implying I was using words for something other than what they meant, because they were simple, and you still asked what I meant.
>Why would you be afraid of even an IM?
IMs are almost as awkward as talking in person.
>And what do you mean when you say you can't speak English properly?
I mean that if I were to speak English, no one would understand what I said, and I would have to repeat everything I said multiple times, or spell out the letters.
>>3889605
thanks fam :DD
