[MKDremare]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

Not my intention to offend. I kind of suck at picking up on subtext unless I'm critically looking for it. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Apology accepted. I just genuinely do not like it when people misread or exaggerate the words I say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

I suppose it could be a matter of perspective. Often when the producer goes against the writer's desire, it's criticized as executive meddling. But people also generally agree that Inoue's shows would suck if he had carte blanche. Revice would've been even worse, based on some of Kinoshita's ideas that got vetoed! Fitting for Geats, Takebe and Takahashi each had their own vision for how the show should proceed and the audience will have their own opinions of which vision is better. Personally, I think the brighter the beacon of hope shines, the darker the despair will be from the loss, so Takebe's argument makes sense to me.

Fair enough. It's always a balance of what producers and writers want to do. Always have to make compromises in creating stories. Though I think most people would say that Takanashi's idea makes more sense, considering a common criticism is how Keiwa's antagonist arc came too late.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

But this is literally the same reason why people are unhappy with Takahashi's choice.

I mean, I get why people don't want to see Takanashi so soon after having him write for Geats or Outsiders so recently (even if it's been like... 4 years since Geats? Geez, time moved fast). I'm not blind to that fact. I just personally like his writing enough that I'm personally fine with seeing him again. It's really no different from wanting other writers to come back and work on a season to me.

What I said and meant was that some people are now treating Takanashi like how Inoue was in the past; a recurring writer who's becoming more divisive due to the common tropes they use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

That's why I find the tendency to oversimplify or, rather, categorically classify shows into one camp or another strange. The same thing is observed with the division into scientific and mystical riders, although in the shows themselves it is often difficult to draw such a line; and into dark and light shows, which, by and large, is completely delirious. And now the idea that Faiz is a fun show sounds like sacrilege. Although Faiz is a fun show. I mean, I have a feeling that many people, even if they don't think in binary, at least express their thoughts in that way. So I guess I want the nuances not to be ignored and to get the attention they deserve.
Something like that. I hope I conveyed my thoughts clearly enough.

I really don't care if it's "oversimplifying" to divide Rider seasons into motifs and themes based on the apparent outset. All they are are just quick and easy categories to refer to. Of course seasons get more complicated when you get down into them, because no season is truly or fully alike. And I know that even in non-animal themed seasons there's at least one or two hints of them having some animal influence. I'm perfectly fine if there were subtle animal motifs in Riders. I just want to see more Riders where the animal theme isn't the most obvious influence.

I feel like that's what people are missing from what I'm saying whenever I try to clarify it. Like constantly. I have flatout said before that "I want there to be more main Riders that have obvious unique themes that aren't obviously animal themed, but if they do, that it's subtle instead". Hell, I can even literally just say "While I do love [insert season with obvious animal theme, like Gotchard or Geats], I just wish there were more unique themes instead of overt animal themes," and people would respond with "Actually animals have always been a major motif in Kamen Rider" or the like, as if I didn't know. It a little insulting that people seem to miss the point I'm making or focus on the wrong part. And it's exhausting for me having to reiterate this point so often.

Like with Riders with confirmed animal motifs, there's always at least something that catches your eye more than the animal motif. For example, with Double, I don't just think "grasshopper", I think more about how he's half-and-half with a giant W on his head (instead of having grasshopper antenna). Compare that to 01, where I just go "Yea, he's a grasshopper alright".

At this point, I feel like I said enough about what I hope and wish to see more of, so I think I'm just gonna drop this topic altogether now. No point in dragging it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

And the reason why the animal motif continues to be used is the same reason why you are happy with him as a scriptwriter: proven results and variety (if only because there are almost 7,000 different species of grasshoppers alone ). To paraphrase myself in the Gozyuger theme: cars and watches are niche tastes, but animals are loved by almost everyone. So here the question is mostly who emphasizes what: uniqueness or typicality. Each show did something unique and each followed some tropes.

Also, I really don't get calling cars a niche taste. Like watches I get, but cars? Kids have always loved cars. Hell, why else would Pixar's Cars be so popular for so long? I don't think that example is as good as you think it is.