[Zolda]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

I presume the sealing function of Ride Chemy Cards also prevents Chemies from accidentally leaking in to their emotions. We did see Bolt merge with Hawkstar though, so it seems that the alchemists do need some level of restraint around unsealed Chemies, hence why the Alchemy Academy are so strict about the rules.

Makes sense. So far, it seems like the RCC's function like a leash, cage, or Poke Ball. They function as some kind of alchemical separator that prevent humans' psyche from binding with Chemies. The Sisters are probably able to unseal the Chemies from the RCC's without the use of Chemy Riser. But, if so, then how was Tsurugi still able to seal Raidenji into its own RCC in episode 10? Do the RCC's tampered by The Sisters work like jailbroken iPhones, similar to how the delinquent Beat Riders used jailbroken Lockseeds to control Inves?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

This is certainly more plausible now that we know exactly what the memory loss spell is capable of. It's possible that the father even erased their memories personally to protect them from whatever dangerous secret alchemy he might be involved with.

One of the plausible reasons of why Houtarou and his mom remember the dad as a world traveler is because the dad tampered with their true memories and planted this false one. He could still be alive and only left his family temporarily. He planned to return to his family one day, after he finishes whatever secret stuff he must be doing now. He didn't want to give them bad memories, hence why he only made them remember him as an absent dad, not a dead one.

Another possibility is the one I mentioned here that Houtarou's and his mom's memories were manipulated by the mastermind(s) of the story. Them remembering the dad as a world traveler was just a random made-up story to fill the holes in their memories, without any further reasoning, kinda like when agent J or K of the MIB create made-up, ridiculous stories after they Neuralyze the civilians. The dad might have been dead all along. I think this is a better, super impactful, dramatic setup for the main plot twist and Gotchard's berserker form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

Yeah, I was thinking Bountybunny as well. I see her as kind of like Kiryu Sento as a girl. Buglesia also makes sense, as the petals resemble a long dress. Hard to judge the Chemies we haven't seen yet, but it's true that Kinkiravenus' namesake (well, the namesake's namesake) is a Greco-Roman goddess, which would also apply to Gaiard, so I could imagine them as potentially female depending on how they look. If there's a human-shaped Chemy though, I think they'll be #101. Might even be Rinne.

Oh, yeah. I forgot about Gaiard. The name Gaia is basically where the phrase "mother Earth" came from.

You're right. The transmution of a human into Chemy is still within the realm of possibility. I mentioned here that Atropos could be having a bigger plan than just making Rinne a Rider, a title which The Sisters have always derided. She could be planning to transform Rinne into the ultimate Chemy that can control all Chemies, or even better: Create new ones, control the Ouroboros, and bend the rules of natural order. Rinne could be transformed into an inhuman, powerful puppet entity who possess a power that is an amalgamation of Sagara and Hajimari no Onna/Unmei no Miko in Gaim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

Agreed. Takahashi always has an ambitious vision for a big story, but never for a long story, which is required of the KR format. For some reason, Toei have allowed him twice to write a whole show without any secondary writers, even though it's pretty clear that he doesn't have the stamina of Inoue. Behind the scenes, even Takebe was like, "dude, slow down!", when Takahashi's vision for Keiwa's arc was moving too quickly. Hasegawa has experience carrying a story with Saber, while Fukuda was tasked with writing Trio of Deep Sin, so I have faith in Gotchard's staff to maintain the momentum.

The huge, very huge problem with Takahashi is not only that he doesn't have the mental stamina. He did have secondary writers: His writing team. So, had he correctly managed his writing team, he could've avoided 90-95% of the problems that plagued Geats. His main problem is that he has a very very very wrong philosophy of storytelling. He has consistently demonstrated a very unhealthy, destructive preference (or rather, obsession) of writing the most bloated, contrived, convoluted stories, at the expense of simplicity, logic, rationality, common sense, consequences, or even the consistency of the stories' own internal logic. If a normal, rational human with a functional logic and common sense can get from point A to point B in 2 or 3 steps or in 5 steps at most when being irrational or under stress, then he will do the same thing in 20 steps. He will gleefully kill all forms of logic, common sense, and meaning, as long as he can project a false image of a grandiose narrative that look deceptively complex, yet is actually a mere bloated, convoluted mess that will immediately, pathetically, miserably fall apart and crumble to pieces when exposed to just a tiny dose of common sense. During the 24 times the Earth has revolved around the Sun since the day of my birth, I had never seen a story as logically fragile as Geats was.

As bad as Takahashi's performance in Geats was, there was an even bigger culprit: Naomi Takebe. After she scored two jackpots with Ryuki and Gaim, perhaps she thought that she'd score the third one with Geats. She probably thought that all writers were equal in ability. She probably thought that Takahashi was just another Yasuko Kobayashi or Gen Urobuchi, who were award-winning writers. Ouch, how very wrong she was. No, ma'am. If everyone were equal, everyone would be Elon Musk.

Virtually everything in Geats was moving too quickly for the sake of moving too quickly, hence why here I called Geats a very neurotic story. The images of many chaotic, clashing, quickly passing thoughts are what you'll find inside the mind of a neurotic person. These many chaotic, clashing, quickly passing thoughts act like a constant supply of high/dopamine, hence why I stated (here and here) that Geats writers were so drunk with their own bullshit.

Takebe should've slowed Takahashi down waaay before the Keiwa arc or episode 1 even began. She should've done it since planning/pre-production phase. The story had activated the self-destruct mode since episode 3 or 4, during the zombie hunting game. If she'd just realized it during the Keiwa arc, then it was already too late. At that point, the story was already damaged beyond repair. It was already impossible to fix it, let alone reverse course.

I'm convinced that Takebe herself probably didn't actually watch Geats as a finished product as it aired weekly, at all. She might not even know about the obvious fact that had been demonstrated since Ex-Aid (!) that Takahashi had always had an unhealthy, destructive obsession with plot convolution. Had she, as a producer, watched the show that she was produced and actually followed the resulting story and scolded Takahashi accordingly, she might've prevented 90-95% of the problems in Geats that almost always, if not always, came from Takahashi's utterly messed up storytelling philosophy.

[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

I think this is definitely not a problem, because the writers of the riders do what they want as long as they can sell toys. And in general, if the franchise listened to overseas fans, the shows would strive to resemble Faiz much more.

Talking about audience strictly, no relation to how writers do things, just how they view what's presented to them. And this is the opposite of talking about dark being bad, not glorifying it to make shows like Faiz more. I think the problem if moral is viewed as something childish only present in lighter shows and done make it accessible to general audience, likely any lessons would be dismissed because adults can view them as above guidance, while children may do that in hopes for getting happy ending presented to good guys, only to be later get hit by reality check and dismiss/spread view (out of frustration) virtue as weakness based on their experiences of for example, getting stepped over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

The part about bringing up the "spirit of Kamen Rider" totally sounds like me, haha. Generally though, I think I'm pretty fair to Geats, giving it both praise and criticism where I deem appropriate. Even the show itself disagrees with Geats fanatics, like those who proudly identify as Kekeras and support his ideals without a hint of irony, while selectively ignoring the other sponsor-related aspects of their personalities. Fortunately, these are likely a vocal minority, as I know there are many healthy Geats fans who like it for the right reasons and if some of them happen to dislike Gotchard, at least it can be for their own reasons instead of jumping on the "it's not Geats" bandwagon. I agree that it's okay for people to like (or even dislike) both, instead of the absurd concept that you can only like one or the other.

Well there was a reason why I asked you about the difference between Faiz and Gaim view before. But Geats haters out of "spirit of Kamen Rider" are typically those who'd be mad at others rejecting Keiwa's plan in ep. 8, which you didn't do. By extension, the overall premise may feel straying to them for showing people joining something out of personal gain/desires and validating that (equals validating doing good for ulterior motives), keeping their wishes until the end, when "spirit of Kamen Rider" expects people to throw it away for those who "need it more", or had those with 'selfish' wish realize it's wrong and follow suit. Kamen Riders are "supposed" to sacrifice their happiness and giving up everything they have for "greater good", to subject themselves to misery or lose their life for others' sake, as stated by PortalTron here.

Overall, wanting personal happiness or something for yourself is "supposed" to be something bad, you have to neglect your welfare and commit yourself to service of others only for "spirit of Kamen Rider". For Geats, something like JGP is really taken for granted, when it's about helping people, wanting to achieve a better world, and fight against monsters who would ruin it, including people pointing out that their actions are not rewarded there. That should be a "spirit of Kamen Rider" Geats displayed, for those hating Geats for "straying" from it - being selfish doesn't necessarily conflict with selfless heroism, you can want to have your dream come true AND do good things. Even Revice's ending had Ikki realizing that he can want things for himself, like pursuing soccer, instead of putting his family ahead of himself all the time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

Fortunately, these are likely a vocal minority, as I know there are many healthy Geats fans who like it for the right reasons and if some of them happen to dislike Gotchard, at least it can be for their own reasons instead of jumping on the "it's not Geats" bandwagon. I agree that it's okay for people to like (or even dislike) both, instead of the absurd concept that you can only like one or the other.

Tbh so far I see more complaints about Geats fanatics bashing Gotchard for not being like it rather than seeing those direct complaints myself, though not doubting if they may exist. None of them are also related to Kekera identifiers (and those may be jokes btw, I just can have trouble differentiating between jokes or serious stuff in this case). Those on "it's not Geats" bandwagon may not be Geats fans, but just "dark" and "edgy" fans. There are good enough people who also oppose that to the "not dark" or "childish" view (KR is for children) though which is good (and makes my job easier), albeit I do wish that for children isn't viewed as equating "low quality" or "shallow", which may be what leads to the complaint/defense to certain shows for appearence.

I think complaints about Gotchard I generally see are the actings of two leads of Hotaro being too loud (unfortunately I agree with this, I'm not into the constant shoutings) and Rinne being wooden, Hotaro's lack of buildup to be Chemies advocate (and can feel as it's done to turn him walking toy commercial), Supana being cliched, being too basic/generic & no unique spins (though I don't care about being basic, everything is repeated on media anyway), lacking setting of either school or alchemy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

I do think some dark shows can fit the "senseless depraved fantasy" description. But like you brought up before, my favorite Faiz and least favorite (before Revice took that dishonor) Gaim were both dark, so it's all about the execution. I don't mind if a show is light or dark or whatever, as long as the tone is consistent and the characters' actions maintain my suspension of disbelief, regardless of the plot. Despite being lighthearted, Gotchard can take itself seriously when necessary and I like that.

I'm talking more about the view on light and dark shows, regardless of the reception for either. The preconceived notions that light will always be viewed as black and white stuff, and dark is always all grey. Basically, anyone on 'good side' on light show can do no wrong (like schadenfreude below), but anyone on darker show will get condemned for any slightest wrong or even something bad outside their control. For the latter, regarding KR's bad organizations, Geats seem to be only show where people got blamed for participating in DGP without knowledge of its true nature of being done for entertainment/using people as fuel, depicting the people as helping the DGP rob happiness for personal gain (even Keiwa won't be safe from this, though it happens when Keiwa was blaming Mitsume and too stubborn), but of course people on shows like Saber or Revice get no criticism for working on SoL/Fenix without knowledge of its true nature and unwittingly advanced their plans. I think show type doesn't matter, morality just exists in every spectrum in any case, from white, to many shades of grey, to black.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

You also mentioned before that bad behavior can be dismissed as schadenfreude, like Reika's abuse in Saber which I called out as I don't want to see sympathetic characters put in danger of severe injury unless the show treats it seriously. I want the action to be proportionate to the character receiving it.

Yeah, continuing the talk about double standards this tends to happen more in lighthearted stuff. Sure there are shows that has vitriolic banter dynamics like (though these are darker shows) Shinji/Ren and Build's cast, but seems that any case of cast "infighting" in lighthearted shows are treated just like that, where friends often can bicker, insult, and fight each other all the time which is "normal" and they'd be relieved afterwards. I think if even people can ship mortal enemies like Batman and Joker, then it's expected actions like Reika's abuse can be trivialized too, particularly if nothing bad comes out of it. Seems that the view is, anytime they're still on the same side afterwards, they can't be real enemies and/or pulling real atrocities on one another (these actions are often depicted as being tsundere) - they're always "tight-knit Avengers".

If above happens (or even tamer things) on darker show ofc it'd be the show displaying dysfunctional team at odds with each other. Late Geats can be viewed as this just for the cast not living on the same roof. Unfortunately, I feel that this is something often done by Inoue though (particularly if he's secondary writer)... characters being turned into assholes for comedy, thus I often point out about schadenfreude dynamics on for example Die's threads and what I wish for comedy to not only viewed as only being able with asshole acts (or characters being utterly stupid, 2 common comedy directions) where being funny doesn't mean it's not wrong action - asshole characters are often liked (or justified) for being funny thus entertaining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

In Saber, Kento suffered for fifteen years because of his father's betrayal, then he suffered in a more diverse way, and after eight (already six) years, his broken heart awaits him again.

It's not all binary, being light doesn't mean that it features something bleak or tragedy. Even Gotchard also has disturbing representation of real-life fears like a (failed) mass-murderer, a stalker pursuing a high-school girl, and a violent thug.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sh Ranger

Revice has dark topics like abuse and loneliness, but depicts them in a "lighthearted" way that trivializes the emotions. The characters get over their problems too easily, due to the Igarashi siblings yelling at them enough times, as Kinoshita likely doesn't care enough to focus on inconvenient things that slow down the plot.

Gotchard's above. Otherwise, yeah though Revice can feel like you said of trivializing problems, still Geats haters can buy the lighthearted presentation to deem it as true to form of KR as well. Moving on from a show you dislike though, it's not exclusive to Revice that something lighthearted can really be presented as trivializing to give the impression of the world and people being wonderful and hopeful for children. Not against that ofc, but maybe talking about misguided approach for it, I think many light shows can pull this to appease them, kinda similar to above you said about Takumi lying about loved one's death.... or even, as I've already said in first comment, keeping tame ratings for general audience, wanting to delve into those darker topics but likely forced to tone it down in release.

For creating hope light shows do strive to create role model heroes (can be why they can come off as having "no personality" or "one dimensional", while being overbearing and preachy, they're created like walking PSA) and, some people's view may be that they won't deserve to be called heroes if they fail or make things worse (like complaints of "why is a hero weak and beaten up, not saving anyone", regardless of them trying), so they gotta make the hero succeed by showing that the right opinion is only the hero's (and those similar), everyone else is wrong and they will convince them why, which means elevating others. It depends on the execution ofc, but can feel that those who hate Geats out of "spirit of Kamen Rider" does so because it's not Keiwa "inspiring" others to be more like him (in regard of wishes, e.g. others realizing their wish are wrong and trivial to improving the world) unlike Shinji, which is to be "expected" for this franchise's spirit. Keiwa himself can also get hate for being a "wuss" for that.

Guess it's why I can be wary of idealistic or optimistic view to see the best in others or interpret situations positively, it can trivialize people's atrocities or terrible situations. Far from limited to Revice, explaining here that positivity in general isn't necessarily better or healthier for moral/lesson than something "depressing", as it can sugarcoat things leading to toxic positivity. The society encouraging to deny and repress emotions that may seem darker (when not managed properly) such as fear, anger, sadness, etc. also doesn't help and can perpetuate toxic positivity.... but they're also healthy, indispensable emotions.

[Mesnick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

I think the problem if moral is viewed as something childish only present in lighter shows and done make it accessible to general audience, likely any lessons would be dismissed because adults can view them as above guidance, while children may do that in hopes for getting happy ending presented to good guys, only to be later get hit by reality check and dismiss/spread view (out of frustration) virtue as weakness based on their experiences of for example, getting stepped over.

For morality to be perceived, it must be understandable. Since we are talking about the same Geats, this is the problem with him: everyone perceives this show in their own way. And this should not be confused with ?finds something of his own,? which also happened. But when different viewers interpret the characters of Girori or Zitt in completely different ways, or what exactly Ace was motivated by, there can be no question of any morality. Because in this case the viewer creates it for himself.

Quote:

Well there was a reason why I asked you about the difference between Faiz and Gaim view before. But Geats haters out of "spirit of Kamen Rider" are typically those who'd be mad at others rejecting Keiwa's plan in ep. 8, which you didn't do. By extension, the overall premise may feel straying to them for showing people joining something out of personal gain/desires and validating that (equals validating doing good for ulterior motives), keeping their wishes until the end, when "spirit of Kamen Rider" expects people to throw it away for those who "need it more", or had those with 'selfish' wish realize it's wrong and follow suit. Kamen Riders are "supposed" to sacrifice their happiness and giving up everything they have for "greater good", to subject themselves to misery or lose their life for others' sake, as stated by PortalTron here.

Overall, wanting personal happiness or something for yourself is "supposed" to be something bad, you have to neglect your welfare and commit yourself to service of others only for "spirit of Kamen Rider". For Geats, something like JGP is really taken for granted, when it's about helping people, wanting to achieve a better world, and fight against monsters who would ruin it, including people pointing out that their actions are not rewarded there. That should be a "spirit of Kamen Rider" Geats displayed, for those hating Geats for "straying" from it - being selfish doesn't necessarily conflict with selfless heroism, you can want to have your dream come true AND do good things.

For me personally, Geats's most obvious sin against the "spirit of Kamen Rider" is Ace's hairstyle. Shotaro Ishinomori so obviously portrayed the villains as Nazis and then such a stab in the back. It’s good that at least we managed without the brush-mustache.

Quote:

Basically, anyone on 'good side' on light show can do no wrong (like schadenfreude below),

But you yourself criticized Rinne for her laughter in a horror attraction. Does this mean you embrace this approach or are you demanding it be extended to the entire show?

Quote:

It's not all binary, being light doesn't mean that it features something bleak or tragedy. Even Gotchard also has disturbing representation of real-life fears like a (failed) mass-murderer, a stalker pursuing a high-school girl, and a violent thug.

And we return to my old statement that everyone has their own triggers, and therefore everyone has their own concept of a ?dark show?. The same Rinne who laughs at the horror attraction is a good illustration of this. This also includes communication between friends. Someone, on the contrary, will be offended by excessive delicacy, because it will be seen as mistrust.

Quote:

For the latter, regarding KR's bad organizations, Geats seem to be only show where people got blamed for participating in DGP without knowledge of its true nature of being done for entertainment/using people as fuel, depicting the people as helping the DGP rob happiness for personal gain (even Keiwa won't be safe from this, though it happens when Keiwa was blaming Mitsume and too stubborn), but of course people on shows like Saber or Revice get no criticism for working on SoL/Fenix without knowledge of its true nature and unwittingly advanced their plans.

But SoL/Fenix ​​immediately declared their intentions and, in fact, lived up to them. It just so happened that there were traitors in their ranks, and these traitors also turned out to be leaders. If Phoenix is ​​still to blame for experiments with Giff's DNA, then SoL is a purely protective organization. While DGP deceived riders, hiding its essence as an entertainment show. The logic here is banal: if there is nothing wrong with it, why lie? In addition, the greatest amount of competition, deception and backstabbing fell precisely during the period when the riders believed that they were saving the world, and this is already a red flag in the direction of the characters, and not the organization. Even from the point of view of selfishness: how will you benefit if the world ends up being taken over by the Jamatos?

Quote:

The society encouraging to deny and repress emotions that may seem darker (when not managed properly) such as fear, anger, sadness, etc. also doesn't help and can perpetuate toxic positivity.... but they're also healthy, indispensable emotions.

That is why it is necessary for the heroes not to hide their emotions behind a forced smile.

[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

For morality to be perceived, it must be understandable. Since we are talking about the same Geats, this is the problem with him: everyone perceives this show in their own way. And this should not be confused with ?finds something of his own,? which also happened. But when different viewers interpret the characters of Girori or Zitt in completely different ways, or what exactly Ace was motivated by, there can be no question of any morality. Because in this case the viewer creates it for himself.

I'm not talking about Geats, but about the lighter shows. With it being the one where it's seen as having morals/message/lesson, while generally being perceived as more childish, it'd likely fall on deaf ears on older, more adult viewers who think they're above guidance, for example: showing solving problems by not fighting fire with fire, but they're consumed by their cynicism to think it's just contrived scenario to make good guys look good, and actual children may not realize if those kind of show may sugarcoat things because lighter shows may do that to preserve always happy scenarios, for example: those that claim "there are no such things as bad parents", maybe partly creating a society that believes parents are always "right" by default, and victim blame those who receive abuse under their parents. While maybe darker shows can give more clearer impact of something terrible as message.

And perceiving show in their own way isn't exclusively darker show problem, because there's something like this for superhero show, perceiving heroes are more violent than villains. Or claiming superheroes stopping villains who raged against the system as keeping the status quo and allowing the system to carry on screwing people over. Do you really think that in these shows that are perceived as light, everyone buys into "rooting for the hero to beat the villain" it expects them to do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

But you yourself criticized Rinne for her laughter in a horror attraction. Does this mean you embrace this approach or are you demanding it be extended to the entire show?

I'm doing the opposite to point out stuff in lighter shows that may be something mean, but can be swept under the rug due to this view. Also, I was only questioning and guessing of the reason why she laughs, and it was in 1 episode before (ep. 9). And I didn't mention it but the question seems to be answered in ep. 10, the next one, when she tries to take Kajiki there again, it seems to be that she laughs due to enjoying the horror attraction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

And we return to my old statement that everyone has their own triggers, and therefore everyone has their own concept of a ?dark show?. The same Rinne who laughs at the horror attraction is a good illustration of this. This also includes communication between friends. Someone, on the contrary, will be offended by excessive delicacy, because it will be seen as mistrust.

Any shows will create conflicts to solve ofc. It can involve something terrible. I can be offended at what certain scumbag does in a show I watch (e.g.Kariya objectifying Rinne) but it doesn't mean that the show is dark just for having scumbags. And.... if someone never built up resentment on something terrible (e.g. racism, sexism, war, class injustice), but they don't personally experience, thus it doesn't warrant any anger or violence from them, it means that's not a real problem at least for them? That's just lack of empathy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

But SoL/Fenix ​​immediately declared their intentions and, in fact, lived up to them. It just so happened that there were traitors in their ranks, and these traitors also turned out to be leaders. If Phoenix is ​​still to blame for experiments with Giff's DNA, then SoL is a purely protective organization. While DGP deceived riders, hiding its essence as an entertainment show. The logic here is banal: if there is nothing wrong with it, why lie? In addition, the greatest amount of competition, deception and backstabbing fell precisely during the period when the riders believed that they were saving the world, and this is already a red flag in the direction of the characters, and not the organization. Even from the point of view of selfishness: how will you benefit if the world ends up being taken over by the Jamatos?

The SoL in Saber's current time is led by Isaac which'd mean its members will play right into his hands before he's exposed. Fenix was founded by Akaishi (who also founded Deadman), Fenix is only Akaishi's means to achieve his goals. The leader being evil doesn't mean that they're traitor, particularly if they're the founder, they manipulate their underlings to do their bidding even if they joined and believed they were saving the world. And SoL/Fenix is just some examples I mentioned, KR "organization you serve is secretly evil" trope (as a part of Riders gaining power from something evil but use them for good). It applies too for BOARD, ZECT, AIMS, etc. And no, the blame is only about the Riders unwittingly advancing DGP robbing people's lives, ignoring that they don't know it. For the competition and deception the people will blame the DGP for using the Riders' desperation and dangling their wishes to pit them against each other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

That is why it is necessary for the heroes not to hide their emotions behind a forced smile.

There are lighter shows of which the heroes consistently tell sad people (e.g. orphaned ones) to put their sorrows away and smile/be happy. Which'd be how the show refuses to address their problem and just repress darker emotions.

[Mesnick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

With it being the one where it's seen as having morals/message/lesson, while generally being perceived as more childish, it'd likely fall on deaf ears on older, more adult viewers who think they're above guidance, for example: showing solving problems by not fighting fire with fire, but they're consumed by their cynicism to think it's just contrived scenario to make good guys look good, and actual children may not realize if those kind of show may sugarcoat things because lighter shows may do that to preserve always happy scenarios, for example: those that claim "there are no such things as bad parents", maybe partly creating a society that believes parents are always "right" by default, and victim blame those who receive abuse under their parents.

In my opinion, this is an extremely unfortunate example, because in literally every rider show there were both bad and good parents. And in Gotchard and Fourze too. And if someone deliberately fixates on one aspect and ignores the other, then this is already a problem for the viewer. Plus, no child or adult bases their worldview on one weekly show. At least he has a life, games, other shows, finally. Even if Rider came out too one-sided, Sentai can always show the situation from the other side.

Quote:

And perceiving show in their own way isn't exclusively darker show problem, because there's something like this for superhero show, perceiving heroes are more violent than villains.

The study is frankly idiotic because it does not take into account the difference in the numerical ratio of heroes and villains. Obviously, due to the presence of armies of troupers, the villain faces more fights and the use of deadly weapons. By the way, for some reason I have complete confidence that the compilers did not take into account the actions of the villains? accomplices. Fuck it, and we lost the Cold War to these idiots!

Quote:

Any shows will create conflicts to solve ofc. It can involve something terrible. I can be offended at what certain scumbag does in a show I watch (e.g.Kariya objectifying Rinne) but it doesn't mean that the show is dark just for having scumbags.

Well, it?s debatable... I think that in the USA they would raise his age rating for this.

Quote:

And.... if someone never built up resentment on something terrible (e.g. racism, sexism, war, class injustice), but they don't personally experience, thus it doesn't warrant any anger or violence from them, it means that's not a real problem at least for them? That's just lack of empathy.

But the world is built precisely on double standards. Alcohol and tobacco are the same drugs as cocaine (and the addiction to tobacco is even stronger), but they are allowed. For some, simply expressing an opinion online means the end of their career; and the other remains a saint after driving on sidewalks and shooting at passers-by. People can be praised and cursed for the same actions. Even the examples you cited are full of cases where this was justified and condemned by the same people. Civilized people agree that class injustice is bad, but for some reason they immediately declare all countries trying to create a classless society to be branches of hell and impose sanctions in order to make life there as difficult as possible.

Quote:

The SoL in Saber's current time is led by Isaac which'd mean its members will play right into his hands before he's exposed. Fenix was founded by Akaishi (who also founded Deadman), Fenix is only Akaishi's means to achieve his goals. The leader being evil doesn't mean that they're traitor, particularly if they're the founder, they manipulate their underlings to do their bidding even if they joined and believed they were saving the world. And SoL/Fenix is just some examples I mentioned, KR "organization you serve is secretly evil" trope (as a part of Riders gaining power from something evil but use them for good). It applies too for BOARD, ZECT, AIMS, etc. And no, the blame is only about the Riders unwittingly advancing DGP robbing people's lives, ignoring that they don't know it. For the competition and deception the people will blame the DGP for using the Riders' desperation and dangling their wishes to pit them against each other.

I don't put personality above ideas. Swordsmen who joined SoL followed the ideals of the organization, not its leader. Even Shindai served the Master of Logos, not Isaac. That is, if there is a corrupt chief at the police station, then what is the fault of the honest police officers?

Quote:

There are lighter shows of which the heroes consistently tell sad people (e.g. orphaned ones) to put their sorrows away and smile/be happy. Which'd be how the show refuses to address their problem and just repress darker emotions.

It's difficult without examples. In everything that comes to my mind, such advice is usually given when a character has been doing nothing but being sad for a long time. Or he even wants to have fun, but deliberately holds back, believing that he has no right to do so. In any case, advice is not an order and it is not necessary to follow it. By the way, it also often happens that the suffering character goes through all the characters in the show, receiving different advice from them and eventually coming to his own way to overcome grief. In any case, I prefer characters to laugh rather than cry.

[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

And if someone deliberately fixates on one aspect and ignores the other, then this is already a problem for the viewer. Plus, no child or adult bases their worldview on one weekly show. At least he has a life, games, other shows, finally. Even if Rider came out too one-sided, Sentai can always show the situation from the other side.

Not on one show, but there can be recurring stereotypes on media they fixate on that gives preconceived notions, wrong impressions, etc, even if they may follow one or few shows, and may hear about the others from memes that may feature reductive and wrong view based on stereotypes. For example, immediately judging a kind protagonist as forgiving any monsters without second thought (stereotype) when in actuality he does kill monsters out of necessity.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

The study is frankly idiotic because it does not take into account the difference in the numerical ratio of heroes and villains. Obviously, due to the presence of armies of troupers, the villain faces more fights and the use of deadly weapons. By the way, for some reason I have complete confidence that the compilers did not take into account the actions of the villains? accomplices. Fuck it, and we lost the Cold War to these idiots!

For what your view so far, isn't that also "just their opinion" like what you said here? And that it's just them expressing their personal thoughts? I'd wonder where'd you draw a line at "people just expressing their thoughts", or dismissing their takes (even if I agree) like this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

But the world is built precisely on double standards. Alcohol and tobacco are the same drugs as cocaine (and the addiction to tobacco is even stronger), but they are allowed. For some, simply expressing an opinion online means the end of their career; and the other remains a saint after driving on sidewalks and shooting at passers-by. People can be praised and cursed for the same actions. Even the examples you cited are full of cases where this was justified and condemned by the same people. Civilized people agree that class injustice is bad, but for some reason they immediately declare all countries trying to create a classless society to be branches of hell and impose sanctions in order to make life there as difficult as possible.

Sure it happens a lot, but are those people above criticism? Like just because it's common and thus it should be normalized? They can be deemed as hypocrites to have different takes on similar stuff based on personal feelings, and perhaps even giving free pass or cheering on atrocities on the people/group they prefer (their "team"). And their words also shoulldn't be taken at face value, because those claiming branches of hell can just want to maintain their positions of power for the status quo they benefit from, but are expressing it in a socially acceptable way as a propaganda for people to follow their cause, not actually care about anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

That is, if there is a corrupt chief at the police station, then what is the fault of the honest police officers?

Nothing. My point is about how same even would be perceived based on the show's genre, basing on your example. If it's lighter show then cheer for others to take down the corrupt chief and restore police glory, but if it's in darker show then people may blame the honest cops for being "unknowingly an accomplice" to the chief. It's my point about the double standard of exact same event based on light or dark show. I agree with honest police not having faults, and the perception of it or similar stuff happening in darker shows should be the same as the lighter one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

In any case, I prefer characters to laugh rather than cry.

This is the exact root of repressing darker emotions. Because it's prefered to see people happy and laugh, they'd shame people for feeling sad or angry, and the society pressuring them so they'd just be happy repressing their true feelings, potentially turning them into tickling time bomb. And to those who are being sa dfor long time, or even holding back for having fun, it'd be better if they try to address their emotions and feelings and not just force them be happy, like being understanding to like, perhaps their paranoia for not having fun (e.g. it won't last long). Toxic positivity is a case when someone's advice dismisses their feelings and just force them to be positive. And I can prefer if that there's a tragedy happening, the characters react appropriately/naturally to not get over their predicaments easily, even if they may be sad for long time, and emphasize how bad those tragedy are, not sugarcoating it (which may happen in lighter shows to preserve its "happy" nature).

[Mesnick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

For what your view so far, isn't that also "just their opinion" like what you said here? And that it's just them expressing their personal thoughts? I'd wonder where'd you draw a line at "people just expressing their thoughts", or dismissing their takes (even if I agree) like this.

On how it is positioned. If a person simply expresses his thought, this is one thing, but if his opinion is positioned as research, then the requirements are much stricter. Plus, they probably also took money for this nonsense!

Quote:

This is the exact root of repressing darker emotions. Because it's prefered to see people happy and laugh, they'd shame people for feeling sad or angry, and the society pressuring them so they'd just be happy repressing their true feelings, potentially turning them into tickling time bomb. And to those who are being sa dfor long time, or even holding back for having fun, it'd be better if they try to address their emotions and feelings and not just force them be happy, like being understanding to like, perhaps their paranoia for not having fun (e.g. it won't last long). Toxic positivity is a case when someone's advice dismisses their feelings and just force them to be positive. And I can prefer if that there's a tragedy happening, the characters react appropriately/naturally to not get over their predicaments easily, even if they may be sad for long time, and emphasize how bad those tragedy are, not sugarcoating it (which may happen in lighter shows to preserve its "happy" nature).

Personally, I still encounter toxic negativity more often. Plus, again, I'm not sure it's fair to blame the riders for this. Yuto in Den-O and Ryussei in Fourze were unhappy for a good third of their shows and their problems were not resolved very quickly. Yes, miraculously, but this is already a merit of the fantasy genre and the same thing happens in dark shows. And speaking of the victims of the episodes, isn't it possible that their problems seem solved simply because the viewer no longer sees them? Who knows how long they've been suffering behind the scenes? And the shock of meeting a hero and a monster may well push any sadness into the background.
Plus, my definition of happy nature is still a little different. There is nothing funny about Fourze, as retold. Zodiarts are no more ridiculous than other kaijins and are quite cruel and deadly. What makes this show fun is the main characters, their personalities, interactions and positivity. This means that any show can be light at least at some stage. It's just that some shows decide not to do that.

[DreadBringer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

Personally, I still encounter toxic negativity more often.

What does this have to do with toxic negativity? Why it being bad should take away from toxic positivity being bad too? Otherwise, not talking about which show like Riders, I'm addressing your statement of prefering people to laugh than cry. Maybe it's not noticed exactly because of the society shaming seemingly darker emotions like fear, anger, sadness, etc., thus those who shame them so that they'd display "happiness" on the surface, even though it'd be insensitive and inconsiderate, to their issues for invalidating their experience, isn't viewed as wrong, due to the view that those darker emotions are wrong, forcing people to suppress their true feelings to uphold that view, which is how toxic positivity can be swept under the rug. Forcing people to only display positive emotions and refusing to understand them is harmful and can lead to trauma, isolation, and unhealthy coping mechanisms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesnick

Plus, my definition of happy nature is still a little different. There is nothing funny about Fourze, as retold. Zodiarts are no more ridiculous than other kaijins and are quite cruel and deadly. What makes this show fun is the main characters, their personalities, interactions and positivity. This means that any show can be light at least at some stage. It's just that some shows decide not to do that.

Sure, it's Fourze's appeal, and let it be, but shows aren't necessarily more depraved or tasteless, if they're also willing to not pull punches from highlighting the darker or "controversial" themes such as tragedies and horrors of something terrible (e.g. war, resulting PTSD). Teaching morals can also be done in showing something depressing, not just that it has to be only about highlighting positivity. Of course there are mistaken cases for approaches in both, like inserting gratitious dark scenes for unnecessary reason other than making it look more mature, or downplaying sensitive subject to keep the "light tone", but always mind about the context to insert each of both's traits, not that light or dark is bad.

Isn't it ridiculous in for example, a scenario where painter who is only allowed to paint in light colors. Not allowed to use black, brown, dark green, etc. in any of the paintings? Let shows do their own approach without abiding to appearences. For both part btw, to not force lighter shows to be more like darker shows because it's more "realistic" and "mature", or forcing darker shows to become more like lighter shows because it's more "hopeful" (for its messages) and less "edgy".

[Mesnick]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DreadBringer

Otherwise, not talking about which show like Riders, I'm addressing your statement of prefering people to laugh than cry. Maybe it's not noticed exactly because of the society shaming seemingly darker emotions like fear, anger, sadness, etc., thus those who shame them so that they'd display "happiness" on the surface, even though it'd be insensitive and inconsiderate, to their issues for invalidating their experience, isn't viewed as wrong, due to the view that those darker emotions are wrong, forcing people to suppress their true feelings to uphold that view, which is how toxic positivity can be swept under the rug. Forcing people to only display positive emotions and refusing to understand them is harmful and can lead to trauma, isolation, and unhealthy coping mechanisms.

Well, look. There is stand-up in the world, that is, an entire industry created to make people laugh. There are few people willing to listen to tragic monologues from the stage. They exist, but obviously in smaller quantities. At least, obviously not to the extent that someone would declare: ?I want to become a tragedian.? This means that people have a request for positive emotions. And, again, what kind of society requires hiding negativity? News consists of 70% of it. When you go out, who do you see more, happy or unhappy? No one forbids and very few people despise negative emotions, but most do not like them. Because they are negative. And as for the fact that they help overcome grief, is this true? Globally, after tragedies, people are drawn to naive positivity. After World War II, the most popular films in the Soviet Union were comedies and films about animals. When the war just started in my country, news from the fronts was interrupted by Pirates of the Caribbean and the first three Harry Potter films. Practice shows that when a person encounters negativity, he tries to avoid it. Yes, this is a part of life, but an unpleasant part that you don?t need to strive for.

Quote:

Isn't it ridiculous in for example, a scenario where painter who is only allowed to paint in light colors. Not allowed to use black, brown, dark green, etc. in any of the paintings?

Do you know who else loved these colors? Nazis. Just a joke, of course. The simple truth is that I haven't seen a funny show or movie that didn't have a sad moment. But I saw the opposite. Western fantasy, thanks to Game of Thrones, has turned into pseudo-historical political intrigue, where viewers are asked to choose a favorite between a rapist and a cannibal. And dark colors predominate there even visually, as if shades of dirt of all stripes are in fashion. So, from my point of view, you are again fighting in the wrong direction.