I find it funny, though, that if Sentai or Kamen Rider sticks to a formula, it gets heavily criticized, but Ultraman can literally be the same show since 1966 and it's ""Oh, it's such a magical franchise that carefully tends to a legacy and follows tradition. It's art! No, it's not at all formulaic or unafraid to change anything!"
Ultra Q and OG Ultraman (and what I've seen of Ultraseven) had a deliberate approach. In a way it's more of an anthology series, a collection of stories united by recurring cast that puts emphasis on Kaiju. So many of OG Ultraman enemies aren't evil monsters, but rather wild creatures or forces of nature. I think that's the appeal of Ultraman as a franchise, it's not necessarily a show about super heroes or someone's personal journey. For what it's worth I don't think any of three franchises explored even the portion of what they can achieve.
after Gaim disappointed everyone
You once again show your ignorance when it comes to what other people think. Even if you personally hate the show, why are you ignoring all the people who liked it? It's a fan favourite series of many to this day.
I may dislike Den-O and what its legacy done to tokusatsu, but at least I won't claim that it was unpopular and no one liked TV Series simply due my personal feelings about it.
The main problem with today's tokusatsu is simple: There's just too much talking. This was a big problem with Kamen Rider in the 2000s until Kiva did the right thing and ended that nonsense in its second half. Unnecessary dialogue clutters and at the end of the day the effects make the tokusatsu. It is time to focus on action scenes again.
So I guess you're fine with all bizarre things happening in Kiva's second half, like characters dying and coming back to life with no explanations?
Of all the problems with modern tokusatsu, talking? Really? First of all, the amount of conversations (or calmer slow-paced scenes in general) in toku is close to zero now. Most of the time it's endless tiresome fast-paced action, just like you like it. Second, why is characterization (which is what "talking" is pretty much 90% of the time) in toku such a big problem for you? Sometimes you can take things too far and you end up with basically slice of life show with barely any tension or stakes at all like Gridman, but early 2000s Kamen Rider didn't really have that problem and after Agito most of slow-paced slice of life scenes basically ceased to exist.
Kyuranger succeeded to be not only the best of Super Sentai but the best tokusatsu ever made
Why Kyuranger of all things? You can remove half of cast there without changing anything, most of villains are all boring, forgettable and heroes fight same three of them for like half of the show. Lucky's constantly stealing spotlight from others, even in the scenes which have nothing to do with him storywise. It's full of anime-esque humour, pointless side characters and padding.
BS things like that roulette, which shows that writers couldn't handle such big cast or them starting in space and going to Earth to spend majority of time there (despite being a SPACE Sentai) alone make this series subpar. And it's way way worse than subpar. I don't think Kyuranger even explained why it was originally NINE saviours in that prophecy, that show tried to forget as soon as possible.
Gransazer may not be a perfect show, but it's a way superior take on "a 12-member star-team vs powerful space army".
I don't think the MCU is bad per say; only Ironman 1 and Captain America 1 were truly great among them, the rest have been average to bad.
I mean, I judge the MCU based on it's merit as a collective. The good of it's first few films can't hold the weight of the rest of the poorly written and poorly made ones. That's why till this date, I view the first Iron Man and other movies like The Incredible Hulk as separate from the MCU, deliberately. The subsequent films just lived off the merits the first provided, and RDJ's ability and charisma to sell any poorly written dialogue.
I have to disagree with both of these. Phase 1 MCU is extremely forgettable compared to most of Marvel movies that came after The Avengers. Iron Man 1 and 2 don't really hold up all that well and feel a bit bland (not to mention people has always been way to forgiving to the second half of Iron Man 1), Thor 1 becomes an extremely weak movie when it gets to earth stuff, 2008 Hulk is basically erased from people's memory. I like both Cap 1 and The Avengers, but they both have their issues. After recently rewatching Doctor Strange, I can say that Strange easliy outdoes every single Phase 1 movie. And Strange isn't really the greatest Marvel movie either. MCU started to peak with Winter Soldier (which is probably still the single best MCU thing and one of the best modern superhero movies) and has been on downhill since Black Panther (aside from last two Avengers movies, courtesy of Russo brothers). Still I won't call any MCU movie aside from Hulk, Iron Man 3 and Captain Marvel particularly bad so far, even though I dislike a few of them to various degree, including the forever-overrated Guardians of the Galaxy. But still MCU strength and longevity were build on consistent quality (at least until recently). Winter Soldier and Infinity War have such tight and well-written scripts they basically set standards for all modern hollywood blockbusters (it's especially impressive considering sheer number of heroes in IW the whole thing still feels coherent and doesn't dissolve in BvS-tier clusterfuck). And with disasters like Venom occasionally poping up, it makes me appreciate what MCU did over these 10 years even more.
I do agree with political stuff though. People like to complain that ShinkenPink and MagiBlue are bad characters, because they like traditional ways, and I just don't think that's fair to them (even though their respective shows could have fleshed out Mako and Urara more as characters).