I'm not exactly offended, but I do feel like your initial "fanboys are raging" point is pretty boring and I don't like talking about it. I don't know why you keep wanting me to address it, but here's a bit more, I guess.
I think this discussion has been clouded by misconceptions and weird, unfocused leaps in logic. So let's go back to the beginning.
I originally made 4 assertions:
1) Fanboys are more disgruntled by Gaim's suit designs than non-fans.
2) Fanboys sometimes have trouble seeing the forest through the trees, so to speak.
3) Outsiders' opinions are as valid as fanboys' despite (or because of) their lack of direct context.
4) Story trumps style.
Point #1: I don't see how anyone can argue this isn't true, considering the OP's desk-flipping rage-GIF, and the multitude of negative fan reactions to many of the designs, including your own. It's impossible to conclusively prove that outsiders find the design appealing -- so I have to rely on my anecdotal experience here, which is positive.
Point #2: I'll get to this at the end of this post.
Point #3: I think that outsider opinion is absolutely essential to the creative process. You couldn't agree less. However, in my own art I find outside input invaluable, especially when it comes to defining or honing the universally appealing elements of the work. I find your attitude profoundly exclusionary. It fosters the creation of incestuous and inaccessible stories. You notice how people like George Lucas, Joss Whedon, David Mamet, and The Wachowskis haven't been able to replicate the heights found in their early work? That, I think, is in large part because, due to their tremendous status, they're far less exposed to dissenting outsider voices.
To address a direct quote from Lynxara:
"On the rare occasions where an outsider can offer a valuable perspective, it's often because that outsider's own unique experiences let them interpret something in a way that cast the work's strengths into sharp relief."
I agree. However, I don't think this only happens on rare occasions. I think everyone has a unique viewpoint, based on their personal experiences, and if they're articulate enough, they can contribute meaningful perspective.
To address a direct quote from Glamador:
"My father watched the series finale of Breaking Bad with me, having not seen any of the series up to that point. Upon its end he proceeded to criticize the pacing and characterization, calling it slow, boring, and confusing. But there I was, on the edge of my seat, breathing heavily the whole time. Why? Because everything about it was a payoff for me as a viewer. The things I had waited to see, the culmination of events, the finality of knowing how it ends, those were the things that made it exciting."
I would argue that the finale would have been
even better had it managed to be an accessible piece of storytelling, able to be appreciated on its own merits. That would have been a nearly impossible feat but incredibly admirable if pulled off. In the context of an ongoing narrative, it succeeded. In the context of a single episode of TV, it may have failed.
Point #4: You called this nonsense. However, I point you to
Aristotle's Poetics -- the Ur-Text for dramatic story analysis, studied by almost everyone with a formal education in visual narratives -- and his hierarchy of story priorities. In Poetics, Chapter 4.4, Aristotle ranks the elements of a story in order of importance, as follows:
1) Plot -- "The Soul of Tragedy." Literally, the structure of incidents. The events that occur in the course of the narrative.
2) Character -- whose choices or avoidances are directly responsible for the events of the plot.
3) Reasoning -- Or, the character's psychological motivation for their choices or avoidances.
4) Diction -- the style of verbal expression; a story's literary speech pattern.
5) Song -- the musical element of a visual narrative.
And least important,
6) Spectacle -- which refers to art direction, costume and prop design. Directly from Aristotle: "Spectacle is attractive but very inartistic and is the least germane to the art of poetry." (Note that Poetry is not used in the modern sense -- most performance art was deemed poetry in Ancient Greece.)
I think I'll trust my man, Aristotle, whose analysis has been supported by a millennium of critical research (just ask Shakespeare, Joseph Campbell, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, Byron, William Blake, Tennessee Williams, Noam Chomsky, Trotsky, Harold Bloom, Tolstoy, et al).
You don't have to agree with it, it's not an empirical thing, but I just want to clarify that my assertion is not "nonsense."
---
This argument then escalated to a question of, "What makes a good design?" Well, you're crazy if you think any 2 people agree on what makes a good design.
If you approach it from a fine arts or critical theory perspective, design should absolutely be capable of being appreciated free of context (See: Roland Barthes, Susan Sontag, Harold Bloom). These readings emphasize individual interpretation, regardless of creator intent. Have you ever heard the phrase, "the death of the artist is the birth of the art?" It's directly applicable to my argument.
If you approach it from an industrial design perspective, you have Dieter Rams, Jonathan Ives, and countless others advocating an approach where the design is
defined by context, and and adherence to a product's intended use is of utmost importance. But even still, if a design is not appealing to a person who has no idea what a certain product does -- or if the design does not itself communicate the context -- it fails. Good design will communicate its context to a person who has no experience with the product (see: the first iPod, the first iPhone interface -- their designs conveyed the context of use to the user).
Kamen Rider is a difficult example because it sits somewhere between the two perspectives. Is it more fine art design or is it more industrial design? It's hard to say, and I think you could make a case for both.
---
Now, back to pesky Point #2. I think this is the real root of our conflict, as I seem to backhandedly disparage the fanboy. I think I offended you by tip-toeing around my real feelings here. My position is probably boring, and admittedly, I've seen it echoed about a thousand times. But here goes:
I
absolutely disdain the type of fanboy who professes to love a property, yet bitches and moans when their unrealistic expectations aren't met. Especially when those expectations fly in the face of the very obvious priorities of the property they say they love. It's like they care more about their idea of what a property
should be, at the expense of appreciating what the property
actually is. And more often than not, it's a preference for minutia over actual story. Which is fine in itself, but it's something that annoys me given my passion for and education in storytelling.
Now, I want to make it clear that I'M NOT ASKING ANYONE TO STOP DOING THIS. I am merely expressing my annoyance. Airing my grievances. Etc.
Kamen Rider is a show designed to shill brightly colored toys to children. That may not always have been the case, but during the last 15+ years when most toku-fans entered the fold, it has been. To complain that a rider is too toyetic or too goofy is ludicrous! Decrying Gaim for having a Banana-Knight Rider is misunderstanding a definitive piece of what makes the property what it is: it's a show with flashy, gaudy, subtlety-free designs intended primarily for kids -- not a gritty, hardass show for grown ups. It would be like complaining that Sesame Street has too many educational segments and not enough kung fu. Or that Batman has too many bird-themed child sidekicks and not enough of Catwoman pissing on the headless corpse of the Joker. (Okay, that last one is a bit extreme, but you know what I mean -- it's tough to out-Frank-Miller Frank Miller.)
This certainly doesn't discount that there's much more to Kamen Rider than the toy commercial element. But it's a fundamental part of what makes the show what it is. In fact, I think the design boundaries forces the writers, directors, and producers to be more creative in their storytelling, resulting in a dynamic friction of contrasting elements that actively elevates the end product.
Now, do these fanboys have every right in the world to bitch and moan all they please? Yes, yes, a thousand times, yes! Even if they annoy me, I'd never try to stifle their voice.
Do I also have the right to criticize that bitching and moaning? Hell yes, and I will.
Do you have a right to call me out on how callow, crass, and arrogant I am? Go right ahead!
