Super sentai and storytelling

[lazycoconut]

It's more that, in this case, I realized while I was typing that I was unfairly comparing two relative newcomers against two actors who HAVE gone on to more prominent acting roles, especially in Takeru Satoh's case. :sweat:

Yeah, I think few would argue Sato's talent in that role. There's no reason why Sentai can't be a stepping stone for actors (Tetsuji Tamayama, Tori Matsuzaka et al) but compared to the few who go on to do well, the many standard idol-kids who pass through each year don't look too good in comparison

 

[NeonZ]

I suppose it's the same disconnect I feel between Tsukasa and Marvelous even if, on paper, they're kind of the same character too.

Both Tsukasa and Marvelous are arrogant heroes who are mistaken for villains at times, but, really, I think the similarities stop there. Tsukasa, especially in Decade's early episodes, was often played out as someone genuinely insufferable at times by his own nature. Even if he tried to be a hero, sometimes he just stepped on other people's feelings and didn't even notice. Onodera's role in those early episodes, after his own arc, was often trying to rein him and guide him to bond with the other Riders. That lasted up to the Blade arc, at least, only starting with the Faiz story Tsukasa was able to handle things by himself.

Marvelous just never had a phase like that. Even if he seemed uncaring while doing something, he always had good intentions at heart. In fact, his heart, in the present, was never in the wrong place. The closest thing to a flaw given to him was merely a weakness shown in the one Inoue episode. Tsukasa's atittude was portrayed as a flaw, while Marvelous' was there to make him cooler. Then add all the stuff Tsukasa has gotten in the movies, like going back to being a villain and having to kill other Riders. I think it's very easy to dislike one and like the other in spite of their superficial similarities.

 

[Burkion]

Flash's point though about the characters not really learning or changing is a large part of what I was talking about in the comparison between Mebius and Gokaiger.

Note, I haven't seen a lot of Sentai, but from my experiance with Gokaiger that's pretty much the problem in a nut shell. There's no progression of character beyond superficial means and they often revert back to the archetypes they start as.

Mebius, for comparison, had the characters grow after each focus episode and they rarely had to learn the same lesson twice if they even did. By the end of the show they were different people, better for what had happened to them.

In that aspect the writing is superior, despite being aimed, I believe, at the same general audience. Mebius stands out as a good show even if you remove the fan service and returning characters. Gokaiger would have to be rewritten heavily to make up for its lacking, because it doesn't have a whole lot else.

This isn't to say that the Gokaiger characters are bad-they just do not have great writing. Mebius' writing wasn't great a lot of the time either, but it did add up and amount to something.

 

[lazycoconut]

^ I know that Ultraman is considered a somewhat more prestigious franchise in Japan than Sentai or Rider. Does the writing have anything to do with that?

 

[Lynxara]

I still count Ryotaro from Den-O as one of my favorite Rider characters and, on paper, he and Don aren't that different so if I like one and not the other there has to be some kind of objective failure in quality causing the disconnect.

Well, I see two problems here.

One... yeah, Takeru Satoh is a better performer than Kazuki Shimizu. Takeru Satoh is a better performer than most of the people Toei has ever hired. I think any Gokaiger regular besides Junya Ikeda would look pretty bad next to him. So, it does stand to reason that Satoh would be more enjoyable to watch.

Two, I'm not sure Ryotaro and Don really are comparable characters. Ryotaro's "zero to hero" character arc forms the backbone of every major Den-O story element besides the setting, so of course his characterization is front and center in the series. Ryotaro's problem to overcome is himself, and his own weak personality.

Don's character arc is more muted, because it's essentially the same as every other Gokaiger's, about the importance of not reacting to the world passively. Don's cowardice is cast in terms of a tendency toward trying to avoid problems, and his "bravery" is really just whatever wacky thing he does to actually engage with a challenge facing him.

I suppose it'd be reasonable to think, "Well, Don would be better if he was more like Ryotaro," but that's just not what Gokaiger opted to be about. At that point, you're really just saying, "I wish that show was a completely different show," because you're not judging it on its own terms.

The closest thing to a flaw given to him was merely a weakness shown in the one Inoue episode. Tsukasa's atittude was portrayed as a flaw, while Marvelous' was there to make him cooler.

To me, the whole thing with Marvelous's fear in the Jetman episode really came off like Inoue essentially criticizing modern Sentai for having the gall to say that characters with no flaws, who are never really challenged by anything either internal or external, can somehow be heroes. That whole episode is really about how the essence of heroism is forcing yourself to do the difficult thing, the thing you don't want to do and are afraid of doing. It's a theme that dovetailed nicely with Jetman's own themes, and in particular, with the guest star's character arc.

While I think Inoue's reading of Marvelous as a character was pretty uncharitable, I can't blame him for coming to the conclusions he does. If you compare modern Sentai to what the franchise was like in Inoue's day, that is how almost any character from the past five years would come off. I've always wondered if the reason why Gokai Gai couldn't talk to Jetman Gai was because Jetman Gai's lesson was basically irrelevant to him. Unlike every other Gokaiger, Gokai Gai faces both internal and external challenges from his first appearance. You could argue that he didn't really need the same kick in the butt that the main five, and especially Marvelous, did.

Does the writing have anything to do with that?

It more has to do with Ultraman just being seen as a fundamentally different type of show than Rider or Sentai. Ultraman is seen more as a Japanese franchise that can stand alongside foreign sci-fi TV properties like Star Trek, something to appeal to a general audience. Sentai and Rider are viewed as being more intrinsically merchandise-driven, and at best, more of a guilty pleasure or a fun thing for children of all ages.

 

[Burkion]

Which, on the Ultraman thing, can lead to it having better writing, which leads to that perspective, which...

It's kind of like a vicious cycle, but in a (mostly) positive way.

 

[ChiPsiUp]

"Character forgets lesson in the next episode" is a problem for a lot of Sentai. How many times was Ryuji told this year to not treat Hiromu and Yoko like kids or assume he's always right, and then the following week he reverts straight back to type? And on a more general note, related more to the whole thread, why is it imperative that we pick things apart and look for "flaws"? You'll never see a series without them (my beloved Timeranger excepted and that is my final word on the matter)

Does anyone ever think Sentai would be better if it was half as long ? As in 24 EPs instead ot 50. Lots of anime are only ever 20-some eps long, and it would mean much less filler episodes and tighter more planned plot and character progression.

Leaving aside the whole merchandising all year thing. I know that Toei won't do it, but from a story telling perspective would it be better
?

 

[Aoi Kurenai]

Does anyone ever think Sentai would be better if it was half as long ? As in 24 EPs instead ot 50. Lots of anime are only ever 20-some eps long, and it would mean much less filler episodes and tighter more planned plot and character progression.

I'm not so sure about this. A lot of anime that run half a year are still filled with filler and scant character growth. But, then again, they don't have all these toys to introduce. I think that might be one of the keys to seeing how a half year series would play. If you have nearly the same amount of items being introduced, you might end up with something that feels more like an obvious toy commercial than anything else. As much as I love the show, the first 20 episodes of Ryukendo introduced a new toy item in nearly every episode and only a handful of them actually held importance on the story, the fire power up burning the forest he battles in, the thunder power up making it impossible for him to transform for a while, the rest of the time it's just played as "Hey! Here's a new toy for you to use and look cool with!". ...that said, you can also maybe play the introduction of new toys as a climax to stories going on at the time. It's probably not the best idea and would almost definitely feel forced after a while, but that's one way to make things go a little smoother.

If you're just going to go with the bare bones stuff a Sentai needs and we're under the impression that the staff is trying their damnedest to make a good show, we'd be in safe hands. Shinkenger? Make that a 26 episode show and you're golden. Though, rather than 26 episodes, I think 39 might be a more ideal length. You'll still see fillers, just not as many as you normally would with a series that has those 10 or 12 extra episodes.

A lot of what makes a Sentai seem inconsistent story-wise can be directly related to how good or bad the toy line is doing. I think that's going to be the biggest advantage of a half year series. Less time on the air means less time to react to the performance of a toy. Though, it's still very possible that this could happen. Still, ideally, you'd have a situation where, toy lines and ratings be damned, Go-Busters wouldn't have undergone such a huge overhaul. I doubt anyone would be willing to put in the effort to make as many changes with only six episodes left and the mentality would be more along the lines of "Ugh, fine, let's just get this over and move onto samba dinosaurs." I mean, you would still probably see changes, but I'm not so sure they would be as visible as what the reality turned out to be.

 

[Glamador]

39 episodes sounds like a great number for a series. Always felt like 26 is a bit tight but 50 is a bit long.

What it all comes down to though is that when a great show ends we'll wish it weren't over (while knowing that it couldn't go on forever) and when a bad one rolls around we'll be screaming for it to just end already.

Disregarding the toy sales, 26 episodes is 9 hours of viewing and that's enough for a half-dozen feature-length films to fit into. That's the runtime of Lord of the Rings. If you can't fit a complete-feeling story into that then there are 2 possibilities:

1) You've created the most epic, complex, deep exploration of the human condition ever penned.

or 2) You're bad at your job.


That's an exaggeration of course. Really, in a perfect world, the writers would do up a sketch of how the story would be best served, estimate the minimum # of episodes they would need to explore everything they want to, and give themselves a couple episodes of wiggle room.

Of course, there's something to be gained from putting limits on writers. Some of the best stuff in the world has come out of authors struggling to work within certain limits be it on runtime, budget, technological limits of the time, censorship, or target demographic.

Basically what Glamador's trying to say is that...well, it depends. Which is the rough answer to practically any question.