What is Tokusatsu: A Fact Based Definition

[MechaGolem]

You seem to have overlooked what I said about vindication and ethos earlier. I accused you of deferring your opinion not just as a criticism of your method, but also your source. Your support simply states his opinion without backup.

When many of the sources in question are the actual artists (Eiji Tsuburaya, Teruyoshi Nakano, Noriaki Yuasa, Koichi Kawakita, Yuichi Kikuchi, Kazuki Ōmori, Shinji Higuchi, Tomoo Haraguchi, Yuichi Abe, etc....) working in the field I'm not sure what additional support or justification they need.

People want to know what tokusatsu is and so we ask the people actually doing tokusatsu to elaborate. They have. At that point there isn't any higher you can go. You either accept their answer or you don't. And if you don't you better have a pretty damn good reason why since at that point you are essentially telling the people who do tokusatsu that they don't know what it is they are doing.

"Special effects" are about convincing the viewer than what they are seeing exists. It is the entire purpose and goal from beginning to end. But I didn't say anything about art or cinema.

I don't see how you divorce "special effects" from "art" and "cinema." "Special effects" are an art, and as a result there are different ways you can go about doing them. Some art strives for realism, but many forms of art don't. I think the contention here is that tokusatsu is a form of special effects artistry that doesn't strive for realism and instead aims for a kind of stylization. As Shiro Sano said about tokusatsu; "Realism is not the point. It's about style; it's about mood."

Anecdote.

Thank you, I missed that.

And thank you as well Shynilyte, that sentence should have been "...instead choosing to reduce everything to a state of subjective meaninglessness"

I am aiming for objectivity here, however I feel that much of the opposition though is in favor of the exact opposite.

The title of this thread is a misleading one since there is no fact to the OP's original thoughts.

KingRanger, I want you to meditate on the words of the famed writer Aldous Huxley: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." (Complete Essays 2, 1926-29)

 

[KingRanger]

KingRanger, I want you to meditate on the words of the famed writer Aldous Huxley: "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." (Complete Essays 2, 1926-29)

Heh.. Never change. You go right on thinking your opinions are fact. Livens things up.

 

[Shynilyte]

Have to agree with KingRanger here.

 

[Mike RC]

someone should really have fixed that title by now.

 

[Twisted_Edge]

Wow, this thread is much like a rollercoaster, but waaaaay longer. Read through the whole ting in roughly 3 - 4 hours. Off and on that is.

What I personally think, and it's been argued and pointed out untill the cows come home, that's it not just opinion alone. It's also perspective.

Mechagolem cited a lot of Japanes creators. Therefore, their perspective is tainted to Japanese Culture. Of course Anno would like it to be completely Japanese. But only the use of the word may be. It is, after all, a loanword for every other nation BUT the Japanese.

The counterquestion that has often been asked "Why would you use the word 'Tokusatsu' for anything not made in Japan but shares the same techniques" hasn't, truly, been answered. Well, to my opinion that is.

To explain what I'm babbeling about; I use the word Tokusatsu to describe shows using suitmation, minatures and guys and gals donning colorfull outfits fighting in big robots. Note that I do not use "Japanese" here. I view it as a way of creaton, a Style, even a method (well, maybe).

I use the word that way because its more of a label to me, covering everything that gas been labeled as such. "Super Marionation" invokes Thunderbirds, Captain Scarlet and Stingray with me (maaaan, getting nostalgic here). "JRPG" invokes "Final Fantasy" with me. Because those where the parts of the media I had contact with and are refferd to as such.

Toku is it own thing, yes. But Power Rangers and Captain Power could be called Tokusatsu because of their effects. But why would you? Same goes for Doctor Who. Why would yu call it Tokusatsu? It has it's own style, it's own fan following (who are called Whovians. Much like Trekkers and Trekkies), it's it's own thing.

So, in a nutshell, to my opinion how you use Tokusatsu is based on how the word was introduced to you and with what you associate with it. And I don't think that it would stand for much debate if I would argue that a large portion of this forum would answer "special effect shows from Japan".

Or is my opinion on this matter based on incorrect information?

 

[MechaGolem]

Wow, this thread is much like a rollercoaster, but waaaaay longer.

Thanks for reading and thanks for the comments. It has been quite a journey hasn't it? But I think we've accomplished a lot and hopefully for the betterment of the fandom as a whole.

Twisted_Edge I think you are pretty dead on with regards to the issue of tokusatsu, about it being a loan word, about it having certain aesthetic connotations and about the big question here being "Why would you use a word like tokusatsu to describe something that isn't Japanese?" A question that the most vocal critics of this thread have yet to provide an answer for.

I also think you're right in your assessment that the majority of users here on HJU would agree with the argument that tokusatsu should be used exclusively for "special effect shows from Japan." There is a reason why discussion of non-Japanese films and shows are placed elsewhere here and why even a show like Power Rangers, a localization of a Japanese tokusatsu production, exist in a separate section.

In fact it's not just the folks that hang out on HJU either. As has been well publicized at this point the NY Times recently ran a front page article on tokusatsu and the author of that article, Martin Fackler, was pretty cut and dry about what tokusatsu was; i.e. Japanese SFX productions.

At this point it really is just a very small, though vocal, minority of detractors that are even still contradicting (they aren't really arguing since that would mean they would have to be actually contributing something) with the points made in this thread. I'm not sure why they are doing this either since their repetitive insistence that all of this is nothing more then a single person's opinion, when clearly that isn't the case, is just making them look rather foolish and stubborn.

On that note here's a fun Monty Python sketch about why contradicting isn't the same as arguing: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnTmBjk-M0c"]Monty Python - Argument Clinic - YouTube[/ame]

 

[KingRanger]

they would have to be actually contributing something

Edit: I had a longer post here originally, but you just aren't worth it. That you say people that disagree with you are not contributing.. That is just a douchy way out.

 

[Twisted_Edge]

Thaaaat's not quite what he said. He actually said that the detractors aren't contributing something. The people that disagree contributed plenty. He also provides counterpoints and so do they. This has created this rather interesting dialog.

Sooooo, what was that post you're talking about? You made me curious...

 

[KingRanger]

Thaaaat's not quite what he said. He actually said that the detractors aren't contributing something. The people that disagree contributed plenty. He also provides counterpoints and so do they. This has created this rather interesting dialog.

Sooooo, what was that post you're talking about? You made me curious...

You can spin it how you want to make him look like a nice guy, but his last post was nothing more than full on douche mode.

 

[LaZerwolfX]

You go right on thinking your opinions are fact. Livens things up.

You can spin it how you want to make him look like a nice guy, but his last post was nothing more than full on douche mode.

I'm just gonna put these two comments together and let everyone draw their own conclusions.