--- AstroNerdBoy <usr1054@astronerdboy.com> wrote:

> > 
> > From: "Joseph Riggs" <josephriggs@lycos.com>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "True Sheol" <sheol@mail.ev1.net>
> > > > Misaki?  Najya/Noike/Kagato?    If this stuff is explained later
> > > (even if the answers were alluded to I would be happy, but there's
> > > nothing about the Misaki thing) in the OVA it's cool, but as is I
> > > think it is poor storytelling.<
> > > 
> > >       Again, you are demanding the animated medium to be the one
> > > and only form of transmission.  You want eight years of written
> > > material to be presented to you before you take in OVA 3.  That is
> > > completely understandable as an English-only fan, but it isn't
> > > realistic give the nature of the Japanese animation industry as
> > > well as the market for licensing foreign books.
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > I don't think they're demanding that.  I think they're just stating that it would

> have been a good idea to include at least a hint or two within the animation.
> Something that didn't look like a clue when it first appeared, but that you could
look
> > back at later and say, "Oh!  Now I see how that's important!" 
> > 
> 
> I believe TS mentioned Misaki's treatment of Ryoko in episode 13. 

Let's think about this.  How is Misaki slamming Ryoko into a wall during a scene which
I
believe we all can agree is cleary meant for humor supposed to clue us in on the fact

that she is "the counteractor" (whatever the hell that means)?


 The ease with which
> she slammed Ryoko around was a humor moment, but as often happens with K-sensei
humor
> moments in TM!R, there was a greater meaning behind that. 

Even if it was supposed to be foreshadowing (which, again, I believe to be an absurd

proposition) it would still be bad storytelling.  Even if half the japanese fans might

have some clues which could potentially salvage some sense out of the thing, that
would
still leave quite a few people wondering what was going on.  It's annoying.  It's
bad
storytelling.


What is the dramatic significance of Misaki being a goddess if the incident is never

delved int by any of the characters? It's a smack in the face of reason-Yes.  Reason
can
exist in stories with supernatural content.


> 
> That said, with only one episode that had Misaki in it, how do you provide more
hints
> than what the episode provided?  How do you work her into more of the story?


That is the problem the storyteller has to solve.  There is a self-implied problem
in
that sort of reasoning.  If Kajishima wanted to, he could have simply made way for
it
himself in episode 14.  Or 15.  Or 16.  Or 17.  Or 18.  Or even earlier in episode
19.
Hell, it could even have been explained at the end of the story, but it's not.  No
one
questions why, leaving us even more confused.  For whatever reason, Kajishima decided
not
to do it, and I think that the story suffers because of that decision.
nik



		
__________________________________