Talk:Dai-Guard

Interpretation

Did anyone else think this show might have been sort of a right-wing treatise in favor of laissez-faire economics? There's the fact that the multinational government-sponsored army generally screws up whenever they try to do anything, combined with the fact that Dai-Guard generally performs better when the crew ignores all the paperwork and formality hoisted on them by their superiors - probably as a result of the need to be compliant with numerous labor and accounting laws and such. That, and the fact that we regularly see the 21st Century corporation - *corporation* - evacuating dangerous areas, treating wounded survivors, setting up aid stations for the displaced, and so on - I don't believe we ever see the army ever doing anything but ineffectively fighting, at best. Just throwing that thought out there. Garrett Albright 05:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm as right-wing as Jerry Pournelle, and I wrote most of the philosophical stuff. I don't think it's cut and dried like that. The board of the company's pretty stupid without being forced, blaming the team for causing collateral damage in the process of killing things that originally needed to be nuked. It's more a treatise on idealism – as held by individuals, not organizations. Individual soldiers fight the Heterodyne and help people, but often have to get past their superiors to do it. The salarymen want to do the same, but are stymied by the Board. Akagi is grateful for the assistance of the Army in the Heterodyne battles, and acknowledges that Dai-Guard can't win alone. Shirota admires Akagi's skill and dedication, acknowledging that his superiors don't always have the best interests of the country at heart. Though Akagi's a slacker and Shirota's a machine, they share a common ideal - to protect people from the Heterodyne. Everyone who fights the Heterodyne shares that ideal. It's just that many(not all, President Ookouchi accepts the dictotomy, as do a number of generals) of those who lead the fight are short-sighted, and refuse to acknowledge individual contributions. And many individuals are the same. Ultimately it says that though they have to "hang together or they will hang separately", they can't win unless each individual makes his contribution freely and openly, with respect for everyone else's. There's no "I" in "Team" but there is one in "Community" and that's what the show's really about; a group of diverse people facing a common threat. They don't always agree with each other, but that's okay. They can still work together as long as they share an ideal. It's laissez-faire alright, but of a very easygoing nature. Everybody contributes of their own free will, so everybody wins. Forcing cooperation leads to catastrophe. It's about individuals coming together without being coerced to form communities.

And a geeky kid who never grew up getting to stomp around in a giant robot. Kalaong 19:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

How about a few words of how it's a rip off Evangelion? Pretty obvious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.36.125 (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but made by a rationalist who didn't have depression problems or mystical delusions, and had to spent some time working in an office at Toshiba (none of which suits Hideaki Anno) before finding his way at the writer's desk... it may be a rip off, but it's quite a completely different story. It's more like "I found evangelion so depressing, I must tell it in a way that cheers me up. This is how it could have gone". And this is just a classic way, from "storytelling 101", to get a new story. 83.46.214.73 (talk) 14:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)