Everyone is incredibly talented and probably capable of producing a pro level segment chock full of the standard park/urban/bc booter shots.
But man...even though it's been said to death...nothing struck me as particularly groundbreaking or all that unique.
When I watch a skate video, it's clear to me that different riders have their niches. As I watch different rider's segments, I say to myself, "Sweet...this is the crazy gap/jump out of the fucking gym guy" or, "Sweet, this is the techy manual-flip trick guy". I love that. It makes for a diverse and entertaining movie, and it pushes the progression of the sport in numerous different directions. THEN, other kids watch the flick, identify most closely with a particular rider or riding style, they go out and emulate it, then—hopefully—they add to it and make it their own. Watching ski flicks—aside from the obvious big mountain rider vs. park jumper vs. urban slayer tropes—everyone pretty much does the same shit, on the same features, where the biggest difference is what color jacket they're wearing. So, a guy like Max Hill who doesn't necessarily shine on a 100 ft. table, doesn't get any exposure even though he churns out some of the most compelling and cool shots of anyone on smaller features.
When are we going to see the same kind of specialization in ski flicks? Granted, it's happening to an extent, the overall effect is that a lot of movies are just monotonous. I guess film companies are invested in showing a rider's diverse talents and abilities, but what that means is that we end up with a bunch of extremely similar segments.
You said it best when you mentioned "signature". We need more "signatures". When I think of Andy Parry, I think of Hippie Killers and other weird grind variations. Other than another small handful of riders, I don't really see that many people with signature tricks or preferred features. Why do people treat superunknown like it's a slope comp? Why does the winner have to be the best overall skier with the most diverse set of abilities?
I've seen the same criticisms over and over again..."Yeah he's good but he doesn't spin right". "Yeah he's good, but he doesn't have enough urban." "Yeah he's good but he doesn't charge enough". SO FUCKING WHAT! Doesn't it make more sense for Level1 to approach superunknown like a college recruiter approaches recruiting high school football players? Meaning, Berm and crew should evaluate their current "team" and talent, identify their holes and needs (whatever they deem them to be, or simply: What kind of segment/riding do we want this year that we didn't have last year?) and pick the rider that brings something to the table that they didn't already have.
Ok. Rant over. And, in my opinion, Logan is the best choice from that angle, even if he isn't the"best" skier.
