Swampstorm

Oh don't worry. I was being facetious. You do have a knack for the art, though, from what I've seen over at AS. As one can infer from your post, it isn't really about what you say, so much as how you say it. People get riled up over shipping arguments because people are deliberately inflammatory when writing up their reactions to the series. The slaps from the TV series are a case in point (as you are probably more than familiar with). I think it's the difference between saying that you liked the presentation of the scene as opposed to the act itself.

Oh Gubaba, you troll.

As desirable as it would be to avoid a discussion of shipping, it's implicit in the discussion - especially since it was cited as a possible motivation for Shaloom's actions. The problem with this is two-fold. Firstly, we really don't actually know what Shaloom was thinking unless he comes out and tells us. Secondly, there's a certain amount of "soapbox" talk and venting that builds off of this kind of speculation. As an example: Now, I'm not suggesting that you throw stones at this sort of thing. But you need to keep in mind that these statements rely on the divisions that we set in our minds between "shippers" and "non-shippers", or between "Animesuki" and "Macross World" (or between "Sheryl fans" and "Ranka fans" for that matter - who says that you can't like both?). But the fact of the matter remains that there are plenty of people who post across both forums, and plenty of people who enjoy both the relationship and mecha elements of the series (after all, you need both to really "get" Macross). There's nothing wrong with "shipping" in itself - it just depends on the way in which it's expressed. Ironically, as MM himself pointed out when the interviews were brought up in the FV thread, the arguments presented by FV - and, by extension, the interviews themselves - sound extremely plausible. So it's not that one "group" of fans was more inclined to buy into the story than another - almost everyone initially took it on faith. But this was an issue that the fanbase could only combat with real information, and that's exactly what you gave us. As DeX (who posted just a little bit before) could no doubt tell you, AS isn't the scary place that it seems to be at first glance - and he's a fairly staunch Ranka fan. It is scary in other ways, however, as you'll undoubtably find out.

Roundabout, yes; subtle, no. Try to humour him, though, and let it slide. I'm bound to enjoy this sort of game much more than you will.

Well, its necessity depends more on what you want the scope of this thread to be. If the question that you're addressing is the credibility of the Shaloom interviews, then you've more than fulfilled the task - both by noting the author's lack of evidence and the inconsistencies in the content of the writing. In fact, this is something that you accomplished back in late April when you first suggested that the interview was fabricated. So long as someone is trying to prove that Ohnogi worked on the series, the burden of proof is always on them, not you, to show that this is the case. If, instead, you wanted to prove that Ohnogi didn't work on the series, the burden of proof is reversed. You could, in theory, disprove any number of claims that he worked on the series, but you'd still run the risk of turning these into a negative proof. Naturally, you're bound to reach a point where you'll become skeptical of any further claims, but skepticism has to do with belief (which is different issue altogether). That's part of the reason why I nudged you about sending off that email; it prevents you from being locked into a situation where there's a lack of evidence to support either position. Another point that was of interest to me (and, as I understand, is of interest to you), is in figuring out which parts of the Shaloom and the Famitsu interviews (if any) are verifiable as valid. As a case in point, the translation of the Famitsu mentions Ohnogi as a writer, which makes it suspect. Yet at the same time, if we dismiss the entire Famitsu article on that basis, we run the risk of losing verifiable insights into the series (the statement on polygamy comes to mind here). I suspect that a lot of the misconceptions being propagated are convincing because they incorporate partial truths - so the best solution would be to separate the truth from the 'fiction', in both senses of the word. It's not my intention to dampen your parade - you've done an excellent job and I fully support what you're doing. I'm sure that you're anxious to close this situation and move on, but you may see some merit in incorporating the above-mentioned issues, for the sake of completeness (call me pedantic).

Gubaba, are you still planning on following that outline that you put out in your opening? I was wondering whether you were still planning on addressing the Famitsu interview at a later point.

Actually, I don't think that the Ohnogi question itself was what lead to the perception of Kawamori as a "troll". I suspect it had more to do with a tongue-in-cheek statement that he apparently made regarding polyamory, after the series ended. That remark has always struck me as somewhat baffling from a storyline perspective, as Michael was always trying to get Alto to make a choice either way regarding his feelings, and Michael's death seemed to really drive home that concept. Likewise, the translations that you made suggest that this theme was not one that was addressed specifically in series, but rather one expressed after the fact. As such, I think that perception of Kawamori as being "out-of-touch" depends largely on whether you take that remark seriously or not. Even in reading those "Ohnogi interviews", I didn't specifically see an 'Ohnogi = Sheryl/Kawamori = Ranka' divide until reading FV's "analysis" of those "interviews". Likewise, that perception depends largely on whether you take FV's remarks seriously or not.

Oh, and if you do get around to writing them, could you post up the response as well? It could be exhibit Y.

More specifically, Ohnogi and Kawamori have been reduced to symbols of Sheryl and Ranka, respectively. A part of me is curious about how the tone of this piece would change if Kawamori and Ohnogi's roles were switched. That's a fairly accurate picture, but there's a slight difference here. In the example you provide, you describe how external factors frame your viewing of the series. This thread is an example of the reverse: we're looking at how a viewing of the series can frame your perception of external content (in this case, the interview). This reading of the interview, with Ohnogi and Kawamori framed in terms of the OP's perceptions of Sheryl and Ranka, is what turns it into a character rant. On an unrelated note: there's nothing inherently wrong with shipping, so long as you take it with a grain of salt. This applies to the onlookers who get frustrated with it as much as it does the people who actively participate in it. Actually, the first Mary Sue was an ACC published as part of a Star Trek fanzine in the 70s. It's not a novel, but rather a very short fanfic: at best it's a 30 second read. The point being parodied is not that the character is perfect (she ultimately dies in the end, after all), but rather the way in which the character is sold to the reader (when she dies, she's mourned by all). This is where the talk of authenticity comes in: the ACC, an unofficial, fan created character, is elevated above the official (and by extension, authentic) characters in the series. While this concept has been simpified down along the lines of "an annoyingly perfect character" courtesy of sites such as Wikipedia and TvTropes (since when was deconstruction defined as "subverting a genre"?) it still carries that theme of authenticity with it. It's hardly surprising, then, that the OP makes reference to Ohnogi with phrases such as "A fan that knows the director is like a computer programmer with a screwdriver," or describing his writing as "bad fanfiction"; the association with fandom is used here too in order to imply that the latter half of the story was somehow unauthentic. This, in turn, leads the OP to suggest how things "ought" to have turned out. Why not fight fanfiction with fanfiction? To be sure, which is why the criticisms heaped on Ohnogi stood out as unusual from the outset. While I'm not in a position to analyse any potential deception in the source material, I was referring more to the way in which even that source material was misrepresented. I don't think that the term "observation" applies here, as it seems to connote an objectivity that nobody in this thread actually has. That being said, I wonder: who gets to decide how much importance a character "should" really have? Perhaps someone who's objective?

I think the problem is actually the opposite - namely, that the criticism comes across as disingenuous. The tragic tale of friendship and betrayal in the OP is a red herring: it serves no purpose in the criticism of the story itself, but rather serves to create the illusion that the story that we saw in Frontier was not authentic. Frontier could just as well have been written by an infinite number of monkeys, but all other things being equal, that should hardly change the nature of our criticisms regarding the storyline itself. The discussion of Mary Sue characters hinges on a similar question of authenticity. The original Mary Sue was created as a parody of ACC and SI fanfics of the time. As such, it represents a tension between canon and fanon, or alternatively, between the "authentic" content of the fictional universe and the content introduced by the fanfic writer. This concept is applied in this thread in a similar fashion to imply that the "true" or "authentic" protagonists were ursurped from their rightful roles by the alleged Mary Sue(s). However, because these designations were arbitrary to begin with, this entire line of reasoning ended up as nothing more than a cleverly disguised rant about how certain characters didn't end up being as important to the plot as people thought they ought to be. Of course, there's nothing wrong with disliking a series because the plot or characters didn't turn out the way you wanted them to. But I'd much rather see that simply stated up front.

Nice AU fic, but Ohnogi was a bit too OOC for my taste. The difficulty in reading this is that a large number of the listed points don't reference any source, so it's difficult to separate fact from the story used to weave them together. By polarizing Kawamori and Ohnogi into opposing forces battling for authorship, we are presented with the illusion that there are not one, but two stories. This second, hypothetical storyline sets the stage for rest of the post to reship reshape the entire story. I'm a bit surprised that Yoshino's role wasn't discussed, seeing as he was the one who apparently put forward the existing love triangle concept in place of the Macross Plus style triangle, during the pre-production stages. I think the biggest thing that was glossed over here was the fact that the story never was written by just one person to begin with - it was a collaborative effort.

If the character is static, then it doesn't make that much of a difference. By contrast, the path that a dynamic character's character development takes can influence whether you like them or not. There are two things that you can do if a dynamic character fails to meet your expectations. First, you can re-evaluate the character in terms of the new development to see whether they still captivate your interest, or you can try to justify to yourself that the character hasn't fallen short of what you wanted to see. I think the difference between the two approaches lies in whether you feel more compelled to extol the character's virtues, or if you feel more compelled to absolve them of their mistakes. While first impressions can be important, this isn't necessarily the defining criterion for whether we prefer one character over another; especially when the characters are evolving over time. There is, however, a difference between a character impression which is carefully detailed and expanded upon over time, and one that has been completely neglected. Since the plot requires that we not know Grace's diabolical plans until the very last minute, her character has been poorly developed in the interests of preserving that mystery. In so doing, any development that she does recieve will hinge on a last minute revelation in which her character is thrust upon the audience. As far as gimmicks go, she's a fun character, but she loses out in terms of characterization. It all boils down to what you're looking for, I guess. Not necessarily. Grace is more symbol than character, embodying the baser qualities of human nature. The destruction of Galia-4, the onset of Sheryl's illness, and the power struggle on Frontier were all events that could have been written in without Grace's involvement in the story; the common thread lies in the ideas of ambition (be it scientific or political) and betrayal. Since her character hasn't been explored in relation to these events, she's more the symbolic representation of a "conflict" than a character in herself. Villains can be much more than that. Even very simplistic villains often recieve sufficient character development to allow them to serve as foils for the protagonists. If their motivations are carefully explored throughout the series, they can stand alone as characters in their own rights. But again, it depends on whether the writer is interested in actually exploring the character or simply is looking a means to set up a conflict. The focal point of the story has always been on how the three protagonists interact with each other in the face of the obstacles placed in front of them. You could see it in episode five, where Sheryl and Klan's dialogue on why people fly or sing, in conjunction with Alto's paper airplane, gave Ranka the inspiration to sing her first song in public. You could see it in episode seven, where Ranka's insight into Sheryl's feelings on stage provided the impetus for the duet that helped Alto in the battle with the Vajra. Whether you love them or hate them, every conflict links back to the relationship between the three protagonists, and their greatest successes always result from them working together as a team. The actual nature of the conflict itself is largely irrelevant; all that matters are the bonds that unify them. Alto's character, specifically, has been somewhat underdeveloped in the interest of building suspence with regards to the triangle. The framework has been built up quite well, but there are a lot of deliberate holes that have been left behind, especially with regards to his past, that make him difficult to read. But this is a common enough trade-off in romance; as the intersection point of the triangle, his character is defined more in terms of his relationship with the girls, than his own qualities as an individual. He might not be exceptional, but he gets the job done. A thread is no more shallow than the people participating decide to make it.

We haven't been given all that much to go by, with respect to Grace's character. Again, the mystery of her character gives the appearance of masking something more complex, but until her character is developed, it remains nothing more than an appearance. I think one of the problems surrounding her character is that she's repeatedly been used as a plot device to initiate events in the story. Overall, I get less of a feeling that her actions are driven by a unified purpose so much as they act as a means for the writers to periodically inject mayhem into the lives of the characters. Not that she needs to do much more, of course; "evil for the sake of being evil" will often suffice for motivation when the villain isn't meant to be the centerpiece of the story. From what I've seen, MF's greatest strength lies in the way in which it communicates the emotions of the characters; not simply through dialogue, but through subtle gesture and expression. Regardless of whether you approve of the way in which the various relationships between the characters have been explored or not, it's clear that there's a lot more detail that was put into portraying the characters. Whether you prefer the plot to the characters is a different story altogether.

In romance, plot is secondary to character development. While characters like Grace certainly add flavor to the story, they tend to lose some of their lustre when their mystery wears away; that's probably why she's never in the forefront of any scene for very long. Keep in mind that "Just as planned" really only works insofar as the audience isn't actually aware what the plan actually is. But don't let that stop you from enjoying her character. There's nothing wrong with being taken in by appearances.

Well, as they panned to the photo, Alto delivered that line about how Sheryl didn't need to be strong and continue singing. In that sense, he was trying to approach the situation the same way as he did his mother. What he's offering her is a chance to give up her burdens and depend entirely on his support. But it's also important to note the intensity with which Sheryl rejected that offer in the very same shot. By this point, she's completely focused outside of herself and towards the duty she has towards the people of Frontier. She forces the realization that the situation is different - which lead Alto to decide to try to support her from the sidelines as she continued her work. I think the purpose of the recurring parallel that's being made here is that Alto isn't entirely helpless anymore (in contrast with how he was then); his experiences through the series have strengthened him to the point where he can take charge of his own destiny. It's just a question of deciding what he really wants to do, and then throwing himself into it.