Jump to content
Tochiro

New Macross TV Series in '19?.. 2020?.. 2021?...2022(one of those years)

Recommended Posts

On 12/12/2018 at 2:24 AM, Pulltoeject said:

I think it'd be awesome if they came up with a new series but with a much darker plot and  undertone like , for example, I don't like starwars either, but when I watched rogue one it hit me in all the right places and I cried at the end, I screamed with hapiness when when the rebels kicked a$$ at the expense of offing themselves for a greater cause.....I mean, give it a more proper "Adult " vibe.

On 12/12/2018 at 4:51 AM, Pulltoeject said:

I would just like to see the Valks in a different setting, Maybe along the lines of the red spectacles, kerberos style of drama in it, not just the pop music love triangles that are the usual Macross series.

While Kawamori can be unpredictable at times, a grimdark Macross series is about as unlikely as it gets.  

Macross is, and always has been, a fundamentally upbeat and optimistic metaseries about the power of love, communication, and music.  It's closer to Star Trek than Star Wars, in that diplomacy and mutual understanding are the preferred solution and armed conflict is an avoidable result of failures to communicate and find common ground.  It's basically what the Universal Century of Gundam would be if the Earth Sphere were full of functioning adults instead of borderline sociopaths.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Seto Kaiba said:

It's basically what the Universal Century of Gundam would be if the Earth Sphere were full of functioning adults instead of borderline sociopaths.

It just wouldn’t be Gundam then!

LOL!

For some reason , the Japanese prefer the milk toast version of war in space.(or planet side..)

the more serious installments just weren’t a hit out there.. Plus& Zero..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were nuked twice and mauled in a massive war they started... that may well have formed a certain view on war in their cultural mindset. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sildani said:

They were nuked twice and mauled in a massive war they started... that may well have formed a certain view on war in their cultural mindset. 

True. I’m just pointing out the difference between Gundam and Macrosd. Both of which originated in Japan.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

It's closer to Star Trek than Star Wars, in that diplomacy and mutual understanding are the preferred solution and armed conflict is an avoidable result of failures to communicate and find common ground.  

That reads like an extract from a UFP indoctrination session. The "avoidable" notion streches suspension of disbelief by disregarding the existence of malevolent intent, unbridled greed and zero sum game politics. (Diplomacy is also boring as hell for a tv show.)

Using a different comparator I always saw SDF as being up there with Star Wars in terms of having an antagonist with a properly fleshed out military machine. Also in terms of the amount of combat and potential war toys Star Wars and Macross seem more comparable (ST was thin on both in the 80's.).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Bolt said:

It just wouldn’t be Gundam then!

Yeah... really, any functioning adult with a decent science education would've spotted Zeon Zum Deikun's newtype theory for the unscientific BS it is, given that it depends on the totally unscientific notion of evolutionary predestination.

 

1 hour ago, Podtastic said:

That reads like an extract from a UFP indoctrination session. The "avoidable" notion streches suspension of disbelief by disregarding the existence of malevolent intent, unbridled greed and zero sum game politics. (Diplomacy is also boring as hell for a tv show.)

... are you really trying to argue that reality is unrealistic? :lol:

Yes, armed conflict is avoidable.  Nations spend huge sums of money and man-hours going to great and frankly tedious lengths to avoid armed conflict with each other.  They maintain armies of diplomats and dozens of embassies to facilitate communication and smooth over incidents that could lead to conflict.  They invest their time and energy in vast international diplomatic organizations to prevent and mitigate conflict and foster international cooperation and peace.  They bend over backwards making (sometimes insincere) apologies for stuff they've done that might've antagonized someone.  They go to frankly obscene lengths to avoid armed conflict.  Why?  Because war is a messy, confusing, expensive undertaking that's an enormous drain on a nation's economy and tends to wear out its welcome VERY quickly among voters.  Rare are the occasions when armed conflict is genuinely unavoidable... and most of the time, what we see are eminently avoidable conflicts that occurred because people either stopped trying, or never tried, to communicate and find common ground.

There is no absolute good or absolute evil in the real world.  The kind of abject evil and (often literally) cackling villainy you see in Star Wars and other fairy tales just doesn't exist in the real world.  There is no great and irredeemable cult of evil.  No omnipresent force of darkness that rises up and must be opposed by force of arms.  No armies of darkness that exist to kick puppies and gloat about how evil they are.  Evil is, all too often, quite subjective.  One man's villain is another man's hero.  History's most vilified leaders, the men who oversaw Earth's most terrible atrocities, firmly believed that what they were doing was good, right, and justified for the sake of their nation and people... and so did their followers.  

That's the kind of dichotomy you see in Macross or Star Trek.  There are no card-carrying villains gleefully chortling about how nasty they are.  The antagonists are people who are doing what they believe is right for their nation or species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Seto Kaiba said:

... are you really trying to argue that reality is unrealistic? :lol:

Yes, armed conflict is avoidable.  Nations spend huge sums of money and man-hours going to great and frankly tedious lengths to avoid armed conflict with each other.  They maintain armies of diplomats and dozens of embassies to facilitate communication and smooth over incidents that could lead to conflict.  They invest their time and energy in vast international diplomatic organizations to prevent and mitigate conflict and foster international cooperation and peace.  They bend over backwards making (sometimes insincere) apologies for stuff they've done that might've antagonized someone.  They go to frankly obscene lengths to avoid armed conflict.  Why?  Because war is a messy, confusing, expensive undertaking that's an enormous drain on a nation's economy and tends to wear out its welcome VERY quickly among voters.  Rare are the occasions when armed conflict is genuinely unavoidable... and most of the time, what we see are eminently avoidable conflicts that occurred because people either stopped trying, or never tried, to communicate and find common ground.

There is no absolute good or absolute evil in the real world.  The kind of abject evil and (often literally) cackling villainy you see in Star Wars and other fairy tales just doesn't exist in the real world.  There is no great and irredeemable cult of evil.  No omnipresent force of darkness that rises up and must be opposed by force of arms.  No armies of darkness that exist to kick puppies and gloat about how evil they are.  Evil is, all too often, quite subjective.  One man's villain is another man's hero.  History's most vilified leaders, the men who oversaw Earth's most terrible atrocities, firmly believed that what they were doing was good, right, and justified for the sake of their nation and people... and so did their followers.  

That's the kind of dichotomy you see in Macross or Star Trek.  There are no card-carrying villains gleefully chortling about how nasty they are.  The antagonists are people who are doing what they believe is right for their nation or species.

I really wish I could up vote this more than once cause it perfectly sums up my thoughts and how I've seen things for years. It's also been one of the things that makes me a Star Trek fan and also something I've always liked about Macross as well. There was always a better answer, they just couldn't always see it at first and the urge to pick the tactical option for simplicity is very hard to resist. This is very relevant in any age including today.

In my view the worst villains force conflict only because every other attempt failed or they thought it was easier (and ultimately wasn't). This doesn't mean the war was wrong to fight (usually) for the heroes, it just means it was the least ideal outcome since things were so bad it became necessary.

I actually think Yang Wen-li from Legends of the Galactic Heroes says it best: "There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. That’s the second time I’ve read a quote of Legend of the Galactic Heroes in the last month. The first was in book two of the Three Body Problem series. I think I should watch that next.

Edited by Mazinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 6:55 PM, Seto Kaiba said:

Yeah... really, any functioning adult with a decent science education would've spotted Zeon Zum Deikun's newtype theory for the unscientific BS it is, given that it depends on the totally unscientific notion of evolutionary predestination.

 

... are you really trying to argue that reality is unrealistic? :lol:

Yes, armed conflict is avoidable.  Nations spend huge sums of money and man-hours going to great and frankly tedious lengths to avoid armed conflict with each other.  They maintain armies of diplomats and dozens of embassies to facilitate communication and smooth over incidents that could lead to conflict.  They invest their time and energy in vast international diplomatic organizations to prevent and mitigate conflict and foster international cooperation and peace.  They bend over backwards making (sometimes insincere) apologies for stuff they've done that might've antagonized someone.  They go to frankly obscene lengths to avoid armed conflict.  Why?  Because war is a messy, confusing, expensive undertaking that's an enormous drain on a nation's economy and tends to wear out its welcome VERY quickly among voters.  Rare are the occasions when armed conflict is genuinely unavoidable... and most of the time, what we see are eminently avoidable conflicts that occurred because people either stopped trying, or never tried, to communicate and find common ground.

There is no absolute good or absolute evil in the real world.  The kind of abject evil and (often literally) cackling villainy you see in Star Wars and other fairy tales just doesn't exist in the real world.  There is no great and irredeemable cult of evil.  No omnipresent force of darkness that rises up and must be opposed by force of arms.  No armies of darkness that exist to kick puppies and gloat about how evil they are.  Evil is, all too often, quite subjective.  One man's villain is another man's hero.  History's most vilified leaders, the men who oversaw Earth's most terrible atrocities, firmly believed that what they were doing was good, right, and justified for the sake of their nation and people... and so did their followers.  

That's the kind of dichotomy you see in Macross or Star Trek.  There are no card-carrying villains gleefully chortling about how nasty they are.  The antagonists are people who are doing what they believe is right for their nation or species.

All evil is a lesser form of good.

 Objective evil, as most people conceive it, certainly exists.

Or do you deny the existence of rapists, drug dealers, paedophiles, cannibals, human traffickers, etc? (Hmmm ...maybe their victims just have'nt tried to communicate and find common ground...)

And even if objective evil didnt exist the "one man's meat is another man's poison "arguement is really just making my point.

The Nazis regime, for example, was objectively evil by any reasonable standard.

But yes indeed  most of them were so indoctrinated that they firmly believed they were in the right even while they committed genocide. This is precisely the reason why armed force was the only way to stop them, they were not going to be swayed by reason. 

And taking it into space, why should a species which is far more powerful than another with which it has nothing in common, resort to communication at all rather than just sweep it aside?

Or what of Predator Prey situations - how would a Tarantula and Hawk Wasp analogue ever find common ground?

I do see your point about the similarity between Macross and ST in this one regard, but I dont agree that alone makes Macross closer to ST than SW.

Edited by Podtastic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mazinger said:

Interesting. That’s the second time I’ve read a quote of Legend of the Galactic Heroes in the last month. The first was in book two of the Three Body Problem series. I think I should watch that next.

Is relevant a lot but more so lately because there was a remake of the anime recently (though the remake while nicer looking is heavily truncated and is being completed as movies). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, Podtastic said:

 Objective [...]

You keep using that word... and I'm torn between suspecting you simply don't know what it means, and being appalled by the implication that you think your morals are absolutes.

 

2 hours ago, Podtastic said:

 Objective evil, as most people conceive it, certainly exists.

Ah, no... it does not.

Why?

Morality is fundamentally subjective.  

"Good" and "Evil", "Right" and "Wrong"... these things depend on the views of the speaker.  The cultural, societal, and legal norms they were raised in, their education, and their own experiences and feelings.  They're subject to change over time based on changes in society and culture, personal views and experiences, health, and more.  Sometimes they change rapidly, and other times it takes generations.  The point is that they are not constant over time or between individuals.

 

2 hours ago, Podtastic said:

Or do you deny the existence of rapists, drug dealers, paedophiles, cannibals, human traffickers, etc? (Hmmm ...maybe their victims just have'nt tried to communicate and find common ground...)

Case in point, there are cultures on this planet where various entries on this list are NOT considered evil.

The view that human trafficking and slavery are "evil" is a relatively recent cultural development that's still a long way from universal acceptance.  Until the mid-19th century, they were not only considered socially acceptable but necessary for the maintenance of society in even the most enlightened ancient cultures and modern nations like the US and UK.  The last country to ban slavery (Mauritania) didn't ban it until 1981, and even then they didn't actually criminalize owning slaves until 2007.  There are estimated to be somewhere between 12 and 30 million slaves in the world today.  It's still widely practiced despite being illegal in much of central and southern Africa, India, Pakistan, most of Southeast Asia, Russia, and western South America.

Human cannibalism likewise used to be widely practiced, socially acceptable, and even religiously significant in many cultures.  There are religious and tribal groups like the Aghori and Korowai that still consider cannibalism socially acceptable and practice it.

Same story with paedophilia.  Standards for what ages are acceptable vary quite a bit between cultures and religions and have likewise changed over time as well.  Fairly recently we had a former judge from down south who ran for office and was dogged by a scandal involving different attitudes towards acceptable ages in the same culture and country.  He had been involved with girls in their young teens, which most of the country found abhorrent but which that region found more acceptable.  I don't want to get into the religious side of this for obvious reasons.

For drug dealers, it depends a great deal on what drug they're peddling.  Until recently, selling marijuana was frowned upon.  Now there's a growing number of states and countries legalizing the sale of marijuana.  It no longer carries the stigma it used to.  There were, likewise, times when things opium, cocaine, and heroin were socially acceptable to sell and to buy.  The famous fictional detective Sherlock Holmes mirrors the attitudes of the time, in that he was a recreational user of cocaine and morphine and this is treated as being quite acceptable.  It's not now, but it was back then.

There are a number of countries where sexual assault is still considered, if not "acceptable" then "excusable" under various circumstances.  Even in allegedly enlightened countries like the US we're still struggling with groups who feel there are categories or conditions under which rape is acceptable.  

Killing another person is one of the best examples.  Whether or not this is "evil" is SO subjective that people can have multiple, conflicting opinions on the subject based on incredibly specific circumstances.  You'll find people who, in the same breath, will suggest that abortion is evil because it ends a life and that those who practice it should be put to death for doing so.  Opinions are incredibly divided over what constitutes acceptable circumstances to kill in self-defense or just cause for war.

There really are no moral absolutes in this world.

There aren't even moral absolutes within a single culture, nation, state, city, or large group of people.

Morality is a flexible abstract that we bent, twist, fold, spindle, and mutilate to fit our circumstances, views, and beliefs.

 

2 hours ago, Podtastic said:

And even if objective evil didnt exist the "one man's meat is another man's poison "arguement is really just making my point.

I'm honestly not sure even you know what point you're trying to make...

There is no objective evil.  People who do things others see as evil believe themselves to righteous, or justified, or that those things were necessary, or simply don't acknowledge that the things they're doing are wrong at all because they have different standards.

 

2 hours ago, Podtastic said:

The Nazis regime, for example, was objectively evil by any reasonable standard.

But yes indeed  most of them were so indoctrinated that they firmly believed they were in the right even while they committed genocide. This is precisely the reason why armed force was the only way to stop them, they were not going to be swayed by reason. 

There's that word again.

To be objectively evil would mean that, regardless of an individual's views and beliefs, that something can be factually demonstrated to be wrong.  Things can't be objectively evil because morality - the concept of good and evil itself - is fundamentally subjective.

You yourself acknowledge with your very next sentence that the Nazis believed they were in the right doing what they did... which refutes your premise that they were "objectively" evil.  If they were objectively evil, then their evil is a demonstrable and irrefutable fact.  They would see themselves as evil precisely the same way their adversaries did.  They didn't... which means it's subjective.  There are, distressingly enough, groups of people out there today who argue that the Nazis did nothing wrong.  Even if you want to argue that they're brainwashed, that still means the perception of morality is can be changed situationally.

To be frank, the Nazis could've been swayed by reason easily enough.  The whole reason their party came to power in the first place was the crushing weight of war reparations the German government was obliged to pay, the ensuing hyperinflation of their currency running their economy into the dirt, and led to fears of a communist uprising.  The militarism was an economic stimulus.  If both sides had sat down and talked before the shooting started, the entire war could've been avoided by taking remedial action to save the German economy.  

 

2 hours ago, Podtastic said:

And taking it into space, why should a species which is far more powerful than another with which it has nothing in common, resort to communication at all rather than just sweep it aside?

Because a technologically-advanced species is, by default, going to be a social animal.  You can't pass down learned knowledge from one generation to another without a social framework through which to do it.  One of the cornerstones of social species is empathy: the ability to understand and/or vicariously experience the thoughts, feelings, and attitudes of another.  That means evolution literally neurologically hardwired them to respond to attempts to communicate.  

 

2 hours ago, Podtastic said:

Or what of Predator Prey situations - how would a Tarantula and Hawk Wasp analogue ever find common ground?

Those are not social animals, so that's kind of a BS attempt at an example case.

A social species is going to have language of some kind.  It may not be something intelligible to us initially, but it will exist as a quantifiable property that can be studied, analyzed, and eventually replicated to communicate.  Bees communicate through dance and pheromones.  Whales sing.  Elephants vocalize in infrasonic ranges, and cats in the ultrasonic.  Hell, cats are intelligent enough that they have a separate language in the audible range for speaking to humans.  We learn easily enough to intuit what our dogs want from their behavior and vocalizations.  It's not an insurmountable problem.

 

2 hours ago, Podtastic said:

I do see your point about the similarity between Macross and ST in this one regard, but I dont agree that alone makes Macross closer to ST than SW.

It really does make all the difference.

Macross, like Star Trek, acknowledges that a conflict with a hostile power will occur because both sides believe themselves to be in the right.  That they are doing what's necessary for their people and nation.  This does not make them evil in and of itself, it merely means they have a different perspective and that peace can potentially be achieved by finding common ground.  Gundam is a pessimistic version of this, where peaceful resolution CAN be achieved (and humans are literally evolving psychic empathy to help it along) but the universe is run by crazy people who refuse to have a meaningful conversation with anyone who doesn't share their views 100%.  The moral ambiguity is crucial, as is the point that most combatants are not bad people... just people in bad situations.

Star Wars exists in a universe of moral absolutes.  Fundamental drives are categorized by knowledgeable force users as explicitly and unambiguously good or evil.  Dark side users seem to be quite aware they they are in fact evil, and rejoice in it with all the subtlety of a Saturday morning cartoon villain.  They want to take over the galaxy just because.  There's no way for the light side and dark side to reach an accord because destiny is an unavoidable actual thing enforced by a universal fundamental force and they are destined to try to destroy each other, and their users drag the rest of the galaxy into it.  There's zero inlking that the dark siders have any actual goal besides despotic autocratic rule for cruelty's own sake and they're literally fueled by hate and fear.  The moral ambiguity is superficial because the conflict and the people in it are explicitly divided into Light and Dark, Good and Evil, Right and Wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d also say that Dark Side users are inward-focused, using their power for personal gain, and Light Side users are outward-focused, using their power to advance others. That’s as close to “objectively evil” as we're going to get, since I can’t think of a culture that holds unbridled greed and selfishness as desirable traits. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many believed they were doing “good” even though they were aware the prevailing culture they may have come from said otherwise.. no matter the outcome.

Take the current situation here..um..never mind..

This is becoming the wandering thread, talk about anything until there’s something (Macross tv series..?) to talk about..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Bolt said:

Take the current situation here..um..never mind..

This is becoming the wandering thread, talk about anything until there’s something (Macross tv series..?) to talk about..

Explaining why Macross isn't a gritty war story and likely never will be always gets a bit involved... a subject that inevitably comes up when a new Macross anything is in the offing.  "Peace through diplomacy is unrealistic" was a new one, I must admit.

With an apparent change of direction towards more Macross Delta, this thread has kind of run out of purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Sildani said:

I’d also say that Dark Side users are inward-focused, using their power for personal gain, and Light Side users are outward-focused, using their power to advance others. That’s as close to “objectively evil” as we're going to get, since I can’t think of a culture that holds unbridled greed and selfishness as desirable traits. 

The Jedi may de facto kidnap children for brainwashing, but at least when they grow up they can leave if they don’t care for effective organized peacekeeping.

Don’t the Sith actively encourage and delight in murder, torture, and slavery, in Legends and the current canon alike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Bolt said:

This is becoming the wandering thread, talk about anything until there’s something (Macross tv series..?) to talk about..

Eh who needs topics anymore? Besides we're all having fun with the discourse it seems, and it is still vaguely about Macross, or comes back to it easily enough. So I say it works out in the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

 

By the time Hitler and the Nazis came to power any hope of avoiding war was lost. Hitler would've gone to war against France and Russia no matter what reason or negotiation was used to avoid war. Heck, Neville Chamberlain negotiated with Hitler and got the Munich Agreement. Hitler and Stalin also had a Non-Aggression Pact. None of that did good. The only way France or Russia could've avoided war was to completely capitulate to Germany prior to any fighting or at the onset of Germany's invasion.

This is historically inaccurate. When the Nazi Party came to power Germany was not in any military shape to start a war let alone win one. It was years of inactivity and lack of political will that allowed Germany to occupy the Ruhr and restart its military program while passively encouraging Germany to extend beyond its limitations of Versailles. If the governments of the day had the stomach to actually stand against Germany's aggressive stances, it would have prevented the escalation that resulted in World War 2. Then again, less debilitating treaties than the Versailles would have also helped.
 

It's such a shame that the Delta movie is replacing a new Macross series for the near future. Would have loved to a new story instead- not sure what they can do with the current Delta one that would pique my interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SMS007 said:

Don’t the Sith actively encourage and delight in murder, torture, and slavery, in Legends and the current canon alike?

More or less... Star Wars is a setting full of the kind of enforced moral absolutes that only really exist in mythology and morality tales.  For the audience's sake, the characters all wear their moral affiliation on their sleeve.  The heroes are a virtuous and noble lot who never leave a man behind and boldly sacrifice themselves for the higher cause, while the villains in that kind of story gleefully indulge in every atrocity they can seemingly for shiggles and tend to be big believers in the Klingon Promotion.

Even Rogue One, which is often (wrongly, IMO) credited as lending moral ambiguity to Star Wars only really did so superficially for the Rebels.  The Imperials are still a pack of utterly irredeemable and largely faceless puppy-kicking total bastards who commit mass murder simply because they can.

That, of course, was the point I was getting at when I indicated we'll likely never see a Rogue One-esque "dark" Macross story.  Macross has much more in common with Star Trek in its willingness to acknowledge that the antagonists are also people, with their own goals, dreams, morals, and loved ones, and that when war occurs it's usually between two sides which both regard themselves and their goals as good, just, and righteous have stopped talking or never made an effort to start.  In Macross, the antagonists are always people working for what they see as the greatest good for their own kind.

 

3 hours ago, Falcon said:

It's such a shame that the Delta movie is replacing a new Macross series for the near future. Would have loved to a new story instead- not sure what they can do with the current Delta one that would pique my interest.

Yeah, it's pretty disappointing. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had a rant... meh,

 

 

Edited by slide

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/14/2018 at 7:08 PM, Master Dex said:

I actually think Yang Wen-li from Legends of the Galactic Heroes says it best: "There are few wars between good and evil; most are between one good and another good."

One of the worst parts of World War 2 is that it made it easy to paint these things in absolutes.

Much of what people know about the reasons for war in general begins and ends at "Hitler was evil. Like, cartoon super-villain evil." It lends the pereception that EVERY conflict is a righteous crusade against supervillainy, which wasn't even really true for WW2(with most of the stuff Hitler is known for today being unknown or disbelieved during the war).

Hell, we allied ourselves with STALIN in WW2. If Stalin is on the side of pure unalloyed justice and righteousness, then something is profoundly wrong with the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no new Macross TV series but they'll continue with the Delta brand? I'm not really surprised by that.. Maybe a few OVA's to flesh out some of the character's back stories would be nice along with a decent sequel (I wasn't a big fan of Passionate Walkure but it had amazing animation).. I still think a "NEW" Macross doesn't have to emulate Gundam but could still incorporates it's core elements (flashy mecha, hotshot pilots, space wars, musical idols).. Delta to me was just boring and failed to utilize certain characters but overuse boring characters..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, JB0 said:

Hell, we allied ourselves with STALIN in WW2. If Stalin is on the side of pure unalloyed justice and righteousness, then something is profoundly wrong with the world.

“The enemy of my enemy is my friend” That concept was first written in Sanskrit 4th century BC..

“if Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favorable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons”

Winston Churchill said that just before Germany was to invade the Soviet Union

In a fair amount of the worlds eyes, The U.S. is evil..

But we can debate such concepts as good and evil and the PERCEPTION of such concepts all day..

maybe Kawamori is too busy on other projects..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. Locking this thread for the rest of the year. See ya next year...or sooner if they announce something. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire Hitler discussion seems to ignore World War I, which *was* totally a meaningless conflict of sides that just refused to talk to each other. And more wars are like WWI than like WW2. In a fictional universe, one has to *work* on a genocidal dictator the size of Hitler being logical and not cartoonish. By the way I think SDFM did a decent job with Boddol Zer, his "wipe the Earth" attempt actually makes sense.

Also re grimdark. Macross, post SDFM ep 27 is a post-apocalyptic universe. And they managed to make *that* upbeat, despite the setting being typical grimdark. I don't really see a chance of going full-on grimdark after this, you probably can't top that level of destruction (and still have a plot). Unless they actually go for a "Macross the First" style SDFM reboot, then the destruction of Earth and its aftermath could be shown in a more realistic style which would be grimdark enough. 

Card-carrying villains are not as easy evein in SW. I know a few Star Wars Empire fans. I think the logic goes that the Republic, with the Jedi, is just an endless squabble that makes humanity defenseless in the face of enemies like the Yuuzhan Vong. The Empire is a way, imperfect as it may be, to unite galactic humanity for its survival. I don't really have a dog in the Star Wars fight, but from what I know of the fandom, it's far from one-sided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, just a random thought to move away from the good v evil debate here.

Would it be too much to hope for a follow on of Frontier?  Or heck, revisit 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be great.

But ,Your talking about the guy who doesn’t like to revisit past stories..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kalvasflam said:

Ok, just a random thought to move away from the good v evil debate here.

Would it be too much to hope for a follow on of Frontier?  Or heck, revisit 7.

Wasn't Delta a follow on to Frontier?

Nevertheless, the big question is what kind of music will they use.  Will it be back to rock?  More idol/J-pop?  Knowing that will help inform on the setting, and ultimately, what direction the series takes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it's not male K-pop.

Don't want an androgynous bland boy band with bowl hair cuts.....LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2019 at 1:10 AM, Einherjar said:

Happy New Years!

And many seemingly random red circles to you too.

 

 

6 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Would it be too much to hope for a follow on of Frontier?  Or heck, revisit 7.

6 hours ago, Bolt said:

Your talking about the guy who doesn’t like to revisit past stories..

Macross FB7 is about as close as you're likely to Kawamori agreeing to revisit either.

 

 

5 hours ago, sketchley said:

Wasn't Delta a follow on to Frontier?

I suspect when they say "follow on" they mean "direct sequel to".

Macross Delta only really followed on Macross Frontier in the sense that its plot and many underdeveloped characters were meant to be appealing precisely because they were lazy, lifeless knockoffs of the well-developed Macross Frontier story and cast.  It doesn't really directly follow on from Frontier as they're set eight years and half a galaxy apart with zero actual connection between the two stories.

 

 

5 hours ago, sketchley said:

Nevertheless, the big question is what kind of music will they use.  Will it be back to rock?  More idol/J-pop?  Knowing that will help inform on the setting, and ultimately, what direction the series takes.

Knowing Macross, it'll be more jpop... but I wouldn't mind seeing them branch out a bit, maybe hire Babymetal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Seto Kaiba said:

Knowing Macross, it'll be more jpop... but I wouldn't mind seeing them branch out a bit, maybe hire Babymetal?

I'd be down for a show like that with some power metal vibe like Babymetal or Galneryus. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it's another Yoko Kanno team-up, I'd be totally down for the unexpected but totally expected swerve into smooth jazz again. Fuuuuuuck, Macross by way of Cowboy Bebop? Yessssss.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babymetal? How do you say chocolate in Zentran?

Honestly, after reading Kawamori’s statement in the latest  interview put out by the decultureshock crew, I’m less optimistic of a series at all and think we might only just get a second delta movie before Macross get’s mothballed until the next build up of nostalgia forces another round say in 2024 or thereabouts.

Though a new movie was greenlit, I’m kinda taken aback that he still had to shop he idea around. I mean it he had to work to secure funding for something as successful as Delta, what with the concerts and all, it just feels like a series would be many years off.

Edited by Mazinger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how they came up with the gumption to announce a new series in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mazinger said:

Though a new movie was greenlit, I’m kinda taken aback that he still had to shop he idea around. I mean it he had to work to secure funding for something as successful as Delta, what with the concerts and all, it just feels like a series would be many years off.

Frankly, I'm not surprised at all. 

I've suspected for a while now that, on its own, Macross Delta wasn't all that profitable for Big West.  Compared to Macross Frontier, it feels like there's a LOT less merchandise coming out for the series itself.  There's certainly a good deal less in terms of official publications, magazine coverage, and fan works.  They went all-in on promoting Walkure's music, and the result was that the real idol group Walkure is the only part of the show to make a lasting impact on the audience.  I can understand why there would be some reluctance to invest in a second Delta movie, since music production is expensive and if the film's performance hinges largely on the music then you're taking an awful risk with your investment on a property with a clear single point of failure.

 

16 minutes ago, Bolt said:

I wonder how they came up with the gumption to announce a new series in the first place.

Viewership was good, so they probably figured they had the momentum to launch a new series off of Delta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...