Mr March

Wow! This will be worth checking out regularly. You're off to a great start!

I love the pose on Roy's VF-1S Strike. Very innovative MacBoy29! I'm going to have to remember that one.

Given the incredible increase in video game budgets, I'd say that not only is the sale price acceptable at the current level, it is amazing that the cost to the consumer for the average video game has not tripled or quadrupled in the last decade. The production costs for flagship titles like Valve's Half-Life 2 or Bungie's Halo 2 are so high, they are comparable to the budgets of mid-range independant films and high-end television episodes. We're talking millions of dollars here...for a video game! Granted, the buying power of the consumer is always falling because of the lousy performance of the economy (I'm refering to North America here, for all you international members). So naturally, we all feel like everything is too expensive...which isn't far from the truth, but in a more roundabout way. Things could always be cheaper and we could always have more money, but such is life. Personally, I've always thought that gamers in general (and I mean both PC and console fans alike) spend far too much money on crap games as it is. So many of my friends have come up with lame excuses for the utter garbage they buy, I really can't say I have all that much sympathy for the money spent on such games. "I need a new game" or "I gotta buy enough games to make my console/PC upgrade worth the money I spent" or "Oh, I know dick about this game, but the box looks cool". In my entire life, I think I can safely say my failure rate with game purchases has been less than 5%. I can also say that a good 90% of the games I purchased, I've played twice or more. At least half I've played half a dozen times or more. Some games I've played for so long, I should have been paying royalties I played Unreal Tournament online for nearly two years straight. TWO YEARS on $56 CAD. CounterStrike, Quake II, Jedi Knight, Starcraft, Doom, Dom II, Mechwarrior II and IV, and several others have also seen extensive online play by yours truly. I sometimes go six months to a year between purchases. I think it's much more a case of what you get out of the games you buy rather than the number of titles you play. Make wise decisions and buy only what you really want; you'll notice games aren't really all that expensive. In fact, you may even come to realize that video games pack more value into a $40-$50 price range than almost any other form of entertainment.

While my PC has (and thanks to the continued production of the best titles like Half-Life 2, it appears it always will) hold the number one priority, I have to say I'll go with whatever console produces that one killer app that I absolutely MUST own. When I purchased my Super Nintendo, it was Super Castlevania IV. My Dreamcast, it was Soul Calibur. My X-Box was originally supposed to be purchased for Soul Calibur II, but Halo and Halo 2 snuck in and stole the top spot right from under poor SCII's nose. Right now, the only app I'd consider enticing enough to prompt the purchase of the fourth gaming console of my life would be Halo 3. As always, I'm open-minded to purchasing any console, regardless whether it's hot (X-Box) or not (Dreamcast). All depends on that app.

Nice looking vehicle. It would make a great appearance as the escape vehicle in a Zombie flick...or maybe the next Vampire Hunter D film

Oh Mike man, I feel for ya. This thread is bringing back my unhappy adulthood of exactly one month ago

Getting close to the deadline, who can help but enjoy as much Star Wars as possible? http://www.big-boys.com/articles/galaxies1.html Enjoy!

Not really sure, since I knew very little about either program. I missed "Walking With Dinosaurs" so I can't really compare. Just from the little I've read on both shows, they do appear similar in style.

Being a space and science addict, I rarely pass up the opportunity to watch a program about such subject matter. This saturday, a program called Alien Planet will be shown on the Discovery Channel. I've seen the show advertisied for weeks now on the front page of the IMDB (Internet Movie Database) and I must admit I'm quite interested to see what it is like. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0453446/ Though I typically avoid all television, I'm going to make an exception and check out this program. Anyone else going to watch? Does anyone know what to expect from this program? The ever-present criticisms of MW members?

Thanks for the link! Everything I've read (from reviews) leads me to beleive I'm going to adore this last film. I personally loved Attack of the Clones and every review I've read says Revenge of The Sith is the best of the prequels. Should this indeed be the case, it's going to be a fantastic film. At worst, RoTS will be better than The Phantom Menace and at least equal to AoTC. That will more than satisfy me.

Ridley Scott's title as a great filmmaker and his influential work more than speaks for itself; the credit I give him is well deserved. Any filmmaker makes more than his share of duds, Spielberg included (1941, Always, Hook, Lost World, etc). Personally, I find more value in the way films propell foward film and explore new territory with innovative techniques in structure, style, and subject matter. Why, because it is ultimately those few directors that demonstrate expertise in those areas that set the tone not only for all film, but actually allow new films to be made that were not possible before. I do admire and appreciate the old school directors like Lucas, Coppola, Spielberg, Scott, Cameron, Mann, Stone, and many others. Their places in film history and their contributions to film as a whole will be noted and well remembered. But for every success they may have, there will always be others who create works those older directors never could have done themselves. Could you see someone like Lucas directing Memento? Coppola directing Trainspotting? Spielberg directing Fight Club? Stone directing The Matrix? There is too much great film made and yet to be made to start establishing one director's monopoly upon all film. Granted that commercially, Spielberg is easily one of the most influential talents. Artistically, his contribution to film isn't even in the top tier. Who would those most influential filmmakers be? I'd have to place the likes of Kurosawa, Hitchcock, Lucas, Welles, Kubrick, and several others in the top list. The sheer number of films whose direct lineage can be traced to the work of these directors and the influence these directors have had on all film is beyond measure. Sadly, I think Ridley would be out as well. Though his work has influenced several directors who quote him by name and an entire genre of monster films, his greatest contributions to film are mostly limited to cinematography and science fiction. But I still love ya Ridley!

Hey! That's cool. I like that little animation.

Hehehe, that's funny. The cheesy long hair and silly tight jeans next to a Spinner

Damn! How did this thread slip by my initial browsing? SOmetimes I really hate how the boards here at MacrossWorld are not 100% accurate with respect to the new post/thread memory. It's funny, but I'm actually excited by this news. I'm actually considering purchasing a CF Valkyrie, even though I only own three 1/48s and have been more than satisfied with that number for several years now. Strange how the addiction never really dies. I always wanted three Valkyries and no more. But now that I think about it, it may be a great idea for my collection to consist of one CF VF-1A, one VF-1J Hikaru, and one VF-1S Roy with my old VF-1A Hikaru as a test Valyrie. I could use it for dismantling, spare parts, custom tests, etc and I'd still have my triad

The dialogue was fantastic in Blade Runner. Some of the quote are now such classics of film. "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?" "All those moments will be lost in time...like tears in rain" A friend of mine had a great discussion about whether Deckard was a replicant. He basically saw the film for the first time not but a few months back, while i had been a fan for years. It was plenty of fun going through the exploration of all the details in the film, the opinions of the actors, and Ridley's own comments on the matter. When he was done, he remained convinced Deckard was human, but it sure was fun to talk about it

Like so many of the directors I love, I've yet to see every single film they have made. Sadly, I've never seen the Duellists. I beleive last count was I had seen 12 of his 15 films, so I'm close

Gladiator used a historical context only as a setting and to grant the film some dramatic grounding. The film was intended to be period fiction only, never a biopic or historical retelling. Very important distinction. granted. but if you make a movie about the American Revolution, and start off about how George Washington and Alexander Hamilton wanted to form a workers utopia to escape from the clutches of Bourgeoise Great Britain in accordance with the writings of Marx, which hadn't happened yet, its not a good setting. Nothing against Gladiator, but the concept of "freedom" and "democracy" were not things that a Roman Emperor, especially Aurelius, would have been talking about. That's not exactly an accurate analogy. Marxism had no historical basis in the early period of the American formation. In contrast, the early concepts of democracy, representation, and participation all had historical precedent in the Roman Republic (and Gladiator is set after this time). Like I say, the characters and events in Gladiator are historically similar only in as much as they grant the fictional film some legitimacy as a proper period piece. Gladiator used liberally from the history of Rome, but preferred to use composites for its story rather than rigid, established people and places from history. Marucs Aurelius was generally considered the last Emperor to hold power before the decline of Rome and his son successor Commodus was considered responsible for beginning of that decline. This is similar to the film, but not exact. Rome was also relatively peaceful, except for scattered wars it fought against Germanic tribes. Again, this is similar to the film but different. Rome itself would most certainly feature characters that spoke of freedom and democracy. Rome was one of the earliest examples of democratic ideology in the ancient western civilizations. The Republic was ruled with a two-seat consul, with more than one person sharing power and controlling veto. The Republic also featured the concept of terms for their officials, including the appointment of the dictators and censors, both of whom served defined terms. The various assemblies of the Roman Republic actually elected officials, such as magistrates and the greater plebeians were responsible for electing the officials that formed the republic assemblies. Granted, Rome never became a Republic after it became the Empire (in contrast to the film, which never showed Rome becoming a Republic, but hinted the surviving characters would perform such a dying request). However, the political realities were certainly there at that time and Gladiator certainly followed the historical precendents of Rome. Hopefully this helps your suspension of disbelief.

Gladiator used a historical context only as a setting and to grant the film some dramatic grounding. The film was intended to be period fiction only, never a biopic or historical retelling. Very important distinction.

Hey, nice thread >EXO<! I was very sad when the last one closed down. I felt the Ridley Scott discussion was just starting to get interesting. Ridley Scott is probably one of the first directors I really admired as a young kid and have followed ever since. His amazing ability to create a vibrant visual motif in every film he directs is really unrivaled in the careers of any other filmmaker I can imagine. Whether he is on a good film, or he makes a dud, the visual vibrance is unmistakable. Ridley's strength as a visual artist is not just a definiable monolithic style either, but he has shown the ability to diverge into several styles; almost a thematic dichotomy if you will. I've also always been amazed at how Scott can jump from genre to genre, displaying great finesse and talent in the smallest personal story or the grandest epic. As one of the filmmakers of modern classics, I found many of his films not only challenged the conventions, but he revisits his own contributions successfully time and again, proving the merit of his own innovations. His love for strong female leads in stories traditionally considered impossible for a leading lady is just one example of such reaffirmation of his film concepts. My personal favorites are certainly Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator. I also very much enjoy Black Rain and Matchstick Men (wow, what a performance by Nicholas Cage, especially after the duds he had done for so long). I am also nearly embarrased to admit my fondness for Thelma and Louise. So many special interests groups treat the film like the national flag of feminism (ironic given Ridley's role) but even such political baggage can't keep a great film down. I never once felt insulted by the film and instead empathized totally with the female characters. Imagine a film that makes men empathize with the mindset of women...Ridley should win a Nobel Alien was more than just the spawn of endless creature features, few of which have even matched the original Alien's impact on film. More importantly, Alien was a breakthrough into creature special effects and new path into science fiction. Ridley was inspired and even shamed by the amazing power of Star Wars, yet at the same time he used his amazing skills to create a film his own. He could have easily fallen victim to the urge to create a clone, but instead he contributed to the late 1970's creative explosion of science fiction...and he enriched the genre with a worthy artistic contribution. Just when one thought Ridley Scott's amazing contribution to science fiction film could never be exceded, the guy makes Blade Runner. Science fiction and film noir together? Impossible it was thought, but realized with great success it was. The gun, the picture, the dark and gritty tone; Blade Runner took all the elements of classic french film noir and married them with a dystopic future world. The amazing combination of these elements didn't end the greatness of Blade Runner, for the film then created a story in which the character endures trial and revelation, leading to a personal tale of deep existentialism. To praise the structure and narrative of Blade Runner doesn't even begin to do the film justice. OF course, how could I not talk about Gladiator. Initially an epic film of the largest scale whose structure then turns into a personal story without loosing the grandness of scope. I was totally blown away by the concept! Not only did Ridley Scott once again claim the crown of a master cinematographer but the film remains to this day one of the best sword fighting epics ever made. The combat sequences have arguably yet to be matched, and this is placing the film up against the best competitors like Jackson's Lord of the Rings or Lucas's Star Wars. Yet with all the visual impact of the film, it's the tragic story that restrains the viewer, like the chains that bind the emotive characters. Every piece of dialogue felt like an explosion; every verbal conflict felt like a clash of armies; every tear that fell was a great loss. The film was a reinvention of the classic greek tales on film and a shining example of the way in which Hollywood ought to remake old ideas.

HAHAHAHAHA! Bloody brilliant I'm so spamming my friends with this. I'm part of the organic rebellion and didn't even know it

In addition to many other criticisms I had of AVP, the lack of action you mentioned is one of my biggest complaints. For a film called "Alien vs. Predator" there is a surprising lack of action depiciting aliens fighting against predators! The script wasted so much time setting up the story, very little was left to actually get to the fighting. Very poorly written.

Mmmmm, Emma Frost....yummy *de-evolves into adolescent fanboy mode*

I really enjoyed Black Rain actually. It was a great story for the time and I felt it revealed a much broader and more thoughtful depiction of the Japanese, especially for a Hollywood movie. I also liked how both cultures, through the relationship of Nick and Masahiro's characters, taught something to the other. I was wondering if a special edition DVD was ever going to come out. My three favorite Ridley Scott films are Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator, all of which would rank very high on a list of all time personal favorites. What can I say, the guy makes good films

Macross Plus basically put Manga on the map, didn't it? It was the first time I ever heard of them, I remember seeing their booth at a con in NYC with Macross Plus stuff all over it (the first time I had actually heard of Macross Plus), and was like, WOAH, what's this? I agree. I was of the understanding Macross Plus was one of Manga's premier titles and contributed greatly to their early success and continued earnings during their formative years as a company. All my friends who enjoyed anime at the time all owned VHS copies of Mac+ and the videos were the mainstay of all the local hobby shops.

I like the picture. Nice butt