Hurin

If you're going to claim that something is "COMPLETELY screwed up". . . please do me the courtesy of at least quoting the line correctly. You misquote the final line in the subtitles (above) as being: "of course! It's a love song!" As though Misa is just realizing at the last moment of the movie that the song she translated herself is actually a love song. Which would indeed be idiotic were that really how the subtitle appears. But the subtitle actually reads: "Of course it was...a love song." Which is not an expression of surprise or discovery, but a melancholy (re)statement of an already known fact. . . as one would say: "of course the gasoline caught fire before we could help." The "of course" is another way of saying: "and as we know. . ." In the context of that scene, the "of course" gives it a melancholy feel. Which I think is appropriate. Now, according to you (and not being a Japanese speaker I have no way of confirming). . . the line should read: "Just a normal...love song." Honestly, I'm not sure there's even a worthwhile difference between what is there in "my" subtitle and what you think it should be (especially given that the prior two subtitles establish that the sone was "ordinary" where you would have "normal"). I think what is there actually sounds more natural and fits the mood better than the (apparently) literally translated Japanese. But what I do know is that I don't really care for your mischaracterization of what the subtitle actually says and the way you then inflated that false portrayal of it into the "COMPLETE screwing up" of the last line of the movie. That just simply isn't the case. There is a big difference between: "Of course! It's a love song!" and "Of course it was. . . a love song." Tense, tone, intent, and literal meaning are all very different between those two. So I have no clue how you got the former meaning (complete with made-up exclamation points) from the latter words as they actually appear. It's especially puzzling how that line could be misinterpreted so badly given all the cues provided by Misa's vocal tones and the mood of the scene as a whole. And the fact that the lines are in answer to Claudia's inquiry as to the nature of the song. Edit: For a better sense of the context and how Misa is clearly not exclaiming in a eureka moment: "Of course! It's a love song!" as the movie fades to black. . . here's the preceding lines for context. This is actually how they appear on the DVD that I subtitled. Each line appears on its own on the screen as Misa speaks, responding to Claudia's question: Just an ordinary song that was popular... ...in an alien city tens of thousands of years ago. Of course it was...a love song. The ellipses (. . .) preceding "a love song" coincide with a pause that Misa takes before saying those words in english. So if that's "COMPLETELY screwed up" to anyone. . . I'll know why I stopped coming here. H

I have no idea why people are so fixated on the cost of production here. It makes no difference! The price is set by the market . . . not by how much they spent to produce them. They will price them at the "magic point" where it's high enough to maximize their profit. So. . . not so high that very few people can afford their product and therefore will not purchase it. Yet not so low that they could have sold just about as many for a higher price. It really doesn't matter if it costs $10 or $50 to produce, the price they charge would be the same. And they're doing nothing wrong in charging us that price. They're not in business to make you love them. They're in business to provide you a product for as much money as they can extract from you without making you so resentful that you'd never buy from them again.

For those who didn't search: The answer is that you need to check the box at the bottom of the outgoing message that instructs the system to save it to your sent folder before sending it.

Did you check all the boxes in the "Clear Private Data" window? Cookies are probably the problem, and the cookies checkbox isn't selected by default. H

I've personally had some luck selectively clearing cookies and such when I've had similar concerns. But if the problem persists, the only real solution is indeed a full cache and cookie wipe. Sh*t happens.

If you're still buying them despite all those angry misgivings, then clearly the price is just right. Or perhaps too low. They're out to get as much for each toy as they possibly can without pissing you off so much that you won't buy the next toy. So, the only poll that matters is the one you participate in via your wallet. Edit: Oh, and the cost to actually manufacture the toy is largely irrelevant. Price is set by what we are willing to pay, not by how much the toy costs to produce. Unless, of course, we're willing to pay less than the toy costs to produce. In which case, the toy won't get made.

Nearly every time this comes up, a full clearing of your cache and cookies will resolve the issue. When I do visit, I access MW from three different computers on two different networks and have never had any issues with remaining logged in across multiple sessions. I normally use Firefox 3.x. In other words, it ain't the site and it ain't the server. Jeez, I sound like I work here!

And you keep dancing around the point and/or pretending not to understand it. You apparently don't mind canon and/or pre-existing movies being f-ed with, unless they actually call them a "reboot". . . then suddenly they're fit to be "despised" as "rubbish." Yet I daresay Lucas could not have done more "damage" to how many SW fans view the original trilogy had he indeed done a "reboot" and called it such. So, to you, reboots are "bad." But mangling things without actually calling it a "reboot" is apparently good. Have you looked in the mirror lately? Every time Star Wars comes up, you. . . oh f--k it. Nevermind, I'm not going to waste any more time on you. I couldn't possibly respect anyone's opinion less. Every time we have ever discussed SW you have demonstrated again and again that you are indeed the real hopeless, obsessed fanboy that you so regularly and hipocritically accuse others of being because they actually have the temerity to critique your beloved prequels (or even RotJ). Indeed, you've demonstrated repeatedly that you actually pride yourself on being completely undiscriminating in your taste in movies (especially SW movies). That's not a dig. . . that's just the proper word that describes someone who for years now has stated that he is unable to differentiate/discriminate between a fart joke and a one-liner. . . or a Jar-Jar and an R2-D2 ("They're both there for comic relief! They're no different!"). What point is there in discussing something with someone who not only can't discriminate between not-so-subtle differences in various movies, but also then angrily, arrogantly, and condescendingly attacks anyone who does point out fundamental differences that are painfully obvious to anyone not blinded by either fanatical devotion or just plain terrible taste (or in your case, probably both). So, is it f--ked up of me to say that you have terrible taste in movies or that you are incredibly undiscriminating? Oh well. Sue me. I don't really give a f--k. You've taunted, and condescended enough for so long that I no longer feel it necessary to remain cordial when addressing what you attempt to pass off as arguments. I don't argue with people whose opinions I don't respect. So you can go get all butt-hurt at someone else for not liking your beloved prequels, or ewoks, or your essay on midichlorians. Cuz I certainly don't give a sh*t anymore. So if you ever wonder why I haven't responded to your taunts or inane attempts at cogent arguments in the future, that's why. And if anyone on staff wants to discipline me for the "defensive vitriol" above. . . go right ahead. I demoted myself earlier today so you're free to do so. H

So, just to clarify. . . Star Trek starting over and changing things without rendering all prior stuff moot = rubbish. Star Wars going back to the prequel era and intentionally changing things retroactively within the continuity = good. If that's consistency, you have a funny definition of the word. And to be honest, I'm not sure you understood the point since the rest of your post doesn't really address it. It's not about how consistent they've been in adhering to their own canon. It's about how inconsistent you are in judging them when they diverge from it or alter it. Now that Star Trek is rebooting and changing things in a more fan-friendly way than Star Wars did, it's "rubbish" to you. But just about any time anyone has used a word even approximating "rubbish" to describe the prequels and how they mangle the original films retroactively (much messier than a "reboot"), you appear in a puff of smoke to explain how it's all really wonderful and then immediately begin castigating anyone who dares to differentiate or discriminate between the wildly fluctuating quality level of those movies as being part of the "raped childhood" brigade. You say this as though it's news. But it's nice to see that even you are now acknowledging that the movies got crappier as they went along as Lucas became less restrained. Welcome to reality! I'll just take a moment to point out that you're still reading stuff like that after all these years (when you're not writing essays about midichlorians). Meanwhile, your only real "argument" always seems to boil down to stating that others are mal-adjusted uber-obsessed fanboys that are constantly screaming that Lucas raped their childhood. Uh. Okay. Lucas is rich. We know. Geez, could you try to fit a consistent point in between this stuff please? Otherwise, you're just saying "head in the sand. . . raped childhoods. . . Lucas is rich!". . . and I've heard it all before. Meanwhile, keep calling reboots "rubbish". . . Lucas's mangling wonderful. . . and then pat yourself on the back for imaginary "consistency." I'll give you the last word so as not to derail this thread any further. I'll look forward to reading and then ignoring more of your taunts and arrogant dismissals of any varying point of view. Even as you seem to be gradually (it's taking long enough!) beginning to agree with them.

It's funny. . . of all the VF-1 color schemes, Hikaru's VF-1J from SDF Macross just seems to belong in battroid mode more than any other. Whereas I nearly always display the others in Fighter or Gerwalk. And those images are incredible. Maybe it's something about the VF-1J head, but the fuselage poking up above the chest-plate looks less pronounced on the VF-1J. Only an optical illusion I'm sure. . . but a welcome one! H

A reboot also has the quality (for those who can hold in their heads multiple iterations of the same property) that it need not affect your appreciation of the original in any way. Unlike, say. . . making some prequels that seem almost perversely intended to undo a lot of what many liked about the originals and fundamentally alter how we now view them. The obvious example among many: Once you see Vader in the prequels, it's hard to see him or appreciate him the same way in the originals. And the change is generally not thought to be a good one (thanks to terrible casting and worse writing). Whereas here. . . no matter what they do to Kirk. . . it's not going to affect my thinking Shatner is a bad-ass in the original series. Nor will it make me think of Picard as less of a Commie wuss (certain bad-ass moments aside).

The trailer was attached to my viewing of QoS. Guess some theaters didn't get their copy in time? No Watchmen though.

Ironically, it's some of the most ardent supporters of every little detail that Lucas went back and did to his franchise that are now calling the concept of a Trek reboot "rubbish." Apparently they prefer that beloved intellectual properties be horribly mangled the old-fashioned way. I much prefer what Star Trek is doing. In fact, Star Wars could use a reboot as well. But that will probably have to wait until Lucas goes the way of Rodenberry.* And of course, in my perfect world, it wouldn't be a full reboot. They'd just start up again after Empire. *No, that's not to say that I wish ill upon him. Just stating the fact that it's unlikely that Lucas would ever allow a Star Wars reboot.

I stand corrected. Though it still seems reasonable to suspect that the studios were looking to broaden the appeal of the franchise.

By those standards, neither was Casino Royale. And perhaps those very criteria, ironically, are what is responsible for the franchise's rejuvenation. People other than grognard Bond fans are actually interested in seeing them. Shrinking box office numbers was what was wrong with Brosnan.

Saw it tonight. It was good. Not as good as Casino Royale. But enjoyable. It's not supposed to be Hamlet.

Surely you realize that there is a difference between, on one hand, going back in time within an existing canon and, on other hand, "rebooting" the canon and saying that none of the pre-existing rules ("baggage") applies. Enterprise was still beholden to the baggage. This movie is a reboot, and therefore is not.

Isn't the point of the reboot to get rid of all the increasingly lame baggage that was piled onto the franchise the last few times they just introduced an "entirely new characters/ship" in the "current era ST?" The whole point of a reboot is to say: "The current era sucks. We're starting over." And that's a sentiment with which I whole-heartedly concur. IMHO, the reboot was a great decision and the only way to revive the franchise. . . as it's the only realistic and effective way of fully wresting it from the grasp of its increasingly emo, eccentric (and Communist!) fanbase. (I'm only partially kidding about the Communism thing!) H

I guess I see where they're making contact. But I haven't noticed that it's actually doing any harm. So for me (at least so far), it's a non-issue. I wasn't even aware that the 1/48 didn't also make contact there.

Done! Please revisit the top of this thread and cast your vote.

Well, I've had both my Roy 1/48 and my Roy 1/60v2 side-by-side for about five days now. And I must say that over a few days of appreciating them both, I finally came down in favor of the 1/60.2. And I have surprised myself in doing so. I always loved the 1/48 and always figured it would be hard to top. So, here's my humble summary of the Pros and Cons of the 1/60.2 and why I prefer it: 1/60 v2 Fighter Pros Better/sleeker/accurate Fighter and Gerwalk mode in general. Once I got used to the nose being shorter, it just "feels" more right to me and looks as much like a Valkryie model kit as any toy I've ever owned. Head is more "tucked in." Arms are more "tucked in." Silhouette from front is much sleeker and much more accurate thanks to less bubbly canopy. Tampo-Printed "UN SPACY" on legs really look great in Fighter mode. Though materials are nearly identical, the 1/60.2 feels more "solid" and less "fisher-Price" (especially in Fighter) than the 1/48's big, blocky, "plasticy" feeling. Cons None Battroid Pros Sleeker more accurate ("Hasegawa-like") legs. Improved poseability Sleeker Chest (used to prefer the "beefier" looking 1/48) that matches arms and legs better. Slightly shorter nose in battroid (not a big deal to me, but nice). Cons Head and neck are attached "higher" than on 1/48 because fuselage now peaks up above the chest piece (this was almost a deal-breaker for me. But I overlook it because I love the fighter and gerwalk appearance so much. . . and I have gotten used to it in battroid). Shoulders flop around a lot more and aren't "locked in" when in battroid mode. Leading to some of the torque and durability issues some have reported. I prefer the 1/48 VF-1S head sculpt. The head on the 1/60.2 seems a bit small and the "head lasers" a tiny bit over-exaggerated. Overall (all modes) The plastic of the 1/60.2 looks "cleaner" to me and feels "brighter" in a pleasing way. Smoother and higher quality plastic perhaps? Or maybe the couple of 1/48s I've had on display are just dirty? Size difference - I'm surprised that I prefer the 1/60.2's size to the 1/48. It feels better in the hand and less like a Tonka or Fisher-Price toy. Overall Non-Issues (for me) These are issues that some have brought up that just don't really register in my own personal evaluation of which I prefer. To each their own. I'm sure my own criteria aren't all that important to others. So this is all just subjective opinion: I don't miss the antenna in Gerwalk mode. I don't mind the "hook" on the backpack and don't consider it an eye-sore. I'm not even sure I've noticed the tailfins/rear stabilizers rubbing against anything. Conclusion While I'm not yet ready to start selling off all my 1/48s only to change my mind and regret it later, I'm definitely taking inventory and will almost certain be selling off my 1/48 duplicates some day. At this point, I'm more excited about having multiple 1/60.2s than I am about having 1/48s (and their huge boxes) taking up all that space without all the "pros" I've listed above.

I cracked the hips on my first 1/48 VF-1A Hikaru. I thought: Hmmm, I'll be more careful with future ones. Then I got over it.

Finally got my first v2.0 1/60. The Roy 1S. Try as I might, I'm having a hard time getting over the fuselage showing above the chest in battroid mode where there would normally be that cool recessed area (like on the 1/48). I realize it was necessary to overcome the "overly long nose" issue that the 1/48 had in battroid mode. But it sorta ruins the whole upper-chest and head area for me. . . which is one of the most cool and solid looking parts of the 1/48 to me. I was hoping I'd like the 1/60 so much that I'd be able to sell off my 1/48s and save all that space. I guess I'll put them here side-by-side for a few days and hope that the 1/60 grows on me. I do love the Tampo printed UN SPACY markings and the Fighter and Gerwalk mode are perfect. I saw the odd upper-chest issues in the pictures and hoped it wouldn't be so apparent in person. All-in-all, it's a nice toy. Just not sure it's so good that I don't want my 1/48s anymore. Which is the standard I was hoping it would achieve. Yes, I have a complaint about a toy. Oh no! Edit: Couple of quick pics. . .

Exactly.

Just for the record. . . this is beyond the control of everyone but Shawn. This isn't a problem that can be fixed with the forum back-end, or FTP, or by thinking affectionate thoughts. It's a low-level server thing. I too have seen it occasionally. . . but usually only late at night. So I haven't considered it much of an issue. I assumed (and still suspect) that there is some low-level backup taking place. Perhaps it could be throttled back or otherwise made less intrusive. . . but that's up Shawn's alley. The other 99% of the time, during the day and most of the night, this site is lightning fast for me. I've been remiss in responding to Shawn's last email. But I'll get to that and bring this up at the same time. Though as sporadic as it is, I would have a hard time characterizing this as an urgent problem. I suspect that only the truly obsessive visitors here encounter the problem enough to truly be a nuisance. Go get a drink or something while it works itself out and come back to find it zippy again.