1/1 LowViz Lurker

But don't the tv series versions not have a stripe on thier side of the arms that goes vertically? Very small difference but to a fan it is noticable. And who knows? It may even give a good excuse for yamato to actually try to release a fixed "closer to tv version" of the tv skull leader. Complete with fat hands, grey flightsuit instead of a space suit etc As I said I personally don't mind that the CF is trying to be two things at once but I can see why people would want to point it out. Sort of like how there are still fans hoping for a tv Qrau because they simply like a green one.

But we don't care if he succeeds or fails because we know nothing about him and he doesn't really do much apart from sing in his cockpit. He dodges the fire, sings, the enemy space folds out of there, and that's it. I'd much rather see weapons being used ie m+. (maybe have it so pilots eject to make is safe for kiddies and keep a low body count) Or have situations where the character can't help but need to defend themselves from characters who are at thier level of skill. I'm not saying he isn't interesting character but the story seemed a bit flat. Imagine for example basara having an evil version of himself to challenge him and he is a match in piloting ability? (similar to milia vs max) Without conflict there is nothing to see. Sure gamlin is occasionally there to back up basara but it feels like gamlin isn't needed unless it is defending innocent people in macross 7. Sort of like how you can have a hero and you have the hero's semi-useful sidekick. Ahahaha sorry to fans of gamlin, but i think basara is SO good, that the only thing that can threaten him is an ace on milia's or max's level. He is way too powerful imo. That's the impression I got anyway. There was no where near a situation like that what you see in a amuro/char battle where the robots get damaged and almost destroyed completely from all the fighting. (like in a close boxing match you want to see two guy slugging it out and almost losing) And then the pilot gets gradually better, faster, more wise, more experienced, etc from when they began and that they can mature or grow eventualy reaching a point where some event has changed them.

Really? I thought that was a mistake? Kinda like how there are some scenes of vf1 showing them able to shoot lasers from the sides of the plane rather than from the gunpod or head laser? And that to actually go into space by itself it needs a space booster? (shown in design works, kinda looks a bit like a gluag booster but for a vf1, and launched from a truck. I could be mistaken here) About sara using her powers to fly the jet: that is what I mean by magic. I don't think basara had that. But it would be good to know a bit more about it. Sorta like how in star wars the old man explains what the force was. We never saw that in the original tv series and would like to know why a human can demonstrate that ability? (creating an energy barrier) Ok so I will use the term spiritua when reffering to that specific instance in macross 7 where basara using his singing. But when I say magic I am reffering to the idea that characters are using powers of some sort that can't be explained yet. When the girl flies on a rock it was genuinely very out of the ordinary for a majority of people who don't see things like that everyday. The first impression is to think: its magic. And her being a priestess and stuff using these powers; these are genuinely kept a secret to outsiders. They were not being openly demonstrated to outsiders. (shin lucked out and witnessed this by chance) In zero I will just say magic. In 7 I will say spiritua. In zero, sara wasn't literally singing to fly herself out of harm's way. I can view the singing as like a form of magic. (since the plants started to magically grow in one instance - maybe this is the healing effect or soothing effect at work to restructure it and revitalise the living thing on a spiritual level?) Sharon apple: Her singing did have a magical effect: that of bringing people intoa hypnotic spell and mind controlling. But it kept that in the background and was minimalistic. Did you see the pilots singing to defeat enemies or zentradi rogues? No. There was still a sense of danger that if the pilot doesn't fight, he might actually die! Maybe in the back our minds we know the hero has to "win" but that doesn't mean we are also not scared and because of this we keep watching until the battle is over and must accept that we see casualties as well as a result of it. In the tv series it wasn't magic but a 'culture' shock. The effect of song could be resisted by kamjin, soldiers could go back to thier old warrior ways and all problems weren't solved by using music as a perfect solution. It was more like it was a patch fix in the original series. In macross II it is explained that the minmay defense can't be relied upon ALL the time. You sitll need proper training in conventional fighting in case the music is resisted in some way or countered by future threats. In war you don't just assume your enemy won't know your tactic and not adjust to it - as we saw in SDF:Macross when Kamjin flew his ship into the sdf1 and embraced culture but still showed defiance. I'm sure the "magic effect" of love didn't actually kick in to the last second - you got to remember that the boss was killing his own people so there is stll the chance that those aliens will have disagreement with us humans over other things in future. It might have been beneficial to help us kill the boss, but that doesn't mean like in the original series there won't be some bad guys that pop up like kamjin or the boss in future too. They might have only killed the boss out of being sick and tired of him punishing them and in anger, decided he was just a threat to thier own health. (similar to the need for the aliens to help us when they got contaminated and had no choice but to kill thier own commander in SWI) I guess you could say it was interesting to see that "twist" or wrinkle in the story because it meant minmay/minmay defense by herself wasn't going to win wars or save people and that you still needed weapons for defense. You can't just lay all the blame on soldiers, which was kaifun's unfair judgement on hikaru and the others. There was a good balance of realism that you get from real robot show, as well as a bit of fantasy elements.(ie magic) That is a fair and valid view. Actually I agree it wasn't too preachy. And she didn't just dwell on environmentalism. But also remember that she was a flawed character herself for breaking her dad's rules - and she is too hard on herself. Similar to how Kaifun was a flawed character and uses minmay for his own political purposes too. (even though he has a good point about her singing being very important to the fans and the people she touches with it.) But the message is it is ok to make mistakes and stuff too - nobody is perfect - sara can't blame herself for the destruction of the world, as it was not her fault that ASS1 crash landed and led to the scientists hunting the AFOS using the special radar. When Shin crashes his plane into the island and she tells shin to piss off, you can't just paint shin as evil evil evil. We know he went through some bad stuff as a kid too: seeing the ass 1 crash onto earth and wanting not to hear earthquakes ever again, so he joins up to fight or protect earth from aliens if it ever becomes a threat. Same thing with kaifun being unfair to all the other soldiers and blaming them for everything. It's not easy fighting a race of giants that outnumber you. I felt more sympathetic to global because he has to keep everyone safe. Without some weapons to defend ourselves from the aliens, we might not have been able to survive. (there are still bad people on the alien side as there are good people on the alien side - bad meaning they will do everything they can to wipe out as many humans as they can due to being crazy or having no regard for life) Macross zero for me had a rushed ending but the dogfights really made up for it. My issue isn't with the magic in that. But 7 was too repetitive imo. Even if it was aimed at kids, and has space whales that sing, that doesn't mean I have to like it. I still liked macross plus and zero more because it is just more exciting to me to see people fighting in mecha using thier skills over singing in thier cockpit and having enemies run away. And if that happens every episode, for 50 eps, it can get old imo. It's not so much the environmentalism itself, but the repetition and the same message over and over again with not much happening. It kind of like the same reason I may get tired of watching those fighting animes where the characters talk and talk and talk for episodes at a time before starting to fight. Imagine a wreslting match where for half of the time you spent it was just theatrics? It can get a little tiring and repetitive. And why not have a situation where both sides can be right but they just fight for thier belief? In gundam for example the spacenoids are the environmentally conscious ones for moving to space to let mother earth "heal" but that doesnt mean we can't also view these people as Ecco Terrorists who show a bit of danger too. (hating war but using war machines to make thier point and force us to listen to them all the while endangering those who they love with thier fighting) This is what I mean by balance. You can still have your enviromentalism but why not have chracters "who are not perfect" yet also have a good reason (a personal one) to not want to change thier ways? Just makes it more dramatic. I like the fact that in gundam wing the peace craft character with the mask can totally admit he is a big hypocrite to himself and his dad's teachings and that he has to wear the mask in shame to not offend the family traditions, in which he has got blood on his hands from using violence and killing people, which he believes is a necessary evil to bring about change which the next generation can fix. The idealists with "good intentions" but shameful behaviour can be viewed as both hero and villain at the same time and that is what I mean by having more than one quality in a single character. Much more interesting to have flawed characters than perfect ones imo. Who knows maybe in years to come those "kids" will grow up and mature and appreciate a series better because it tries to add more complexity and not solve things in 1 half hour all the time and be too preachy? In SDF:Macross I thought that there was a lot of flawed characters which is why I like it. Misa's dad for example can be viewed as both a hero or a apeface. He can be a hero for managing to make use of the grand cannon to wipe out the aliens which allowed us to win the war, but at the same time he was also kind of selfish as a father, demanding that misa be safe and sound hiding under a hole in the earth while other people's children have to die. You can view them in more than one light and allows you to be cynical. When misa tried to explain that the aliens had massive numbers and that we need to make peace with them, the higher ups didn't believe. They thought they could take them on. They didn't give a poo if taking a tough guy aproach might endanger the people living on the surface in the line of the alien laser bombardment (reprisal attack) because it meant they could then make a deal with the aliens that allowed them to appear to take a stronger stance by showing that we are prepared to fight with force. (hoping they would respect that and be a little more fearful and discourage them from thinking they can push us around) But as much as you can view the character in either light, it allows you to forgive them for thier flaws too because they might have good intentions but just have a different way of fighting. If everyone is the same, (there is no grey characters who are agnostic to either sides viewpoint) and no one is there to challenge each other and there is no conflict or any action, then the show is boring imo. But I do hope that if they make a new series: can they please tell us more about the pc and thier horrific bioweapon experiments? But do it in a scarier way like movie like "The thing" or "aliens". I would so love for them to combine the gritty scenes of macross plus and violence in DYRL, (milia going full force on thier weaklings) with a scary setting. They sorta did it with patlabor WXIII when they had that bioweapon escape and it kills people, because it felt like a horror movie. I want something like that for macross but with PC monsters!

Yeah but how? I didn't think the vf0 could just fly out of orbit? The fighters in macross plus could. They died or got lost after the megaroad left. Oh well at least max is still alive. It was called that in macross 7. But some argue that the concept didn't exist yet in the original tv series. So I just call it magic. Because in macross Zero that is what it seems. The priestess have some kind of shamanistic ability that can heal plants and stuff. (and lift rocks and fly on those rocks etc) Its worth noting basara couldn't fly. Yep one of my faves along with 8th MS Team. Actually I would recommend this to those who tend to go for more 'realistic' robot/mecha shows like patlabor. You can search the forum for huge debates about why people don't like or do like m7 as much as the others so I won't go into too much detail and bore others. Maybe it was too radical a change in too short a time for the old school fan? I guess that is the risk that comes when you aim to create fresh new idea vs rehash ideas like gundam. Some people like more of the same with new wrapping (macross II) others demand something completely revolutionary and different. I do think Basara is an interesting character, but the whole "lets make singing a weapon" was kind of strange. And there are still ways you can damage a robot and not kill people. Max and milia did it in sdf:macross. Arnold scwarzenegger did it in terminator 2. I just feared that battles were going to be repetitive for each episode and the same thing would happen each time. I just wish that it was one of many themes like in sdf:macross rather than hogging the whole show. In SDF:macross you could sympathise with both sides of the argument. For example the zentradi knew only war and destruction of other planets because it was ingrained in them that this was the meaning of life, and eventually we could feel sorry for them for not knowing any better. We could fight them, (and not feel bad because that's what soldiers need to do to protect) but we could also see beyond the fighting and help them too. (max and milia having a kid is a first step) When we see the earth destroyed, it is our own fault and we share the blame because humans fight and destroy each other and thier environment as much as the aliens. (we are related and that forces people to reflect) Now in macross 7 with the space whales, I think that could easily be 1 episode of many episodes so there is balance. One of the problems I see is if the message comes off as too preachy and politcial people can see that. eg: If say the actor for james bond movie tells you guns are bad, and goes ahead and glorifies violence in the movie by having him assasinate people with his gun, don't you think that is a little silly? If a person who has made violent movies in the past says we must protect children from violence, doesn't it just seem a little out of place, because they once starred in many violent movies that teach people to deal with situations only with brute strength and killing in thier own past? I have no problem with environmentalism, but if it is the whole focus of the show then yeah it can make you a little tired because it can be repetitive if they make that the message in every episode. Rather than do that, what they can do is work that into the culture of the alien race and have varying viewpoints. One alien race might be the "scientific" side who makes cures and reseeds planets but needs to study things and do experiments to help themselves find cures and stuff, another race might be primitive and only care about indigenous creatures for humane or religious reasons (but be very hostile and unsympathetic to refugee aliens who wish to settle on thier lands whose own home planet was destroyed, similar to the aliens in space battleship yamato) ...and maybe even add in hostile races whose only goal is to rule the galaxy or anything they see fit to destroy. (zentradi) Maybe even put in petty criminals like in cowboy bebop to make a story more unpredictable? (that is the character is not motivated by thier bloodline or alien race, or politcal faction, or by thier government, just money) This just makes a show more interesting than having episode by episode of the same message hammered into your brain to make you tired or make you feel guilty. Instead, show different points of view and have many twists. For example have a situation where the destruction of a planet might have been necessary to save other planets from an infestation of dangerous pests that feed off the plants on the other planets, so two disagreeing races at war can both still be "right". The pests might have destroyed crops which people need to feed on, while the animal rights actvivists are barring the farmer aliens from eliminating the pests which if eliminated would protect the farmer aliens' livelihood. Why not have it so both sides are fighting each other for thier beliefs? Neither is wrong but both can't win if one side has its way. There will be no simple answer, only compromise. (or if the two races hate each other enough maybe they will both kill each other to extinction like the PC?) Everyone fights: even in DYRL. Not all complex problems can be solved with snap solutions. (which is why I liked SDF:macross over DYRL in story) It's not like we don't care to make the world perfect, but that it is inevitable that different people with different priorities will butt heads. I thought they handled it well in SDF:Macross because a single person can be right and have an element of truth in what they do in one issue, realise he can be wrong on some other things, and then slowly want to change to improve himself or to sympathise with the opposing side on some issues by seeing it from thier point of view after "thinking" about it or having a life-changing experience that lets them "grow" or mature. Max for example defends himself in front of kaifun when kaifun mentions that all soldiers are evil for choosing to fight, (he assumes all soldiers wanted this war rather than be dragged into it) ..but later he saves enemies by using nonlethal methods of fighting when he meets milia - maybe kaifun's beliefs actually rubbed off on max at that point and max could now sympathise with enemies now that he was personally in love with an enemy? So that "change in behaviour" is what I want to see. It's just less repetitive that way. We didn't really see that in macross 7 because they went for a more black and white aproach. Basara was always right because he was the rock star and used his personality and charisma to manipulate his fans into following his beliefs like a cult leader with mind powers over his followers. There were no bitter war orphans that were shown who couldn't stand him or his beliefs in the show or people who couldn't forgive the opposing side like there were in macross plus (eg how you can sense an element of racism from the older generations) that creates an interesting conflicting viewpoint to challenge his ideas. So it came off as a little flat.

Maybe it is laserbeak? He is going to return to soundwave to inform the rest of the decepticons of a new planet to search, for more autobots to kill?

I don't mind the environmentalism. I actually think it was part of the original. Think about when earth got scorched by the lasers? That was a whole planet who relies on that for food, so it illustrates the humans need to take care of earth if they want to survive thing. So there is some truth to the hippy and tree hugging message but some of the characters who accuse the soldiers can be annoying at times. (kaifun unfairly judging soldiers as being responsible for all the damage which at times can't be avoided. Similar to the public blaming the labors in patlabor as being too dangerous if they end up screwing up in front of the cameras) But I do want explanations for things like when we see rocks floating, normally I like to know why it is there in the story and how a person can do it. If I see a character manipulate nature and create energy field around thier body, I like to have some explanation like "how did the person do it?" If Sara can heal plants with her mind just by singing, "how is that possible?" Can she not heal Roy's girlfriend from her fatal injuries? Why not? If I see a mecha fly into the sky damaged, and not know if the character is dead or alive, it kinda bugs me. Like it wasn't letting me know what happened after that event and just ends abruptly like that. (sort of like how people were disapointed when kawamori kills off hikaru and misa as a big "f-you" to the fans ) In gundam they do try to explain the things by saying that newtypes have these powers and that they have technology that allows them to tap into this power to manipulate bits and stuff. In star wars we have the "force". In ful metal Panic you have the mysterious "black technology". (sounds like something from final fantasy 6) In macross there is a hint of it, but it kinda teases us and won't say for certain what it is. Just that singing = magic for the pc. In SDF:Macross and Macross Plus it wasn't really all that magical but it seems like the music really does have magic effects in macross 7 and macross zero. The PC obviously had this magic because of the way they sealed up the demons using it. So I think maybe like Outlaw Star (the characters in that rely on a combination of magic and technology) there is some truth to the superstitions and legends of the humans with powers. (perhaps the zentradi thought they had witnessed it when viewing that fantasy movie with kaifun killing giant men? There are legends of giants in ancient myth for example like David and Goliath or frost giants you see in role playing games, so I reason perhaps the zentradi were so sure they were witnessing battle footage because they were told of it a long time ago like the music they once remembered a long time ago in DYRL? But of course when told by us humans that it was "just a movie" they realised and gave up on that idea.) Another thing is: When basara won't use weapons, when there is no fighting, it kinda cheats the audience of some of the danger in the dogfights. Because each episode all the guy has to do is start singing rather than using weapons to shoot people. If Dyson or Guld did this in macross plus I don't think it would be as popular as wanting to see them fighting. In macross plus they could justify fighting by saying that it was to "protect" from danger. They didn't stop to think of the feelings of the enemy before gutting them with a vf11 gunpod's bayonet, or they'd end up endangering themselves. When kamjin tries to crash his ship into the sdf1 the crew of the sdf1 didn't have time to worry about kamjin's feelings, they were more worried about survival and trying to protect themselves. I guess some of that danger is lost if the series gets too sailormoon-ish or even dragon ball z-ish. (with the main hero "dying" and able to be ressurected from the dead with the dragon ball wishing powers. Basara is like a macross 7 equivalanet to jesus: he "dies" and comes back to save people Without the "danger" of death it kinda cheapens "life". Too much reliance on magical powers can be bad because life isn't as precious anymore and each fight becomes less meaningful.)

I can't complain though: I was happy that they included the fat hands. It's a cross between dyrl and tv but in fighter mode it isn't really all that noticable. I wonder if they were to rerelease it, would they correct it and give normal tv forearms?

Whose eyeball do you think that is?

Ok but the loner part has to do with needing to prove your skills alone. If when riggs went one-on-one asked for Murtaugh to help him, this means he is asking for help from another person. That's a team. Traditionally a man shouldn't ask for other people to help bail him out. He should be able to deal with that person one-to-one like a man by fighting using his own skills. If someone interferes it won't be a fair fight. Its about proving yourself to ther other guy that I can pwn you. It's ok to recieve some kind of support but not help in the fighting itself otherwise it makes the audience think he had an unfair advantage. It's the same reason the aliens in predator movie don't want to look like weaklings if they prey on a weak target, only one that is equal in ability or is worth bragging about. It would be downright unfair to the other guy if snake/riggs/wolverine loses a fight and then expects his team to help with the actual fighting because that is his job. It is much more exciting to see the fight when it is a close and evenly matched. Just as you look up to beast for standing by his convictions for serving his sentence (even though he is innocent!) I look up to a more traditional hero that will take a problem head on, see beyond duty or petty rules and just do what they believe is right in thier own heart. When guile got beaten by bison there was no excuse: guile came out looking less cool to me for not being the one to beat the crap out of bison. (this is the villain that killed charlie) I'm just saying an audience would react better to a person who succeeds in a fight at least within the span of the movie. So the focus on the clint eastwood macho man archetype makes the most business sense. I agree there are other types of heroism, for example cyclops can be considered one, but I was only highlighting a popular one. I personally thought that in the cartoon it was a bit cold of cyclops to reatreat and leave morph behind. I admit this is just my opinion so I don't mean to offend any fans of him. Maybe he thought his own team couldn't fight anymore, but maybe they could? We'll never know because they retreated. That's true. But snake does makes up for this by having that fight earlier with fists and beating the ninja fair and square. I was actually disapointed he had to die. Just like when Ivanov got beaten by the afos in macross zero or when roy died from a stray shot from the grunt Qrau in SDF:Macross.

? At one point Cyclops actualy questions xavier on what xavier himself taught. This isn't limited to Wolverine. Just that if leaving a friend to die means going against orders then I will sympathise more with the guy who goes against that order. If it is a friend of yours you would probably do the same not be some mindless robot programmed to just follow a command if it goes against your belief or way of fighting. I equate the loner with independance and competence to handle the situation single handedly. That is to say they are the characters that dont necessarily like working in a team even though they can see the advantages. (wolverine would fall into that category) For example if Dyson can recieve help yang when it comes to hacking and is support, but the main tasks like taking down the sdf1 require great skill to accomplish. So in many ways by focusing on the main character and his need to take on that challenge singlehandedly (yang did not have anything to do with the piloting) it is proof to himself that he was up to the task. This is very important to his manly ego. If he fails, he can't put the blame on a poor leader, only blame himself. Riggs beat down the bad guy in hand to hand combat without outside assistance. Audience respond better to the hero that can prove himself through the actions. I'm sure it would still be an interesting movie if someone just shot the bad guy in the head and that was it, but I felt like this was the part that riggs had to prove he could take this guy on in a fist fight. When snake fights the metal gear he gets all kinds of tactical information (shoot the radome) but it is up to him to use his skill to do this. Knowing what to do and having the skill to do it are two different things. As I mentioned above that does not mean the other characters are unimportant but the "fan favourite" has to stand out to be of any entertainment value so I reason they focused on wolvering because he is usually the clint eastwood type that wants to do things his own way. (going against the rules and bending them a little to catch the cunning ones that keep getting away by exploiting the weakness in the system) I was let down that guile got his butt whupped by bison because I felt he deserved to be the one to "kick his ass". But because ryu and ken were the one to do it kinda robs him of the limelight. But I thnk that if snake had to call for help to beat up liquid, it would make snake look really weak and unmanly. You are focusing so much on the questioning authority and I am trying to point out that isn't the only thing that makes them stand out. (in other words you want me to paint "not following orders for a good reason" with "being a jerk and never following orders") It's just that in certain instances when the guy in charge is dead wrong, then I can sympathise with the guy who has to do all the hard work to undo the damage that came from the top from poorly made decisions, due to the leader being tricked by the bad guys so easily. In the case of the toon, sabretooth was mocking how easy it was to take advantage of the situation because of the softness of xavier which lead to jubilee being in danger. IE in the case of metal gear solid snake was used as a pawn to disarm the nuke, he disarms the freakin thing, the govenrment realises the bad guy had tricked them all along and instead of disarming it, it is now armed and ready to fire, ...and now it is snake's tasks to undo the mistake the government made in the first place by commanding him to "disarm it", which actually armed it to the joy of the bad guys. This isn't so bad! But.... after he does it, the government is prepared to kill snake after all the hard work he did with no care that he survives or not. The last thing on my mind is following orders from people I don't trust, just to be a good boy. There are some bad people in authoritive positions and there are some good people there too, it is just that the loner is more cynical and suspicious so they naturally want to question "why should I do this? Why should I be the pawn for things I was not supportive for in the first place?" They are not thinking just about doing a good job and getting brownie points or thier career or money or anything like that. Wouldn't you feel pretty pissed at having been used like that and be more careful next time and want to only work with people whose judgement you trust or whose beliefs/orders you follow and think are right? This is what I mean by going too soft and the enemy tricks them. If you are too soft, you open yourself up for disapointment and the bad guy sees that vulnerability. Usually they are "hard", "mean" or "crazy" for a reason. But that doesn't mean they "are out of control". That is just them being angry because they don't want to follow the same path that the guy above wants them to because they know they are different. In macross plus Dyson has every right to be pissed at being told all the training was for nothing and I can sympathise with him having to steal the plane to prove himself. It makes him a bold, interesting character. But that's why it was entertaining to watch..because it sets up a situation where we get to see him fight the ghost or the sdf1 using thier skills rather than ending the story in a boring way. If the character ends up defeated, it kind of makes them weak to the audience. So in my street fighter example I thought guile was cheated a bit when he was pwned by bison because they built up that he was gonna "kick bison's ass". So my theory about why wolverine is popular and why he hogs the screen is because he fits that mold of a guy who "does things his own way". "He goes where he wanna goes!" If you order him to retreat, he isn't likely to do it anymore than dyson is going to return the ghost and allow himself to be manipulated because it would look unmanly. So it's about trying to prove yourself at the expense of having to break the petty rules, since taking those bold risks might be worth the reward if you are successful at it. (if he beats the ghost it destroys the image of the ghost, just as if you beat the enemy in a one-on-one fight it will prove you were better than them - it is a male ego thing) In macross plus the black guy even smirks at how easy it is to manipulate him and make Dyson angry. I thought this was funny because in the end he gets the last laugh and goes off on his own and secretly the black guy suports him but isn't in a position to do anything.

The old paper had a certain texture to it that I miss. I don't mind the glossy paper though. I guess the main advantage is if the story or art sucked, and you were just a fan of the character and bought lots of comics, you didn't feel like you were ripped off. (buying a comic you don't like on expensive paper) Maybe they should make the comics larger or something like the 2000AD comics so there is just more space to fit more detail?

I hope they really don't make it a movie "aimed" at kids but more like a movie aimed at a general audience that kids can see. This way we get something more like the animated movie which was just one big action scene after another. But I didn't mind toy story or shrek type humor, maybe that is what they should aim for? (those are kids movies I didn't feel ashamed to pay to see)

That is true. I guess my main feeling about him from the cartoon was that he comes off a bit too bossy. I think for a movie to just centre around wolverine, maybe they were going for that crowd that likes the reckless but caring person? Who is prepared to take dangerous risks because he is able to handle them using skills? A good example is in how in the movie "lethal weapon", the character martin riggs is a bit psycho at the beginning of the movie, and it has a very dark tone to it (not comedic) and this makes us afraid of him. We then realise after all he is not crazy, he is not just a mindless berserker, and just chooses to deal with problems differently to how the older, more calm, murtaugh handles things. We caught him at a bad time in his life. He is reckless, but "in control" when the time calls for him to perform. (like dyson, there is an element of skill for him to have survived the crazy things, maybe they "needed it" to win) But he is also exciting to watch because he also has skills that others wish they possessed so it is important to set up a situation where he actually gets to "show them off". Things like being able to shoot from a great distance, escaping capture after being tortured, rescuing someone, and still having a sense of humor about it. Similar to the climax in macross plus when Dyson steals a plane to take on the ghost. The thing they do is an emotional response, and the actions are bold, but feels right, for an audience who likes to see a lot of action where there is danger and stunts. A crazy person choosing an unusual unconventional method of handling a crazy situation would fit right in if it means that the method they used was crucual to being able to get the bad guy. A robot would only choose them most logical thing. But I argue it might not be as "cool" to an audience to just choose the most logical thing if it robs them of showing a character able to show off. At the end of the movie, after capturing the criminal, Riggs releases the bad guy from his restraints, and offers a challenge to a one-on-one fight to see who is the man. Although that sounds stupid, if you think about it, it is a macho way of dealing with things. Wouldn't you feel robbed if they created a situation where the other cops intervened and broke up the fight? It would be sensible to quickly hand him over, but doing the sensible thing would not have been as entertaining to watch than a one-on-one fight. I guess this is the type of character that would be appealing to an audience who likes the loner who likes to prove to himself that he can beat other guys up and do a job the hard way, by themself without wanting help or hating to work in a team following orders and going by the book all the time, because it can make for an exciting finish to a movie when you see someone beating another guy up like that, instead of rolling the credits after the bad guy is caught. As much as I can say the riggs character does a lot of crazy poo (jumping off a building instead of talking with the person who is threatening to commit suicide ) I can also respect that by showing it, we are entertained by that action and it keeps us from falling asleep. When they handle a situation in a more reckless uncertain fashion (requires a bit of luck and a bit of skill and is risky to your own life) there is an excuse to see some interesting fights. (ones that end where a decisive win is hard-fought, and there is only a thin margin between victory or defeat) It is the same reason I didn't feel fullfilled when guile in the animated street fighter movie didn't actually get the chance to face M.bison one-on-one and actually beat him, because I thought he had the most to gain if he could prove to himself if he could actually successfully beat bison from what bison had done to his friend. (ryu steals the show and takes all the glory the same way wolverine steals the show from the other x-men in the x-men movies) In the game "metal gear solid" they handled it beautifully where you actually fight the enemy hand to hand. In that: Snake works alone, is in control of the situation, and his unique skill is required. Although calm, many situations in the story are setup where he has massive disadvantages and he must work it all out by himself with no help from others. At the end you feel fullfilled after defeating the bosses because you know as a loner he was not robbed of any of the credit as it requires just him. When under a lot of pressure (time limit, fighting an enemy with advantages, having limited resources) sometimes doing unconventional things is required to win. If at any time the enemy was able to outsmart the guy you take orders from, (using cunning disguise and fooling them all) does it make sense to trust the orders you are given from that person who was able to be tricked and (unintentionally) set you up to arm the nuke for them? If those at the top make mistakes, costing the lives of many more others, is it safe to mindlessly follow that order? In that instance, no. Similarly maybe there is more to it than just calling a character a mindless beast, and wolverine has the nose to smell when something is up based on his experience from the past with sabretooth, and he is warning xavier I DO know best in this particular instance? And instead of being a mindless beast, he is actually kind of aware of the situation in those instances where the villain is cheating and tricking the leader which gives the orders. The leader might not be aware that he is being soft or going easy and letting someone trick him until too late when it cost a life. This is when I reason it is ok to break the law using common sense, go against an order, (from someone who has underestimated your ability and not take you seriously) or ignore the advice of people who know less than you,.... if it means you can get the job done and stop the bad guy from manipulating the leader above you without the leader being aware of it, ..not because I care about anti-authoritarian characters but that for some anti-hero they realise they just work better alone or have been betrayed by a lot of people in the past and want to avoid that happening. So there experience is valuable because not all is as it seems on the surface. In metal gear solid for example, the bad guy outsmarts the people you are taking the orders from, and you end up arming the weapons for them. It's an extreme example but a valid one worth highlighting because you can't assume the villain isn't manipulating things from within. Without somebody to at least question the order it can sometimes lead to a much worse situation. The intent of the person giving the order doesn't matter, so long as the result is catastrophic that is what the person's competency will be judged on. This is where common sense defeats duty. Sometimes the "guy on the ground" can sense things that the higher ups can't. Like thier "gut instinct" tells them it is a trap or if it just seems "too easy" and the enemy is just playing with them. (from thier experience fighting against a particular enemy they know in the past) And it pays to voice that concern and express that doubt.

I agree here. My only thing is when a character seems to go against thier own ideal. Not when they admit the mistake and apologise. If you are in a position of responsibility you are held to a much higher standard than someone who isn't. So the scrutiny comes with the job. As I said he is nice but sometimes that niceness can get in the way and it is up to a good student to actually question the teacher's actions. If not to learn "why?" it is ok to bend a rule, then at least to understand what it is that takes higher priority: 1. duty to the ideals like a knight (trying to aspire to perfection to bring so called peace to the rest of the world even though you are causing pain in an attempt to correct things - a good example is in kenshin when the main character thinks he can save the world from evil using power but ends up making new enemies. I view xavier a bit like an "idealist" who thinks he can rescue the world itself from evil when in fact he must use power to prove his point which risks making more enemies like the kenshin character) or 2. the main picture: protecting people even if it means not following the rules or teachings given despite that you will be punished/penalised for it. Punishment is a small price to pay for protecting something important. It is just a matter of how important. If a friend is dying and cyclops tells you to run, wouldn't you sympathise more with the character that chooses to stay and fight, or the one that flees? I would say "screw the order to leave, I'm going back to get my friend!" But that's just me. This goes back to the "we are only human" reason. They may have powers but we like them when they are wrong too. But I'm just explaining that seeing wolverine beat up his enemy (knowing from the beginning he can help in his own way) is why it is entertaining, similar to why I like to see a boxing match or watch a kung fu movie. If a person even tougher than yourself starts bullying you, the "cooler" option is to choose to fight back, not try to negotiate with them when you know they are wrong for picking an unfair fight with someone who is at a disadvantage. A brave person will choose to take the risk. The villains don't play by the rules and only choose a battle they know they have a chance of winning. The hero will choose to do a risky or very brave/reckless thing that might cost them something in order to deal with the problem (which they compensate for with skill or experience) In an exciting story you would have that character use his skill to overcome that problem not have the teacher, god, or some random event come along, intervene or beat up the enemy for that guy and restrain him from fighting. This is partly why I like the "loner" or independant type of hero. They can take all the credit if successful. It is just more entertaining! What happens if you are in a country where there are no police? No protection? No government to help you? People need a typical "tough guy" hero who won't go easy because it is a matter of life and death if you go too easy on them. (the villain might see it as a weakness) So for example if Dyson gets pwned by the SDF1 in macross plus it is his own incompetence that caused him to fail and he can't blame an outside source for failing. It's about manliness and proving you can do something yourself which is what makes them popular. I'm saying that every little kid goes through that stage in his life to prove himself so I theorise that characters who show this onscreen make for an exciting show. It is like how everyone can't stand ultramagnus in transformers because he doesn't have the mojo that optimus prime has to be competent to make the right decisions. He's just a soldier without the ability to think for himself and no experience. He doesn't have "the touch". Now I know that every character in a team fills a gap (and that wolverine can learn from xavier and the reverse) but there is always one 'favourite'. I just choose to like the loner who has everything in control or at least takes that common sense approach. These are the ones that usually question thier leader and occassionally have to bend the rules or break whatever limits were handed down to them by one of the idealists for practical common sense reasons. (ie guld needing to disregard his own health to take the ghost out, dyson stealing the yf19 and getting past the defences using skill instead of using intelligence or hacking which would cheat the audience of an excuse for an exciting action scene) "Common sense" means the job was done, the risks were high, but the result after success was worth it because the audience can agree his actions will save a life or save the world or be worth breaking the rules for. Those who don't take risks, show a bit of recklessness, show a bit of balls and do something that goes against the established rules and law usually don't stand out in a team of others - those ones will only blend in not stand out. That does not mean the reckless guy with the bad ass attitude and one liners and humor are suddenly more "important", just that people favour those types of characters because they make for good entertainment, so focusing on them means you will attract alot of people.

That would have been a good idea. No worrying about this or that character, scheme or color not being popular and would eliminate some risk. Although not the best, the banpresto valks are kinda cool for giving you custom heads. A lot of the harcore fans like to custom thier toys and stuff: Hands that can be detatched, legs able to pulled off and exchanged from a broken toy which is now acting as spare parts and plugged onto another toy to use as a backup piece etc.. If it breaks? Pull it apart, get a part from another and use that. They should have it so that if a person doesn't like the head they have, they can merely buy the spare or a different head and nothing goes to waste. Gee sounds like we are talking about lego blocks.. They should do something like that for destroid imo. I think that would be a good idea personally. Fans would be happy because they are finally getting large scale toy, and the other stuff can be aimed at the lower end for people who want a group of smaller stuff: Things that don't need many parts and would be perfectly fine as just a superposable. (all inbit mecha for eg) The whole spectrum would be covered based on whether you care about poseability, playability, PT, detail, low price etc.. If it has taken this long just to get the beta, imagine how long for ride armor? By sharing the costs to provide the whole range of different things, overall it means the license is not being wasted and fans get what they want quickly. Maybe the competition will mean they can learn off each other and "steal ideas" benefitting the customer in the long run. As an example: Some people have pointed out that the magnets inside toys were a toynami invention and that yamato only put them after taking this idea from the MP. Well if that is true, then so what? A rise in quality in either is better than no improvement. If the quality get gradually improved and companies rip off each other, (nobody complained when toynami made a better quality banpresto "clone") then it can only mean better choices for all. ..Rather than locking up the license out of loyalty at the expense of the fans, I think scrapping exclusivity will only quicken progress.

If they did it up like those aliens colonial marines dolls I would buy it!

A prequel to macross II would be cool. Kinda like a "macross zero for the alternate universe" macross. Would be cool to see more vf1and what happened after SW I. Mikimoto would return and a range of models and toys would be made for the vf2 which makes its apearance in the last ep of the ova. Yamato would then be able to give us the 1/48 vf2ss. I'm only teasing.

Sorry made a big mistake there, I meant he intended to take on the ghost, and took on Sharon Apple. In a way Sharon was controlling the ghost and dyson was killing the head of the snake so technically he was fighting it. *....runs off to a corner where he can't be seen.* Yes I wouldn't complain. I got reminded a bit of what a new tv series could feel like when they had the eureka 7 Qraus. Such a pity those two characters died. They remind me of max and milia. Now imagine for example if they told a story from the point of view of some zentradi rebels fighting against un spacy. The story itself would be about survival in space and what aliens do in thier spare time when forced to settle on other planets. The focus would be on battling each other for sport and to see who is the best pilot in the group. It would be like the game in macross 7 trash, but with real mecha. Have you seen the movie Gladiator? It would be that but in space. Or even the van damne movie "bloodsport" where they hold those illegal fights to see who is da best. Well each episode the main character has to beat all the others to prove his worth to the elite. Humans would macronise themselves as training to prove themselves against the aliens and some would be as spies for UN to find out what is going on. The rebels would use the best pilots for real missions against the humans and the last ep would have the main character trying to fight against them but of course being beaten and maybe killed with a smile to his face happy to do in combat as a warrior who stuck it out to the end. (un spacy doesn't consider the rebels a real threat, sort of like the anti un so it is not a major thing, but they love to use them as demonstrations of "aliens as evil") After the main character's death his name would be remembered by the other warrior aliens for keeping true to thier warlike culture and belief system. Like gladiator the 'hero' dies tragically. We see elements of racist humans wiping out the remnant rebel aliens who are causing trouble and all the other pilots must flee or fight. Then un spacy uses these attacks to demonstrate why we need more powers to fight and kill more aliens and why earth needs to form an empire. Milia and max are seen trying to calm the humans down. Maybe one day they will have to flee or form an independant group due to the racism on earth? This would show that things were not always perfect for the humans who had to live near the aliens after SW I. (ie there would still be bad boys similar to kamjin still roaming around killing people for fun, rather than out of any need to be true to his tribal code of ethics - these types would be the people who started the games for entertainment) But it would be an excuse to see aliens fighting in powered armor up close. And might flesh out the story a bit. We hear about rebels roaming around still out there all the time. So it must be like the wild west with all kinds of misbehaving aliens out there wanting to pick fights.

Well I thought Zero was pretty good in terms of dog fights and worth seeing for that reason. But they ended it in a wierd way. Roy didn't beat his teacher with his girlfriend suddenly dying for no reason, the clawed Monster almost killed the alien and saved the day(which is kinda boring), and the main character disapears with no explanation. At least in macross plus dyson takes on the ghost and the sdf1 all by himself and it ends happily. But after macross plus ends we understand how it all happened and everything is tied up. Zero felt like more needed to be told and the climax needed to be better. For example I would have liked to see a scene where roy is given orders to destroy the the afos and shin must fight against roy to prevent him killing the girl. The UN would eventually attack both of them for roy's refusal of the order to attack his friend, in order to get access to the afos which shin wants to defend. And eventually roy and shin would have to end up fighting against both anti-un and UN pilots using thier VF, and it would be utter chaos as the afos is destroying everything while all this is happening. A comment by the old man would then by played as we see images of them all fighting and destroying each other about the "end of the world" and poo. The islanders would be praying for thier lives as thier land is being wrecked by it all as both sides fight for control of the afos. And eventually anti un get beaten somehow by a shot from the monster (not the monster beating the afos, that is roy and shin's job) and shin teams up with roy in a moment when the afos is busy. While roy is trying to damage it Ivanov comes out and take him on and they have a battroid brawl and a huge speech explaining why ivaniov was thought dead and some back history into why he is fighting on the anti-un side. This then brings us to the part where shin meets sara in the cokcpit to calm her down. And the monster then starts to fire. After this, we see the afos make the decision to spare these two and they fold out of there undefeated before the monster can hit it. Now instead of the plane flying in the air like it was magic, the fold itself causes the plane to go with the afos. Roy finishes off ivanov and the it is found the anti-un are losing and have to retreat as the afos is no longer there. As roy looks at the wreckage, he realises that amongst all the fighting his girlfriend dies. (the "war is bad war is bad" message in all the gundam shows ) Both sides ended in a stalemate and the destruction they caused has destroyed a culture living off that land who are now homeless (very much like in rain of death but on a smaller scale) and forced to rebuild or move to the city. Roy is seen crying over his lover, and regrets he couldn't be there to protect her. A few months pass and it is discovered that the PC may have descendants alive today and the files about aliens are locked away in a vault. After witnessing all these events engines come for vf1 and roy is over the loss and continues on with a scene of him in the vf1 flying around with a team of beginners. (life goes on, new pilots replace the dead ones and roy takes more responsibility, but he never forgets memories of shin and wonders if they are still alive as he and Edgar are having drinks together) The death rebirth things plays on showing the changes that occur in people and technology with the islanders choosing to except the city life and the old ways die. Although the Phoenix is dead, it gets replaced with better technology, (vf1) to beat the anti-un's sv51s and the old mechanic is happy that there is less young kids dying from missions and returning alive this time. New destroids are seen beating the Octos from the islands (instead of humans with rpgs) and the tide turns with neither side having the satisfaction of having a weapon that can end the wars quickly but slowly gaining in power as the new aliens tech is being reverse engineered. Cut to a scene of a team of scientists managing to get the anti gravity working and lift rocks and a change in the beliefs of all the skeptics of the story of the birdman legends and the prophecies about the end. Military leaders discuss the incident with the disapearing afos and floating rocks and how it relates to technologies inside the alien ship. The end. It makes sense! All technology has logic link to the abilties of sara, scientists become more openminded about the possibility of humans descended from aliens and able to manipulate thier environment in subtle ways, (mao is tested on since she could communicate with the machines) and it doesn't make the floating rocks and stuff seem like they could float for no reason or due to magic. (since the anti un managed to float stuff for all to see)

I was more an 80s fan of the comics. I particularly liked the cartoon portrayal of wolverine. In the cartoon they made wolvie the tough guy but he wasn't really a beast at all. In fact his actions were what made him the ballsy one who argued a lot with cyclops and xavier over the right or wrong choices. When they left morph to die, wolverine was pissed because he had actually wanted to go back for him. If you didn't watch the cartoon I can see where you are all are coming from but my comments were about how Xaviers own idealism led to mistakes, that then lead to the bad guy having thier way which led to a situation getting worse. Sundown you do make some valid points, but you make it out like the only reason he is popular is because he is "anti-authoritarian". I was saying that the reason we are attracted to the anti-hero, has to do with the fact that characters that only follow rules without question are boring to watch. I would much rather watch a show where wolverine is kicking someone's ass using his skill, than to watch a scientist in a lab or some guy in a prison waiting for his sentence. (and he isn't likable as much to ME) For the last time I am not denying you to like beast, but I do prefer (and I think an audience reacts better) to someone who will stick to thier own beliefs over trying to follow orders. To me cyclops was like the black guy in macross plus trying to control his team, but sometimes not sympathising with the others feelings or experience. So wolvy ended up being nagged about "controlling temper" and poo, and then Xavier would go off free to take on magneto or in the movie control time. It just seems like hyposcrisy. He is good guy still, just not as honest on the surface the way wolverine is by being direct. He is out to save lives but wolverine is as well. One method of fighting it is not more valid than another method of fighting which is proven in instance where the enemy is allowed to cheat. If the enemy has the advantage, gets away with it for time, then I say it is important to at least have one character who is a "rogue" that is able to disagree based on thier own experience fighting those enemies. It is like in a role playing game how a team of heroes must fight a dark wizard and one of them is a thief or an assasin and even though the members don't get along, it is still for a common cause. The thief might use his skills to sneak by guards and steal the key to free his friends. Does it matter he breaks the law to me? No. It's like how the "good" guys say "killing is bad killing is bad", but then we have our own assasins and what not and go right ahead and kill someone when it suits us. If the price is great enough then we suddenly break the rules because of this "ends justify the means" idea. (ie Xavier stopping time and trying to control minds by invading a character's privacy to do good) ......Which is why I argue that the anti hero is just being honest about it. They will go right ahead and beat up whoeever tries to endanger innocents. Caring more about the victims who got harmed or killed to prevent it from happening. Each time cyclops or xavier says to calm your temper or control anger it is like they are being a hypocrite and telling the other members "I can go against my own teachings, but you can't." Do you understand what I mean? Xavier has some moments even in the second movie where he breaks the law and stop time and manipulates people with his powers. If I were human I would see that as illegal use of mutant power. But does Xavier end up in prison because of it? No. Same thing with wolverine. Sorry to drag the conversation out. This will be my last post on anti heroes and my theory on why they were able to hog the limelight. (I figure hollywood already makes lots of violent movies so why not let the anti-hero be the central focus and appeal to the majority?)

Yeah I like to think the idea was the low vis (is it safe to call this a true limited edition?) inspired a line of alternate color schemes to bring something fresh to the line of vf1 but they are more like what the original cannon fodder was as a 'limited release' aimed only at those who demanded it or wanted something new. (assuming the scheme would be unpopular or not in great demand due to not being recognisable in the show) But like years from now it may one day be something "rare" or highly sort after by those who are completist collectors. A bit different to the LowVisibility Limited Edition which started out that way with the promise that these would be rare in keeping with the Limited edtion label. True LE = no reissue Limited release = chance of a reissue if there is demand for more (ie CF) and if enough people want to see it released. (but once demand is filled there is less likely chance of seeing them over a popular release which moves quickly) After the demand for more LV, (when it started becoming hard to find) and the promise that it was limited edition, there was probably pressure to release more LV (cash in on non-canon paintscheme) but this time with the freedom that they could milk it if it does well or is in high demand. (ie reissue like with roy) But it was probably to test: "are people buying them because they like the scheme or because it is hard to find?" "Who are the completists vs who are the fans of that particular scheme?" (and on top of that "who are those who are both? Fans of the scheme as well as collectors?") Because I notice that when something is hard to find, people might just want it just because they don't have it. It's the whole "If you don't grab it now, it will go away, so you better hurry up" thing. The minute we do see a reissue of the original low vis (called version 1) we can throw out the whole "If it is not written on the box then it is not limited edition" rule. Because I think one of the reasons people will rush to buy a limited edition is to kind of cash in on the rareness of the original. (they see what LV goes for online and hope to cash in later) They might try to hoard them all and start charging an arm and leg just because they know "oh so it has LE which garuantees a certain number were made". If they had made camo and stealth a true "limited edition" and it was written on the box, this would garauntee quick sales, but lock them out of any future chance to reissue. Tough choice to make.

It just seems like a lot of people have an axe to grind against wolverine. Right so wolverine is wrong all the time because he is the anti hero and you think I'm biased. As I already mentioned Xavier admits he was WRONG in that instance in the show when it was found that sabretooth was actually a henchman of magneto (not working alone) sent infiltrate and to pretend to be nice and a "victim" of his mutation. (ST was trying tp spin it off as if he has anger management issues and not that he is responsible for his past actions himself, which worked on jubilee) When what was happening was he was taking advantage of xavier being nice to get the mission done. Sabretooth boasted that it was so easy to trick everyone and that nobody would believe wolverine. If wolverine wasn't there at the time and just trusted xaviers judgement that sabretooth is helpless, and listened to his advice to "don't go near sabretooth", it is quite possible that jubilee would not have been saved. No that is not my opinion, it was in the show. I'm talking about how xaviers idealism got in the way of common sense and for once it was not actually wolverine's rage clouding his judgment on that issue, it was that Sabretooth was a genuinely dangerous character who could not be trusted - going easy on him could have cost life. And wolverine knew this from his past experience (sabretooth betraying his own people in a flashback sequence) and saw through the game. It might have been that his bullshit detector was on and went against xavier's advice for this reason. This make wolverine less of a mindless beast and I like that portrayal of him. That his view is just as valid as the other team members due to his experience with Sabretooth and his villainy in the past, which was dismissed by Xavier as wolverine "merely having this grudge and wanting to start a fight". You are only seeing it in black and white. "Wolverine is a beast, is cruel, and that he is not out to protect others in his own way." I'm sorry but I still think he is a more appealing character to me. The rules and regulations are only there as a guide only. In the real world you can bend them if there are good valid reasons. I'm not saying the others are not ALSO heroic (I ws saying the appeal of the antihero might be what makes wolverine so popular) but that in the instance when xavier shows hypocrisy (for example wolverine trying to fight sabretooth to stop him from endangering others but not being able to because xavier thinks wolverine is this violent person) yet at the same time magneto is roaming around cuasing trouble and gaining more power and endangering others, Xavier reserves the exclusive right to be allowed to stop? Please answer that question! Why is wolverine not allowed to stop sabretooth, but xavier able to fight magneto? What difference is there between a guy controlling your mind and manipulating you and a guy knocking you over the head to stop you from harming others? They are fighting the same thing. Xavier in that instance in the cartoon was dead wrong and he saw the error in his judgement and apologises for it. The lesson was that: "yes idealism is ok but not at the expense of endangering others." What you want is for me to say that an anti hero like wolverine (even in instances when he IS right) is lower than other members, (his experiences are not valid) and still agree with thier methods when their judgment was off. I agree that an antihero is not perfect. But neither is the real world, so long as the character's intent is to help it matters very little. It would be like saying Guld was still right for his past mistakes (endangering myung) and because Dyson is "reckless" (stealing a yf19) Dyson must then sit lower than Guld because guld is more "well behaved" and followed orders from the top. (persues Dyson to stop his "recklessness" which might endanger people) It is a case of only seeing what is directly in front of you over the bigger picture. Dyson is merely choosing to fight in his own unique way. What might appear reckless to you, is him being in control of the situation through his skills. (which other pilots wish they had - it might take great bravery and courage to 1. go back for your buddy in a hopeless situation where the odds are stacked up against you 2. fly a plane that may be inferior to the rival. Sure it is "reckless" and makes no tactical sense to go back and rescue Morph who is probably dead, or to challenge another person higher in abilty than yourself but to a hero or a pioneer we see in that a great achievement if successful - in other words it take balls to do those reckless things and still come out of it, which brings me back to why wolverine is so popular as they admire the bravery in that action. It's why when cyclops tells everone to leave him behind I can sympathise more with wolverine because it made the leader seem like he would let his own member die to save his own skin.) No offense but I think you are more biased than me.

You need to be able to question the person leading a team as a person looking at it from outside. I gave a good example of how a system can fail and how a person who is innocent can be seen as the wrong doer and a person who is guilty can manage to seem "good". For a character to be interesting to me, he should be able to question the leader (eg about xavier taking action against magneto, but denying wolverine the right to go after sabretooth) and stand up for himself rather than merely do as he is told and be an obedient robot. Without conflict Xmen is just another super hero comic and loses its appeal for me. We just have to agree to disagree on this. I never said an anti hero had to be 'perfect', just a realist with some truth to what they do and ability to make better judgement than the ones he has to take orders from. His own experience is just as valid as others. You can think of them as being a dick all you want but that is just your opinion. My opinion is that: He is not at all bad, just that the society itself might paint him as that within the world they are in. (a good example is how, say the patlabor teams In Patlabor can sometimes get a bad reputation as being a waste of tax payers money and being "reckless and dangerous" in the public eye thanks to the press - even though they are saving lives and catching the bad guy) And really, what difference does it make if you do have to fight someone one on one vs controlling thier mind and persuading them? They are both immoral! They are both forms of fighting and forcing people to do things against thier will. I would feel no less violated by xavier stopping time (in the movie) as he sees fit as wolverine beatine me up. There is a good example in Record of Lodoss War, where the character must learn that to be a leader, to make something of yourself, requires that you not merely take orders and learn to take the best path you think allows you to protect people you care for. Going back for morph in the xmen cartoon is not BAD. I can sympathise more with wolverine in this instance! He is not merely being selfish, he wants to fight the battle his own way which makes him more interesting to me than the by-the-book cyclops is all I am saying. It is what makes a character marketable and stand out from the rest. You have to be prepared to go against a leader's judgement if you think they have made a bad decision and by speaking up, you are doing the right thing. I think even at one point cyclops had to question Xavier on his beliefs. Because if the leader is shown to go against thier own teachings, can't you say they are being a hypocrite and a bad example to the rest of the students following? In the instance I pointed out where sabretooth managed to use jubilee as a hostage and wolverine happened to be there at the right time, Xavier realised he WAS wrong and wolverine got injured because of his idealism getting in the way of things. It's sorta pissed me off to see wolvie pay the price for xavier's incompetence in this part of the show, because it highlights that he is NOT above everyone else and makes mistakes. (wolverine was trying to warn xavier about the danger of trusting sabretooth which Xavier thought was wolverine merely having the grudge against him, when in actual fact Sabetooth was magneto's henchmen all along and was only acting nice in front of xavier. ) What is my point in all of this?: People go for the hereos that don't make those kinds of mistakes. We root for Guile, Wolverine, Punisher etc for the very reason that there are some who CAN get away due to the system not being 'perfect'. The uber villain might be good at escaping, take control of more people, and be able to outsmart the system that, in order to take them down, practical method takes higher priority than trying to be nice and follow regulations put there for political reasons. You know what I am saying? If I was Dyson, I wouldn't give a crap about having stolen the YF19 to go fight the ghost. I would be furious that all the hard work was for nothing and care more about pushing the limit to prove if the ghost was worthy. People would rather see a character who is bold and able to make decisions for themselves and take risks that are worth taking if it is for good. The real world: Why haven't we got world peace free from suffering? Are humans truly perfect? Do all villains everywhere always get caught? NO! Does injustice still exist within the world at large that we don't see? Yes. So these anti heroes are often misunderstood as being almost like 'villains' themselves when in fact they are more like the common sense fighters of justice in the world they live in, just choosing to fight as they see fit with thier own moral code and thier own judgement. It's just that black and white idealism can sometimes get in the way of things (wolverine told to calm his anger as if the issue was him and not the danger sabretooth can cause) against the anti-heroes' better judgement. Not all the time but sometimes: knowing what the enemy is capable of and preventing the evil plan from fruition early on (nipping it in the bud) is better than waiting for it to be too late and having to fix it later. Which is more reckless? Preventing a disaster (going back for morph to save him, and taking risks to attempt to beat the odds) or running away cowardly? Some characters are just different at handling the same problem. I agrue that it was my right to like wolverines method more than the retreating method because it seemed much more humane to save morph and go back for the guy. I think that is the reason why people like the anti hero to begin with. Yeah yeah, "you are one-sided, biased" and "I disagree". "You don't have to be this way to get this done" That's ok. I just said that I prefer characters that are like that. I'm only speaking for me and bringing my own theory as to why wolverine is popular to a lot of people because of the fact that the dirty harry type maverick characters tend to get a lot of attention. This might be why wolverine hogs all the time. The anti-hero doesn't always have to take a lecture because it is a case of "been there done that, but I still think I'm right, and it is not just a mere anger management issue, but it is because of the experiences I have had". "Sabretooth is a dangeros bastard so stop trying to appeal to his good side (he has betrayed others in the past and I know what he is like) or something bad might happen". Yes it is a "gut" instinct but that is what makes wolverine special. (as I mentioned in my "bullshit detector" rant above) A team needs one character that is like that to at least question the main leader's own methods. "Are they right? Are they doing the right thing? Why can we break the rules when it suits him, but not break a rule when it suits me?" These are all important questions to the thinking reader. Without all this conflict it wouldn't be half as interesting. But it takes a grounded character to point it out the mistakes that the others would overlook because they were trained to think along a certain line by the teacher and told not to challenge or question what was taught by Xavier. The world is not perfect. A dream is worth striving for but not if it comes at the expense of others or if it is going to endanger the other people in the team and you can't do anything to prevent the damage caused from your mistake due to an error in judgement. But an anti hero never demands perfection so they are grounded in the realism. Why beat yourself up for one or too minor things like upsetting a person, if you can also do more good or prevent more harm than any bad you do? As an anti-hero, you are not god or someone who even claimed to be able to shoulder the world's problems all by yourself, looking down at the others from a pedastel with a sign telling people you should be everyone's role model. Some would argue that Xmen actually attempts to make characters more 3d dimensional but that is another topic. Sure they are still 'characters' in a comic book but you could say someone like Rogue is akin to a person with AIDS for example. Really she must go through the same thing a disease infected person must go through everytime she touches people and can't get close to anyone. And why do people always try to make the connection between Xmen and racism? There are no super powers in RL but the same sorts of themes I think run in the comic that do in real world. I mean Magneto could be a symbol of those who think they are a higher evolved form of human and have hatred for those they see as inferior but just a fantasy world equivalent. Maybe there is parrallels there with reality and how hate groups think? I can see why they give him a movie all his own. Although you might think he is generic bad guy, there is good and bad about him just like there is in the real world. I still relate much better to characters in a movie that act on thier instincts and common sense over those who typically hold ideals (like don't endanger people with your anger) yet do a 180 and can't live up to thier own rules (getting magneto for personal reasons, not work) and can cost lives by being too trustworthy. (being too nice with sabretooth, not listening to warnings) Honestly you people can't see misuse of power when Xavier stops time like that? Or probes the mind of someone who doesn't want his memories available to strangers? You could reason "the ends justify the means", but then I could say the same goes for wolverine you hypocrites.

Ah well. Maybe in years to come even the more common stuff might go up in value and there might be a huge drought in macross toys. That is when the collector's will be pissing themselves for quiting. Graham's son will be doing all the macross toy reviews, yamato will go out of business, and the price of a 1/48 will go to $1000 each.

But will it be non transformable?