ewilen

That's a hilarious collection. I don't remember any of them so far (I've gotten up to page 6) but I remember a couple similar DC comics covers from back in the day. The whole point is to shock you into wondering how the *&@# that can happen--you know Superman [or Batman] is a great guy, etc.--so you buy the comic only to find that they've come up with a more-or-less clever way of making the scene happen. At the same time, it's hard not to think that the artists are having a little fun shocking the kids. The one I remember is a comic where Jimmy Olsen somehow goes back in time to see his previous lives only to find out that he's repeatedly betrayed various great men who trusted him, like Julius Caesar, Richard the Lionheart, and Abraham Lincoln. Then when he comes back to the present he accidentally lures Superman into a lethal kryptonite trap (set by Brainiac?). But of course it turns out that Superman isn't really dead; the trap had been deactivated previously and Supes was just faking in order to catch the bad guy. Meanwhile, all of Olsen's previous incarnations were really loyal friends of the various historical figures. E.g., Olsen thought he was running away from a medieval battle when he was really running into the path of a catapult rock aimed at King Richard. The cover was something like Jimmy standing over a dead Superman with the giant logo "I murdered Superman".

Yeah, we've discussed a lot of this in the airplane vs. thread and others. I want to clear up some misconceptions. First the Super Hornet is not a three-decade old design. It's a massive redesign of the original Hornet; many would argue it's an entirely new plane that just looks like a Hornet to fool the politicians. Second, I'd like to see a source on the claim that the F-35 will replace the F/A-18E/F. My understanding is that the F-35 will replace the baby (non-super) Hornets only; the Super Hornet has a long life ahead of it (for better or for worse). Third, let's get all this political crap out of here. (Not directed at Dan Palacios.) Fourth, if "progress" means buying half or fewer aircraft, readiness and operational capacity will suffer. Hellohikaru, I understand that the F-15J's will wear out eventually, but I've yet to hear from you why Japan needs better air superiority fighters. Finally, please note that Japan's need to purchase a new fighter is due to the cancellation of the F-2, which itself was a multirole fighter intended primarily for sea control, i.e., surface attack. The Raptor as currently configured does not have a robust ability to attack moving targets like shipping; adding that capability will only increase the cost. In conclusion, the Raptor is unsuited to Japan's needs. If Japan needs a plane right away, it should probably buy the Super Hornet or possibly an F-15E or F-15K variant; if Japan can wait a few years, the F-35 may be the best choice, subject to how the program progresses.

We had a couple threads about the picture a while back, where we were able to identify most of the references. http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=6481 http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=6216 I think the VF-1A is just wearing GBP-1S armor in this picture.

Okay, yes, by increasing size, you make it easier to improve quality. But my point is that the manufacturers aren't necessarily working at the edge of the quality-size envelope. I think the 1/60's could have better knees and better arm poseability, for example. But they might cost more to manufacture. (However, some cost could possibly be recouped by using more ABS as with the 1/48's.) Also, if the 1/60's were too good, Yamato would be competing with itself since people would opt to get fewer 1/48's. Or to put it another way, size and quality are related only partly because of design/manufacture issues. The other reason they're related is simply that most consumers who're willing to devote the money & display/storage space to a larger product also demand more quality and are willing to pay for it. If size weren't part of what makes a toy "deluxe", then there would still be "deluxe" versions at the same size. E.g., look at the Forces of Valor vehicles, which has two or three of the same vehicle at the same scale, but differentiated based on the quality of the paint job and accessories.

I don't know; I don't really want it that badly at any scale. If it was the original monster, that'd be a different story. I think it's a somewhat interesting design, but the underlying concept (variable bomber with battroid mode) doesn't appeal to me, and I don't care about VF-X2. (BTW, are scale and quality directly related?) Probably only true if the larger size allowed them to do away with the parts swap and make a better sculpt. Not saying that isn't likely, just that scale, size, and quality aren't the same. I've got a 1/60 GBP. I doubt I'll get a 1/48 although if I had a 1/48 VF-1J instead of a 1/48 VF-1A, I might feel differently. Here's my take: I've got a bunch of 1/60's because I like the TV versions of everything, they're cheaper, and they take up less space. I don't mind the 1/60 leg transformation. I do wish the 1/60's had better balance, better knees, more poseable arms, that the damn chestplate was easier to lock in place, that the cockpit transformation was easier, and the Gerwalk antenna was integral--all features of the 1/48. I don't see why most of these features couldn't be accomplished in a smaller package. As for destroids, since they don't need to transform, it should be even easier to do them "right" in 1/60. Just look at the K&M Tomahawk and GBP Valk. Or (although I haven't actually played with one) the Armored Core 2 High-End action figures by Kotobukiya. So while a 1/48 destroid might have better surface detail, and perhaps things like individual missiles that might be hard to do in a 1/60, I think that 1/60 destroids could be very good indeed, as long as they aren't deliberately crippled to keep them from competing with 1/48's.

Good point. Although future development, if it ever happens, is supposed to produce a more robust air-ground ability. And I forget if someone said it here or on another forum--if an F-22J needs modification for political or other reasons, that will drive the cost up further. I wasn't aware of the latter point. But really--why does Japan need the Raptor? To shoot down bombers? And yes, Japan can buy Raptors if the US allows it--but at best they'll only get 1-2 Raptors for every 3 Strike Eagles or 3-4 F-35's. Note that the replacement for the F-2 program is supposed to be a "multi-role fighter" which can act as an interceptor and fighter-bomber. Media hype notwithstanding, it sounds like it's already been decided that a robust surface attack ability is need, as evidenced by the planes listed as likely candidates (other than the Raptor). http://www.dapss.com/MPI/samples/Vol.14/is...2104P-japan.htm I don't know what kind of public debate is going on in Japan but I would argue that air superiority/supremacy as embodied in the Raptor is an offensive capability, as it is the first step to a successful assault on enemy territority.

Is that like a marmoset? Just put the little guy back in his cage! (Seriously, hope you're feeling better.) The Matchbox destroids are indeed "somewhere around 1/60" based on measurements and calculations kanata67 and I did a while back. It's a bit hard to know exactly because the official stats aren't always specific as to what point is being measured to for height. I guess a gunpod would be nice, but I'd really like to see one of those crowd control batons that it uses sometimes.

Although "Clash of the Bionoids" is the more famous (or infamous) version of the dubbed DYRL, there is a more complete version called "Super Space Fortress Macross". Only available on laser disc, probably almost impossible to find outside Japan. http://www.macrossworld.com/macross/video/_video_ld.htm It still has the same script and voice actors, but it hasn't been edited for content. I've never seen it (and I've only heard a tiny bit of the CotB audio), but on the basis of what everyone else has said about the translation & voice acting, my advice is to either do your own dub or just keep watching it until you can turn off the subtitles and still know what everyone is saying.

I didn't mean to imply that Japan was worried about India's Flankers. The comment was really an update of another thread, where people were suggesting that India was a potential rival whose Flankers made it necessary for the US to buy Raptors. About India-US cooperation looking forward, regardless of what happens with the F-16's, the article I linked made it sound like India would be buying a bunch of other equipement. It's interesting to hear that the F-16 portion may just be a bargaining ploy--I guess we'll see. Since the F/A-22 is supposedly going to have surface attack capabilities, Japan's constitution would have the same problem with it as with the F-35, no? Anyway, whatever happened with the Harrier, if the issue is raised, I'm sure the argument would be made (justifiably) that for an island nation, a land-based fighter-bomber is an excellent, in fact necessary defensive weapon. So they should be able to buy the F-35A without any problem.

I voted 1/60 for essentially the reasons Chowser gives. 1/60's take up less room and they're in scale with more of the existing Macross toys. Of course, the price can't help but be a factor in any real-world decision. I guess if they made both and kept the 1/48 prices down, I'd be tempted to grab a 1/48 Tomahawk as well as all four of the smaller destroids in 1/60. (As for Zentradi mecha, I don't think I could house them at 1/48 scale.)

In theory, a CCG (or some kind of card game--maybe more like Avalon Hill's UP FRONT game) is a great idea, but of course this is the crux of the matter. I have little doubt that HG and their licensee have calculated that the game will sell (or not) purely on the basis of the Robotech name; therefore there's no need to spend time & money developing something that's worth playing more than once or twice. Just look at how Battlecry and Invasion were received.

http://www.menet.umn.edu/~ngo/macross7.html has some pics (click on the box covers).

As usual, people here are focused on expensive air superiority fighters when the air forces of the developed world have all decided that economical surface attack solutions are what they need. Japan is already eyeing participation in the F-35 program. I predict they join up. http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?ID=35326 Meanwhile, for all those who still view India's Sukhois as a reason to worry, please note expanding US-India defense cooperation, perhaps including sale of the F-16 to India. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Feb10.html

Yup, Ido's response hits the nail on the head. For a real-world equivalent, note that the names Monitor and Dreadnought refer to specific ships, while "monitor" and "dreadnought" refer to general types of ship. Example in a sentence, "HMS Hercules was a Colossus-class dreadnought completed in August, 1911."

No, they only come in the Super versions.

Yes, old. Pretty good, though. In a way the X-32 vs. X-35 thing was a reprise of the YF-22 vs. YF-23 ATF competition which led to the Raptor. M+ undoubtedly was inspired partly by the earlier competition.

Which figs are those? Anyway, to get the length of a movie-style Macross scale model, take 1200 and divide it by the scale. Result is in meters. E.g., the K&M gashapon are around 1/200, so a scale Macross would be 6 meters long. Even the ancient crappy 1/320 Takatoku models would require a 3.75 m Macross to be in scale. A 3" character figure is about about 1/24 scale...the Macross would be about the length of two tractor-trailers.

Chuc Mung Nam Moi maybe? Anyway, happy new year to you all, wish everyone health and prosperity, may everything go the way you want it... And if anyone wants to send me some red envelopes stuffed with cash, just PM me and I'll give you the address. Macross toys also accepted!

I also catch the occasional clip from a Bollywood movie on IC or one of the other international-type channels on local cable. They do look entertaining. Note, aside from the Bollywood-type musicals, there is a "serious" film tradition in India as well, though I have to admit I haven't seen much of it other than the (very good but depressing) Salaam Bombay. I've heard of Satyajit Ray, whose World of Apu is supposed to be an international classic along with the other movies in the "Apu Trilogy". Hey, Mr. March, where does HK stand in the list? Judging from the rental stores in Chinatown, Hong Kong cinema is also a real crank-em-out operation, with tons of formulaic screwball comedies, actioners, and a few dramas. What makes it to the repertory theaters and mainstream rental stores is probably the cream of the crop. (Nothing wrong with that, I might add.)

Those all look like good deals to me, but note that none of them are 15-minute chargers--all take at least an hour to fully charge a battery. But since they give you so many batteries, you really wouldn't have an excuse not to always have a fully-charged battery on hand. Just be sure they're NiMH (was hard to tell in a couple of the ads) since they last longer and, if you care about the environment, NiMH don't have mercury in them so they're easier to dispose of.

Conservatively, I think the set is somewhere around $15-$25 and includes at least 4 AA and 2 AAA batteries. I believe it's a two hour charger. This is probably the same thing as what I saw at Costco. If you want a faster charger, I see that Costco online has an Energizer brand set for $25 that has a 15-minute charger, but it only includes 4 AA batteries, no AAA. Separately, they have a set of 6x2-packs AAA (12 batteries in all) for $26.99. While hunting around, I also came across this: http://www.onlybatteries.com/ Might be worth a look.

Reminder about rechargeable batteries--Costco tends to have a good deal on a combo of charger + NiMH batteries (an assortment of AA and AAA). Panasonic label, I think.

Seems utterly plausible, but what is the source for that info?

For M7 torrents: http://www.animesuki.com/series.php/166.html M7 episode guide can be found at http://www.mahq.net/

Well, in spite of my semi-rant a few posts up, I'm still skeptical about the story. The issue may not be the airplane designs themselves, but the use of the manufacturer's name, particularly on box covers. Again, if the manufacturers really think they can charge licensing fees for the use of representations of their aircraft (instead of just their trademark company and--perhaps--product names), they should have a veritable gold mine in going after movie studios.