ewilen

Well, he's selling some other stuff so you could see if that looks fishy, too (aside from the payment instructions): http://search.ebay.com/_W0QQsassZtkmoore12

It's nice to think they'd be more accurate, but when I followed the links (and links from links) to discussions that someone posted here, I found someone had given several examples of licensed models with terrible accuracy. The one I remember is a Disney monorail with the wrong number of cars. And of course, in the general case, licensed models may face obstacles against being "honest" about the original. E.g., whoever has the IP rights to the Brewster Buffalo could refuse to license it for a computer sim unless the plane is made the equal of the Zero...

That particular thing is called an Orguss Valk, though sometimes incorrectly referred to as a Jotun Valk. If you do a web search and/or forum search on those terms, you'll find all you really need. As noted above, it's an Easter egg, not a canonical design. Similar to how you can see Captain Harlock's ship somewhere in Macross (I think in the same episode), or the old ASCII Star Trek game being played on one of computer terminals on the bridge at one point. There may also be a VEFR "Funny Chinese" in that ep., which is almost but not quite a VE-1. I think there were also some Lancer II's in the battle, but I'm not sure.

A brief followup: consider that if a company thinks it can get more licensing revenue by developing a "cool-looking" plane, they could design it that way and use anticipated licensing revenue to lower their bid. I don't know if that's a good idea. Maybe it is. It would certainly be the ultimate expression of The American Way (21st century version): advertising-subsidized armed forces.

They are important, but both legislation and practice has increasingly turned IP law into a tool for protecting the privilege of corporations rather than encouraging innovation by creators. E.g., I've heard that recent amendments to US copyright law essentially allow companies to prevent artistic works from ever entering the public domain; or in the present case (and similar ones regarding computer flight sims), the law is being "mined" by aircraft manufacturers to generate revenue which was never anticipated at the time the IP was created, and the creators of said property surely were never compensated for this particular exploitation of their creation. Especially with military vehicles there is a potential for real perverse incentives--Lockheed and Boeing duking it out over the JSF not only to sell the planes, but for the value of their IP rights when they license their creation to makers of toys, games, models, films, T-shirts, etc. Anyway, as long as we're playing amateur lawyer here, this is an interesting link that was posted on another forum: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...00&invol=03-409 It was suggested there that the above USSC ruling might give more of an advantage to model makers, etc., in these cases. But it seems to me that all Lockheed or Northrop would have to do would be to sell a few licenses (or open their own model company), thus entering the model market; they could then claim "market confusion" against unlicensed model makers.

Yes, Kurosawa did Sanjuro with Mifune in the lead role. The two of them worked together on a great number of movies, including Yojimbo (which, by the way, was remade as A Fistful of Dollars), The Seven Samurai (remade in the US as The Magnificent Seven), and Rashomon. At some point they had a falling out; Mifune went on to star in some American works including a film with Lee Marvin called Hell in the Pacific (which was sort of the inspiration for the SF film Enemy Mine) and the great miniseries Shogun. Kurosawa's most recent films include Kagemusha, Ran, and Dreams. Edit: I never saw Shubun. Kurosawa is best known in America for his samurai movies, but he did a lot of films set in modern times as well.

The Shinden never even got off the ground, so what's the point of trying to compare it? It does look nice, I'll grant you.

The inner detail looks great but like everyone else, I have trouble with the large bits of melted plastic. I'd either try to make them smaller or, instead of using a soldering iron, thin the plastic from behind and then poke holes with a pin or other appropriate tool.

Sounds like the military should make that part of their procurement contracts then: "Seller agrees to free licensing of its name and all nonclassified aspects of the product's appearance to plastic model builders." Since the military sees direct benefits getting people interested in militaria, while the mfrs. benefit only indirectly.

I don't really know the legalities here, but one idea that was floated in the thread I posted was that the design and designation of military aircraft is public domain, but the manufacturer's name isn't. Not sure about the official nickname. By this scheme, a model that reproduces an F/A-22 down to the last detail is okay (though the FBI/CIA/DIA might invite you over to their place to answer some questions), but Lockheed could ask for a license fee if you call it a Lockheed F/A-22 on the box, and maybe they could if you call it a Raptor. If this kind of thing gets out of hand, you might have to pay license fees for displaying the copyrightable designs and distinctive images & logos of cars, planes, etc., that appear in movies. (Or more likely, the owners of the designs and trademarks would use their IP rights as leverage for product placement contracts. "The hero can drive an AMC Gremlin, provided the vehicle is shown on screen for no fewer than XX minutes with the following angles, etc.")

If that's the rabbit I think it is, it's a Japanese rabbit that was photographed with all sorts of things on its head. Yes, he died a while ago. Here you go: http://www.syberpunk.com/cgi-bin/index.pl?page=oolong

Personally, I doubt it. Here are a couple links (which I haven't read yet) which discuss the issue. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.mo...ec.models.scale http://www.cybermodeler.com/hobby/bass_letter.shtml Edit: Hmm... the second one seems to have died, which to me is a hint that the whole thing already blew over before StrategyPage got wind of it. Anyway, here's an alternative link to the first discussion: http://www.groupsrv.com/hobby/viewtopic.php?t=44094

I contacted Shawn about the problem and he said it was an issue with the ISP that provides DNS for the macrossworld.com domain. It's fixed now, but because of the way that DNS works, the fix may take a little while to "propagate" throughout the net. This thread might have fit better in the site info forum, BTW.

If anyone does recasts, I'd be up for a few TV-style figures.

Not many English references on this plane, but I found what appears to be a working RC model...(scroll to bottom of the page) http://homepage.powerup.com.au/~aiklos/my_models.htm A little inaccurate, but still nice. More pics of the same model, and some movie clips: http://www.old.modelarstwo.org.pl/lotnicze.../klos/scorpion/ Edit: If you want to see it fly, skip the first two clips. It looks more like an RC glider than a powered model.

The page linked above says it first appeared in mock-up in 1992, so if anyone influenced anyone, the Poles were influenced by Kawamori. Good taste on their part. Purina makes more than just cat food--they make food for all kinds of animals, including Rabbit Chow, Monkey Chow, and until recently People Chow (by which I mean Chex cereals).

The SV-51 suffers slightly from the "Space Pope" syndrome in battroid, though not as badly as a few of the later VF's & Varauta fighters. Also, the battroid has a "so ugly it's cool" look to it, reminiscent of early battleships and interwar Soviet tanks. I think the fighter mode looks great, although to me it more resembles an F/A-18 than an SU-27. Since I like the Hornet's looks, that's a bonus. (Someone did a photoshop of the SU-27 in Blue Angels livery and it looked great.) Aside from purely esthetic considerations, it's a part of M0, and I like M0. So if there was a transformable SV-51 toy, I'd be interested in getting it.

On the bright side, 1/48 GBP-1S...on the way Miyatake design works...on the way Things may be slowing down but the stream of Macross products hasn't quite shut off.

Great thread. Hopefully I can add something.

I assume you only mean Macross, and no non-transformable mecha or accessories that come separately. For 1/60, nearly all the items are at http://www.menet.umn.edu/~ngo/macross.html Brief list: 1A Hikaru 1A CF TRU 1S Fokker 1A Max 1A CF standard (non-TRU) 1J Super Hikaru 1S Strike 1J Super Max 1J Super Millia 1D VE-1 VT-1 (not pictured: 1J with GBP-1S) For 1/48, many of the items are pictured at the same site. Briefly, 1A Hikaru 1S Fokker 1A Max 1A Low-Viz not pictured: 1J Hikaru 1J Hikaru Super 1S Hikaru (DYRL colors) 1J Super Max 1J Super Millia (I don't recall if the 1/48 M&M also come in non-super versions) Mac Plus 1/72 most/all are at http://www.menet.umn.edu/~ngo/macross_plus.html I won't go into detail, though, as I don't know these as well. Finally, there's the 1/100 König Monster which has recently been released.

Nah, the seller's just adding "Macross" in the title to get more exposure/search hits.....and it worked. That is no good in my book, although putting "macross" in an orguss auction isn't quite as bad as putting it in a million videogame guidebook auctions. When you list something, you're not supposed to put in keywords for unrelated items. Doing so is called "keyword spamming" and it's against eBay rules. You're not even supposed to write, e.g., "Please view my other auctions including Macross, Sailor Moon, and Akira collectibles."

I'm a fan of 1/60's so my general answer is "yes". At least based on pictures of the 1/48 1J's, I like the head sculpt of the 1/60 1J's a little better. And the 1/60's in general offer the advantages of price and taking up less room. But there are a few caveats in my experience. 1) Obviously, not as big and detailed and gimmick-filled as the 1/48's. 2) The "balance" isn't that great in battroid mode--too much weight in the legs. 3) Rather difficult transformation in my opinion, at least if you try to do the chest plate exactly right so that it locks fully. 4) Lack of poseability in the arms unless you perform a mod that Drifand describes over at toyboxdx (I think). 5) Generally, a bit of finickiness in posing the battroid. 6) The 1/60 1S head isn't so great. Compare:1/48 battroid and 1/60 regular and 1/60 strike battroid. Anyway, I have most of the 1/60's. Another advantage to them is that there's a more complete lineup and there are a number of non-Valk Macross toys that are close to the same scale, including the Yamato Q-Raus, the Millia figures, and some of the old Robotech toys (the 7" destroids, the Regult, and Glaug are all around 1/60).

Hm, I thought the animation in Dynamite was pretty good...but I've only watched it once. About the general "M7 has crappy battle animation" rap, even aside from Dynamite, I don't think it's entirely warranted. True, there is a lot of bad animation in battle sequences, but there are also some battle sequences that I felt were done quite well in the series. I'm especially thinking of the episodes featuring Millia's VF-1. Though, again, I've only gone through most of the series once.

Thanks!

I don't know about the attachment braces, but would scratch-building be an option? Or (thinking a little more creatively) what about modding a torpedo from larger-scale kit? Or something from a science fiction kit? (Some part of a Star Trek vessel?) Or something that isn't a model at all, like a deodorant bottle or somesuch? Maybe you could post a sketch of what you'd like the floats to look like and the approximate dimensions, and we could keep our eyes open for thingamajigs that would fit.