Sundown

Psst. Because all their engineering resources are devoted to making super secret GIANT KILLER ROBOTS! (That happen to dance and play the trumpet.) -Al

I must be really slow. I just chalked the out-of-place-woman to silly filmmaking and a romantic relationship forcefully crammed in. As in, err, we just sort of picked her up from some boat or island somewhere. And now your girlfriend might watch this movie too. She's probably a psychic, telenetic, a real witchy witch, or something. Okay, now the movie is starting to get neater. Hrm: Lorelei-- Origin, German. 'Temptress'; A rocky cliff on the Rhine river dangerous to boat passage; the Lorelei whose singing lures men to destruction. Plot device woman. Boats. Sounds like you're on the right track, WDC. -Al

Here's a spoiler... The Japanese lose! In all seriousness, looks vaguely interesting, if I could just figure out what the heck is going on. And why's that woman running around on that ship? This is the wartime Japanese Navy. It's a men thing. Not in that kind of way. -Al

I tend to agree with JMS's speculation about Trek... it's not tired and done to death. It just hasn't been done as Trek ought to be done. I don't feel a great need or desire to watch any of the series since TNG. But I still find myself lamenting everytime a new series comes out that it's not more in the flavor of the original series or TNG. They still haven't done Sulutrek, ie. Star Trek:Excelsior. I say they get on the ball before Sulu completely decomposes. -Al

You folks really should take a look at something like Brazil, if you happen to be using 3DS Max. Brazil's a Global Illumination renderer that does snazzy stuff like caustics and HDRI. Photorealistic rendering. And I think the free learning version is still available. http://www.splutterfish.com -Al

I don't remember that level on Arkanoid. -Al

The irony is, in listing examples of what might be spoilers, and more specifically why-- I'd just had a few things spoiled for me because I was fortunate enough to miss those pictures many pages back, or had merely glanced at them while trying not to think too hard. Ah well. -Al

Regardless of who loses... we win. -Al

I've noticed that too. And I think it highlights Japan's tension and struggle between two powerful and opposing cultural sentiments, a tension that they have difficulty resolving because they have difficulty unabashedly facing and grieving their past actions. They have both a powerful war culture from days past and the notions of thrill and honor in battle hasn't fully been extinguished by WWII. Yet, they have experienced great suffering, disillusionment, and shame as a result of their defeat. So you get what we see-- an almost schizophrenic portrayal of war: it's evils, it's futility, the stubbornness of warmakers... but all set against a backdrop of war's novelty and glory, with lavish and loving attention paid upon epic battles and its weapons of war. Their only reconciliation between these two opposing cultural values is by apealling to the following notion: war is justified only if it is a war upon war itself. So the ideal of a "just" and necessary war doesn't seem to sit high in Japan's thinking. But in recent times, they have not been forced to fight against unprovoked agressors, either on their own or another nations' behalf. And in the most notable war of this century, they were the aggressors themselves. Until Japan can come to terms and make peace with their actions in the past, they will only be able to speak of war in vaguarity, and speak of mistakes and suffering incurred in the past as the automatic result of them simply having "signed up for war"-- placing indirect and complicit blame upon her past enemies as well. The difference between Germany and Japan's understanding to WWII is a little like the difference between two former bullies: One suffers a retaliatory thrashing and it dawns on him that as painful and hurtful his own beating was, it's a greater evil to strike out at others without cause-- regardless of whether retribution occurred. The beating only served to teach a lesson and principle he never otherwise would have learned. The other suffers the same thrashing and concludes that all physical violence is evil, period, absorbed in memories of pain and humiliation. The subject is too hurtful to discuss with candor, and he's unable to examine and fully come to terms with who he was and what caused him to lash out. Parts of the lesson are lost upon him, being focused only upon the avoidance of pain and misery. Both have similar external behaviors. But the two differ somewhat in internal attitudes. -Al

What I've noticed is that the Japanese culture tends to treat the matter of war as an entity to fear, to guard against, to avoid at all costs. Hence the pacifistic streak ingrained deep into the modern Japanese psyche. It's in this context that they bring up the suffering they incurred as a result of the atomic bomb, usually bringing up the fact of the bomb as a clinical fact, a tragic and unspecific consequence of "war". It may be because the moment they actually place blame and cause upon a specific national entity, or upon a specific person or persons-- if the game of cause, effect, and responsibility is played and placed on live human beings-- the unavoidable conclusion is that wartime Japan was itself resposible for even greater atrocities and for a more prolonged period of time. That many of its actions, provocations, and aggressions lead to the eventual allied response, right or wrong. I see this same sort of treatment of wartime suffering by Japanese civilians in Graveyard of the Fireflies. The allies are shown briefly, as impersonal planes firebombing and strafing civilians. The rest of the film follows the suffering of the main character and his sister as a result of that. Never once does the film raise the question of why Japan was under attack. The director only leaves two possible interpretations for one trying to "explain" or place blame for suffering's cause. It's either the impersonal Allied war machine, or the evil of a unspecific "war" itself. There is no hint that these attacks might have followed unprovoked Japanese aggression... decisions of Japan's government to put their own citizens in harm's way. Now I realize that a common theme in anti-war movies is that some things are just unexplainable-- non-sensical-- beyond even our attempts, and thus allowing us to come to the conclusion that war is futile. But that's entirely different from avoiding any attempt, because of what those attempts might reveal. As a result, even while pitying the protagonists' sufferings, it was very difficult to symphathise with the director's use of his characters or his message -- that war is "bad", that suffering will result, and that it's to be avoided mainly on that basis. Rarely do I see argued that unprovoked aggression might be a moral wrong, regardless of its consequences on one's own people. Japan's hesitance to acknowledge many of its actions in the past may have created generations that are unable to dialogue about the atomic bomb and WWII except in these constrained ways. -Al

I don't think there was ever a widespread case of Allied troops committing these sorts of atrocities in equally large numbers, sanctioned and possibly encouraged by the government. On civilians en masse, no less. Atrocities abound in war, from all sides. But just because one side isn't completely innocent of such crimes doesn't mean all other sides are only equally complicit. There is such a thing as scope, magnitude, extremity, sanction, and widespread acceptance of atrocious practices. Ignoring scope because no parties have clean hands can lessen the true gravity of all attrocities. The Japanese and German armies viewed certain groups of those they had subjugated as sub-human, and thus, treated them as vermin and pests, fit only for extermination or for their personal amusement. This happened on a massive scale. I would not put the goverment sanctioned Rape of Nanking and the Holocaust on the same level as atomic testing on one's own troops and any war crimes certain Allied units may have commited in WWII. The latter however, are still inexcusable. The only issue I have with Japanese culture in regards to WWII is that it continually brings Hiroshima and Nagasaki to the forefront, highlighting the suffering that ensued-- which is extremely tragic, to be sure. But there is hardly ever an acknowledgement of the events, situation, and attrocities committed by the Japanese government that lead to that fateful day... or why Truman, whether wrong or right, had deemed it necessary. The subject of Japanese war crimes has been supressed in Japanese history classes, left off from history texts, and thus, such awareness is below the consciousness of the Japanese culture at large, even today. Every Japanese reference to WWII and the atomic bomb that I've ever been exposed to completely omits the subject of Japanese complicity and responsibility. And only recently has Japan issued a still-vague apology to China for what occured in Manchuria 60 years ago. It might be said that writing of history doesn't lie solely with the winners. This contrasts highly with German sentiments regarding WWII. They are painfully aware of what occured under Hitler's regime. It is rare to find Japanese arguing that they weren't entirely innocent, when the subject of the atomic bomb is brought up, as we are doing here in regards to the Allies now. Even for victors with the power to "revise" history, the U.S. is rather conscious of their own faults, mistakes, and missteps. I think this is one of the things that defines America (and many of her allies): that Americans will hold other Americans accountable. This thread may be case in point. -Al

There isn't anything on the Lucasarts horizon, but this just might be what you're looking for, at least to tie you over for a bit. http://www.xwaupgrade.com Not all of the upgraded models are of equal quality. But most of the Alliance and Imperial fighters are something else. The X-Wing and B-Wings are especially well done. It's not nearly that difficult to get into space in SWG:Jump To Lightspeed. You're even given a starter ship, now with hyperdrive, and upgrades really aren't all that expensive. That review you're reading is a massive exageration, as JTL was designed to be playable even to newcomers to the game. The gameplay however, is MMORPG fare. Kill fighter after fighter, levelling, with slightly shallow plots and missions. It's no X-Wing, and it's no XWA. -Al

Hrm. Imdb listed Yamato as being released in '77. Perhaps they're referring to the US release. My mistake if that's the case. Space dog fights and great ship battles is hardly a unique concept. And like others' mentioned, WWII left lasting impressions on the world-- and certainly on more than one lone anime creator who was interested in portraying battles in space, from whom all subsequent similar portrayals must therefore have come from. Similarity doesn't equal direct influence. Especially when the similarites are both based upon something that's much more resonate in a culture's mind. Both Yamato and Star Wars incorporate WWII-like battles in space. The logical conclusion would be that WWII is the primary influence. Not each other. It's a huge reach. As much as I question Lucas's sense of aesthetics today, I'm personally wary of unabashedly giving credit of things he did right to some anime director I happen to like, just because their creations happen to bear commonalities-- most of which can be explained much more convincingly by their own admitance to being heavily influenced by the worldwide event known as WWII. Asserting that similarities must have been due to direct copying tends to suggest agendas either to prop up a particular director or to discredit the other. But yeah, I know, it's hard to imagine an American director of mainstream entertainment could possibly share common thought processes as a Japanese anime director. -Al

Kind of looking forward to seeing it for an odd reason. My friend insists that I bear resemblance to Keanu Reeves. I do not see it. It is not true. And I've always insisted that she reminds me of Rachael Weisz. She adamantly denies it. And lo, I find that "we" are actually in a movie together, which is actually one of the last cast pairings I'd ever expect. It might be amusing for that novelty. -Al

He actually does, the major influences anyway. Although I'm sure neither he, nor most artists, would list every one of their inspirations in detail, no matter how insignficant. At any rate, I think citing an anime feature as being the probable foundational inspiration of space dogfight battles in Star Wars on the basis of similarity in a non-unique theme is a gigantic reach. Not to mention that both Space Cruiser Yamato and Star Wars came out in 1977. That's not a whole lot of time to steal ideas for R2 and the Death Star battle, especially with the film nearly done already by the time Yamato was released. -Al

My turn. You're kidding right? Indeed they do. I think it might also just be a matter of what excites us. ESB does it for me because it resembles a real-world military engagement, except with equipment and a setting from a galaxy far away. AOTC just seemed to have a lot of... stuff... for stuff's sake, and the overt CG-ness I'm cursed with spotting didn't help. Then again, I'm one of those folks who'd nod at Deep Impact over Armeggedon, and Contact over Independence Day. My exact sentiments, from Cobyway's link. The super saturated, high-contrast "punchy" aesthetic: "The depth is gone. At some point, people decided this punchier look was better. I'm not sure why, but this is the primary difference between the look of the prequels and the original trilogy. Have you ever actually seen images from the movies side-by-side? The prequels look like video games in comparison; their images are crafted by younger digital-age artists, not photographers. Powerful tools, no idea how to use them. " I guess the CG-ness of the prequels is somewhat exacerbated by the punchy look. And in audio, this has the same effect as on the video - it takes all the warmth, depth and imaging out of the experience. But there's a visceral experience to having bright, tinkly sounds and chest-thumping bass; just like getting sparkly brights and deep rich blacks in images. What's sad is that people don't realize you don't have to choose one or the other. You just have to know what you're doing, and you can have the best of both worlds: satisfying images and sound, that also have the full spectrum of frequencies in the middle, for believable depth. Don't forget, most of the time now, we're crafting images in ways that could never exist in nature, and then presenting them to the eye as though it were real. The eye is the most perfect camera in the universe - it never takes a bad picture, and it is hard pressed to believe this flat, shallow world of images could ever exist. While our brains and eyes are busy trying to figure this puzzle out, our hearts can't focus on giving a damn. Bingo. For some, anyway. The rest of the article has some pretty good insights. And they're a lot more compelling than "Lucas is performing sexual battery upon my youth." -Al

Yeah. But I'm guessing some folks just don't see visual differences between traditional models and CG, and the descrepancies don't affect the "feel" of the imagery for them. Or they prefer the flash and glitz of CG elements that tend to call attention to themselves, where some the novelty lies in it being CG-- over the sorts of CG that's hard to spot and merely enhances real imagery. It's a matter of having different senses of aesthetics. Examples of Great CG (IMO): Blackhawk down-- couldn't spot any of the CG effects until I'd seen the Making Of documentaries that highlighted the scenes that used them. Even then, it was hard to spot the CG-ness. LOTR-- It's all been said already. Gollum looked somewhat CG-ish in moments, but the animation and characterization was so well done that it tended to draw your attention away from that fact. Not perfect, but compelling use of CG, considering how many computer generated shots were used. Examples of Meh CG: The Star Wars Prequels-- I think some of it was just due to over saturated colors, with everything screaming "Look At Me!" Episode One didn't bother me too much, though I wasn't a big fan of most of the CG aliens. AOTC's battles were largely unconvincing, and looked like the giant CG fest it was. There's something about ILM's render that I just don't like, and they're intent on using it, even when there are renderers out there that can produce much more photorealistic results. I know that not everyone sees things the way I do, and for those that don't, I probably seem positively crazy and arbitrary. I've always had a critical eye... it's a curse sometimes. Anyway, highly off topic again, and most of this has already been said one way or another before. Still looking somewhat forward to Anakin's pwnage, even though I'd always thought that it would have and should have been something to dread instead. -Al

Is this documented that Yamato influenced Lucas, or is it just conjecture? Space fighter battles is hardly a unique concept. Not to mention that Lucas likely drew more heavily from WWII dogfights (which is documented) than the Yamato anime series. If Lucas wanted a "War" in the "Stars", and he was drawn to WWII imagery, as evident in other aspects of the film, it's not a far reach to assume that Lucas logically arrived at space dog fighter battles independently of an anime series that shares vague similarities. -Al

Well, strings are something you have to look for. CG looking "off" is something you sense as you look at. It's a preference really. Models and real sets look like they're there. And those of us brought up to watch CG with a critical eye are just wired to find fault with it. I find that models break suspension of belief much less often than imperfect CG does... but that's the way my brain works. Obviously it's not true for everyone else. -Al

Dangit. Beat me to it. -Al

Sure. But gritty isn't really the operative word here. Drop "gritty" and my preferences still apply... Who knows, maybe the CG Grevious will look better composited. EDIT: Saw the shot from what looks like actual footage that I missed earlier. Looks better, if not perfect. -Al

I hardly think that Macross differentiates itself from Robotech in terms of being any less "geeky" and "nerdy". Come on... look at us. Anime. Spending much more than is the socially accepted norm on toys for folks in their 20's and 30's. Adamantly demanding subtitles over dubs. Even now having passionate opinions regarding some hack of an American company and a cartoon they produced 20 years ago for kids. All over manglings of the original material, with which it shares more than it actually differs. Macross being any less geeky? Not. These sorts of things get raised eyebrows, even in Japan. If Robotech attracts to geeky kids, then Macross caters to geeky adults. At least the former still have the hope of growing out of it. The only thing folks liking Robotech can be accused of is bad taste. And of that I'm still vaguely guilty. -Al

You're kidding, right? *Shrug* I guess I'm a big sucker for gritty photorealism over glaringly CG. And I've never been a fan of ILM's renderer. Hard to tell what the body shot of the "fake" looks like, though... and I admit it looks a little light and flimsy, and lacks the heft of the CG shot. -Al

Funny... the fake, if it is fake, looks better and more convincing to me, so far as feeling "real", than the official CG shots. -Al

In my opinion, the weathering looks a little too heavy... not that it's too dark in any place, but that it's all over, in large splotches. Real weathering tends to be much lighter overall, with much smaller, darker streaks and smudges in a few select places. Some of the heavy weathering out there isn't particularly realistic, even though that seems to be the aim. IMO, a well weathered CG valk should look something like a wmcheng model. =) -Al