Sundown

Late to the party, but here's my five-minute review after watching SC. For what it's worth, for all its suckitude, I like Robotech. While I prefer much of the original, I actually enjoy certain changes Robotech made to Macross's storyline, and Robotech's soundtrack appeals more to my western sensibilities. And while I'll readily admit that the original Macross's production was higher in quality as a whole, and it is in a word "better", there are still some elements from Robotech that I prefer. Anyway, finished it yesterday after starting it the day before. It was about 30 minutes into the thing when I got a little bored and decided I'd rather watch a few episodes of 24, but managed to finish it last night. It wasn't a disaster, but it wasn't very "good". It was somewhat enjoyable, seeing old characters again and being brought back to Robotech lore, but at the same time, SC just didn't have the magic that the original Mospeda, Macross, and RT had. The production was extremely mediocre, and at points, just plain bad. Everything-- the writing, the animation, the CG, the voice acting-- just reminded you constantly that this was an anime imitation produced by Americans. I'm not of the thought that any "anime" that involves Americans (or Koreans contracted by American producers for that matter) *has* to suck-- I've heard great things about certain Disney dubs-- but nearly every aspect of SC calls attention to what it really is, and it constantly takes me out of the story. The CG was just awful-- at parts even amateurish. The explosions were horrendous. One sequence featured three identical explosions next to each other in a line, because the CG artist couldn't be bothered to hide the fact that he was copy-and-pasting the same explosion throughout the scene. Rotating the explosions or moving them away from each other would have at least helped to mask the uber-cheap production values, but whoever was in charge of that scene couldn't even bother to do that. 2D animation quality was extremely inconsistent. Colors were vibrant and sparkly, but the animation had a certain stiffness about it. I found it funny that the producers felt the need to animate asian-anime mannerisms in an American produced show, and even funnier that the voice acting and dialogue matched these mannerisms more poorly than they did RT. It's not like the voice actors had to adapt to animated characters speaking another language to another culture-- the entire production was intended for an American audience from the start. Yet everything meshed even more poorly than the old dubbed show. Maybe it was the bad voice acting, or bad directing, or bad animation, but whatever the reason, it just added to the feeling that what you were watching wasn't authentic. The cockpit scenes were some of the best drawn in the show, even if the characters' over-exaggerated expressions didn't quite match what they were saying most of the time, but as a whole, the 2D animation was pretty underwhelming, even if it didn't make me want to claw my eyes out. Dialogue was lacking, and I'd say the voice acting was even worse than in RT. I attribute part of this to shoddy writing and part of this to bad direction, but most of the deliveries in SC were either stiff or overly dramatic and stiff. It was comforting to hear old voice actors reprise their roles, but there was still something lacking in their deliveries compared to their work 20 years ago. Dialogue in parts were painfully lame, even though some parts could have been funny if it wasn't so evident that the writer was trying hard to be funny. What I don't get was why the writers were *trying* to write in the kind of overacted awkwardness usually present in a dub, where lines are force fit to a character's lips and timing. Maybe they think this is part of anime's magic, but with character expressions being so unconvincing in SC at times, it just calls to attention how silly all the overacted dialogue is. Storyline was passable. Some of the characters and concepts introduced were interesting, and the plot and storyline works when viewed from 10,000 feet-- I even kind of liked the ending-- but it's in the actual execution and delivery that SC falls short. Character designs were interesting-- they're for the most part likeable, even if I take issue with Janice and Marlene having nearly identical bust bearing outfits. All the boobage was rediculous, and not in a good way, and a woman's hair comes in more than shades of purple, alien, android, or otherwise-- it would have made perfect sense for Maya Sterling to have some shade of blue-green hair-- but I liked the designs for most of the characters. I wouldn't have minded watching a series that featured more of these designs, if they pulled back a bit on the badly drawn boobage and panderingly-pretty factor. I didn't hate Scott's redesign as much as I thought I would, and he felt mostly like the same character, so they did something right, or at least managed not to screw up completely. Anyway, SC was vaguely fun, and kind of enjoyable-- that's kind of Robotech, and yet a little disenginuous-- while mediocre and amateurish in spots, still manages to be cohesive and watchable enough, even if I have a hard time calling it "good" or even decent. It sort of reminded you of something that could have been a lot better and a lot more fun-- even if it only bore a vague resemblance to it.

o/`Badger Badger Badger Badger, Badger Badger Badger Badger... Snaaaake! o/`

Bale's action was a lot more fun in Equilibrium, but I'd agree that even though it suits me fine, he's a bit more stiff and formal in his action sequences than some others. I also blame most of the poor action in Batman Begins on Nolan's directing and choosing to film the action sequences as a flurry of close up blurs. Someone on another forum suggested Rahda Mitchell as Meryl. As far as I'm concerned, she was the only thing good about Pitch Black. Yes, I know Vin Diesel was in it. Her character in Pitch Black and her relationship with Riddick isn't too far removed from Meryl and Snake in MGS. Except that Snake isn't as impotent at protecting the women around him. Rhada's also a decent actress who's not above doing crappy video game movies like Silent Hill.

And another: Nicole Kidman as Naomi Hunter Kidman's got that scheming, woman scorned, grudge bearing look, even when she doesn't want it, which fits Naomi Hunter perfectly. And whenever I hear Naomi Hunter on the codec in MGS, I picture a real life Kidman for some reason.

It'll never happen, but I only have two picks: Christian Bale as Snake: and Kate Beckingsale as Meryl: Couple shots that look a bit like the MGS characters. Both are talented, versatile actors who can simultaneously do believable action. Bale's commitment to his roles is unmatched-- he will shed weight or bulk up for *precisely* the physique needed, and has played both a 120 pound insomiac and a 220 pound muscle bound superhero within six months of each other. If you need him with Snake's exact physique, he *will* have Snake's exact physique. And if you need him to spend some time in Alaska mushing wolves to get into the role mentally, Bale would probably more than happy to oblige, being a big animal and conservation guy. Oh, and there's all that fancy acting stuff that he brings along too. Beckinsale's not too shabby either, but I just wonder whether she can capture Meryl's coy tomboy and innocent naiveity, along with her awe and hero worship of Snake. But as a bonus, Bale and Beckinsale have starred as romantic leads opposite each other, so chemistry wouldn't be a problem. And at any rate, she'd still make for a more convincing female soldier than the original voice actress for Meryl did, as much as I enjoyed her. Too bad Bale probably couldn't be convinced to play Snake unless the character writing was stellar, and we know how likely that's going to be, and he's probably had his fill of action disasters for awhile. But if they could land him for the role, he could even double for Liquid, being a real Brit himself. And with the practice he had growling as Batman, if he just pulled it back a bit, he'd definitely pull off a convincing Snake, gravelly voice and all. [EDIT] I JUST read this now. Christian Bale **TALKED** about being Snake?! I know Bale isn't above action movies, and he definitely isn't above chancy, innovative action flicks, but I'm surprised he'd even consider a movie in a genre that features poor acting and uninspired writing as a rule. What shouldn't surprise me is that the thought also crossed his mind that he would be perfect for Snake.

Like JELEINEN mentioned, extremely high casualty percentages are actually somewhat of a rarity in LoGH. Just off the top of my head, I think most percentages lie around 30-60% per engagement, depending on the battle and circumstances. I remember one battle with extremely high percentages because it was fought as an all-out delaying action-- I could be remembering wrong, however.

Less profanity, more humor. And his nerd act isn't very convincing. You can't just slap a pair of glasses on a belligerant fratboy and expect him to pass for a nerd. He dishonors us.

Of course Yamato is milking us because they can. And they've been acclimating us to higher and higher prices-- prices that would have made us balk years before. It bugs me too, but truth is, Yamato's not in this for our health. I too would like to see Yamato set more reasonable prices-- and at least consider the economic possibility of lowering prices to increase sales and net profit, but this almost seems a foreign concept to yamato nowadays. Instead, they operate as if past customers are the only customer base they'll ever have, and so long as their prices are set just shy of Ridiculous (and what's accepted as Ridiculous moves up with every release), we'll stay on board. They're probably right.

I thought the woman Gamlin saw wasn't actually Physica's wife, but someone who looked like her, reminding him of the news he had to break to Physica's own family. It was how I made sense of that scene, anyway.

I am simultaneously more entertained and enraged by Macross 7 than I am with Macross II. Macross II has a premise, story, and feel much closer to Macross SDF which I fell in love with, but falls short of its predecessor, and basically tells a story I'm interested, albeit badly, featuring largely forgettable characters. It does throw some neat mecha into the mix, however. Macross 7 is more entertaining, and does a much better job in the storytelling department, except that the story it tells is one that I'm not particularly interested in, especially since it ret-cons and steps all over the story told in Macross SDF, and forces us to reinterpret things established 15 years ago in a new light simply because it's "canon". Its characters are more interesting and memorable, and their interactions are more entertaining, but the thought that it's "official" and proceeds in the same universe that SDF exists in throws me into a bloody rage. Oh, and it has boobies, and not the good kind. I'm not a big fan of Zero, either. It's only a hair above Macross II in storytelling, features passable mecha that are visually incongruent with Macross SDF, and even though it abandons some of the sillyness of M7, it still retains some of its more grating elements. Anyway, I'd rather watch M7 than MII, mainly because I haven't finished M7 yet, and because I find it somewhat more entertaining... and then I'll proceed to try and forget what I'd just seen. So I hate M7 more, but will admit that it's a better production, and at the same time, a worse Macross sequel.

Just wanted to make a few quick and last points, more about Eastern cultures and aesthetics than anything. Yet, in Japanese animation, what's unsaid is still usually implied. I see very little impliciation in M0 that the ships use Anti-Grav generators. And furthermore, whether they use Anti-Grav generators or not is largely unimportant to the storytelling, and thus, wouldn't qualify as "important enough to omit their mention for subtlety's sake." I also feel there's some misunderstanding of the Asian cultures mentioned here. Hong Kong culture is very different from Japanese culture, and I've never known in Chinese storytelling the tendency to elevate the importance of story details through outright omission. Being Chinese, I can't speak for Japanese culture directly, but I suspect that both cultures value subtlety in storytelling over direct exposition-- through the use of suggestion and implication-- ie, highlighting inescapable conclusions in a story by what isn't said rather than by what is said. But this doesn't mean that anything is possible and is perhaps even probable, just because it wasn't mentioned directly in the storytelling. Ie, the AFOS probably isn't powered by pink (alien) leprechauns, and we don't have to entertain the idea just because the Japanese dialogue in M0 doesn't explicitly eliminate that possibility. Anyway, AG discussion aside, just wanted to clarify the differences between Eastern and Western culture with regards to storytelling. The Eastern aesthetic of leaving certain things unsaid isn't some sort of license to analyze, dissect, ret-con, and fill in every detail for ourselves in our distinctively Western way. If a plot element is unclear, we are meant to wonder, speculate and be satisfied in not knowing. We aren't meant to stretch, reach, and dig up cels from 24 years ago to support a tenuous conclusion barely supported by a straightforward viewing of of a particular work of fiction, as fun as it all is. =)

Yet a brief mention by Global, that scientist guy that always shows up, or a bridge bunny would get the point across. Without any further mention, the most reasonable assumption is that the generators weren't replaced. The engines being labelled generators could be an error-- I don't know if they're labelled otherwise in other sources. Macross Zero does differ from Enterprise in one important respect: Kawamori has stated outright that he was unconcerned about strict continuity, while Enterprise pretends to care about continuity then botches it up. =) I tend to think the ideas you suggest would require the audience to jump through too many hoops to be plausible, as neat as they kind of are. But I think the fact that almost all of us still think the battle group's floating was entirely due to the AFOS, and that you appear to be the lone exception, suggests that either Zero's storytelling was horrendous or we're all a bunch of idiots. In the end, I don't know how it serves the story to have ships appear to float for one reason, but actually float for another, the latter of which is not told to the viewer and requires deduction and knowledge that would be considered somewhat obscure to most of M0's viewers. In this case, it makes more sense to me just to accept what M0 appears to be showing. And I still can't think of a good reason to install anti-grav generators on small naval destroyers, which were also shown to float.

I like to look at things from a storytelling perspective: Modern day-ish ships with anti-gravity generators that can presumably float them into space-- Good storytelling? Not really, because the usefulness of floating such ships seems dubious to me, for the reasons others have pointed out. Ships that float just like rocks that float, both under the influence of alien/mystical powers-- Good storytelling? Yes. The AFOS being able to lift an entire carrier battle group demonstrates the magnitude of its power, and contrasts it with the similar power Sara exhibits earlier, albiet at a much smaller scale. Requiring viewers to reference a 24 year old animation in order to understand why ships are really floating-- Good storytelling? No. Macross Zero makes no mention of anti-gravity generators, and most viewers would reasonably conclude that the ships float entirely because of the AFOS, especially after seeing Sara's ability to do a similar thing and being told that her people are under influence of the same alien power. It strikes me as extremely poor storytelling to imply one thing, when the truth can only be deduced by referencing an anime series two decades old. Showing what appear to be engines, but are actually anti-gravity generators, without making any mention of what they really are, the nature of which can be deduced only after lengthy and creative gymnastics with old anime cels-- Good storytelling? No. For the engines shown in Macross Zero to be anti-gravity generators, we would have to do exactly what was done here: assume similar-looking engines in Macross SDF were also anti-grav generators, and not plain old OT fusion reactors, then create fiction to explain why they were shown to be aboard the SDF-1 after they were dramatically ripped from its hull with no further mention of them afterwards. If the generators were removed from the ship with such dramatic flair, one would expect at least some mention of them if they were later recovered. It would be reasonable to think that they were never recovered, especially when they seemed to be mostly useless. For the generators to be recovered, not only would Macross Zero be guilty of poor story-telling, but SDF Macross as well. So, do I think the Asuka battle group can float into space? No. Because it requires too much stretching, reaching, careful attention to a 24 year old anime, and off-screen storytelling to come to that conclusion, one at odds with what Mac Zero, on a straightforward viewing, actually seems to portray.

Actually, the online comics are done by: Michael Turner: First Issue Marcus To: Second and Fifth Issues Michal Gunnel: Third and Fourth Issues Tim Sale does some heroes related art, like the postage stamps and some panels shown in the actual show, but he (unfortunately) hasn't done any of the online comics yet. I find it somewhat humorous that one could complain about a comic show bearing major similarities to an existing comic title, especially when comic writers and artists have been ripping off of each other for the last 80 years or so. It's sort of the nature of the genre. And frankly, I find Heroes, which stays more true to genre (and is written and co-produced by well known comic writers, no less!), much more palpatable than something like Smallville or Lois and Clark, as decent shows as they are.

Snakes in a Pet Store.

I wouldn't mind watching a Robert Downey Jr. Stark. Would have been neat if they got Timothy Dalton for the role. Not because I like Dalton especially, but because he was the inspiration for Alex Ross' Tony Stark in Marvels.

Funny, I find the Dual Shock one of the better controllers, at least for my hands. It's simple, elegant, and moderately comfortable, but I will say that I wouldn't mind something a little bigger and better analog trigger buttons. But for me, it handedly beats both the N64 and Gamecube controllers, the latter of which causes pain for my hands faster and worse than anything I've ever laid hands on. I haven't played with the 360's controller yet, but I imagine that it wouldn't be too bad given I thought the original XBox controller okay. I will miss the six thumb buttons for Capcom fighters though. Of course, I could just get a real 6 button arcade stick if I cared that much.

300 isn't a historical epic, and it's not meant to be an accurate or even believable portrayal of Thermopylae. It's trying to emulate Miller's comic book, 300, hence the painterly, melodramatic, gritty look and feel of the whole film. I don't know if it's going to work, since it mainly appeals to fans of Miller's work and those who might watch it for the "kewl" factor, but it's not going to be everyone's cup of tea.

Patlabor is primarily a character driven show, and much of that is lost in the movies. I enjoyed the first two (and haven't seen the third) because I was already a fan from the OAVs and TV series, and they gave me techno thrillers featuring characters I already adored... but by themselves, the movies might not grab someone new to the series. And for what it's worth, I felt the first movie was significantly better than the second. The TV series and OAVs are more light hearted and down to earth, and while they feature mecha, they're primarily character driven rather than mecha centric.

It looks really, really close to American Typewriter Bold BT on this page: http://oldtype.8m.com/fonts.htm The preview on the page only shows the non-bold version of the font, which looks nothing like what you want, but the bold is almost an exact match. So you'll have to download American Typewriter, and check out the bold version in the file Amrtypeb.tff. The bold version of one of the other fonts on the page might be a match too. Here's a preview I made using this site: https://www.weletterit.com/boat_lettering.html So it's close, but not exact. Dunno if it's close enough to be useful...

I'm actually one for a less-kibbly Iron Man. Then again, I grew up with Iron Man rags of the 80's, and to me, Iron Man is supposed to be composed of big, blocky, bold shapes with a stupid looking helmet that sort of grows on you. And for what it's worth, good, believable, modern-looking industrial design should be less kibbly, not more.

Maybe the Queen of Spain will be willing to lend us a faster than light starcraft.

Spike, Orko, and Snarf were never central, title characters. All of them were either comic relief or the character through whom presumably human audiences could relate through. No one watched Transformers fixated on Spike. Sparkplug also got a fair amount of screentime as well. Even Daniel-San was put into his place by Mr. Miyagi. Daniel eventually understands Mr. Miyagi's wisdom in having him do what appeared to be innane chores, which turned out to be part of his training. The whole premise of the movie was Daniel coming into his own and becoming a man with the help and vision of an older man. And I always thought most Nick shows were pretty lame, with exception to a few. But you're right. The network did seem to feature more youth-centric kids shows. So sure, some childrens' entertainment featured children and teens as main characters in the 80's, and sure, stupid adults aren't unique to shows of today, but at least used to be some balance. Youth fixated shows dominate lineups today. Even the same GI Joe characters look younger than they did in the 80's, but that could also be due to the Amerianime style used, which tends to draw women as youthful and demure. Then again, the wide adoption of this Japanese aesthetic, a culture that's also been fixated on youth for sometime, might indicate American culture's shifting fixation on youth as well.

I'm only slightly torn about Star Wars. I prefer the old models-- they do have a certain rough, gritty, presence about them that the sparkly, sharp, CG X-wings don't have. But the CG shots do show better movement in a few tasteful sequences, even if they went a little overboard with making every shot "dynamic" for my tastes. But yeah, CG's biggest boon is realistic, flawless camera and object movement, and it just makes no sense to me to ditch the best that CG offers in order to simulate bad 60's effects, except made prettier and smoother and not necessarily more convincing. Yeah. Seems like they're CG-ing it for all the wrong reasons while trying to have their cake and eat it too. I was impressed with how close the new orchestra sounds to the original track. The most noticeable difference is the female vocals-- the original vocalist had a sultrier, thicker sound that had a haunting quality about it. The new vocalist sounds very similar except that her voice is clearer and sharper, and she doesn't seem to crescendo at the song's end with as much power. It's a small thing, but I could actually feel the difference, even after not having heard the original theme for awhile. Maybe it'll sound closer after the mix.

I had no idea. I just now googled for a picture of the Smithsonian model, and it is indeed way too weathered. The original prop model was probably a bit boring to look at, but to deface a piece of TV history like that... And it does look like they're trying to replicate things shot for shot, camera movement for camera movement, and fixing only really glaring errors. The clip of the cg Romulan bird of prey shows it flying away from the camera, not along its axis but crabbing to the left. It's also flying into the moving starfield at a weird angle, and it's kind of disorienting to look at. The shot of the Enterprise flying away from the Earth also shows a similar problem, and it's not really flying straight with respect to the camera's position. Either the camera's also moving, or the ship's flying off axis, but either way, it visually looks like the latter, and I'm not sure why anyone would want that effect. I'm sure most folks won't be able to pick out just what's wrong with these shots, and perhaps the goal of the art team was to make sure you'd never be able to spot the new footage if you weren't told about them... but it just seems that their goal should have been to make everything more believable while staying faithful to the established style, instead of just making everything sharper and prettier while still laboriously reproducing all the old, distracting visual errors. And again, the lighting used just isn't convincing. In fact, ships now look worse set against an uber-realistic Earth than they used to flying over a fake looking one. Ah well, I do appreciate the crew's reverence for the original material, even if I don't agree with how they went about things.