Sundown

Heh heh---one thing Trek purists seem to hate more than most any other revision, is how the original Enterprise was "restored" for the Smithsonian. Basically, it was panel lined and weathered. Severely.

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.

Hell, I'm still waiting for the episode I special edition that overdubs all of Jake Lloyd's (sp?) dialogue with a kid that can actually act.

A friend said the other day that even Dakota Fanning with a haircut would have made for a better Anakin.

My only disappointment with this is that it appears they've really done a move for move re-creation of the effects from the original, complete with all the weird ship movement artifacts from the pre-motion control era special effects. Thus the shiny new CG Enterprise still bounces around drunkenly while flying towards that planet instead of going in a straight line.

Yeah... not sure what's the point if the ships are still going to move badly. The sharp CG graphics actually highlight the mismatched movement of the ships against the camera and the stars, and the old models almost look better, being real objects and capturing more lighting nuances. They should have just taken the model from the Smithsonian and refilmed new sequences, or done the same with another model built from scratch. But that wouldn't fly in today's look-what-we-can-redo-with-CG age.

As much as I find myself hating all new things Trek, I actually like the way the 1701 was lit in the Enterprise episode A Mirror Darkly, though the rendering could have been better.

Another thing I've noticed about kids entertainment today is the fixation on youth. Kids' shows used to feature main characters in their 20's and 30's that kids could look up to, emulate-- characters who could provide inspiration when kids wonder what to be when they "grow up".

Nowadays, main characters are largely young teens and children themselves, who for the most part already know better than adults (or worse, parents). Instead of urging children to become heroic grown-ups someday, entertainment sells the idea that they already know everything there is to know about being a decent person, or grants them the experience of being a hero vicariously through their fictional peers.

In the 70's and 80's we had the Thundercats, GI Joe, Transformers, Superfriends, and many more, all of which featured mature adults and young adults as role models. Today we have a Thundercats remake featuring teen rockers, the Teen Titans, and almost every kid's show I see features teens and pre-teens as main characters. What happened to all the grown-ups?

I mean. when's the last time an adult on TV was allowed to talk sense to a kid in a kid's show?

Here's a higher res version of the same promo.

Star Trek TOS Remastered

I don't know what to feel about the new shots. I mainly feel nothing. They don't look terrible, but they still look a little "off" and cheezy, maybe because they tried to replicate the unrealistic camera movements and lighting of the original shots. And speaking of lighting, I would have preferred they used lighting that really "placed" the model in its environment the way the movies did, instead of lighting it any ol' way and slapping it on a space background.

Gritty=heresy apparently. Most people find the new CG 1701 to be too "grid lined" and varigated color-wise---they apparently want the saucer to look like it's molded from one vac-formed piece of grey plastic.

I know the 1701 is sacred, and fans are extremely sensitive to changes in its interpretation, however subtle. I guess I would have liked to see a new model really look like it would belong in a spacedock next to the 1701A from the movies. It should look like a massive ship with its own heft, rather than a smooth chunk of plastic. Now I don't mean I'd want a bunch of crap and greeble added to it... but perhaps there are ways to light, finish, and render/film the surface so that it does look like a real ship rather than a cleaned up simulation of a poorly filmed plastic model.

Being a big Trek fan and reading about it on a Trek forum, I gather the change is 99% only remaking exterior planet and ship shots. And there won't be any artistic/drama changes----they will try to do them exactly the same, star-by-star, only with CG. No "let's add a shockwave ring when it blows up and then have the Enterprise bank away dramatically " SW stuff. And the mirror universe ep of ENT was almost certainly their "test-run" for a Constitution class CG.

Ironically, an added shock ring would be more authentically Trek than a rip-off of Star Wars. It was Star Trek VI that first featured the ring, and it worked. Star Wars then tried to shoe-horn that effect into every planetary explosion they could find in the movies.

I would actually have liked to see the exterior effects brought up to movie quality, with a grand and gritty style and direction that more resembled the original six star trek movies, but this would probably be sacriligeous.

Personally, I like the definition whereby a planet is any object capable of making itself into a sphere (has gravity, and a rotation that doesn't rip itself apart,) and isn't a star.

Reasoning is simple: some people look at the solar system as ONLY nine planets (or eight) plus the sun, the moon, and an asteroid belt. Adding additional planets not only increases the perception of the variety of planets (gas, hot, cold, atmosphered, etc.,) but also opens awareness that there is more than the 9+ objects.

Problem here is that if we define "planet" as anything massive enough to be a sphere, we don't really add diversity or variety to the planet list as far as our solar system is concerned. We end up adding dozens, perhaps hundreds of small, roundish, otherwise boring rocks. Most planets, under this new definition, would be rather uninteresting compared to the nine (or eight) classical planets we're familiar with.

Maybe they'll hire Relient K to provide the soundtrack. Or even play as the Thundercats' rock band.

I'm Lion-O Lyrics

iTunes link

Then again, being fans of the old show, they might refuse because of the mockery they've made of the new one.

I have never heard of an XY female giving birth. Jamie Lee Curtis is a an XY female.

426892[/snapback]

I believed that for awhile, then thought it was an urban legend? Snopes.com states that there's no definitive evidence as to whether Curtis is really XY aside from rumors.

I'd be down for an improved 1/60 VF-1, with a 1/48-esque sculpt and tweaked proportions that feature thicker forearms and a smaller chestplate.

I homestly believe that Bumblebee not being a Beetle has more to do with Volkswagon being kind of pissy, and all "We don't want to be associated with war toys."

I'm sure that there were mass problems with trying to get a tall robot out of an old Beetle, though. Still don't understand why they wanted to make him so tall.

426242[/snapback]

Yeah. I wouldn't have minded so much if Bumblebee ended up being a Prius, Civic, Mini-Cooper or something. Thinking about it, a Mini would have been perfect. The whole point of Bumblebee's character is that he's short, cute, lovable, and thus most relatable to the Bots' human allies. Neither the camaro they've got or its bot mode are any of those things.

And why the heck is the Hummer *Rachet* of all characters? Why isn't the Hummer *Hound*?

I seriously think Bay and crew are concerned about all the wrong things. They seem to be fixated on size for size's sake instead of focusing on characterization. I don't mind updating some of the vehicles, but they should all still have the same vibe as the characters their namesakes come from:

Hound should be an H1 or jeep wrangler (not the prissy H2).

Bumblebee should be small, sporty, and "cute" Mini or Bug.

Prime should be a red cab, long nosed or not, and not sporting hickish flames.

Rachet should be *gasp* an ambulance! Brilliant!

Jazz should be a 911 or a Boxter.

And if any Bot should be a camaro, it probably should be Prowl, since police camaros do exist.

Instead, we've got strange choices of cars and bot modes that scare children. Yay!

And the one police car in the movie is... a decepticon?! O_o

Schweeet. Is there any way to give the 1D more of a neck and make the head sit higher on the chest?

Oh, and any chance you'll be making the line-art accurate head lasers available for purchase? I had the idea of taking a pair of VF-1S lasers, chopping the front laser off and sanding the nub smooth. Is that how you made yours?

What you're ignoring is that Takara did not just take what Hasbro and Marvel Studios created and translate it. They adapted it, heavily rewriting it and totally rescoring it, not to mention totally different voice actors and everything. They Japanized it.

Different voice actors would be a necessity of course. And asian audiences differ in their musical tastes, so I wouldn't be surprised if Japanese TF was rescored. I can't speak about how much was rewritten and if the tone of G1 TF was changed in the rewriting, and I'll concede that TF was (badly?) rewritten and went off in odd directions after its initial American run. So yes, TF was of course adapted to a Japanese audience. But my point was that something core about the American series and characters appealed enough to Takara and Japanese audiences enough that they actually readapted their own toy line and background fiction to match the Transformers branding.

But then again, it could have been a purely economic decision, because after all, they have all this animation that features their toys. Why not use it? Still, the Transformers concept was deemed workable enough to be reincorporated by Takara, even if it started out as an adaptation of their designs for an American audience. That you don't see everyday.

It's not having a less than positive opinion about some aspect of another culture, it's suggesting that anything western is inherently both better than Japanese culture, and that Japan is totally into it strictly because western values are superior and Japan knows it

I don't anyone suggesting that here. Yes, someone dares to suggest that Takara appreciated the trappings of Western culture they got when they adopted the Transformers branding, based on statements Takara supposedly made, but that's hardly the same thing.

And yes, someone dares to acknowledge that Japanese writers injected cultural bits that they thought were corny and perhaps a little bit pandering, but that doesn't smack of racism to me either, because as far as I can tell, the discussion was limited to Transformers and maybe "corny asian humor", not which culture is superior as a whole.

So one more time: Japan did NOT get the Transformers Hasbro/Marvel Studios created. They took the animation and retasked it with a totally new score, new writing, and new actors. HEY, JUST LIKE ROBOTECH.

Or do you want to argue that Robotech is exactly the same thing as Macross?

425897[/snapback]

Course not. But we can note pandering, corny, silly Americanisms in Robotech without implying that Japanese culture is automatically better than American culture. Hey, just like we can do in reverse with Transformers.

What's ironic is that I didn't intitially think the "child porn" used to market KISSPLAY Transformers that big a deal, and thought "oh, that's just a cultural thing". And it is-- animated, underage girls depicted in sexually suggestive poses and situations is a very Japanese thing. That sort of thing might once only have appeared in the ecchi subculture, but it's mainstream enough now to be plastered on toy packaging, presumably to be displayed on retail shelves. Yes, it's a Japanese "adaptation", but after reading this thread and thinking about it, it's also kind of screwed up. And we don't have to be racists to think or say so.

Although I wouldn't say that the original Transformers series is one aimed at anyone but kids, and "maturity" isn't the first thing I think of when the show comes to mind, it does embody some semi-adult themes that make for good storytelling and decent characters. And it does appear to me that the American series did have a great enough impact and identity that Takara actually changed their branding and promotional angle in Japan.

I know it's unpopular in some places to even suggest that something western might actually be decent and perhaps better than its asian counterpart, but it's obvious that the American series did something right that both Takara and Japanese fans liked.

And having an less than positive opinion about some aspect of another culture or ethnicity doesn't make someone a racist. I have all sorts of unflattering opinions about silly things of my own ethnicity, and I would have to agree if someone who didn't share my heritage noted some of the same silliness, provided he/she at least *try* to understand it first and attempt some baseline respect.

Sure, it makes me uncomfortable to hear my thoughts come from his mouth, but that doesn't mean he's racist. It means I have a double standard.

I'm going to have to go with:

Fighter: 1/48 Sure, it's not perfect, but its contours resemble the line art the most. No other toy has captured the swoop of the nose so well.

Gerwalk: 1/48 Nearly faultless. It's legs look amazing in an A-stance.

Battroid: 1/48 Again, there are problems, and sure, the 1/60 might be more "accurate" proportionately in that its body parts are roughly the same sizes and take up the same amount of volume as they seem to in the line art, but again, the sculpt, angles, and contours that make up the 1/48 capture the character and feel of the battroid so much better. In comparison, the 1/60 is a collection of roughly proportionate bodyparts, none noticely out of proportion, but none perfectly accurate that I can really get excited about. For me, there's nothing to hate, but there's nothing to really love about it either.

In the end, I go with what looks and feels better to me and has the right personality, not which chunk of plastic is closer in rough size and shape. It helps the 1/48 that its leg, head, chest, and backpack sculpt is vastly superior and more accurate than anything before it (even if the chest is a tad wide), and I feel that these features define the 1/48's battroid well, even if it does suffer somewhat skinny arms.

And yeah, fun thread. Maybe we haven't talked the 1/48 and 1/60's to death yet.

If we're going to consider Kimagure Orange Road and Urusei Yatsura obscure, my favorite obscure anime probably has to be Maison Ikkoku. It's sort of a KOR with less teen angst.

I just saw it and LOVE da Eastman/Laird style.

Kawabunga!

417944[/snapback]

I liked the Eastman and Laird vibe, but something about the modelling of the heads seemed a little goofy and off, and I felt like the animation needed more weight and impact. I do like how they're very agile in a reptilian/froglike way.

I saw the trailer for his new flick The Prestige yesterday and it looks great!

Cool. Batman vs. Wolverine. Alfred's even in it.

This isn't rotoscoping. This is just some cheap filter put across the digital film. Anybody can do it in photoshop with a click of the mouse.

Stupid gimmick.

414448[/snapback]

Except it is rotoscoping. I've seen a "how this was done" page by the film's makers and the scenes are actually painted, in layers, by hand, in photoshop or something like it. It's not just an automated filter that makes everything look cel shaded.

Mysterious, nauseous, goo that fell to Earth presumably from outer space sold separately.

Everytime I see this topic title, I think "state-of-the-art in revolting toys". Like those silly 80's toys that featured slime and goo.

Old, younger, new, and upcoming movies and this are ALL trailers. And your proclaimed 'teaser' comes in at 1:39.

Except almost all of those trailers contained mostly new footage from the films advertised and proudly featured the main characters of the movies.

The Transformer "trailer" consists solely of old NASA stock footage, some faked Mars rover footage, one second of a shadow of what we guess to be Megatron, and half a blurry second of the actual character, by which we still can't acertain the identity of. That's a tease if anything... and I'd consider it a teaser simply by its apparent function and the effect it has on its viewer, regardless of its actual running time.

Anyway, I've lost track of what this argument was about. As I understand it, it's either an extremely crappy trailer, or a moderately dissapointing teaser, depending on what you wanna call it. Either way, there's all of nothing in this trailer/teaser by which we can accurately judge the movie itself. My main worry for this film is why they haven't shown us more, and I wasn't terribly excited about "Megatron's" design from what I could make out in those few frames, but I won't pretend I have any idea how the actual film is going to turn out.

I seriously doubt it floats.  As has been said, LEGO bricks aren't air tight when they connect, so it'd rapidly fill up with water.  And it'd roll over before it sank, because it's got a flat bottom and would be very top heavy.   If you look at the pictures on brickshelf (http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=126969), you can see he's got a platform underneath it in the water.

411291[/snapback]

I've played with legos enough in the bathtub as a kid to know that they do float. Even though the bricks aren't airtight, the air bubble stays in the cell pretty well because the opening is below the empty air pocket, and the air becomes trapped in the brick. Depending on how it's balanced, it might not stay upright, however.

And it's possible that I've remembered totally wrong.

are we watching the same movie?  Lois yanked out and tossed away the fragment of kryptonite before Supes did the above.

412571[/snapback]

There was that tiny shard of kryptonite that they extracted from him in the hospital scene. I'm guessing small sliver broke off and was still embedded in the wound.

It should have been Tom Welling.

I just can't buy Tom Welling as Superman. He's too pouty, jowly and metro and his facial structure bears little resemblance to the Superman of the comics or Supes as I picture him, but I guess he works well enough for Metro-Superboy on the WB. I feel surprisingly more at home with Routh. My main complaint about him is that his Clark Kent was goofy and meek without being personable, but I put a lot of the blame on the writers, who didn't give Clark many lines at all.