Jump to content

Error on DYRL Game Opening Sequence. . .


Hurin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Was just watching a digital version of the DYRL Game Opening Sequence (you can get it on DVD on the Anniversery DVD available at Valk Exchange I think).

Looks like, just before launching, they screwed up on the number for Hikaru's VF-1A. It is 011 in most shots, but for the side-shot just before he is catapulted off the carrier, it definitely appears as 110.

Yes, nit-picky. . . but it just goes to show that it's not only AnimeFriend. :p

H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's because the animators were using the Japanese style of placing characters on vehicles. If you look at most Japanese vehicles (i.e. police cars, utility trucks), the characters (usually Katakana, Hiragana or Kanji) on the right side are read backwards (right to left). Back before WWII, when the Japanese were reading or writing horizontally, it was from right to left. Then, during WWII, the educational board reversed the style so that alphanumeric characters could blend in with the Japanese characters. The Japanese, however, didn't start writing from left to right until after WWII when newspapers started using this standard.

As mentioned above, most vehicles have the characters posted in reverse - not because the owners have to, but they want to keep with an old tradition. One exception to the right-left rule is Takumi's AE86 in Initial D, which, for some reason, is read normally from left to right.

It's still kind of strange the way they reversed the numbers on Hikaru's Valk, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I though it might be a case of "negative" flipping as well. But then my brain started to hurt when I wondered if it would really cause the 011 to become 110.

But, after reading your post, I fought my way through the pain and came to the conclusion that it probably was indeed just a flipped negative. Or whatever the animation/digital/non-film equivalent is.

H

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is a pumpkin truck filled with satanic pumpkins... really, you guys are nuts. You can't see ANYTHING in that picture. What makes you think it is an Su-33?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

let's try that again

ok, lemme check it out.

landing gear - standard trycicle.

folded backswept wings - checked. looks like a su-27 one. although it also looks like a f-16 one (not enough detail in animation to check out)

back hump typical to the flanker family - checked.

canaards - nop, at least not in the flanker configuration, ground crew blocking a possible vf-11 configuration view, so let's assume they're not there.

nose cone - too big for a su-33, looks like a su-34 one :blink:

canopy - not enough light to really see it. but it looks like a single piece, though.

engine block? - kinda reminds me of a Mig 1.44. also looks like a Karyobin or a Ghost.

intakes - ground crew blocking view.

overall look - like a ghost with wings and a su-34 front fuselage with su-27 like canopy.

therefore, a made up plane. :p

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When will we ever just accept that production companies sometimes mess up?

Oh the stories I could tell of screw-ups in productions I've worked on! It just happens. We're just human beings after all.

What never ceases to amaze me, though, is how we fans try to rationalize production mistakes as being intentional and completely explainable as reasonable parts of the show. (Star Trek fans are notorious for this kind of behavior!) A mistake is just a mistake, laugh at it, shake your head, and let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could there be a rational reason why this frame is flipped? I think we can assume that the producers knew it was flipped... perhaps there was some other glaring issue that they wanted to correct. For instance: that deck officer signalling the takeoff, is he on the right side of the plane? Was there something against him being left handed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What never ceases to amaze me, though, is how we fans try to rationalize production mistakes as being intentional and completely explainable as reasonable parts of the show. (Star Trek fans are notorious for this kind of behavior!) A mistake is just a mistake, laugh at it, shake your head, and let it go.

Star Trek fans are also notorious for trying to generate a coherent timeline from a series that never concerned itself with continuity and is self-contradictory in many places.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, if it wasn't bad enough that they lost the war, they had to learn to read backwards? :blink:

It's bad enough having to learn horizontal and vertical. Maybe this is why the Japanese are good at drawing and design - the ability to understand visual items arranged in multiple dimensions and directions! :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ANAL.

What did you hope to achieve?

Sweet merciful crap, dude! Who pissed in your cornflakes?

I thought it wasy funny/interesting/curious, I posted it. . . and others went off on long diatribes and fanciful conjecture as to why the number was wrong.

The tongue-smiley and the light tone of the original post should have made it clear to you that this was all in fun.

And. . . apparently quite a few people found it interesting as well considering the number of replies (which put a lot more thought and effort into the topic than I ever did!). I was just the person who pointed it out. Other than that, I barely said a word.

But, uh, thanks for coming by and just spouting off about how lame we all are. Much appreciated. I'll be sure to think to myself: "Will max enjoy this topic?" before I post again.

H

Edited by Hurin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...
ANAL.

What did you hope to achieve?

Sweet merciful crap, dude! Who pissed in your cornflakes?

I thought it wasy funny/interesting/curious, I posted it. . . and others went off on long diatribes and fanciful conjecture as to why the number was wrong.

The tongue-smiley and the light tone of the original post should have made it clear to you that this was all in fun.

And. . . apparently quite a few people found it interesting as well considering the number of replies (which put a lot more thought and effort into the topic than I ever did!). I was just the person who pointed it out. Other than that, I barely said a word.

But, uh, thanks for coming by and just spouting off about how lame we all are. Much appreciated. I'll be sure to think to myself: "Will max enjoy this topic?" before I post again.

H

Hrm.. there doesn't seem to be a 'cry me a river dickface' emoticon...

Dude, I wasn't singling you out. So let the good times roll. Some peepz on this forum are soooooooo sensitive!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...