Boxer Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Kawamori has some 'detail up' arts from his artbook- though in my opinion I think they make the mecha look worse. I guess this could be constituted as the 'redesign?' If Kawarmori were to redo Macross (again), or set another series in between 0 and DYRL?, I'd imagine a 'redesigned' VF-1 would look something like the Sneblume (Stealth VF-1), because just about every modern innovative plane nowadays has some kind of stealth feature (points at F-22/21). If a variable aircraft were to come out today, do you think the designers would want to make it stealth-y also, or spend money to have a non-stealth transformable fighter? And yeah I was dissapointed that the Dragon II didn't show itself in M-0 (not that I've seen it...), but I'm also glad that some modern aircraft were there to tie some beliveability to the macross series. Sure, 2000 has come and gone with no south ataria impact (unless there's some MASSIVE coverup ), but still for me anyway it makes Macross beleiveable... just out of sight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metal_Massacre_79 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 but I'm also glad that some modern aircraft were there to tie some beliveability to the macross series. Same thinking I have about the Binaltech/Alternators line with Transformers. Since the designs use real cars you can almost say "wow, maybe it IS possible." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zinjo Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 I suspect that what makes the VF-0 seem "cooler" than the VF-1 is how they CG artists and director showcased all the cpapbilities of what a Variable fighter could do. In particular, the extensive combat use of the Battroid head in fighter dog fights. I found that very refreshing and wished that all the other series' had thought to utilize the full combat capabilities of the variable fighters, in a similar way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostryder Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 (edited) If only a CG VF-1 was introduced in the last episode of M0 (either a Skull Leader or Shin Low-Vis). Fewer would say it is any less cool than the VF-0. Edited March 2, 2006 by ghostryder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1/1 LowViz Lurker Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 (edited) Maybe it is better they didn't show it for noobs who didn't see SDF:macross. Remember what happened in star wars at the end of ep3? (how primitive the control panels looked as if they suddenly went right back into the 70s or something ) Edited March 2, 2006 by 1/1 LowViz Lurker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 Don't worry guys, I respect everybodies opinion and yes Mr. March, I am new to this forum. I'm very open minded and I'm glad that my topic is receiving alot of posts. I'm also noticing that you guys are making more interesting points that I haven't thought about myself. I don't mind you correcting me on anything but don't make your post look disrespectful, even the tiniest bit. I honestly interpreted some of you guy's post on this topic of mine as a little disrespectful. Also folks this is just a message board. We don't have to take this topic very seriously. I also like how fun this topic is becoming. Now back to the subject at hand, If I were to ask SK would he ever redesign the VF-1 and VF-0, I already know for a fact that he would say no. But if I were to show-off my "redesigned version" of the VF-1 to him, he'd probably say "Well this design doesnt look to bad but I think that I should stick with my original classic design. Basically, If I ever could make time to do so, I would draw a picture of what my redesigned version of the VF-1 and VF-0 would look like and show it off to you guys and just maybe some of you guys might change your views .....Hopefully. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostryder Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 (edited) No harm in that, and I think that would be an interesting new thread in the Fan Works section Basically, If I ever could make time to do so, I would draw a picture of what my redesigned version of the VF-1 and VF-0 would look like and show it off to you guys and just maybe some of you guys might change your views .....Hopefully. Edited March 2, 2006 by ghostryder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 2, 2006 Author Share Posted March 2, 2006 I managed to obtain a good picture of the VF-1 in battroid mode that shows how much better and futuristic looking it looks than the original VF-1 Battroid and here it is:image.bmpimage.bmp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 Ummm, no. The VF-1SOL looks WORSE than the VF-1S. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr March Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 (edited) Don't worry guys, I respect everybodies opinion and yes Mr. March, I am new to this forum. I'm very open minded and I'm glad that my topic is receiving alot of posts. I'm also noticing that you guys are making more interesting points that I haven't thought about myself. I don't mind you correcting me on anything but don't make your post look disrespectful, even the tiniest bit. I honestly interpreted some of you guy's post on this topic of mine as a little disrespectful. Also folks this is just a message board. We don't have to take this topic very seriously. I also like how fun this topic is becoming. *snip* 375782[/snapback] I know you're new to the MacrossWorld forums Phalanx, your join date and number of posts make that clear Just keep in mind the audience as well. Most members at MacrossWorld are adamant against "tampering." Even if tampering is not what you propose, it can be easily misconstrued as such in a room full of Macross purists, known for their knee-jerk reactions to anything even remotely resembling say...Harmony Gold. It's like saying "I'd love to redesign salad to include beef" in a message board full of vegans As for the abrasiveness of members, I'm afraid you'll most likely need to grow a thicker skin. Members who give you the benefit of the doubt or take time to explain the ropes to newbies are few. Most of us will just bark at ya. Woof, woof! Edited March 2, 2006 by Mr March Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostryder Posted March 2, 2006 Share Posted March 2, 2006 (edited) Ummm, no. The VF-1SOL looks WORSE than the VF-1S. 375799[/snapback] I like the shoulders and LERXs (if you've ever seen a fighter mode pic) of that thing, but gotta agree that the original VF-1 is more appealing overall. You gotta admit that this thing looks more like a direct derivative of the VF-0 than the VF-1. How does that thing fit in with the macross continuum? Is it just a video game mutant? Edited March 2, 2006 by ghostryder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Ummm, no. The VF-1SOL looks WORSE than the VF-1S. 375799[/snapback] I like the shoulders and LERXs (if you've ever seen a fighter mode pic) of that thing, but gotta agree that the original VF-1 is more appealing overall. You gotta admit that this thing looks more like a direct derivative of the VF-0 than the VF-1. How does that thing fit in with the macross continuum? Is it just a video game mutant? 375801[/snapback] Yeah. Scrambled Valkyrie's a non-continuity game, so teh 1SOL falls in teh same category as... what was the 2036 VF? Ah well... I wouldn't mind seeing the 2036 one show up as a toy, though... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Well ghostrider, according to the Macross Compendium's list of macross games, it says that Srambled Valkyrie takes place a few months after space war one maybe around the middle of 2010 maybe? BTW, ghostrider that's a funny avatar you got there Also, JBO Please tell me that you are being sarcastic when you say that the VF-1SOL looks worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 (edited) Well ghostrider, according to the Macross Compendium's list of macross games, it says that Srambled Valkyrie takes place a few months after space war one maybe around the middle of 2010 maybe? Except it's non-continuity. It's orphaned in an alternate timeline with Macross 2 and every other game prior to the PlayStation. Also, JBO Please tell me that you are being sarcastic when you say that the VF-1SOL looks worse. No sarcasm. No humor. Nothing but the truth. It's gaudy, and the head lasers are too long(VF-11 has the same problem). I'm also not a fan of designs where there's a "shield" rising behind the head. BTW, it's a zero. Jay Bee Zero. Edited March 3, 2006 by JB0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiriyu Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 BTW, it's a zero. Jay Bee Zero. 375885[/snapback] Thanks for the clarification - I had always assumed JB 'OH'. Henceforth, and for perpetuity, you shall be referred to as JB Zero. See, this thread is useful after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 OK JB0 If you say so, I gotta respect your opinion and I still haven't got anybody on this board to agree with me! Not even one person. But like I've been saying before the VF-1 still doesn't look futuristic to me. fart, for that matter ,saying that the VF-1 looks better than a futuristic redesined one is like saying that a 1970 chevy camaro looks better than a 1998 version. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiriyu Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 fart, for that matter ,saying that the VF-1 looks better than a futuristic redesined one is like saying that a 1970 chevy camaro looks better than a 1998 version. 375897[/snapback] Bad example. A '70 Camaro has soul. So does the VF-1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 BTW, it's a zero. Jay Bee Zero. 375885[/snapback] Thanks for the clarification - I had always assumed JB 'OH'. Henceforth, and for perpetuity, you shall be referred to as JB Zero. See, this thread is useful after all. 375896[/snapback] How about just JB? The zero's only there because there's a 3-character minimum on names. OK JB0 If you say so, I gotta respect your opinion and I still haven't got anybody on this board to agree with me! Not even one person. But like I've been saying before the VF-1 still doesn't look futuristic to me. fart, for that matter ,saying that the VF-1 looks better than a futuristic redesined one is like saying that a 1970 chevy camaro looks better than a 1998 version. 375897[/snapback] Both Camaros look good. They're diffrent, but which one's better depends on personal preference. The VF-1 also isn't SUPPOSED to look futuristic. It was designed intentionally to look like contemporary airplanes. And it succeeded at that. Like I said... Kawamori DID redesign the VF-1. He calls it the VF-0. And like the Camaro, both designs have their strong points. And neither looks clownish like the SOL. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Alright you guys if none of you guys don't agree with me then you guys are all gay and your mothers don't love you anymore just kidding I was just fartin around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Alright you guys if none of you guys don't agree with me then you guys are all gay and your mothers don't love you anymore just kidding I was just fartin around 375912[/snapback] THE FUNNY? WHERE IS IT? I CAN'T FIND THE FUNNY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sdf-1 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 What was your age Phalanx? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundown Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 OK JB0 If you say so, I gotta respect your opinion and I still haven't got anybody on this board to agree with me! Not even one person. But like I've been saying before the VF-1 still doesn't look futuristic to me. fart, for that matter ,saying that the VF-1 looks better than a futuristic redesined one is like saying that a 1970 chevy camaro looks better than a 1998 version. 375897[/snapback] I'm guessing that's because to you, "more futuristic" automatically looks better, and newer is automatically better than anything before it. Not everyone agrees, and there are folks who dig classic cars over their modern incarnations. Some of us still feel that the VF-1 is the best designed fighter, artistically, proportionally and aesthetically, and that smoothing out curves in the name of "making something futuristic" doesn't automatically make it look better. None of Kawamori's designs are more simple and more elegant, and it's still the most pleasing design in all three modes. I personally like the YF-21, but the VF-1 beats it by a long shot in my opinion. That VF-1SOL looks like a VF-1 or VF-0 with more junk stuck on it, and not in a good way. If you want an example of an updated VF-1 that doesn't look poop, then take a look at the VF-2's from Macross II. But to ask the original to be redesigned, even if it is an anachronisitic design for the timeline, is, well, kind of silly. Because if we follow that line of thought, *every* valk in Macross is anachronistic and should be redesigned eventually. Even the futuristic YF-19 and YF-22 are based upon real life designs from over a decade ago. There's no way a variable fighter designed in 2030-something would resemble either the X-29 or Northrop YF-23. Nor would it resemble the F-117. And the VF-11 looks less sleek than even the F-22. If you have a problem with aesthetics fitting the timeline, don't just pick on the VF-1. Pick on all of them. But my guess is that the VF-1 looks the most out of place only because modern design conventions have passed its aesthetics by, and because we now have a better idea what something designed in 2009 would look like. But if Kawamori were to redesign the VF-1 to look modern enough to your liking, he'd end up having to redesign all the Valkyries to be that much more advanced looking over the original. I say Kawamori should just design new fighters and leave the original well enough alone. I wouldn't mind seeing a VF-1++ or something to that effect, but I don't want yet another redesign overriding the original's place in the Macross storyline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundown Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 BTW, it's a zero. Jay Bee Zero. 375885[/snapback] Sounds like an automotive lubricant that also takes out pesky grass stains. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 But JB, if you say that SK made the VF-0 as a redesign of the VF-1, why is it's model VF-0? If you ask me I found that confusing. But it seems that some of you guys still don't understand my demand. Like I said several posts before that all I want is an UNOFFICIAL redesign of the VF-1. nothing more and nothing less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundown Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 But JB, if you say that SK made the VF-0 as a redesign of the VF-1, why is it's model VF-0? If you ask me I found that confusing. But it seems that some of you guys still don't understand my demand. Like I said several posts before that all I want is an UNOFFICIAL redesign of the VF-1. nothing more and nothing less. 375923[/snapback] Because we don't understand why a design, that for all intents and purposes is pretty close to what you want, has to be actually be designated "VF-1" for you to be satisfied. If it's so you can somehow erase the actual VF-1 from your preferred private continuity, and so you can pretend it never existed, that's not gonna happen. =P And the VF-0 is a VF-0 because it's designed for a prequel, and because Kawamori doesn't want to eliminate the VF-1 from continuity like you seem to hope he would. But outside of Macross continuity, in this very real world, it's Kawamori's redesign and update of the VF-1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 BTW, it's a zero. Jay Bee Zero. 375885[/snapback] Sounds like an automotive lubricant that also takes out pesky grass stains. 375921[/snapback] *spits on engine* Hey, it DOES cut the grease! But JB, if you say that SK made the VF-0 as a redesign of the VF-1, why is it's model VF-0? If you ask me I found that confusing. Because he made it to use in Macross Zero. As he had an established VF-1 design, and din't want to just say "Screw you fans, your favorite plane is gone," he made up a new backstory and labeled it the VF-0. But it seems that some of you guys still don't understand my demand. Like I said several posts before that all I want is an UNOFFICIAL redesign of the VF-1. nothing more and nothing less. That's what the VF-0 IS. Officially it's a new experiemental plane that existed alongside the VF-1. Unoficially, it's a VF-1 redesign. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hiriyu Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 (edited) How about just JB? The zero's only there because there's a 3-character minimum on names. 375909[/snapback] Nah, JB Zero is better. Edited March 3, 2006 by Hiriyu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Oh now I see what your saying but that makes me ask another confusing and controversial question which would be why would SK make a protoype design with a nice look to it and then make a mainstream model of it that looks kind of crappy? Besides how is it possible that SK could somehow manage to tie this so-called redesigned VF-1 with the VF-0? Even I'm confused about that? You can tell me your explanation on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaHX Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 The way I'm understanding it is that you want an "unofficial" redesign with the "VF-1" label by Shoji Kawamori, right? What does that do? I dont understand the reasoning behind this. Maybe if SDF Macross was redone by Shoji himself, having a redesign could be nice. But why randomly redesign something that has no effect on anything? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phalanx Posted March 3, 2006 Author Share Posted March 3, 2006 Because Alpha X this is something that I personally as well as a very small number of individuals who agree with me would want. Just think of it as a win-win situation for me and those who insist that the VF-1 remain the same. However, it made me wish that SK could have done a redesign of his VF-1 under his own will instead of making me feel more inclined to force him to do so. But under this circumstance, I don't feel that something has to be redesigned unless it's necessary. Also Alpha X when you say that why should SK redesign something that wouldn't affect the series, I would say maybe just for the hell and beauty of it. A perfect example I could think of would be agin with Hajime Katoki's Wing Gundam Kai design. I assume that he decided to redesign the original wing gundam simply because he probably felt that he could make it look better. That's the same way I feel about the VF-1 where I feel that I could make it look better as well. However I also realized that he shouldn't redesign his VF-1 unless it was for a legitamate reason and intentional purpose. BTW Sdf-1 I'm actually 18 years old Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sdf-1 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Ok, that gay mother farting post just made me think you wouldn't be that old... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JB0 Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Oh now I see what your saying but that makes me ask another confusing and controversial question which would be why would SK make a protoype design with a nice look to it and then make a mainstream model of it that looks kind of crappy? *ignores biased descriptions of aesthetics* Because the VF-1 was designed in 1982 for a shoestring-budget TV series and the VF-0 was designed in 2002 for a high-budget OVA. Between technology advances, the much longer time between episodes, and that they were using far more skilled artists, he could stick a LOT more details and widgets on the VF-0. The VF-1 HAD to be kept simple due to production constraints. Regardless of what Kawamori WANTED to do with it, it was for a TV show with very short deadlines and many episodes were farmed out to low-quality animators. A more complex VF couldn't have been drawn in time to make it on the air every week. And the animators regularly screwed up as it is, with lasers shooting from IR sensors, bullets shooting from the head laser, and heads sprouting extra lasers. A more complex design would've just left them with that much more to mess up. The movie DYRL had a higher budget and more time, but the basic design for the VF-1 was already established. The cockpit was totally overhauled, and a lot of detail was added, but they couldn't really redesign the VF-1's basic appearance and still count on drawing the TV audience into the theaters. Besides how is it possible that SK could somehow manage to tie this so-called redesigned VF-1 with the VF-0? Even I'm confused about that? You can tell me your explanation on this. Just LOOK at the VF-0 some time. The designs are so close it's impossible to NOT notice that it's a re-envisioning of the VF-1. Here, I'll save you the trouble... See? The VF-0 is an anorexic VF-1! In continuity, it was designed so close to the VF-1 that they would've HAD to make extensive use of the VF-1 design, given that it was humanity's first variable fighter and the VF-0 was manufactured before the VF-1 entered mass-production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghostryder Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 (edited) Jeez, making this thread any longer isn't going to change people's opinions either way, or magically coerce SK into redesigning the VF-1 officially/unofficially. So, why don't we just respect each other's opinions and channel some of this energy into some fanworks??? Edit: then, we can have something concrete to either applaud or poop on Edited March 3, 2006 by ghostryder Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noyhauser Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 (edited) Besides how is it possible that SK could somehow manage to tie this so-called redesigned VF-1 with the VF-0? Even I'm confused about that? You can tell me your explanation on this. Just LOOK at the VF-0 some time. The designs are so close it's impossible to NOT notice that it's a re-envisioning of the VF-1. Here, I'll save you the trouble... See? The VF-0 is an anorexic VF-1! In continuity, it was designed so close to the VF-1 that they would've HAD to make extensive use of the VF-1 design, given that it was humanity's first variable fighter and the VF-0 was manufactured before the VF-1 entered mass-production. 375999[/snapback] Also remember this: the VF-0 is essentially a fighter that can temporarily transform into a battroid. The VF-1 is a fighter that can remain in battroid forever, its a true all environs fighter. I look at the VF-0 being overly aerodynamic because it needs to care about drag. The VF-1 were freed from these constraints, asdesigners had a new revolutionary engine which could give it far more thrust than anything in service on a limitless basis. They didn't have to worry about having a less than perfect aerodynamic design because they had waay more thrust than they had ever before. Their main concern was building a massed produced solid Varible fighter. The VF-0 is still constrained by traditional fighter limitations, and therefore looks more like a fighter. Edited March 3, 2006 by Noyhauser Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Posted March 3, 2006 Share Posted March 3, 2006 Phalanx, it sounds more to me like you would like to see Hajime Katoki do a redesign of the VF-1. Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.