posted
I got the recently made "Macross Zero" five-part prequel series, done in Anime/CGI combination, very much like "Ghost in the shell: Stand alone complex". It is most glorious.
If the Blazers-movie will be anything like that, and with the japanese battleship, I'm looking forward to it.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by bX: (So do people who take disproportionate offense whenever the Westernly corrupted names of anime are used fall into the same catagory of those who feel compelled to like differently for the sake of setting themselves apart? What are the rules regarding subbed/dubbed? I am asking and not only trying to be snarky.)
I will insult at anyone who takes disproportionate offense over anything, so I'm quite fair. Unless they say "Bejita" though, in which case I will buy a plane ticket, fly to wherever the hell it is they live, and then urinate on them while they sit in front of their friends/hentai collection. And then I will smear their car with poo.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: I think it's the (too American-ized) "Arizona" treatment.
"Argo" sounds sooo much better.
There was a supposedly incredible Starblazers video game that I dont think ever made it to the states.
posted
That next to last link is a clip of Macross Zero. Think I'm going to watch the whole series now. Good a time as any. Excelsiorrr!
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I keep the storylines separate. I like the Robotech storyline (Macross Saga, Sentinels, Southern Cross, New Generation), as well as the Macross stuff (Superdimension Fortress Macross, Macross II, Macross Plus, Macros Zero...).
With Star Blazers... I dunno. I like that they retrofittted the Yamato. The Arizona is a horrible candidate. I do think the new ship should be renamed, and I like Argo. The characters... I think the names in the English version are pretty lame, but at the same time, I don't want such an international-looking crew to all have Japanese names either. Plus, some of the science in Star Blazers was atrocious, and I keep forgetting to check to see if it's straight from USY, or if it's the result of stupid American translation. The voice actors were well cast, though...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
Teh PW
Self Impossed Exile (This Space for rent)
Member # 1203
posted
quote:Originally posted by Pensive's Wetness:
quote:Originally posted by Nim: That next to last link is a clip of Macross Zero. Think I'm going to watch the whole series now. Good a time as any. Excelsiorrr!
i'll warn you now, at the end of the series, it will seem like K-Dawg was smoking a VERY big bong at the beginning of episode five, but once you get to see Shin battle Nora, while BOTH their VF-0A and SV-51's are doing cobra tilts, you be asking for a passing from that bong too, with a very big 'Fucking Out-A!' smile too!
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim: Its deep-running observations on the needs of human beings and how they are met are expressed through each subplot and event, coming together to form a cohesive and layered whole that can scarcely be compared to the hackneyed, juvenile antics of, say, TWOK.
You take that back right now, mister. TSFS you could call hackneyed, TVH, trite from a certain point of view, TFF, I don't think you'll find any arguments there, and while TUC has its fans, it was definitely patterned after the Greatest Star Trek Film Of All Time Evar. No, but I'm not sure how the themes of all-consuming vendetta, loyalty, old-age/mortality, sacrifice, and the destructive aspects of creation could be catagorized as juvenile antics. I doubt Melville or Dickens would be inclined to agree. I don't see in what way bringing these elements together in a thrilling action movie that just happens to be set in in literal space directly proportional to those well-worn human themes--so you wind up with the main character in the throes of real pathos in the midst of a space-battle action-adventure saga with a final resolution so painful and yet so beautiful could be counted as hackneyed. Attack the other films if you must, talk about how Chekov wasn't in "Space Seed", mock the popularity of the Ceti Alpha system but if you go after the storytelling or themes in Khan, you better back that shit up. I am fully prepared to throw down for the second Star Trek movie.
I love this post.
Star Trek needs/needed/will need more fans like you.
Seriously.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
But will he dig Ben Aflek as Kirk? SCARY RUMOR.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I have no problem with the themes of TWOK--friendship, age, obsession, sacrifice, parental responsibility, etc--but rather with the way in which the writers and director chose to carry those themes across. Take Khan as The Evil VillainTM, for example. Evil VillainTM-type characters are a ridiculous and hackneyed Hollywood movie plot device in general, but turning Khan into one was an especially stupid move. In "Space Seed" (TOS), Khan was cunning and ruthless, but not evil and hateful for the sake of being so. The key element of that episode and of Khan's character was the ambiguity of the line between being a strong leader who looks after his people and being a tyrant who goes too far. Kirk, McCoy, and Spock debated whether Khan and his ilk were to be admired or reviled, coming to no definitive conclusion, and of course McGivers had her own ideas.
Flash forward to TWOK, Khan has turned into just another Evil VillainTMa la James Bond. For all the lip service that his genetically-engineered intellect gets paid, we really see nothing of it. There's no depth or reason to the character. He's just a nemesis for Kirk, and the great bulk of the plot is just constructed as an excuse to bring the two of them into conflict. (Along with carbon-copying numerous other elements from TWOK, Nemesis would [unsurprisingly] do the same thing with Shinzon and Picard, only there was no nostalgia factor to mitigate the response to that film.)
Additionally, look at all the incongruities in the movie that can only be the result of sheer thoughtlessness on the part of the writers/director/production staff: -- Why is the entire former bridge crew of the Enterprise conducting an inspection of the ship together? -- How could the Reliant crew possibly mistake Ceti Alpha V for Ceti Alpha VI? -- Was Kirk really so irresponsible that he never reported the Ceti Alpha system as Khan's location, so that other ships could avoid it? -- Why do all of Khan's followers look like 20-year-olds? -- The Enterprise is the only ship in the QUADRANT??? Besides, what about the Reliant? As far as Starfleet is aware, she's only days away from Regula. (If SF had called upon the Reliant to investigate, they would have found something amiss and the whole film would be cut short! Can't have that, can we?) -- McCoy doesn't scan Chekov and Terrell? (If he had, he would have detected the Ceti Eels.) -- If Khan "never made it down" to the Regula One's transporter room, how did he get aboard the station? Site-to-site transports were extremely dangerous at this time. -- Why does Scotty bring his injured nephew from engineering to THE BRIDGE instead of Sickbay? -- Where the hell did Khan learn Klingon proverbs? -- 23rd-century starships have torpedoes that are loaded and fired manually by deckhands??? -- If the Mutara Nebula could have been used to test the Genesis Device in the first place, then why was the Reliant out looking for a testing ground? -- They can't just BLOW UP the Genesis Device before it finishes building up to detonation? -- Kirk needs a lousy pair of 400-year-old glasses to read? They don't have corrective surgery or contact lenses in the 23rd century? -- Why do we have huge spacecraft maneuvering at proximites of mere hundreds of feet?
I could go on with this, but it's getting tiresome. You may say that these things are not important and that I'm just nitpicking. You may say that you enjoy the movie so much that they don't bother you. Fine. I enjoy (parts of) it too, and I'm not saying it's the worst movie or the worst Trek ever, by any means. It's not anywhere near on par with TMP as far as coherent and well-thought-out sci-fi drama is concerned, though.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
Shik
Starship database: completed; History of Starfleet: done; website: probably never
Member # 343
posted
Do you really want answers to any of those? I could probably pull a few out from my rectal TARDISspace if you like.
-------------------- "The French have a saying: 'mise en place'—keep everything in its fucking place!"
Registered: Jun 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course you could, but the point is that you should not have to. It shows a lack of creativity and careful planning on the part of the writers and director if the fans have to invent ways for the plot to make sense.
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
ANY film can be similarly deconstructed. Especially TMP. I'm sure we can all collectively come up with a similar number of plot holes for that film. Especially your no. 5 - just because TMP was the first film to use the "only ship in range/in the quadrant/etc." excuse doesn't make it any less silly than all the other occasions.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic