Mr March

Downloaded the 4th episode sub this morning and left my computer on all day today for other bittorrent users. I just got home, so bittorrent has been on almost 12 hours. I hope that helped everyone out. The episode was good, but was more setup for the final act. Not a helluva lot happened in this particular episode aside from the revelation of Nora's past and the Professor working for the Anti-UN forces. I look forward to the next and final chapter of Macross Zero.

Great topic! I've yet to see several really good directors mentioned in the five pages of this thread (if they have been, please forgive me), so I'll add a few and add my voice to some who've already been mentioned. Steven Soderbergh - The director of Traffic, The Limey, and Sex, Lies, And Videotape, he's definitely one of the few american directors who can properly capture true passion, mood, and realism in a film. Often forgotten as one of the directors who really helped to popularize independant film, his work really seems to stand apart from the masses of modern cinema. Jean-Pierre Jeunet - One of the greatest visual directors of whose work I've seen, Jeunet really blew me away with his capture of color and theme. His film Amelie was an amazing meld of feeling, sight, and sound. While his other works have not gained much noteriety in my corner of the world, I think he's definitely got more up his sleeve. Christopher Nolan - The director of Following and Memento is probably the most promising director of his generation, along side Bryan Singer. From the start, Nolan has nearly mastered the art of making profound out of the simple. His modern, noir-like thriller Memento is an instant classic and one of my favorite films of all time. Gus Van Sant - Having directed films like Good Will Hunting and Finding Forrester have kinda placed Gus in a niche many think he rarely leaves. But Elephant was a really creepy film and still held his signature style. I like the very human stories he creates. Cameron Crowe - While some people, especially artists, often criticize filmmakers who produce work based solely on popular culture, I must say I am impressed with Crowe's ability to tap into the rocknroll soul of American history. His films like Almost Famous and Jerry Maguire manage to be more than entertaining fluff that most would initially label. David Lean - What can I say, I loved Lawrence of Arabia. Lean is pretty sharp on a lot of his work and I admire his skill for the epic. He created a very grand style before most knew what grand on film truely was and stands as a landmark for the North American finance of foreign film. George Lucas - While the director of Star Wars has fallen victim to a lot of harsh criticism since his return to film in the late 90's, he will forever remain one of the most brilliant technical directors who ever lived. His innovation of special effects later bred excess, but also pioneered almost every visual effect in modern filmmaking. Along with other technically skilled directors like Robert Rodriguez, Lucas remains to this day one of the biggest driving forces for new technology in film.

I await patiently

Great stuff!

Are you talking to me or EXO? I'm talking to you Solscud. EXO has already made hi res shots of his picture. I'd like to see 1280x1024 or 1600 x 1200 of your version.

Keep in mind a few things when analyzing stuff like this. One; political correctness continues and will continue to be a barrier to proper communication. Two; no matter how hard you try, someone will always be offended no matter what you say. Three; any word can be used in a derogatory fashion. The current racial climate in some parts of the North America is a perfect example. It's politically incorrect to call black people black, so "african american" was coined the PC term. That is, until it was decided that "african american" is a type of segregation, thus seperating "black americans" from "real americans." As it stands now, I don't think there is any generally accepted term. So how then does one describe a person's looks, whether black, white, or any other? After all, it's not politically incorrect to call someone "red haired". However, once skin enters into the equation, suddenly we aren't describing a person, but we MUST have a racial problem Ultimately, it would be best to be accurate. If you don't know whether a person's from Japan or China, ask. No harm in educating yourself. At worst, you'll get corrected from an angry person with a racial chip on their shoulder. At best, you'll learn something new.

Guess I'll put in my request for 1280x1024 and 1600x1200 too

Thanks ewilen. I guess I was mistaken about the modern warships capsizing. I can't recall where I heard that from, but I once thought it was an early British ship that once did it. But I may very well be mistaken. I'm kinda unclear about the recoil of a laser weapon. While the debate over "little mass" versus "no mass" in photons still rages, I would think there would be some kind of recoil even if the weapon itself fires very little mass.

Please, someone with solid information post something factual in this thread. I'm tired of "what if" threads...though I thank Apollo Leader for letting us all know.

I don't know how you could come to that conclusion since Battle 7 is all but incapable of combat in Fortress mode. I think people misunderstand Battle 7's actual role. In design it's less of a battleship and more of a carrier - it's main offense and defense are it's escort fleet and it's considerable fighter compliment. The Macross cannon is almost a secondary support weapon. The situations that put Battle 7 into the middle of battle and where it's transformation and higher profile could have put it in danger were out of the ordinary, and even then the risk posed wasn't extremely high, due to it's strong barrier systems. I said Macross, not the Battle 7. I've never seen Macross 7 (aside from the first two episodes of 7, the Galaxy is Calling Me OVA, and the movie), so I wouldn't know if the Battle 7 follows the same rules. However, it would certainly suffer from the same failings in Storm Attacker/Robot mode. Regardless, if the Battle 7 can only fire it's weapons in Robot mode, then obviously it would not be useful in Fortress mode. However, if it's true that it is primarily a carrier and its strength lies in the carrier role, then the Battle 7 would do well to avoid transformation too.

I think its a great idea and hope you fellas find help. Now, if you ever want someone to film a behind the scenes documentary on your mod project, I'm your man

Terrible news! Richard Biggs did a fantastic job with the character of Franklin on Babylon 5. He made much more out of the role than the stereotypical "medical character", thanks in part to both his considerable skill as an actor and Joe Micheal Straczynski's writing talent. It's terrible to see people die so young. Humans are meant to pass late in life, not mid life.

Uh, so how will this work for Deer Hunter? The game sucked, but was one of the biggest grossing PC titles of all time. I can see Warner will soon become the defact business to avoid when liscensing game software from this point on. Like American Express, everyone will reject it and simply go to a cheaper option.

Didn't care for it years ago, but now that I'm much older and much more educated in film and the industry, I'll eventually watch it again and comment.

ACK! Note to self: Always read the rest of the posts first Sorry ewilen but I was having so much fun I didn't see myself repesting some of the stuff ya said

Wow, lots of good questions in this thread. From my limited knowledge of physics, yes there would need to what is known as counter force to balance the recoil of a hull mounted weapon system on a spacecraft. In fact, in the real world, some naval ships cannot fire all their weapons at once on a broadside attack for fear of capsizing their own ship In the case of space warfare, ballistic weapons will still produce recoil require some kind of properly angled counter force (like thrusters) to fire during each shot. Now if the ship is big enough and the weapon produces a smaller recoil, the issue becomes less important the more the disparity in ratio increases. But it could be possible for a poorly designed vessel to be spun out of control just by firing a high recoil ballistic weapon. Missiles can be taken care of with two stage firing. First stage the missile is released (thus seperating it from physical contact with the hull) and second stage fires the missiles thrusters and self-propels the missile toward a target. Of course, firing a missile close to one's hull means the particle thrust from the missile's engine could adversely affect the spacecraft's inertia if it's angled poorly Energy weapons are touchy. It really depends upon the TYPE of energy weapon. Particle projection weapons use mass to hurl at a target, just in a different way than a ballistic weapon. Regardless, the particles have mass and thus they would produce recoil when projected. The amount of recoil would depend on the amount of particle mass being projected and how fast. Get a particle cannon shooting at near the speed of light and that's gonna produce one helluva recoil. Energy weapons that shoot particles with very little mass would produce little or no recoil. Lasers project photons (and yes, there is debate whether photons truely have zero mass) and would theoretically produce no recoil. Now to examine a Macross example, the Main Guns of the Macross are clearly some kind of massive particle projection cannons. Although the Main Guns do indeed cause incredible damage to a target via heat (sometimes to the point of vaporization), it's clear the guns primarily cause damage kinetically. The first time they were used in a tight beam firing mode in "Booby Trap", they punched through starships. By all rights, a particle projection weapon like that would produce enough recoil to send the Macross hurtling in the opposite direction at a significant portion of the speed of light Even more interesting is the fact the Macross could never hope to store enough particle mass inside the ship to supply mass for the projection of all the particles in even one shot from the Main Guns. Funny isn't it But don't get ready to crush your suspension of disbelief for Macross science fiction just yet. Kawamori and co were clever too. We know OverTechnology makes extensive use of alternate dimensions in many technologies. The Fold Drive, the Barrier system, the Cyclops Radar...they all use some as yet undisclosed dimension(s) to help the function of these fantastic effects. By that way of thinking, the Macross Cannon may not "project" particles for its main gun so much as it DISPLACES particles from another dimensional source. The guns may simply act as a doorway, opening a temporary portal to some dimension where particles quickly stream. This fictional explanation also conveniently solves the problem of ammunition...weren't they smart

i agree about that. playing with a 3d model of the macross on lightwave i noticed that about 5 of the larger weapons don't face forward in storm. One of the many reasons. Very sharp Zentran Dude!

I'm just not satisfied with the look of the quality of this VF-0 yammie. I want a Macross Zero product as much as the next Macross fan, but I'm just not willing to settle for the weak effort this latest product from Yamato is shaping up to look like. Trial and error has already been done by Yamato on a bunch of like designs, so I see no reason why this VF-0 shouldn't be an improvement over their previous work. I'll save my money for more 1/48's and other Macross merchandise.

As an amateur filmmaker, I can tell you pleated pants instantly denote business. If I wanted to introduce a character in a film with no dialogue, but wanted to immediately sell a visual image of a professional to the audience, I'd go with pleats (assuming I couldn't use jackets, ties, and other paraphernalia). It also works for class distinction and a few other visual cues. Depending upon what you're trying to promote visually for your particular character, keep that in mind. Hope this helps!

WOW! I like how the construction was made with very few lego conection bumps visible. That looks amazing!

Fantastic! Great work.

One of the few times Lucas proved he was capable of a real film about the humanities. Not the best flick, but it was worth watching.

You bring up a valid and very intelligent point Druna Skass. But don't forget, there's a lot more to the practicality of capital ship design than just the number of guns you can bring to bear on your enemy. The ability to target and destroy your enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible is one of the most basic and important rules of warfare. In this regard, the Macross 7 transforming so that all of it's guns can target the enemy and destroy it is valid. Unfortunately, the Macross 7 transformation breaks one of the other important rules of warfare...avoid being hit. In the Storm Attack/Robot mode, the Macross 7 is a much larger target and far easier to hit. Not only that, the surface area becomes so large in Robot mode, virtually every section of the craft can be struck in this mode...even areas that an enemy would not normally be able to target in Fortress mode. Lastly, the many "appendages" of the Robot mode means the ships superstructure will self-obstruct its own weapons depending upon the angle of attack. This is very bad. Ideally, you want your craft to shoot at the enemy as much as possible, ensure that as little of the craft as possible is vulnerable to enemy fire, and that you can move to avoid as much enemy fire as possible. This is basic warfare, and yes, it's not always possible to acheive this...even with modern technology. I always like to use the Star Destroyer from Star Wars as a good example of proper use of military thinking for a fictional space craft. It's one of the few space ship designs in science fiction that actually makes sense AND it maintains continuity with the fictional level of technology within the franchise itself. A Star Destroyer is wedge shaped and the majority of its guns are along the equitorial trench. In combat, the SD can fire 100% of its weapons at any target in a cone of about 20 degrees in front of the ship. At the same time, the majority of the ship is nearly flat and the forward profile of the SD is the least amount of surface area visible to the enemy (compared to all the other angles from which it can be struck). Lastly, the ship can evade enemy fire while still utilizing all of its guns. This is want you want in a warship. Of course there are literally hundreds of other factors in warfare, but these are the basics. I once did an exhaustive analysis of the pros and cons of the Macross Class ship on the old boards a few years back. I concluded the ship was most effective in Fortress mode and it was best never to transform

I really don't like those main stream papers reporting supposedly "insider" news on film. They get it wrong half the time and the way they report it just sounds like gossip. TheForce.net reported on the title about a week ago and rumoprs of the lava thing have been going on ever since fan speculation about concept art on the original trilogy. I'm not really sure what to beleive as true, but I do like the idea of the film being called Birth of the Empire. Much better title than some of the others. As for lava surfing, well, I'll let a movie analogy talk for me... *enters Jack Lord mode* "...boom"

I've been following this for a while. It was mentioned on cinescape a few months back and I think there's a page on the IMDB if I recall. Rodriguez is a good choice for a gritty tale like this and having creator Frank Miller co-direct is a big step in the right direction (pun intended). Though I've never read the comics, it would be a great step towards reading them if I were to enjoy this film. Hope all goes well.