Noyhauser

Personally I can't watch most "historical films" because they are horribly inaccurate. I can't help but pull apart Saving Private Ryan for each and every inaccuracy, never mind its plot holes. And that goes for a whole host of other films as well. But with Hotaru no haka, I certainly disagree with the contention that this film ignores history in the ways that you would suggest. The film was adapted from an autobiographical story of Seita (who actually did survive). Its his experiences as a child, who wouldn’t be able to grasp such concepts. If anything it’s a tribute to his sister. The following is part of an interview done by the author of the book: http://nausicaa.net/miyazaki/grave/interview.html I get the impression from this quote that the book was never about war and who was right or wrong but about these two children’s personal struggle, and as jelenien so put it "how people suck." ITs not supposed to answer those questions you want to saddle it with. Moreover the choice of adapting this book begs the question, why would someone adapt it in the first place. We're talking about Isao Takaha and Miyazaki here. I don't think these two individuals are anywhere close to the right wing propagandists or apologists that both you and sundowner are trying to paint them as, or even individuals who are minutely ignorant of history. Miyazaki has always had left leaning tendencies, and I suspect he would be the first to acknowledge Japan's culpability in WW2. Watching both of their films, there is a clear message towards the aversion to war and violence. Look at Nausicaa, or Laputa. In Nausicaa, the protagonist is all about peace and understanding with nature. You can draw clear lines with Dorok empire and how "bad" empires can be, even when righteous in their retaliation. Cooperation and understanding are key themes, and there isn't a wiff of apologizing for Japan’s atrocities in those films. To call Hotaru some sort of Japanese apologist piece, whether intentional or not, would be a major aberration from the themes these two artists have pounded over and over again. However, when viewed through the lens of their other films, it is clear that this film does follow their long tradition in pacifism, and the view that certain individuals are the ones that are hurt the most by war. I think the use of Japan in 1945 was not intended as some apologist piece, but as a way for people to identify and understand the core message that they consistently try to get across. So really, the contention that these directors are ignorant of history, doesn't really hold any water. I think they have been quite perceptive in the past about the causes of war, in ways that very few other artists ever have. Read Miyazaki's Nausicaa manga, and you'll see that.

Wouldn't you rather see them make more stuff in 1/72 than ANOTHER VF-1 variant? (in any case thats probably more likely than a VF-11 or VF-17 will ever be)

And what has HG done since then? Rereleasing the original trilogy 100 thousand times, mining that community to death, putting out a forgettable series of comic books, and forever hinting that they are going to release a "sequal" and a bunch of poorly made toys, while restricting the release of quality products associated with the actual line. Compare that to Macross Zero, 7, Plus, the Hasegawa/Yamato merchandise ect. Whose got the better track record of supply us with macross goodness, and perpetuating the fan base? I think the answer is pretty clear. PS. I watched Macross as a child, not robotech.

Possibly, but not by design. The large size of the VF-0 is because it uses a conventional fuel powered jet engine, while the VF-1 uses a smaller and more efficient Thermonuclear engine. Being larger doesn't = better. Given that both machines have similar thrust, but the VF-0 weighs 3000KG more and has a larger aerodynamic profile, the VF-1 would run rings around the VF-0, and be more of a threat against the Zents. also the VF-0 has a finite fuel supply, something thats gotta hurt it compared to the VF-1

To be honest, I'd rather get purpose made ones for modeling for obvious reasons. Also it saves me the time to go to Walmart when I can have it delivered to my door (walmart is a bit of a ways for me in any case, it an afternoon I don't have). Thats actually another reason why I don't like using the airbrush, my modeling "life" usually consists of 30 minutes every two nights or so, and If I spend 20 minutes setting up and dissassembling and cleaning, I'm not really having much fun doing it. Oh, and I've got a pinvice.

David, I'm easily convince-able, and I know exactly what you're talking about. So which one is the question? Are these the ones you're talking about? http://www.hlj.com/product/TAM74046 http://www.hlj.com/product/HSGTT-2 Entire list of HLJ files. http://www.hlj.com/hljlist2/?Dis=2&MacroTy...etail&Word=file

Coby: I've got a small pin vice, and I agree with you, if I didn't have one, I'd need one. A bit of clarification is in order... I've done alot of modeling over the years, and I've got all the basics. I can do everything I needed to, but I was looking for stuff that I didn't have that would make a difference. Seeing WM's buildup I noticed the scribing tool. I use a chipped end of an exacto knife and a bit of sanding to do the same effect, but a scribing tool would be better. the Putty I currently use (the testors stuff) IS crap. Even with thinning it doesn't get into the spaces I want it to, or take the right shape. Mr Surfacer is what I need. Ido, Coby, WM, your suggestions are great. I've already ordered most of the stuff you've recommended.

Completely agree with you. That actually sums up my point better than I did in 3 paragraphs.

The thing is, this seems to be the only perspective the Japanese have as a culture-- as unfortunate victims because they engaged in non-specific "war". And while a more comprehensive background on WW2 would probably be out of scope of the story, there are plenty of opportunities to drop in historically relevant hints which in my opinion, would add depth to the telling. So Graveyard's perspective isn't really unique... it seems to be the only perspective that Japanese culture at large has. See, I'm not sure this question is ever really asked, because from the Japanese perspective, the audience Graveyard was made for, the answer would be a rhetorical no. Japan did lose the war after all. For the rest of us, we have to struggle with whether the suffering of innocents is a price worth paying in order to stop the aggressive military regime under which they live. And our answer might be a hesitant yes. But its intended audience doesn't have to do any of that soul searching, because history has already responded for them. 372856[/snapback] So now we base how good a film is completely on its culture's failings. If Hotaru doesn't own up to the sins of Japanese agression in the 1930s then OBVIOUSLY it can't be a good film... My point still stands, you're trying to make Hotaru out as some epic, when its not that, nor is it supposed to be. What does it do? tells the story of children in war. If it was a film about Tojo, or a Japanese solider, then yes it should be judged on how it deals with the subject matter of the war, I'd even expect it to. But it isn't about that. The children are essentially detached from war, they don't know what its about except when the B-29s come. Saddling this film with some deep exploration of guilt would ruin the story itself, because its not even within their realm of understanding. Would flashing pictures of the rape of Nanking have anything to do with their experiences? One of them wasn't even born at the time of Pearl Harbour... what relevance would that have to her? The film follows THEIR experiences, and you are supposed to emphasize with them, not Japan. Your point about feeling manipulated into feeling bad about them, just emphasizes your line of thinking. No matter what evil Japan committed in WW2, they had no part in it. It doesn't matter whether they were German, British, Iraqi, or Serbian children. They still suffer, and they have little to do with the war. And if you want to get into a societal level argument, I don't disagree that Japanese haven't confronted their legacy in the second world war as germany has. I won't go further because thats getting into politics. That said, it still doesn't make Hotaru any less of a powerful film, or has anything to do with that.

The problem I personally had with Graveyard, despite its dramatic direction and technical merit, was that it wasn't a history lesson at all. It never once dares to ask why the main characters were suffering. Partly because the answer, from my Western mind, is painfully obvious and potentially embarassing to a Japanese audience. In WWII, the Japanese government engaged in campaigns of conquest across Asia and ultimately attacked the United States unprovoked. That is the key historical instigator of their civilians' suffering-- simply put, the Japanese government brought war upon their own. If we're expected to sympathize with the characters, then I think it's only fair to ask what the root cause of their suffering was. I think that would be fair. Instead, the only answers we're given is a generic "because of war". And from a certain narrow viewing of the movie, "because of allied planes, and thus, allied forces. Oh, and war." So the problem I have with Graveyard is that it's a narrow view of personal suffering divorced from a greater reality, which combined with a culture that only seems to remember the atomic bomb, doesn't do much to give viewers the perspective they badly need. They learn only that "war is bad", while true, fail to understand that it's unjustified military aggression that is truly evil. In fact, war may sometimes be necessary in the face of that aggression. Anyway, I know we've covered all this before, and I don't want to get terribly political here, but as art, I think Graveyard fails to say what needs to be said and what needs to be heard. It fails even to hint at the real situation, which I think would add more to the fabric of the personal story rather than being a distraction. Without perspective, Graveyard becomes somewhat of a meaningless pity story, and to someone who does have that perspective, they can only scream incredulously at the set, "but-- but-- but-- what about the Japanese government that were every bit responsible?!" And to me, that glaring ommision almost seems to be manipulative, and even unintentionally deceptive. 372702[/snapback] I understand your point Sundowner, but I think you're coming from this movie from the wrong perspective. This movie isn't supposed to be a historical lesson in the ways you're looking at it. I think adding a whole "who was guilty for WW2" reading would be fundamentally at odds with the theme of the movie, and would weigh it down. Everything about Hotaru is from the children's perspective, The B-29s seem far away and distant, you see the story from their eyes, their suffering. What do they have to do with war itself? Did they have any bearing on what decisions were made? One wasn’t even born in 1941, so the concept of guilt is somewhat irrelevant to them, especially at their age. Its indirectly represented by the pride the main character has for his father in the navy… and there is a sense of foolishness there, but that’s his views on it, and you see it as quite simple, as it should be for a child. This movie is not about some greater question dealing with guilt, its purely and simply about their suffering. I think too many films attempt to do what you are suggesting (the post Vietnam films are examples of this), and many fail spectacularly at it. Hotaru avoids that by strictly looking at the characters’ experiences, and reminding us about their suffering. Is their suffering worth a greater good? That’s up to you to decide, but that is not the issue this movie attempts to answer, and good on it for not doing so.

Casshern, I heard about this. Was this some dude that looked like a mecha-ninja? It was a Japanese live action/CG production if I remember correctly? 372492[/snapback] Yes, a very terrible live action with very heavy CG... Wow, I'm just speechless... Hotaru is one of the finest pieces of storytelling I have ever watched, and most people who have seen it say the same thing. How you could even consider posting it in a thread called "the worst anime" is beyond me, or say that "its success is based on word of mouth, but its really plotless" It deserves every accolade it gets. It told war in a way that few films would ever dare to, and the story reflected that. There isn't any great climaxes or huge story lines, but it showed the true hardships of war, the stuff that you never ever see, that people should know about. I guess once the B-29s passed by your interest in the film must have plummeted.

The Manga is amazing, one of the best lately and if you google it you can read them online... I really recommend you go and do that, even if you don't buy the set. I've heard though that the series doesn't really stand up to the manga.

I've got a airbrush/compressor.... however I'm trying to get better at just doing things by hand painting. I find hand painting as more enjoyable, even if it doesn't look as good. And I'm getting better at it. How long does a bottle of surfacer last? I've gotten 2-1000 and 1-1200 I've got the Hase scribing hand saw, 2 Tamiya Putty tubes, 1 Tamiya surface compound (just the regular one, is that good? and is there any other use for it?) The Wave option decals (any suggestions on parts?) and the very fine grit sand paper set... any other suggestions?

I've recently come into a bit of a surplus, and have purchased a couple of models/resins, and I'd also like to spend a bit on my supplies. For most of my life I've used basic supplies (a full set of Tamiya paints, tweezers, exactos, brushes ect.) but its those cool extras that I see people use I'd like to pick up. So suggestions please? I'm probably going to buy the bulk of my stuff from HLJ, so suggestions from that site would be most helpful. Some of the stuff I'm looking at. Mr Surfacer (which ones and how much?) that Hasagawa scribing tool (is this a good one?) The Tamiya polishing compound (I see a lot of you using it for canopies, is there other uses?) I need a new putty to go along with surfacer. Is there a Japanese equivalent of metalizer?

Not exactly Anime, (but given the amount of CG, it might well have been) But my friend and I had to shut off the Movie Casshern 3/4ths of the way through it was so bad. within 5 minutes we had already lost the plot, and no amount of fancy visuals was going to save that movie.

2020~2035 Its a period of expansion, a lot of new stuff coming online like the VF-11, the VF-17, 14 ect.

I've been building models for at least 15 years, and at this point I'll probably never switch away from Tamiya. I'm at the point where I've probably gone through 50~100 bottles of it over the years in various colours, and I've rarely had a problem with it. I use it for everything. Originally I started as a 1/72 WW2 Aircraft, got into 1/35 Late German dioramas, I still do miniatures, mostly Heavy Gear, but really I've attempted to stick to 1/72 stuff exclusively. I think the advantage of tamiya stuff, is that you can use it for just about everything. Granted its not the best in certain areas, but overall I've found that its done me pretty good. As a airbrush paint Its the best I've used, hands down. I can't think of a time after that I wasn't satisfied about how it went on... its always looked amazing. There are a few areas it is weak, the Gunmetal is terrible, I don't know if its me but the silver always causes me problems, and I too have had problems with flat flesh. What I'm trying to get better at now is hand painting 1/72 aircraft (rather than airbrushing, which is universally the best way to do things, but I like a challenge) And with each project I'm starting to get a better feel for it (multiple levels without stripping the base layer is a new trick I'm trying to learn). Using the Tamiya thinner is vital, I used to use the big bottle of 97% isopropylnol, and it never worked right for brushing.

I'm suprised you didn't break the rear thrust vectorers... those things are REALLY fragile.

to be honest, I find gamecube as being one of the most underated systems out there. PS-2 really is a single player or 2 player system in my mind. Its a bit antisocial, most of the games tend to engross you in the game, in exclusion of anything else. Personally, after playing games for 20 years, I'm starting to realize what a waste of time it is essentially living in someone else's fantasy world. Gamecube (64 before it) was stellar because they weren't great single player platforms, but because they enhanced social situations through good simple fun. The best time I've ever had playing a console is with 4 good friends a flat of beer and goldeneye. I spent this last new years with 8 friends playing super mario strikers, having a great time of it. I can't recall a single spectacular time playing a single player game on ps2, computer ect, but I can remember some of the best times I recall are with playing some multiplayer nintendo game. You can even get girls who would normally never touch a ps2 into a gamecube game no problem, and thats what Nintendo is amazing at, accessable fun gameplay. I think thats been somewhat lacking in other consoles, and competely un-appreciated. You might disaree with that, but I've got completely different priorities now with how I enjoy games. Nintendo has for quite some time now pushed towards making games more fun without all the complexity and geekdom found in other systems. And I think that should be acknoweldged.

Beverly Hills Cop 2 Die Hard 3 I normally hate sequals too.

Yes this movie is entertainment, yes it is meant to just get a dialogue going... but all that depends on intelligent people seeing the movie and taking the right steps afterwards. There are a lot of people out there who will exit that theater and file the movie away as fact in their brains subconsiously, doing to followup at all and it will affect how they feel and react to things in the future. I find that just scary. 356481[/snapback] Thats why I'm so harsh on this movie. It simply isn't a good drama or anything the reviews said it was. Brutal, suspensful nor thrilling. A good example of a good drama would be Finding Neverland. I read up on the real story behind it and frankly it was really screwed up. J.M Barrie sounds like a loon in real life but they managed to get a good screenplay from the source material. If this movie (Munich) wasn't based on a historic event I think people would truly see how boring it is. IMO. I'm suprised IA liked it, we usually agree on movies. 356507[/snapback] Actually I'd agree with that, I thought Finding Neverland was a good movie adaptation, even if It was completely untrue. I liked it, as did my GF at the time.

Sorry! I can't help myself, especially when its part of my living. You're right though, discussing politics on an anime message board = pointless, and thats why I didn't post on it earlier.

One night in september is on tonight, so I'm going to watch it. I think I'll try to go see Munich on New Years Day.

Well I might as well get my two cents in before this gets locked. The problem with your "assessment" is that you completely ignore the link between terrorism and societies. People who are terrorists, they're essentially too far gone to be reasoned with. Military means are all we have to deal with them. I'm by no means a dove, or ignorant about the need for military force to deal with these people. However they in some part are radical reflection of the sentiments held by a society (or a part of it). Without a base, radicalism will not survive. People don't go out to become terrorists because they are mentally insane. Almost universally, credible psychological studies of terrorists show that they are all rational human beings devoid of neurosis or psychological disorders. They don't carry out violence because of a love of it, or moral collapse, its because they feel that they have no other way to achieve the situation they believe they are entitled to. If a society feels that they are persecuted or under attack, more people will be willing to carry out terrorism because they feel that traditional means political participation (peaceful political movements ect), are insufficient to meet their needs. Many of the policies of the west although effective in attacking terrorists themselves, only inflame sentiments in muslim world. And it doesn't matter if in the nuances that we didn't intend to do something. Accidentally killing civillians using a precision guided munition, or isolated torture are only viewed through blood red tint by people who already have a skeptical view of the west... and thats a lot of people in the middle east. You can't just "destroy everybody," without addressing the grievances that underlie the terrorist groups. That doesn't mean we have to give them what they want, but we must keep in mind why they are doing what they are doing, and try to do something about it. Most of the time, its something we would consider as absolutely basic in our society, freedom, economic propserity, ect. But in some cases, we can't deal with them, as in Al Qaeda, however we may be able to remove the base for these groups support. The Israeli has killed thousands of Hamas fighters, eliminated its leadership many times over, and yet the group is now stronger than ever. If we don't understand link between societies and terrorist groups, we're doomed to lose in the end. (edited with some minor tweaks)

Hmm, I've been thinking, maybe this isn't that bad. Yes he has taken some liberties, and its not the most accurate portrayal, but from what I've heard its not at all bad, and in many ways captures the theme in a way that hasn't been done before. Funny enough, if you think about it, its far easier to write, film and produce a documentary than it is to make a film on it. Reality is easier to handle than reality based movies. There are countless hundreds of documentaries done on Northern Ireland. But none of them engendered the controversy that the 2002 movie Bloody Sunday did. And if you see bloody sunday (or have seen it) its quite a good movie actually. It too suffers from historical inaccuracies, but its pretty faithful and even handed in its treatment. It allows people to engage with a subject that confronts their stereotypes. I get the feeling that this is what Munich attempts to do. I think in a lot of cases people are reluctant to let go of their stereotypes of their enemies, or situations they don't understand, and and the greatest reaction is illicited from these people when those views are challenged. I think thats whats needed here. If people can come to understand each other better, maybe thats a good thing, rather than looking at each other as absolute evils and operating under that assumptions. Downfall portayed Hitler, as a real, delusional man, not some ten headed mythical evil monster. Thats something that is very hard to grasp reading a book or watching him speak. I still don't know if it made him even more scary to me ( conversely when many people thought that humanizing him was a bad thing.) I think giving the film makers a bit of artistic leeway enabled them to do this, which was an excellent thing.