Noyhauser

No that's exactly what he had in mind, its supposed to be a movie with an agenda, and that is to promote peace. And to be honest, I have never seen a war/historical movie that really did justice to an event, where I couldn't pick out the holes where history took a back seat to storytelling. I think the best that many can do is to maybe illuminate perspectives on issues. The Battle Of Algeris is a great film, not because its a perfect portrail of the history of The Algerian Civil War, but because its got some pretty deep scenes that offer clues about terrorism and peoples attitudes in trying times. The Cafe Bombing Scene is maybe one of the most startling cinematic pieces ever filmed. It made people look behind the veneer of the dehuminization of terrorists. Who did it, why did they do it? How could rational people carry out such violence. Thats what I think its good for at times. Some of the best war films aren't even based on real events. Bridge Over the River Quai was only loosely based on events, but it opened up a pandora's box worth of questions. In the end, I should say that I don't really go to movies to "get educated." I work in this field, and I have a very hard time watching any movie without immediately pulling it apart. Even documentaries piss me off. Furthermore movies (as a personal choice) are a bit of escapism for me. I tend not to go to movies in a search for my conscience, I'm there usually because I want to I want to see a guy getting hit in the nards with a football. I don't want to sound like an Ivory tower academic, but I think in a lot of cases Directors should focus more on basic storytelling, rather than delve into matters they may have a limited conception about, but hold strong personal convictions in any case.

I don't think its possible to ever put something like this into context. If you ask about what happened at munich then to contexualize, don't you need to bring up the six days war? and then before that 1948, or the Balfour Declaration, and it goes on. I think there is a point where you cut it off from, that strikes a balance between storytelling and realism. I've heard pretty even handed criticisms of it from both sides, which in my experience usually means its probably either horribly off, or somewhere in the comfortable middle. If he really wanted to disgrace the Israelis he would have included Lillehammer, thats for sure. So I assume its got an even bent to it. I think they introduce what happened at Munich as the central concept. Its pretty hard not to know what happened, and what some people did. So I don't think its skewed at all (from what I've heard and read).

Oh, and I didn't mean good as in good terrorists. I should have said accurate portrail. Which its decently accurate from what my friends say, and alot better than what has been offered before.

I had a long reply ready to go, but I asked myself the question, what would it accomplish? I've got a LOT of points of disagreements with your post, Hiro though, and I'll leave it at that. I haven't seen the movie, (I'm going to) but I'm intersted, since I did my masters in group psychology and how it relates to terrorist groups (specifically Islamic ones). Interestingly enough some of my collegues said it was pretty good, and its portrail of terrorists was pretty good. Maybe one of the best since the Battle of Algeris. Although they noted that it had the glaring ommission of the Lillehammer assassination, where mossad got the wrong man. But oh well... I'm interested to see it.

You're forgetting the international merchandise rights 355607[/snapback] No no no, its much too early for that. They'll only assert those when Space Gandam VI comes out, and they figure they can get a piece of all the royalities and intellectual property associated with it.

I can see it now... Harmony Gold, in conjunction with ADV is Proud to announce the Latest Installment of the Robotech Saga, Space Gandam V! HOUSTON, September 19, 2005 Harmony Gold is pleased to announce a definitive new addition to one of the all-time greatest anime sagas, Space Gandam V! Utilizing never before seen, cutting edge Korean animation acquired through an intermediary company associated with providing janitorial services for the parent animation corporation. Tommy Yune believes it to be the greatest installment yet. "I was working on shadow chronicles, and I just felt something was off. Then I by chance saw Space Gandam V and I was blown away. The travails of the Space Gandam, its realistic portrayal of war and deep story line was that fresh new direction that I was looking to take the saga. What was even more encouraging was that Reba West was eager to work with us again....

Was it even in mosepeda? I thought it was just a robotech creation.

LOGH - In my opinion, probably the best Anime ever made, bar none. You watch it not for its graphics, but for the story and the world. It makes Macross look like it was written by a 4 year old with a crayon... and I love macross.

Agreed, especially with this and whom ever said the comment before about DS9 making the federation look weak. I'm going to majorly geek out on this one. In Enterprise, Earth is a virtual nobody... none of the major races have any reason to be worried about humans because they are so primitive. So Earth tends to get ignored, and are only threatened by the other bottom feeders. But by the Original series, Starfleet becomes a major threat... so the races start reacting more violently towards it. Thats why Kirk is still exploring, but its a bit like the wild wild west as Kaze said. In the time between TNG and the Original series, the UPF becomes THE major player in the alpha quadrant. The weakening of the Klingon empire in the Undiscovered Country and the withdrawal of the romulan empire ensure that the UPF becomes the largest superpower. Remember in Star Trek VI, they are even thinking of scrapping starfleet... presumably thats how big the klingon threat was, and how little they were worried about anybody else. By the first season, there isn't any major threats to the security of the UPF, with the exception of border wars like with the Cardassians. So they could build ships that had families inside. Remember that in the Alternate universe episode where the Enterprise C comes back, the Enterprise D is a pure battleship, without families, because there is a major threat. Even the re-emergence of the Romulan threat isn't that spectacular, because the UPF is all powerful, and the romulans aren't really much of a threat either. Its really only until the Borg arrive on the scene that Starfleet realizes it needs pure warships... especially after watching a cube wax half of its fleet in a couple of minutes at Wolf 359. (which leads to the development of the Defiant Class, the purest warship in the fleet.) But even the borg isn't a major threat like others, I guess it was seen as a one off, and it could be somewhat ignored... the start of DS9, there still isn't any major threats. The most major one comes from some the Maquis... that stems from a peace agreement with the Cardassians... that is shaky. I think its pretty indicative about how much Starfleet cared about the Cardassians, that they thought an adequate response to them was an antique space station and three long range shuttle craft. Its only at the end of Season 2 or 3 in DS9 when the Dominion demolish the Oddessy, then go on to crush a combined Cardassian/Romulan fleet with ease, that starfleet realize a major threat to their security exists. Thats when you see massive fleets of warships being built, and DS9 being fortified... Thats when you know someone is a threat. Hell, they are so dangerous that the UPF will ally themselves with anybody who can win them the war... as you see in insurrection. So in the end, I think each captain suited the age they lived in. For me though I'd go with Picard and Sisko, with Picard taking the edge. He could be as bad assed as Kirk, but he was always logical. If I wanted to pick someone for a fight, I'd go with Sisko over Kirk. It seemed like every episode he was fighting a horde of Kingons or Jem'Hadar on his bridge. The best battle episode in all the series has to belong to DS9 and the Klingon Station invasion, only matched by the Best of Both worlds as the best episode ever made.

It changes, depending on the situation. During the Operation Enduring freedom in Afghanistan, the Kitty Hawk was deployed with none of its fighters, and it was primarily used as a base for special operations forces (there were like 4 carriers in the area at the time). However I think other than for exceptional situations, ship's airwings are basically set with little variation on types of roles available.

I'm sorry shin, but that is wrong. I wrote this last year on a thread, but I'll reproduce this here. Most people Aren't going to like to hear this, but the decision to build the Arrow was about the biggest error ever in Canadian Procurement, and deserved the end it got. It's current reputation has been the result of mythologizing by the Canadian press and honestly it doesn't deserve any of the hype it gets. #1 The Avro Arrow was not the most advanced fighter of its day, sure it was fast, and had a lot of gadgets, but in the end it was a useless useless program. When the project was concieved in the early 1950s, it was during the height of the Red bomber scare, where there fear was that Russia would send thousands of bombers over the north pole to nuke north america. Well by the late 1950s the Americans through the CIA, U2 flights and the first Corona satellites, figured out that the soviets had a mere pittance of bombers that was first imagined, and none had the range to reach north america's cities. Also the rise of the MRBM and the ICBM loomed a lot larger. So really the need for the Arrow had evaporated #2 The Arrow was not exceptional fighter. In actuallity it fell victim to the same interceptor blinders that US fighters had in the pre-vietnam era, only the Arrow was just that much worse off. Since the Arrow was to take on soviet bombers, it had to be fast, carry a lot of missiles and a radar large enough to guide them - ie be interceptors. As a result it suffered the same flaws that the F-4 would experience over vietnam. It was big, fast, and very unmanuverable. It had absolutely no cockpit vision, and relied upon radar and untested missiles as weapons. It had no cannons or machinegun. It was to carry a missile called the Sparrow II which was a new version of the Sparrow that was a radar guided fire and forget missile. However it was canceled by the USAF because it was deemed unfeasable. So it would have to carry the notoriously bad Sparrow I missile. The Arrow's radar was untested as well. In a theoretical situation, had the Arrow ever got into a dog fight over vietnam, it would have been eaten alive by nimble Mig-17s and 21s. They would have a field day against the ungainy fighter that relied on poor missiles. The thing was fast as hell, and may have been even faster than anything in the world at the time in 1960 with the Orienda Iroqois engine, however it had abysmal range, less than 600KM... it was a poor fighter. #3 The worst part of the project.- Cost. The thing was a money pit, and was about to get a lot worse. the cancelation of the Sparrow II would require a complete redesign of the radar and missile system. The Radar system showed constant faults. The development costs for the Iroqois engine were pilling up. In many cases Canada did not have the industrial base to build its systems required and had to design them from scratch. Nobody was willing to buy it outside of canada, because it was so expensive and had little utility. Essentially, the arrow project would have cost around 1 to 3% of the entire Canadian Gross domestic product, more than what we spend on the military today. Sure the fighter may have been the most advanced of its time, but pour enough money into something and you can have the best of anything. Had the arrow been continued people would be crying about its expenses, possibly one of the greatest boondoggles of canadian history, not its cancellation. Prime Minister Diefenbaker rightly culled the project, and bought cheaper less capable fighters instead. It is kinda sad about what happened to the Canadian Aircraft industry afterwards, however in all honesty, the Arrow was an incredible disaster. Had it gone through, the Government would have been in such debt, and have an incredibly useless fighter for its troubles. So much the better.

Great....you've been sniffing too much of that flower haven't you? 334892[/snapback] Sigh... yes. I admit it... I... have... a... problem. I need help

Well...the Compendium implies that the head laser can fire in pulses as well as single continuous beams... Although, when you think about it...it's firing so fast (and it is a laser) that it probably looks like a single beam... 334850[/snapback] Strictly speaking, it shouldn't have been visible at all. The whole point of a laser is it's focused. You can't see it if the photons are all travelling towards the target. While in an atmosphere you could get something out of the air dispersing light or reacting to it, space should provide you with a nice invisible beam. I cut them some slack on that because no one likes to see stuff blow up without a visible reason. As for making it a white beam... BAD CARTOON! BAD! If we get very picky, there's an awful lot of problems with the animation of the laser weapons in MOST animation. I was just sticking to the most basic issues. 334875[/snapback] But like if the laser was powered by protoculture, then, therefore there should be a colours because of the power of the invid seed of life... Another reason why Robotech continuity is better than Macross!!!

NATO was worried about the quality of Russian tanks for a while; they were smaller, relatively high performance, and had things like auto-loaders. Until the M1 came along, American tank designers had a little bit of an inferiority complex. But, yes, numbers was the big worry. However, the Gulf War showed up quite a few flaws in Russian tanks. The T-72 has a fuel line that goes across the front of the turret; this caused some interesting examples of unpowered turret flight after hits by 120mm rounds; also, there are some horror stories about gunners getting limbs loaded into the gun by the auto-loaders! I understand that after the Gulf War, the Russians reviewed why so much of their equipment failed so badly; a lot of interesting equipment started turning up on Russian tanks afterwards, such as improved reactive armour, anti-missile systems and even on one modified prototype, a couple of 20mm AA guns...! 334770[/snapback] You're right on a lot of these points, although the T-72 autoloader problem was largely solved after the first flight, and again, most of the Iraqi equipment was not even clost to par to what the USSR or the Warsaw Pact could field during the late 1980s. T-72s and T-55swithout reactive armour manned by basic conscripts, sitting out in a open desert was paired off against the creme American armored divisions... if it was a more equal pairing, people would be complaining about dust problems with the Challenger Tank, the M1's voracious fuel intake ect. Quantity was most certainly a worry during the late cold war, but you have to remember that Soviet kit was all designed to be very sturdy... and mechanically reliable. In a nuclear environment, they would be completely resistant to EMP, while the M-1's tracking systems would be quickly fried. I'm not saying that the M1 isn't a superb tank.... its only bested by the New Leopards (thats another argument) but I was just pointing out that soviet tanks often get a really bum rap, when they are fairly good in their own right.

I'd be careful to make any assumptions about the Iraqi army however. I don't think the T-80 was ever sent to Iraq, they certainly had T-72s though ( a complementary and some say better design than the T-80). It is also questionable if the USSR made available the best warheads to the Iraqis, such advanced penetrators for their tank guns, ect. And I caution you about making any assumptions about the quality of Western Tanks vs Eastern ones. In the early 1980s, NATO was worried sick that the Soviet Tank armies would just walk over them and take over Western Europe with impunity. Soviet tanks were considered to be technologically up to snuff, if overly mechanically simple, as to be able to operate in a nuclear battlefield. If M1s are getting destroyed in Iraq by RPG hits, they certainly can be destroyed by Tank shells from a certain angles. The Iraqi army on the otherhand was poorly trained, saw its ranks significantly thinned by the Iran Iraq war, and operated with a completely different doctrine to their soviet and US counterparts. In 1991 they were woefully inequipped to handle the massive Coallition effort, because they didn't even know how to fight such a war.

Psst, maybe you haven't noticed, but our dollar has caught up in the past year and is now almost equal to yours. Might want to reassess your stereotypes.

Uhh you just described, Legend of the Galactic Heroes... I don't know how many times myself and others have to say it on this board before people actually go and watch it (other than the people who are on here and agree with me.) One of the greatest animes of all time, that will likely never get released in North America, because it is so deep, long, and well done. There have also been many animes based on Japanese gods or fictional ones, because of their familiarity with writers. Again, nothing about WW2 will ever come out of japan, especially about what would happen in Japan won. Look at the film Tojo, that was incredibly contraversial in Japan, on the verge of people calls for its censorship because of its whitewash of warcrimes. Films are instantly politicized, so its not an area that ANY part of society will want to discuss, least of all animators...

Thats not what you said originally. You said that Anime hasn't attempted edgier films, which i've pointed out is not the case. There have many titles that have attempted to break the mold, in the very precise ways you've outlined, especially during the 1980s and early 1990s. Its been done in Japan, its just likely you haven't seen them because they aren't brought over here. What people take for classic anime are usually the stereotypes that don't cover the whole range of anime. Also, you're not likely to see many films about World War 2 from Japan, just like in Germany you won't see many films about Nazi Germany. These are VERY taboo subjects, because of these countries wartime history, (especially in Japan due to warcrimes, as recent events with China and the protests in Asia have shown.) Hotaru no Haka was an exception, but there was no depiction of actual forces, just civillians under hardship. Few japanese film makers are willing to touch it. Its the same in Germany. Last year "Downfall" (based on the last days of the third Reich) was greeted with much controversy when it was released. It would be even more so in Japan if a war film was released. Thats why there is a big gap in the historiography of anime between the pre-Meiji period, and then the current era. People don't like to look at the past, and probably why science fiction (That still deals with major social issues like death) are more mainstays of anime.

Actually DH, I think your post shows a clear lack of knowledge about Anime. You've painted anime as being only made up of the stereotypes when it HAS been groundbreaking and dealing with very deep issues in many cases. There is just so much that is possible with anime that really isn't in film. One OAV I particularly liked was Blackjack, about a brilliant disfigured doctor, who was disgraced in his profession. His gift was that he could cure anybody, at a price though. It brought up many questions of medical ethics to the fore. Unfortunately most of the films that are brought over to north america are in the stereotypical model and not the ones that are really thought provoking, because people won't buy them. This is even more true of manga, which in its cheap, disposable format has been even more able to examine controversial issues than anime has.

I live in london, but I've not really so much of a tourguide. Thanks for the tip on the store, I'm sure to check it out.

LOGH (DLDS is also used in some circles) is... grand, very grand, and with a healthy dose of military strategy and tactics it only gets better. Some of the battles I find a bit two-dimensional, but the sheer beauty of the setup and execution outweights any of that. The story is also about very real people. Personally I identified more with Reinhard and his character development more than Yang's. 330163[/snapback] DLDS? I've never heard that... Ginga eiyû densetsu, Helgensagen vom Kosmenief, but not DLDS. First off, I completely disagree about your point abouit "two dimentional battles." Compared to ANY movie or television, Anime, or even live action, LOGH had the most clear depiction of battles ever screened. Real strategy taken straight from theories of warfare were employed, which accurately depicted the transition of strategic thought between Clauswitzian notions of battles (battles of attrition and annihilation as practiced by the old leaders) vs Sun Tzuian notions of movement, deception, and knowledge (as practiced by Reinhart and Yang Wenli). Most other sci fi shows think that the depiction of the epitherma of war, such as things blowing up, guns blazing people dying, suffices. LOGH goes so much deeper than that, depicting whole fleets operating according to their training and strategy engaged in combat. Whats even more scary is that this accomplishment would make it an excellent show, but it has so much more to offer. LOGH displays the interface between the political and strategic levels of government, better than any other show I've ever seen. What leaders regard as strategic objectives are then transfered to strategies and outcomes. Thousands of actors play and form events. Whole political ideologies are questioned. The much heralded Babylon 5's plot looks like it was written on a diner's napkin when compared to LOGH. The only book that has any basis of comparison is Tolstoy's War and Peace. Not many animes can boast that. On a completely subjective level, I thought Reinhart was a spolied brat, and really was nothing more than a power hungry dictator that would have become a tyrant like Rudolph Von Goldenbalm in the end. Yang was far more intelligent, insightful, and loyal to a fault. He was also a great humanitarian; he questioned what was good for all, not just good for himself. Reinhard had no real answer to this except "I deserve power."

Woah, I've been away for a month and this thread pops up. I personally believe that Anime has truly become stagnant in the past decade. And its not just me. Probably the most creative anime genius, Hayao Miyazaki claimed that he feels that he is pouring pure water into the cesspool that is the modern Japanese animation. I for one agree with him completely, as do many of my friends. A very good friend of mine is a manga artist, and he completely refuses to watch anime. Most of it is formulaic repeats of the golden age stuff. I've generally quit watching new anime, because I can see all the same plots as I did before, just dressed up with new circumstances and minor plot variations. Its really quite boring. Clear examples of this are Rah Xephon, and Gundam seed/wing/ect. I prefer to watch older stuff (then again, I didn't think Neon Genesis Evangeleon as being very good either). Thats how I came into Legend of Galactic Heroes which I now consider the greatest anime of all time. I've recently started watching Future Boy Conan. There is so much still out there from the 1980s, which I believe to be qualtiative superior to the 1995~2005 timeframe. I just don't see anything even resembling the quality of story or direction like that today. I agree there were some terrible anime done during the 80s and 90s, but at least they were daring, and spoke to intelligent issues. There were qualitatively more of them then they are now. I'm not going to look back and see Yukikaze and say that this was a classic, because I'm definately not saying it now. I think Manga on the other hand is on a golden age. Inventive storylines, and what I consider a very good fusion of hand drawing and computer animation that doesn't compromise the art form. The use of Computer animation to create character shapes for the artist, and coloring as well. I think that it provides an excellent template for how computers should be applied to anime, not the gharish nightmare we see today.

I think you need not apply to the Self Hating Anime Club. Seriously.

PREACH ON BRUTHA, PREACH ON

I used to be part of the club, but then I just learned to accept it, and I find my friends who aren't into Anime at all except for the big mainstream stuff like Miyazaki, don't really care either. I do a lot of other things in my life, I play rugby, work in a bar, and completing my masters, so to judge me as a geek because I watch anime is pretty shallow. I do admit there are many people out there that are really geeks and let it determine their lives, however I think its how people deal with it that is more indicative of their geekdom. I'm sure most of you have other facets of your life that probably define you more than if you watch the occasional anime.