the white drew carey

And here's the inked, but not colored, version of Max:

Here's the sketch I worked off of for the VF-9. Yes, the tailfin is chopped off. That's because I'm at the very top of the paper (waste not, want not).

[shameless self promotion mode] If HG/Udon was smart, they'd hire the guy who drew this to do their covers: [/shameless self promotion mode] Seriously, I know I screw up my drawings a lot. And I do still post them. But I'm always the first to point out my mistakes and I sure as hell don't call them "professional" or expect people to pay money for them! Geez. I try not to be too hard on RT ( ) but seriously, the only thing that seperates this new stuff from the original RT comics (I'm talkin' about the Old, old school ones) is the coloring. The actual drawings are just as crappy, only now they're exploiting "Exciting Poses" (circa 1996) for the VF's. Gah...

I personally enjoy the GFF's as purely visual toys. Don't play. Just pose them and let them make your bookshelf, desk or food processor look that much cooler. One way to fix loose ball joints is to coat the ball with clear nail polish. I had problems with my FAZZ keeping his pose until I did this. I also chose how I wanted my FAZZ and EX-S to look and then super-glued most of the floppy and loose removable parts onto them. But that's just me. The only difference I know of between the blue and red Z-plus is the color and the unit numbers (although the cod-[eices may be different as well)- Blue is 001 and Red is 018.

That's the only thing they've ever had going for them, in my opinion.

What's even better is Gamepro's glowing review which leads me to ask: "What the heck are those guys smokin'?" Yeah, Udon's horribly malformed characters and 5th grade style mecha are definitely the best of the genre!!! No one else can compete!!! I almost think that Gamepro's reviewers are either A- Getting paid off, or B- getting some serious reacharound action from either Udon or HG in order to write a review that screwed up.

Umm... yeah. Max flying a VF-1A with his VF-1J Paintscheme? Aforementioned VF-1A looking like a cross between a Superposeable (bad torso) and ones of those horrid 5-foot monstrosities Toynami put out (really bad legs)? A cover artist who thinks that the missiles are fired from the THRUST EXHAUST NOZZLES of the Q-Rau? Good lord, do these comics blow. I thought that HG wasn't very serious about the Macross franchise, but after seeing crap like this released, I guess they're probably not very serious about the RT franchise- or pleasing it's fanbase- as well!

So far the closest attempt at Yamato valks here in the states was Sunwards, a decidedly odd, and apparently unsuccessful attempt ("apparently" only by the proposed possibility that it was an experiment to test the waters). As of yet, matters haven't "come to a head" yet to the point where all parties will have to show their cards. If and when Yamato makes a concerted effort to release their valks here in the U.S. and HG makes concerted effort to block them, then, in all possibility, will we see, or at least get a concrete idea, of who's got the best hand.

Sorry. No can do this time. Max was fully inked before he was scanned and the VF-9 was literally a rough sketch before I drew the lines in and colored it with Photoshop. Saw-weee!!!

Something's screwed up with the download. I've tried it 3 times and all I get is a quick video where the words RULIWEB.COM scroll in from the left. That's it.

It's downloading for me right now. It's pretty huge, though. So it'll be a while. If there's any good screenshots I'll post 'em.

It's true, HG has said this. Once again, the thing to remember is that they refused to provide evidence as to whether or not it IS, in actuality, illegal.

No. It doesn't need to be made publicly available. A strong level of doubt has been cast upon a HG because they CLAIM to own all of the international rights to Macross (excluding Japan), and have even threatened several retailers who sell imported Macross merchandise with legal action. But when one of the retailers retained a lawyer who asked HG to prove their claims by providing evidence of their ownership, they refused and basically said that everyone should "take their word for it." So, in the end, a company doesn't need to make their contracts and agreements publicly available. But when public scrutiny falls on said company due to claims they've made, some say it would be wise for them to provide the proof and settle the matter. Something with which HG has refused to do. This, coupled with questionable decisions and statements made by HG employees and associates past and present have led many Macross-fans to questions HG's motives and actual commitment to the Macross franchise. It has also given rise to theories that HG was simply "pulling the collective leg" simply to hamper incoming Macross merchandise in order to clear the market for their revival of RT. p.s.- Some of the more RT-friendly members here also tend to cite the case of Playmates/HG vs. FASA foor the use of Macross-derived designs as a time when HG won. A statement like this is inherently wrong because the case itself was settled out of court and all parties involved signed a non-disclosure agreement. Therefore, for anyone to say which party won is simply a guess, since we can be quite sure that they actually aren't privy to any part of the out of court settlement.* *I have a theory of what actually went on in this court case, but it's not as exciting as any of us wish it could be. eh...

I didn't forget. In fact, I'm always mentioning that whatever rulings have been made as to actual ownership, the Memorandum itself spells out the division of rights to everyone involved. edit: dyslexia

I was curious if anyone had used any of the simple game developer programs for Mac, and if so, which are the best? I'm looking for something good for making turn-based strategy games. Nothing terribly exciting, but something to practice or learn on. Some of the ones I've found are TNT Basic an Coldstone. Any ideas?

I've always preferred strategy-based RPG, like Macross: ELS.

Oh... so you've decided to re-interpret her translation due to her unfamiliarity with the proper term? And how did you come to conclusion (or even find out) that she was interpreting it too literally? And how did you find out the correct interpretation? Are you second-guessing your own translator? If memory serves me correctly, we had someone here once who knew English AND Japanese quite well, who was also quite good at not only translating, but also interpreting between the two (there is a difference). Hmmm... But you second guessed her as well.

No, it's wrong- Because it's "shoddy reporting" that does not clarify the statement. If it was right, it would say something along the lines of "Tatsunoko was granted the rights of author, but was not granted the individual rights of author." To be right, it would have to include all available facts. Otherwise, it's a misleading statement. Not any better or worse than the ANN news report you so readily lambasted. Or is your translation wrong in stating not once, but twice that Tatsunoko was not granted the individual right of author?

Is this right or wrong? According to the translation provided by you, it's wrong. This is the main sentence from your translation: So which source are you choosing is the right one now? Mainichi's news report or your translation. They both say different things. I'm assuming the exclusion of individual right of author is due to the fact that most of the aspects contained under the Economic Rights were already divided and determined by the Memorandum. It could also be that the exclusion is more aimed towards the fact that Tatsunoko has no stake at all in derivitives. The court document doesn't say so, but if we're assuming outcomes based on our interpretations of simple statements, it's as good as any. Simply put, the court document does not clarify the reasons or the specifics of why Tatsunoko was not granted individual right of author.

The thing is that I'm assuming that you're assuming this is the intent of the court's decision not to grant Tatsunoko individual right of author. The statement is ambiguous enough that it can be left open to our inexpert interpretation. Tell me, does it exactly say "Tatsunoko is granted Economic Rights. BigWest is granted Moral rights"? No, it does not. I'm not the one saying that this is what the court document means, while you are. And, as of yet, you have not provided evidence backing up your statement. To me, it is solely based on how you interpret the document. With no evidence to back up this statement, it becomes simply your opinion that this is why "individual right of author" was excluded.

MW Splash Page Gallery Remember, there's more to MacrossWorld than the forums. GreatMoose- Have you tried looking through the magazines? I think I saw it in there once, but I can't remember which.

I forgot to respond to this part... Although this is a possibility, I highly doubt it's a probability. If something like this had happened in the past, we'd know about it. I doubt that Tatsunoko sent a C&D letter to BigWest. IF they had, it definitely would've either A- gone to court, or B- been settled outside of court. In either case one could safely assume that the WHOLE matter of the Macross franchise would've been ironed out way back then. The only other option is C- that BigWest simply ignored Tatsunoko. But this one is near impossible because Tatsunoko, unlike their North American buddies, HG, probably wouldn't send a C&D letter and then not follow up.

That's exactly what I was thinking. I wouldn't be terribly surprised if actual clarification of the division of Author's Rights is still forthcoming. Wrylac- Here's what I'm curious about. You post this chart... ... on which you've handily circled what rights BigWest has been granted. But you still have not clarified how you've come to the conclusion that BigWest was only granted the Moral Rights of Author. Does it say that in Naoko's translation? The problem is that you seem to be making a leap here and, I may be stupid, but I simply cannot see how you've come to this conclusion. Also, this quote from Mainichi is very ambiguous (being a short news blurb)... ...and mentions only Property Rights, not Economic Rights as you've sectioned in the above chart. From everything I've found (and according to WIPO) Property Rights seem to be a catchall term for Intellectual Rights (patents, etc.) and Copyrights. As I read the Mainichi quote, that's what I take from it. So by using that as a base for stating that BigWest is only granted Moral rights and Tatsunoko gets everything else seems to be wrong.

From what I gathered from Wrylac's translation is that Tatsunoko was not granted individual rights of author. This could mean any number of possible divisions or that both BigWest/Studio Nue and Tatsunoko were both granted the same level of rights. Sadly, the translation (and quite possibly the court document itself) does not elaborate further on the possibly division of rights.

I've brought this up before. HG may claim that they were "asleep at the wheel" during the years that Macross II, Plus and 7 were produced, but surely Tatsunuko was not. Yeah, I've been saying the same thing. It's the same thing with DYRL, MII and M+ being released internationally. If Tatsunoko had the int'l rights, I'm sure they would've said something. Wrylac- I still don't understand where this ruling gives Tatsunoko int'l rights to the derivitives. Simply put- Court documents are VERY specific (even to the point of insanity to us laypersons). Unless it directly states ownership of int'l rights to either the whole franchise (which is still too generic of a term for legal purposes) or lists each Macross production individually, then stating complete ownership is an erroneus statement. This court case was simply in regards to the TV series of SDF: Macross and nothing else.