Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

i really don't understand how this mistake came about.

did they tell the animator "put missles on the plane" and did he just not have any clue as to how missles go on? notice the missle tray under each wing has nothing on it.. very weird.

Edited by KingNor
Posted
Noticed this while watching the series. Just thot u guys might be interested. Worth Customizing? :)

If you wanted a "TV Max" custom, you could glue some appropriate scale model airplane missiles to a couple of paper clips and slide the assemblies right on the VF-1 tails. :blink:

Posted
Apparently it's not an animation error. Or if it is, it was accepted by SN and made part of the canon. Look here: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?...4093&hl=nanashi

cuz i don't feel like reading an entire other thread, what are we looking for? the link provided takes us to a post with pictures of missles under the wings. am i missing something?

Posted

hey, I remember that. I also distinctly remembering that it was only on ben's plane. Man I thought it was just me that saw that. :p:D:lol:

Posted
Anyone else notice that one fin has 16 missles, while the other fin as 18? Talk about animator error. =)

-Al

It's still an animation error, but it may not be the number of missiles, sometimes the edge of a cel ends up on screen and the background extends it. It could be that they cut the fin off too soon when they drew it. Either way, it's only suppose to pop up for a fraction of a second. Animation error should only be counted when it stays up on screen for noticeable amount of time.

Posted

well fair enough if its a missile rack but it only appear within this 1 sec or less. prior to this, max has no such missile. just seems like a lame excuse for mistakes. nothing wrong with mistakes anyway. its normal aint it?

Posted

I was told several times that the real "design" of valks shall be taken in the DYRL movie.

The TV series is only good for the STORY

So, you only have to remind that the "valkyrie has missiles". Wherever you attach them.

Posted

I though I was seeing things re watching the series??

but bens vf is the only one I have seen sporting missles on the tail. If this was a standard how come we haven't seem more Vf's use them?

The link stated that this is an early close combat weapon system,could ben's VF be an old model?

Posted

Gaaahh!! Here we go again...

OK, I remember clearing this up about two years ago.

This is NOT an animation error. It has nothing to do with Animefriend. In fact, it is a bit of an irony really, since the whole point of this was to avoid confusion, yet it produced more confusion than it solved.

Ichiroh Itano noticed that in this scene, which was all drawn and ready to go, Max destroys an enemy recon vessel with one shot. Yet in the previous episode, Hikaru had gone up against the same type of ship in his big-ass Armored Valkyrie and still hadn't managed to destroy it even after his huge attack.

So Itano worked his ASS off drawing craploads of missiles to fix this one implausible split-second scene and make it more believable. He figured that giving Max's valk the firepower of a GBP-1 ought to do the trick. Now that's dedication to one's work!

He put in so much effort to the point of exhaustion, and you guys call his bloodwork an "animation error"... tsk!

Posted
So Itano worked his ASS off drawing craploads of missiles to fix this one implausible split-second scene and make it more believable. He figured that giving Max's valk the firepower of a GBP-1 ought to do the trick. Now that's dedication to one's work!

He put in so much effort to the point of exhaustion, and you guys call his bloodwork an "animation error"... tsk!

And even after he so-called work his ass off, the valkyrie is till pure white instead of the blue in certain places?

Posted
So Itano worked his ASS off drawing craploads of missiles to fix this one implausible split-second scene and make it more believable.  He figured that giving Max's valk the firepower of a GBP-1 ought to do the trick.  Now that's dedication to one's work!

He put in so much effort to the point of exhaustion, and you guys call his bloodwork an "animation error"... tsk!

And even after he so-called work his ass off, the valkyrie is till pure white instead of the blue in certain places?

I'd suggest you listen to the interview with Noboru Ishiguro on the Animeigo disks. Itanoh did work his ass off--I think he suffered a collapse at one point.

Posted
So Itano worked his ASS off drawing craploads of missiles to fix this one implausible split-second scene and make it more believable.  He figured that giving Max's valk the firepower of a GBP-1 ought to do the trick.  Now that's dedication to one's work!

He put in so much effort to the point of exhaustion, and you guys call his bloodwork an "animation error"... tsk!

And even after he so-called work his ass off, the valkyrie is till pure white instead of the blue in certain places?

The only parts of Max's VF-1A that are blue aren't visible in that shot. They're on the sides of the legs, and the intakes, the head, and the shoulders. You can see blue on the intakes.

Though I don't remember seeing the tail missiles on Max's valk, only on Kakizaki's. "Ben" does not exist. :p'

I don't see what the problem is. I thought it was cool that they did a different missile payload for once...

Posted (edited)

I can see the "working his ass off", because of a continuity error. BUT(there's always a but :rolleyes: ) if you are fixing a continuity error by yet including another, then there is no reason to fix it. I guess what we have to approach is how relevant the error is regarding the story. In other words by excusing the ability to destroy a bigger ship, they included a impossible scene that now is confusing fans 20 years later. IMO there's not such valk. This IS, and CONTINUES to be a continuity error. If you were to ask Kawamori(for instance), I'm sure he would say 2 things:

1.The Budget was limited

2. The deadline was very close

My infinite thanks to the animator that tried his best to fix that scene, but this is REALLY a small mistake.

ViC!

Edited by vlenhoff
Posted
I can see the "working his ass off", because of a continuity error. BUT(there's always a but :rolleyes: ) if you are fixing a continuity error by yet including another, then there is no reason to fix it. I guess what we have to approach is how relevant the error is regarding the story. In other words by excusing the ability to destroy a bigger ship, they included a impossible scene that now is confusing fans 20 years later. IMO there's not such valk. This IS, and CONTINUES to be a continuity error.

In what sense is the scene "impossible"? How is it not possible to bolt missiles to a stabilizer that has no practical function in space? What makes it an error? And apart from the fact that it never appears again (much like the GBP armor in the TV series) what makes it discontinuous with the rest of the series?

A "Continuity error" is generally something done inconsistently from scene to scene, or frame-to-frame. Like in B-movies when they show a guy with a pipe, cut away and cut back and the pipe's gone... or when colors mismatch between frames. Or when a valk flies off the deck with no missiles, then fires six while in combat. I doubt that there are no continuity errors in that episode, but the existance of the missile magazines is not a continuity error or an impossibility.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...