some Macross Zero Questions

[FlyingPika]

OK i hope these questions havent been answered beofre, but when its volume 4 comming out and how many volumes are planned in total?

And is it just me or does the VF-0 looks like a newer design to me

[DestroidDefender]

Yes, its kind of a paradox. I guess the VF-0 is older or contemporary in the Macross timeline. In reality the VF-0 was designed in the last couple of years for cutting edge CGI animation and the VF-1 was made in the 80's for cheap limited cell animation.

I'm not sure how the VF-0 could have been made to look retro.

[Agent ONE]

5 episodes

[MechASsemble]

Yes, its kind of a paradox. I guess the VF-0 is older or contemporary in the Macross timeline. In reality the VF-0 was designed in the last couple of years for cutting edge CGI animation and the VF-1 was made in the 80's for cheap limited cell animation.

I'm not sure how the VF-0 could have been made to look retro.

'tis "Enterprise" syndrome.... the gadgets and effects look soo much better than Kirk and the 60s.

I'd love to see the last scene of Macross Zero show the CGI modeled VF-1 and the Macross as maybe a "whatever happened to Shin and Edgar (if he doesn't suffer from "Goose" syndrome) during Space War 1" bonus for the fans.

Edited February 26, 2004 by MechASsemble

[azrael]

OK i hope these questions havent been answered beofre, but when its volume 4 comming out and how many volumes are planned in total?

And is it just me or does the VF-0 looks like a newer design to me

but when its volume 4 comming out

Spring 2004.

http://www.anime.net/macross/production/an...zero/index.html

how many volumes are planned in total?

5.

http://www.anime.net/macross/production/an...zero/index.html

VF-0 looks like a newer design to me

That's because it was made only a few years ago, as stated. The design is based on the VF-1.

[Panon]

'tis "Enterprise" syndrome.... the gadgets and effects look soo much better than Kirk and the 60s.

Except unlike "Enterprise" syndrome, they don't look so much more advanced.

Really, compare a VF-0 to a VF-1 and take into account that the VF-0 is being animated with CG. It's hardly more advanced.

Heck, look at the VF-0 scenes that are done with regular animation, they don't look more advanced at all.

Edited February 27, 2004 by Panon

[Radd]

I still say that the VF-1 looks a lot more compact and streamlined than the VF-0.

[Radd]

Oh, and kinda in line with what Panon said, compare the line art, not the animation. Of course the VF-0 is gonna look more advanced if you're comparing SDF Macross animation to Macross Zero animation. (I think the Valk animation in DYRL? looks better than both, though.)

[FlyingPika]

well i think starwars did a pretty good job at beliveable older space crafts etc.

Even when comparing the line art, the VF-0 has that agressive style (much like the YF-19) that looks way more modern that the VF-1. The VF-1 with its simple plain features (just look at the feet) looks way older in my opion. And also there defense mecha, those thingies are wayu faster/bender that a phallix etc will eva be.

[Radd]

Compare a 57 Chevy, with the cone break lights, the tail fins, all that, to a boxy 80's car. Which one looks more 'futuristic'? Well, if you had an objective viewer who didn't know a 50's car from an 80's car, or what a modern car looked like, they would say that the 57 Chevy looked more futuristic. More embellishments in the design and asthetics. Of course, compare the actual mechanics and the 80's car that looks so much more bland and utilitarian would more than likely win.

I agree that the asthetics Kawamori put to use in the VF-0 are more reminiscent of his later designs, like the VF-19, and the VF-11 and all those. He seemed to feel no need to restrict the asthetics of the mech. Nothing wrong with that. However, the frame is much more gangly, the transformation is simpler, and the body of the craft boasts awkward bulges to accomodate the internal fuel tanks. Something the sleeker, smaller VF-1 doesn't have to worry about.

Star Wars had the same problem. The craft in the prequels look more 'futuristic' than their descendants in the prequels, but only in asthetics. Even then it's much more of a retro-futuristic asthetic. Hell, they even went all out on the chrome. Still, people complained that things looked more advanced, when this really wasn't the case.

By this same way, one could argue that the GameBoy Advance looks more futuristic than the GBA SP. Sure, the SP is smaller and sleeker, but it's also simpler looking. Meanwhile, the GBA is larger, and it doesn't fold up, but it is more ergonomic in the overall design.

As for the destroids, in that case your comparing top of the line modern animation, in a sequence in which the destroids were featured above anything else...compared to early 80's animefiend animation, and maybe a couple snippets from DYRL? where the destroids were just background material.

[wolfx]

Star Wars had the same problem. The craft in the prequels look more 'futuristic' than their descendants in the prequels, but only in asthetics. Even then it's much more of a retro-futuristic asthetic. Hell, they even went all out on the chrome. Still, people complained that things looked more advanced, when this really wasn't the case.

I thought it was common knowledge that the prequels in Star Wars really HAD better technology than later because they still had them cool un-sanctioned technology before the empire's reign. Technology was simply lost during the rebellion or sanctioned by the empire. Technology even during the time of the Old Republic was over the top uber ness.

But this isn't a star wars thread.....

[Keith]

A good destroid comparison would be the Konig Monster in VFX-2 (which is vertually identical design wise to its Mk II predecessor) with the Destroids in Zero. I'd say the monster looks much more badass.

[azrael]

Star Wars had the same problem. The craft in the prequels look more 'futuristic' than their descendants in the prequels, but only in asthetics. Even then it's much more of a retro-futuristic asthetic. Hell, they even went all out on the chrome. Still, people complained that things looked more advanced, when this really wasn't the case.

I thought it was common knowledge that the prequels in Star Wars really HAD better technology than later because they still had them cool un-sanctioned technology before the empire's reign. Technology was simply lost during the rebellion or sanctioned by the empire. Technology even during the time of the Old Republic was over the top uber ness.

Not really. The technology is essentially the same, but the design the key point. The idea according to Doug Chiang was when we start in Episode 1 was that the style follows a artistic, art-nuevo (sp) feel. Radd was right when he mentioned the '57 Chevy. The concept is the same with Star Wars. Look at how a '57 Chevy looks like. Very curvy, with some chrome finishes, etc etc etc. Same with Star Wars ep 1. The ships have curves, chrome, very stylized. But then it starts with the industrial look of flat colors, more greys. And then in the OT, the look is very industrialized.

The idea IMO, works the other way around in Macross. The VFs of 2010-2045 are streamlined, less functional looking and more stylized. Look at a VF-19A/YF-19 and compare to the VF-19 Kai/F/S/P. Notice how the shoulders are rounded out and less blocky. It's smoothed out. The idea works with the VF-0/VF-1. The VF-0 is long and irregular shaped. the VF-1 smoothes it out. It's bringing a industrial/functional look to a streamlined smooth look. That's the similar to the idea that Radd pointed out. SW went from streamlined, and artistic to industrial. Macross goes from industrial to artistic.