It's been a little over a year since it released, have your thoughts on it changed? I went back to rewatch it.
I think I like it just a bit more. Still peeved about the CG, especially now that Witch From Mercury shows that Bandai can still do good regular mech animation, but the slow burn of the movie has grown on me.
Reminder that Lane crushes Emeralda to death
It's a nothing burger.
The action sequences are definitely slightly too dark, but I enjoyed the movie overall. Then again, I've never read the novels.
There was very little chance Sunrise was going to put out the money to pay staff for the extra hours and effort needed to animate complex designs like the Xi and Penelope by hand. The designs weren't created with animation in mind, and CG was probably the only avenue that'd allow them in animation within a reasonable time frame or budget.
>>The designs weren't created with animation in mind, and CG was probably the only avenue that'd allow them in animation
Oh yes, how remiss of me to forget the 2 second reference in a Build show where the unit barely moves and half of which is the unit at such distance that there's no detailed art of the unit necessary. Well, I'm sure any animator willing to do that would also be willing to animate several minutes of two machines of such complexity fighting.
this much of a zoomer
Gaogaigar's transformation sequence will blow your mind. You underestimate Sunrise's animator too hard, zoomzoom.
the transformation that got used again, and again, and again and was largely comprised of basic 3D forms with complex surface details and 3D references for certain scenes.
son, do you know what sakuga is or what its used for and why you don't make an entire damn movie out of it?
And Xi, Penelope has not much mechanic stuff going on, zoomzoom. They are literall floating bricks.
Do you know why stock footage is stock in the first place anon? Never mind that a lot of Gaogaigar's stock footage specifically is either particle effects or zooming in on particular details rather than showing the entire thing constantly, while the only movement in the shots with heavy detail is usually quite simplistic in it's movement. Maybe one part slides forward or up, but that's kind of it for most of the sequence. Really detailed art, but really simple movement.
And floating on air like 2 shitty bricks is complex movement too you? Sure it is, buddy.
>posts something that is also used as frequent stock footage
Absolute moron.
That was 25 years ago, the new generation of anime artists can't even draw a sedan
>have your thoughts on it changed?
No, it's still the worst gundam movie. A gundam entry without tons of actions scenes is never good.
It's pretty typical for a mecha movie to have mecha action at the beginning, middle and end to break it up and allow for character drama and narrative in a way that keeps the viewer interested while not taxing the animation too much. I would bet that Char's Counterattack and F91 don't have much more mechanical action.
I recently watched it for the first time and I was not impressed. Overall I thought it was mediocre and Hathaway is a terrible protagonist and Gigi is a pointless character. The film feels like someone took a standard episode plot line and stretched it out to movie length.
>I would bet that Char's Counterattack and F91 don't have much more mechanical action.
They absolutely do. You clearly haven't seen either.
>G-reco cope
>in 2022
lmao, just accept that the show was trash already.
SA is literally worse than reddit now, go back to your containment site.
Lol
when will people like you stop confusing subjective experience with actual criticism
>I don’t like the protagonist… so he is bad!!!
really reveals the level of cognitive functioning that Hathaway detractors operate on
>Overall I thought it was mediocre and Hathaway is a terrible protagonist and Gigi is a pointless character.
Anon don't do this. Your complaints are someone that thinks shinji or kamille are lousy protagonists because they don't fit some generic mc template.
>the worst gundam movie
That still goes to Narrative. I doubt Narrative will ever be trumped.
Narrative was the second best movie in the franchise after Trail Blazer. Plenty of action in those.
It was a kind of boring movie. The issue is that it tries to hide what it's about to much and ultimately is boring because of it. We should have had more introspective scenes of Hathaway elaborating on why he is a polical extremist radicalized by Char's schizo autism, instead all we got was him thinking about Quess' ass
I honestly don't know why I come here anymore, /m/ is the dumbest board
>instead all we got was him thinking about Quess' ass
And you anons keep bringing up how in the book Hathaway was immature and shit, but in this movie he comes across as extremely competent. Between this, Wings of Rean, and Crossbore Gundam I'm convinced Tomino isn't as good with books as he is animation.
>We should have had more introspective scenes of Hathaway elaborating on why he is a polical extremist radicalized by Char's schizo autism, instead all we got was him thinking about Quess' ass
well no shit because that's all Hathaway's motives amount to. Char's motives weren't particularly complex either because they were illustrating the point that radicals hide their selfish motivations underneath complex world issues that others can get behind. They just want validation for why they feel the way they do and don't operate on anything substantial other than "I want to feel better about my own problems"
If Hathaway actually did care about changing the EF for the better he wouldn't have gone down the Mafty hole, he's just an angry kid that wanted to get back at the system without actually caring about what the people want, the taxi cab scene shows exactly this.
>And you anons keep bringing up how in the book Hathaway was immature and shit, but in this movie he comes across as extremely competent
Aside from the plane scene how is he competent at all? He immediately gets sussed out by both Gigi and Kenneth in two different ways and doesn't hide his tracks properly while being dumb enough to think "Heh they're none the wiser" and he only makes it out because he had an OP mobile suit. He's dumb enough to think he's competent as do most young people.
I swear /m/ gets stupider by the day I don't know why I bothered.
>why he is a polical extremist radicalized by Char's schizo autism, instead all we got was him thinking about Quess' ass
This is Hathaway we're talking about so that checks out. He's an extremely misguided terrorist who half the time doesn't even know what he's fighting for or why.
>/m/ is the dumbest board
It's such a slow board that we pretty much samegay each other's bait in every thread
you know there was a time when this was actually the pace /b/ had, right? you could walk your dog for an hour, come back and there'd be maybe one or two posts if you were lucky
i remember getting so excited over them, because people pretty often would spend like 20 minutes in photoshop crafting something pretty funny
when /b/ got so fast that anything you made disappeared in an instant, people just kinda gave up on trying.
in a way, the slowness is its own blessing.
Ya but nobody is posting quality here anyways so you're point is mute
i'm posting quality. i'm posting so much quality i got warned for it. i am too cool for school.
> instead all we got was him thinking about Quess' ass
That’s really what hathaway is, some guy hung up on a dead girl for 10 years larping as a revolutionary. If Hathaway had Char’s resolve and even half of his psychopathy he would’ve just murdered Gigi after she found out about her identity
Narrative was fine. The worst one is that shit web series with the Tristan
Go watch fireworks or dragracing, man. That's clearly what you want.
Most other Gundam entries are better than this trash. I know what I want, this was horrid.
>"This trash"
ok mort
You act like those movie critics that think serious political stories like Dr. Strangelove are satire despite the fact they have very little comedy. HF is not smarter than most Gundam entries, in fact subtracting IBO it's even dumber than G-Saviour.
Anon are you implying Stangelove isn't a comedy and is a serious political film?
You do understand gag comedy or whatever you think comedy is isn't the only thing that exists right?
How the hell amI implying? It had no comedy.
I am not reading all that.
>Dr. Strangelove
>very little comedy
Yer one of them braindead fellers aintcha.
Nope, I saw the movie and got a serious military story. The music at the end with the atom bombs going off felt out of place though.
>In an interview, Kubrick commented on this interesting development in his approach, stating: “It occurred to me that I was approaching the project in the wrong way. The only way to tell the story was as a black comedy or, better, a nightmare comedy, where the things you laugh at most are really the heart of the paradoxical postures that make a nuclear war possible.”
>http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0069.html
oh no many words big scare brrrrr not for meeee haha no words do not read, slide of slippery brain for no uh oh time haha ho ho hehe pee pee poo poo
> You can see one of the actors near Dr. Strangelove struggling not to break around about 3/26 while Peter Sellers is near punching himself in the chin and then hear him choke down a laugh a second later
Yeah, it's real serious alright.
dr Strangelove is satire of the mindset that goes into converting game-theory into nuclear doctrine and all of the problems which exist with the chain of command
do you not have the word "lampoon" where you come from, where the crossroads of cynicism and comedy meet in the bowels of comedy's oldest rule -- that comedy itself is misery multiplied by distance?
you do know almost all of dr strangelove is simultaneously both comedy and satire, because its meant to be a sugary pill to help the bitterness of the tragedy of the truth of their and also our era go down smoothly, right?
if you didn't laugh, its because you've seen so much humor derived from it that its like returning to very old quint music with half of the rules which have been developed since -- like the "seinfeld isn't funny" complex where people forget that half of why seinfeld isn't funny for a lot of audiences is because its the bare minimum of an entire genre of comedy which it essentially formulated and popularized as the first major step since taxi in American television comedy that wasn't literally derived from echoes and memories of a man and his wife's personal space program which makes up a huge chunk of not only american comedy of that era's entire mantra but also the entire mentality of a whole generation of spouses who were conditioned into fricking hating eachother
like sure there's a lot of other stuff sure, but we're talking about mainstream appeal here, not the good stuff in terms of that comedy
on hathaway, you really either lack the emotional development to understand what you're looking at because you're a child in body, or worse, you're a child in mind but not in body. i really do wish you the best and that you manage to escape whatever condition it is that you're dealing with anon, instead of inflicting it on the rest of us who came here to talk about robots instead of flapping our urethras like fat wet butterfly wings to b***h and moan about things we don't understand
I refuse to believe this is anything but bait.
Not bait.
Not seeing the comedy, seems more like a neurology disorder. Guess that just means Kubrick is abelist.
You don't see the comedy in a guy with a really bad fake accent constantly having to wrestle with a bad arm to stop it from doing a Nazi salute or punching himself? Okay.
clear b8
posts like this are why everybody thinks Cinemaphile is moronic
I came here oldgayging to visit from SA remembering Cinemaphile could be fun sometimes back in the old days, took one look at this and I remember now why the 10bux stipulation exists and why my community kicked out your community which gave birth to Cinemaphile in the first place.
What I can't tell if this is brainworms or a cry for help.
If this is just shitposting, and i sincerely hope it is, if this is what you do to feel good about yourself your life is clearly in the toilet rn
Look, you're either so aware of it that it hurts, or you've gotten so shitused to your shitlife that its become the new shitnormal for you and i'm genuinely not sure which is worse
I hope things improve for you soon, genuinely.
I guess that applies to the entire site, really.
I guess this is what it feels like to be a disappointed relative.
Makes me glad to be an only child.
paying money to post on a dead forum with a handful of 40 year old gen x burnouts is just as moronic as being too thick to understand ham handed kubrickian satire
jesus, what a terrible post
He is correct though, it really was the worst
>without tons of actions scenes
It's one of the best Gundam movies in years and I wish I could've seen it in theaters. The CG is incredibly tastefully done compared to past entries. It boggles my mind why they didn't adapt it sooner (well, not really). Gundam fashioned as a kind of spy thriller is so refreshing.
Narrative was better.
The only thing I remember about Narrative were the dream / flashback sequences.
I liked Vigilante.
Going from Narrative to HF felt like a colossal downgrade, especially in the soundtrack department.
I colossally disagree. I even like HF songs like Mobius and Tracer more than Vigilante.
And NT's soundtrack was mostly reused from Unicorn. Which is lazy, but fine. Unicorn had a better OST than HF so far. Penelope has a sick theme though. I bought the HG after listing to it one too many times, even if I'm still not a big fan of the design.
Also
THEY STOLE MY JOOOOOOOOOOOY FOREVER AND NOW IT'S GONE
MY HATE WILL KEEP ME WARM
Mobius SUCKED
Tracer is EPIC
Penelope and Xi are the BEST tracks from the franchise since 00
>captcha TRAD8
>Mobius SUCKED
Stop posting any time.
Sorry for not liking the James Bond opening RIPOFF song I guess it’s my fault for liking things that are GOOD and disliking things that are BAD
Sounds nothing like a James bond song.
Nope. Doesn't work
Incorrect.
Yes it does
Okay 😐
I liked the James Bond ripoff song 🙁
Narrative was supposed to be an OVA, that's why it lacked a lot.
the CG was a letdown
wtf is sunrise doing! this is not Muv Luv goddamit
The gundams look stupid. Gigi is sex. Hathaway is meh.
NOVEL GIGI
SUPERIOR
Gigi literally pleases old men for money that's hot tho
haven't watched it but I like the Xi and characters look cool, Penelope looks good in the MA form but as a mobile suit it's just strange with the chicken head thingy
Cool concept, boring execution. If they were going to make it such a slow burn, they could at least give us more insight into Hathaway's ideology, but we don't really get much in that regard, just him and the annoying female lead. The first mech action sequence looked decent in CG, but the final battle was such a clusterfrick, I could barely tell what was going on. And yeah, the Penelope and Xi don't look that great in CGI, but I understand why they had to use it.
see
you just didn't pay attention
>you just didn't pay attention
I feel like most of the criticism I see for anything Gundam related just amounts to this
The film did a really poor job of explaining details to someone who's completely anime-only tbf. I'm pretty sure everyone who didn't find the movie difficult to understand have been familiar with the novel enough to fill the gaps in the narrative.
I'm an anime only and had no issue keeping track of everything. The only part that tripped me up was faking Xi exploding with the beam rifle and they basically spell that out 5 minutes later.
>I'm pretty sure everyone who didn't find the movie difficult to understand have been familiar with the novel enough to fill the gaps in the narrative.
literally 99.9% of the people who watched the movie never read the book
This movie really exposed the rampant brainletism on /m/. I still haven't gotten around to watching G-Reco, but I guess G-Recogays were spot on when they were going around calling everyone here a moron back in the day.
No, G-reco is just shit.
Off-topic but just wait for the movies to finish coming out. They improved on G-Reco immensely. Especially 4.
do we have a timeline for this, and what do you mean by improved?
g-reco is perfectly parsable if you're fine with say brain-powered or literally most of late tomino stuff
the guy is just not interested in giving you a free meal or doing the mental legwork for you and if you want to know stuff, you have to pay attention same as you would with say, a FROM Software game and that's not something audiences in the west are really used to
if you don't have basic media literacy, g-reco is completely incomprehensible -- which is kind of clever because it means its a fantastic moron filter to stop idiots and nationalists from wrongly interpreting the work through their own needy frightened lens and the people there for pretty lightshows still get their pretty robot lightshow
I mean improved pacing, animation and several new scenes and dialog. Movie 4 is literally 80% new footage
nice, i'm looking forward to them o7
>g-reco is perfectly parsable if you're fine with say brain-powered or literally most of late tomino stuff
Brain Powerd is shit too. Gonna defend Garzy's Wing next?
I liked G-Reco but you sound like an insufferable homosexual far up your own ass.
If G-reco's storytelling was supposedly as good as FromSoft's then people would love G-reco the same way they love FromSoft games. But that isn't the case.
FromSoft games are beloved by redditors
Fromsoft's games have very little to zero story, if anything, their storytelling is dogshit. Their most properly narratived game was Kuon, a creepy game with no mouth animation.
They do have a story, it's just not told conventionally and isn't the main focus of the game. If you want movies get a ps4.
I played alot of game's type other than PS's cinematic turds and i can still comprehend the plot pretty well. Perhaps because they don't use some weird ancient English with bunch of in-universe buzzwords i don't give a frick about.
>use some weird ancient English with bunch of in-universe buzzwords
What does Gundam have to do with this?
Everything moron. It's just like it.
Not him. But sorry to break it to yer without YouTubers explaining from software games stories folks would think those games have shit stories too. Better yet there's plenty on Cinemaphile & YouTube that thinks the stories are poorly written or lack a story let alone a coherent plot that make similar complaints about tomino anime Such as ambiguous writing or lack of explanations on story or lore elements.
Which means to them it's bad.
>But sorry to break it to yer without YouTubers explaining from software games stories folks would think those games have shit stories too
literally the only reason they do it was because places like Cinemaphile were invested enough in the "story" of these games to piece it together and find out about the lore, the trend wouldn't be a thing if they didn't like it
And even then it's only because the games are paced like a video game would so you can take your time and figure things out on your own. G-Reco's pacing is just bad and hurts your investment even if you can follow it
Based. From software is most likely have been inspired by tomino's writing to an extent due to the fact they have worked on plenty of anime Mecha IP's including Gundam. Another century is a crossover series from software created themselves.
But there's no sources I can find proving that.
He made a logical comparison anon. Far from being up his own ass
I mean Hidetaka Miyazaki has literally cited Tomino in the artbooks of 4th gen, and FROM has on numerous occasions joked about the way Tomino is obsessed with human phenomena while being uninterested in human motivation.
If he leaves just enough room, the cinema of the mind takes over and just like how "not knowing" can be scarier than "knowing", the characters can feel more real than real people do -- which Tomino learned from French cinema.
FROM kinda takes this to a new level, and its why there are so many versions of what few breakout characters there are in FROM games.
You literally become those characters. Ironically, Tomino's writing style may better suit games than anime.
I get why the old fart was so angry he got typecast into mecha shows when he wanted to do human interest stories in live action. He's heralded as advancing the genre for the same reason that Verhoven is praised for Robocop -- he didn't treat science fiction as science fiction and focused in on the human interest story which was wild and new for nerds and meant a lot of non-nerds were actually fans.
Unfortunately nerds tend to wow-cool-robot-ify whatever they come across, going bonkers over the props and vehicles in movies instead of the human interest parts which allowed them to become memorable in the first place (which climaxes insufferably in ready player one).
I imagine Verhoven rolled in his grave when Robocop was used for toy sales and kids cartoons. Tomino did it out of the gate to push his own anti-war pro-human interest message.
If you're a mecha fan who is only there for cool robots doing cool things, you have no idea what the genre is about and probably can't even put what the actual reasons for the robots to exist within the narrative construct of the story or why they look or act or have the features they have even is.
If you'd like to learn, start at the beginning and learn to think critically.
>can't even put what the actual reasons for the robots to exist within the narrative construct of the story or why they look or act or have the features they have even is.
Please learn english before you attempt to partake in discussion
>wow i forgotten about this thread & its still up
Thanks for the long response anon. I didn't know from discussed tomino in some form of publishing. A lot of what you say is very fascinating. I'll like to hear more of the similarities of fromsoft & tomino's writing styles. Do u mind sending me a link to any interviews or info that fromsoft published about tomino?
I still think it's one of the best movies I watched in the last two years. I loved it so much.
CG, Xi, and Gigi still suck but Pen's design has grown on me.
Never understood the complaints about pacing. It was slow but I found it more engaging than the more schlocky Gundam movies like NT or Trailblazer.
>hathaway accidentally gets dabbed on by a fricking cab driver
Made me laugh.
This scene will never not make me laugh. It just makes Hathaway look so pathetic.
why because he's not your epoch making imaginary "the heroes journey" silent protagonist?
he's easily the most interesting gundam protagonist we've had in quite a while because he actually has bullshit to get over instead of being a power-fantasy for pre-teens and men in their mid to late twenties and early thirties who never stopped needing media to live vicariously through people who don't exist
the guy is literally a radicalized dumbass who doesn't understand why he's doing what he's doing on an internalized level (only on an ideological level) so he internalized the ideology to make up for his utter lack of personal development and that's literally the entire point of the story -- he's meant to be a loser who strives for empowerment and totally fricks it up because he didn't grow as a person
again if you want fireworks go play doom or something -- or worse, is hathaway's awkwardness too close to home for you?
>he's easily the most interesting gundam protagonist we've had in quite a while because he actually has bullshit to get over instead of being a power-fantasy for pre-teens and men in their mid to late twenties and early thirties who never stopped needing media to live vicariously through people who don't exist
Lol we don't even know what he's "getting over" since we STILL don't know if this is a Beltorchika's Children sequel or a CCA sequel
>Lol we don't even know what he's "getting over" since we STILL don't know if this is a Beltorchika's Children sequel or a CCA sequel
>flashback LITERALLY shows a scene from CCA
>"but we don't know"
you can't actually be this moronic anon, you must be trolling
You absolute dumb frick. They've said a million times that it's following CCA
>they've said
The director can say whatever he wants behind the scenes, that doesn't mean anything in the movie says it. It's ambiguous at best.
Literally look at this
Also if the director says it is why the frick wouldn't it be?
And? Quess is in BC.
>Also if the director says it is why the frick wouldn't it be?
Just like Dumbledore is gay right?
Black person, why the frick would the anime adaptation of HF follow the God damn book that was never adapted? Do you know how stupid that is? Saying Dumbledore is gay was something that came out after the books were fricking finished. The director I.e. the one adapting the fricking story made it clear this was following CCA not BC before the movie even came out. They've already made changes from the books so I don't know why the frick you think this isn't one of them.
>Why would the anime adaption
>Follow the never adapted thing
>THERE ARE CHANGES
>THAT MEANS IT ISN'T AN ADAPTION
>ADAPTION
what did he mean by this anons?
I'm convinced you're trolling because no one is this moronic. Why would the adaptation of Hathaway's Flash follow the never adapted Beltorchika's Children instead of following CCA. The answer is that it wouldn't. It's following CCA because this is the anime timeline.
no, anon: "canon" is a concept that only exists in american and european consumers, or is learned *from* those audiences and their need from it -- because it in turn is based on the cultural impression the enforcement of biblical canon which was kind of a huge thing in europe due to the persecutions and inquisitions which affected the literary culture of europe around the initial time the printing press was popularized
expecting some totally different place with its own independent literacy culture to conform to your idea of how adaptions work (which by the way, are things adapted, which means to change them to adjust them to a new context)
sunrise/bandai also gave the logic of "whatever we animate newest is the canon" to shut western fans up, also.
sit your ass down
Actually fricking have a nice day. The director said it followed CCA. There is no discussion. And Japan absolutely has a concept of canon
yeah, 公式 "koushiki" meaning "official"
it means "mutual romantic feelings", and its generally defined by relationships work in literature. it has nothing to do with the events of a story, but the relationships and feelings of characters -- because japanese storytelling is usually way more interested in those things than say, where someone was on some very specific date or what the state of some war was.
there's also 正規性 ("seiki-sei") meaning "normality" meaning "what is considered normal", which comes from the chinese written word 正規性 ("zhenggui xing") meaning "formality" which the idea of "normality" in Japanese storytelling actually inherits
this is why gundam plays so insanely fast and loose with canon and is very happy to mix things up provided it results in interesting stories.
to paraphrase an article on this very subject, this is why by western standards, its very hard to make a good historiography of the one year war, and why gundam is seen by western audiences as reader-hostile.
https://www.zimmerit.moe/historiography-gundam-one-year-war-canon/
tl;dr: you're an idiot who's too isolated, ill-read, culturally blindsided and full of himself to know why he's an idiot
I'm full of myself says the Black person who won't listen to the guy making the film.
???
i think you're mixing me up with someone else. i agree with the director, because they're communicating their intent directly to the audience. what i'm talking about is how UC and Gundam as a whole plays loose with canon, and that you should treat it as murkier and blurrier than you do western work
I do, anon. Obviously canon is flexible in Gundam. I mean Doan's island is very fricky timeline wise and yet there it is.
yeah the meme of the scoober-diving pineapple being the nickname of the zaku has never been so potent
the embracing of the animation error is very cute imo and i kinda like it
Kamen Rider fan here. They literally put out timelines of entries so the audience can know the chronological order in which they happen, producers have to come out and clarify which works happen in alternate timelines/universes and also where the canon works take place chronologically (once there was an oversight on a movie because a character lost his powers in a previous one, so they felt the need to say that the former movie's events happened before the latter's) and none of that is for the western audiences. There are Japanese who care about this shit.
that's actually pretty blessed and i'm glad they do this but they didn't always care about this shit and caring about it isn't something everybody or every audience does
i'm kinda of the mind that people who get upset about canon don't really want good stories, they want good worlds and for that to happen, those worlds have to be consistent on their practical events to make them more real, which is apparently better in some way
like, i understand it helps construct an expectation of what is/isn't possible going into say, a fight or an emotional exchange but i think lugging around ancient baggage is something only boomers really do at this point and their kids who inherited that.
i get not everybody feels the same way and i'm 100% fine with that, but i think making a solid chronology should always come second to making a good story and a good work.
that said, its very common that those who don't tell good stories don't even understand or care about the value of negating a chronology and just do it anyway because they don't care to begin with and you see that in a lot of work
Ah, it's this autist again.
>"canon" is a concept that only exists in american and european consumers
you again? why do you keep coming back and spewing the same bullshit time and time again?
first time i've posted here in about four or five months now?
the fact other people are saying this independently should mean something to you but sure, ignore something obvious to anybody not from europe or america ¯_(ツ)_/¯
>four or five months
I wish it'd be years you insufferable b***h
oh from that i can almost feel out that you think you know who i am
go on, i used to namegay, take a crack at it and then go back to complaining about a pretty good movie so we don't derail this mess
jesus christ how hard are you coping for all those haruhi dances you did as a teenager rn
you don't even know when to apply death of the author and when not to, how fricking stupid are you?
you should have been a facial
You're the one sounding like a teenager
ok mort
>the most interesting gundam protagonist
>suffers from PTSD about the time he got cucked
ironic you post Gato since his whole character is just "MUH HONOR" and you gays eat it up
He's cool and all, but I kinda wanna know which Gundam protags you're envisioning, since most UC protagonists have severe shit to get over. If you're talking about AU, sure. If you're talking about the characters that share a timeline with Hathaway, you're full of shit.
>It just makes Hathaway look so pathetic.
because he is, jesus christ you people are so goddamn stupid
he was born a loser, also, Quess has a nice ass.
laughing at pathetic people doesn't make you strong
it's weird how so many clever people are completely fricking unable to understand character motivations. go watch isekai shit if you want your juvenile power fantasy fulfilled
>laughing at pathetic people doesn't make you strong
Are you really telling people not to laugh at a fictional character
That's literally the point my dude
this, this, this. i'm shocked by the utter lack of even basic media literacy or emotional literacy of the posters here sometimes. its like in the pursuit of trying to be stoic and disaffected by their own demons, they all forgot how basic human emotions work
Can we just get a screenshot of just Quess' thigh/ass here?
That's the entire point. Hathaway is pathetic.
He really isn't
>has to swear to himself like half a dozen times to nut up and abandon the poon tang if he wants to be a grown up terrorist
>still fails to do so at a ton of opportunities, actively hindering himself and his organization
>this apparently isn't the first time either given his would be escort in the escape says his weakness is coming back to light again
Why else do you think he killed Chan?
Yes
This was the best fricking scene in the whole movie, what are you on about? It reveals Hathaway's truest motivations in a blink of an eye.
>heard about this shit ages ago but never watched it
>"oh huh I wonder if they redeem that little shit?"
>see this
Guess not.
Him being a little shit is kinda the point. He's not supposed to be redeemable.
it's not like I was staking anything on it, it's honestly better that he remains consistent instead of having them rewrite him.
I should hope that he's different than when he was 13 years old
most people don't stay consistently the same through all of adult and elderly age the same way they were as a preteen
>I should hope that he's different than when he was 13 years old
He is, however the story starts with Gigi meeting Hathaway and reawakening the unresolved feelings he had for Quess during CCA.
The way I see it he thinks he can redeem himself with her somehow.
For most of the film Hathaway is pretty level-headed and rational, except for during the Davao raid when Gigi is in danger, for that moment he reverts a bit.
I'm pretty sure this is the point of his character. To show Hathaway struggling to balence his personal wants with his ideological motives and expectations as the leader(or face) of Mafty.
During the raid we see Esmeralda react to Hathaway's reckless actions with surprise hinting that this isn't how he's been carrying himself until now.
nah Gigi is a dumb b***h
>t. Didn't watch the movie
She's incredibly observant and witty. There's a reason why Kenneth wanted her to stay with him
Gigi best gundam
>shows that Bandai can still do good regular mech animation
>Bandai
Bandai Namco Filmworks, anon.
What's a "sunrise"?
Loved it on first watch and still think it’s amazing. Plot is whatever; it’s the clunkiness of the mecha, the whirring and HUDs and aircraft delicacy that makes it shine.
claiming no 2D animators can animate Moriki and Katoki's big robots
Lol
you know the industry isn't that industry anymore, right? that animators are worked MUCH harder for MUCH less than they used to be? that a lot of talent has LEFT the industry?
Alot of them are still around. Jap boomers are not that easy to give up their jobs.
Also, CG artists are not cheap and not meant to be lowballed. Look at recent events at Marvel studio.
>a lot of talent has LEFT the industry
lmao, you fricking moron
A lot of skilled mecha veterans are still around, but not all of them are willing and able to animate complex scenes at their age. Another frequently overlooked issue is the lack of skilled inbetween and second key animators for mecha animation; not many young animators get the chance to hone their skills on mecha animation.
Beside uglier coloring, younger 2D mecha animators still learn basic skills to make the scene works. The problem here is, the cgi mecha happen not because of lack of budget, but the director/producer's vision and choice.
"It look like dogshit so it must be cheap" is nothing more than copium.
>copium
Go back.
FRICK triangles, Messer best suit of the show
>gets dabbed on by fatboy gustavs
We're eating our narrative vegetables until some cooler UC story comes along.
now that Witch From Mercury shows that Bandai can still do good regular mech animation
Majority of Sunrise's mecha stuff are 2D animation. Cgi only takes a very small portion of their product.
One of the best movies I've seen recently. I like the slow burn pacing.
I like it a lot and I prefer its style over Unicorn and NT. Looking forward to the next parts even though I already know how it ends.
The fact that the western release is just called Hathaway instead of Hathaway's Flash still makes me dumbfounded. What, did they think gaijin pigs couldn't process the word "flash"?
Blame americans
Japanese animation is so inefficient, it's a miracle that something is done this way. I've seen kids animating faster on flipaclip
It was kino
>ctrl f lighting
>0 results
You can have the best animation in the world but it won't matter if the audience can't see shit. It's way too dark, what was the director thinking?
If you're watching a rip, then yes it looks like ass. It's perfectly fine on the Blu-ray itself, and that's even with default settings on a TV.
The movie is made with theaters in mind so watching it in the dark makes things alot more bearable..
WHAT THE FRICK? WHY DIDN'T THEY DESIGN IT TO BE WATCHABLE ON PHONES?
They should probably design it to be watchable at home first and foremost, whether on TVs or monitors or whatnot, because that is where most people will watch it the vast majority of time. It'll be in theaters for a few weeks of it's lifetime, ever; it'll be on home media for basically forever. Designing something primarily for cinemas is just being a dick, because most people don't have a cinema in their home and even if they go to the cinema to see it several times during it's run, they're still unlikely to have on at home to see it in that format after that point.
theaters are the absolute best way to experience a movie
I think Lynch is a bit overzealous, but his point is correct. Seeing a movie somewhere that isn’t a theater is never the true way to experience it. Theaters are legit, you can’t beat them in terms of cinematic presentation.
Thinking that because certain people can’t experience a movie in the best way that the movie itself should be designed for inferior mediums of presentation is absolutely ridiculous.
They should start designing TV shows for theaters too. And albums for dance clubs. And clothes only for balls where they can be shown off and appreciated at their best. I mean, who cares if people will mostly wear them to do work or for more practical purposes; that's not them at their BEST!, therefor frick anyone who uses them at any other level.
>strawman strawman strawman
All different arguments, which I did not make! Clothes, for instance have practical use. I have steel toe boots but I don’t wear them all the time because there is no practical point in that.
Some clothes have artistic purpose and some do not.
Art is not something with practical applications, it doesn’t exist FOR anyone, it fundamentally exists as a result of the artists intentions. Saying that a power tool should be designed so that most people are able to use it is different from arguing that pearls should be covered in dirt so swine can enjoy them more.
Art isn’t a tool, silly!
> Art is not something practical applications
Speaking of strawmen. Who cares if both theater are home use are practical? I'll do one a LOT more than the other in a larger variety of moods, times etc. Does that mean that said usage is inferior or invalid compared to a theater?
> Art fundamentally exists as a result of the artists intentions
Horseshit. It more often exists because someone paid them to create something that fits their remit, not because the artist had a burning desire to get the project out. And even the times where the artist is creating for it's own purpose they're often doing so with the intention of ultimately selling it, because artists still gotta eat. Very little art is created solely for it's own sake. Art absolutely is a tool, and it's one experienced in a whole variety of ways. Pearls aren't pure for the appreciation of them as art; they're pure because it drives up the cost and allows greater profit.
>Who cares if both theater are home use are practical?
Clearly you do since you argument revolves around, and I quote, “practical purposes” as opposed to the best form of presentation.
> Does that mean that said usage is inferior or invalid compared to a theater?
My argument for the superiority of the theater never had anything to do with which one was used more. It had to do with the manner in which the art is presented, the theater being the superior manner.
>It more often exists because someone paid them to create something that fits their remit, not because the artist had a burning desire to get the project out.
Unless they’re enslaved, no one is forcing them to make it.
It returns to their fundamental intention to create. The extrinsic element of compensation is not a counterargument, as I have contradicted that point, logically.
> Clearly you do since you argument revolves around, and I quote, “practical purposes” as opposed to the best form of presentation.
I mentioned "practical purposes" an an example of difference between use cases for clothes specifically that anon; not because that was the only differentiation that matters in any medium.
> My argument for the superiority of the theater never had anything to do with which one was used more. It had to do with the manner in which the art is presented, the theater being the superior manner.
And my argument is that the superiority of the cinema doesn't really matter, when it makes up a fraction of how people will experience the film over it's life time.
> Unless they’re enslaved, no one is forcing them to make it.
No, they're just agreeing to do so for money. Their intention at that point is less important than the intention of the person paying the bills. Which, if you doubt that for even one second, then please take a look at how often writers, directors etc. bow to producers when creating films versus how often it happens the other way around.
> The extrinsic element of compensation is not a counterargument, as I have contradicted that point, logically.
No, you haven't. You feel you're right emotionally perhaps, but you haven't proven it logically and you won't be able to because this isn't based on logic at all. It's a subjective argument, not an objective one. And if you think otherwise, then you are just as "overzealous" as you thought Lynch was.
>superiority of the cinema doesn't really matter, when it makes up a fraction of how people will experience the film over it's life time
that’s an ad populum fallacy
>No, they're just agreeing to do so for money
And thus their intention is the ultimate result. If they did not intend to create art they would not make it. Finance is an extrinsic element as I’ve logically proven.
>producers
another extrinsic element, as plenty of films have been made without large production companies influencing the work.
> It's a subjective argument, not an objective one
It is objective as it relates to the objective creation of the art. If the intention is not to create art then art would not be created; logically, money is an extrinsic element. If money were intrinsic then art could never be created without money, yet we both know that’s not true.
Perchance, your emotions are getting in the way? If you feel left out (a “sour grapes” situation, if you will), that’s not really a logical reason to think making films for theaters is bad. Much less a reason to claim that money is inherently related to the creation of art.
In fact, what does ANY of your argument have to do with my original point?
that
>thinking certain people can’t experience a movie in the best way that the movie itself should be designed for inferior mediums of presentation is absolutely ridiculous
Your points relate to whether art is created for money; we’ve proven that some art is, and some art is not. Art does not inherently exist for money; this is a logical conclusion.
>most people don’t see movies in theaters
ad populum fallacy, moving on
and nothing else you said relates to that point.
Glad you’ve conceded.
> that’s an ad populum fallacy
No, it's not. It's ad populum, if that's how you want to phrase it, but it's not a fallacy to raise it as an argument when that's the entire point in the first place.
> And thus their intention is the ultimate result.
Their intention is no more the ultimate result than the intention of the person paying them to create something they want. In fact, the person paying usually has some idea of what they want first, as well as having final say in most cases; so their intention is more often the ultimate result and not the artist.
> It is objective as it relates to the objective creation of the art.
Which is not what I am arguing for, so I don't care. I'm not arguing on it as "the best art", I'm arguing on it as "the way most people will experience it". Which is why it's not objective in the first place, because we are both arguing different things take priority. You cannot be objective in that case, because both objectives are different. You will not come to a formula where "X > Y" or something, so an objective truth is impossible. Only subjective i.e. which you think matters more; the best possible experience in a tiny sliver of time, or making the experience most people will have better.
> If the intention is not to create art then art would not be created; logically, money is an extrinsic element.
It's not a "Yes/No" proposition, because that cuts out any shades completely, when almost all art is art that satisfies both the artist and their patron to some degree rather than being the pure vision of either. Again, you are trying to reduce this to logic when it doesn't actually matter.
>it's not a fallacy to raise it as an argument when that's the entire point in the first place.
Who said that was the entire point? My point was that the theater is the best way to experience film so most film shouldn’t have any serious regard for other forms of presentation. So when you say that “well a lot of people won’t see it in theaters” what does that have to do with the art itself? Their experience is irrelevant to the art’s objective existence.
> Their intention is no more the ultimate result than the intention of the person paying them to create something they want.
If you’re talking about commissions the artist still has to create art. They aren’t being commissioned to not create art and they aren’t being forced to take a commission.
>I’m not arguing on it as "the best art", I'm arguing on it as "the way most people will experience it".
which is fallacious because my point has nothing to do with the number of people who experience said art.
> Only subjective i.e. which you think matters more; the best possible experience in a tiny sliver of time, or making the experience most people will have better
Except it’s not subjective, we’re discussing the way that the art can be most clearly experience. In this situation it is actually completely objective since the contention is how bright the scenes are. If you want to experience the art in the most clear way then your eyes will be most adapted for that in the darkness of the theater.
>you are trying to reduce this to logic when it doesn't actually matter
logic is how we know things, if you don’t think logic applies to this argument how are you making one?
>Is it "sour grapes" on their part that they'll never "truly" experience the film too, and instead just have to settle for an inferior version the artist never even thought about?
If they think that the original work should be dumbed down because they can’t experience it in the fullest manner, yes
> Who said that was the entire point?
You're right; I should have clarified "MY entire point" rather than use an ambiguous term like "the entire point (that I'm making)".
> what does that have to do with the art itself?
Because art doesn't just exist in the place it's best viewed, and usually isn't actually experienced at that best so only creating it with "at it's very possible best" is kind of dickish, since it's diminishing the experience and consideration of most people who'll experience the art. Which ignores the advance of technology anyway. If "at it's best" is the ultimate consideration then you'll always be waiting for "the best" technology to arrive, rather than working with what's available in either making or showing the product.
> They aren’t being commissioned to not create art and they aren’t being forced to take a commission.
And without the commissioner that art will almost always live and die in the artist's mind, rather than actually making it to anyone's hands. If art didn't make money then there'd be a lot less artists. You'd have people who think about creative ideas, but they'd stay ideas, because the majority of people would value eating over exploring those ideas.
> which is fallacious because my point has nothing to do with the number of people who experience said art.
And my point was that maybe that should be given consideration in direct response to your point. Which is where the clash of "this isn't objective or logical" is coming in. You raised a point, I gave another and both are somewhat exclusive of each other. If you don't want to discuss whether the experience of the majority has value versus the best possible experience then move on, but that's really what it's coming down to. Which you're not going to logic a win on, since logic won't answer something subjective.
>If "at it's best" is the ultimate consideration then you'll always be waiting for "the best" technology to arrive, rather than working with what's available in either making or showing the product
That doesn’t contradict my point
>without the commissioner that art will almost always live and die in the artist's mind
not necessarily
>my point was that maybe that should be given consideration in direct response to your point
can you give a logical explanation why? Or are you just going to make an appeal to population again?
> That was a deliberate decision on the part of the people making it.
Yes, that’s part of making art. If you want to experience the art in question in the most clear way possible then there is only one objective answer.
> Logic is how we know specific things; not how we know anything
actually it IS how we know anything
>favorites, emotion, nostalgia
first of all, “in matters of taste there is no dispute”
second, if we want to go deeper, even these things can be known logically, as they are the results of electrochemical processes in your brain. They objectively exist and thus can be known via our capacity to reason. The objective quality of something is distinct from our personal reactions to it.
>"theater is best because it allows the artist to create the best possible version of their art", and yes, logically it will be. I don't care, because it wasn't my point
So your objection is not based in logic but rather in your own tastes, and thus isn’t actually a refutation of my point.
>just as legible on one as the other
All irrelevant.
Anything that goes against the intentions of the artist is dumbing it down. The director is the artist, and though film is technically a collaborative endeavor, artistically it is not. The director is the maximum position in the artistic hierarchy of film and thus the film is ultimately a result of him and not the cinematographer. Legibility is irrelevant to this discussion.
> So your objection is not based in logic but rather in your own tastes, and thus isn’t actually a refutation of my point.
I'd have thought that was clear several posts ago given how much I mentioned subjectivity and so on, but yes. It's also patently not a point you wish to argue at all, so there's no point in further discussion.
Glad you’ve finally conceded, thank you.
> In fact, what does ANY of your argument have to do with my original point?
What do you think the original point was? And why is my point "i.e. maybe they should prioritize home media more when that's where most people will experience it" invalid in light of whatever your point was? Or "sour grapes" for that matter? Do you immediately want to dismiss any opposition, rather than engage with it? What about someone born 50 years after the film was last in a cinema? Is it "sour grapes" on their part that they'll never "truly" experience the film too, and instead just have to settle for an inferior version the artist never even thought about?
> Your points relate to whether art is created for money
No, my point with raising money at all is to point out that art is not created because of some pure vision in most cases, and is usually created as a compromise for others. So talking about the artist's pure vision is kind of stupid, since the existence of that art is rarely pure in the first place.
> Glad you've conceded
You really do just want to wave your "I'm right, shut up" dick around, huh?
> Except it’s not subjective, we’re discussing the way that the art can be most clearly experience. In this situation it is actually completely objective since the contention is how bright the scenes are.
The brightness can be accounted for during production to maximize the benefit for theaters or televisions though. That was a deliberate decision on the part of the people making it.
> logic is how we know things
Logic is how we know specific things; not how we know anything. What's your favorite food? Was that food decided on based on logic? Or was it based on something more ephemeral like emotion, nostalgia etc? If person A and person B both preferred different foods, how would you logic which is actually the real, objectively superior food? Logic cannot answer all questions, and not all questions are objective. You raised the point as "theater is best because it allows the artist to create the best possible version of their art", and yes, logically it will be. I don't care, because it wasn't my point. If you don't want to engage with my argument that maybe it's better to create for the conditions where it'll be experienced more then there's no point in further argument.
> If they think that the original work should be dumbed down because they can’t experience it in the fullest manner, yes
Making a scene brighter or darker is not "dumbing" it down. Dumbing down is almost always going to be in the script, which the director often isn't involved in. Some films convey a lot through cinematography, but that kind of cinema topography usually doesn't benefit much from the difference between theater or TV (or phone, for that matter). The use of angles, placement of objects in specific parts of the frame, audio cues etc. are all just as legible on one as the other.
If anon watched the actual making of videos, or saw the tweets from the staff, they'd see that the scenes were fully rendered and they didn't use darkness to cover up defects in animation. Plus, it's a fricking night battle, what did you expect?!
I never accused the filmmakers covering bad animation with darkness, I just can't see shit
People who watch movies on their fricking iPhones should DIE.
I imagine a lot of directors and executives were making much the same argument about televisions in the mid to late 1970s when home media through betamax and VHS became a thing.
they have a point, a lot of VHS tapes cropped the picture so it wasn’t actually what they filmed, only part of it
Ok Lynch
I actually haven't seen it. They justified its existence in the mainline CCA continuity by having the crew destroy Hathaway's black box to hide the Teamkilling right?
Since the original was a sequel to Beltorchica's Children where Hathaway DIDN'T simp so hard he murdered an ally.
It isnt actually mentioned
CCA is only referenced once or twice and Hathaway brushes it off without a proper explanation
Someone said there was a mini-manga explaining it. But that just runs into the issue of it not actually having a canon explanation. Since only the Anime are canon. (Which is why ZZ isn't canon.)
>(Which is why ZZ isn't canon.)
Don't troll newcomers like that.
it's tragically true after tomino made his zeta fanfiction that cut out a lot of the cybernewtype abuse and then paired Kamille with Fa and not being a potato
No, New Translation has nothing to do with it.
Only the Anime are canon, and ZZ tells you right in the intro that It's Not Anime.
Oh hey Black_Knight, been a while since I've seen you pop up. Did you finally abandon your trip? Or just forget it?
...Wait I thought I was being super original with that joke.
Ah well, nothing new under the sun!
The difference was, Black_Knight seemed to actually believe it. Or at least, used it as a serious argument. If he was trolling, he put in a good few replies on the subject and carried it on for a long ass time. Which can't have been much fun for him.
Wait he based it on the themesong? I know some people would point to New Translation or just b***h it was too silly.
What he based it on tended to shift over time, and even over the course of a thread as various points were raised to disprove his contention. He usually went back to the same couple of wells fairly regularly though.
Was the "It's not anime" joke a thing? I want to be original and hope some weird troll didn't beat me to it.
People have been making that joke about ZZ in various forms for literal decades; it probably started while the show was airing. It's certainly been a thing here since the board started. Or at least, shortly afterwards.
Ah well I'll settle for convergent evolution. Or maybe I accidentally stole it years and years ago.
I think it’s a good movie for people who don’t like /m/echa
If they stay faithful to the novels, Part 2 will be 90% mecha action and 10% politics
go back, deacon
Lol people still thinking Deacon comes here is hilarious
thanks, jannie
I thought it was pretty boring tbh, but it does have potential for a cool 2nd film
It's quite baffling that they didn't redesign the MS in this movie despite Tomio giving them the greenlight to do it. They look hideous.
*Tomino
>It's quite baffling that they didn't redesign the MS in this movie
They did, you blind moron.
I liked the visuals enough to have bought the recently released MS and Mechanic artbook. Really makes you appreciate the details put into the backgrounds, UIs and the lineart of the mobile suits.
Music was pretty good. I liked most of the tracks, and the Alexandros theme song was nice.
Still iffy on Hathaway as a charater but I'm OK with them not laying everything out in movie 1. Son/Sun of Bright when?
could you upload scans of it in sadpanda?
I love the movie design for the Xi. Particularly the face
ALL I WANTED was the Xi gundam to look like its Fix Figuration katoki design from the early 2000s
Instead Katoki made the Xi gundam look moronic. frick
what a terrible redesign
removes all the flair, character, and innovation the original design had.
ka-joke-i
Kucktoki fans really have no standards. Always hyping up the most boring looking mecha designs imaginable.
Novel > movie > fix figuration Xi
It's cool, but the movie Xi is just so much more unique and interesting
I keep hearing about how Lane will go on to claim the lives of most of Mafty, yet the movie still portrays him as a terrible pilot. Was his characterization different in the novel?
The tech gap is too much for other Mafty pilots to overcome even if Lane's a terrible pilot. Gawman is an ace and yet he looks completely lost against him just flying around.
He gets better overtime. Just needed real life battle experience
>s his characterization different in the novel?
I heard on /m/ that he was more of a dick in the novel
there he drops Gawman because he was annoying him and wanted to kill him rather than wanting an honorable duel with Hathaway
I presume Kenneth is going to chew him out for that and then Lane will adopt Kenneth's more pragmatic approach to fighting Mafty
causing him to open fire and sink Mafty's ship in movie 2 (which is again what I heard happens later on)
I liked it a lot. It had a little more to say than the schlock of Gundam AUs nowadays. The action scenes were sparse for sure, but they made them count. I can definitely see how this would've bored the average viewer though
>schizo thread
What's her endgame?
sauce?
if you can't figure out how to find it yourself then HF is too complex for you
@Davidhuang710
That art is very hot, although the anatomy is inaccurate because her bust is just B cup at best.
To frick ALL the rich old men
to get raped by 3rd worlder indians/savages
If full frontal was possessed by Char's resentfulness, was Hathaway possessed by Katz's simpishness?
The CG ms look good but I have to admit I prefer traditionally drawn anime over CG anime any day
the battle in Gundam witch from mercury prologue is so well animated I am so pissed they cheaped out on Hathaway when there is barely any fighting
also picture is a superior design than the shit Xi gundam we got in Hathaway
No it isn’t.
>That being it's an incomplete story that doesn't standalone with no timeline at all for it being continued/completed
why does that make it bad
>"we had to use CG because of the complexity of the Xi and Penelope" thing falls apart because you barely see the goddamned things
how is this a logical statement
where is this quote from btw
>of the three action sequences Xi vs Penelope is by far the worst
why
>most of it is a mobile suit randomly firing off shots at the other which is beyond visual range
why does that make it bad
how long was the movie originally?
what the hell is Arceus and what does it have to do with the design of the Penelope?
>how long was the movie originally?
We don't know how long was that supposed to be, although it's more likely that the final runtime was already decided at the beginning and they just worked around it.
You'll get a good idea on much was cut if you compare it to the novels especially when anything else right to the dialogue is seems to be pretty faithful to those.
>We don't know how long was that supposed to be, although it's more likely that the final runtime was already decided at the beginning and they just worked around it.
So do you think they animated more than they needed and edited it down or are you saying they just didn’t animate certain parts of the section of the novel?
> We don't know how long was that supposed to be, although it's more likely that the final runtime was already decided at the beginning and they just worked around it.
Where can you get them in english
The English translations for the first book is just a few searches away. Not linking it here because some gay would cry again to the janny to delete it.
One notable change is that they supposed to have a little car chase scene, but it got replaced by the Jollibee cameo, which is quite a bummer because they already have a concept art for it.
frick off, deacon
Y'all really think he wastes time trolling this place? His ass is too busy tweeting to bother. Other anon are just as resourceful
>a few searches away
>extrinsic reason for not linking them
A little iffy there
also that doesn’t look like concept art for a car chase
It's basically a concept art for chapter 9 and 10 of the novel, which also includes the car chase.
How fricking new are you, Jesus in heaven?
On rewatch I was a little down on it. Not that's it's bad or anything, far from it, just that the good parts remain good, while the bad parts feel a little more annoying.
That being it's an incomplete story that doesn't standalone with no timeline at all for it being continued/completed, the action scenes are all too dark, and the "we had to use CG because of the complexity of the Xi and Penelope" thing falls apart because you barely see the goddamned things - of the three action sequences Xi vs Penelope is by far the worst and most of it is a mobile suit randomly firing off shots at the other which is beyond visual range
Movie 1 needs to be redone
Yeah, I was afraid this would get rebuild-ed. Then again this isn't a personal project.
Ogata admits they may have cut too much.
If anything they didn't cut enough. It really could've been one movie and, if Tomino were in charge of it, it would be
Tomino doesn't decide that kind of thing generally; suits do, because they're the ones paying for it. He wanted more movies and budget for animation for the Zeta films, but had to make do with what he was given.
I imagine the suits wouldn't object to spending less money overall for one two hour film instead of a six hour film trilogy, and Tomino wouldn't want to make a six hour film trilogy because he'd be telling one self-contained story rather than trying to condense 52 episodes of material into film format
It depends, because you get less potential profit off 1 film versus 3. Someone will be doing the math on the up front cost versus expected profit (which can and often does wildly vary from actual profit) to decide that.
Penelope looking what would happen if a Gundam fricked an Arceus, i still dont get that design.
They obviously cut the runtime to allow more showings.
Could have been two movies
Its a solid film by all marks
But there's really nothing super memorable about it, in the same way all the "Tomino dialogue" scenes of CCA stand out, nor does it ever really feel all that grand
The designs were still a downgrade from Mikimoto's imo too
If you thought Amuro and Char fighting over a dead child prostitute a dozen years and a dozen b***hes later for either of them was a little ridiculous, well ol' Tomino's got something to show you. It's not about Hathaway being pathetic. Bernie was kinda pathetic, and he made the most of it. Hathaway is pathetic and evil. Like I can give (I can't believe I'm saying this) Katz or CCA Hathaway himself a pass, but at some point you're too old for your actions to be explained away by idiocy or misinformation. Hathaway gets one of the roughest endings in the entire franchise, but since it's his own massive homosexualry that leads him down that end it's hard to feel bad for him. Literally everyone would've been better off if he died a decade earlier. So what you have in the end is a story so pointless about a character so unlikable that it's not even tragic, unless you try to look at it from Bright's perspective.
I mean Tomino's original novel was a sequel to BC Hathaway who's still a simp but not a teamkilling simp.
Why do people still want to live on earth when Manhunters are around and it’s ww3 everyday with all these Mafty and fake Mafty attacks happening everywhere?
Why wasn’t Hathaway’s crew more angry with him after he nearly fricked up their whole plan because of a random prostitute?
They were indeed more angry at him in the novel, don't know why they downplayed it in the novels.
*in the movie, I mean
Probably because of runtime lol
You see emerelda (or whatever) get peeved at him and throw her cigarette and have that inner monologue, at least.
Given the ending of the novels and that the Earth Federation is still strong in the events that followed such as F91 and Crossbone, it's safe to say that all that fighting and sacrifice was for NOTHING.
We barely see the Federation in F91, and the leadership acts like the conflict isn't worth dealing with, but they lose when they do get involved; which implies they've weakened, and may just have been making excuses not to get involved when they thought the enemy strong, then rushed in when they senses weakness. I don't know what Crossbone says about them, or even recall the timeframe it takes place in, but the Federation are also explicitly weak by the time of Victory, and simply abdicate the colonies once Zanscare rise up. Not because Zanscare destroyed the Sides, or overwhelmed the Federation's forces like Principality of Zeon, but just because the Federation didn't have the strength to hold them any longer. It took most of the series for the Federation to even muster the resources to openly fight back after Zanscare invade. Again, not because Zanscare had destroyed any fighting strength they did have using something like the colony drop; they just weren't that rich or powerful any more.
It's a bit compromised by F91/Victory being made and ignoring it, but I think a more charitable interpretation would be that Hathaway's efforts drove the first nail into the Federations coffin.
It takes time before it finally falls, but it's all downhill for the Federation from this point, it never again is what it once was.
The main thing that's really lost is Kenneth's epiphany, which is the part that (as far as we know) doesn't eventuate or is so far untold.
Yeah, I'm kind of hoping there's some further UC Next 0100 project down the line in the UC0110s that has Kenneth as a prominent character or something.
I hope Lane comes back in Unicorn 2 as a diehard pro-Federation antagonist.
I enjoyed it, even with the wonky CGI in some parts. People whining about Hathaway being lame got filtered.
Hathaway is cool though.
Very cool.
I love it, probably my favourite gundam film so far.
its highly derivative (which is fine - but I could tell someone to watch Thunderbolt watching nothing else, and they'd be able to enter the franchise e z p z)
action packed
beautifully framed and colored
I'll grant the drama isnt the highest tier
But it was damn good
I thought I was gonna see Hathaway get the firing squad. Dissapointed
Also someone explain he dancing pumpkin man meme
Halloween news anchor dressed up and did the joke to be funny years before Hathaway. It resurfaced and turned into a meme because hijacker pumpkin mask
Pretty good setup for the trilogy, but I hold my judgement until I see the payoff
Wasn't this supposed to be a trilogy?
It still is, it's just that it's production schedule has been rona'd
Why didn't Hathaway take advantage of the unlimited cash card thing that had seemingly no tracking
He's not an butthole.
He also saw the unlimited cash card thing as a sign of the decadence of the Federation; so using it would have been highly hypocritical, since he's revolting specifically against that kind of thing. It's not like there was a lot he needed that he could have used the card for anyway.
>murders high ranking feddie officials along with their innocent wives and kids
>Endangers the lives of his crew because of one blonde b***h
>causes the deaths of hundreds of civilians in Davao
>Not an butthole
Did they actually take out any Federation officials or did they blow up two whole buildings for nothing?
I still love it. I am confident my opinion will remain consistent unless they change the ending.
I have now watched it about four or five times and I keep thinking it was possibly one of the best directed anime of the last ten years together with Evangelion 3.0+1.0. Both of them single handedly advanced the medium, and will be regarded as ground-breaking technical advancements for the next decade.
That picture is so absurdly dark like the rest of the fight scenes it makes me wonder if the version you watched is from another dimension.
>a good version of HF out there but in another timeline
That would be nice, but a pipe dream. Between this, Crossbone Gundam, and Wings of Rean it makes you wonder if Tomino is bad at literature.
Production on the second movie is likely still in storyboarding, you'd think Sunrise would have streamlined this after a year of delays.
I'm amazed more people don't point out how big chunks of the environment look like they were photos with a cellshade filter over them. Hathaway's garden walk scene is the most obvious example, but it does look like they just took photos of some spots and called it a day. It makes it very out of place with the rest of the UC entries.
Penelope still doesn't sound anything like a kaiju.