The valkyries from Macross Frontier that the protagonists use are supposed to be throwbacks to the original VF-1s, VF-25 Messiahs i think they're called
@AbdulMule: Too bad about the series devolving into referencing earlier, better series mixed with typical, modern tropes (though I should have recognized a problem when the MILITARY FIGHTERS also happened to be high school students and gratitous underaged characters reigned).
@EugeniaBSG: Do you have any idea how rugged a tugboat actually is? Where is this alleged tugboat? I don't see anything tugboat-like about the Galactica!
@EugeniaBSG: One of the particular reasons that I fell in love with the new design of the ship is because of the straight forward logic behind the design.
-Command Center is in the center of the ship where it is most protected
-Few windows due to firefights and atmospheric loss if they were damaged
-Rounder design as it isn't blocky looking compared to the original
-Interior very Spartan with nearly everything serving a specific purpose
Yes I'll admit that I wasn't too fond of the missing plating and rough exterior at first, but that was the charm that the designers of the series built in. It's like that beater car you drove in high school, it's not the best but you love it.
@EugeniaBSG: I mean, the Vipers were the things that were truly streamlined for war. They could turn on a dime and handle like a Lambo. The Galactica was an outdated, retired battlestar. The design they used was meant to make the audience realize that this ship was not the best possible ship to have by any means. If you look at the Pegasus (another Battlestar from the series) it's much more streamlined and futuristic.
Besides, the Valkyrie's look advanced enough that I don't think much re-imagining would be necessary. Since 'updating' would probably make them look like an F-22 Raptor, that conjures images of Michael Bay's Starscream. DO NOT WANT.
@Evdor: It's been done, and looks nothing like an F-22. Nothing officially available in the US, but check out Macross Zero, or any of the more recent Macross designs.
@Chronocidal Guy: Thanks, mate! My initial reaction for the request has been the long slow dread building up, anticipating Toby Maguire's rumored Robotech movie.
I think the Veritech design is one of the best examples of 20th century novelty/ingenuity in design. I am dreading it being molested for the movie. F-15s (16?) are a little dated since the first design, and I want to see this thing look good.
@gods-n-clods: If you think you're dreading it, you should see what the average Macross fan has to say (fans of the original Japanese show/plot, not the US Robotech version).
If they knew what was good for them, they'd just go back to the original source, and make a live action version of "Do You Remember Love?", the Japanese movie that summed up the essence of the entire series.
But yeah, there've been probably dozens of newer Macross style fighters made since the originals. The YF-19 has been one of my favorites for years.
@Ogami: Spaceballs was the concept art for Attack Of The Clones. The first time I saw the Federation ships I thought, "Spaceballs! Oh shit, there goes the planet!"
@Posthaus: i have a different theory that lucas poured the lion's share of his own efforts into the writing and direction and that is actually why the films missed the mark. it was not a lack of attention that caused them to fail but being overworked by an artist past his prime that was never all that good at writing or directing characters anyway. at any rate i think the prequels are exactly what lucas wanted them to be.
@Daveinva: To be honest, every aspect that was not done by George Lucas was pretty great. Terrible writing, god awful directing, but awesome special effects, artwork, and music.
@tetracycloide: God awful directing done singly, is exactly right. If Lucas had had even a single other person to bounce ideas off of, it might have been salvageable.
I mean... If someone comes to me with a written scene in which missiles are fired at a ship, ships dodge furiously, missiles catch up only to explode IN FRONT of the ship in a cloud of stupid spider bots, which proceed to dismantle the ship VERY SLOWLY... Well at that point I'd probably book a week for Lucas at an asylum for the totally disconnected from reality.
@Pope John Peeps II: The buzz droid missiles were able to get ahead of Obi-Wan's ship because of his lack of fancy flying. I would suggest that the speed at which they work is dictated by their size and shape - necessary to load them into capsules inside missiles. Against starfighters they also have to adapt to the small and uneven area they have to work in. They could also be used against large ship though, where they may be more effective since they can work realtively unhindered in larger numbers.
One thing to say about Star Wars though is that at least some of its concept art gets used much later on. Several unused prequel designs and some Ralph McQuarrie concepts have been utilised in, or inspired elements of the ongoing Clone Wars animated series. New character Cad Bane was himself inspired partly by an OT bounty hunter design. So you may see some more good stuff showing up in the future.
A missile catches up to a ship = explodes. Boom. Exciting
A George Lucas missile catches up to a ship = tiny stupid robots which artoo has to fight and then have to be scraped off by a wing. SCRAPED OFF?!
Lucas never fails to take an exciting thing and add three more things on to it, thus fucking ruining it forever. he can't just have somebody swing a lightsaber. That somebody has to flip three times and land on a tiny piece of metal floating in a lava lake. It's a fucking disaster.
I'm a sucker for costume concept sketches. Especially rejected designs that are cooler than the ones actually used. That sounds like a good post to me.
Although I admire the ability to draw a neat looking spaceship, my favorite scifi concept art is always the character and alien design. I like some of alien Jedi and Sith Lord ideas that didn't make it into the prequels more than the ideas that did make it.
I know this has been touched on by other commenters, but going by LeGuin's definition, Brazil is about as far from escapism as is possible, and is practically the opposite of what she's criticizing. Criticizing escapism isn't the same as criticizing the fantastic, and it has nothing to do with a genre-induced inferiority complex.
@jfpierce: Yes, I'm definitely arguing with Le Guin's definition. She obviously doesn't view her own work as escapist, but I would argue that it is. And Brazil is definitely an escapist film -- even if the escapist feeling gets crushed in the end. Lots of people fantasize about being someone like Sam Lowry, who gets to meet the woman he (literally) dreams about, and have a glamorous doomed romance with her.
@Charlie Jane Anders: But that's ridiculous! That's completely ridiculous! LeGuin clearly defines two connected things: 1) mythic literature, which uses the imagery of the amazing, and the beauty of grand epic storytelling to heighten our reality and 2) escapism, which is imagery of the amazing, but with no purpose, no thought, and no particular desire to express or enlighten.
If LeGuin was wrong, you have to show how she was wrong. But you aren't doing that! You're just re-writing her argument, but with the word "escapist" in place of the word "myth"!!
You're basically just re-writing the definition and attributing everything that used to be attributed to mythic literature to escapist literature. Escapism can be dark? Escapism can teach us about society? You're talking about myth.
You can't simply efface a definition because you want it to be a point. If you call escapism the new mythic, well sure... but then something else becomes the new escapist. And you're left with no advancement at all. You're just written 10 000 words just to change a name.
Been entertained reading the entire discussion and eventhough I disagree with some of the posters, the level of civil discourse on this thread has been just amazing.
While it's almost impossible to always "hit a homerun everytime you come up to the plate" the article, the theme, and the response to it has raised the bar and shown -without a doubt - i09's potential within the SF community.
@Ricky Cruz: Thanks! Actually, our comment threads tend to be civil more often than not -- except when we get into deep philosophical questions like "is Megan Fox a skank?"
Art is anything that takes your mind and lets it soar. Escapism is letting reality go hang and enjoying yourself for a while.I see art in cloud forms and mathmatics, in the most pulpy of novels and the most angsty painting. Art is both rotting old buildings that are crumbling to damp rubble and the siny new glass and steel Apple shop. All art allows you to escape the mundanity of reality, the things we have to do and need to do to continue living. Perfect art allows you to escape and makes you think about the reality we live in at the same time.
@Peppermint_m: I have a hard time seeing an Apple shop as art. It's a space designed by marketing committees to create a high-end aesthetic image that customers wish to identify themselves with by buying expensive products that make them feel better about themselves. Through spending more money you can feel like you're better than those dumb people who shop in the tacky Windows-dominated computer stores. It's basically the entire message of the Mac/PC ad campaign: be cool by spending more money in order to associate yourself with cool-looking objects and hip people. That's not art to me, that's vanity.
And this is one of the problems with escapism. When you're "soaring," you're not paying attention to who is picking your pocket. The capitalist masters win by having you make money for them working in their business all day long, and then spending your money on their escape tools to forget about how boring, alienating, and pointless it was at night. I don't blame anyone for wanting to escape this world, but there really is no escape. You're still in it paying rent, 24/7.
1) "It's a space designed by marketing committees to create a high-end aesthetic image that customers wish to identify themselves with by buying expensive products that make them feel better about themselves."
Okay, but what makes that not art? Are you saying that artistic choices were not made in the creation of that high-end aesthetic? Or is it just because it's selling something? Is "true art", then, something which sells ITSELF as the product (the music, painting, photograph, comic book, regular book) rather than selling something else?
2) "It's basically the entire message of the Mac/PC ad campaign: be cool by spending more money in order to associate yourself with cool-looking objects and hip people."
Isn't that also the message of "true art" as you've described it? Being cooler and hipper and more aware than the brainless, tacky people who don't associate with the right kind of art?
3) "That's not art to me, that's vanity."
All "true art" is vanity, isn't it? Why should any of us care what desperately important thought some self-described artiste is having?
4) "When you're "soaring," you're not paying attention to who is picking your pocket."
Doesn't this sort of assume that one is or should be feeling at war with entertainment media? And how, in turn, does this reflect on the art world? Is a pocket picked by an artiste any different or better?
5) "The capitalist masters win by having you make money for them working in their business all day long, and then spending your money on their escape tools to forget about how boring, alienating, and pointless it was at night."
Isn't this really just projecting your own shitty job situation? Do you honestly think it's true that everybody in our society is feeling bored, alienated and pointless? Do you really think that every person defending "escapism" in this thread feels that way about their lives? At what point does a statement like this go from being a judgement call to just being judgementalism?
6) "I don't blame anyone for wanting to escape this world, but there really is no escape. You're still in it paying rent, 24/7."
And that's kind of the rub anyways, isn't it? Even artistes need to pay rent. "True art" is a privileged position that essentially skims off the top of civilization. The problem you've outlined with corporations isn't really a problem of corporations: it's a problem of competition. The corporations just make art for the plebian rabble.
@Cory Gross: " "'True art' is a privileged position that essentially skims off the top of civilization."
Harvey Pekar had a 40-hour a week menial day job as a Veteran's Hospital file clerk schlepping around a cart full of files while producing his best work, which he paid people to draw and paid to publish out of his own limited income. Not much privilege there.
"Why should any of us care what desperately important thought some self-described artiste is having?"
This is a sit-com level cliche not even worth addressing.
@Pinkhamster: True about Pekar, but he was just writing comix anyways. Nothing but low-class escapism... Oh wait, I got that wrong. When I'm reading about how miserable some poor sot's life is, it's ahrt. Unless I think that it'd be really hip to be a poor bohemian indie comix writer, then it's back to escapism.
"This is a sit-com level cliche not even worth addressing."
Okay, but only if ""Wow cool" is not a philosophy, it's a dead soul drooling into cold oatmeal" is a sentence dappling like the sunshine through a baboon's toes in the jungle. Given how eager you've been to project your misery, alienation, boredom and pointlessness onto everybody else, should you really be talking about cliches?
Allow me to paraphrase a line that I find quite hepful to keep things in perspective and stop from turning depression into a philosophy. It comes from CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters, wherein Screwtape is advising his student that an ideal world for the work of His Infernal Majesty is one in which people believe in demons but not angels. That is, they take the existence of evil to mean that there is no such thing as good at all. They allow the fact of death to sap them of the enjoyment of life.
I am quite aware that everything we love dies, as well as ourselves. Of course, I also believe that we stop being dead at some point down the road, whenever God decides. Nevertheless, if you want a life of dead souls drooling into cold oatmeal, allowing the fact of death to sap you of the enjoyment of life is the way to go about it. That would be far more horrid than the vivid reflections on the Sublime and the Beautiful that enrich life and inspire those "oh wow" pointes supremes moments.
10/08/09
10/06/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
Something built for WAR ought to look wicked, fast, dynamic, not like a tugboat.
10/06/09
10/07/09
10/07/09
-Command Center is in the center of the ship where it is most protected
-Few windows due to firefights and atmospheric loss if they were damaged
-Rounder design as it isn't blocky looking compared to the original
-Interior very Spartan with nearly everything serving a specific purpose
Yes I'll admit that I wasn't too fond of the missing plating and rough exterior at first, but that was the charm that the designers of the series built in. It's like that beater car you drove in high school, it's not the best but you love it.
10/07/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
Besides, the Valkyrie's look advanced enough that I don't think much re-imagining would be necessary. Since 'updating' would probably make them look like an F-22 Raptor, that conjures images of Michael Bay's Starscream. DO NOT WANT.
10/07/09
10/07/09
I think the Veritech design is one of the best examples of 20th century novelty/ingenuity in design. I am dreading it being molested for the movie. F-15s (16?) are a little dated since the first design, and I want to see this thing look good.
10/07/09
@gods-n-clods: I Think the YF-19 design from Macross Plus was an excellent reworking of the original Valkyries. The YF-21? Meh.
10/07/09
If they knew what was good for them, they'd just go back to the original source, and make a live action version of "Do You Remember Love?", the Japanese movie that summed up the essence of the entire series.
But yeah, there've been probably dozens of newer Macross style fighters made since the originals. The YF-19 has been one of my favorites for years.
10/06/09
Which, of course, is not a bad thing. Might as well borrow from the awesomest.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
I'll take issue with that-- the movies *are* beautiful to look at, the concept art was quite faithfully rendered in the films.
Watch the prequels with the sound off; the visuals are outstanding. Even now.
It's the *rest* of the movies that suck.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
I mean... If someone comes to me with a written scene in which missiles are fired at a ship, ships dodge furiously, missiles catch up only to explode IN FRONT of the ship in a cloud of stupid spider bots, which proceed to dismantle the ship VERY SLOWLY... Well at that point I'd probably book a week for Lucas at an asylum for the totally disconnected from reality.
10/07/09
One thing to say about Star Wars though is that at least some of its concept art gets used much later on. Several unused prequel designs and some Ralph McQuarrie concepts have been utilised in, or inspired elements of the ongoing Clone Wars animated series. New character Cad Bane was himself inspired partly by an OT bounty hunter design. So you may see some more good stuff showing up in the future.
10/07/09
A missile catches up to a ship = explodes. Boom. Exciting
A George Lucas missile catches up to a ship = tiny stupid robots which artoo has to fight and then have to be scraped off by a wing. SCRAPED OFF?!
Lucas never fails to take an exciting thing and add three more things on to it, thus fucking ruining it forever. he can't just have somebody swing a lightsaber. That somebody has to flip three times and land on a tiny piece of metal floating in a lava lake. It's a fucking disaster.
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/06/09
10/07/09
If LeGuin was wrong, you have to show how she was wrong. But you aren't doing that! You're just re-writing her argument, but with the word "escapist" in place of the word "myth"!!
You're basically just re-writing the definition and attributing everything that used to be attributed to mythic literature to escapist literature. Escapism can be dark? Escapism can teach us about society? You're talking about myth.
You can't simply efface a definition because you want it to be a point. If you call escapism the new mythic, well sure... but then something else becomes the new escapist. And you're left with no advancement at all. You're just written 10 000 words just to change a name.
10/06/09
Been entertained reading the entire discussion and eventhough I disagree with some of the posters, the level of civil discourse on this thread has been just amazing.
While it's almost impossible to always "hit a homerun everytime you come up to the plate" the article, the theme, and the response to it has raised the bar and shown -without a doubt - i09's potential within the SF community.
Wow.
10/06/09
10/06/09
Too soon? Or to never be mentioned again? ^_^
10/06/09
10/06/09
And this is one of the problems with escapism. When you're "soaring," you're not paying attention to who is picking your pocket. The capitalist masters win by having you make money for them working in their business all day long, and then spending your money on their escape tools to forget about how boring, alienating, and pointless it was at night. I don't blame anyone for wanting to escape this world, but there really is no escape. You're still in it paying rent, 24/7.
10/06/09
1) "It's a space designed by marketing committees to create a high-end aesthetic image that customers wish to identify themselves with by buying expensive products that make them feel better about themselves."
Okay, but what makes that not art? Are you saying that artistic choices were not made in the creation of that high-end aesthetic? Or is it just because it's selling something? Is "true art", then, something which sells ITSELF as the product (the music, painting, photograph, comic book, regular book) rather than selling something else?
2) "It's basically the entire message of the Mac/PC ad campaign: be cool by spending more money in order to associate yourself with cool-looking objects and hip people."
Isn't that also the message of "true art" as you've described it? Being cooler and hipper and more aware than the brainless, tacky people who don't associate with the right kind of art?
3) "That's not art to me, that's vanity."
All "true art" is vanity, isn't it? Why should any of us care what desperately important thought some self-described artiste is having?
4) "When you're "soaring," you're not paying attention to who is picking your pocket."
Doesn't this sort of assume that one is or should be feeling at war with entertainment media? And how, in turn, does this reflect on the art world? Is a pocket picked by an artiste any different or better?
5) "The capitalist masters win by having you make money for them working in their business all day long, and then spending your money on their escape tools to forget about how boring, alienating, and pointless it was at night."
Isn't this really just projecting your own shitty job situation? Do you honestly think it's true that everybody in our society is feeling bored, alienated and pointless? Do you really think that every person defending "escapism" in this thread feels that way about their lives? At what point does a statement like this go from being a judgement call to just being judgementalism?
6) "I don't blame anyone for wanting to escape this world, but there really is no escape. You're still in it paying rent, 24/7."
And that's kind of the rub anyways, isn't it? Even artistes need to pay rent. "True art" is a privileged position that essentially skims off the top of civilization. The problem you've outlined with corporations isn't really a problem of corporations: it's a problem of competition. The corporations just make art for the plebian rabble.
10/06/09
Harvey Pekar had a 40-hour a week menial day job as a Veteran's Hospital file clerk schlepping around a cart full of files while producing his best work, which he paid people to draw and paid to publish out of his own limited income. Not much privilege there.
"Why should any of us care what desperately important thought some self-described artiste is having?"
This is a sit-com level cliche not even worth addressing.
10/06/09
"This is a sit-com level cliche not even worth addressing."
Okay, but only if ""Wow cool" is not a philosophy, it's a dead soul drooling into cold oatmeal" is a sentence dappling like the sunshine through a baboon's toes in the jungle. Given how eager you've been to project your misery, alienation, boredom and pointlessness onto everybody else, should you really be talking about cliches?
10/07/09
10/07/09
Allow me to paraphrase a line that I find quite hepful to keep things in perspective and stop from turning depression into a philosophy. It comes from CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters, wherein Screwtape is advising his student that an ideal world for the work of His Infernal Majesty is one in which people believe in demons but not angels. That is, they take the existence of evil to mean that there is no such thing as good at all. They allow the fact of death to sap them of the enjoyment of life.
I am quite aware that everything we love dies, as well as ourselves. Of course, I also believe that we stop being dead at some point down the road, whenever God decides. Nevertheless, if you want a life of dead souls drooling into cold oatmeal, allowing the fact of death to sap you of the enjoyment of life is the way to go about it. That would be far more horrid than the vivid reflections on the Sublime and the Beautiful that enrich life and inspire those "oh wow" pointes supremes moments.