Where do I start with Macross /m/? Do I watch the TV series or Do You Remember Love? Also should I even bother watching 7 at all?
>>14453882
Macross isn't as sprawling a franchise as Gundam and doesn't have as many entries or different takes to wonder about. Just go in production order and try everything. If something isn't taking your fancy after a few episodes, move on. Each show builds on the previous one in a small way to make a future history, but each show assumes no familiarity with previous ones and so explains everything that's happening like to a newcomer so you're not really going to miss anything essential by skipping an entry.
>>14453882
Start with the original series. Then watch Do You Remember Love?
Start with the TV series, SDF contains a lot more than DYRL. Keep in mind that DYRL is also worth watching as it makes significant changes to the plot and is all new animation.
Like what others have said, follow production for Macross, and feel free to skip a series if you can't get into it.
I liked 7 myself, but I can't really justify recommending it to others. I find that the much nicer later parts never really manage to compensate for the very rough start.
Eh, you can watch DYRL rather than the series if you like. You'll miss a few references later, but nothing that's important and the changes the movie makes from the show are all for the better. At least that's what I think.
I unironically think 7 is the best entry in the franchise and I enjoyed every moment Gamlin wasn't onscreen and even some moments where he was. It doesn't start off with much of a plot, but the characters, setting and music are more than enough to carry the show until it develops one.
>>14453882
I'm new to the franchise and recently watched all of the original series. I didn't think I'd like it since it was hard for me to get through Gundam 0079 due to how dated it was, but it was actually really fun to watch and I loved it. Just prepare yourself for massive amounts of QUALITY and really bad pop music.
>>14454056
> the changes the movies makes from the show are all for the better
> the movie essentially cuts the three Zentradi infiltrators altogether, with them making only a tiny cameo
> for the better
> it doens't include any of the post war stuff about the Zentradi having difficulty acclimating to culture and coexisting
I disagree.
>>14454071
>Zentraedi infiltrators
I'll give you that, but only because they were funny. The story still worked almost as well without them.
> it doens't include any of the post war stuff about the Zentradi having difficulty acclimating to culture and coexisting
The show didn't have much of that either since that arc was mostly just about resolving the love triangle. Plus did a much better job at that, and I say that as someone who doesn't even like Plus.
>>14454096
I don't know, I love both but regarding the love triangle, I always felt that the show gave me little moments to root for Misa and little better characterization. Obviously, the movie has time constraints but with both you get the full package.
>>14454096
The movie was poorer for not having them. Sure, they didn't contribute anything irreplaceable, but I can't say as I care. Them being funny was good enough, and they were one of the highlights of the show, especially since they were the insight in to the spread and acceptance of culture by the Zentradi.
Also, Plus' depiction of cultural clash basically came down to Guld getting angry. I don't even think that was shown as a problem before or since. It's a fairly rubbish example in my opinion though, and I much preferred Kamjin's inability to accept coexistence and peace while reveling in the culture they brought despite himself. I thought it was a much more melancholic example, especially for an enemy, and managed to provide some good humour despite being kind of sad as a end.
DYRL is not meant to be watched in replacement of the series, it is a companion to it. It's not something that can be argued like the 0079 movie trilogy, it's a completely 100% different story altogether. Both SDF and DYRL are supposed to be watched as the start of Macross and not one over the other as future series do reference both.
A perfect example of this is in Delta when Mirage talks about Max and Millia and you see a scene from DYRL and SDF in the same flashback. And on that note, the movie totally guts that relationship because movie length despite it being so relevant in the series
So should I not substitute the movie version of Plus for the OVAs as well?
>>14454536
That's not even close to a perfect example seeing as Max and Millia are almost entirely irrelevant to Delta other than being part of the background for Mirage.
A far better example is almost any scene in 7 involving Max and Exedore. Max had almost no presence in the movie, his importance you only get from SDF. But on the other hand, Exedore is there in his DYRL design.
>>14454573
I've heard the movie version has more fanservice and a better resolution for the conflict between two of the leads, but I only watched the OVA (because I heard it had more mecha action) and I was fine with the resolution I got there. I didn't really like Plus enough to want to watch the movie regardless. There is a torrent on nyaa that intercuts the exclusive footage from the movie into the OVA or something.
>>14454573
Plus' OVA and movie are a little different as the movie is just the OVA put into one part with some different scenes. I think the movie doesn't have that awesome intro of Isamu blowing up bad guys and being a hotshot
>>14454637
Movie has a better final fight scene with Guld and the ghost. They're both pretty much the same though, there's not much point in watching one and then the other. Just watch the other format when you want to rewatch it.
Just watch everything.
Its not like Macross has a lot of entries anyway. The only long entry is Macross 7.
>also just started Macross a month ago
>finished up Macross, DYRL and Plus and liked them all
>started 7 a couple days ago
>20 episodes in of nothing
please tell me it gets better, the only thing saving it for me is so decent animation and art style, when they aren't actually abusing stock footage up the ass
>>14456959
It does get better, you're almost there, like 10 episodes away maybe.
>>14456999
That's good, since they introduced Sivil it's been slightly more interesting, but it's still the same old 4 songs sung way too frequently with the same fights playing over and over.
>>14457025
If you can't stomach the stock footage and you don't like the music or the characters, you're never going to like 7. I mean, if you're already 20 episodes in, you've gotten to the point where plot starts happening, but if you already don't like anything but the art and animation, the plot probably won't change your mind.
>>14456959
Oh it does. But yes. It's a slog to get through. You've forced yourself through the worst of it as far as I recall.
>>14456959
I had to stop with 7, I just couldn't get into it. Currently, I like Delta better than 7 and Frontier.
>>14457025
You got past the worst.
Now just listen to his song.
I hope you already know the lyrics to Planet Dance by heart.
>>14457232
>literally singing it in the shower this morning
>>14453882
Delta
>>14453882
>Where do I start with Macross /m/?
Either SDF or DYRL is fine.
> Do I watch the TV series or Do You Remember Love?
It is strongly recommended to watch the movie at some point. I recommend watching both before moving on to the rest of the franchise, though.
> Also should I even bother watching 7 at all?
Only if you've already watched everything else and you're still looking for something Macross-related to watch. The show's main purpose was to promote songs (which weren't all bad) and sell the CDs. You could totally skip it and if you really wanted you could come back to it later.
>>14453882
The barebones minimum must-watch order is:
DYRL, Plus movie, Zero, Frontier movies, Delta
>>14461225
I understand 7 had problems and that it is repetitive and annoying for 20 episodes. But why do people say it can be skipped or that it had no effect on the universe? The reason technology with song gets to the levels it does in the future entries is solely because of 7. I don't think it would be very easy to go from Plus and Zero to Frontier and then wonder why suddenly this "fold waves" thing is a thing or that music starts being an actual effective tool
>>14461258
You're overestimating the 7's influence here. People are essentially discovering fold waves in frontier, and noone really goes "Oh this is the same thing like that Chiba guy talked about X years ago)
>>14461275
I don't just mean solely from an in-universe perspective, I mean in tone. After 7, nothing after really feels like it could be as crazy as it again but if you went from the OVAs to Frontier and Delta, based on production time, it would feel very jarring. Frontier and Delta (and 30 on that note) can work in a galaxy in which 7 happened in it.
>>14453882
Production order.
Watch all of them. It's not Gundam, there aren't even that many entries.
>>14461258
Fold waves weren't a thing until Macross F, though.
Also, Chiba and his Song Energy research weren't addressed at all and only mentioned in passing.
>>14461287
It's not as big as Gundam, but few things are. It's still probably the second biggest entry in mecha. Four TV shows and four OVAs as a minimum (it gets larger if you start counting movies and all the other extra stuff 7 got like a TV movie and shorts) isn't exactly small.
>>14461360
It's not bigger than Mazinger.
>>14461275
>>14461313
He is correct, however, in that 7 marks the first time the military ever took music seriously as anything other than a psychological weapon. It would seem very strange for the military to be actively transporting musicians onto the battlefield and assigning platoons for their protection without question (especially if all you've seen are SDF and Plus) unless you see how 7 gave them that idea.
Started with 7 yesterday
Mylene is quite a cute girl.
>>14462099
Strap yourself in. You're not gonna feel that way about a third of the way through
>>14462079
What Mazinger stuff is there actually? Since you mention it. Original, Great, Grendizer, God, Mazinkiazer OVA and film, Shin and some kind of team up film with Getter or something I think? Robot Girls Z kind of counts too I guess.
>>14462124
Oh, and the SKL OVA.
>>14462124
Toei series had a ton of team up films back in the day. At least five, I think. And don't forget SKL.
And of course, that's not counting the many, many manga spinoffs Mazinger has had as well.
>>14462132
There's also CB Chara Go Nagai World and whatever this is
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D64uDUi4Np8
>>14462168
That was a series of shorts that was released with Shin Getter Robo vs. Neo Getter Robo to promote the upcoming Mazinkaiser.
>>14462079
The use of music as a weapon or tool for understanding was neither founded or unique to Macross 7. In SDF/DYRL the UN Spacy used the tactic with Lynn Minmay to great effect. We see it done again by the Frontier fleet with Ranka and Sheryl.
The only thing that Macross did different was that they gave their singers their own mechs with Rock Band flight controls and loudspeaker titties.
>>14461313
Wasn't there something that stated that Song energy was actually fold waves?
I assume Chiba actually detected fold waves, but at the time the fold research wasn't that advanced enough for them to realise that it was fold waves, but later, with the advancement in fold research, they found fold faults and fold waves.
>>14462191
There is an order of difference between music being used as a shock tactic from afar and literally throwing singers onto the battlefield with song amplification equipment in order to cause what is not just a psychological effect, but actual physical paralysis of the enemy. The went to far in 7 as using music to create a magical cage to trap one of the Protodevlin.
Everything from 7 onwards showed music as having an actual physical effect; even Zero, which took place before it. Again, it doesn't make much sense as to why the military would have entire units dedicated to musicians unless you see why they began to take that idea seriously as a result of the events of 7. That is its contribution to the canon. Try to make sense of Delta existing in the same timeline as SDF without 7 existing. I don't think you can.
>>14462243
>Everything from 7 onwards showed music as having an actual physical effect
Like what?
>>14462321
The floating rocks and the laser beams in Zero, the music in Frontier creating a thought network throughout the galaxy allowing for mind control and literally every single thing that Walkure does.
>>14453882
You don't, you watch Robotech
>>14462365
I don't see how either of those things has to do with the what was established in Macross 7. Even in the ways song energy was used (like the magic barrier against the Protodeviln) were never seen again outside of that show.
>>14462601
That's not the point. The point is that 7 shows that music is more than just a tool of psychological warfare in Macross, and that following the discovery of this, the military in Macross begins to structure task forces around music.
Naturally, since each Macross show has a different group of villains, the effects of music on each group are different.
>>14462667
I still don't see how you think that watching Macross 7 is needed to understand how a group like Walkure came to be. Between SDF/DYRL and Frontier, the audience can see the effects of having pop idols on the battlefield and understand Walkure as a strategic evolution of the theory. You also have to remember that the fate of the Macross 7 fleet was a mystery until the Frontier characters found the VHS tapes. This essentially means that in-universe, the military had to re-discover dedicated tactical music groups for combat purposes.
>>14453882
Watch everything in production order, starting with SDF. All the entries range from great (SDF, DYRL, Plus) to average (7's first 15 episodes), with only II and Zero being controversial.
>>14462756
Although Frontier had fantastical properties of music, they were greatly toned down from what was seen in 7 and Zero, most likely because that show went overboard on SDF nostalgia.
Besides that, remember that Minmay was never on the battlefield unless you count that time she got kidnapped by the Zentraedi in DYRL. Otherwise, she always sang from within the SDF-1.
>You also have to remember that the fate of the Macross 7 fleet was a mystery
That smells like a retcon, especially since the Macross 7 fleet had contact with the Macross 5 fleet in its very show, not to mention that Basara and Fire Bomber are shown to be known throughout the galaxy in the 7 OVAs and movie and are mentioned by name (along with the Protodevlin) during the Frontier TV series. Even if what happened to the fleet itself is up in the air, it's pretty certain that everyone knew about Fire Bomber and how the Macross 7 fleet used them.
>>14462793
>Plus
it's a lot more controversial than you think it is. I don't like it, and if these threads are anything to go by, I'm not the only one.
>>14462793
>7's first 15 episodes
>average
I like 7, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. 7's first 25 episodes are 95% filler and stock footage.
>>14462925
Why does everyone suddenly become a plotfag when it comes to 7?
I totally get the complaints about stock footage. It didn't bother me, but I can see why it would for other people. But the story? A good 50-75% of mecha shows are just like 7's beginning episodes. Just little SoL adventures without too much happening, albeit 7 is a tad different in that there is a plot going on in the background that advances slowly throughout these episodes. These are not inherently good or bad.
If you want to complain that they're repetitive, that's fine, I see where you're coming from with that. But for me personally, there were enough new elements with each episode to keep me invested. Fire Bomber got a little bit bigger with every episode, the nature of the Protodevlin became more apparent as it went on (even if it didn't become totally clear until later), a few character backgrounds were revealed and so on
>>14462899
The SDF-1 was in the battlefield, though. It even flew straight into Gorg Boldooza's flagship to destroy it. Minmay was onboard the whole time.
>>14462966
The biggest problem I had was that they stretched out an already thin plot to a 50ep run. There was no need for that. The introduction of new story elements were few and far in between. It's like 1 out every 10 episodes would actually move the story forward while the other nine was the same thing every episode: Enemies show up, Basara sings a song at them, enemies leave until it's time to come back in the next episode to do it all over again. The repetitive nature of the story from episode to episode made watching the show into something of a grind just to get through. The reuse of footage and listening to the same songs over and over didn't help either.
>>14462899
>Plus
>Controversial
Plus is only controversial on /m/, from what I've read.It's often being cited as a must-watch, whether people like mecha or not.
>I don't like it
Fine, as long as you don't shit up Macross threads saying Plus is irredeemable garbage. Why didn't you like it, anon ? By the way, I'm not baiting, I'm just genuinely curious a to why.
>>14463074
> only controversial on /m/
Not him, and I don't visit many forums, but the few I do have all had people say they did like it and people saying they didn't like it. I'm not sure I'd call that controversial, but it's certainly a divided opinion and not universally liked in my experience. The reason I often see it mentioned as a thing to watch is because it's short too, rather than because it's particularly great. Same reason DYRL gets a lot of recommendations in many instances - it's so short you might as well watch it.
>>14463074
>It's often being cited as a must-watch
It'd be nice if you could link to where.
I don't like Plus because I don't like its characters and by extension its plot (since whether its plot works depends entirely on whether you give a fuck about the characters), and more subjectively, I don't like its music either. It certainly is a gorgeous looking production, but it's in service of nothing.
Hell, the plot barely works standalone since the whole test program was rigged, Myung's feelings remain unrequited, and the only thing that's really accomplished is that humanity learns that using AI is a bad idea. Everything else seems rather pointless.
>>14463127
My major problem with it is that the build up of Guld and Isamu's falling out isn't worth the pay off and it's essentially immediately swept under the carpet with a few jokes and never addressed in any fashion. The resolution basically comes across as "what's a little rape between friends?".
>>14463146
>"what's a little rape between friends?"
Nobody ever said that Japanese anime writers were good at what they do.
Besides, it's probably socially acceptable in their culture.
>>14463159
No, but the writing making one of the two emotional climaxes of the film underwhelming is a big blow against making it a must see - regardless of whether anime writers in general are good or not.
>>14463127
>It'd be nice if you could link to where.
Not him but it's averaging a solid 4/5 in most places. Here's a few review scores:
>https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/macross-plus/#!reviews=dvd
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110426/
>http://www.themanime.org/viewreview.php?id=318
>http://www.nihonreview.com/anime/macross-plus-2/
>http://www.themanime.org/viewreview.php?id=319
>http://www.amazon.com/Macross-Plus-Movie-Bryan-Cranston/product-reviews/B000063K0M
>http://myanimelist.net/anime/474/Macross_Plus
>http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/review/macross-plus-movie-dvd
>>14463127
Anon, good plot =/= I like the characters. I found them pretty interesting because they weren't one-dimensional and had all kinds of fuckups as well as positive traits.
>Myung's feelings remain unrequited
That's not an argument.
>It certainly is a gorgeous looking production, but it's in service of nothing
Anon, you're being a plotfag here. It's not what about what it delivers, it's about how it delivers.
Plus's plot is about the interactions of humans and techonlogy (Sharon Apple but also the BDI/BDIS system), and the reconciliation of a broken friendship.
It's a straightforward, it's nothing special but I found that Plus's visual creativity was just amazing, so that simple story became memorable to me because this OVA was just this fucking good at "show, don't tell".
>>14463215
>implying anime sites matter
I bet you think Newtype polls are real too.
>>14463215
You know, except for Nihonreview, all those sites have Gundam SEED listed as like 4/5 or higher. Those are all casual sites. I can't believe you seriously included ANN and MAL. Those are living jokes
>>14463243
Doesn't matter.
You asked for links and you were given them. All I did was share the first few results that came up. I could keep searching until i found a paticularly scathing review, but I'd have to ignoring the 10 other reviews insisting that Plus was good. The only impression one could surmise is that most reviews agree that Plus was good and a must-watch within the Macross franchise.
>>14463215
> Check out the first four of them
> 7 has nearly as high a rating on at least one, SDF and Zero have the same rating on another, SDF has a higher rating by one reviewer on the same and Destiny has only .1 less of a rating on a third and DYRL is as highly rated or higher rated on all of them that include it
>>14463215
Seems like it's yet another thing that people don't critically think about and just give it a high rating because "woah, that's deep man". Like any other popcorn flick.
Just read the reviews here. These people have no idea why they like the story, they just say they do.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0110426/reviews?ref_=tt_urv
>>14463236
>good plot =/= I like the characters
>Plus's plot is about... the reconciliation of a broken friendship.
You can only care about that aspect of it if the characters themselves matter to you.
>as well as positive traits
If these characters had any that said anything about who they were as people, the OVA did a very bad job of bringing them out.
>That's not an argument
When a significant part of the story is devoted to this point and it goes without any developments because Myung doesn't even express her feelings to Isamu, I end up feeling like my time was wasted. If it was only there to make Sharon bait Isamu for the final battle, it comes off as pretty contrived.
>>14463243
>>14463264
>>14463287
>>14463294
Regardless, it's pretty clear that the population that liked Plus vastly outnumber the ones that didn't.
There is no "controversy" about Plus. Just a very vocal minority.
>>14463325
You might as well say there's no controversy over whether people liked Destiny or Zero, only a vocal minority, since most people vote it highly. Even 7 is voted nearly as high on a lot of sites. A high rating doesn't mean a lack of controversy or division in reception.
>>14463294
>You can only care about that aspect of it if the characters themselves matter to you.
True, but then it boils down to personal taste, which has nothing to do with objectively bad writing.
>If these characters had any that said anything about who they were as people, the OVA did a very bad job of bringing them out
Then you should rewatch it. Isamu is courageous and alwys follows his dreams, and Guld is protective and caring of Myung (even if that's arguable due to the rape attempt thing).
>people don't critically think about and just give it a high rating because "woah, that's deep man"
Deepfags are stupid but I think that Macross Plus touches upon some pretty interesting subject. The keyword being touching, it's not some ultra-advanced philosophy, just glimpses of interesting stuff.
>>14463325
See
>>14463287
>>14463338
For comparison's sake, you mentioned II and Zero being controversial. I checked the exact same sites, and I saw neither rated lower than a 6 by any of them.
>>14463363
I forgot to add "on /m/".
I feel like we got too far off from the initial topic
>>14463374
Is 7 divisive and controversial in people's opinion of it? Does it have nearly as high a rating on what few sites rate it? Is Destiny divisive and controversial? What's its rating on those sites.
Neither 7 or Destiny are only controversial and divisive on /m/ by the way. The few other places I've seen discuss either, the divide in opinion is apparent too.
>>14463338
>>14463363
I don't see how it's any different. You may not have voted for who gets elected into congress, but that doesn't make them any less of a senator/representative because it was direct popular vote that put them there.
Personally, I don't like SEED, but I acknowledge that a lot of other people do and move on with my life.
>>14463363
>you mentioned II and Zero being controversial
That wasn't me.
>>14463407
This, it was me you were referring to.
>>14463404
I don't like shows and do the same, that's not the argument here so let's not try gaining the moral high ground by claiming that one of us hates a show on an unhealthy level or something. The point isn't whether something is popular, it's that being popular doesn't mean it isn't divisive or controversial.
>>14463400
>Is 7 divisive and controversial in people's opinion of it?
Yes
>>14463439
>it's that being popular doesn't mean it isn't divisive or controversial.
That means that it is the vocal minority that is making something divisive and controversial as was already mentioned before. They chose the side with the least supported opinion yet they scream from the mountain tops saying that everybody else is wrong to make a big fuss about something that is completely subjective to begin with. The "controversy" is artificial and empty of meaning.
If Plus was rated 5/10 or 6/10, then yes, that would be divisive and would be "controversial" among the people that watched it, but that's not the case at all. Plus gets high marks in most reviews. The people that didn't have the right to not like it, but they're deluded into pretending that there are legions of people agree with them when the evidence shows that they're outnumbered by the majority.
>>14465883
> they scream from the mountain tops saying that everybody else is wrong to make a big fuss about something that is completely subjective to begin with.
The people who dislike a thing may not be the minority, they may just not be kind of people to vote on sites. I've certainly met a lot more people who dislike Destiny than like it, but it still has a high rating.
That's said I've rarely seen people scream or get shitty about 7, Zero or even II and that kind of characterization of them makes you look like someone trying to gain the high ground via character assassination.
It's divisive precisely because in any conversation on it people's opinion tends to have a lot of diversity even if ratings say otherwise. There's nothing artificial about that.
>>14465911
>It's divisive precisely because in any conversation on it people's opinion tends to have a lot of diversity even if ratings say otherwise.
I'm not saying that people's opinions can't be diverse, but it's still possible to see trends among the given set of people as is the case here. Of the people who are willing to share their opinion, we can only conclude that Plus has a favorable reception. For the people who aren't willing to share their thoughts it's impossible to gauge their views in any kind of perceivable manner and you can't draw out any conclusions from it. This is why I say that the controversy is artificial: A large part of your side of the argument is founded in the masses of people that we don't have any kind of data on, but somehow you're able make a deduction about what they think anyway. At best, the evidence you have to support your argument is anecdotal as it's based solely on perceived personal observation of others.
Is the claimed minority the actual minority? We can't really say. The information that we can share are the reviews/scores of the people that care enough about the subject to opine on it in a somewhat measurable way. From that data we can see that Plus has done well despite claims of other people who think otherwise.
>>14466446
> Of the people who are willing to share their opinion, we can only conclude that Plus has a favorable reception
Except there's been at least two people in this very thread that say they think it's not great. To you being the one (presumably) saying it is. And every discussion I've ever seen if it has been along the same lines, sometimes with more people liking it or disliking it, but always with a variety of opinion.
No-one here said it did badly, only that it was divisive, which it is, because there's a difference of opinion on it. You can gauge that by simply asking about it. Anywhere. Just because it rates high in a non discursive format doesn't mean otherwise.
Again, you're basically saying that Zero or 7, which also score high often, don't have divisive opinions just because of their score. Just because you can't measure that opinion doesn't make it artificial, since that implies that someone is trying to make it look like more than it is when they aren't.
>>14466480
Two people in a single thread in some corner of the internet is not enough to draw any conclusions.
Not everybody is going to have the same opinion on something. It's impossible. With that as a given, then yes, Plus would be divisive, but then so is just about everything else. In lift of that fact, the claimed "controversy" of Plus is unremarkable and unworthy of mentioning in the first place.
>>14466495
Except Plus has had a long history of division anywhere it's discussed. Which is the textbook definition of controversy. All that a good rating proves is that the people who voted liked it. It doesn't say anything about the preference of the people who didn't and don't vote.
And being popular doesn't and never has meant that a thing isn't controversial. There are plenty of games, movies or even books that skirt controversy (or genuinely cause it) but are controversial despite it.
Can you just answer the question for once about whether you think an extreme example like Destiny isn't controversial or divisive despite a high rating anywhere you look? Zero and 7 are other examples but not as divisive or relevant. You've ignored the question every time I asked though, so I'm just going to make a point of it now.
Explain this, Misafags.
>>14466558
>Except Plus has had a long history of division anywhere it's discussed
since Usenet has been active through Plus's existence I'm sure you can find evidence of this for us, right?
Or do you have scans of old zines with these mixed receptions?
VHS tapes of con panels?
>>14466636
And do you have proof that everyone likes it? That everyone has voted on it? Or anything that would make a rating anything more than an indicator and only good for measuring the opinions of the people who did vote. And not actually proof of public opinion as a whole.
Also, answer the question.
>>14466647
it's your claim, prove it
I literally handed you a list of sources where you'll find evidence for your claim if it's true
>>14466660
Except I'm not claiming it's not popular, so no, the claim isn't mine to prove. All I've ever said is that it's still controversial even if it is popular because the two aren't contradictory states, and that a high rating doesn't prove it's not controversial.
And again, answer the question.
>>14466677
you said
>Except Plus has had a long history of division anywhere it's discussed
Please show your long history
>>14466686
Look up discussion of it, anywhere you want. Now answer the question.
>>14466558
>Except Plus has had a long history of division anywhere it's discussed. Which is the textbook definition of controversy.
If you want to go by the definition of controversy and division to say that Plus is divisive/controversial, then you have to concede that so is every other subjective topic and everything else where it's possible to have more than a single opinion. It's not magically unique to Plus in any way so why bring it up?
>Can you just answer the question for once about whether you think an extreme example like Destiny isn't controversial or divisive despite a high rating anywhere you look?
I already gave you my answer several posts ago. I said that I didn't like it, but I acknowledge that other people do and choose not to get hung up on it. I know that I can't tell people that that their opinion is wrong about a entirely subjective topic. It'd be like telling them "No, you are wrong because you don't actually like this." because it assumes that I know more about their personal tastes in what they like/don't like then they themselves do.
>>14466698
>Look up discussion of it, anywhere you want.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macross_Plus
don't see any
guess you're just full of shit
>>14466733
> then you have to concede that so is every other subjective topic and everything else where it's possible to have more than a single opinion. It's not magically unique to Plus in any way so why bring it up?
Because not everything that a history of it. Not even all the Macross titles have a history of it.
> I said that I didn't like it
I didn't ask for your opinion on it.
> I acknowledge that other people do and choose not to get hung up on it
Also not what I asked.
> I know that I can't tell people that that their opinion is wrong about a entirely subjective topic.
Also not what I asked. I didn't ask whether you liked it or what you did about your opinion, I asked whether you thought there was a division in opinion, especially in discussion on Destiny despite it having a high rating on a lot of sites.
>>14466757
There's no discussion in that link.
OG into DYRL into Plus into Seven skip rest
>>14466822
>I asked whether you thought there was a division in opinion, especially in discussion on Destiny despite it having a high rating on a lot of sites.
I already gave you my answer when I said that every subjective topic will have different opinions. Those opinions will be floating around aimlessly around for eternity, but when it's time to tally up those opinions, we start to see trends. The biggest difference between the review scores that were posted and the anecdotes that you made is that despite the imperfect method, the reviews are recorded and referenced data. Anecdotes are not.
In Plus' case, it generally scored favorably meaning that of the people who were willing to share their opinion, they considered it to be good overall. From there we can only deduce that any perceived disagreements about how good Plus is done by the vocal minority: Of all the people who have watched Plus and considered it bad have either voted it as bad and are grossly outnumbered or they're willing to opine, but don't care enough about the subject or even their own opinion themselves to go on the record for it.
>>14466979
> but when it's time to tally up those opinions, we start to see trends
Yes, and the trend for Destiny is that some people love it and some people hate it, but it almost always scores highly despite that division in opinion. That doesn't mean the negative opinions are invalid or artificial in some manner. By the same manner, Plus has a lot of people who like it, but a good few who don't care about it all that much and just think its alright because it has good production values.
> The biggest difference between the review scores that were posted and the anecdotes that you made is that despite the imperfect method, the reviews are recorded and referenced data. Anecdotes are not.
Them not being recorded doesn't mean those views aren't valid. Especially when the internet is a living record and a lot of discussion is actually recorded anyway. All it means is that it's hard to gauge them, not that they don't exist.
> From there we can only deduce that any perceived disagreements about how good Plus is done by the vocal minority
Not really. Concluding that you can only say that the people who do vote liked it is just as valid a possibility. Or that you can't deduce that the people who do vote are a majority simply because they did vote.
> but don't care enough about the subject or even their own opinion themselves to go on the record for it.
And? It's entirely possible that the people who didn't particularly like or dislike a thing didn't vote because they didn't feel strongly about it either way.
>>14467094
>And? It's entirely possible that the people who didn't particularly like or dislike a thing didn't vote because they didn't feel strongly about it either way.
It means that their opinions are empty because they are arguing a point that they don't believe to be true. They are just disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing: an artificial controversy.
Try as you might to disprove or discredit the review scores, you still haven't offered any data that says that the people that didn't like Plus are not a minority. It's been nothing but anecdote and conjecture from your side. Arguing with the data that we don't have doesn't displace the data that we do have.
>>14467307
No it means they didn't vote.
>>14467319
Not being tallied in the voting means that they don't really care enough about either the subject or their own opinion. Not caring about your own opinion is empty of meaning and therefore less relevant.
>>14467307
> It means that their opinions are empty because they are arguing a point that they don't believe to be true.
No, it doesn't. All it says is that they have no strong feelings, not that they don't have an opinion.
> Try as you might to disprove or discredit the review scores, you still haven't offered any data that says that the people that didn't like Plus are not a minority.
And you've yet to prove that those opinions constitute a majority. They could just be the vocal minority you're on about. Having easily referenced data doesn't make them a majority.
> Arguing with the data that we don't have doesn't displace the data that we do have.
Arguing with the data doesn't prove anything more than people who vote like it. And we've no idea what kind of percentage voted, unlike most electoral votes, so it's not particularly useful.
>>14467437
The bottom line is that you are trying to support an argument with no data whatsoever. So far your entire argument has been based on the potential fallacies that comes with information recording in general rather than anything specific to Plus. The presented data of people who have gone on the record is already miles ahead of the complete lack of proof of any kinda that supports your argument.
I'll make this easier for you: Show specific proof that Macross Plus' reception is uniquely controversial/divisive among the people that have watched it.
>>14467554
I'll make it easy for you: show proof that the people who voted are a majority.
I never said it was uniquely divisive by the way. I even included several other examples on a couple of occasions.
Yea, I have no quantifiable proof, but one of my major points is that being an easy reference doesn't make a voting system like that remotely valuable or indicate anything beyond that the people who voted liked it. Which doesn't tell the full story and there's a couple of obvious cases that show it.
>Except Plus has had a long history of division anywhere it's discussed
so where's the long history?
Now we're just completely off the original discussion
>>14467589
Again, you are refuting problems with data collection in general rather than the presented data specifically. That's not a legitimate counterpoint since you're saying in so many words that no survey is ever valid because of the inherent technicalities that comes with such data collection. The rest of your argument is 100% anecdote and conjecture.
What we are left with are two facts: There are people who have voiced there opinion in a measurable manner and the majority of those people have given favorable reception to Macross Plus.
>>14467717
The popularity argument always brings in retarded shitposting. At least no one's brought upsales figures.
>>14467769
I'm not saying they're invalid, I'm saying they're only ever an indication at best and that pointing to ratings systems on a site as solid data when there's no indication of what kind of percentage of people voted is pointless. The only people who vote are people who care about those sites, not even people who feel strongly about a given work.
And while you have those two facts I can add one more: you have no idea what kind of percentage voted and the data is limited in it's utility and scope because of it. Just because they voted doesn't make them a majority. Nor does it make their view any more valid, just easier to ascertain.
>>14467793
Again, you're refuting technicalities with data collection and not the data specifically. You are basing the entire platform of your argument on something that we do not know because you can't prove it in any way. Doing so negates both sides of the discussion including your own point that you are contesting for. That's not how debates work.
>>14467837
I'm refuting the usefulness of the data you've provided and any such data in general because my entire point was that such limited data as an online rating system isn't very useful and doesn't tell the entire story. It doesn't tell it for this one case in particular, or for any such case as a generality. I'm not sure you how you think saying such data is worthless when one of my main points all along has been that that data is worthless or why that's not good debating. Because that is something I was saying all along.
I also said that discussion of Plus tends to be divisive but that ratings don't point to that so you can look up any online discussion you want to prove the point. I'm not going to provide links because I'd probably be told I'm cherry picking if I did. Feel free to check any forum you want though, anime or otherwise, any year, whatever. I looked up some out of curiosity myself earlier and found discussion going back at least 6 years that ranged from great to meh, with a good few people finding problem with the climax of the Isamu/Guld scenario. I think one even went back to 2006. A lot of places just had placeholder pages for discussion of it though, because people just didn't feel the desire to talk about it there at all. Whether because they hadn't seen it or didn't care I don't know.
Providing data on that though like you say is difficult, since it's not a simple number and requires trawling. Even then it can only ever say what a limited number of people said. I put more weight in discussion and opinions revealed through it though personally, because it usually requires more thought.
>>14467871
You are focusing on a point that negates all sides of the argument including your own. Yet despite that point that you have accepted, you somehow came to a conclusion that Macross Plus is polarizing in some notably exceptional way without any quantifiable proof -- just your having seen enough arguments on the internet to give you the personal perception that it is.
I'm pretty sure that you understand that subjectivity naturally means that there will be different opinions. As such, disagreements will inevitably surface sooner or later. Macross Plus is no exception. It's prone to nerds have arguments about it just like anything else. It's not the special case that you seem to believe it is.
DYRL is really fucking good but i love the original SDF the most
also plus really is as good as the may may's imply
frontier is ok the songs are decent
7 is brilliant of course
delta is meh
i like the songs but the plot is going nowhere
>>14468001
I literally never said it was a special case though and on several occasions provided other examples for the sake of argument. The only one saying it's a special case is you.
I'm also not negating my own point since one of my main points is that such rankings aren't worth much, so how can saying they're not worth much negate it?
I have no proof, only anecdotes, but I think those anecdotes are worth as much as some simple rankings, just in a different way. I don't think pointing to them counts for much when there's only partial data and no percentage who voted or anything else important included. Only a flat score.
If you want to believe them, fine, more power to you. They're too limited to be of any use in my opinion though. Acting like they prove a majority or that anything that goes against them is a minority just because it goes against them is pointless though, because you have no proof they're a majority or that anyone saying anything they don't is a minority or artificial in some way though.
You keep accusing me of lacking proof, but you've yet to pull out any proof that those ratings constitute a majority or that any division is artificial though.
>>14462415
Drown in your despair and die. There will never be another Robotech title worth watching, because the only thing that made it watchable was Macek and he's dead.
>>14468115
You negate your argument because you said yourself that it's impossible to gauge what the people actually think about the subject without polling everybody who has ever seen Macross Plus. Because that is a practical impossibility, you said that we can't know for sure what the majority opinion is.
Furthermore you feel like it was worth mentioning the claim that Macross Plus is divisive and controversial despite the fact that you understand it to be a totally subjective matter and people will naturally have disagreements of opinion.
So what is even your point anymore?
>>14468398
I didn't say we could never know what opinion is, I only said that a rating system would only ever act as one indication at best, and that it often doesn't tell the complete story with discussion going against it in at least some cases.
I also said that Macross Plus was a case where opinion is divided for years (unlike some shows) and that in discussion it normally comes out much more divisive than a simple rating would say, so that the ratings are worthless in it's case (and in many others really). I do understand that shows are subjective and that there'll always be a difference of opinion. I think in cases like Plus where that division continues for years and always falls along the same lines with ratings never showing that, that ratings aren't worth a whole lot however.
That's my point. I'm not sure why you keep failing to understand that, but there it is as plain as I can make it.
>>14468437
You were refuting the review scores on the basis that they don't "tell the complete story" which is inherent of all surveys. By your logic, the only way we could ever get the complete story is by polling everyone who has ever seen Macross Plus. But because that is a practical impossibility, we could never actually know what that complete story is due to the nature of voluntary surveys. However, the truth is that the review scores that we do have is as close as we're ever going to get to having a measurable way of knowing what the public thinks about Plus.
It doesn't matter how long a piece of work has been around there will always be a difference of opinion. Obviously, the longer that piece of work has been around, the more years that disagreement will be around. Again, nothing remarkable about Plus there. I don't understand how you could've ever expected everybody to suddenly come up with the same unanimous opinion much less one so soon after it's been released.
>>14468574
> However, the truth is that the review scores that we do have is as close as we're ever going to get to having a measurable way of knowing what the public thinks about Plus.
Not really, no. While you can never poll everyone (or discuss with eveyone) you can just take what exists and make an extrapolation from it. Which includes discussion. Just because it's difficult or not hard data doesn't mean its invalid. Taking only ratings and thinking that's a majority just because it's easy doesn't make it true.
> nothing remarkable about Plus there
Never said there was, only that some shows or movies stopped being discussed after a time or that the only people who discussed them tended to have a common opinion. I just don't think Plus is one of those shows. I don't think it's alone in that, despite you regularly saying I do, I just think it's an example of one.
> so soon after it's been released
So soon after what released? Plus has been out with 20 years. 7 just as long. Zero with a decade. Destiny more. And those are the only examples I used.
>>14468601
You are contradicting yourself now with the review scores. You say that it's possible to draw conclusions from a small percentage of the population, but when you are shown individual reviews and aggregate scores from popular websites, you believe this to be somehow invalid. Furthermore, you go on to say that different immeasurable formats of data collection should be included and you are still able to come up with a valid, unadulterated deduction.
Secondly, it's foolish to think that people will come to a unanimous decision soon after release (which is what I meant, not Plus specifically) or that just because something is old, it's unworthy of being discussed in the present. On this very board you have people debating on whether older mecha anime shows were good or not. Despite their age, they are still discussed whenever somebody asks for recommendations or compares narratives or just wants to shitpost.
>>14468817
> You say that it's possible to draw conclusions from a small percentage of the population
No, I've said that it's possible to see from multiple discussions over a long period of time that opinion isn't clearly going towards one direction the way voting would say that it has and that votes should not be taken as a full picture on their own because plenty of people don't use or care about such sites.
> you go on to say that different immeasurable formats of data collection should be included and you are still able to come up with a valid, unadulterated deduction.
Are you being deliberately obtuse? I never said it would be unadulterated deduction. I used the word extrapolate for a reason, because it would be at most an education observation based on what the person viewing them saw, not any kind of unadulterated deduction. Do you just not know what an extrapolation is or something?
> just because something is old, it's unworthy of being discussed
Also not what I said. I never said anything was unworthy of being discussed, only that some things are not discussed. Not because they're unworthy, just because no one talks about them. And even here there are plenty of older shows that see little to no discussion. When was the last time someone discussed Gakusaver? I remember one thead on it, ever, and it was short. And that was about 2 years ago. It's not alone. There are shows that have never got discussion, sometimes because they were just plain forgotten and weren't liked enough to be subbed or even remembered. Sometimes because they're niche even by /m/ standards. Sometimes because they've just not been subbed or noticed.
I'm starting to realize I'm spending most of this discussion simply correcting things you're false attributing to me and that it's really not worth it if that's all I'm going to be doing.
>>14469127
Sorry, it looks like I misunderstood your earlier statement to say that you thought discussions should be included in data collections when polling. If that's wrong, then chalk it up to wording structure.
Moving on, you haven't really clearly explained that just because an older show is discussed, it is therefore must be controversial and divisive. As I wrote before, people can bring up older shows for different reasons not solely because they want to argue about it like you seem to think is the case with Plus.
Also, just because you have perceived your own immeasurable observations don't fall in line with the trend, it doesn't invalidate the recorded data in anyway. It just means that you feel like it's different without any way substantiated evidence to back it up.
>>14466621
>shortly after that they crashed the Megaroad-01 into a black hole
>>14469497
> I misunderstood your earlier statement to say that you thought discussions should be included in data collections when polling
I don't even know what you're on about anymore, because I very definitely did say that discussion should be given consideration alongside ratings when trying to ascertain opinion on a given work. If you think I was saying I didn't with the previous post for some reason then I've no idea what to say since you appear to be taking completely different meaning from my posts no matter what I type.
> you haven't really clearly explained that just because an older show is discussed, it is therefore must be controversial and divisive
I haven't clearly explained it because you're just assuming I'm saying that anything discussed with differing opinions is controversial and ignoring the idea that it's only controversial (or divisive if you prefer) if that divergence of opinion is evident for a long time and with significant presence. Which Plus has from my experience because I've seen plenty of people say that it's pretty but unimpressive, they dislike the characters, they find the resolution unsatisfying and so on. On multiple forums for multiple years. Just like 7 has people who find it repetitive or Zero has people who find it a confusing mess.
It's not divisive because one person said it once, it's divisive because people have been saying the same thing with years.
>>14472558
> it doesn't invalidate the recorded data in anyway
No, what invalidates the recorded data is that only a subset of people know, care about or use it, that an unknown but almost definitely large amount of people don't use it and that the information only really conveys an overall feeling of the work and gives no specifics.
If I was to rate Plus I'd probably put it at a 7 or 8 because it has very good production values and it's writing is good, even if never great. I still find it a forgettable work whose major merit is the production values though. And all a rating system would register is that 7 or 8, adding to a high aggregate rating without any real view of what I think of it. Such ratings are inherently flawed.
> It just means that you feel like it's different without any way substantiated evidence to back it up.
And you have no substantial evidence that it's actually worth anything, just like Destiny's high rating every site you look at is ultimately worthless and not indicative of a lot of people's feelings about the show because all it records are flat numerical ratings and not thoughts of any kind.
>>14472558
>>14472561
People are going to different opinions on subjective works. Just because it's discussed, doesn't make it controversial or divisive. Macross Plus is no different which you yourself have admitted. So why bring it up in the first place?
As for aggregate ratings, you're generally correct in that usually they don't include specific thoughts (even though a lot of them do), but they do convey an overall attitude towards a piece of work. Even written reviews and the commentary of users in the aggregate sites you start to see several patterns emerge in the things that are agreed upon (like you have pointed out). The reason why review scores are still valid is because they are often a person's initial impressions. What happens in discussions is that you are throwing third-party opinions into the mix. Now you have a situation in which those initial impressions are subjected the opinions of other people who may have totally different ideas on the piece. Depending on the environment that this discussion is happening, the original opinion is no longer about the piece itself, but what others think about it, too. I'm not saying that opinions can't evolve over time, but people's opinions are often swayed and corrupted by those of the other people in the room. Such environments level the playing field in favor of vocal minority who have the least popular opinions. Nevermind the fact that it's much more difficult to gauge what the majority of people actually think about the work.
Have you at least once considered the possibility that maybe there are that many people who liked Destiny and simply chose not to participate in these discussions?
>>14472983
> why bring it up
Because it's sustained and repeated division of opinion. Same as with 7 and Zero, which are often only recommended with a proviso precisely because people may or may not enjoy them and many feel it wise to give them foreknowledge they include certain things one might consider bad. And so with Plus. Despite it's high ranking.
> Nevermind the fact that it's much more difficult to gauge what the majority of people actually think about the work.
It's only difficult to gauge if they don't make their opinion known and keep it to themselves, letting louder opinions talk instead. If they give it, it's just as easy to see as any other opinion.
> Have you at least considered the possibility that maybe there are many people who liked Destiny
Have you not read any of my posts? I'm seriously starting to wonder if you have. I'm not saying they don't have an opinion or it isn't valid just because it's on a review site or different than mine and never have, only that discussion of the show reveals that many people hold an opinion those review sites don't track. Of course lots of people like it, and of course it's completely valid to despite differing from my opinion. All I ever said was that their view wasn't the only valid one, not that theirs isn't valid.
And the same of Plus. Of course people can like or even love it if they want, but not everyone does and it seems like a lot of people don't. And their opinion isn't artificial just because it goes against what the rankings say.
>>14473150
>Because it's sustained and repeated division of opinion.
People are going to have a different opinions. That's just the nature of subjectivity. It doesn't mean that it's remarkably divisive or controversial just because it's being discussed. Obviously, the longer a piece of work has been around, the more likely it's going to be repeatedly talked about. You admitted it yourself that it doesn't make Plus unique in that regard. Your claim of "Plus is controversial" is commonplace and therefore a trivial statement.
What I'm saying with the review scores is that it's much easier to get an idea of how much people liked a given piece than you ever will in an open-discussion format. Granted that discussions maybe better for digesting specific ideas because it allows for more cross-talk, but because of their smaller population, it's tougher to ascertain what the majority of people actually feel about the piece. And as I've said earlier, it's much more likely of an opinion being corrupted under the influence of others by the vocal minority and people who disagree just to disagree (ie: artificial controversy).
>>14473500
> it's remarkably divisive or controversial
It doesn't have to be remarkable to be divisive and controversial only means that there's a difference of opinion on it at the end of the day. Just because there's not a huge furor doesn't mean it isn't.
> it's much easier to get an idea of how much people liked a given piece
Yes and I'm saying that they don't always paint an accurate picture because only some people use them. And that Plus is a work they don't accurately represent both because of that and because a flat number doesn't actually give any kind of detail about why that number is there. Plus could have it's 8 (random choice) because people thought it was pretty and not because they thought it was memorable or worth it besides pretty visuals.
> artificial controversy
Sure, that CAN happen. So what? It's not like review scores are free of influence either. People change their minds and think stuff should score higher or lower all the time, but their scores is often recorded and kept at the original score for good or ill. Just because it can be corrupted in some manner doesn't mean it's inherently worthless.
Besides which, you've no proof to the idea that Plus suffers such artificial controversy. The difference of opinion on it is worth noting in conversation should someone ask and saying it's being blown out of proportion simply because scores don't say it (when they often can't) doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>>14473582
I don't know how many more times I have to say it, but I say it again: Every subjective topic will always have a difference of opinion. There's always going to be people who disagree on something due to the nature of subjectivity. By that technicality, everything is controversial/divisive.
Obviously because Macross Plus has been around for 20+ years and part of popular on-going franchise that's been around even longer, people will continue to talk about it. That doesn't make it uniquely controversial or divisive -- only that more likely that people will talk about it. That's it.
I'll also say this again: Review scores make it much easier to fathom how much people have liked something. Not specific ideas (sometimes), but the work as a whole. If you want to digest specific things in detail with other people, then review scores are not so good for that. Review scores are more about initial impressions that are just about the piece and less likely to be diffused by the opinions of others. Even if a person's opinion does change, they could always change their score or retract it completely. And because aggregate scores are more populous than discussions, it's more indicative of the overall impression people got.
And I don't think I need to prove to you that there were instances of artificial controversy in Macross Plus discussions since I'd like to believe that you are savvy enough to know as well as I do about mannerisms of internet message boards and peer pressure in social groups of the real world.
>>14453882
>Do I watch the TV series or Do You Remember Love?
No
>Also should I even bother watching 7 at all?
No
Unless you *really* like j-pop idol princesses, just watch Mobile Suit Gundam instead.
>>14473965
It's funny because Gundam has an actual j-pop idol princess.
>>14473965
Nice false flag, fag.
>>14473880
I don't know how many more times I have to say it, but I'll say it again: it's not controversial because someone once said something that disagreed with the rankings, it's controversial because it's a sustained set of views on the piece that seems to have a broad penetration. I also don't know how many more times I have to say that I don't think it's unique for being in that situation before you stop saying it's not unique like that's a revelation or that I think it is unique.
> less likely to be diffused by the opinions of others
Not really. If you go to the cinema with a few friends to see a movie, their opinion of it is at least as likely to rub off on you as opinion garnered in discussion. Same with watching stuff at home with your family, friends or significant other. You don't even have to discuss it in any depth, just knowing whether they liked/disliked something can change how you view a film.
> they could always change their score or retract it completely
You say that like people can't change their mind in discussion. Putting that aside though, I signed up for a couple of the linked sites that had Plus reviews upthread and out of 2 one didn't let me change my score (MAL did, ANN didn't). Some do, some don't.
> I don't think I need to prove to you that there were instances of artificial contrroversy in Macross Plus discussions
Actually, you do. Do I think it's had shitposting? Yes. Do I think that's negatively effected the general view of it or changed people's opinion of it in notable numbers over the years? Not really. So go ahead, prove it. And while you're at it, prove that this also wasn't the case with Plus' review scores. That there wasn't an artificial raising of it's score by giving it a reputation as a more adult story or ballot stuffing instead of shitposting or whatever.
>>14475723
Here's what it comes down to though: You stated you hold the view that any discussion that goes against the grain of the ratings is artificial and only held by a small number of people and that the proof is that it goes against the ratings. That no more is needed. I think that's bullshit and think there's at least a couple of anime shows alone that prove that plenty of people can disagree with the ratings without effecting those ratings because only some people use them.
Which is why I asked if you though Destiny's disgreement of opinion was artificial or an actual division of opinion. Not because I thought the people who loved it were false or wrong, but because I wanted to know if you thought that the most obvious case for this board is artificial and just a few loudmouths too.
>this stupid argument is still going
hahaha holy shit
>>14474118
Bitch, I said MOBILE SUIT GUNDAM, not SEED.
The whole Gundam franchise only has 1.5 pop-idols (because Meer was just pretending to be Lacus). And the one time that Gundam went there, their pop princess stayed #1 on the newtype character polls for over a decade because she's an actual socially conscious, politically motivated character and not just some self-absorbed blintz in a love triangle.
>>14462168
That was awesome, but who was piloting Mazinger Z if Kouji was in Mazinkaiser?
>>14475723
>>14475726
Again, I don't really have to prove that opinions are subject to the influence of other people in the environment when you argued that point for me in the same post when you said that when watching something with other people, their opinions will rub off on you. It's no different from open discussions.
Are the people people who vote on aggregate websites or wright reviews prone to the same influences? Sure. However, because the reviews are a form of one-way communication, it's by nature less susceptible to be corrupted by input and responses of a third party in an open-discussion format.
I'll also state again that Plus is an old entry in a popular on-going franchise. Not only that, it's one of the most prominent entries and has been dubbed into another language increasing the pool of people who would see it. Of course people will continue to see it and keep it relevant by "sustaining" discussions of it. It's not going to go away. People are not going to stop talking about Gundam, Star Wars, or any other popular franchise just because it's old. It's pretty naive on your part to assume that people would simply cease discussing Plus.
The reason why it's possible to say that Macross Plus is so well-liked by using reviews is because aggregate sites are more populous surveys than the group discussions that have far less participants, they're less prone to being corrupted by others because they don't allow for input from a third party, the data is recorded and can be referenced, and individual opinions are weighed only once for each survey. Furthermore, the review scores become substantiated by other popular surveys and individual reviews when they all start to say they same thing in both their numerical grade and written commentary. It's easier to see what the overall impressions were.
Discussions are good for cross-talk of specific ideas, but you can't make any reliable claims about what the overall impression of the majority really is.
>>14477041
> I don't really have to prove that opinions are subject to the influence of other people in the environment
Not actually what I asked you to prove.
> However, because the reviews are a form of one-way communication, it's by nature less susceptible to be corrupted by input
The person is still susceptible to input before and after they vote. It's only non-susceptible in the exact moment they're voting.
> It's pretty naive on your part to assume that people would simply cease discussing Plus.
I never said they would, I've no idea where you're pulling that from.
> you can't make claims about the what the overall impression of the majority really is
You can't make that claim with review sites either, since the userbase is unknown and the data only partial. The most you can say is that the people who voted liked it, not that everyone did. There's absolutely no way to know they're a majority. They could easily be the vocal minority.
>>14477159
Once more you are grasping straws by refuting inherent fallacies present in all conducting surveys.
My whole argument is that you can make legitimate claims based on the trends you see in statistical data that's also been substantiated by it's peers. That's how the scientific method works. That's why insurance companies have actuaries and why it's advised that men over 40 get prostate exams. We see trends in the data and judgement calls are made accordingly. I don't know what part you don't get about this.
Meanwhile you can't make reliable claims in the open discussion format because:
1) They are less populous than surveys.
2) Their environment is more likely to have opinions corrupted by a third party due to peer pressure.
3) No one has been compiling and processing any kind data that can be referenced later.
Also, you are going to have to clarify what you means by "sustained and repeated" discussion. If it doesn't mean that people continue to discuss Plus, then I'm at a loss in how you think difference of opinion people have for it that is worth mentioning in the first place.
FYI: I haven't been on ANN since Bush was still in office, but I distinctly remember being able to change your rating for anime from the drop-down list in your profile.
>>14477604
> My whole argument is that you can make legitimate claims based on the trends you see in statistical data that's also been substantiated by it's peers
ANN, Rotten Tomatoes, MAL or whoever else aren't using the scientific method just because they have a number at the end since an actual scientific survey is about more than getting a response and calling it a day. The actual scientific method even just confining it to good survey practice would be to ensure you're getting a good representative slice of the population and not just letting anyone do it anytime they please because ensuring your data polls all kind of people is part of good survey practice. Which such sites don't make any effort to do (nor should they have to really).
> we see trends in the data
And when something happens that doesn't fit with those trends the people making them don't commonly go "well it's just an anomaly and completely artificial - it must be, because it doesn't fit the data we have". Not any worth their salt anyways. They poll that new data instead. Or rethink their old findings to see how it fits the new data. Even then it's only after multiple polls over years of research and fact checking that any such data is adopted in the way you're talking about. There is no fact checking on those sites, or research of any kind. People vote, an average is calculated and that's it.
> 1) They are less populous than surveys.
Only individual discussions. If you take discussions as a whole across multiple years, then not really.
> 2) Their environment is more likely to have opinions corrupted by a third party
Again, not really, since you're dismissing the very real possibility of people who vote doing so after a discussion and having their opinion "corrupted" before they vote.
>>14477803
> 3) No one has been compiling and processing any kind data that can be referenced later.
The only kind of data those sites commonly compile is an average rating. With no reference to how many people voted or watched it out of possible viewers or how many people don't use those sites. Which lots of people don't.
> clarify what you mean by "sustained and repeated" discussion.
What about those words confuses you?
> If it doesn't mean that people continue to discuss Plus, then I'm at a loss in how you think difference of opinion people have for it is worth mentioning in the first place
I'm at a loss for why you think I said people don't continue to discuss it, or how you think saying they do discuss it is somehow contradictory to anything else I've said. I did say people continue to discuss it though. I'm sure you'll let me know what I said previously that you took to be me saying them discussing it is somehow a bad thing. Maybe you'll say it I think Plus is unique in that regard again somehow?
> I haven't been on ANN since Bush was still in office, but I distinctly remembe being able to change your rating
If the option is there it isn't obvious, because I clicked on my anime ratings and then selected the tv show I had rated and every option there several times without finding any option.
How can we even be sure that the shows even really exist and aren't a collective delusion?
>>14477966
Maybe shows are the real reality and life is just a show.
>>14477803
>>14477811
What I find confusing is that when I asked you why brought up Macross Plus in the first place, you said that it was because discussions were sustained and repeated. Yet despite you agreeing that old works can be discussed and your agreeing that all subjective work is prone to a difference of opinion, you felt compelled to make the claim that Macross Plus was divisive/controversial even though you admit that it's not in any way unique or different from any other subjective work thus rendering your statement a trivial one because of how commonplace it is.
Also, I don't know if you've ever taken a statistics class or had record charts on a plot graph to get get mean, but without delving to deep in it, you may remember that "normal" or expected results are within one standard deviation because most results would be close to the mean. Results that are well outside the standard deviations are considered abnormal -- "anomaly" as you put it. Not that they don't happen, but rather that they are rare and not indicative of any trend.
Regardless, I think you are taking my use of the scientific method far too literally. I only brought it up because of how important peer review was in the scientific method to substantiate claims. Despite your continued efforts to grasp at straws by refuting inherent fallacies of conducting voluntary surveys, all the popular aggregate websites in addition to most written reviews show a trend in their scores when compared with each other. If you don't see a common pattern in the reviews, you are being deliberately obtuse for reasons I don't know.
>>14477971
why would anybody want to watch nerds argue online?
>>14478095
You find the concept that many works have a divergence of opinion and that despite not being unique that those divergences are worth noting confusing in some way? And no, I've never taken a statistics class, but I do know how to conduct a scientific survey and "here you go, knock yourself out" isn't how you do it. Results that don't meet those standards aren't dismissed as not indicating a trend either, especially if they keep cropping up. I absolutely do see a common trend in the reviews however. I also absolutely see a common trend in discussion though. Which doesn't agree with reviews. And which I don't think is unusual or artificial in some manner.
Watching up to episode 8 of 7, I find myself wanting to shout the same things as Gamlin.
>>14478299
You, like he does, will understand in time. You just need to listen to Basara's song more.
>>14454062
>really bad pop music
You take that back.
>>14478136
>You find the concept that many works have a divergence of opinion and that despite not being unique that those divergences are worth noting confusing in some way?
No, what I said was that I find it confusing that you would be compelled to make it a point when it's a totally trivial one to begin with and says nothing about Macross Plus at all.
> I do know how to conduct a scientific survey and "here you go, knock yourself out" isn't how you do it.
Again, you are grasping at straws by refuting inherent fallacies present in all surveys and taking things too literally.
> Results that don't meet those standards aren't dismissed as not indicating a trend either, especially if they keep cropping up.
As I said before, results that are outside the standard deviation and far from the mean are rare and don't indicate a trend. It doesn't mean that they can't happen, but rather that they are largely outnumbered by the majority.
>I absolutely do see a common trend in the reviews however. I also absolutely see a common trend in discussion though. Which doesn't agree with reviews. And which I don't think is unusual or artificial in some manner.
You can't make any reliable claims based on small group discussions because the reasons that were mentioned earlier (size, peer pressure, and no data). At the very best, any claims are based upon your personal anecdotal impression which is limited to the discussions that only you have seen. That method is flawed because person can look at the same discussions (or a different set) and feel that the opinion of the discussion is different than what you thought it was and make a totally different claim about people think about Macross Plus that is no less legitimate than your own.
>>14479592
>inherent fallacies present in all surveys
what are these, pray tell?
>>14479603
Fallacies in conducting surveys arise because you are only taking taking a fraction of the general population instead of the entire population. It's a practical impossibility to have everyone surveyed to come up with the absolute result. As such, who participates in the survey, how the survey is conducted, where the survey takes place, and when it takes place can skew results. This is why results of surveys have to be reviewed by peers who have conducted the same studies in order to substantiate any kinds of claims that are extrapolated from the results.
>>14479592
> No, what I said was that I find it confusing that you would be compelled to make it a point when it's a totally trivial one to begin with and says nothing about Macross Plus at all.
The entire argument is about whether a divergence of opinion not represented statistically in ratings is valid. I think Plus is in that situation, but isn't alone in being so. And that a lot of stuff has a diversity of opinion on it which it doesn't hurt to acknowledge and which isn't artificial just because ratings don't reflect it. I'm not sure how that's trivial, but whatever.
> Again, you are grasping at straws by refuting inherent fallacies present in all surveys and taking things too literally.
You invoked scientific studies by talking about how ratings sites use the scientific method and how thanks to things like that we have men getting prostate checks over 40 and so on. Putting aside that any such studies would involve a lot of research as well as surveys though, don't bring them up if you don't want to talk about them. I only took it literally because you did.
>>14482088
> It doesn't mean that they can't happen, but rather that they are largely outnumbered by the majority.
You've yet to give any kind of indication those reviews represent a majority. Just because they're a survey doesn't mean they represent a majority. Half of the reviews linked to up thread are single person reviews, Amazon only had 100 people rate it. ANN (which wasn't linked but is relevant) only has something like 2000 reviews, as does Rotten Tomatoes. MAL has the most at 21, 000. That's the only one that provides any kind of remotely useful number statistically. And that's 21, 000 out of the entire world of anime viewing public. The site has something like 4.5 billion users. 21k is a drop in the ocean compared to the number of people who've probably watched that particular anime in America alone.
Which is why repeat surveying and so on is so important and good survey practice. And why those reviews don't really mean anything, because while you can never survey everyone, you can ensure your survey represents as many people as possible and see if the results bear out through multiple reviews using as large a catchment as possible. Which a few hundred or few thousand people isn't for something like this simple.
It's also putting aside that good survey practice for something subjective has the additional restriction of checking not just how many people voted one way, but of how many people didn't vote at all. It's not important to do so in objective survey issues, because personal preference doesn't enter something objective like "have you had prostrate problems and are you over 40?". That's a yes or no question with no personal preference involved. Subjective issues are more complex. Which is why electoral voting, which is about the most important subjective voting procedure, make sure to note not just what people voted, but how many people voted out of registered voters. Because that second part matters.
>>14482097
You've mentioned peer review several times now, but surveys don't really get peer review as such. Counting other studies as peer review though, a study like Rotten Tomatoes with only 2k reviews doesn't mean squat though because it's just not a statistically relevant number. Tarzan has 40k reviews already and it's only just released. Nausicaa has 70k reviews and is older than Plus. Civil War has 157k reviews. And even those numbers would need to be replicated to be statistically relevant.
> You can't make reliable claims based on small group discussions
You can't make reliable claims based on surveys with no regulations and no real size presence either. Yet you're trying to do so. The only data they have is a number. That's it. It doesn't even break the number down to see what people liked about it (writing versus direction versus animation, fighting versus character and so on). It's just a flat number to represent everything.
Discussion might be flawed because it's subjective, but those reviews are flawed because they're making no effort to be representative or to ensure good survey practice. They're not trying to and shouldn't need to, because they're only ever meant to indicate opinion, and not to be a hard number to rely on. Which is what you're trying to make them. And then throwing out anything that goes against them as not indicated in the numbers (which it is unlikely to have in the first place). Which isn't what they're supposed to be.
>>14454062
>really bad pop music
>Kyuun Kyuun Kyuun Kyuun.
Nah, get outta here, you don't even know.
>>14453882
> Do I watch the TV series or Do You Remember Love?
>or
Watch or watch not. There is no 'or'.
>Also should I even bother watching 7 at all?
You could quite safely stop after watching the two truly good entires in the franchise and not have missed anything... but 7 is easily the least bad of the TV sequels.
>>14482239
It is bad m8
>>14482088
>>14482097
>>14482105
I hate to keep coming back to the same talking points, but you keep refuting inherent fallacies present in all surveys. Every survey that's ever been is only ever compromised of the people that actually took part in it. I don't know what you are missing about that. Because of the practical impossibilities of surveying 100% of the population, only a fraction of the population can be counted.
And again, you are taking things too literally when I mentioned the scientific method. I brought it up to highlight the importance of trends and having peers come up with the same trends when substantiating claims which is important enough to be used in the scientific method -- never once saying that the aggregate sites followed the scientific method itself to the letter. Because there is data that is substantiated by several sources, the claim that the majority of people liked Macross Plus is a valid summation. It's not specific on individual ideas (even though much of the commentaries include it if you bothered to read them), but rather the impressions of people on the work as a whole.
With open-discussion it's totally up to the individual's interpretation of what directions those particular conversations are going. If another person gets an opposite impression of the discussions, it's just as valid a claim as the first person because neither of them can prove their claims. There's no way that they can prove a divergence of opinion with review scores nor can they substantiate the reviews from the open-discussion format thus making any sorts of claims about the overall opinions of a given work far less valid.
>>14454062
>fencing with daggers
You'd assume that highly-trained and naturally-gifted pilots would have at least a modicum of how martial infantry combat works.
>>14484603
> Every survey that's ever been is only ever compromised of the people that actually took part in it. I don't know what you are missing about that. Because of the practical impossibilities of surveying 100% of the population, only a fraction of the population can be counted.
And I hate to keep bringing back up the same points to refute you, but just because you can't survey everyone doesn't mean you give up and just accept any old survey as being fine and dandy. If you're trying to gauge a million people for instance, then it's recommended by most places you take 10 thousand respondants, though you build in a certain % of failed respondants. And then if that survey is to have any validity you need to ensure that you're hitting people of every stripe and do it multiple times and so on. And those surveys just don't count for that, since there's almost certainly more than a million English speakers have seen Plus for a start.
> you are taking things too literally when I mentioned the scientific method
Then stop talking about the inherent fallacies of surveying. You can't use the scientific method to prove your point then get put out when someone says that it doesn't actually meet scientific standards.
> there is data that is substantiated by several sources
Yes, but never even close to enough of them to claim they represent a majority. Which is what you're doing, because there'd need to be a lot more people involved in them to do so.
> the claim that the majority of people liked Macross Plus is a valid summation
No, it isn't.
>>14484609
>that feel what that's a better fight than these fags dancing in circles
Is Basara in love with Sivil?
>>14484635
I don't know where you got the suggestion that a certain percentage of the population has to be polled in order for the results to be legitimate -- especially since there are cases where it's impossible to make that determination. The golden rule when conducting surveys is to get as many responses as you can because the more respondents participate, the more substantive the survey is. This is why surveys with several thousand respondents is weighted to be more valid than a room of 5 or 6 people.
>>14484694
> get as many responses as you can
Okay. And if those response are going to be determined to constitute representing a majority they have to meet certain good survey practices, including being of at least a certain size compared to the number of people you're stating they represent. You can't get 2 surveys back and then claim they represent all of America for instance. Because 2 responses isn't enough. Nor is 200. Nor is 2000. Not for someplace as big as the United States with a population of 320 million. Literally any guide on good survey practice will presumably include that bullet point. Google it or something.
>>14484708
>>14484694
>Not for someplace as big as the United States with a population of 320 million.
Even here in the Netherlands polling 10 thousand people can give a result that's very far from the general concensus.
Go to Urk (population of 20.000), pretty much the Christian conservative stronghold of the Netherlands.
If you take a survey there close to 50% of the parties would be Christian ones.
If you take a survey in Amsterdam it would biased in favour of the PVDA.
Internet surveys are biased in favour of the youth vote.
etc.etc.
It's so easy to manipulate surveys because area is just as important as the population.
A 500000 participant survey in Utah is useless to take that as an example how America thinks because so many different areas have such different consensus.
And it isn't just with a big country like the USA.
It's already clear with a tiny country like the Netherlands.
For the Netherlands you already need a dozen surveys, if not a lot more.
For the US a hundred is not enough.
*sorry if my English is a little strange at places.
>>14484708
>Literally any guide on good survey practice will presumably include that bullet point.
Most guides actually do. They suggest that a survey with more respondents have a higher confidence level and lower margin of error. Inversely, the less responses it gets, the lower the confidence and the higher the margin of error.
With that in mind they never explicitly state how many people are needed for the survey and leave that up to the people conducting them. This is especially the case when the general population is too large to get 100% of them to respond or if the population of which the survey applies to is indeterminate. Assuming they aren't under any time constraints, conductors of the surveys "enough is enough" when the diminishing returns of each response has reached a point to their satisfaction.
>>14484758
> they never explicitly state how many people are needed for the survey
Well I never meant that an exact number was defined for representing a given population, but that a guideline is suggested for how many people to survey compared to how many people you're representing. And 50000 reviews (being generous and assuming there's at least one other on the size of MAL, though I doubt it) when considering the total population of people who've seen Macross Plus in the English speaking world alone. That's a possible population of something like a billion people, though only maybe 10 million or something like it will presumably have seen Plus. You can't call that a majority just because they're defined data though. It's simply not enough people to confidently (or even timidly in my opinion) state they represent that majority. And I doubt you'll find much in the way of agreement.
>>14484775
>Well I never meant that an exact number was defined for representing a given population, but that a guideline is suggested for how many people to survey compared to how many people you're representing
There is no such guideline. Only that you'd do best by getting as many respondents as possible to keep margin of error at a minimum. The only time when you would call it is when you feel that you've reached a point of diminishing returns on individual responses.
What I believe you are trying to say (and of course, you'll correct me) is that the margin of error is still to great and confidence level too low to ascertain anything. This is probably because you value the next single response far more heavily than I do because I feel that the diminishing returns has reached the point where the surveys are in agreement. The aggregate scores that polled less than 100 people are trending roughly the same numbers as the ones that have over 1000, 2000, and one over 10,000 responses. This is indicative that waiting around for more responses would be a vain act because you have a trend that they will say nothing different.
>>14484609
It was kind of a dumb episode in general.
Watch Robotech instead.
>>14485285
It's also one of the episodes with loads of non-Studio Nue animation work so it's QUALITY as hell.
ZERO G LOVE
ZERO G LOVE
>>14454062
>really bad pop music.
>>14487559
He's right you know
The colours on Diamond Force pilot suits are absolute eye cancer.
>>14485285
>>14486199
You shut your mouth!
SDF Robocross was perfect! PERFECT!!!
>>14484901
You can find guidelines for sample size in surveys by Googling. There's dozens of them, thousands probably, depending on how much confidence you want to have in your results (1% to 10%) and how much of a margin of error you're willing to tolerate. Generally, for a population of an entire country though (never mind entire continents like this is talking about) you're going to want to have thousands of responses. Just because they're difficult to get doesn't mean you just give up and take what you can.
And no, I'm not speaking about margin of error. If you reach a point of diminishing returns it's not just a sign to give up, call it a day and calculate what you have because as >>14484736 there's every chance you're receiving a lot of the same replies because of bias or that the area you're in has reached saturation point, not that no other applicable area exists or is going to respond. Diminishing returns in a single poll also doesn't mean that that one poll is enough even if you want to ignore those though, because you need to get a lot of responses for a lot of areas over a long time to have any kind of confidence your trend is real, not just perceived due to bias.
Which is difficult, if not impossible to judge with an open review strategy on an internet site that doesn't check for any kind of bias at all. Further responses from the same people who use those sites might be useless, but that's not judgement that further responses of any kind will be the same, because you don't know what kind of people are using the site in the first place.
>>14491189
Look at an example of subjective voting like opinion polling for an upcoming vote in a smaller country like the UK. Opinion polls get respondents to break down their party preference and are taken in dozens of areas around the country with roughly 2000 respondents in each area almost weekly for several years before the vote. That gives a high confidence, because it's taking lots of people from different areas and of different backgrounds, biases etc. over a long period. The US conducts even more. Even lowering confidence level and thus the number or replies you'd ideally want, from 3% to something like 10% you'd still need hundreds of replies taken over years and ensuring you hit a lot of areas since you're talking about polling the the US, Europe and Australia, even just leaving it to primarily just English speaking countries.
Only one review site has more than 3000 people as far as I can see, and only a handful have more than a few hundred. A lot of them are just single reviewers. I'm not even just talking about the ones linked, I'm talking about review sites full stop. With that small a number of responses compared to possible population size and area, no idea of whether you're avoiding bias by hitting multiple representative areas and so on I don't think you can declare that a majority of any kind just because you've noticed an apparent trend.
>>14491189
>>14491195
Like I said, no guidelines exists that directs a specific percentage of the population most be polled; only that it is suggested that more responses are helpful in keeping the margin of error low and confidence level high. This is because in some cases, the sample size would be practically impossible to poll or if the population for which the survey applies to is unknown.
That said, even for a survey to achieve 95% confidence level with a respectable 5% margin of error (and assuming a worse-case scenario of a 50% normal distribution of liking it vs not liking it), you only need a sample size of a few hundred responses (significantly less if you are willing to allow for a higher margin of error). With this in mind, the most populous aggregate ratings or within that 5% margin of error for Macross Plus which means that they have a confidence level.
And some of what you mentioned are hot-button issues when it comes to the ethics of statistical analysis. Breaking down demographics into subsets that may or may not be relevant to imply a false causality/correlation and if it's data dredging if you've compiled a large number of responses are just of a few of the inherent fallacies that can come up with surveys.
>>14492122
Sample size guidelines exist to help you get a handle on how many replies you should be looking for depending on population sizes. If you don't like them, then they are only a guideline but your survey won't get much respect if the response number is small relative to the population number. They absolutely do exist though. If the population is unknown though (which it is) and practically impossible to survey regardless (which it also is) then your survey should never be taken as definite data and only as an indication at most. Especially so if you've only gotten a relatively small amount of replies and have no idea of what kind of bias they're comprised of since you've not taken any information on the responses.
Even if you lower the confidence rating to 10% or more however, you'd still need hundreds of replies and multiple surveys in multiple areas to have any kind of confidence in it. Of which they are there are maybe 5 or 6 that hit that number (less I suspect). Which isn't many. And which we have no idea of where those replies come from. Or what the people replying are like in terms of bias (drama v action, writing v direction and so on). Only one site I can see has even a remotely high number of replies and even that isn't much taken on it's own.
I'm also not sure how you think demographics aren't useful information that's at least worth checking, but I find it funny that you talk about the inherent fallacies of survey inaccuracy regularly to point out why such complaints are bad and then fail to mention things like non-response bias that make online surveys suspect in the first place. Online surveys and their validity is a controversial thing in itself because they're so hard to regulate. And these ones aren't even trying (though they're not trying to be a survey either in reality).
>>14493394
Even if you were to assume that the 7 billion people of Earth all saw Macross Plus, the sample size needed for a 5% margin of error is still less than 400 respondents for each survey. ANN, MAL, IMDb, AniDB, and RT each have thousands of responses and are polling at about a 4% margin of error with each other.
A non-response bias is also something that can affect surveys. But again, that's an inherent flaw that all surveys can be subjected to when conducting them and it's hard to prove that you have any kind of bias which is where peer studies come in to either disprove or substantiate a bias. Dividing demographics is also a debatable subject since just because you see a correlation, it doesn't necessarily make it a legitimate causality.
Macross Plus is popular because it was one of the first titles imported in big countries by Manga Video.
That's all. Same as shit Akira movie.. let's face it, Akira the movie is dumb; top animation, poor characters and story. But had its good chance in the right moment, it became a cult, and it sells well today too.
At the time of Plus, Macross was already a cult despite the existence of Robotech.
So everything with Macross in the title had to be watched.
Truth is that a lot of people can't admit that Plus has nothing to do with actual Macross, because nastalgiafag.
Damn you nostalgia, damn you.
Macross 7 expands what was seen on first Macross Tv series and DYRL.
It does it pretty well, even if it takes time.
Why?
Well, you get to know what Protoculture was.
Best Max and Milia ever seen.
Great character: Basara Nekki.
Valkyries? Well, don't like them completely but they works pretty well and their good in action.
Macross fleet!
Universal love.
Sacrifices.
NO LOLI IDOLS!!!
Good songs.
7 is a bridge to frontier and probably to Delta too.
So watch it.
Yes, even the 2012's movie.
>>14494203
>NO LOLI IDOLS!!!
Mylene was actually one of the youngest in all of Macross. At 14 years at the beginning of the Macross 7, she's actually tied with Freyja as the youngest.
>>14494203
>NO LOLI IDOLS!!!
Mylene is literally the youngest. Also you don't know what loli means
>>14494332
loli AND idol.
read it.
Mylene is just part of Fire Bomber, she's young, she has attention, but she isn't the kind of irritating modern idol you can meet in recent Macross.
>>14494790
Mylene is practically tsundere. She can be irritating as hell at times.
>>14494790
Mylene is more irritating than any idol in the franchise bar Minmay in the original.
>>14462102
By the end of the show I really disliked Mylene. Every character around her is great, fucking loved Basara and Gamlin, but Mylene could disappear from the show entirely and I'd have been happy.
>>14453882
>Where do I start with
>>14495951
Mylene feels like a pretty "realistic" depiction of a 14 year old girl.
>>14494203
What the fuck did you smoke ? Plus has Valkyries (prototypes for the VF-19 and VF-22 seen in 7), a cyber-idol (related to the power of music), and a love triangle. It even has the goddamn SDF-1 from SDF Macross. Plus is as much of a Macross series as SDF or 7, whether you like it or not.
>>14498024
You don't get it.
While PLUS is like a spin off with a lot of mechafapness and usual Macross clichè, 7 is an effective continuation of the main story started with Macross 1982.
>>14498024
PLUS is like a giant Kawamori Middle Finger to Macross II
Whats the difference between Robotech and Macross and why should I choose one over the other?
>>14498852
No its not, 7 has jackshit to do with SDF other than Max.
Both Plus and 7 came out pretty close to each other and they both expand the macross universe. Plus gives us the first look of human colony, shows earth post reconstruction and other snippets. Macross 7 introduces the whole 'modern' immigration fleet and how it functions (though the concepts first visual hint was from flashback 2012 with megaroad)
I find it a bit ludicrous to pit the two against each other in a sort of competition. I find they go beautifully hand in hand, and I will rather pit them together against the visionless rehash that is Macross II. I'm so happy both happened and we went with this rather than something based on II.
>>14498852
>7 is an effective continuation of the main story started with Macross 1982.
That's like saying ZZ is an effective continuation of early-UC Gundam, but we all know that it's a skippable and silly side story.
>>14499035
>Whats the difference between Robotech and Macross and why should I choose one over the other?
Robotech is a US localization of SDF Macross, SDC Southern Cross, and MOSPEADA that tries to string them all together into one continuity. This of course leads weird problems in its story telling and the animation differences between each show can be jarring at times (especially when it's in the same episode). I haven't gone all the way through Robotech, but it's scope feels much grander than Macross (partly because it's combined elements of 3 different shows). The Macross franchise on the other hand feels much more focused since there's only one continuity and no need to integrate other stories into it.
Robotech is practically a dead franchise, though. It's been ages since the last worthwhile entry and the quite a few Macross entries easily outclass anything that Robotech has come up with.
>>14453882
The TV series and DYRL are two parts of a whole from a story point of view, but definitely watch the TV series first.
Canon doesn't matter too much the sequels draw from both interchangeably (Macross 7 has Millia in a TV-style flight suit, flying a Movie-style VF-1J, Frontier has TV-style Zentradi fighting movie-style Zentradi).
Like Most shows, production order is definitely the way to go. Also, Macross 7 is fucking awesome, you should watch it.
Is there any interest in new muxes for Macross Plus and DYRL?
Currently the only high quality fansubs for these two are filled with horsehit; honorificis all over the place, translator notes, and animated karaoke.
If there is interest, I'm planning on muxing a very clean DYRL script onto a nice 1080p RAW. I also found my VHS copy of the old Toei dub (which is horribly), but I figure I'll find a VCR and dump the audio track for fun.
I'd like to do the same for Macross Plus, but I'd also like to include the Manga Entertainment episode 4 dub (Bandai commissioned a new English episode 4 dub for the remake with different actors.) But I don't really want to shell out for the old DVDs, so if anyone has a copy of that audio track it'd be helpful.
