Talk:Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles

About Janice

There seems to be a lot of confusion about Janice here and other boards. Most of the info about her that's used in the movie was based off the books (Since there wasn't too much else with her in it). She was created on Earth by Lang, and went with the SDF-3. Later she was partly rebuilt using Haydonite(sp) technology. It was when earth recived the "shadow technology" that they learned back home that she was an android. Because she was rebuilt with suspect technology, this is why she was arrested, even though many people in the movie already knew her from the Hunter's wedding. 4.161.81.129 00:09, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Her comments in the movie also suggest that she directly handled the technology transfers between the Haydonites and the REF. They gave the technical information to her, and she passed it to the REF scientists. Hence, additional reasons for Vince Grant to suspect her. --Junior612 05:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the plot summary include her arrest and then later a rescue by Grant and Bernard when the Haydonites discover her presence on the ship? She later found on she was just a pawn in the Haydonites plan and Grant trusted her after the rescue. --Nomercy0809 (talk) 04:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Regis vs Regess

"Regess" may be the correct spelling of the female of "regent"; however, the character's name in the Robotech continuity has always been spelled Regis. For example, this is how the character is referenced in articles on the official Robotech website, such as this one. --Robotech_Master 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC) (edited to add in signature)

??? I only see it spelled "regess" on the Robotech website --Corsair Armada 04:52, 24 February 2006

This is most peculiar. It appears that the Robotech website has suddenly been struck by grammatical fever. If you look at an old snapshot of the page courtesy of the Internet Archive, you can clearly see it's spelled "Regis" there--as it was when I made the above posting. Furthermore, a Google search on "Invid Regis" has 538 hits, whereas a search on "Invid Regess" gets only 20. And if you do a search on "regis" in Robotech.com's own search box you'll see there are still several instances of the word there. (Sometimes it's even been spelled "Regiss.")

It's awfully late for Harmony Gold to go about correcting their spelling errors twenty years after the fact, when thousands of copies of the McKinney novels, roleplaying game books, Robotech art books, and so on have "Invid Regis" printed in them. --Robotech_Master 18:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

on the soundtrack and the subtitles for the DVD its spelt Regess--Spartan117009 22:17, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

So which spelling should we be using (McKinney vs DVD)? At present, the article has it both ways. --Corsair Armada 18:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Since this article is specifically about the movie, it would probably be best to use the spelling found on the DVD. A note could be added to the seperate Invid article mentioning the alternate spellings of her name/title. --Junior612 18:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The official Robotech page has since been updated to use "Regess," and the new series of role-playing games by Palladium Books are also adopting this new form. It's about as silly as the Roman Catholic Church deciding earlier this month to redo its entire English-translation liturgy, and will probably anger about the same percentage of Robotech fans as the latter has angered Catholics, but what can ya do? —Jsamans (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

"Well-Known Actors"

I disagree with the following statement:

• "This appears to follow the growing trend of casting high-profile Hollywood actors in the voice cast of animation titles."

Mark Hamill and Chase Masterson are both primarily voice actors, the former to avoid typecasting and the latter in addition to a successful screen-acting and singing career. If you want to label a movie as following the so-called "Hollywood Trend," look at Cars or Shrek instead. --Slander 21:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's true, to a certain extent. But then again, not every show that has Mark Hamill or Chase Masterson in it uses their names as an integral part of its publicity. Look at any poster for Shadow Chronicles, or the front of the Shadow Chronicles DVD, and you'll see it right there: "Featuring the voices of MARK HAMILL and CHASE MASTERSON." (Both of whom have relatively minor roles compared to the rest of the cast, I might add, though in Hamill's case it was exacerbated by the early publicity campaign leaving out his major role, to avoid giving too much away about the villains, and focussing on Commander Taylor who only gets about three lines in the entire show.) You don't see Mark Hamill's name plastered across the front of, say, the Batman: Mask of the Phantasm or Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker DVDs; I just checked. And this is only about Chase Masterson's second or third major voice role, so I'm not sure I'd call her "primarily" a voice actor.

Anyway, they may have been originally cast for their voice-acting talents--but that sure isn't how it "appears," given that Harmony Gold has been trading on their names to the exclusion of every other member of the cast. --Robotech_Master 16:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While there's no doubt in my mind that Harmony Gold wanted to capitalize on a couple of well-known individuals that it had picked up, there's also no denying the fact that they used the original voice actors for most of the returning characters (everyone but Louis?). Even Vince Grant's Sentinels VA was brought back. They probably did bring Hamill in for a little extra publicity, but he's had a successful career as a VA, and the role he's primarily known for was over two decades ago. This isn't a case of bringing in a popular current actor and giving them the role, as happens the majority of the time in Hollywood animated films. Given that this is a movie based on a TV series that originally ran roughly two decades ago (as opposed to the two Batman films listed above, which were both airing at the time that their respective movies were made available), a little extra publicity is probably a good thing. The circumstances between this and the animated Batman films are very different. As for the other members of the cast... who? Yes, I do recognize some of the names myself, but a lot of potential customers won't. --Junior612 23:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Commander taylor and luke skywalker

i noticed that theres a trend between Mark Hamill's acted character(luke) and voiced(Taylor) both are squadron leaders that care about their team mates(to an extent).--Spartan117009 22:22, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Plot

The plot needs to be expanded

Done. If anything, it's probably too long now, but figuring out how to safely condense a plot is always a bit tricky.--Junior612 23:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

someone tagged the plot for being two long and unnecessarily detailed. I summarized it. but I didn't delete the detailed plot.--Saeed.Veradi (talk) 09:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I addressed the too much/too little dilemma by rewriting the plot from what was there and breaking it into two parts, delineating on the basis of what happened in overlap with the original series and what transpired after the Invid departure in Symphony of Light. Since this also represents the first major lull in the fighting, I think you'll agree that it's the logical point to draw a line.

I did boil out some of the details of what happens -- heck, we don't want to substitute for seeing the movie -- but I did try to keep everything that is necessary to understand what goes on. I also clarified in the initial section (pre-Part One) that while TSC is accessible to those who aren't familiar with Robotech, the summary necessarily has to assume some of this. I kept the existing three helpful reference links as they were.

Feedback welcome.

--Jsamans (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions

In my opinion, these sections are of questionable utility, and some of the information seems to be purely speculation. Also, some of the "contradictions" posted are based on information from the Sentinels, and there are currently no primary canon sources for what happened during the Sentinels period. Other "contradictions" ignore the context of the film. For instance, the lack of Horizont Drop Ships is noted, but the fact that the film focuses mostly on the fighting in space means that the Horizonts wouldn't play a role in the battles that are shown. I suggest completely deleting the two 'contradiction' sections. --Junior612 18:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole section reads like fancruft to me.

--Robotech_Master 16:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed both of the "Contradictions" sections. I originally brought the issue up three months ago, and haven't seen a single comment from anyone interested in keeping them, let alone defending their presence. --Junior612 23:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Aaaand the "Contradictions" sections are back. There STILL has not been a single post here about why they should exist, they are overly long, they are unwieldy, and I agree with the only other person who has posted in this section to date. If I don't see a post here within the next couple of weeks that competently defends them, then I'll remove them again. Maybe that'll spark some actual comments by the people who think that they should exist. --Junior612 18:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps an alternative solution would be to move the continuity discussion to this talk page, or to create a separate article covering the details like Star Wars canon. --Corsair Armada 01:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they're getting a bit long to add to the talk page, though if someone wants to do that then I won't raise a fuss about it. There are two primary problems with the lists. The first is that a category labeled along the lines of (loose paraphrase) "It seems like a contradiction but isn't really" probably isn't important enough to be included in Wikipedia. The second is that the contradictions list has a habit of growing and expanding. Just seeing the list is apparently taken as an invitation to anyone who wants to add something to it, which is a problem when some of the contradictions aren't really contradictions (which is, presumeably, why there's an entire section devoted to things that aren't actually contradictions). If it's actually possible to get a decent debate going over which items belong then it might be possible to argue over specific entries on the Talk page. But considering the lack of response to my deletion threats, I'm not getting my hopes up about it (I noticed that the response to my prior deletion - three months after I'd threatened it here - was a quick note on the history page saying that it shouldn't have been deleted). I'd already thought of the possibility of moving the list to its own page, but I suspect that within a couple of months someone will have flagged such a page for relevency, and then we'll be right back where we started. --63.203.5.6 21:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The above block was written by me; I forgot to sign in >.< --Junior612 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I went in and condensed some of the entries. I completely removed others that I thought weren't really useful. And some got moved from one section to the other. In my opinion, the cut-back on the sprawl makes them somewhat less of an issue, though I'm of the opinion that the "looks like a continuity issue but isn't really" section shouldn't even exist by Wikipedia's own rules. Given that the two sections seem to be the most frequently edited in the entry, I suspect that things will sprawl out of control soon enough, at which point I'll start reaching for the Delete key again. But in the meantime, I personally won't push for their removal. --Junior612 21:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say you should "condense" the section right out of existence. That sort of thing might belong on a fan page, or an Internet Movie Database trivia page, but honestly I don't think anyone looking it up in Wikipedia will really care one way or the other, and it really looks amateurish and unencyclopedic. I won't initiate an edit war about it, as I don't have the time or energy to put into it, but I really wish it could be deleted and would invite the person or persons who added them back to clarify their reasons here. —Robotech_Master 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I quite disagree. TSC was the first new Robotech material in decades, and things that don't line up deserve to be noted when they are relevant to the plot. Here are a few examples:

• The other New Generation characters not appearing, including in scenes with the Regess where they are shown as present in the original series;
• Reinhardt saying he wants "all our Neutron-S missiles" launched yet somehow a bunch stay "in reserve" (for..? the post-defeat museum?); or
• Even the very notion that the Neutron-S missiles making miniature black holes is a problem, given that their stated purpose is "to obliterate the planet," something that a black hole would handily do.

You know all of this is fiction. It isn't like the details of any aspect of Robotech need to be painstakingly documented here for posterity, because the episodes are available for review on YouTube (with just two commercials each). We needn't get into the realm of fan fiction to objectively identify those things that are actually inconsistent. I'm not sure that I have the inclination at the moment to actually re-create the section, but if I do, this serves as an explanation as to why--and if I do, I'll include references where needed to back up the points.

—Jsamans (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Lack of Criticism

This page is coming out a little fanpageish for a Wikipedia article... I notice most edits tend to try and portray the film in a positive light/remove negative perceptions others posted, and no mention is made of any of the negative critical reception the film recieved. The page really needs a knowledgeable devils advocate or it's going to become worthless as an encyclopedia article. I'm not saying it's as bad as the articles that read like a marketing exec for the company wrote them, but their is definetly a lack of neutral tone towards this film, especially in light of the many mixed reviews it recieved both from critics and fans alike of the original series (off hand before I typed this I was able to find 3 negative/mixed reviews from reputable sites and sources used for other anime pages). I'm not saying people need to agree with them, just that it's only fair here if both sides of the review and reception of the movie are given. I'm not the wikipedia editor some people here are nor am I close to being as knowledgeable as many who edit this are, but I think one of the folks here who really knows the series and the movie and keeps up on a depth of reviews should try and balance out the page a little. While it may feel good for fans of the movie to try and control the page, in the end that just ends up with the article one day getting wiped or the page looking clearly fanboi controlled and making people not respect it as a good source, but instead see it as a biased one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.185.1 (talk • contribs)

I'm not so much concerned by positive/negative concerns, but that the article is written in a fashion that makes it inscrutable to anyone not familiar with the Robotech universe. Reviews of any sort can go in a section devoted to that subject. Untitled1 03:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fun Fact

Don't think this belongs on the encyclopedia page, but if you pay attention when the Haydenite Elites come for Janice it is Sector 7G announced over the loudspeaker... this may be familiar to those who are fans of The Simpsons... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.185.1 (talk • contribs)

That's true, but it's more probable the Simpsons creators were also fans of the original source of the reference: "Operator 7G" from Megazone 23 (which later became Robotech: The Movie). —Robotech_Master 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Women in Robotech

It's been a long while since I've seen the true original series front to back, but wasn't it generally a professional, respectful, and realistic portrayel of women? IE most the women were professionally dressed, and seemed... err... reasonably proportioned. I remember as a child Robotech was viewed favorable by alot of my teachers and local parents because of how it portrayed women as professionals and not sex objects. Since we lived near a military base and alot of the parents were women in uniform that was kind of cutting edge. The new movie main characters seems to have alot of "How big can we make her Boobs" followed by "How low can we cut her shirt". I'm not even sure theirs a single female extra drawn with less then a small D cup and a shirt 2 sizes too small to be comfortable combat wear. Mind you it makes the movie no differant then all other modern anime, but it definetly is a trend away from the original series art style and background ambiance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.132.185.1 (talk • contribs)

The bust size on the women is something that's been pointed out, and is an obvious area for complaint. There seems to have been an obvious attempt to emphasize their chest attributes. Though I think part of the blame can be placed with the general art style, since the bust size on the men has also been talked about... --Junior612 21:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

When asked about it (in an early interview on my show), Tommy Yune suggested that it was because, to make a long story short, the animators had too much time on their hands. He also noted that they had to send back for reanimation the scene with Marlene in it, because the animators had originally animated her naked (and it was kind of icky to have her appear that way before her brother.) —Robotech_Master 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The animation in the film actually felt pretty consistent with the style that evolved in the comic books. My guess is that animators like big boobs, especially because it's easier to draw a curvy woman than one with a more realistic body. Graatz (talk) 23:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Release cleanup

I'm trimming down the Release section, as it looks more like an advertising page rather than an information page. If anyone has a problem with that, go ahead and speak up. Areaseven (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Major cleanup

I have removed the "Continuity" section, as it does nothing but clutter up this article. If anyone wants to know more about this title, there are other resources online such as the official Robotech website. This is Wikipedia, not a Robotech repository. - Areaseven (talk) 05:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It somewhat looked like OR to me. --Eaglestorm (talk) 14:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I have copied the previously version to Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles at Animanga wiki. I've included a link in the External Links section.(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC))