Blackeagle (
Sun, 11 Jun 2000 22:44:47 MST


>I think you misunderstand what I am saying, or I didn't say it well.
>The relationship between Quess and Hathaway is not what is important,
>nor is the "young people at war" theme. What is important, is that
>after several years, and more deaths than you can count, nothing has
>changed. While there certainly could have been more time devoted to
>Quess and Hathaway, I feel that would have been bad writing. The
>trials and tribulations of Quess and Hathaway are unimportant to the
>message, all that is important to the message, is that after
>countless battles to "settle" what was set in motion by Zion Dikun's
>teachings, the same events transpire, with no real progress being
>made. In other words, we only need to see enough of Quess and
>Hathaway to recognize the pattern, the pattern is what is important,
>not the characters. The best analogy I can give, is that a joke about
>a priest and a rabbi won't work, if you try to give a brief insight
>into the tenets of Catholicism and Judaism before delivering the
>punchline. Sure the joke requires and understanding of both in order
>to be funny, but it also requires timing to be funny, so you have to
>assume that the audience is able to fill in the blanks from previous
>experience. In much the same way, if you go into too much detail
>about Quess and Hathaway, you run the risk of making the audience
>think that the relationship between them holds some special
>significance, when the whole point of their relationship in the movie
>is to echo the times this has happened before.

I guess we just disagree here. I think the arbatrary nature of the
Quess/Hathaway story outweighs it's contributions.

>By the same token, it is not really important to the story why or how
>Char charmed Quess, but rather the important issue is to show the
>similarities between the modern Char, and his one-time nemesis
>I don't necessarily think that devoting more time to something means
>you have done it well. I think that devoting more time to the
>ancillary characters of CCA would have diluted the story
>unnecessarily. You only need to show as much as is required to get
>your point across. Any more and you are belaboring the point.

Actually, one of the things I think would be interesting is to tell the
events of Char's Counterattack totally from the POV of Quess and Hathaway.
Maybe as a manga side story?


>Neither of the two motivations you list are the main factor as I see
>it. One of the thing I like most about Gundam, is that much like real
>life, the true motivations of the characters never explicitly appear
>in the script. Char's motivation is his desire to be the top dog.
>Political rhetoric, and personal grudges might influence the
>particulars of how he tries to accomplish his goal, but the ultimate
>goal is about control. Char wanted to prove that he was the one man
>worthy of deciding the fate of the human race.

I just don't think the movie does a very good job of putting this across.


> > It just doesn't dork for me as a final payoff. The Char/Amuro duel
> > isn't even the best of their confrontations.
> >
>I am not sure what you mean by "best," but I think the end of the
>confrontation is a beautiful way to demonstrate what the true power
>of newtypes can be if used for something other than destruction, and
>in that respect, I think it is the ultimate statement of what Gundam
>has always been about.

Best is obviously a relative term. In my opinion the best Char/Amuro
confrontation is probably the one at the end of MSG (though I've only seen
the movie version)

> > Also, why not an OVA? Up to this point OVAs have been used to tell
> > side stories, but that doesn't mean it's the only thing the format
> > can do. If Gundam fans wanted to see the last Char vs Amuro
> > battle in the theater, Bandai could have released a compilation
> > movie along with the last episode.
> >
>The reason I say it could not have been an OVA, is because you don't
>end 10 years of TV shows with a fizzle of OVAs. A property as
>prominent as Gundam deserves a dramatic closure, and you don't drag a
>finale over multiple acts. I guess the problem here is that you keep
>talking about how you think CCA could have been a better story, but I
>can't see CCA as a story at all. The story is comprised of MSG, Zeta,
>and ZZ, CCA is just the last episode of the story. To me saying that
>Char's motivation in CCA is murky, is like saying you can't
>understand why Amuro got so upset when they wouldn't let him pilot
>the Mk. II in Zeta. If you take Zeta as a separate story, then a lot
>of it does not make any sense, but as part of the whole story of
>Gundam, it all fits just fine.

I can accept that to really appriciate CCA, you really ought to have seen
MSG, Zeta and Double Zeta. However, I don't buy that they are one big
story. They were not created from one master plan like Star Wars of Babylon
5. The original MSG was intended as a self contained story. Zeta, ZZ and
CCA are sequels to that story. They came about when the marketing people
said "make us more money!" and the creative team sat down and said "how can
we continue this story?"

Chris Upchurch a.k.a. Blackeagle

WARNING: System Failure!
Unable to insert amusing tagline.

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Jun 12 2000 - 14:36:11 JST