Mobile Suit Gundam Hathaway's Flash Anime - News & Discussion

[Ghostfriendly]

Originally Posted by Obelisk ze Tormentor

The movie portrayed one socialite who has a sugar-daddy and one pilot who panicked during one moment and you cry "toxic gender roles"?

Yes, that's what's they are. Do you understand how degrading it is that the lead female character's only visible means of support is having sex with rich geriatrics, rather than leading a country, piloting a Gundam, curing cancer, or anything else she could be doing with her alleged intelligence? That it's degrading to a human being if their essential role is to be a sexual prize for two or three men to compete over, to simper and shriek, and display the 'female intuition' trope which degrades women to the intellectual level of a dog barking at a ghost? I said in as many words that Emerelda is described on the wiki as not skilled enough to pilot a Gundam; these are the kind of female character the writer chose to portray, and they reflect the most toxic gender prejudice. When we have Mikasa Akerman, Kallen Stadtfeld, Riza Hawkeye, Princess Yona, Mother Sarah, Susan 'Fighter' Lei and too few others, this simply is not good enough for a film worthy of being screened.

Also, instead of comparing Mafty to Al-Qaeda, Mafty is actually more comparable to the Rebel from the Andor show. The people here hate EF just as much as the people on Andor hate The Empire. Don't forget that the corruption of the EF goes way back from treating their own Earthnoid subjects like shit from the UC 0079 calendar to being responsible for the TITANS who gassed colonies killing millions which is much worse than what the Nazi did. They then became more or less totalitarian government from around UC 0090s to UC 0105 during Hathaway's event, not only deporting the people they deemed "unworthy of living on Earth" but also killing them when they see fit. Their forces was not named "Manhunter" for nothing. Hence the UC people's hate for EF government has much much much stronger base than Al-Qeda's hate for the "US of A".

It would be another failure of the film that it didn't justify Maftism by describing this extent of EF wrongdoings more than superficially. If they were relevant; no crime they committed could justify terrorism any more than my stomachache would justify amputating my legs. Gassing millions is exactly what the Nazis did (we do agree on that?), and justified all the steps that national governments with a mass mandate took to defeat and destroy Nazism (though not allied war crimes or needless killings). Whatever the EF are, the Maftists are terrorists with an insanely ridiculous political manifesto, supported by no one with any good reason for doing so, killing innocent people for no good end, because no positive change is going to result from political assassination. If the people hate the EF they need to support a movement that's actually working against it; the Maftists might as well be poking the UF bigwigs with soft cushions for all the positive political change their means could ever achieve.

Also, say what you want, but I like that Gundam simply portray "terrorist" organizations like AEUG & Mafty as simply something that exist. They left the judgement for the audience to decide. They just show you the people inside said organizations & how they work. AEUG & Mafty do not kill civillian/non-EF higher-ups willy nilly like Al-Qaeda killing innocent civilians. They killed innocent civillians by way of collateral damage (which they didn't want to happen). Hence, it's more than natural to see members of such organization feeling guilty of said collateral damage and offer them some prayers. That's simply because no rebel effort or revolution can be done without collateral damage to innocent people. That's just the reality of it.

Portraying terrorism in even morally neutral terms is morally insupportable. The Maftists are terrorists, not revolutionaries; they have no rational popular mandate, no sane political program, and by murdering people are doing nothing that could achieve their goals. Portraying the people inside terrorist organisations as honourable and reasonable is another very bad joke, and do I even need to explain the disgusting hypocrisy of feeling sorry that people are dead because you voluntarily killed them? Or of 'keeping collateral damage to a minimum' when none of those killed by the Maftists died for any sensible cause, or by a means that could ever advance any good cause? Nation states may inflict limited collateral damage while pursuing justified aims, and lawfully prosecute their soldiers or police who kill for unjustified aims; terrorists can do neither. Real terrorists, by the by, kill more civilians than world leaders because they don't have the superpower of bad writing on their side; Gawman would have spent the rest of his career in Gitmo, unrescued, in any plausible story. I shouldn't need to explain any of this, but I suppose I need to explain it.

[Tactics]

If there's something lack of realism that fit modern era I would criticize, I think its how the terrorist here is reasonable.

Sensible driving force? Yes. Reasonable and combat capable leader? Yes.

How could they're not blabbering about doing action in the name of god while hiding behind suicide bomber?
Not promoting change by doing pathetic stuff like throwing food to Gogh painting or something petty like breaking tons of milk in the name of vegetarians that even vegetarians didn't wanted to be associated with such actions. Mafty does feel bad to their actions at some point, and tried to clear any misunderstanding if possible. Man, if only IRL activist and terrorists are respectful like that.



Shame if this film is considered bad just because there's no sight of some super action girl.
Since when it became a generally accepted hard requirement for a good movie? I take it there's no respect to any girl and woman that serve as strong mental support to protagonist for some people nowadays.

[Ghostfriendly]

Originally Posted by Tactics

If there's something lack of realism that fit modern era I would criticize, I think its how the terrorist here is reasonable.

Sensible driving force? Yes. Reasonable and combat capable leader? Yes.

How could they're not blabbering about doing action in the name of god while hiding behind suicide bomber?
Not promoting change by doing pathetic stuff like throwing food to Gogh painting or something petty like breaking tons of milk in the name of vegetarians that even vegetarians didn't wanted to be associated with such actions. Mafty does feel bad to their actions at some point, and tried to clear any misunderstanding if possible. Man, if only IRL activist and terrorists are respectful like that.



Shame if this film is considered bad just because there's no sight of some super action girl.
Since when it became a generally accepted hard requirement for a good movie? I take it there's no respect to any girl and woman that serve as strong mental support to protagonist for some people nowadays.

A good story may get away with being unrealistic; a story that romanticises terrorism cannot be good. The Maftists aren't only unlike real terrorists; they reflect the ideal image that terrorists and truly silly people have of terrorists, including those threatening election workers in America now.

Although the Maftists have neither a sensible motive nor a sensible or interesting leader. A forced worldwide migration into space is a cartoon supervillain goal. The worst politics and the worst sci-fi move people around like so much material. As I said, they might as well be throwing soup over paintings or poisoning themselves so an angel will take them all to space heaven, for all they're doing to tackle EF corruption.

Super action boys in giant robots seem to have generally been a hard requirement for Gundam (The franchise has better female characters than Gigi, but that's as much as it can say). In a military action story, without any historic reason against female soldiers, the only reason why boys are pilots and girls are love interests or haremites is popular prejudice. If men do and women support, the story implicitly repeats the old lie that women can only support (why do I need to explain this?). That's why Fullmetal Alchemist is so good, though far from perfect. If Kallen Stadtfeld the Gundam pilot had dropped in to support Hathaway, or Winry Rockbell to design his Gundam, or Tessa Testarossa to command his Gundam, then half the human race wouldn't have been exclusively represented by a simpering prostitute, a failed pilot and a clingy butch soon-to-be-ex-girlfriend, while pilots, captains and heroes comprise the male half.

In non-action genres, an action girl would be less needful; development, agency, respect, independence and responsibility are always more important than high kicks. This isn't only a movie with no action girl, however; its main female roles are not competent supporters but degraded failures and and sexually objectified stereotypes; writers who restrict female roles aren't even going to able to write 'traditional' women as full human beings. These criticisms - please, remember this - are never against female characters, or supportive women, but against the writers who restrict female roles to pander to popular prejudice.

It has to be mentioned that Circe turned men into pigs rather than taming beasts, and is as much of a negative female archetype as she was in Molly's Game, another film with a poor female lead. Also, that writers who can't write women frequently can't write men so well; no one has even defended the male leads as anything other than a ridiculous male chauvinist in Kenneth, and a blank-slate harem-protagonist in Hathaway only distinguish by his involvement in Mafty's idiocy.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Ghostfriendly

Yes, that's what's they are. Do you understand how degrading it is that the lead female character's only visible means of support is having sex with rich geriatrics, rather than leading a country, piloting a Gundam, curing cancer, or anything else she could be doing with her alleged intelligence? That it's degrading to a human being if their essential role is to be a sexual prize for two or three men to compete over, to simper and shriek, and display the 'female intuition' trope which degrades women to the intellectual level of a dog barking at a ghost? I said in as many words that Emerelda is described on the wiki as not skilled enough to pilot a Gundam; these are the kind of female character the writer chose to portray, and they reflect the most toxic gender prejudice. When we have Mikasa Akerman, Kallen Stadtfeld, Riza Hawkeye, Princess Yona, Mother Sarah, Susan 'Fighter' Lei and too few others, this simply is not good enough for a film worthy of being screened

Hathaway the MC is a terrorist & Kenneth the antagonist is a horndog EF commander. If anything, all 3 main characters in this movie are terrible people in one way or another. And yet it is Gigi who has the highest moral among them. Gigi is written as a character who was trapped outside of her elements (terrorist act, murder & MS battle) so she can only rely on those who are good within those elements for help. What’s wrong with that? Are you also going to go around telling people that The Godfather is a bad mafia movie coz the wives characters only contribute little action in said movie? Was Ghostbusters a bad sci-fi/horror/comedy just beause the Ghostbusters were all males and Sigourney Weaver was just a love interest? Sheesh, why not see the movie for the kind of story it’s trying to tell instead of fixating on “females must have big roles in every story!”

Also, the newest Gundam generation in this story is rare cutting-edge technology that’s only reserved for MC and the pilot-antagonist coz they are the ones who have the skills to pilot it (regardless of gender). Emeralda “not skilled enough to pilot a Gundam” doesn’t mean she’s not a good pilot. Pretty much other pilots not-named “Hathaway” or “Lane” are not skilled enough to pilot the Gundams. Why are you so mad that Emeralda is being written as equal to all the other male pilots except for the MC & antagonist? You know, equality and all that. If anything, Emeralda actually saved Hathaway's life by guiding him to a safer place during the raid even though it was outside of their original plan. It was also hinted that Emeralda was the one that came up with a backup plan of picking up Hathaway on the sea (which was also a jab for his phobia of sea due to the incident involving him in Zeta Gundam).

Originally Posted by Ghostfriendly

It would be another failure of the film that it didn't justify Maftism by describing this extent of EF wrongdoings more than superficially. If they were relevant; no crime they committed could justify terrorism any more than my stomachache would justify amputating my legs. Gassing millions is exactly what the Nazis did (we do agree on that?), and justified all the steps that national governments with a mass mandate took to defeat and destroy Nazism (though not allied war crimes or needless killings). Whatever the EF are, the Maftists are terrorists with an insanely ridiculous political manifesto, supported by no one with any good reason for doing so, killing innocent people for no good end, because no positive change is going to result from political assassination. If the people hate the EF they need to support a movement that's actually working against it; the Maftists might as well be poking the UF bigwigs with soft cushions for all the positive political change their means could ever achieve.

Gundam Hathaway is the story continuation of the larger UC timeline. This movie expects the audience to know exactly what the EF has done in the past. Spoon-feeding you EF past crime will only halt the flow of the movie for something that fans already know really well. This movie is not an entry point after all.

Still, I don’t think “Killing corrupt EF bigwigs”-part of the Mafty manifesto is ridiculous considering the numbers of corrupt ministers that they have assassinated. It proved to be successful and can be done. A lot of citizens also support that specific part of Mafty’s policy as represented by the people Hathaway talked to in the market or even the taxi driver himself. Nobody likes those corrupt EF ministers except for people from their EF circle. And speaking of assassination, did you know that the EF bigwigs actually use the ECOAS (space equivalent of EF Manhunter on Earth) as their own private assassination force sometimes as has been portrayed in Gundam Unicorn? So Mafty doing assassination on the EF bigwigs is actually a deserving retaliation.


Also, here’s the thing: The EF has grown too powerful to the point where there are no diplomatic/legal channels left to put them in check. And with the defeat of Zeon, the EF grew even more powerful than before by absorbing the Zeon technology onto the EF forces. So the EF detractors actually ran out of peaceful options to stop the EF oppression. The people who are opposing EF for their crimes don’t have the luxury of the UN or allied nations when dealing with the Nazi. Instead, pocket resistance is all they can afford. We don’t have IRL equivalent of EF which is the super-governing body that rules the entirety of Earth and space colonies.

Originally Posted by Ghostfriendly

Portraying terrorism in even morally neutral terms is morally insupportable. The Maftists are terrorists, not revolutionaries; they have no rational popular mandate, no sane political program, and by murdering people are doing nothing that could achieve their goals. Portraying the people inside terrorist organisations as honourable and reasonable is another very bad joke, and do I even need to explain the disgusting hypocrisy of feeling sorry the people you killed are dead? Or of 'keeping collateral damage to a minimum' when none of those killed by the Maftists died for any sensible cause, or by a means that could ever advance any good cause? Nation states may inflict limited collateral damage while pursuing justified aims, and lawfully prosecute their soldiers or police who kill for unjustified aims; terrorists can do neither. Real terrorists, by the by, kill more civilians than world leaders because they don't have the superpower of bad writing on their side; Gawman would have spent the rest of his career in Gitmo, unrescued, in any plausible story. I shouldn't need to explain any of this, but I suppose I need to explain it.

There’s a difference between a movie “portraying terrorist in a morally neutral terms” and “letting the audience to decide”. Just look at the recent popular show House of the Dragon (HOTD). The characters in HOTD that we follow are various flavors of terrible people. The show didn’t portray them in morally neutral terms. Just like in Gundam Hathaway, HOTD characters did what they think is the best course of action for their goals (good or bad). HOTD characters did bad things just like GH characters did bad things. And then both GH & HOTD let the audience to decide for themselves what they think of the characters or which characters to (not)invest.

Gawman also does not live in our world. Our world doesn’t have a corrupt super-government that controls the entirety of Earth and have lenient policy for its officers to the point where an eccentric commander like Kenneth can decide to use Gawman as bait for terrorist to fish out Mafty willy nilly. Don’t be mad if Hathaway exploited that against the EF to rescue one of his people. And believe it or not, there are loyalty & camaraderie even among IRL terrorist orgs like Al-Qaeda (not applicable to all members but they exist). You talk as if they are aliens who don’t understand human emotions or values among themselves. Also, unlike Al-Qaeda, Mafty is not extreme-religion-driven. That’s partly why they are reasonable outside of their big goals. They don’t kill innocent civilians just because they are different. They don’t blast a building just because many people are in it. Mafty is not that kind of terrorist. They’re specifically targeting & killing corrupt EF officials (+ collateral damage) like the assassins they are. The collateral damage of innocent people’s lives that Mafty caused is the same principle as the collateral damage that Lelouch caused during his rebellion in Code Geass.

Again, whether or not Mafty’s goal is righteous, the movie let the audience to decide. Heck, the movie itself already provided an ample argument against Mafty during the Taxi-Convo scene.

[Ghostfriendly]

Gigi is too self-centred and badly written to be particularly immoral. She doesn't have any actions or thoughts of real significance because she's a degraded sexual trophy with feminine intuition; that's my problem with her, not her morals. It is a problem that the writers have chosen to place this useless fanservice damsel in a war story where she must rely on the men to whom she's a sex object - that's the standard plotline of sexist tripe, that's the kind of story this is, and nobody should accept that as okay. The Godfather is set in the appallingly chauvinist and racist world of 1940s mafia, but Gundam is set in the future - the only reason that there is no female pilot to rescue Gigi without any sexual trophy implications, that there are no competent female pilots at all and in fact that every female character is helpless, incompetent or irrelevant, is misogynistic writing.

Ghostbusters is deficient in female agency, but it is I think set in the 80s, not the future, where anyone who doesn't want to write a sexist novel or a Handmaiden's Tale dystopia can ensure the genders are equal as they should be. That female characters are possessed of human character and agency as they should be in any period; Ghostbusters at least doesn't have a bevy of disgustingly degraded female characters like Hathaway and Godfather. The original novel is dreadfully racist and I wouldn't watch the film for fun. Haven't seen HOTD but if it doesn't make clear that most of its characters are evil toe rags it's not doing its job properly.

For the third and final time, Esmereldas is described on the wiki as quoteunquote, 'not a regular mobile suit pilot due to skill related piloting issues in her past'. She is not skilled enough to competently pilot any mobile suit, as was very visible in her scene. The little tasks supportive of the male hero you mention count for nothing, next to the degradation of her pathetic and tearful struggle, before the reward of a male hero's acknowledgement for a relatively simple non-combat task. Like those wretched haremites in Iron Blood Orphans, if they even let a women into a mobile suit she has to be swiftly degraded below the men in some fashion.

The Black Knights are a national resistance movement led by survivors of the Japanese army, not terrorists, as I've explained. You've already argued that the EF is tyrannical; I've told you that has nothing to do with terrorism. If Mafty's terrorism is successful and supported in-universe, that only shows that the film has created an idiotic universe. Mafty's goal of deporting everyone offworld through terrorism is every bit as irrational and idiotic as Al-Qaeda's. I've explained that their methods do not differ in the slightest from Al-Qaeda's purposeless killing, because they are not killing for any sensible purpose. Constructing a world where idiotic terrorism is the only answer is itself idiotic, and stupidly artificial as the torturer's dilemma. A story that departs from realism to achieve justice and goodness is quite justified. A story that departs from realism to contrive such an evil turn of events as successful terrorists has to be seriously questioned as to its motives. A story which does not clearly and accurately show good as good and evil as evil has fundamentally failed, and can be well done without.

You're repeating the same irrelevant arguments, so go back on the ignore list.

[Obelisk ze Tormentor]

Originally Posted by Ghostfriendly

Gigi is too self-centred and badly written to be particularly immoral. She doesn't have any actions or thoughts of real significance because she's a degraded sexual trophy with feminine intuition; that's my problem with her, not her morals. It is a problem that the writers have chosen to place this useless fanservice damsel in a war story where she must rely on the men to whom she's a sex object - that's the standard plotline of sexist tripe, and that's the kind of story this is. The Godfather is set in the appallingly chauvinist and racist world of 1940s mafia, but Gundam is set in the future - the only reason that there is no female pilot to rescue Gigi without any sexual trophy implications, that there are no competent female pilots at all and in fact that every female character is helpless, incompetent or irrelevant, is misogynistic writing.

Ghostbusters is deficient in female agency, but it is I think set in the 80s, not the future, where anyone who doesn't want to write a sexist novel or a Handmaiden's Tale dystopia can ensure the genders are equal as they should be. That his female characters are possessed of human character and agency as should be in any period; Ghostbusters at least doesn't have a bevy of disgusting degraded female characters like Hathaway and Godfather; the original novel is absolutely awful and I've no great use for the film.

For the third and final time, Esmereldas is described on the wiki as quoteunquote, 'not a regular mobile suit pilot due to skill related piloting issues in her past'. She is not skilled enough to competently pilot any mobile suit, as was very visible in her scene. The little tasks supportive of the male hero you mention count for nothing, next to the degradation of her pathetic and tearful struggle, before the reward of a male hero's acknowledgement for a relatively simple non-combat task. Like those wretched haremites in Iron Blood Orphans, if they even let a women into a mobile suit she has to be swiftly degraded below the men in some fashion.

The Black Knights are a national resistance movement led by survivors of the Japanese army, not terrorists, as I've explained. You've already argued that the EF is tyrannical; I've told you that has nothing to do with terrorism. If Mafty's terrorism is successful and supported in-universe, that only shows that the film has created an idiotic universe. Mafty's goal of deporting everyone offworld through terrorism is every bit as irrational and idiotic as Al-Qaeda's. I've explained that their methods do not differ in the slightest from Al-Qaeda's purposeless killing, because they are not killing for any sensible purpose. Constructing a world where idiotic terrorism is the only answer is itself idiotic, and stupidly artificial as the torturer's dilemma. A story that departs from realism to achieve justice and goodness is quite justified. A story that departs from realism to contrive such an evil turn of events as successful terrorists has to be seriously questioned as to its motives. A story which does not clearly and accurately show good as good and evil as evil has fundamentally failed, and can be well done without.

You're repeating the same irrelevant arguments, so go back on the ignore list.

And you're repeating your tired "degraded female characters" argument in various titles & various threads in this forum.

Put into consideration that maybe, just maybe some stories chose to not focus on how badass a female can be. The title of this movie even spelled it out for you.

Also, your argument on the terrorism in this oppressed fictional world just boils down to "this is stupid because I said so" without even willing to spare a thought about the world that has been built since 1979. If your imagination was so low & limited to the point where you can't imagine a world under the tyranny of Earth Federation and not understanding where organizations (AEUG, Delaz Fleet, Sleeves, Mafty) who have been labeled as "terrorist" by said EF coming from in response to the EF then you're a lost cause IMO. Mafty's terrorism method was only for the corrupt EF officials that they're targeting for killing. They are supposed to use other methods to emigrate Earthnoids to space. One of them is persuasion. But before that plan can be executed, they still need to deal with the EF first which, based on the UC history, Mafty will most likely fail to take down the EF due to how powerful it is. Also, The Black Knight was considered a terrorist organization by the Britannia no matter how positive you tried to paint them. That's the similarity between Black Knight & other rogue organizations in UC timeline.

You said you wanted a futuristic story. Well, Gundam is an alternate futuristic story complete with alternate futuristic problems that require a level of imagination from the audience to comprehend it. But looks like you couldn't even go that far.