Also known as "Space Avengers" in most English-speaking territories outside of the US. It was actually the first color rubber-suit-monster show to air on Japanese TV, beating "Ultraman" to the punch by six days.
The series was created, incidentally, by Osamu Tezuka ("Astro Boy," "Kimba the White Lion," etc.). It was one of the few live action things he ever did.
Re:Does anyone in the US care about Ultraman?
on
40 Years of Ultraman
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Apparently a lot of stations around that period would run Ultraman during most of the year, go to Johnny Sokko and His Flying Robot for the summer, then back to Ultraman for the rest of the year. That's how it was scheduled when I was living on Kansas City around that time. Other stations would air them back to back. Either way, I suspect that they were both marketed to stations as a single package since they both tended to be on the same stations.
I liked Johnny Sokko better, but that might be because I'd seen that first. Ultraman definitely had waaaaayyyy better special effects, though. Johnny Sokko's still cool to see, though, if only to watch ten-year-old kids shooting guns and killing people.
Re:Does anyone in the US care about Ultraman?
on
40 Years of Ultraman
·
· Score: 1
Today it's almost certainly going to be a big "nope" among US kids unless they're particularly big on Japanese culture. Around '71, '72, '73, though, that first '66 Ultraman series was running in the US, and it was very definitely a big thing among a lot of kids at that time.
My response was regarding the Soviet/Russian manned space system. As for the shuttles, they've actually performed quite well in space. The problem hasn't been with the shuttles themselves, but with the way they're launched into space.
The USSR/Russia has had a phenomenally safe manned spaceflight record. The last (known) fatalities occurred in 1971 on the Soyuz 11 mission. 35 years of fatality-free manned spaceflight is nothing to sneeze at.
My dad was a navigator/bombardier on the FB-111 from '72 to '84. And though it had its share of limitations (not at all stealthy except at low levels, relatively small weapons load, and cramped compared to a B-52), he enjoyed flying it immensely. And it had at least one overwhelmingly redeeming quality: It was faster than a bat out of hell and most of the time it could outrun practically anything else in the skies.
The naval version was the F-111B. It was truly a shitty plane. It was designed to be all things to all men, and therefore ended up being none of those. Despite the "F" configuration, no version of the -111 was never even remotely capable of dogfights. It was a bomber through and through, though for a bomber dad says it was quite maneuverable.
Not a chance. Iran would probably want them, but that ain't gonna happen. The F-14 was more or less designed as a platform for the AIM-54, which hasn't been manufactured for a number of years. The F-14 can do other things, and carry other air-to-air missiles, but only the AIM-54 could engage targets from that distance. If you're talking about shorter distances there are cheaper, less labor-intensive, and more modern planes that can do that job and others for far less expense.
The last combat mission was in February on a bomb run in Iraq. It was removed from carrier service not too long afterwards. However, a few have remained in active service on the ground and within the US until today. As of today the last F-14s will be officially stricken from the Navy list of active aircraft. In other words, they're being retired today. Not in March, but today.
No plane can travel at its peak speed with an external weapons load. The fastest speed ever measured on an F-4 was Mach 2.66, but that was on a "clean" F-4; that is, not carrying any weapons. The MiG-25 was capable of Mach 3, but at the price of burning out its engines. My dad used to fly FB-111s, which is still probably the fastest low-level aircraft ever built - capable of Mach 1.5 at sea level. However - again - that was in a "clean" configuration (though since the -111 had an internal bomb bay it was still capable of carrying weapons internally at that speed). Just because a plane is rated at X speed doesn't necessarily mean that speed will ever be used.
The F-14 had a horrible flight-to-maintenance hour figure, true enough. But that wasn't at all unusual for the modern aircraft of that era. The F-111 and early F-15 were in the same boat. For that matter, so is the B-2.
Its powerful radar wasn't much of a problem since it could engage its targets long before they could engage it.
The original engine was disappointing. No doubt about it. However, the later versions corrected this problem to some degree.
However, the F-14 - relatively late in life - turned out to be a halfway decent bomber as well. It had been intended to have a secondary bombing capability early on, but - as I understand it - the software and targeting equipment was never installed for budget reasons. However, these eventually made their way onto the plane, and it was also used as a bomber as a result. In fact, its last combat mission took place just this last February on a bombing run in Iraq.
The A-10 is an incredibly effective plane, and your beef seems to be with its ammunition rather than the plane itself. Your anger is quite misdirected.
Japan has one of the three or four highest military budgets in the world; somewhere around $42 billion or so per year last I'd read. They're limited to spending only 1% of their GDP per year on their military, but their GDP is so large that their military is as well-equipped (mainly with a combination of American and homegrown weapons systems) and well-trained as any in the world.
I've only seen it once, but "It Happened Here" is pretty awesome indeed. Its guerilla filmmaking style only adds to its documentary feel. Two another Star Wars connections:
a) Sebastian Shaw, who plays Dr. Fletcher in "It Happened Here," also plays Anakin Skywalker at the end of "Return of the Jedi."
b) Cameraman Peter Suschitzky later worked on "The Empire Strikes Back."
My childhood memories were of Saturday morning cartoons from the sixties. The author of the article mentions that as a 70's and 80's thing only.
Yup. I'm 39 and definitely remember getting hooked on Saturday morning cartoons when I was no older than three or four ('67/'68). As a programming concept I think it goes back to '60 or '61 and took up more and more of the Big Three's Saturday morning real estate as the decade progressed.
Johnny Quest was the BEST. I still watch it ocassionally. It's great - it was made in the 60's, so it's full of all sorts of inappropriate sexual innuendos and racist aspects that make it fun to watch even as an adult.
Be sure and catch The Venture Bros. sometime on the Cartoon Network's Adult Swim. They've shown the pilot a few times and supposedly the show's been picked up for additional episodes. It's a hilarious satire of the '60s Jonny Quest episodes, right down to the animation.
"Aimlessly?" It's traveling in a straight line at a little less than 8 miles per second and we know it'll reach Aldebaran in about 2 million years. Doesn't sound very aimless to me....
Slashdot Mirror
Now that his career is really dead, Chevy Chase is reportedly being kept under a 24-hour suicide watch.
Also known as "Space Avengers" in most English-speaking territories outside of the US. It was actually the first color rubber-suit-monster show to air on Japanese TV, beating "Ultraman" to the punch by six days.
The series was created, incidentally, by Osamu Tezuka ("Astro Boy," "Kimba the White Lion," etc.). It was one of the few live action things he ever did.
Apparently a lot of stations around that period would run Ultraman during most of the year, go to Johnny Sokko and His Flying Robot for the summer, then back to Ultraman for the rest of the year. That's how it was scheduled when I was living on Kansas City around that time. Other stations would air them back to back. Either way, I suspect that they were both marketed to stations as a single package since they both tended to be on the same stations.
I liked Johnny Sokko better, but that might be because I'd seen that first. Ultraman definitely had waaaaayyyy better special effects, though. Johnny Sokko's still cool to see, though, if only to watch ten-year-old kids shooting guns and killing people.
Today it's almost certainly going to be a big "nope" among US kids unless they're particularly big on Japanese culture. Around '71, '72, '73, though, that first '66 Ultraman series was running in the US, and it was very definitely a big thing among a lot of kids at that time.
My response was regarding the Soviet/Russian manned space system. As for the shuttles, they've actually performed quite well in space. The problem hasn't been with the shuttles themselves, but with the way they're launched into space.
The USSR/Russia has had a phenomenally safe manned spaceflight record. The last (known) fatalities occurred in 1971 on the Soyuz 11 mission. 35 years of fatality-free manned spaceflight is nothing to sneeze at.
My dad was a navigator/bombardier on the FB-111 from '72 to '84. And though it had its share of limitations (not at all stealthy except at low levels, relatively small weapons load, and cramped compared to a B-52), he enjoyed flying it immensely. And it had at least one overwhelmingly redeeming quality: It was faster than a bat out of hell and most of the time it could outrun practically anything else in the skies.
The naval version was the F-111B. It was truly a shitty plane. It was designed to be all things to all men, and therefore ended up being none of those. Despite the "F" configuration, no version of the -111 was never even remotely capable of dogfights. It was a bomber through and through, though for a bomber dad says it was quite maneuverable.
Not a chance. Iran would probably want them, but that ain't gonna happen. The F-14 was more or less designed as a platform for the AIM-54, which hasn't been manufactured for a number of years. The F-14 can do other things, and carry other air-to-air missiles, but only the AIM-54 could engage targets from that distance. If you're talking about shorter distances there are cheaper, less labor-intensive, and more modern planes that can do that job and others for far less expense.
The last combat mission was in February on a bomb run in Iraq. It was removed from carrier service not too long afterwards. However, a few have remained in active service on the ground and within the US until today. As of today the last F-14s will be officially stricken from the Navy list of active aircraft. In other words, they're being retired today. Not in March, but today.
No plane can travel at its peak speed with an external weapons load. The fastest speed ever measured on an F-4 was Mach 2.66, but that was on a "clean" F-4; that is, not carrying any weapons. The MiG-25 was capable of Mach 3, but at the price of burning out its engines. My dad used to fly FB-111s, which is still probably the fastest low-level aircraft ever built - capable of Mach 1.5 at sea level. However - again - that was in a "clean" configuration (though since the -111 had an internal bomb bay it was still capable of carrying weapons internally at that speed). Just because a plane is rated at X speed doesn't necessarily mean that speed will ever be used.
The F-14 had a horrible flight-to-maintenance hour figure, true enough. But that wasn't at all unusual for the modern aircraft of that era. The F-111 and early F-15 were in the same boat. For that matter, so is the B-2.
Its powerful radar wasn't much of a problem since it could engage its targets long before they could engage it.
The original engine was disappointing. No doubt about it. However, the later versions corrected this problem to some degree.
However, the F-14 - relatively late in life - turned out to be a halfway decent bomber as well. It had been intended to have a secondary bombing capability early on, but - as I understand it - the software and targeting equipment was never installed for budget reasons. However, these eventually made their way onto the plane, and it was also used as a bomber as a result. In fact, its last combat mission took place just this last February on a bombing run in Iraq.
The A-10 is an incredibly effective plane, and your beef seems to be with its ammunition rather than the plane itself. Your anger is quite misdirected.
I've read that Kimba was shown on American TV beginning in 1966, though I didn't run across it until my family moved to New Hampshire in '72.
Another Osamu Tezuka series, "The Amazing 3," was also shown in some American markets beginning in the late '60s.
Yup. In North America.
Gigantor was airing in the '60s, too.
Japan has one of the three or four highest military budgets in the world; somewhere around $42 billion or so per year last I'd read. They're limited to spending only 1% of their GDP per year on their military, but their GDP is so large that their military is as well-equipped (mainly with a combination of American and homegrown weapons systems) and well-trained as any in the world.
I've only seen it once, but "It Happened Here" is pretty awesome indeed. Its guerilla filmmaking style only adds to its documentary feel. Two another Star Wars connections:
a) Sebastian Shaw, who plays Dr. Fletcher in "It Happened Here," also plays Anakin Skywalker at the end of "Return of the Jedi."
b) Cameraman Peter Suschitzky later worked on "The Empire Strikes Back."
My childhood memories were of Saturday morning cartoons from the sixties. The author of the article mentions that as a 70's and 80's thing only.
Yup. I'm 39 and definitely remember getting hooked on Saturday morning cartoons when I was no older than three or four ('67/'68). As a programming concept I think it goes back to '60 or '61 and took up more and more of the Big Three's Saturday morning real estate as the decade progressed.
Johnny Quest was the BEST. I still watch it ocassionally. It's great - it was made in the 60's, so it's full of all sorts of inappropriate sexual innuendos and racist aspects that make it fun to watch even as an adult.
Be sure and catch The Venture Bros. sometime on the Cartoon Network's Adult Swim. They've shown the pilot a few times and supposedly the show's been picked up for additional episodes. It's a hilarious satire of the '60s Jonny Quest episodes, right down to the animation.
About a year or so ago, Radio Shack decided the subway system was no longer needed
Why? Did all of their employees' feet suddenly mutate into wheels?
If successful, perhaps one day you could give your love a diamond engagement CPU instead of a ring!
Because, God knows, women can be counted on for preferring a practical gift over a romantic one.
I'd also like to see the troops be trained to be ill tempered.
According to this story, they already are.
Kindergarten is going to be rough for that little one.
Are you kidding? Who's going to pick on a kid who drives around in a tank?
And yet George Jetson's five o'clock shadow was still just as pronounced as Fred Flintstone's.
"Aimlessly?" It's traveling in a straight line at a little less than 8 miles per second and we know it'll reach Aldebaran in about 2 million years. Doesn't sound very aimless to me....