Gundam Thunderbolt Timeline?

[Deacon Blues]

So, your contention here is that nobody involved in the production of these works is able to speak authoritatively about them in any official capacity?

Where do you draw the line about what is authoritative? I mean, look at the raging debate about when G-Reco takes place. Tomino, the creator, says it takes place at one particular point in time and yet Sunrise goes "oh, no no, it's here." I suppose the better question would be "what setting/situation" constitutes authoritative? That, I suppose, is open to interpretation. I'm not being snarky, it is an honest question. You do have to wonder about comments made on the fly about things. There have been a couple instances where staff have sort of walked back their comments because that is where a lot of conflicting/misinformation can and does stem from and goes on to fuel the rumor mill of sorts (I'm looking at you 2ch). Then again, printed interviews aren't much better since we don't know what/if any sort of lead-in questions there were prior to what is printed. Then again, these printed versions are likely vetted better than what is said on the spot.

While that is a brilliant demonstration that you do not know what the term "licensed publication" means, you're still not making any meaningful contributions to the discussion.

Considering everything that's been said, I was taking it as something with a BOLD SUNRISE STAMP OF APPROVAL, since that's what Myth seems to be hinting at with everything. I'm quite aware of what "licensed publishing" is, though. There are, however, problems with that. Marvel/Star Wars/Star Trek have incredibly tight grips on their IP when it comes to material that is published. I don't see anything that's absolutely bonkers and off the way crazy/contradictory (though those fandoms can be something else entirely). While I don't follow it extensively, I know there is a sort of "vetting" process for some works, but not everything. There are certain things that come out with Sunrise listed as a credit that I sometimes wonder if anyone even gave it a passing glance before rubber-stamping it to into print. I mean, looking at the past and Bandai did put out something like MAD WANG... how do you even allow that?

That, combined with your increasingly hostile behavior here, robs your argument of any semblance of credibility it might otherwise have had.

That's the downside to forums/text-based responses. I may be typing hard, but it's not intended to come across as hostile, so I do apologize if I'm sounding brash.

Thus far, MythSearcher has source citations to back up his argument and you do not.

If you're referring to the Ohtagaki interview, there's the Otakumode one here with my correction on their translation error here.

As for me griping about typos, contradictory information, and whatnot, you'll honestly have to forgive me for what is probably me being flippant and rambling about them. Since I've been translating and ultimately archiving this stuff for nearly two decades, I take for granted what I've seen over the years and make a terrible assumption that some of the more "seasoned" fans (you, Myth, some of the others here and on Twitter) would know what I'm speaking of. But, I'm not pulling stuff out of my butt, I assure you. If anything, I try harder than ever to dispel misinformation (on account of the wonderful Wiki and whatnot). I mean, I can create a short cataloged listing of Gundam Ace/B-Club/Hobby Japan issues where there has been inaccurate information... I don't know if that'll really help in the overall argument, though. The point that I was trying to illustrate is that publications like that can be quite "liberal" when it comes to presenting things. While we'd like to be able to rely on monthly publications for their source of information, we can't always assume they'll be 100% accurate. As the booklet that Myth was mentioning was a standalone publication, it's difficult not to look at it with a bit of dubiousness considering things printed in the past by the Gundam Ace staff. I mean, this magazine did bungle the manga adaptation of Hathaway's Flash last year which led to the year-long hiatus.

Interestingly, I have been able to find several Japanese resources including Gundam Thunderbolt's own page on Wikipedia that clearly reference this "bizarre 'alt-UC' nonsense" to which MythSearcher refers.

That article refers to Gundam Thunderbolt as "a work set in 「ANOTHER U.C. (Universal Century)」 drawn with a different worldview".

Yes, and that citation is pulling from the booklet that Myth was talking about. However, the Wiki entry is making an assumption that isn't defined within the scope of the book. It's inferring based on the English title alone. Oddly enough, if you hop on over to the Origin's entry, that very same disclaimer/data point isn't parroted. It's almost as if they hate Thunderbolt that much that they're saying this entry is one but the other isn't. Plus, as I had mentioned, the booklet doesn't separate the Zeta movies as their own "ANOTHER U.C." considering we all know that is where they fall. That, and they strangely refer to the original Gundam trilogy movies as a being "rebuilds," which has never been attributed to them before (do we blame EVA for this one?).

You didn't cite an interview... you made claims about what an interview allegedly says, but you did not actually source those statements.

This is the interview in question that I was talking about and translating in quotes above.

(i.e. you hate it because you insisted everything must be in the same continuum, everything is canon no matter how contradicting they are and cannot happen in another, alternative timeline.)

I mean, if it's animated, it is official, per Sunrise, right? I never said everything is canon. I don't even use that term so I'd appreciate it if you didn't speak for me in that regard. My view on Gundam is that various adaptations have varying perspectives on certain instances that've happened over the course of "history" in the franchise. In that sense, following the vein that animated works are classified as "official," those are considered to be published accounts of said history whereas other versions can be viewed as "alternative accounts" or "what really happened" sort of instances. If you follow Gundam Officials, you see that is how the Federation presents things... according to "their" account (and also why they say 'other theories say... or other sources indicate...', etc). Minakawa expanded upon this later in the Gundam Encyclopedia. Here's something you might enjoy.

The Memorial Book says "Another U.C." and the PDF file says "separate lineage."　To me, it's "another U.C. animated entry in the franchise." As for separate lineage, well that depends on how you want to define it. If you map out a particular mobile suits family tree, you can see the lineage it creates. Are any of these models an "alternate timeline"? No, not really. If you circle back around to what the producer said in the interview I linked above, he says that they wanted to make sure it could be included in what they considered to be the "official history" yet ended up running it sort of semi-parallel. Don't get me wrong, that sounds like another bizarre cop-out to a question that was asked about where the entry stood. If we're truly going down that road, then either the Gundam series or the movies are classified as "Another U.C." on account of their huge shifts and discrepancies, but they're not! We all know that various manga and whatnot that have come afterwards have picked one version over another (I'm looking at you C.D.A.).

Oddly enough, the anime critic that was present at the talk refers to Origin as a 'historical story' and says that Thunderbolt is more like a 'fictitious war story.' Maybe we should just stick to that title for that particular entry in the Gundam timeline.

Also, you just stated none of the interviews are official, and then you try to rely on what the producer said. Nice try, but it is the same type of thing I just discredited in Gundam Officials on the other post because it self contradicts. Now, you see, I am willing to discredit a source book I like to use and place at the top of the sources as long as it makes sense, while you have not provide anything backing up your claims other than saying you can interpret things in other ways where you haven't explain what interpretation can be made.

I think my tongue-in-cheek sarcasm about them was missed when I typed that out, so I do apologize. As I pointed out above, it's difficult to determine just where we can draw the line for what can be taken as 'authoritative' quotes for various works in interviews. If you look at something like the Gundam Cafe meetings where Mizushima was asking the crowd not to repost or quote him on things regarding more Gundam 00, then no, I'd say that isn't exactly something to be taken in any official capacity. Plus, look at how TM Revolution had to issue an apology on Twitter for blabbing about the SEED movie two years ago when that was a big no-no. We were promised (time and again) a big announcement about the SEED movie and instead we just got excuses from Fukuda with more "it's coming." All in all, if you have something legitimately asked by an audience member after a screening (much like the article I posted earlier), then I'd say that has more credence.

But, to wrap this up without trying to sound like a raging madman (ah ha too late), I think you need to add an asterisk to things when responding to questions about Thunderbolt. I believe I mentioned this to you earlier in another thread, but you present it as a stone-cold fact, when it's a matter of debate. But, fear not though... Japan is just as divided over it on Twitter, and was even more so when the little mini "official history" gifs that were being posted during the countdown to Hathaway included Thunderbolt (and, well Origin too)...

[Underrated GM Custom]

I am not sure how many are operating concurrently, but at least 11 distinct primary production groups are mentioned in Sunrise's late 2010s, not counting Sunrise's in-house tweening group, CG animation group, and the Beyond team that used to be part of Xebec.

Gotcha, thanks. I had also forgotten Sunrise acquired most of Xebec.

[Seto Kaiba]

Where do you draw the line about what is authoritative? I mean, look at the raging debate about when G-Reco takes place. Tomino, the creator, says it takes place at one particular point in time and yet Sunrise goes "oh, no no, it's here." I suppose the better question would be "what setting/situation" constitutes authoritative?

For the sake of clarifying your apparent position... let's say, an interview with the director or writer of a series for an official series artbook like the aforementioned Mobile Suit Gundam Thunderbolt: Record of Thunderbolt that I referenced in my previous post.

Wouldn't an interview with the people responsible for the content of the series, in an official Sunrise-approved art book for said series, be an authoritative source?

Your position - or at least the way you're presenting your position - makes it sound like you don't consider anyone involved with the production to be capable of speaking with authority or credibility about their own work. That's kind of an odd position to take, if you don't mind my saying so. I understand that lore will inevitably evolve with the addition of sequels, side stories, and so on... but that doesn't mean that the creators of these shows can't be trusted to speak about their work.

Considering everything that's been said, I was taking it as something with a BOLD SUNRISE STAMP OF APPROVAL, since that's what Myth seems to be hinting at with everything.

But that's a meaningless distinction. All licensed publications go to Sunrise for approval before going to print... so literally any official Gundam publication has Sunrise's stamp of approval or they wouldn't have gone to print.

Where MythSearcher's apparently drawing the line is more restrictive, involving works on which one or more Sunrise staffers participated in the production of the content rather than merely exercising editorial review power over the contents.

I'm quite aware of what "licensed publishing" is, though. There are, however, problems with that. Marvel/Star Wars/Star Trek have incredibly tight grips on their IP when it comes to material that is published. I don't see anything that's absolutely bonkers and off the way crazy/contradictory (though those fandoms can be something else entirely).

So... eh... how can I put this gently? Really bad examples. All three have loads of weird/bonkers/contradictory stuff and use different containment strategies for it.

Marvel - like DC - contains its bonkers, inconsistent, and contradictory material with periodic reboots and retcons to flush the metaphorical pipes and a host of alternate universes for whenever they want to do something bizarre or unconventional.

Prior to acquisition by Disney, Star Wars had a MOUNTAIN of crazy and contradictory nonsense and a hugely complex canon policy with many different levels of canonicity to manage it all. Disney, quite sensibly, burned it down and started over rather than deal with that sh*t.

Star Trek... have you ever SEEN TAS? That is twenty-two solid episodes of crazy and contradictory malarky and IT'S ALL CANON. Star Trek: Discovery is WORSE, with an entire season that is one massive plot hole. There is literally an entire series (Lower Decks) currently devoted to doing that and nothing else! That franchise's approach to containment of its crazy material is... just don't talk about it. They've never considered novels, comics, etc. to be any level of canon ever... so no coordination effort has ever been attempted. (All because Gene Roddenberry had a falling out with the guy who wrote the original Starfleet Technical Manual.)

I mean, looking at the past and Bandai did put out something like MAD WANG... how do you even allow that?

You miss out on so much lovely slang when you pick up a second language in a classroom.

My lack of surprise is basically complete, though. With the company I work for having major presences in the US, France, Italy, India, and China, I have seen things in official documentation that make "MAD WANG" look like the most innocent gaffe imaginable.

If you're referring to the Ohtagaki interview, there's the Otakumode one here with my correction on their translation error here.

That's vastly more helpful, thank you.

Yes, and that citation is pulling from the booklet that Myth was talking about. However, the Wiki entry is making an assumption that isn't defined within the scope of the book. It's inferring based on the English title alone. Oddly enough, if you hop on over to the Origin's entry, that very same disclaimer/data point isn't parroted. It's almost as if they hate Thunderbolt that much that they're saying this entry is one but the other isn't.

While I can definitely understand hating Gundam Thunderbolt - I personally find it intolerably pretentious and edgy - I don't think that's quite it. I mean, nobody really needs to be told flat-out that Origin has its own separate continuity going for it given that it's an alternate retelling of the One Year War that differs rather heavily from the First Gundam series. Thunderbolt kinda needs it spelled out, because it's a side story.

That said, I think there's definitely some meat on the bones of MythSearcher's argument. I've looked into a number of Sotsu/Sunrise-published booklets and other promotional materials for new Gundam features and found both Origin and Thunderbolt conspicuous by their absence. For instance, the timeline in the Mobile Suit Gundam Narrative Special Edition booklet omits any mention of either title.

Mind you, one would tend to imagine that the fact that the ONA's producer Naohiro Ogata straight-up states that the Thunderbolt ONA is a parallel world story in his creator interview in Mobile Suit Gundam Thunderbolt: Record of Thunderbolt (pg125, center column) would tend to settle the matter.

Funnily enough, he actually sounds out "parallel world" in kana (パラレルワールド) rather than using "isekai"... probably since that's become a genre of its own in recent years.

Plus, as I had mentioned, the booklet doesn't separate the Zeta movies as their own "ANOTHER U.C." considering we all know that is where they fall. That, and they strangely refer to the original Gundam trilogy movies as a being "rebuilds," which has never been attributed to them before (do we blame EVA for this one?).

True, but those are basically a compilation movie and rare is the franchise that treats the compilation movie as a distinct, separate entity from the story it's condensing. Origin is more a complete do-over that makes a lot of changes to the setting itself.

The Memorial Book says "Another U.C." and the PDF file says "separate lineage."

In the context of the Thunderbolt producer's interview noted above, I think MythSearcher kind of hit the nail on the head WRT the intended meaning of "separate lineage".

[DragoMaster009]

Uh, did that producer say that all of Thunderbolt is a "parallel world story", or just the ONA?

[Seto Kaiba]

Uh, did that producer say that all of Thunderbolt is a "parallel world story", or just the ONA?

He's talking about the Thunderbolt story in general, and how it relates to the First Gundam series, though the entire line of questioning pertains to the production of the adaptation.

[Deacon Blues]

Your position - or at least the way you're presenting your position - makes it sound like you don't consider anyone involved with the production to be capable of speaking with authority or credibility about their own work. That's kind of an odd position to take, if you don't mind my saying so. I understand that lore will inevitably evolve with the addition of sequels, side stories, and so on... but that doesn't mean that the creators of these shows can't be trusted to speak about their work.

No, I don't doubt them, but I guess it's the medium in which the interview takes place. I suppose to clarify, if Fukui, for example, stood on the stage after a showing and blurted out that the RX-0 was powered by love, sparkles, and moon dust, I'd be hard-pressed to accept something like that as being taken seriously let alone official. The more discussions that are had about a particular topic over time, the more the narrative shifts with things, so it starts getting harder and harder to parse the pieces together. Then again, I don't think Fukui himself can keep track of things that he says with Gundam half the time anyways, so maybe he's not the best example. Interviews give us good insight, but I think everyone forgets what they said the last time they were asked the same question.

I mean, take that interview from the book, for example. I was hesitant to cite it (didn't look at the publication date either, honestly), but it's a great example of how things are getting muddled the more they're talked about. You go from saying it's a "parallel world" to walking that comment back and making it "semi-parallel." I think if we did a little more digging from some of the Thunderbolt x Twilight Axis crossover stuff later on and we'd probably find that the statement is entirely walked back with all mention of that being the case completely scrubbed. Then what?

Where MythSearcher's apparently drawing the line is more restrictive, involving works on which one or more Sunrise staffers participated in the production of the content rather than merely exercising editorial review power over the contents.

Well, that's the distinction that I was trying to make. The stuff that Myth was talking about doesn't have a Sunrise staffer attached to it and is the blanket credit. Take Moon Gundam or Gundam F90FF, for example. You have specific staffers credited for Sunrise cooperation (or, technically, a Sunrise member and two Bandai Spirits staffers). I guess not knowing exactly how far 協力 extends to their credit can be difficult. For all we know, the cooperation/collaboration could've just been supplying artwork for the booklet and text was done by the Kadokawa/Gundam Ace staff (which I think the booklet does say on the last page now that I think about it).

So... eh... how can I put this gently? Really bad examples. All three have loads of weird/bonkers/contradictory stuff and use different containment strategies for it.

Yeah, I realized that after I posted it. I couldn't think of another IP that would've illustrated things better.

My lack of surprise is basically complete, though. With the company I work for having major presences in the US, France, Italy, India, and China, I have seen things in official documentation that make "MAD WANG" look like the most innocent gaffe imaginable.

Oh, I can only imagine. My partner works for Thomson Reuters and he was telling me about a dictionary or some database attachment whatever that was provided by a team in India for a project... yikes! He spent hours scrubbing so many things from it.

That said, I think there's definitely some meat on the bones of MythSearcher's argument. I've looked into a number of Sotsu/Sunrise-published booklets and other promotional materials for new Gundam features and found both Origin and Thunderbolt conspicuous by their absence. For instance, the timeline in the Mobile Suit Gundam Narrative Special Edition booklet omits any mention of either title.

The pamphlets/promo material that've come out at these events over the years have always been interesting reads. Some were given some thought, others were hastily cobbled together. I recall that IGLOO was one of those entries that were ignored for a while until they almost reluctantly started referring to it again (as seen with Hathaway). I guess when we as non-natives look at it, we have to take it all with a grain of salt? I mean, look at that 'master plan' flowchart that Sunrise had... Hathaway's Flash was slotted in as taking place in 0103... That dang thing gets quoted to death, though...

Mind you, one would tend to imagine that the fact that the ONA's producer Naohiro Ogata straight-up states that the Thunderbolt ONA is a parallel world story in his creator interview in Mobile Suit Gundam Thunderbolt: Record of Thunderbolt (pg125, center column) would tend to settle the matter.

Funnily enough, he actually sounds out "parallel world" in kana (パラレルワールド) rather than using "isekai"... probably since that's become a genre of its own in recent years.

True, but as I said above, it's almost like the more that it's talked about, the murkier the water becomes. Less than a week after the book was published, we have a completely different account! To give another example, an interview with the producer in one of the Gundam F91 books talks about how arduous the project was for the team because they didn't have any clear indication of whether it was going to be a movie or a television series. This book was released in 1991 (for the record). So, I'd say it was fairly spot-on for an account shortly after production. Fast-forward to April 2003 and one of the Great Mechanics books that came out on the scene has a new text write-up by Makoto Ishii (a writer) that flat out contradicts what the producer said. So, we have two conflicting accounts on the matter with no real way to mesh them together...?

For Thunderbolt, it's almost like they have no freaking clue what they want the entry to be...

True, but those are basically a compilation movie and rare is the franchise that treats the compilation movie as a distinct, separate entity from the story it's condensing.

I mean, "A New Translation" in the title is a dead giveaway, but there are some people that love to use it as an excuse to overlook Gundam ZZ I think at this point every compilation movie has modified plot points and shifted things around to the point where they're almost the de facto substitute for the original?

[yazi88]

There is also the Gundam Evolve with CCA Amuro that was a alternate take on that situation with Quess.

[MythSearcher]

If you're referring to the Ohtagaki interview, there's the Otakumode one here with my correction on their translation error here.

Which, doesn't really help your argument. It doesn't say anything about it being official or canon, he clearly said that he was basically working on something labelled as Ohatagaki version.

As for me griping about typos, contradictory information, and whatnot, you'll honestly have to forgive me for what is probably me being flippant and rambling about them. Since I've been translating and ultimately archiving this stuff for nearly two decades, I take for granted what I've seen over the years and make a terrible assumption that some of the more "seasoned" fans (you, Myth, some of the others here and on Twitter) would know what I'm speaking of. But, I'm not pulling stuff out of my butt, I assure you. If anything, I try harder than ever to dispel misinformation (on account of the wonderful Wiki and whatnot). I mean, I can create a short cataloged listing of Gundam Ace/B-Club/Hobby Japan issues where there has been inaccurate information... I don't know if that'll really help in the overall argument, though. The point that I was trying to illustrate is that publications like that can be quite "liberal" when it comes to presenting things. While we'd like to be able to rely on monthly publications for their source of information, we can't always assume they'll be 100% accurate. As the booklet that Myth was mentioning was a standalone publication, it's difficult not to look at it with a bit of dubiousness considering things printed in the past by the Gundam Ace staff. I mean, this magazine did bungle the manga adaptation of Hathaway's Flash last year which led to the year-long hiatus.

Look, this is our main difference.
I am consistently stating those publications have a lot of contradictions and errors, but I do not use that as an excuse when any of them contradicts what I believe and say that they cannot be trusted just because they have a lot of contradictions. I don't even mention this fact when it is not part of the discussion because that really makes little point other than make it sound like I am making a disclaimer about "this may be wrong but I am still quoting it anyway"

I won't look at the wording stating "Another UC" and try to claim that there are other explanations other than "Another UC".
I will take a source, look at it and say "It does not make sense because it is logically incorrect."(Like the WB main gun entry) or "Scientifically it cannot do what is shown in shows."(Like various output powers listed, which I had a debate with Seto in a previous post)
I will also take various sources, compare them and talk about which one makes more sense, I can well accept there are a lot of other publications that make much more sense than the official explanations, like the size of some of the ships, which I have discussed with Mark in another previous post and we came up with methods to scale them to more sensible sizes.
I just don't use my own findings to claim that what the official accounts established to be not official or authoritative just because they aren't aligning with my assessments.
If the IP owner says so, it is official, and no matter how little sense it makes, that is the official account. If some person buys the IP and claims TB to be canon and FG not, I will tell you the canon is TB.

Oh, BTW, I consistently discredit all interviews and never cite them, which is a totally different view than Seto or you, so I am only questioning your method of quoting interviews yet keep saying they have credibility issues as a whole.

Your stance is more like you try to get both sides of the coin. Claiming things have credibility issues so you can quote them when you like but discredit when you don't like them.
I guess if you explain the situation every time you quote an interview and explain how that particular interview can or cannot be quoted helps when you are bringing in a point, but if you quote interviews but then discredit parts of it, just like how you try to claim a clear wording as another interpretation, then it really isn't helping your case. Serious, I am not saying this for debate's sake, I am saying this because it really hampers your arguments and it really doesn't help you in an overall sense.

I mean, if it's animated, it is official, per Sunrise, right? :P I never said everything is canon. I don't even use that term so I'd appreciate it if you didn't speak for me in that regard. My view on Gundam is that various adaptations have varying perspectives on certain instances that've happened over the course of "history" in the franchise. In that sense, following the vein that animated works are classified as "official," those are considered to be published accounts of said history whereas other versions can be viewed as "alternative accounts" or "what really happened" sort of instances. If you follow Gundam Officials, you see that is how the Federation presents things... according to "their" account (and also why they say 'other theories say... or other sources indicate...', etc). Minakawa expanded upon this later in the Gundam Encyclopedia. Here's something you might enjoy.

That, is why you will see me stating how all of those "non-canon" things I claim can make sense and make better inclusion than the canon ones. One of my favourites is 0099 Moon Crisis.
This, however, does not make them canon. That is why the term black history is often used to talk about old works that have since been abandoned by the franchise and never talked about again.

Gundam Officials is not exactly EF's account of things, and even if it is, it is exactly what canon means. The church decides what's canon and what's not, you don't go and ask a Satanist what's canon. So canon is EF's account. Thus the name of OYW is OYW, not Zeon independent movement/war.(which spans to at least 0083 if you ask Delaz)

You are probably misunderstanding what I am talking about canon, because you seem to be very reactive and think that I am discrediting things when I claim they aren't. No, canon status does not make a work better or worse, it is just that one single reality the officials picked as the general view of "what happened" and just like the church's canon, it can be a very bad interpretation of the situation.(or even a situation that never actually happened)

The Memorial Book says "Another U.C." and the PDF file says "separate lineage."　To me, it's "another U.C. animated entry in the franchise." As for separate lineage, well that depends on how you want to define it. If you map out a particular mobile suits family tree, you can see the lineage it creates. Are any of these models an "alternate timeline"? No, not really. If you circle back around to what the producer said in the interview I linked above, he says that they wanted to make sure it could be included in what they considered to be the "official history" yet ended up running it sort of semi-parallel. Don't get me wrong, that sounds like another bizarre cop-out to a question that was asked about where the entry stood. If we're truly going down that road, then either the Gundam series or the movies are classified as "Another U.C." on account of their huge shifts and discrepancies, but they're not! We all know that various manga and whatnot that have come afterwards have picked one version over another (I'm looking at you C.D.A.).

Like I said, that interpretation is irrational because 0080 is also another UC animated entry in the franchise, what makes 0080, and similarly, 0083, 08th MS team, etc. not another UC?
I can pick a MS family tree and expand on it myself with new machines I created myself, I mean, you can even do it with Blaster Marie's MSs and Hidden Shadow of G, yes, these models can be alternate timeline even when they stick perfectly to the original tree and creates a lineage. What the producer tried to do really isn't the point because I can perfectly create an alternative timeline with machines sticking really well with the lineage and still claim it to be an alternative world.

Also, they are using the movies as canon for FG if there are any discrepancies(like the G-Fighter and the Core Booster difference), you can see that they don't even have a box for TV in the page with all those Another UC stuff. That is actually pretty consistent over time since the movies are out and I still haven't seen anything they published claiming the TV version is canon.

But, to wrap this up without trying to sound like a raging madman (ah ha too late), I think you need to add an asterisk to things when responding to questions about Thunderbolt. I believe I mentioned this to you earlier in another thread, but you present it as a stone-cold fact, when it's a matter of debate. But, fear not though... Japan is just as divided over it on Twitter, and was even more so when the little mini "official history" gifs that were being posted during the countdown to Hathaway included Thunderbolt (and, well Origin too)...

The stone cold fact is that it is labelled in an official publication as another UC and I am just sticking to that. You can try to debate how it meant differently all you want, but at the end it is not you who will decide how to interpret that sentence nor me, I am simply answering the question in this post, with no personal comments but only description of what is shown on that publication in my first post you quoted. I gave even less personal interpretation to that than you do.

Also, stating it is divided among fans aren't really useful, we are divided here so it makes sense there are other divisions in other places(and Gundam is like the most divided fandom for crying out loud) But I must also add that it is almost always the side with less support claiming "It is controversial", like the oil companies like to claim controversial in global warming when the Scientific community have a pretty firm and clear result.

[Deacon Blues]

If you're referring to the Ohtagaki interview, there's the Otakumode one here with my correction on their translation error here.

Which, doesn't really help your argument. It doesn't say anything about it being official or canon, he clearly said that he was basically working on something labelled as Ohatagaki version.

Actually it does help because the Otakumode interview falsely claimed in their interview translation that it says "non-canon." This is the heart of the entire debate with people, thus shunting everything off into the non-existent term "alt-UC."

Look, this is our main difference.
I am consistently stating those publications have a lot of contradictions and errors, but I do not use that as an excuse when any of them contradicts what I believe and say that they cannot be trusted just because they have a lot of contradictions. I don't even mention this fact when it is not part of the discussion because that really makes little point other than make it sound like I am making a disclaimer about "this may be wrong but I am still quoting it anyway"

You seemed to have missed out on the follow-up discussion with Seto, but it DOES make a difference when it comes to things like this. The contradictions with things makes it difficult to narrow down a stance on things. When there is an error in specs, it's a little easier to figure out a "rough estimate" of things. When you start walking back an originally published claim or comment, that is where things get muddier.

Oh, BTW, I consistently discredit all interviews and never cite them, which is a totally different view than Seto or you, so I am only questioning your method of quoting interviews yet keep saying they have credibility issues as a whole.

I think this is where the language barrier is preventing understanding of opinions here. Please re-read the instances where I clarified for Seto to get a better understanding of where I was going and how the interviews factor in with things.

I guess if you explain the situation every time you quote an interview and explain how that particular interview can or cannot be quoted helps when you are bringing in a point, but if you quote interviews but then discredit parts of it, just like how you try to claim a clear wording as another interpretation, then it really isn't helping your case. Serious, I am not saying this for debate's sake, I am saying this because it really hampers your arguments and it really doesn't help you in an overall sense.

Because the whole fact of the matter is that the face of Sunrise, the guy making the shots in terms of Gundam right now (aside from the Chief Gundam Officer) is at odds with what a publication states. That's what I'm getting at!

That, is why you will see me stating how all of those "non-canon" things I claim can make sense and make better inclusion than the canon ones. One of my favourites is 0099 Moon Crisis.
This, however, does not make them canon. That is why the term black history is often used to talk about old works that have since been abandoned by the franchise and never talked about again.

This is an entirely different discussion, but fans throw around the term 'canon' like they know how to use it. Almost no one, yourself included, uses it in the way that it is supposed to be. Continuity is the word you're actually looking for.

Gundam Officials is not exactly EF's account of things, and even if it is, it is exactly what canon means. The church decides what's canon and what's not, you don't go and ask a Satanist what's canon. So canon is EF's account. Thus the name of OYW is OYW, not Zeon independent movement/war.(which spans to at least 0083 if you ask Delaz)

Allow me to remind you what Mark had said:

In Minakawa's books, this reflects the fact that the timeline is supposed to be written within the U.C. world and approved by the Federation government. If you wanted to use it in a fictional sense, it's more like "continuity" than "canon" - that is, the current official view of what did and didn't happen.

As for whether or not it's the Zeon War for Independence or not, it is depending on whichever side is being discussed. However, even when saying the ZWI, the name OYW is still mentioned since that is the overall arching term for that incident.

[Seto Kaiba]

No, I don't doubt them, but I guess it's the medium in which the interview takes place. [...] The more discussions that are had about a particular topic over time, the more the narrative shifts with things, so it starts getting harder and harder to parse the pieces together. Then again, I don't think Fukui himself can keep track of things that he says with Gundam half the time anyways, so maybe he's not the best example. Interviews give us good insight, but I think everyone forgets what they said the last time they were asked the same question.

Eh... after many years of doing the translator thing and talking to a variety of production staffers from different studios directly, my own experiences make me want to attribute this to something a little more understandable.

Namely, coordination and communication among the production staff of a TV anime is usually pretty terrible. It was with no small degree of amused resignation that I learned from a translation that Tatsunoko Production had one of its internal design groups take a name that jokingly referenced the fact that they routinely had zero clue what was going on. (案も無い人 "People who have no idea" became アンモナイ"ひ"ト, Studio Ammonite, responsible for Super Dimension Cavalry Southern Cross, Red Photon Zillion, Legend of Heavenly Spear Shurato, and Space Knight Tekkaman Blade)

Odds are a fair number of the different parties offering different takes on these shows are, in no small part, not exactly singing from the same psalter to begin with.

To give another example, an interview with the producer in one of the Gundam F91 books talks about how arduous the project was for the team because they didn't have any clear indication of whether it was going to be a movie or a television series. This book was released in 1991 (for the record). So, I'd say it was fairly spot-on for an account shortly after production. Fast-forward to April 2003 and one of the Great Mechanics books that came out on the scene has a new text write-up by Makoto Ishii (a writer) that flat out contradicts what the producer said. So, we have two conflicting accounts on the matter with no real way to mesh them together...?

... this being a perfect example of those anmonaihito at play.

Never, ever assume that everyone in a large organization has a clear understanding of a project's direction and/or scope. In fact, it's usually easier to assume everyone is completely clueless and needs to be reminded every eight to ten minutes... more frequently if plans are still in flux. (I am only being half-sarcastic about that. I can't talk about the project I'd love to use as an example because NDAs, but let's just say communication between the guys setting strategy at the top and the guys doing the actual work is so bad that no two departments can even agree what the design is.)

Smart money says this is not conflicting accounts or one side misremembering, but two different layers of project management that almost never spoke to each other having had very different ideas of what was being decided on until an actual direction was solidified at the top. Genuine. Production. Confusion. It almost makes me feel like I'm there at Sunrise with 'em. (Where is a "weeping inconsolably" emote when a man needs one?)

[...] I suppose to clarify, if Fukui, for example, stood on the stage after a showing and blurted out that the RX-0 was powered by love, sparkles, and moon dust, I'd be hard-pressed to accept something like that as being taken seriously let alone official. [...]

Having watched Mobile Suit Gundam UC, I don't think I would have much trouble accepting that.

In the context of Gundam Narrative, I'd almost say it has canonical support.

(This is why it's dangerous to joke about things like that. I'd swear sometimes they get ideas from it.)

You go from saying it's a "parallel world" to walking that comment back and making it "semi-parallel." I think if we did a little more digging from some of the Thunderbolt x Twilight Axis crossover stuff later on and we'd probably find that the statement is entirely walked back with all mention of that being the case completely scrubbed. Then what?

So, looking at that interview... I think you're reading rather more into it than is actually there.

Producer Ogata doesn't "walk back" the idea that Mobile Suit Gundam Thunderbolt is a parallel world story in any sense of the word. What he talks about is having attempted to balance Otagaki's parallel world story with the official Universal Century setting in a way that it won't upset the apple cart too badly if Sunrise later decides that they want to include Thunderbolt in the official UC setting.

The anime critic they brought on for that article, Ryota Fujitsu, makes rather a Kawamori-esque observation about the status of Origin and Thunderbolt... putting Origin in the context of a dramatization of history and Thunderbolt in more of a historical fiction context.

The pamphlets/promo material that've come out at these events over the years have always been interesting reads. Some were given some thought, others were hastily cobbled together. I recall that IGLOO was one of those entries that were ignored for a while until they almost reluctantly started referring to it again (as seen with Hathaway). I guess when we as non-natives look at it, we have to take it all with a grain of salt? I mean, look at that 'master plan' flowchart that Sunrise had... Hathaway's Flash was slotted in as taking place in 0103... That dang thing gets quoted to death, though...

Typos and research failures happen... especially when a property's been going this long and has so many titles. It doesn't discredit interviews and public statements as a whole.

I recall the brouhaha when Macross Ace magazine's editors dropped the ball and accidentally put the one and only Macross parallel world story in the same timeline with the rest of the franchise and in the wrong year... explaining THAT gaffe to fellow fans pestering me about it was like two solid weeks of my life gone.

For Thunderbolt, it's almost like they have no freaking clue what they want the entry to be...

Ogata's remarks in that interview you shared suggest it's more like they know it's a parallel world story, but they're not willing to dismiss the possibility that Sunrise might un-parallel it at some point if it gets too popular and tried to contain anything that would bring that decision crashing down around their ears.

Actually it does help because the Otakumode interview falsely claimed in their interview translation that it says "non-canon." This is the heart of the entire debate with people, thus shunting everything off into the non-existent term "alt-UC."

As someone who got into Macross via Macross II, this is something fans do that really grinds my gears.

Certain elitist fanboys do love to try to characterize "parallel world story" status as "non-canon", which is only half true. A non-canon story is basically a second-class citizen in its franchise. A parallel world story is separate from the main continuity but coequal with it. It's just a way for them to piss on anything that doesn't satisfy the weird fan urge for continuity porn.

(Though hopefully it doesn't get so bad that someone from Sunrise has to shut them down the way Kawamori had to for the Macross II haters.)

That said, the "Another UC" term is clearly there in literal black and white. It can't be argued to be nonexistent. The only question is whether the next time Sunrise tries to do a big ol' Gundam encyclopedia that term will survive as a container for these parallel world takes on the Universal Century.

[AceWhatever]

Well this quieted down. Let's get back into it!

Has anyone encountered the rumor/claim that Thunderbolt is deliberately getting left out of Gundam video games?

Obviously it's most likely a load of bunk seeing as one of the cited reasons is the ole "A higher up at Sunrise really *hates* it". But the other claim is that apparently Thunderbolt is a separate copyright?

I looked up some games and apparently the last 3 games Thunderbolt units were in were G Gen Crossrays from 2016, Battle Operations 2 from 2017 and the recent arcade version of Gundam Vs. (though that's just an update to a game from 2016 and not an entire new game I think). But I couldn't find any information about the copyright.

[Mafty]

It is hard to find information on this, but it wouldn't be the first time Gundam manga was at least partially owned by somebody other than Sunrise/Bandai. In the 80s there was that whole fiasco with Model Graphix and Gundam Sentinel, resulting in limited appearances despite its popularity. Plus there's Tyrant Sword of Neofalia; which is another side story that's set in an Alternate Universe, despite not really contradicting the main timeline any more than most other side stories.

[PowerdGNFlag]

Well this quieted down. Let's get back into it!

Has anyone encountered the rumor/claim that Thunderbolt is deliberately getting left out of Gundam video games?

Obviously it's most likely a load of bunk seeing as one of the cited reasons is the ole "A higher up at Sunrise really *hates* it". But the other claim is that apparently Thunderbolt is a separate copyright?

I looked up some games and apparently the last 3 games Thunderbolt units were in were G Gen Crossrays from 2016, Battle Operations 2 from 2017 and the recent arcade version of Gundam Vs. (though that's just an update to a game from 2016 and not an entire new game I think). But I couldn't find any information about the copyright.

Huh, the list you provided is actually a good portion of the Gundam games released within the past 5 years, not including the ones you forgot where Thunderbolt is represented in some capacity, like:

• Gundam Versus (PS4) in 2017
• New Gundam Breaker (PS4/PC) in 2018, and
• Gundam Breaker Mobile (Mobile) in 2019.

So unless there's some unknown criteria that discounts these from counting as Thunderbolt appearances, then I'd daresay that the series has been pretty well-represented as far as Gundam games go.

[Seto Kaiba]

Has anyone encountered the rumor/claim that Thunderbolt is deliberately getting left out of Gundam video games?

Can't say that I have. I'd be inclined to suspect it's more illusory, since Thunderbolt lacks any really distinctive designs of its own except that fugly Atlas Gundam.

[Chris]

It is hard to find information on this, but it wouldn't be the first time Gundam manga was at least partially owned by somebody other than Sunrise/Bandai. In the 80s there was that whole fiasco with Model Graphix and Gundam Sentinel, resulting in limited appearances despite its popularity. Plus there's Tyrant Sword of Neofalia; which is another side story that's set in an Alternate Universe, despite not really contradicting the main timeline any more than most other side stories.

Those are also ancient manga from the earlier days of the franchise, so I'm sure Sunrise has taken care to make sure such a situation doesn't happen again.

Also, regarding these rumors, I've heard this kind of nonsense plenty of times, usually made up by people who dislike whatever series and are trying to discredit it.

[MythSearcher]

Those are also ancient manga from the earlier days of the franchise, so I'm sure Sunrise has taken care to make sure such a situation doesn't happen again.

Also, regarding these rumors, I've heard this kind of nonsense plenty of times, usually made up by people who dislike whatever series and are trying to discredit it.

Bandai has to prevent it from happening again. It was their fault for starting a cooperation project with Model Graphix and then lose interest and let things go out of hand.

Once outside of anime, Sunrise isn't really involved too much, if any. They are only an anime studio afterall.

Sentinel was due to Bandai being very idiotic, and they likely have changed because times have changed. Copyright law has been modified since the mid-lated 90's(and people in the industry have since seen a lot of poorly managed IPs having lots of trouble, that includes Marcoss and Sentinel itself is a good example), Bandai is treating the franchise more as a multi-media franchise AND Bandai now owns 100% of Sotsu, so they are now literally the overlord of the whole franchise with no opposition. Before their acquisition of Sotsu in 2019, people theoretically can still obtain the license from Sotsu to publish their own manga/novel/toys.[anime is not theoretically possible because of Sunrise's existence] no one is doing so just because Bandai has the sole right to plastic models and making your own series without the rights to make the most earning merchandise would render the point moot.

[Underrated GM Custom]

Before their acquisition of Sotsu in 2019, people theoretically can still obtain the license from Sotsu to publish their own manga/novel/toys.[anime is not theoretically possible because of Sunrise's existence] no one is doing so just because Bandai has the sole right to plastic models and making your own series without the rights to make the most earning merchandise would render the point moot.

Yeah I recall them buying Sotsu as a pretty big deal since it makes them the sole arbiter of nearly everything Gundam. That said Sotsu doesn't own model graphix right?

[MythSearcher]

Yeah I recall them buying Sotsu as a pretty big deal since it makes them the sole arbiter of nearly everything Gundam. That said Sotsu doesn't own model graphix right?

It does not.
So Bandai will still suffer from their arrogance way back in 1988.(Or maybe 1987 in the early phase of the project?)
They should have just hired Model Graphix instead of a collaboration to cut cost.

[DragoMaster009]

Wouldn't they just need to buy Dai Nippon Kaiga in order to fix that problem?

[Chris]

Wouldn't they just need to buy Dai Nippon Kaiga in order to fix that problem?

That seems like it would be quite the expense to undertake just for the sake of adapting Sentinel into an anime.