New FSS kits--Avant Garde, or butt ugly?!
Mark Wilson
put out, with the exception of the Octaver, are just too much for me
to get into. This is coming from a guy who fell head over heels for
the L.E.D Mirage back when I first saw it in '90.
Anyone else bothered by Nagano's new stylistic direction? Or if it
isn't new to Nagano, its new to hitting resin...
Mark Wilson
Bathe her...and bring her to me....
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmwilson2/Models.htm
RAAM FAQ:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmwilson2/RAAMFAQ/index.html
WolfKeeper
<hhu0ct8kq75bfoc92...@4ax.com>:
>I'm going with number 2. The latest round of FSS kits that have been
>put out, with the exception of the Octaver, are just too much for me
>to get into. This is coming from a guy who fell head over heels for
>the L.E.D Mirage back when I first saw it in '90.
>
>Anyone else bothered by Nagano's new stylistic direction? Or if it
>isn't new to Nagano, its new to hitting resin...
I vote for butt ugly as well. I'll stick to his earlier creations.
- WK
Tabby
> put out, with the exception of the Octaver, are just too much for me
> to get into. This is coming from a guy who fell head over heels for
> the L.E.D Mirage back when I first saw it in '90.
>
> Anyone else bothered by Nagano's new stylistic direction? Or if it
> isn't new to Nagano, its new to hitting resin...
>
> Mark Wilson
For the most part, Avant-Garde. It took me a while, but I've gotten used to
the newer top-heavy ballerina designs like the Sirens and the Elisis. Keep
in mind though, FSS kit waves tend to focus on particular eras from the
manga, and Nagano isn't ignoring his older styles. The Machine Messiah Auge
reminds me a lot of the Schpeltor, Wave's new Black Knight still resembles
the Vatsh we're all familiar with, and the Engage series harkens all the way
back to the original L-Gaim. Now, as far as The Mighty go, they're supposed
to be a distinct motif all to themselves, but they still look like mix&match
Mortar Heads to me.
tby
L. M. Lloyd
Hash: SHA1
Well, you can only milk the same idea so many times before new blood
is needed to freshen things up. I think it is inevitable that if the
same artist keeps designing in the same style for ten years, it is
eventually going to all become so incestuous, as to be unlikable to
anyone but the artist.
I think that what Nagano really needs is to step back and let someone
else bring a fresh perspective to the series. I mean, I can't imagine
that Gundam would have lasted long if Ookawara had been the sole
designer for all these years.
"Mark Wilson" <mmwi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hhu0ct8kq75bfoc92...@4ax.com...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOsCVcgO3tw2TqB1hEQKP5wCg35CbCtKtpnVHcLmZFBsmyAxwq/gAnj8y
Snq4z0w3zM8ssBlh5+GjHYz5
=H1Im
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Tabby
> else bring a fresh perspective to the series. I mean, I can't imagine
> that Gundam would have lasted long if Ookawara had been the sole
> designer for all these years.
Well, there are two problems here. First is the level of detail Nagano uses;
outside of Katoki, its nearly impossible to find artwork that's so precise.
Even Artmic/AIC, people who gave us such ambitious designs as Dangaioh and
the various BGC Boomers, have taken a turn for more basic mecha that are
more practical to animate.
The second problem is that Nagano doesn't have any apparent proteges; one of
Go Nagai's protege's (Ishikawa) was more responsible for the Getter Robo
revival than Go Nagai himself, and Ookawara has a history of working with
numerous different up-and-coming artists on Gundam, including Nagano! Not
only does Nagano prefer doing all his own artwork, his fashion-model style
is frankly so eccentric that it's inspired very few other artists. The
Newtype spread of "For The Barrel" character artwork did spark a lot of
comments about how much it resembled Nagano's art, but the less said about
the FTB mecha design the better, and most people believe that artist was
simply imitating his Newtype-manga predecessor.
It occurs to me that Amano (Vampire Hunter D, Final Fantasy games) could
handle FSS character's and mecha fairly well, but his own career is at least
as distinguished as Nagano's, if not more so. Besides, with Nagano actually
taking on ((more)) work, such as Brain Powerd & Schell Bullet, I seriously
doubt he sees the need to hand over the reigns of his "baby" FSS, even if
his art is getting long in the tooth.
Take hope, however! From I've read on the FSS board, Nagano actually hasn't
worked on FSS for over a year. Since he's been drawing for other mecha
titles, it's entirely possible we'll see yet another shift in his mecha
style when he get's back to FSS, hopefully a change for the better.
tby
John Hwang
>I'm going with number 2. The latest round of FSS kits that have been
>put out, with the exception of the Octaver, are just too much for me
>to get into. This is coming from a guy who fell head over heels for
>the L.E.D Mirage back when I first saw it in '90.
Mortar Messiah is hardly changed from oringal LED Mirage.
>Anyone else bothered by Nagano's new stylistic direction? Or if it
>isn't new to Nagano, its new to hitting resin...
Overall, I like new Jagd Mirage, Empress Flame, Yen-Xing, Eleshis, new Siren,
Auge, etc. over old Helmine, Bowery, etc.
I *like* the new FSS direction -- much better matches for the text
descriptions. More organic, less industrial. Everything is sleeker and faster
and more fluid.
The way I see it, FSS is a fantasy ultra-tech universe where giant bio-robots
are capable of teleport and orbital-entry. So why should these be anything at
all like "conventional" mecha?
I like to see evolutions of the work. For FSS design ethos to be entirely
static over the millennia of the story would be unreasonable, and stale over
the decades of print. Without the evolution of design, there's no point in
advancing the story -- it'd be as if the characters never "grew" or evolved.
And the FSS MH are major characters, so of course, they need to evolve.
--- John Hwang "J_H...@my-deja.com"
\-|-/
| A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
John Hwang
>Well, you can only milk the same idea so many times before new blood
>is needed to freshen things up. I think it is inevitable that if the
>same artist keeps designing in the same style for ten years, it is
>eventually going to all become so incestuous, as to be unlikable to
>anyone but the artist.
Perhaps. But then again, Nagano doesn't create in a box. He's obviously seen
Evangelion, and has the design mooks, because there's a lot of Eva in the
latest MHs.
>I think that what Nagano really needs is to step back and let someone
>else bring a fresh perspective to the series.
God forbid that someone else be Syd Mead...
There are two schools of thought for design -- one says that the best approach
is to follow the latest fashion, the other says the best approach is to stick
with a personal style. Nagano has chosen the latter for FSS while Gundam is
characterized by the former.
And this kind of thing carries on to other areas of design, as well. For
example, BMW has kept essentially the same style for decades, yet nobody things
this is a terrible thing. OTOH, GM keeps doing the latest thing, and few
consider the recent Pontiac Aztec to be anything but a disaster.
>I mean, I can't imagine that Gundam would have lasted long if Ookawara
> had been the sole designer for all these years.
Hard to say. Being a speculative question, one can just as easily counter that
Gundam would have grown to be a "prime time" TV show... Particularly if
Okawara had been willing to evolve his designs as Gundam evolved over the
years. Considering the immediate fan response to 08MS vs Turn-A, I think
sticking with the Okawara-type approach is better than turning the thing on
it's head. Certainly, I was happy with all of the "serious" UC stuff through
ZZ. Then came V/G/W/X/A and I consider the only bright spot in this timeframe
to be 08MS.
OTOH, For the Barrel being a retelling of gundam is no problem. I like the
idea of seeing it done differently.
Personally, I like it when a designer has the courage and vision to stick with
a story. For anime and manga to turn into the artist-of-the-month type
situation we have in comics and cartoons would be a total disaster. IMHO, the
constant flux in comics is part of the contribution to it's current downward
trend.
The biggest problem with switching themes and artists is that it tends to
alienate whatever "fan following" you might have built up. This happens in
comics all the time, with fans following particular creators rather than
particular titles.
L. M. Lloyd
Hash: SHA1
"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:20010327201833...@ng-mh1.news.cs.com...
>
> >I think that what Nagano really needs is to step back and let
> >someone else bring a fresh perspective to the series.
>
> God forbid that someone else be Syd Mead...
>
If there is a God, Syd Mead will never touch another Japanese mech
show as long as he lives.
> There are two schools of thought for design -- one says that the
> best approach is to follow the latest fashion, the other says the
> best approach is to stick with a personal style. Nagano has chosen
> the latter for FSS while Gundam is characterized by the former.
>
> And this kind of thing carries on to other areas of design, as
> well. For example, BMW has kept essentially the same style for
> decades, yet nobody things this is a terrible thing. OTOH, GM
> keeps doing the latest thing, and few consider the recent Pontiac
> Aztec to be anything but a disaster.
>
Well, I think this is a somewhat flawed example, as back in the '90s
BMW drastically altered their styling to be more in line with what
the Japanese auto makers were bringing to market. I honestly think a
company like VW or Audi would be a stronger example of your point, as
they have changed their styling over the years, but have always kept
a very strong "family resemblance" going back to some of their
earliest models.
> >I mean, I can't imagine that Gundam would have lasted long if
> >Ookawara
> > had been the sole designer for all these years.
>
> Hard to say. Being a speculative question, one can just as easily
> counter that Gundam would have grown to be a "prime time" TV
> show... Particularly if Okawara had been willing to evolve his
> designs as Gundam evolved over the years. Considering the
> immediate fan response to 08MS vs Turn-A, I think sticking with the
> Okawara-type approach is better than turning the thing on it's
> head. Certainly, I was happy with all of the "serious" UC stuff
> through ZZ. Then came V/G/W/X/A and I consider the only bright
> spot in this timeframe to be 08MS.
>
This is my whole point. I am not talking about shows like V/G/X/W/A I
am talking about shows like Z Gundam where Fujita did the principal
design/clean-up working with artists like Kobayashi and Nagano, with
Ookawara doing little more than putting his name on the credits, and
lording over the GM designs. Or 0083, with Kowamori and Katoki doing
the bulk of the design work, and Ookawara having no direct
involvement.
Part of the reason Gundam has become what it has, is because it pulls
on the best designs of a large pool of talented designers, rather
than just one designer's imagination. No matter what your opinion of
Nagano's abilities; it is just a fact that a single designer can only
come up with so many treatments of the exact same subject matter
before he just starts regurgitating the same crap over and over
again.
The feeling I get from Nagano's latest FSS designs, are much the same
as the feeling I get from newer Spawn toys like Manga Spawn and the
like, which is to say, they feel like the designer has run out of
legitimate variations on the theme, so has decided to just go "over
the top" with the concept, basically reducing it to a caricature in
the process.
> OTOH, For the Barrel being a retelling of gundam is no problem. I
> like the idea of seeing it done differently.
>
> Personally, I like it when a designer has the courage and vision to
> stick with a story. For anime and manga to turn into the
> artist-of-the-month type situation we have in comics and cartoons
> would be a total disaster. IMHO, the constant flux in comics is
> part of the contribution to it's current downward trend.
>
> The biggest problem with switching themes and artists is that it
> tends to alienate whatever "fan following" you might have built up.
> This happens in comics all the time, with fans following
> particular creators rather than particular titles.
>
> --- John Hwang "J_H...@my-deja.com"
> \-|-/
> | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOsFFNgO3tw2TqB1hEQKucwCgouDFSftwGf3+8NhQyiXKo2FU4gIAoLY2
qQeIvnWRKVZz2srv0hRbGSKn
=kaSk
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Juice
series, replacing 6 series. But then again you can excuse BMW of this crime
since every needed to have those flip lights at the time. Look at 3,5 and 7
series and they all look like their previous generation cars. Sure, the M1
design influence is no longer seen through out the BMW design but it was
rather a rare super car that there are no equivalent in BMW line anymore.
Just look at 3 series from 2002 and on, and the design changes are
evolutionary than revolutionary. Integration of glass head lamp cover and
full size bumpers with integrated air dam came along as they were needed for
various engineering reasons than design changes.
M-B's always maintained their remarkable similarity in looks through out the
ages, which among all auto designs are know for, even without three pointed
star.
Talking about "family resemblance," Japanese car manufacturers had little of
those in their cars through out 'til late 90's. Honda (and Acura) just
caught on the trend, the other still struggle to find one.
In fact, with odd exception of Golf and New Beetle, most of the VW designs
took a rather dramatic transformation. The ones that did not, like the
coupes, died out as a model. Audi is the risk of being too much like VW's as
VW tries hard with the upward movement, leaving econo class to companies
like Seat or Skoda (burhhh, Yugo's...).
Juice
Juice
as his original work was to certain people at the time when FSS started.
Since he laid out his work so that we already know designs of MH's way at
the "end" of the story line as well as the "start" of the story line, I'm
thankful enough not to get simple interpolation of the designs. In fact,
taking a very dramatic design changes in MH's would be some what crazy,
since those MH's stick around for many years and according to the story line
there are no significant advancement in tech. However, all that could be
screwed if Nagano feels like changing them, as he mentioned some years ago
in some interview. I, personally liked only a few MH over time, those would
be Auge(the original one), BangDoll and Jagd (orange). And I think we all
know if he really wanted to change his designs, he very can, like as he
f*cked up for brain powered stuffs.
Juice
"Mark Wilson" <mmwi...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:hhu0ct8kq75bfoc92...@4ax.com...
John Hwang
>> >I think that what Nagano really needs is to step back and let
>> >someone else bring a fresh perspective to the series.
>>
>> God forbid that someone else be Syd Mead...
>
>If there is a God, Syd Mead will never touch another Japanese mech
>show as long as he lives.
Well, we're clearly in agreement here! :)
>> There are two schools of thought for design -- one says that the
>> best approach is to follow the latest fashion, the other says the
>> best approach is to stick with a personal style. Nagano has chosen
>> the latter for FSS while Gundam is characterized by the former.
>>
>> And this kind of thing carries on to other areas of design, as
>> well. For example, BMW has kept essentially the same style for
>> decades, yet nobody things this is a terrible thing. OTOH, GM
>> keeps doing the latest thing, and few consider the recent Pontiac
>> Aztec to be anything but a disaster.
>
>Well, I think this is a somewhat flawed example,
Of course. In the real world, the perfect examples are few and far between.
>as back in the '90s BMW drastically altered their styling to be more in
> line with whatthe Japanese auto makers were bringing to market.
I dunno. BMW still keeps 4 round headlamps up front with a double-kidney
grille and a kink in the rear-window...
>I honestly think a company like VW or Audi would be a stronger
> example of your point, as they have changed their styling over the
> years, but have always kept a very strong "family resemblance"
>going back to some of their earliest models.
Actually, any German car brand vs. any American brand will give a fairly good
example. It's just that I'm familiar with BMW and I really hate the Aztec.
Tho it appears that GM and Chrysler have decided that keeping a "family
resemblance" is a good thing.
>> >I mean, I can't imagine that Gundam would have lasted long if
>> >Ookawara had been the sole designer for all these years.
>>
>> Hard to say. Being a speculative question, one can just as easily
>> counter that Gundam would have grown to be a "prime time" TV
>> show... Particularly if Okawara had been willing to evolve his
>> designs as Gundam evolved over the years. Considering the
>> immediate fan response to 08MS vs Turn-A, I think sticking with the
>> Okawara-type approach is better than turning the thing on it's
>> head. Certainly, I was happy with all of the "serious" UC stuff
>> through ZZ. Then came V/G/W/X/A and I consider the only bright
>> spot in this timeframe to be 08MS.
>
>This is my whole point. I am not talking about shows like V/G/X/W/A
Oh. But these are "Gundam"... ;p
Sorry.
>I am talking about shows like Z Gundam where Fujita did the principal
>design/clean-up working with artists like Kobayashi and Nagano, with
>Ookawara doing little more than putting his name on the credits, and
>lording over the GM designs. Or 0083, with Kowamori and Katoki
>doing the bulk of the design work, and Ookawara having no direct
>involvement.
OK. This is fair. But with Z and 0083, their Gundam are still being styled
after the original _Gundam_ Gundam. So it's not like the Hyaku-Shiki or Epsy
is a full-blown Nagano design ...
>Part of the reason Gundam has become what it has, is because it pulls
>on the best designs of a large pool of talented designers, rather
>than just one designer's imagination.
For better and for worse...
> No matter what your opinion of Nagano's abilities; it is just a fact that
>a single designer can only come up with so many treatments of the
> exact same subject matter before he just starts regurgitating the
>same crap over and over again.
It all depends on the designer's ability to grow.
>The feeling I get from Nagano's latest FSS designs, are much the same
>as the feeling I get from newer Spawn toys like Manga Spawn and the
>like, which is to say, they feel like the designer has run out of
>legitimate variations on the theme, so has decided to just go "over
>the top" with the concept, basically reducing it to a caricature in
>the process.
So IOW you'd rather that FSS stayed stuck in its 80's design style, rather than
moving forward to a new 2000+ format? It seems to me that the guy just can't
win. Either the designer becomes stale for not changing, or he's OTT for
changing too much. And you don't want an extreme re-work by, or in the style
of, Syd Mead. So what exactly are you expecting? Katoki to take a stab at
making a bunch of ultra-tech hyper-custom mecha into SOTA semi-industrial
production units? To me, Katoki-izing FSS MHs is just as wrong as Nagano
applying a layer of FSS over Gasaraki, Madox, or Votoms. The mecha should
match the story and the tech.
It's perfectly OK to say you don't like the direction Nagano's taking FSS MH
design stylings. But to say that he's out of ideas when he's clearly gotten a
new idea to redo his major designs? Well, that's a bit unfair.
L. M. Lloyd
Hash: SHA1
I think you misunderstand the timeline I am talking about with BMW. I
have a '76 530i, and let me assure you, park it next to a new 5
series, and the new 5 series looks a hell of a lot more like a Acura
than it does an old BMW.
On the VW front, I also think you are looking too short term. I am
talking about the entire progression from Squareback to Rabbit to
Golf and Fastback to Scirocco to SciroccoII to Corraddo. I don't
particularly see the "revolutionary" nature of VW development, as at
any one time, their entire product line consists of no more than two
frames. First you had the Beetle frame and the bus frame, with the
Squareback, Fastback, SuperBeetle, and Ghia all being built on the
Beetle frame, then you had the Rabbit frame and the Scirocco,
SciroccoII, GTI, Dasher, Jetta/Fox and JettaII being built on the
Rabbit frame. Now you have the entire VW line (with the usual
exception of the vans) being built on a Golf frame. I really don't
see any revolutionary progression in say the
Beetle>Rabbit>Golf>BeetleII nor for that matter do I see a very
revolutionary change going from Jetta/Fox>JettaII>JettaIII>Passat.
"Juice" <joe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Sjew6.13704$dL4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOsGqGwO3tw2TqB1hEQLElwCcDD+FKpIBF64Nak1C6ra8J2OBMXwAn3N5
HxwLbeXP8/tXlXU30PZYT5rP
=H6d7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
L. M. Lloyd
Hash: SHA1
I am not saying I would rather see FSS stuck in the '80s at all. What
I am saying, is that I would like to see Nagano let the series die,
and get on with something legitimately new and different, or bring in
someone who could add a new perspective to the series. I am all for
designers growing and changing their style. That is one of the
reasons I have so much respect for people like Kowamori. I would be
pretty disgusted if the ships in Cowboy BeBop looked like they had
just taken off from the SDF1! My point is that there comes a time
when a design reaches its high point, and any more revisions will
actually start adversely effecting the overall esthetic. Knowing when
to stop, and acknowledging when you have perfected a design are as
important to being an artist as being able to come up with the idea
to begin with. This is the critical element lacking from FSS for some
time now.
The last thing I would care to see is Katoki's take on FSS! Honestly,
I don't feel Katoki has near the range to tackle a job like that.
There are designers out there who I think could make a positive
addition to the universe of FSS, but that is not really the point.
The point I am trying to make is that Nagano himself, is not really
doing anything more than endless reworks of already designed MHs
these days.
Frankly, I have never been a big FSS fan, but I had to give Nagano
major points for some quite original designs. However, it has
literally been years since I saw a new MH that did not look like the
new years model of a fill-in-the-blank previously designed MH.
Ultimately, it is the artist's decision what he does with his art,
and I am in no way saying that Nagano can't rework to his heart's
content. All I am saying, is that to hold my interest, and impress
me, a designer has to do a bit more than just keep redesigning the
same 10* designs over and over again, making them more stylized with
every rework.
Back in the early '90s I had a fairly high regard for Nagano's design
work. 10 years later, he seems to be stuck in a rut he is unable to
climb out of. Let me put it this way: Back in the '80s Kowamori gave
us the Valkirie, Battroids, and SDF1, in the intervening time he has
given us the SwordfishII, the Escaflowne, the GP01, and the Outlaw
Star, to name a few. Back in the '80s Nagano gave us the L-Gaim, the
Auge, and the Vatshu, in the intervening years he has given us vastly
updated versions of the L-Gaim, Auge, and Vatshu to name a few. It
doesn't bespeak a whole lot of range, and as a member of the
audience, stopped holding my attention years ago.
* 10 was used as a totally arbitrary number. I do not mean to imply
that I think there are only 10 basic MHs, but rather to illustrate
that the rework of a finite number of previous designs does not equal
a wholly new creation.
"John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:20010328004324...@ng-mg1.news.cs.com...
>
> So IOW you'd rather that FSS stayed stuck in its 80's design style,
> rather than moving forward to a new 2000+ format? It seems to me
> that the guy just can't win. Either the designer becomes stale for
> not changing, or he's OTT for changing too much. And you don't
> want an extreme re-work by, or in the style of, Syd Mead. So what
> exactly are you expecting? Katoki to take a stab at making a bunch
> of ultra-tech hyper-custom mecha into SOTA semi-industrial
> production units? To me, Katoki-izing FSS MHs is just as wrong as
> Nagano applying a layer of FSS over Gasaraki, Madox, or Votoms.
> The mecha should match the story and the tech.
>
> It's perfectly OK to say you don't like the direction Nagano's
> taking FSS MH design stylings. But to say that he's out of ideas
> when he's clearly gotten a new idea to redo his major designs?
> Well, that's a bit unfair.
>
> --- John Hwang "J_H...@my-deja.com"
> \-|-/
> | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
| Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOsG5QAO3tw2TqB1hEQLnKACeKequL9aKPvqawR3Hapfla0UaiYMAoMxF
lb/CwHrDDuf+GKFIMzSEOL85
=Qoif
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Mark Wilson
wrote:
>So IOW you'd rather that FSS stayed stuck in its 80's design style, rather than
>moving forward to a new 2000+ format? It seems to me that the guy just can't
>win.
>
> --- John Hwang "J_H...@my-deja.com"
> \-|-/
> | A.K.D. F.E.M.C.
> | Horned Blood Cross Terror LED Speed Jagd Destiny
What I'm saying, since I started all this, is not that change is bad.
Just THIS change is bad. There are an infinite number of directions
he could have taken the Mortar Headd designs, and this is one that I
consider an eyesore.
Look at AC gundams, which I kind of count turn A Gundam. Gundam X was
a distinct variation on the Gundam theme (the mecha, not the show,
which I like). Turn A was too. But Turn A is nearly universally
despised as a design treatment, and Gundam X only gets beaten up for
the show, not the mech.
Gundam X and Gundam X Divider were good design directions; Turn A
wasn't. I'm saying that the latest MH design trends to my eye are
more of a "Turn A" MH (i.e. an ugly design).
I understand the FSS universe as well as most--it isn't remotely
reality based (hell, Amaterasu is a god). But reality or no, those
new mirages (like the Hydra based trio) are not doing it for me.
Juice
news:sShw6.2513$1n1.6...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think you misunderstand the timeline I am talking about with BMW. I
> have a '76 530i, and let me assure you, park it next to a new 5
> series, and the new 5 series looks a hell of a lot more like a Acura
> than it does an old BMW.
>
Perhaps you have missed my point as well. Park a E39 next to E34 and see how
those two are quite similar, E39(introduced 95) being design evolution of
E34 (introduced 88, I think: my mother once owned a green 90 535). If you
agree with the previous statement, do that again with E28 and E34, repeat
again for E21(your 76 is E21) and E28... That's what I mean by evolutionary,
as in gradual increase in winshield rake, modernization of front end and
bumpers while retaining design clues as the most famous kidney bean grill, C
pillar line, accent line mid way on side body, slight wheel well flare,
relatively boxy line... Try the same with Jetta III and current Jetta, or
Last three generation of Passat.
Only acura that looked like a BMW was the old 2nd gen legend, which had
design clues from BMW's.
> On the VW front, I also think you are looking too short term. I am
> talking about the entire progression from Squareback to Rabbit to
> Golf and Fastback to Scirocco to SciroccoII to Corraddo.
Talking about short term, I think you started out mentioning BMW's design
changes in 90's.
I don't
> particularly see the "revolutionary" nature of VW development, as at
> any one time, their entire product line consists of no more than two
> frames. First you had the Beetle frame and the bus frame, with the
> Squareback, Fastback, SuperBeetle, and Ghia all being built on the
> Beetle frame, then you had the Rabbit frame and the Scirocco,
> SciroccoII, GTI, Dasher, Jetta/Fox and JettaII being built on the
> Rabbit frame. Now you have the entire VW line (with the usual
> exception of the vans) being built on a Golf frame. I really don't
Passat and Polo are built on different platforms.
> see any revolutionary progression in say the
> Beetle>Rabbit>Golf>BeetleII nor for that matter do I see a very
Beetle>Rabbit not revolutionary, (try Ghia to Scirocco) are we talking about
design or mechanical similarity?
> revolutionary change going from Jetta/Fox>JettaII>JettaIII>Passat.
Again try looking at most recent re do of Passat which look like sedan
version of ford windstar as well as what I have mentioned earlier.
>
>
> >
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
>
> iQA/AwUBOsGqGwO3tw2TqB1hEQLElwCcDD+FKpIBF64Nak1C6ra8J2OBMXwAn3N5
> HxwLbeXP8/tXlXU30PZYT5rP
> =H6d7
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
Juice
Juice
series.
L. M. Lloyd
Hash: SHA1
I think we are gust going to have to accept that we aren't going to
see eye to eye on this subject, because to me, BMWs underwent a
radical redesign in the '90s, and you obviously don't see it that
way. To me saying that the new BMWs retaining a kidney bean grill and
a sideline accent is about like saying that the Turn A kept the V
crest and color scheme. It is true that there are certainly
"trademark stylings" that have remained between old and new BMWs, but
to me the overall design had been heading in one direction for a very
long time, only to drastically change direction in the '90s to come
more in line with the rest of the industry. On the other hand, VWs
overall design direction seems to have remained fairly constant since
the inception on the company, changing only the stylings according to
the "look" of the time. To me, the Rabbit looks exactly like I would
expect a late '70s-early '80s version of the Beetle to look like.
You also asked about the Ghia>Scirocco. Certainly these cars bear no
resemblance if you put them side by side. However, the way I look at
design (being a designer myself) goes like this. First you have the
Beetle, Then Karman designs a sportier Beetle (the Ghia), then you
have the Rabbit, then Karman designs a sportier version of the Rabbit
(the Scirocco). From this point of view, the Scirocco is exactly what
you would expect if you applied the design intent of the Ghia to a
Rabbit. By the same token I also see the Audi TT as the Ghia to the
new Beetle, and I think that the appearance bears out this view.
If I had to guess the difference between our views, I would guess
that it comes down to a difference between looking at finished design
over design influences. All of the pre '90s BMWs retained a very
strong connection to BMWs nautical history. This Nautical design
esthetic is, for me, what defined the "look" of BMWs, and is no
longer remotely present in the current crop of BMWs. VW, on the other
hand, has always had a very utilitarian and modern esthetic, and each
new version of their cars has, in my mind, retained a consistent
balance between the current idea of modern styling, and the last
version of the car. Though a valid argument could certainly be made
that from all points the move from air-cooled to water-cooled has to
be viewed as revolutionary, yet I would point to the new Beetle as an
example of how the design intent did not change even through this
dramatic mechanical change.
"Juice" <joe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:WEow6.13819$dL4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
iQA/AwUBOsJxBwO3tw2TqB1hEQJnCQCgsFWA7A/14W1fJUaG0E96N7nhC0gAmwXo
58raibAZARHl1cwUL9O93btP
=svju
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Juice
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I think we are gust going to have to accept that we aren't going to
> see eye to eye on this subject, because to me, BMWs underwent a
> radical redesign in the '90s, and you obviously don't see it that
> way. To me saying that the new BMWs retaining a kidney bean grill and
> a sideline accent is about like saying that the Turn A kept the V
> crest and color scheme. It is true that there are certainly
> "trademark stylings" that have remained between old and new BMWs,
Agreed, it must be the personal thing, or just way of seeing things
> but
> to me the overall design had been heading in one direction for a very
> long time, only to drastically change direction in the '90s to come
> more in line with the rest of the industry.
I see that overall trend as engineering changes needed to get by the ever
increasing demand of aero dynamic, structural, manufacturing requirement.
Beside BMW's upsurge in sales figure, the newer designs and emphasis on
"Ultimate Driving Machine" definitly had something to do with each other.
> On the other hand, VWs
> overall design direction seems to have remained fairly constant since
> the inception on the company, changing only the stylings according to
> the "look" of the time. To me, the Rabbit looks exactly like I would
> expect a late '70s-early '80s version of the Beetle to look like.
>
> You also asked about the Ghia>Scirocco. Certainly these cars bear no
> resemblance if you put them side by side. However, the way I look at
> design (being a designer myself) goes like this. First you have the
> Beetle, Then Karman designs a sportier Beetle (the Ghia), then you
> have the Rabbit, then Karman designs a sportier version of the Rabbit
> (the Scirocco). From this point of view, the Scirocco is exactly what
> you would expect if you applied the design intent of the Ghia to a
> Rabbit. By the same token I also see the Audi TT as the Ghia to the
> new Beetle, and I think that the appearance bears out this view.
Being a ME student who almost had enrolled in Art Center College for
transportation design (too expensive!), I tend to look at each iteration of
designs and over all "family resemblance", rather then design trend, which I
was told does little in maintaining brand image. I see your point here with
Scirocco. However, I always thought TT as fore bearer of new design
direction that Audi has taken to match BMW in its sporting image and envoke
the Auto Union racer design clues. Also I was told that VW is trying hard to
revise it's own design, seperate from Audi, since VW group wants two semi
premere auto makers-VW and AUDI-and other super lux/sports divisions as well
as couple of cheap division. The design, at least I think, for VW will
eventually change, if not already started to do so, so that it fits the new
market role of VW as the "luxury car division" that is to go head to head
with M-B, and other Japanese Luxury Auto divisions, while AUDI will pursue
what BMW has in market with it's Ultimate Driving Machine. One more funny
thing is that that's what Ford is doing with Jaguar and Volvo, Jaguar going
against MB and Volvo for BMW...
>
> If I had to guess the difference between our views, I would guess
> that it comes down to a difference between looking at finished design
> over design influences.
Agreed.
> All of the pre '90s BMWs retained a very
> strong connection to BMWs nautical history. This Nautical design
> esthetic is, for me, what defined the "look" of BMWs, and is no
> longer remotely present in the current crop of BMWs.
Nautical, as of auto design of this time, is not a good word to have your
design remembered by...
> VW, on the other
> hand, has always had a very utilitarian and modern esthetic, and each
> new version of their cars has, in my mind, retained a consistent
> balance between the current idea of modern styling, and the last
> version of the car. Though a valid argument could certainly be made
> that from all points the move from air-cooled to water-cooled has to
> be viewed as revolutionary, yet I would point to the new Beetle as an
> example of how the design intent did not change even through this
> dramatic mechanical change.
>
I always thought of new beetle as nothing more than a sale gimmick playing
on nostalgia by simple chassis conversion on a golf
Juice
Andrew Ryan Chang
>us the Valkirie, Battroids, and SDF1, in the intervening time he has
>given us the SwordfishII, the Escaflowne, the GP01, and the Outlaw
>Star, to name a few. Back in the '80s Nagano gave us the L-Gaim, the
>Auge, and the Vatshu, in the intervening years he has given us vastly
>updated versions of the L-Gaim, Auge, and Vatshu to name a few. It
Plus the Qubeley, Hyaku-Shiki (and other Z Gundam mechs?) and the
Brain Powered mechs if I'm remembering correctly.
--
Wow, a baseball made out of Secretariat!
-- Bart gazes upon the Spend Zone, "You Only Move Twice"
John Hwang
>I am saying, is that I would like to see Nagano let the series die,
>and get on with something legitimately new and different, or bring in
>someone who could add a new perspective to the series.
Oh. OK. This, I understand.
>I am all for designers growing and changing their style. That is one of the
>reasons I have so much respect for people like Kowamori. I would be
>pretty disgusted if the ships in Cowboy BeBop looked like they had
>just taken off from the SDF1! My point is that there comes a time
>when a design reaches its high point, and any more revisions will
>actually start adversely effecting the overall esthetic. Knowing when
>to stop, and acknowledging when you have perfected a design are as
>important to being an artist as being able to come up with the idea
>to begin with. This is the critical element lacking from FSS for some
>time now.
IOW, FSS has a certain tech and aesthetic, so "of course", the mecha have to
have a certain flavor -- otherwise, they're not FSS mecha.
>The last thing I would care to see is Katoki's take on FSS! Honestly,
>I don't feel Katoki has near the range to tackle a job like that.
>There are designers out there who I think could make a positive
>addition to the universe of FSS, but that is not really the point.
>The point I am trying to make is that Nagano himself, is not really
>doing anything more than endless reworks of already designed MHs
>these days.
But isn't variety the point of Nagano doing other stuff like Brain Powerd,
Panzer Front, various RPGs and misc. whatnots? Just because his newest design
isn't a mech or doesn't make its way into FSS, it doesn't count as something
new and different? You don't like Plastic Style? Again, I think you're using
an awfully harsh standard.
>Frankly, I have never been a big FSS fan, but I had to give Nagano
>major points for some quite original designs. However, it has
>literally been years since I saw a new MH that did not look like the
>new years model of a fill-in-the-blank previously designed MH.
>Ultimately, it is the artist's decision what he does with his art,
>and I am in no way saying that Nagano can't rework to his heart's
>content. All I am saying, is that to hold my interest, and impress
>me, a designer has to do a bit more than just keep redesigning the
>same 10* designs over and over again, making them more stylized with
>every rework.
OK, and what about his Gundam and Brain Powerd work? Or Panzer Front? Or the
RPGs?
Or are you expecting an FSS TA/AT to appear? Something distinct from Nagano's
powersuit design for the military in FSS?
>Back in the early '90s I had a fairly high regard for Nagano's design
>work. 10 years later, he seems to be stuck in a rut he is unable to
>climb out of. Let me put it this way: Back in the '80s Kowamori gave
>us the Valkirie, Battroids, and SDF1, in the intervening time he has
>given us the SwordfishII, the Escaflowne, the GP01, and the Outlaw
>Star, to name a few.
True. But these aren't mecha designs for Macross. They're for other series
entirely.
>Back in the '80s Nagano gave us the L-Gaim, the
>Auge, and the Vatshu,
Not to mention Fool for the City...
>in the intervening years he has given us vastly
>updated versions of the L-Gaim, Auge, and Vatshu to name a few. It
>doesn't bespeak a whole lot of range, and as a member of the
>audience, stopped holding my attention years ago.
I can see where you'd be coming from if FSS MH was the only thing that Nagano
ever did. But that simply isn't the case. He does a lot of other general
mecha and chara design, for FSS and other things.
>* 10 was used as a totally arbitrary number. I do not mean to imply
>that I think there are only 10 basic MHs, but rather to illustrate
>that the rework of a finite number of previous designs does not equal
>a wholly new creation.
I fully agree. So the new Eleshis, Empress Flame, Plastic Style characters
don't count? Same thing with Brain Powerd? Or the occasional tail-art design
he does for the military?
Nagano does a lot of stuff in addition to the FSS MH, stuff which is
interesting to me. I think it's a shame you seem not to notice.
John Hwang
>>So IOW you'd rather that FSS stayed stuck in its 80's design style,
>> rather than moving forward to a new 2000+ format? It seems to me that
>>the guy just can't win.
>What I'm saying, since I started all this, is not that change is bad.
>Just THIS change is bad. There are an infinite number of directions
>he could have taken the Mortar Headd designs, and this is one that I
>consider an eyesore.
Right, and I don't think I've disputed your tastes. Just as you don't dispute
that I like them.
Actually, there are a lot fewer directions than you might imagine, given the
constraints of MH "tech" and FSS design. But out of curiosity, what were you
looking for, hoping for? And (assuming you have th reference artwork) do you
prefer the "stylized", attenuated Eva to the "human-proportioned" Eva?
>Look at AC gundams, which I kind of count turn A Gundam. Gundam X was
>a distinct variation on the Gundam theme (the mecha, not the show,
>which I like). Turn A was too. But Turn A is nearly universally
>despised as a design treatment, and Gundam X only gets beaten up for
>the show, not the mech.
>
>Gundam X and Gundam X Divider were good design directions; Turn A
>wasn't.
Agree. X is the least offensive of the non-UC Gundam.
>I'm saying that the latest MH design trends to my eye are
>more of a "Turn A" MH (i.e. an ugly design).
OK, we just happen to disagree here.
>I understand the FSS universe as well as most--it isn't remotely
>reality based (hell, Amaterasu is a god). But reality or no, those
>new mirages (like the Hydra based trio) are not doing it for me.
OK, that's fair.
John Hwang
>"L. M. Lloyd" <ub...@austin.rr.com> wrote ...
>I see that overall trend as engineering changes needed to get by the ever
>increasing demand of aero dynamic, structural, manufacturing requirement.
>Beside BMW's upsurge in sales figure, the newer designs and emphasis on
>"Ultimate Driving Machine" definitly had something to do with each other.
Agree. The block-proportioning of the cars has more to do with packaging and
layout than anything else, and doesn't count toward styling (hence the front
wheels being set forward, the reduced overhangs). Similarly, the aero
requirements for fuel economy are a given (hence the headlight covers, smooth
nose).
>Being a ME student who almost had enrolled in Art Center College for
>transportation design (too expensive!), I tend to look at each iteration of
>designs and over all "family resemblance", rather then design trend, which I
>was told does little in maintaining brand image. I see your point here with
>Scirocco. However, I always thought TT as fore bearer of new design
>direction that Audi has taken to match BMW in its sporting image and envoke
>the Auto Union racer design clues. Also I was told that VW is trying hard to
>revise it's own design, seperate from Audi, since VW group wants two semi
>premere auto makers-VW and AUDI-and other super lux/sports divisions as
>well as couple of cheap division. The design, at least I think, for VW will
>eventually change, if not already started to do so, so that it fits the new
>market role of VW as the "luxury car division" that is to go head to head
>with M-B, and other Japanese Luxury Auto divisions, while AUDI will pursue
>what BMW has in market with it's Ultimate Driving Machine.
Given that our *grandparents* remember VW as a low-budget econo-car make,
moving VW against MB is a really tough call. I think VW-group is out of their
minds on this one. But hey, if VW manages to out-price Subaru ($30k for either
is a really tough sell), more power to them!
>One more funny thing is that that's what Ford is doing with Jaguar and
>Volvo, Jaguar going against MB and Volvo for BMW...
Heh. Considering brand histories: Jaguar "reliability" vs MB quality, Volvo
station wagons vs BMW "excitement", Ford's got their work cut out for them...
If anything, I'd have reversed the two, safety vs performance. But, hey, what
do I know?
>> All of the pre '90s BMWs retained a very
>> strong connection to BMWs nautical history. This Nautical design
>> esthetic is, for me, what defined the "look" of BMWs, and is no
>> longer remotely present in the current crop of BMWs.
>
>Nautical, as of auto design of this time, is not a good word to have your
>design remembered by...
Particularly as BMW was aircraft, not naval... Or does the propeller-roundel
mean nothing?
>> VW, on the other
>> hand, has always had a very utilitarian and modern esthetic, and each
>> new version of their cars has, in my mind, retained a consistent
>> balance between the current idea of modern styling, and the last
>> version of the car. Though a valid argument could certainly be made
>> that from all points the move from air-cooled to water-cooled has to
>> be viewed as revolutionary, yet I would point to the new Beetle as an
>> example of how the design intent did not change even through this
>> dramatic mechanical change.
>>
>
>I always thought of new beetle as nothing more than a sale gimmick playing
>on nostalgia by simple chassis conversion on a golf
Bingo! Tho I see New Beetle as very much a carcariture of the original.
L. M. Lloyd
Hash: SHA1
BMW was originally know best for their stunning marine engines, and
not to be a smartass, but boats have propellers too.
John Hwang" <johnhw...@cs.com.no.com> wrote in message
news:20010329064210...@ng-fr1.news.cs.com...
> "Juice" joe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >"L. M. Lloyd" <ub...@austin.rr.com> wrote ...
>
>
> Particularly as BMW was aircraft, not naval... Or does the
> propeller-roundel mean nothing?
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOsMiywO3tw2TqB1hEQLY5ACZAQxgYLgwr6KPmOtpHSOd94YHMkUAn3MA
IcgXsIyxYCXw5z8mUzQ0PeAR
=sTGF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
L. M. Lloyd
Hash: SHA1
Re-reading my post, I realized I might have made it sound like they
never made airplanes, which is of course not true. Just like most car
manufacturers, BMW played a heavy role in early aeronautics. But it
has always been my understanding that early on their marine engines
(I believe designed first by BMWs predecessor Rapp Motor Company)
were considered to be the among the best in the world, while their
aviation engines were considered to be competitive, but not
spectacular. In fact, I believe that BMW ended up licensing a radial
engine design from an American company, because their designs were
not getting the HP needed by that time.
Mind you, I am hardly a scholar on BMW, so this could all be some
other company, or a misremembered special on Discovery. So, please
don't send out a scalping party if I got this entirely wrong.
"L. M. Lloyd" <ub...@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:fpFw6.5729$wx.7...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
iQA/AwUBOsNBNQO3tw2TqB1hEQLkZgCbBXD1OxYbOy31nmJoLV/l7KXYzwQAnijL
WbjFO0/8el28kTfqoQA9otCw
=wwGY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
L. M. Lloyd
Hash: SHA1
As I understand the history of the new Beetle, the original design
(the Concept1) was never actually intended as a production vehicle,
but rather as a concept car showcase for some anniversary of the
original Beetle many years ago. The Concept1 generated such a
dramatic response among the VW customer base, that the marketing
department then pushed it through production as a way to revitalize
the, at the time, somewhat flagging VW reputation. So, you are pretty
much dead on, in your assessment of that. Now on the TT, I believe it
was originally shown as a VW concept car (same designer as the
Concept1), but when they decided to actually make the car, they felt
it fit better under the Audi brand. The real pisser about the TT is
that it seems to have taken up the market space that VW was suppose
to fill with the long rumored SciroccoIII, which is a pity, since I
never felt the Corraddo was a worthy successor to the SciroccoII.
"Juice" <joe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:TCvw6.14005$dL4.1...@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu...
>
>
> I always thought of new beetle as nothing more than a sale gimmick
> playing on nostalgia by simple chassis conversion on a golf
>
> Juice
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 6.5.8 for non-commercial use <http://www.pgp.com>
iQA/AwUBOsNIugO3tw2TqB1hEQLP7wCgzRh0tbC0jIXr2tZfBYLtlukD4xsAmgNm
9baTCKTmvPTu1HEK8Ny2CoVR
=mcuZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----