Chris Beilby (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Wed, 12 May 1999 12:46:48 -0700
> But one of the reasons why Gundam hsn't lost its spark after twenty
> years is that the creators keep stretching the definition of what is and
> isn't Gundam-like. While some fans would surely be happy with endless
> rehashes of the One Year War, that's a sure recipe for stagnation and
> creative brain death (think Star Trek Voyager). Supposedly, what Tomino's
> trying to do with this series is to encompass all the wacky coolness that
> recent Gundam creators have added to the saga... via homage, reference,
> whatever. If this kind of redefinition doesn't float your boat, then fair
> enough, but if you're clinging to a narrow definition of what is and
> isn't Gundam then I don't think you're going to enjoy this show any more
> than G Gundam...
Mark, you're absolutely right. While I don't like G-Gundam, or Gundam Wing, I do
realize that the differences in them from the 1YW Gundam shows is what makes them
valuable to the property. For me, the problem with G-Gundam was not in the
story, but rather the execution. The story is goofy, but it works. The problem
I have is the mecha design, which is just too over the top for my taste.
Likewise, Wing was another admirable attempt to change the definition of Gundam.
Whgat turns me off of it is that it just gets too melodramatic for me at times
(Not that the original continuity doesn't either...)
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu May 13 1999 - 04:49:07 JST