Eiji Hayashi (email@example.com)
Tue, 23 Nov 1999 00:31:51 GMT
>From: Tomonaga <Tomonaga@xtra.co.nz>
>Personally the simplest way is thus, if the MS can be clearly identified as
>'Gundam', based purely on appearance then it should be classified as such.
>think of a couple of MS named Gundam but fails this test eg MSZ-007 Mass
>produced Z Gundam, and there are other MS which pass this test despite not
>officially named Gundam Z Plus.
and who is to say how a Gundam should look like?!? They certainly don't
really have such obvious identification features. At one time the most
distinguishing feature of a Gundam was its prongs, but nowadays that
includes too many non_Gundams. Judging by looks alone is much too ambiguous.
>An interesting point to ponder:
>In ZZ Gundam, they replaced the head of Z Gundam with a Zaku head.
>even with the Zaku head it is a Gundam but can you still call it Gundam?
>it rolled out of the factory in this form ? Would it be a Gundam ? I don't
yes.. because it was a Gundam BEFORE the modification. Doesn't matter what
you do to it afterwards.
>It seems to me that what makes Gundam a Gundam is based purely on physical
>appearance. Not production numbers, model numbers, nicknames etc...
That's like saying a MS is a Gundam to whoever wants it to be a Gundam. Its
much too ambiguous.
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
Gundam Mailing List Archives are available at http://gundam.aeug.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Nov 23 1999 - 09:34:36 JST