Subject:
|
Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.space
|
Date:
|
Mon, 15 Aug 2005 01:17:58 GMT
|
Highlighted:
|
!
(details)
|
Viewed:
|
4288 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.space, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
The Space Nazis™ are here!
|
Richie,
I’m sorry that your requests for more constructive criticism, something more
helpful than ‘not funny’ or not winning some mysterious contest, for example,
have thus far met with nothing but silence. If I may be so bold, I’d like to
offer some advice on ways I think this moc may be improved. Take it or leave it
as you will.
I’ll start with some general comments.
First of all, the photography is truly appalling. You really need to invest in a
better camera, or learn to use the one you’ve got properly. Most details are
lost in the very grainy, low resolution picture. Make it easy for us to look at
the pictures, or we won’t look at all.
I mentioned that most details are lost due to poor image quality, but the point
is probably moot considering the pointed lack of detailing there is to lose. The
overall shape, well yes, there’s probably a limit to what you can do with a
fairly basic geometric shape like a swastika, but you clearly haven’t even tried
to apporach that limit.
First off, take a look at what Jon Palmer does with similarly basic shapes in
his Alphabet Project.(near bottom of page)
By stylising the shape, adding strange little detail panels here and there it
becomes more of a spaceship, and less obviously the character that inspired it.
The appropriate level of how much of each is apparent is a personal thing, by my
considered opinion is that you’ve strayed too close to suggesting one shape (the
swastika) without enough suggestion of the other.
So how does one do that? Well, it’s all in the details. First of all, I’d have
made it a little bigger, but I understand you’re playing on the old spiffcraft
that was a fad here some time ago. This size still has some scope for
improvement.
The top surface is a little bland. Tiles and a few grills are a bit easy. If the
‘wings’ were 1 or 2 bricks deep, which would also add a bit of depth to a fairly
2D construction, you could insert some inset panels with some subtle greebling.
You could then also include some sort of thruster in the tip of each spoke. This
would suggest a spinning type of locomotion, which is unusual and cool. Then you
could get rid of those ridiculous brackets (I hesitate to even refer to them as
thrusters).
If possible, it would be cool to actually try and get the wings to rotate around
the cockpit, or at least suggest that they do.
The underside is, frankly, disappointing. I see no effort being put in here at
all. My seven year old could, and has done better. The ‘thrusters’ I’ve dealt
with above. The missiles, again, are ridiculous. You couldn’t use them for
insecticide, let alone genocide. With the thicker wings mentioned above, you
could put cool fold out panels in the outide wall of each wing (or put lasers in
two. With the thrusters and missiles gone, you can then make panels underneath
that suggest some cool anti-gravity technology.
The landing gear seems to serve it’s purpose, and no more compact solution
immediately presents itself. I’d leave them as they are.
The cockpit, from what little I can see of it, seems to be rather devoid of
detail. What, is there a set of handlebars in there? The Grand Fuhrer should
expect no less than 4 studs worth of instrumentation, and probably should have a
driver.
‘Ra! for the return of the bubble canopy.
Basically, the whole thing needs fleshing out. Bigger, thicker, more thought put
into the details, and please, please, please, better photography.
Now, as to the subject matter itself. Is it funny? If not, why not? How can it
be made funny? Is it possible to touch on such subject material and make it
funny at all? Mmmm. Thorny questions indeed.
I personally, don’t find much humour in mass mudering regimes, but you made no
mention of such policies being adopted by the Space Nazis, so I guess it’s still
open to debate wether that aspect should be considered.
To be honest, I’m not sure the idea of Space Nazis is itself the point of the
joke, if it’s even a joke at all. With every other node on the political
spectrum being turned into a space sub-theme, it’s only going to get harder to
come up with new ones as new builders try to carve their niche. It’s a logical
extension of this that perhaps makes it inevitable that the Space Nazis would
pop up sooner or later. Less a joke, I suppose, than it is a comment on certain
lugnet.space conventions. A better executed moc might have made this point more
effectively, but I can appreciate a certain amount of ironic humour in posting
such a basic moc as a new theme. Does that mean I ‘get’ it? I dunno.
All up, it’s a bit of a basic moc, but the idea is good, and has potential for
some cool and unusual ships. I encourage you to develop the theme further, and
you’ll find new ideas and improvements will almost present themselves. If the
build quality can be improved, it might even end up being a fairly popular
theme, in the same league as PCS or the Eastern Blok. I see no reason why you
can’t do that.
Cheers,
Allister
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
| (...) I wasn't going to respond again in this thread. I've just spent two days away from Lego, away from lugnet, sitting in the sunshine, trying to get my head around what I may have done, wondering if it will be possible to dig myself out of the (...) (19 years ago, 15-Aug-05, to lugnet.space, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz
|
| The Space Nazis™ are here! Here we see the Space Nazi Grand Fuhrer boarding the Schpiffkraft Hakenkreuz: (URL) Saluting the adoring crowd: (3 URLs) Here he is, snug in the Hakenkreuz's pilot's seat: (2 URLs) After a bad landing (not really, I just (...) (19 years ago, 8-Aug-05, to lugnet.space, FTX) !!
|
66 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
