| |
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
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
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 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 hole I’ve made :( . I have been preparing a fuller response on several of
the issues raise, which I’ll finish and post soon.
But because you’ve actually come up with some well thought out constructive
criticism rather than just trashing me for dubious ends or just to be part of
the anti-(perceived)nazi bandwagon, I will respond.
Thanks for your feedback, it is appreciated.
| |
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 agree with you on the photography. My camera is old, but at this point I’m not
able to upgrade due to personal circumstances. As it is, I have a window of
about half an hour per day where I am able to take pics this good.
I hoped I made it a bit easier to look at the pics by including them in the
post, rather than giving a link.
| |
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.
|
I was going for something smooth and sleek, with just a hint that there is some
awesome technology just below the surface. This clearly didn’t work.
| |
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.
|
Thanks. I am not much of a space builder, but I am keen to expand my skills.
I’ll have a look at those.
| |
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).
|
Yeah. I can see spinning would be cool. Thanks for the idea. And inset panels
too (that’s what I was trying to do with the grills).
| |
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.
|
Well, I thought of it as ‘anti-grav’ but yes, I guess it does need something
more to show it. Thanks.
| |
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.
|
I was trying to imply simplicity in operation. The Grand Fuhrer, might not be
terribly bright, for instance, and could cope with nothing more complex than
simple scoort controls.
| |
‘Ra! for the return of the bubble canopy.
|
You like it? I tend to think if it doesn’t have a bubble dome, it’s not spacy
enough.
| |
Basically, the whole thing needs fleshing out. Bigger, thicker, more thought
put into the details, and please, please, please, better photography.
|
Fair enough.
| |
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.
|
You raise some good issues there, Allister. I’ll address them (along with
others) in the more detailed post which I am preparing.
| |
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,
|
Cheers!
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
I was trying to imply simplicity in operation. The Grand Fuhrer, might not be
terribly bright, for instance, and could cope with nothing more complex than
simple scoort controls.
|
scoort? I googled it, but all I found was references to dutch websites about
soccer. Lar, maybe you could help me with my google technique????
ROSCO
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
I was trying to imply simplicity in operation. The Grand Fuhrer, might not
be terribly bright, for instance, and could cope with nothing more complex
than simple scoort controls.
|
scoort?
|
Look, its a typo. I tried to type ‘scooter’, but I got it wrong. I make
mistakes, okay. Some bigger than others. Much bigger (this whole thread is
probably a big mistake). This was a small mistake. Why bother harping on such a
small point? Why not just flame me for being a troll or a nazi (or both!) and be
done with it?!?
| |
I googled it, but all I found was references to dutch websites about
soccer. Lar, maybe you could help me with my google technique????
|
Not only do we have people over-reacting to the MOC, we have people dragging in
all sorts of stuff. Face it, some people can google better than others. You need
to internalise it and move on. Please don’t drag in more conflict. Please don’t.
I’m having a hard enough time of it already, without all this extraneous stuff
cropping up.
Regards
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
I was trying to imply simplicity in operation. The Grand Fuhrer, might not be
terribly bright, for instance, and could cope with nothing more complex than
simple scoort controls.
|
This sort of post-hoc rationalisation for shoddy work is more popularly known as
‘continually laying bubble’, after a certain semi-famous
thread.
Keep layin’ it(1), bubble boy. 3o:) (2)
Cheers,
Allister
(1) to turn a phrase.
(2) and I don’t even know what teabagging is.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
I was trying to imply simplicity in operation. The Grand Fuhrer, might not
be terribly bright, for instance, and could cope with nothing more complex
than simple scoort controls.
|
This sort of post-hoc rationalisation for shoddy work is more popularly known
as ‘continually laying bubble’, after a certain semi-famous
thread.
|
Well, it wasn’t a post-hoc rationalisation. But you’re saying that if I want to
imply simplicity, then I have to do so in a complex way?
Interesting, but this:
| |
Keep layin’ it(1), bubble boy. 3o:) (2)
|
???
Whatever.
So much for your constructive criticism.
Regards
Richie Dulin
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
So much for your constructive criticism.
|
Many apologies. I was attempting to engage in this ‘smack talk’ thing that seems
to be all the rage, apparently without success. Didn’t mean to offend.
Cheers,
Allister
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
In lugnet.space, Richie Dulin wrote:
| |
So much for your constructive criticism.
|
Many apologies. I was attempting to engage in this ‘smack talk’ thing that
seems to be all the rage, apparently without success. Didn’t mean to offend.
|
My apologies too Allister. You’re one of the very few who’ve posted something
constructive in this thread. I over-reacted to your ‘smack talk’ (I have a
personal connection to a ‘bubble boy’, so I tend to think using the term as a
put-down is in particularly bad taste).
This thread has been a real drain on my emotional capital, and I have been
trying to get a proper explanation together. I will post it soon.
Cheers
Richie Dulin
|
|
|
