Richard Ramos wrote:
No, it does not make sense, if we put it in real-life perspective. Yes,
it's terribly impractical, why not just have guided weapons platforms
that can take out whole battleships and the like?
...
What we do know is that the future is not set, and that anything is
possible; to lock ourselves into only what can be done, what is
practical, is a sure way to not evolve, to not develop new technology.
When I watch Gundam, I look and see a possibility - not necessarily a
practical possibility, given today's standards, but as I stated earlier:
The future is not set.
Excellent post, Richie!
Indeed I still enjoy First Gundam as well as many mecha anime, and
build giant robot models. But the difference between me and many
Gundam fans is that I feel Gundam shows (Seed, igLoo, G00) in 21st
Century is struggling to maintain cutting edge relevance. Back in
late 70s, Gundam was cutting edge. Losing cutting edge status makes
watching Gundam either a nostalgic or a childish indulgence (hence my
reference to Power Ranger).
What many fans are confusing about my view is not that I want to hold
back anime physics based on conservative imagination of real world
sci/tech. I actually want to _progress_ anime physics based on the
latest sci/tech we've seen in the 28 years since 1979. Ignoring the
real world progress like the internet, AI, miniaturization and modern
military strategy and tactics is what makes the current crop of Gundam
sad to watch.
Also people missed my point about "practical technology". Here, Chris
is an ally: it's the economy, stupid! And also one more point: people
prefer not to die. No amount of anime physics can retocon the fact
that people, in general, don't enjoy dying. So in the context of
Gundam, I don't want to get into a discussion if "X" is
technologically possible; let's agree, within Gundam, ANYTHING is
POSSIBLE. But let's discuss, within some imagined environment like a
Minovsky battlefield, what technology is most LIKELY to bring VICTORY.
So take two very important military themes from Gundam itself: lack
of resource (economy*) and lack of soldiers (death**); and discuss
what weapon systems either side would use to bring VICTORY with finite
amount of resource and finite number of soldiers. The issues of
"economy" and "death" is universal and unchanged by Minovsky physics,
fusion reactor and beam weapons.
* - why economy is an important theme in Gundam: the middle part of
First Gundam, as well as the second half of 08MST, was built against
the backdrop of Battle of Odessa. And Odessa is one huge fight over
resource (mining).
** - why death is an important theme in Gundam: (1) the whole idea of
First Gundam was that WB and Gundam fell into the hands of junior
officers and civilian kids because of the loss of the majority of
qualified soldiers on the Fed side during the early part of OYW; (2)
by the end of OYW, we have heard the similar thing out of both sides
Revil, Krishnia, Bright and Char: that the likes of super weapons
Gundam, Gelgoogs, Big Zam (and NT) gives your side only small
advantage, what really decided the victory was plain old numerical
superiority of (non-NT) manpower. A GM is no match for Gelgoog, a
Ball is no match for Zaku, but Fed just flooded A Bao A Qu with Mao
Zedong-like "sea of men tactic".
Look, unlike Star Trek and Star Wars, Gundam invites fans to be
critical about logic and sense. So let's see Gundam creators (and
fans) stand up to the scrutiny.
--
Dr. Core
--------------------------------------------------
The Gundam Mailing List MK-II [email protected]
Archives: http://www.gundam.com/gml
Help: Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] with this in
the BODY: help list
