I started writing a follow-up to a couple posts which became a stream
of consciousness and ended up going everywhere and nowhere and almost
dropped it. But then more (English) info trickled out for G00 so let
me try to tie it back. Seems that Jason's original subject is even
more apropos now than then :)
Everything I've read about G00 just keep lowering my expectations.
There are some interesting new ideas: three (presumably) comparable
superpowers instead of two; the direct projection (credible or not)
from current day geopolitics; a purely materialistic focus on
controlling the means of production (it seems someone still remembers
Mr. Marx). But why do I get only bad feelings about it?
One major positive I read out of the articles is the tri-powers setup.
Presumably this won't be a "Good, Bad and the Forgettable" set up
common to both WW2 and OYW. The Good being Fed and Allies, Bad being
Zeon and Axis, and Forgettable being Side 6 and Switzerland. What a
coincidence that the BB Senshi side is bringing up Sangokuden at the
same time. In history (as OPPOSED to legends), none of the Three
Kingdoms had very noticeable moral authority or deficit compared to
the other two.
When I wrote: "There's the remote (ok pipedream) possibility that SD
Gundam Sangokuden might be conceived as a full length (multiple
"tankobon") manga series retelling a SD Gundam version of ROTK. Ok
it's a total pipedream." I was further thinking in the direction of a
3-way fight that's completely free of morality (of course an
impossibility in SD).
That's so much closer to "history" isn't it? From a Chinese
(detached) standpoint, there is no reason to be sympathetic to any
particular warlord or clan in Japanese warlord era, likewise to
Europe's Middle Age, likewise European would look at Chinese' Three
Kingdoms era without colored glasses of popular legends.
Ahh... but it could be pointless for G00... remember the protagonists
are a 4-persons Gundam team, so the antagonist could well be the trio
of superpowers as a whole.
And now without further ado, my original, unfinished rambling:
Bob Allen wrote:
I have to agree on this point. First Gundam was very much a product of it's
the late 70's with overpopulation being a big concern and the newest
technology being "learning computers", fusion reactors, and the latest in
military technology - a new form of ECM.
Exactly.
Chris Campbell wrote:
the idea of advanced human being, of prejudice surrounding them, and of
conflicts arising from said prejudice was both internally consistent and
very timely.
Indeed I was deeply attracted to that aspect of the show. But alas, I
was detracted by something and never got back to continue it. By then
Destiny's bad words of mouth had poisoned my interest in Seed. (BTW I
don't take a strong position on Seed)
Now, if we can get a "new" Gundam that has a good story that is well
executed to go with a good logical background we'd all very very happy.
So for the last few days I have been think what's really wrong with
Gundam. There's no question that recent shows have included some bit
of new tech development. G and Turn-A covered nanotech. Z, ZZ, Wing
and Seed covered genetic engineering. G and W covered AI. And so
on... But they are still very unsatisfying (to me). And so I wonder
if it's because all Gundam shows have to inherit some "truisms" from
First Gundam that's also a kind of "That 70s Show". I haven't worked
it all out in my head, so I am really open to discussion:
One thing is that: I wonder if WW2 was humanity's last ever
"classical" war. By that I mean, two sides with comparable technology
and numbers set up their troops across a front line and at a certain
moment, one side (sometime led by a mad man with blue-painted face)
make a charge and have a good old blood bath. Same way wars have been
fought since, well, before Romance of Three Kingdoms.
But since the end of WW2, parity has disappeared. Starting with
China's Civil War, Korean War, various wars of independence, to even
today's Iraq War, there's no such thing as parity. In every war, one
side has overwhelming technological or numerical advantage (or even
both) . When there's parity, as in USA vs USSR, there's no
(classical) war. Both sides engaged in subversion, proxy war, arms
race etc, but there's no full-on classical war. It's especially
remarkable that USSR slid, slowly and painfully, all the way down to
complete utter defeat without fighting a proper,
come-hell-and-high-water, war. One can argue many details and
whatever, but the main point is that, post-WW2, almost all wars were
one form or another of the Vietnam war: one side maintains at least a
20-years technological advantage and/or 10x numerical advantage and
the other side counters with suicidal tactics and fighting dirty.
Now the question is: is this just coincidental of the way the past 60
years had played out? Or there's something in human history that made
1945 a historical divide? That this is the natural pattern for the
next few centuries, even in the post-MAD (mutually assured
destruction) era? Now with Russia and China preparing to play bad
guys in Cold War II, maybe you won't believe me. But I still want to
hypothesize that "classical wars are over".
So why is that the case? I think the main reason is civilian
technology. Not military technology as Gundam fans like to believe.
Sure, nukes and ICBM has a major impact (MAD), but I think they had a
lesser effect than plain boring communication and transportation
technology. TV, cell phone (with photo/video capture), 747,
satellites, and also credit cards, Google, YouTube. So yes I guess I
am a fan of globalization now,
(and so it would have gone... everywhere and nowhere...)
--
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
