The monkey says

"HammerheadFistpunch" (hammerheadfistpunch)
09/09/2020 at 13:13 • Filed to: rants, sketch monkey

I’m starting to agree less and less with the sketch monkey. I don’t know why but lately all the stuff he does is looking less and less “better” to me.

This take I can’t abide. 3 reasons

1. The effect is terrible. It’s not unique in a good way

2. This is NOT a good representation of the original, it’s NOT call back in any way shape or form to the original in spirit or corporeally.

3. I completely disagree with the idea that the choices are between this melting frigidaire or something that blends into the automotive landscape. They could have made something interesting and not ugly.

I think this design and analysis are perfect examples of missing for the forest the for trees. I think designers are looking at things like detail symmetry, character lines, continuity, blah blah blah. They do all the individual things “right” and the end result is a harmonious mess.

It’s lovely from a designers point of view that it has matching face and butt mustaches and that the crease in the body goes from light to light...but the end effect just doesn’t work.

This is a “graphical” treatment over bad hardpoints like a “ !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ” or “ !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! ”. It “doesn’t look right” not because of some minor d pillar treatment, it doesn’t look right because it looks like they did the best they could with the shape they already had...only they didn’t already have a shape.

It’s a bad design for another large SUV. It’s a VERY bad design for something with the design weight of the Grand Wagoneer.

DISCUSSION (7)

Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available > HammerheadFistpunch
09/09/2020 at 13:16

I never quite got on board with that guy. I may just give it a crack myself but can identify a few key features of the Wagoneer it is missing.

Tapering rear pillar to a point.

Spindly pillars and hefty roof visually can’t exactly be replicated but it does make the body colored chunky pillars look weird

Raised middle hood portion tied into the grille

The current design would make a very nice Jeep but not a very good Wagoneer and that’s the problem. Design wide it’s impressive but it ignores the source material.

I may give it a crack but it'll be a hand sketch and I probably won't post it here. It could be fun though.

415s30 W123TSXWaggoIIIIIIo ( •_•))°) > HammerheadFistpunch
09/09/2020 at 13:18

I don’t see what he sees, maybe he needs a new prescription.

For Sweden > HammerheadFistpunch
09/09/2020 at 13:27

It is with a heavy heart I must announce that the youtubers are at it again

jminer > HammerheadFistpunch
09/09/2020 at 13:30

That angle in the thumbnail finally made me realize what the wagoneer reminds me of. A Ford Flex.

It looks like a bumpier Flex, in a bad way.

Mercedes Streeter > Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available
09/09/2020 at 13:57

I never quite got on board with that guy...
...Design wide it’s impressive but it ignores the source material.

Same. He frequently ignores the source material and just does his own thing. His “redesign” of the smart 453 was atrocious, not even a phoning it in. People didn’t like the 453 because it’s a two box design that reminds people of an ugly dog. His solution was to slap some awful VW Beetle style headlights on it then increased the rake of the windscreen, which just made it look like a derpy dog .

Who is the Leader - 404 / Blog No Longer Available > Mercedes Streeter
09/09/2020 at 14:26

Yes he seems to forget about the design constraints and style of the times that made the car in the first place. C ars were designed the way they were for a reason, not matter how bad. Frequently the final product looks like a prepro duction render that would create the production car and start the cy cl e over again.

Stef Schrader > HammerheadFistpunch
09/09/2020 at 17:17

THANK YOU. It’s such a flop. It looks more like a Hummer H2 than a Grand Wagoneer. Not even faux woodgrain can save it.