|
Post by Philip on Oct 18, 2004 9:37:15 GMT -5
Ah, now we are getting somewhere though it’s kind of hard to discuss current marine imagery when you haven’t kept up to date with the GW stuff. Unfortunately I can’t post/ send out art produced under contract, but there are many images on the net. Space Marine imagery has been changing for quite a while; it is becoming less like the miniatures and more like the fluff (if that makes any sense). Working for the BL one aspect that quickly came to light are the differences between fluff and miniature. The BL asked me to make the marines in my art look ‘real’ rather than like the miniatures, and this accounts for the differences. Miniatures by their very (small) nature are out of proportion - heads are too big for one thing, but if the miniatures where to match the ‘fluff scale’, a marine miniature would be quite large, getting on for so 40mm or so, and the whole range would have smaller heads. The only problem is that the tiny heads would be very hard to paint. So, my art is not bound by the miniature range (think of miniatures as ‘caricatures’ of a marine) At the moment the artist I think has done quite a lot to change the Marine image over the last few years is Paul Dainton, as he paints his marines to ‘fluff scale’. His depictions of marines are proportioned so they look 7 to 8 feet tall, the legs are much thicker, and the overall effect is a far more realistically proportioned Marine. Currently Marines are giants and are at least four times stronger than average human because they at least four time more massive. This has been the way for quite a while now. The latest changes in 4E is the introdution of a stronger ‘Gothic’ feel to the marines, more individuality and personalisation. The new art is, well, brilliant! Have a look; you never know you may even like it.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 18, 2004 12:37:44 GMT -5
...it’s kind of hard to discuss current marine imagery when you haven’t kept up to date with the GW stuff. That's not quite what I said, but it is true that I am no aware of every single piece of artwork out there. I try and look through the books when I can, and I also have copies of the various editions that have been... donated... to me, but again I find no justification in parting with substantial quantites of cash for a product which is in no way useful to me. Unfortunately I can’t post/ send out art produced under contract, but there are many images on the net. I presumed so, but it means that there is little chance of 'converting' me to this latest revision of Marines. Space Marine imagery has been changing for quite a while; it is becoming less like the miniatures and more like the fluff (if that makes any sense). It does make sense. Indeed, as I have mentioned numerous times before in other threads (and I believe here), one must always take into account the 'context' before one immediately assumes the validity of a 'thing'. Overall the transition from 1E to 4E has been a shift from 'sci-fi/fantasy' (the fantasy a by-product of the close development from WFB) to what is increasingly "high fantasy". I'm not walking about wizards, spells, or whatever but a shift towards 'heroic fantasy'. Here it is the individual that is important, not the 'gadgets' which are ultimtely viewed as plot devices... (Incidentally, someone once pointed out what a 'plot' and 'plot device' truly meant, at least in certain nihilistic/Lovecraftian genres. The 'plot' is an approximately rectangular hole in the ground about six foot deep. A 'plot device' was anything that got the 'hero' into the plot!) Thus the 'gadgets' become secondary to the 'heroic narrative'. After all, without the 'hero' what use is the gadget? Thus the movements seen in 3E which, presumably, are further manifested into 4E. The BL asked me to make the marines in my art look ‘real’ rather than like the miniatures, and this accounts for the differences. And why did you decide that they needed to be four times the size of a human. Even if we discount the counting difficulties exhibited on the only scale drawing that I've seen of a Marine, they do not appear to be four times larger. It just seems that 'heroic imagery' (e.g. I believe you doubled their mass because of a 'heroic factor'?) is doing roundabouts, reinforcing itself as 'real' when referring to itself. Four times larger? There is only so much possibility for expansion of human physiology since their 'height' is only approximately 30% taller... At the moment the artist I think has done quite a lot to change the Marine image over the last few years is Paul Dainton, as he paints his marines to ‘fluff scale’. His depictions of marines are proportioned so they look 7 to 8 feet tall, the legs are much thicker, and the overall effect is a far more realistically proportioned Marine. I do not know who did the drawing, but about the single best ('cool') new image of a Marine was on the front cover to Soul Drinker. Again, I'm finding it difficult to solely use the 'art' to explain the four times strength and the limitations to PA... The new art is, well, brilliant! Have a look; you never know you may even like it. I like the art just fine... it is mostly very inspiring. Some of the images from Inquis Exterminatus are extremely inspiring, even some of Blanche's artwork which I normally dislike intensely. (As long as you don't try and persuade by that Miller is any good... that I will not accept! ) The thing is... Well, I don't see the art as defining things. With my poor visual imagination Marines weren't really broken before. Strong and big, yes, but 'heroic factor' or otherwise still not four times the strength. And given that size is not (strictly, anyway) related to strength... and the shift to 'heroic fantasy' redefining the approach to technology... I'm trying to justify your changes given the balance of the 'fluff', but it is only possible in the context of a change to 'heroic fantasy'. Ah, heck. It is one of those points where we get into the concept that sometimes the image isn't everything and... Ah well.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 18, 2004 13:36:17 GMT -5
I'm double-posting more for clarity than to increase the post count! I've just taken a look at the two art books released by GW/BL and, once again, I'm see little justification on physiological grounds (i.e. getting them to work) for rehashing the Marines. Marines in PA - and the two are inextricably linked in the imagery - look like, broadly, they work. Marines in terminator armour, on the other hand, are right out of luck... Perhaps we will end up with Marines in the first company having to be specially 'crafted' so that they can operate the thing? Again, I'm finding it difficult to justify the stance taken by your artistic interpretation and, of course, Inquisitor. (Note that I'm not linking them, but the two approaches are consistent with each other but need not be defined as the same approach... as it were.) I am confused as to the requirement of changing a physiology that, with one or two exceptions, worked just fine. (And the exceptions have been, from what I remember of the above 'discussion', been exacerbated in the 'new vision', i.e. problematic rib cage.) So why not treat this as a sales pitch? Persuade me why Marine physiology needed to be revamped when previous artwork showed it to be viable (not counting terminator armour), what the advantages are in the balance of the universe when one considers that I personally will not adopt a "high fantasy" approach (preferring sci-fantasy)? Why should I devalue technology merely because of the self-referential and circular 'fluff' which tends to mechanically and artistically reinforce "heroic fantasy" concepts? Why should I give Marines a 'strength' of 40 beyond the fact that recent artwork has emphasised the 'size' of a Marine (but they're still only 30% taller!)? Everyone has their own 'suspension of disbelief' threshold and thus far the above suggestions have exceeded that threshold by at least a factor of two... Hmmn... that might come off as aggressive, but it's not meant to be. It's just that I find little justification for the changes that you seem to have made, either from the artwork, the majority of the 'fluff' that springs to mind, except in terms of focussing and enhancing certain features in the genre shift...
|
|
|
Post by CELS on Oct 18, 2004 14:54:38 GMT -5
I asked Adrian Smith personally about his drawings of Space Marines, and he did not say that he put too much weight on anatomy. I asked about shoulders, hips and hands especially, but he obviously went for the 'rule of cool', just like the guy who did the recent Marneus Calgar drawing.
In other words, a huge suit of armour with nearly human proportions looks cooler than a huge suit of armour that looks stocky, with tiny hands, narrow shoulders and hips, and a small helmet.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 18, 2004 20:01:17 GMT -5
And therein, I feel, lies at least a part of the point and what I was trying to get at earlier. We have a cool concept for armour but people realise that it doesn't quite fit anatomically (although it's not that bad except around the pelvis) so instead of redesigning the armour you redesign the soft squidgey thing inside. On a marketting basis it's sensible... then you don't have to invalidate all the lovely little miniatures that people have bought. (Although to be fair, edition upgrades is something that I'm surprised that GW hasn't used: perhaps 'forcing' people to buy new miniatures would be going a tad too far! ) Again, though, this is all partly due to what I consider to be my poor visual imagination... I never had too many problems with the artwork since I always dealt with an imaginary box composed of all the attributes rather than predicated upon an image. Always has been and is both a blessing and a curse... it means that while I find the artwork inspiring, I tend not to get too caught up in it. My assumption is that Marines work in PA therefore it is shaped appropriately to allow them to function, rather than changing the Marine to fit into a shell determined by the art... It is that whole suspension of disbelief malarky... <sigh> Thus when I see the changing artwork, I'm not overtly fussed about it. I tend to ignore it in favour of the original description, go "Cool" and that's about it. I don't let it concern me, which is why I have a problem with some of the information from Inquisitor. It actually buys into some of these changes and, admittedly, the shift towards "heroic fantasy" (just a working description; there's probably a better term for it, although I must admit I laughed when someone used the term 'gothic fantasy'... I'm hoping that it wasn't Phillip as I type this!). The whole Marine punch on average causing the same 'damage' as a plasma gun is representative of this, where the 'cool' game mechanics and flow of those mechanics over-rides what I would consider a more reasoned approach. Ah well, each to his own. I await to be 'sold' on the concept. It has been known for someone to so astound me with an idea that I've immediately converted by entire interpretation of the 40k universe. Indeed, someone managed to get me to switch from sci-fi to sci-fantasy! Maybe it will happen here...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 19, 2004 10:04:35 GMT -5
Four times larger? There is only so much possibility for expansion of human physiology since their 'height' is only approximately 30% taller... In calculating the mass of the marine I did make a few guesses, ones that I hope were reasonably consistent with the fluff (art). You’re welcome to have a look - I’ve posted my calculations below; First up: A 30% increase in height doesn’t correspond to a 30% increase in weight (I’m not saying you contested this bty ). A cube of 100 yields; 100x100x100=1,000,000 Increasing the cube by 30%; A cube of 130 yields; 130x130x130=2,197,000 An overall increase of 30% in all dimensions would more than double the volume and therefore weight of an object. However the problem here is that while the marine may be 25-30% taller, he’s at least 100% broader and deeper. Appling this to the cube; A cube 130x200x200 yields; 130x200x200 = 5,200,000. How does that help in working out the weight of a complex shape like a marine? Fortunately the increase is relative;
Example of an object with a height of 1000 and width and depth of 100;
1000x100x100 = 10,000,000
1300x130x130 = 21,970,000
1300x200x200 = 52,000,000
The same increase can be seenTherefore; The increase in weight is consistent no matter what the actual starting dimensions are, even with complex shapes. So a human body increased in overall dimension by 30% will increase weight by 2.197 times. A human body increased by 30% in height, but 100% broader and 100% deeper will increase the weight by 5.2 times (five times heavier! Don’t worry he gets a trim…) If the average US male weighs in at 175lbs, and just under 6’, and a marine is 30% taller, 100% broader and 100% deeper, the marine will weigh 5.2 times as much. 175lbs x 5.2 = 910lbs at around 7’9”However marines aren’t an even increase, so I cut a bit off and rounded it up to a range of 700-800lbs. PS: I’m well aware this is far from proper science, and was used originally as a guestimate I didn’t think I would actually have to rely on it! Out of completeness, a male who is 30% larger overall would be 175lbs x 2.197 = 384.475lbs at 7’9” (which compares fairly well to actual weights of tall humans) This is how I went about figuring the mass of a marine, it’s not perfect, but it gives you an idea of my thoughts. As for a ‘sales pitch’ that these are the dimensions that should be used for ASP? I’ll have to get back to you on that, perhaps with some pretty pictures but that may take a while
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 19, 2004 21:56:00 GMT -5
The thing is, your arguments are based around disproportionate increases in shape with proportionate (and 'heroic factor') increases in mass... At least in the way that you're arguing at the moment.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 20, 2004 0:29:55 GMT -5
The thing is, your arguments are based around disproportionate increases in shape with proportionate (and 'heroic factor') increases in mass... At least in the way that you're arguing at the moment. I’m not too sure what you are driving at here, you seem to be suggesting that the increase in mass is wrong because it is ‘proportionate’ whereas the size increase is ‘disproportionate’. Would you care to elaborate?
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 20, 2004 11:46:01 GMT -5
Well, first off, why the 30% increase in linear height results in a 5.2 increase in mass using a start weight of US average male. The whole having twice the shoulder width and chest depth thing... And, yes, I understand that a small increase in linear distance can have a dramatic effect upon volume when you're dealing with, say, spheres... But even while disproportionately altering the thoracic volume to compound upon GW's problems there, you're not going to be significantly affecting the mass...
Extrapolating from body builder's weight, etc., and allow for a non-linear increase still doesn't take them up to the levels that you're talking about. And mass is a separate issue to both size and strength...
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 20, 2004 12:48:56 GMT -5
Well, first off, why the 30% increase in linear height results in a 5.2 increase in mass using a start weight of US average male. The whole having twice the shoulder width and chest depth thing... And, yes, I understand that a small increase in linear distance can have a dramatic effect upon volume when you're dealing with, say, spheres... But even while disproportionately altering the thoracic volume to compound upon GW's problems there, you're not going to be significantly affecting the mass... Extrapolating from body builder's weight, etc., and allow for a non-linear increase still doesn't take them up to the levels that you're talking about. And mass is a separate issue to both size and strength... I explained all of that in my second to last post, if there is a problem with the math could point it out to me? I’d appreciate it
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 20, 2004 16:49:27 GMT -5
Well... yes. Basically you haven't justified why a 7'7" individual should mass 900 lbs or, if you apply the "heroic factor" even more. Nor why they should have significantly expanded thoraxes beyond a bit of additional space for organs... Nor why they have to be revised significantly into PA (problem with copyright there, though)... Basically, your suggestions supersede by "suspension of disbelief threshold" by significant margins and I am not yet convinced despite your 'mathematics' of the validity, more so given the 'balance of the 'fluff''... But it's swings and roundabouts. My increasing impression is that I find the 'modern' Marine to be "munchkin", an artefact of inappropriate assumptions. Problem is that is a bias that has been there all the time... There has been no 'sale' of the modern Marine to me other than it is, somehow, "40k"...
|
|
|
Post by ErnestBorgnine on Oct 25, 2004 1:41:26 GMT -5
It should also be noted that as you increase the size and mass of the body, more and more muscle and bone is required merely to support its own weight. Indeed, if you make the ribs, shoulders, arms etc. heavy enough (or merge the the ribs together into a single plate *ahem*), you're going to need radical redesign of the breathing apparatus of the human anatomy.
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 25, 2004 6:55:56 GMT -5
Admittedly that does up the weight again... but again I find my "suspend disbelief roll" to have significantly failed to believe that they weigh over a 1,000 lbs or, indeed, even 700 lbs. And the rib cage is a cool image, therefore we have to except it! Overall, though, a Marine in PA is four to five times stronger than an average human. The design and the 'fluff' are consistent on this matter. The trouble is when you get into the non-armoured strength (and mass of the trooper), as well as the specific function... I find the idea of ST40 Marines to be munchkin and so far away from the initial realisation of the Marines as to be laughable. I still see no reason why it should be otherwise... Indeed, once again, I find it strange that you redesign the Marine when it is the armour that is the problem. I can see the commercial reasons, but they're not entirely valid for a 'fluff'-based project even if they might, unfortunately, some day become canonical. But it seems that the thread is over.
|
|
|
Post by Philip on Oct 31, 2004 9:28:38 GMT -5
Well it seems my ideas are heading in the right direction…
7’6” 780lbs, officially a bit tall but it seems (7’ 700lbs) 7-8 foot is about right fluff wise.
As for the ribs; they are fused when held up (same as breathing in/ lungs fully inflated), so all breathing is handled by the diaphragm. As humans we spend most of the time using our diaphragm to breathe only really using the ribs when we exert ourselves.
One day I’ll get those pics to you Kage…
|
|
|
Post by Kage2020 on Oct 31, 2004 19:46:59 GMT -5
Well it seems my ideas are heading in the right direction… I cannot but inherently question your values again, but then again you seem to be in charge of the 'revision' of the Marines. Maybe I'm overtly biased by the "superhero weight factor" of two... 7’6” 780lbs, officially a bit tall but it seems (7’ 700lbs) 7-8 foot is about right fluff wise. If we're getting technical, then the only scale picture of a Marine questions the numeracy of the artist. With that tongue-in-cheek (but accurate) comment aside, I still question the mass... But then again I do see the motivation of a revision of the physiology as valid, or necessary. Kinda cool, yes, but still not necessary. One thing that I have to keep on telling myself over and over again is simply this: "If it 'ain't broke, don't fix it." I have a tendecy of trying to fix that which isn't broken. The same situation applies here. The Marines aren't that broken, but then again my opinion doesn't seem overtly to matter in the grand scheme of things. As for the ribs; they are fused when held up (same as breathing in/ lungs fully inflated), so all breathing is handled by the diaphragm. Read upon the literature of what happens to people who are crucified. I found it quite illuminating... and from experience and observation, most people tend to use 'whole' breathing in times of stress. Isn't it convenient that Marines are - somehow - maxed out? Tell you what... If you're going to do anything to Marines in the imagery then get rid of the ridiculous and argumentative 'fused ribs' malarky. (And, yes, that is the original definition of 'malarky'.) Expand the ribs into 'ring' mail equivalent... Makes more sense with the overall 'delayed fusion' principle of the Marines without being a poor excuse for science and a lot of 'hand-waving'. Oh yes, and amusingly enough you even get a weakness for Marines in true "let's not make yet another invulnerable superhman fashion" for those with the know-how... ;D One day I’ll get those pics to you Kage… I would appreciate it. Maybe I would be swayed by the power of the imagery rather than... well, let's not go there. We disagree. At this point the overall 'effect' in terms of 'fluff' is the same. And when it comes down to it, that's all that matters to GW (e.g. Marines always wear their armour, yada yada blah blah.)
|
|