(http://cache-02.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/02/jag_growler_e_06.jpg)
(http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/02/jag_growler_e_01.jpg)
(http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/02/jag_growler_e_04.jpg)
(http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/02/jag_growler_e_05.jpg)
(http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/02/jag_growler_e_02.jpg)
Ditch the retarded oversized wheels, and we have a pretty sweet looking E-Type. That is one sexy ass. :wub:
The rims do not work at all. And I don't like the headlamps for some reason. Other then that It's damn nice.
Why is it next to a Saab Viggen?
Yeah, I'd prefer single lamps, but it's still done pretty good. As for the Viggen, I dunno. Maybe the concept is Svedish?
Don't like the quad headlamps, but the rest looks great.
Fuck me that's sexy as all hell.
I find it too literal and very cliche.
Sechz
Want, other than the double headlamps.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 05:20:21 PM
I find it too literal and very cliche.
(http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbhkz6OCfo1qcof49o1_500.gif)
It doesn't fit in with Jag's new design language, and it doesn't look as upscale as new Jags are.
It's literal.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 05:34:58 PM
It doesn't fit in with Jag's new design language, and it doesn't look as upscale as new Jags are.
It's literal.
It's a design exercise meant to interpret what a modern E-Type might look like. It's supposed to be literal... Einstein.
I like it all, especially the 22" wire wheels :mask:
I like it a lot. I do agree with several of you that the headlights would look better as singles instead of doubles, and I'd want different wheels if I were a buyer, but those wire wheels don't look half bad on it.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 05:20:21 PM
I find it ... very cliche.
Because too many design houses do one-off E-Type interpretations?
Quote from: Tave on February 21, 2011, 06:51:53 PM
Because too many design houses do one-off E-Type interpretations?
No, because the lines look generic and overdone, and like any fanboi who wants to see a new E-type.
To me, it looks like a kit car. Like it's a C6 Vette underneath.
BEAUTIFUL!!! Need to change my pants.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 06:55:32 PM
To me, it looks like a kit car. Like it's a C6 Vette underneath.
They have that laser eye surgery in your area? You should look into that. Oh wait...... You can't see
They have that laser eye surgery in your area? You should look into that.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 05:20:21 PM
I find it too literal and very cliche.
Yep. I think if the XK were a little more lithe, it would be an adequate modern interpretation. It's got a little too much chub to be a modern E-Type
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 06:55:32 PM
No, because the lines look generic and overdone, and like any fanboi who wants to see a new E-type.
To me, it looks like a kit car. Like it's a C6 Vette underneath.
The purpose of designing a modern take on the classic E-Type, is to make it look like an E-Type, but modernized (du-rr). Have you ever seen a picture of the original E-Type? It's an overdone car, and it's beautiful.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 21, 2011, 07:05:54 PM
Yep. I think if the XK were a little more lithe, it would be an adequate modern interpretation. It's got a little too much chub to be a modern E-Type
But then it would be too literal and cliche.
They look like they just took the old one and removed all the class, dignity, and grace.
This looks generic and cliche, and far too literal. There is so much you can do with car design, and they just relegated themselves to a small little box.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 21, 2011, 07:05:54 PM
Yep. I think if the XK were a little more lithe, it would be an adequate modern interpretation. It's got a little too much chub to be a modern E-Type
The XK is where it's at.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 07:13:30 PM
They look like they just took the old one and removed all the class, dignity, and grace.
This looks generic and cliche, and far too literal. There is so much you can do with car design, and they just relegated themselves to a small little box.
The XK is where it's at.
Are you purposely being thick? Go back and read the posts.
Not bad but the series 2 coupe was just so gorgeous that any modern interpretation would be bound to seem lacking. I can't imagine why they put four headlights on it.
Quote from: Rockraven on February 21, 2011, 07:19:06 PM
Are you purposely being thick? Go back and read the posts.
Modern interpretation doesn't mean the thing has to be so literal. There is so much to do with those shapes, with that form.....but he chose to just make an old one look new.
Quote from: Rockraven on February 21, 2011, 07:11:51 PM
But then it would be too literal and cliche.
Cmon bro don't be an idiot. This thing is an E Type on 20" wire wheels. Not very imaginative or modern IMO, it's way uglier than the original
and the XK. Something combining the profile of the E Type with the modern details of the XK would be much better.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 21, 2011, 07:30:10 PM
Cmon bro don't be an idiot. This thing is an E Type on 20" wire wheels. Not very imaginative or modern IMO, it's way uglier than the original and the XK. Something combining the profile of the E Type with the modern details of the XK would be much better.
Thank god someone else gets it.
I think the new Camaro is a good example of good retro. Glances to the past, but it's a whole new affair. It's also the reason why I hate the Challenger so much.
I think we already did this car;
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/lawhog/lawhog2/importD631.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 07:22:43 PM
he chose to just make an old one look new.
Yes, that is the point.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 21, 2011, 07:30:10 PM
Cmon bro don't be an idiot. This thing is an E Type on 20" wire wheels. Not very imaginative or modern IMO, it's way uglier than the original and the XK. Something combining the profile of the E Type with the modern details of the XK would be much better.
(Almost) Everyone in here is gushing over it. I don't think you're going to sway many opinions by calling it "ugly."
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 07:34:27 PM
I think the new Camaro is a good example of good retro. Glances to the past, but it's a whole new affair. It's also the reason why I hate the Challenger so much.
Completely different situations. This thing isn't intended for mass production d00d, it's a one-off.
It's not even a one off, just a 3D model by some fan boi.
Quote from: Tave on February 21, 2011, 09:30:05 PM
Yes, that is the point.
And there is no imagination and not much creativity. It's too literal, and doesn't have much imagination aside from an ugly front fascia.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 10:46:29 PM
It's not even a one off, just a 3D model by some fan boi.
And there is no imagination and not much creativity. It's too literal, and doesn't have much imagination aside from an ugly front fascia.
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_63nSZQRZohE/TTqEwf9MN1I/AAAAAAAAJk0/-mx3-8Jq-kE/evar7.jpg)
Is it wrong that I love those wire wheels too? Damn this thing is hot. If they actually did build it, it would be my new Lottery Car.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 21, 2011, 11:04:43 PM
(http://i70.photobucket.com/albums/i87/Vannette_12/evar7.jpg)
What does this mean to me?
Point still stands. It has no imagination, and it's boring. If you guys wanna get off on having the same crap fed to you, go ahead.
Stuff like this is the reason why US cars are so bland.
Way to delete that picture. :lol:
I've had enough.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 11:14:34 PM
What does this mean to me?
Point still stands. It has no imagination, and it's boring. If you guys wanna get off on having the same crap fed to you, go ahead.
Stuff like this is the reason why US cars are so bland.
Ummmmm...This is British.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 10:46:29 PM
And there is no imagination and not much creativity. It's too literal, and doesn't have much imagination aside from an ugly front fascia.
You have used the word literal far too many times in this thread. We get it. You think it's just the original with a few tweaks. Please find a new way to express your opinion if you want to keep repeating it.
It's quite pretty.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 21, 2011, 11:04:43 PM
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_63nSZQRZohE/TTqEwf9MN1I/AAAAAAAAJk0/-mx3-8Jq-kE/evar7.jpg)
D00d that's so literal and cliche.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 21, 2011, 11:09:09 PM
Is it wrong that I love those wire wheels too? Damn this thing is hot. If they actually did build it, it would be my new Lottery Car.
I dunno, I really like the wire wheels too. I normally don't, but they seem very fitting for this car.
I think if they were smaller, the wheels would be alright. I do think that the wire wheels add something to it, though.
And 2o6, give me break. It looks good, and it's just a way to see what could have been, so to say. The point was obviously not to break new automotive design ground. Feel free to design one yourself.
Quote from: Tave on February 21, 2011, 09:30:05 PM
(Almost) Everyone in here is gushing over it. I don't think you're going to sway many opinions by calling it "ugly."
I was unaware that the point of this thread was to come to a consensus. Let me clarify- thanks for you guys opinions, here is mine: it's not a modern interpretation at all, it's an E-Type with less extreme proportions and cartoonishly huge wire wheels. As I said, a modern XK with less flubber would be a more accurate "modern interpretation of the E-Type".... in my opinion. In my opinion, there's little to nothing modern about it; the shape, the details, the size of the car all immediately scream "1960s sports car". In fact, thinking about it I see what exactly the connection is:
(http://www.earlydatsun.com/2000gt.jpg)
Now granted, obviously the Jag rendering is a bit more cab forward, but the use of chrome and general profile are very similar- much more so than any modern cars outside of TVRs. Design wise I don't see any connections to any cars today- other than the freakishly large wire wheels, which are probably the most incongruent part of the design. If someone threw 20s on an actual E Type you guys would be sacrificing goats to seek out the Jaguar gods' mercy so I'm not sure what the positive consensus is about.
I don't like the headlights, and I don't think it's modern enough. Although modern means it'd weigh 4,500 lbs.
What a stunning effort. That rear quarter panel is by far the best; the way it flows lusciously into the roof, wheelarch and door is exquisite, and pure E-type. I love how the sills gently fold away under the doors, too, like the Maserati GranTurismo. I'll even take the wire wheels, although preferably downsized two inches. More importantly, however, the proportions are delightful - I haven't seen as good an interpretation of a classic fastback coupe in a long, long time. This is good design, irrespective of what you think of the style.
I would like to see an example with single headlights, as others have said. But my God, the more I look at it, the better it gets.
It looks kinda sharp to me!
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 22, 2011, 05:02:00 AM
I was unaware that the point of this thread was to come to a consensus. Let me clarify- thanks for you guys opinions, here is mine: it's not a modern interpretation at all, it's an E-Type with less extreme proportions and cartoonishly huge wire wheels. As I said, a modern XK with less flubber would be a more accurate "modern interpretation of the E-Type".... in my opinion. In my opinion, there's little to nothing modern about it; the shape, the details, the size of the car all immediately scream "1960s sports car". In fact, thinking about it I see what exactly the connection is:
(http://www.earlydatsun.com/2000gt.jpg)
Now granted, obviously the Jag rendering is a bit more cab forward, but the use of chrome and general profile are very similar- much more so than any modern cars outside of TVRs. Design wise I don't see any connections to any cars today- other than the freakishly large wire wheels, which are probably the most incongruent part of the design. If someone threw 20s on an actual E Type you guys would be sacrificing goats to seek out the Jaguar gods' mercy so I'm not sure what the positive consensus is about.
+1000000
Said everything about the design I was thinking in my head.
I don't HATE the design, stylistically. I think it is pretty, and does look attractive. But I don't see the second coming that you guys see....it's just too generic and far too much of a literal interpretation of the old E-type. The overall proportions of the car (not long enough, much too tall) ruin the grace that was the old E-type, which was such a stunning car. The shut lines even mimic the old car, which is pretty terrible, boring and unimaginative.
It just looks like a kit car from some generic company that uses a C6 vette underneath or something.
Single headlights and smaller wheels (20s instead of 22s, maybe) and I would kill to own one.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 10:46:29 PM
It's not even a one off, just a 3D model by some fan boi.
And there is no imagination and not much creativity. It's too literal, and doesn't have much imagination aside from an ugly front fascia.
But the Juke is cohesive and good looking? :confused:
Boy, you really are out there.
Quote from: hounddog on February 22, 2011, 01:51:18 PM
But the Juke is cohesive and good looking? :confused:
Boy, you really are out there.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 22, 2011, 02:35:04 PM
Don't put words in my mouth.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 07:21:41 PM
It is. The Juke is very cohisive, the lines work well together and everything is as the designer intended.
:huh:
Quote from: hounddog on February 22, 2011, 02:56:23 PM
:huh:
I said cohesive, not good looking. (Although I do like the way it looks)
:ohyeah:
Quote from: MX793 on February 21, 2011, 04:56:36 PM
Don't like the quad headlamps, but the rest looks great.
What I was going to say. Even like the huge wire wheels.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 10:46:29 PM
And there is no imagination and not much creativity. It's too literal, and doesn't have much imagination aside from an ugly front fascia.
Actually, since you're obviously new to this whole "automotive design" thing, it's MUCH harder and takes more effort/creativity to make a modern version of an old car and leave it's identity intact than draw a clean-sheet-of-paper design. The current XK is what you are describing (a clean sheet of paper with a couple of nods to the old XK). This has all the design cues intact, and proportional (except the quad headlights), while being both modern and very obviously NOT an actual XKE, yet still undeniably an XKE. That's actually much harder to do, as so many kit car builders have found out when making replicas.
Seriously, go back to art school and take some classes before mouthing off anymore.
Quote from: hounddog on February 22, 2011, 02:56:23 PM
:huh:
here, I'll fix it for you:
Quote from: 2o6 on February 21, 2011, 07:21:41 PM
It is. This Jaguar is very cohesive, the lines work well together and everything is as the designer intended.
The design was what the designers intended, and it stayed close to the concept (Jaguar XKE).
:thumbsup:
Nice use of editing.
:praise:
Quote from: ChrisV on February 22, 2011, 04:17:59 PM
Actually, since you're obviously new to this whole "automotive design" thing, it's MUCH harder and takes more effort/creativity to make a modern version of an old car and leave it's identity intact than draw a clean-sheet-of-paper design. The current XK is what you are describing (a clean sheet of paper with a couple of nods to the old XK). This has all the design cues intact, and proportional (except the quad headlights), while being both modern and very obviously NOT an actual XKE, yet still undeniably an XKE. That's actually much harder to do, as so many kit car builders have found out when making replicas.
Seriously, go back to art school and take some classes before mouthing off anymore.
I'm not going to argue anymore since I have well established my point. Everything that I and Sporty have said is why I feel that this rendering sucks.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 22, 2011, 09:30:39 PM
I'm not going to argue anymore since I have well established my point. Everything that I and Sporty have said is why I feel that this rendering sucks.
Establishing you're views and being able to defend them coherently are two different things. You are obviously unwilling to learn anything, and instead of trying to, you would rather say "my opinion is worth more than knowing what I'm talking about."
Have fun getting anywhere in the design biz that way.
Quote from: ChrisV on February 27, 2011, 02:57:57 PM
Establishing you're views and being able to defend them coherently are two different things. You are obviously unwilling to learn anything, and instead of trying to, you would rather say "my opinion is worth more than knowing what I'm talking about."
Have fun getting anywhere in the design biz that way.
I don't think 2o6 has been incoherent at all actually
Nor do I see what his "experience" has to do with the validity of his opinion. If he agreed w/you his opinion would be no more or less valid
What is there to "learn" here? He doesn't like the design and stated why pretty clearly.
Quote from: ChrisV on February 27, 2011, 02:57:57 PM
Establishing you're views and being able to defend them coherently are two different things. You are obviously unwilling to learn anything, and instead of trying to, you would rather say "my opinion is worth more than knowing what I'm talking about."
Have fun getting anywhere in the design biz that way.
I'm taking the high road, but honestly, this forum and the circle-jerk you guys have here is not the end-all of the internet.
There are other opinions.
http://carspyshots.net/showthread.php?t=19672
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 27, 2011, 03:08:07 PM
I don't think 2o6 has been incoherent at all actually
Nor do I see what his "experience" has to do with the validity of his opinion. If he agreed w/you his opinion would be no more or less valid
What is there to "learn" here? He doesn't like the design and stated why pretty clearly.
Apparently, because I don't think the same way they do, I I'm automatically wrong because I'm young.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 27, 2011, 03:13:51 PM
There are other opinions.
http://carspyshots.net/showthread.php?t=19672
What? Three other people? You yourself admitted almost everyone thinks otherwise. There are people who think the Mercedes 300SL, Ferrari Daytona, Aston Martin DB5 and even the original E-type are ugly, but we don't take them seriously. :ohyeah:
Quote from: 2o6 on February 27, 2011, 03:13:51 PM
I'm taking the high road, but honestly, this forum and the circle-jerk you guys have here is not the end-all of the internet.
Apparently, because I don't think the same way they do, I I'm automatically wrong because I'm young.
No, you're wrong because you criticize the car for being too "literal" and "cliche" when your renderings look like this:
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/_63nSZQRZohE/TTqEwf9MN1I/AAAAAAAAJk0/-mx3-8Jq-kE/evar7.jpg)
It looks like the time my dog ate too much fiber...
Face it, your renderings look like ass for the most part, yet you rip into this "fan boi" for his interpretation of an E-type. Don't you recognize the hypocrisy in calling designs "literal" and "cliche" when at best, your past efforts look like clones of Chinese econo-boxes? Sorry to be so harsh man - when I started out drawing cars, they looked terrible, but I had the good sense not to trash designs and the artist's talent. In all seriousness, you have positively bizarre taste in cars, so don't be surprised when people question your love for garbage when you call out something like this E-type.
So, I'm not allowed to think otherwise from YOU?
Thanks, guys.
Styling is SUBJECTIVE.
I hate this design. You don't.
Move on.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 27, 2011, 03:36:31 PM
So, I'm not allowed to think otherwise from YOU?
Thanks, guys.
Oh, stop with the teenage drama. "MOM, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ME!" :rolleyes:
Everyone on here has opinions - that's part of the reason why I like it. When I get into a political tiff with someone, I may disagree with them, but I respect them because more often than not, they defend their position. But this, it's like if Rupert called me an eco-terrorist then bought himself a Diesel Super Duty so he could run over baby Deer more effectively. If you're going to criticize a design, go for it, but saying it's "literal" and "cliche" doesn't further your point, especially when your love for wretched econo-trash is well known.
And you can't simply say "You like small hatchbacks, so your opinion on this design is invalid".
I say it's literal, because the overall proportions are a truncated and less elegant version of the E-type. I think it's a very high quality rendering; I don't have anywhere near as much of the talent as this guy has; I have seen this guy's work before. He's a talented modeler, but I don't know about his tastes.
I say it's cliche because everything on this design has been done before. The overall proportions are generic FR roadster. The shutlines are generic "purposeful" British racer. The chrome is too much. The wire wheels are just the model enlarged.
It looks cheap, and it doesn't look as classy and elegant as an E-type should be. For example; here's one of my favorite, super-lux concepts:
(http://www.royal-auto.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/maybach-exelero.jpg)
The shape and details are clearly inspired from Maybach's of old, but the whole car is NEW. It brings so many new design elements to the table. The whole car is styled to look very expensive.
To me, the difference between the Exlero and this rendering is like the difference between Chanel and Charolette Russe. One girl may look nice in the clothing from Charolette Russe, but the stuff from Chanel is just fantastic and looks incredibly awesome. And when the people at Charolette Russe try and imitate the clothes that Chanel offer, it just comes out cheap. It may look nice, but it's an overall a poor imitation of the original.
I really wonder if you guys actually read my posts. I do like small hatches, I think they can be some of the best styled vehicles on the planet. I also think it's fascinating to see China's design language develop. But where did I EVER say that I didn't like traditional cars, or other cars? If anything, I'm more eclectic, because I like MORE cars in different segments than most people.
Quote from: Submariner on February 27, 2011, 03:34:02 PM
It looks like the time my dog ate too much fiber...
Face it, your renderings look like ass for the most part, yet you rip into this "fan boi" for his interpretation of an E-type. Don't you recognize the hypocrisy in calling designs "literal" and "cliche" when at best, your past efforts look like clones of Chinese econo-boxes? Sorry to be so harsh man - when I started out drawing cars, they looked terrible, but I had the good sense not to trash designs and the artist's talent. In all seriousness, you have positively bizarre taste in cars, so don't be surprised when people question your love for garbage when you call out something like this E-type.
Yet again, do you ever read my posts? That particular car was supposed to be ugly. (I gave up on it, because it just got too ugly)
I may not have the 3D modeling talent, but I know for a fact that I'm a head-over-heels better sketcher/drawer than a 3D modeler.
There - See, I still think you're totally wrong, but you defended your beliefs.
And P.S. there is a lot of gaudy/tacky stuff from Chanel, but your point still stands.
Quote from: Submariner on February 27, 2011, 03:41:19 PM
Oh, stop with the teenage drama. "MOM, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ME!" :rolleyes:
Everyone on here has opinions - that's part of the reason why I like it. When I get into a political tiff with someone, I may disagree with them, but I respect them because more often than not, they defend their position. But this, it's like if Rupert called me an eco-terrorist then bought himself a Diesel Super Duty so he could run over baby Deer more effectively. If you're going to criticize a design, go for it, but saying it's "literal" and "cliche" doesn't further your point, especially when your love for wretched econo-trash is well known.
I don't get the connection. One can make bad music and still have a valid opinion on other music. Plus I'm sure much of the "problem" with 2o6 renderings lies in the gulf of SKILL, not necessarily "artistry". Most of us have little to NO experience in renderings, so I suppose none of us should have any "opinion" on the design. Let's not go down the "credibility" or "consensus' road..... it's silly. Nobody's opinion on this is any more valid than anyone else's.
In any case, I agree w/2o6- it's too close to the original to be a convincing modern interpretation, and the big balla wire wheels are gaudy. Doesn't look "modern" at all, and def has a Russian mobster kit car vibe more than a worthy modern interpretation of the E-type.
Yeah, I get a huge GAZ/Volga vibe from it, but not as classy or kitschy.
(http://www.quartzcity.net/wp-content/uploads/blogpicts/volga_coupe.gif)
Quote from: Submariner on February 27, 2011, 03:41:19 PM
Oh, stop with the teenage drama. "MOM, YOU JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND ME!" :rolleyes:
Everyone on here has opinions - that's part of the reason why I like it. When I get into a political tiff with someone, I may disagree with them, but I respect them because more often than not, they defend their position. But this, it's like if Rupert called me an eco-terrorist then bought himself a Diesel Super Duty so he could run over baby Deer more effectively. If you're going to criticize a design, go for it, but saying it's "literal" and "cliche" doesn't further your point, especially when your love for wretched econo-trash is well known.
Fuckin' baby deer...
Late to the party, but I love it. Give it a stick, slot it under the XK, and I'll buy one.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 27, 2011, 03:59:10 PM
(http://www.royal-auto.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/maybach-exelero.jpg)
That...is...ghastly.
QuoteThe shape and details are clearly inspired from Maybach's of old, but the whole car is NEW. It brings so many new design elements to the table. The whole car is styled to look very expensive.
I will start with the front and work to the rear;
The nose is a cheaply cloned copy of a Bughatti Veyron combined with Cadillac snow plow but styled to look like the Bat-mobile.
The side rakes are little more than copies of Acura and Impala mixed together in a gut wrenching version of the new Benz CLS.
The headlights were stolen from the Camery assembly line.
The side-pipes are lousy copies of Shelby Cobras, and probably came directly from the Fast Fords and Muscle Mustangs catalogue.
The wheels are the exact same trailering wheels I have on my boat trailer.
The roofline was a part stolen from the Beetle plant and super glued directly to the body.
The mirrors are taken from a 1977 Chrysler Cordoba and glued to a couple of golf clubs.
And lastly, why would they put a GT gas door on this car?
Let me guess; it is cohesive?
But, hey, if
you like it. :huh:
I'm starting to think that the "literal" and "cliche" crowd aren't too familiar withe the original E-type.
This rendering is, in fact, a vastly reworked E-type.
(http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/02/jag_growler_e_04.jpg)
(http://deutsch.mart.trento.it/UploadImgs/1143_40.jpg)
(http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/02/jag_growler_e_05.jpg)
(http://www.pjsautoworld.com/1970cars/1971jaguaretype4.jpg)
To be fair, this would be a misfit in Jaguar's current lineup. The XK, XF and XJ all look modern. To have a sudden throwback would just look silly.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 27, 2011, 08:23:24 PM
To be fair, this would be a misfit in Jaguar's current lineup. The XK, XF and XJ all look modern. To have a sudden throwback would just look silly.
Also a point that I didn't put in my other posts.
Quote from: hounddog on February 27, 2011, 07:19:55 PM
That...is...ghastly.
I will start with the front and work to the rear;
The nose is a cheaply cloned copy of a Bughatti Veyron combined with Cadillac snow plow but styled to look like the Bat-mobile.
The side rakes are little more than copies of Acura and Impala mixed together in a gut wrenching version of the new Benz CLS.
The headlights were stolen from the Camery assembly line.
The side-pipes are lousy copies of Shelby Cobras, and probably came directly from the Fast Fords and Muscle Mustangs catalogue.
The wheels are the exact same trailering wheels I have on my boat trailer.
The roofline was a part stolen from the Beetle plant and super glued directly to the body.
The mirrors are taken from a 1977 Chrysler Cordoba and glued to a couple of golf clubs.
And lastly, why would they put a GT gas door on this car?
Let me guess; it is cohesive?
But, hey, if you like it. :huh:
You only flamed my post because I posted it. The Excelero is old and is a pretty well acclaimed design. Shame that Maybach never did anything with it, and stuck to building gaudy, less-attractive S-classes. I would have at least settled for a limited run.
To me, this rendering just looks so cheap. This looks cheaper than the cheapest model Jag makes; the XF. It can't even hold the XK's coat. The old XJ looks classy and expensive, despite being a fundamentally old design. This rendering looks like a C6 Vette underneath by some aspiring kit car manufacturer.
If Mitsuoka put more effort into their cars, I could picture a new Mitsuoka using this design, with maybe a Nissan 370Z underneath. But as a Jag? Not a chance.
Quote from: Submariner on February 27, 2011, 07:58:49 PM
I'm starting to think that the "literal" and "cliche" crowd aren't too familiar withe the original E-type.
This rendering is, in fact, a vastly reworked E-type.
(http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/02/jag_growler_e_04.jpg)
(http://deutsch.mart.trento.it/UploadImgs/1143_40.jpg)
(http://cache-04.gawkerassets.com/assets/images/12/2011/02/jag_growler_e_05.jpg)
(http://www.pjsautoworld.com/1970cars/1971jaguaretype4.jpg)
See! That's the problem, it looks like a cheapened version of the old one.
A good example of how to do it right would be what MB did with the 300SL into the SLS Gullwing.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 27, 2011, 09:14:30 PM
You only flamed my post because I posted it.
I flamed it because it just deserving on the post, not because it was you.
Step off your horse, friend.
QuoteTo me, this rendering just looks so cheap. This looks cheaper than the cheapest model Jag makes; the XF. It can't even hold the XK's coat. The old XJ looks classy and expensive, despite being a fundamentally old design. This rendering looks like a C6 Vette underneath by some aspiring kit car manufacturer.
In your opinion.
QuoteIf Mitsuoka put more effort into their cars, I could picture a new Mitsuoka using this design, with maybe a Nissan 370Z underneath. But as a Jag? Not a chance.
Again, in your opinion.
I can easily see Jag making this car as a limited edition, and only selling a handful per year.
It is no more or less salable than the Chevy Camero or the Mustang.
What do you think I'm spouting, fact?
Even so, the Excelero was introduced in 2005, before most of those cars even came out.
Even so, Jag can come up with something far better. They have a team of designers for this stuff. They don't have to depend on one guy's wet dream and the approval of people who will never buy the car anyways.
You act as if you are, yes.
And, every single car I mentioned was out at least by 2005.
:huh:
This is pointless.
Personally, I think the rendering looks better than the original. I understand where 2o6 is coming from and his objections to it. I disagree with him...completely, but he has already explained his position very well in a post further up this page and we should move on now.
BTW, the Excelero is and always has been sexy.
Quote from: SVT666 on February 27, 2011, 09:53:35 PM
BTW, the Excelero is and always has been sexy.
Except for the Batman grill. Can't stand that.
Quote from: MX793 on February 21, 2011, 04:56:36 PM
Don't like the quad headlamps, but the rest looks great.
This same car showed up on the E-type list at jag-lovers.org. No one liked the quad headlamps there either.
I don't care for the vents just forward of the doors. Seems like every manufacturer has to add those now. I guess it's the current "gotta have" styling cue.
Quote from: CALL_911 on February 27, 2011, 08:23:24 PM
To be fair, this would be a misfit in Jaguar's current lineup. The XK, XF and XJ all look modern. To have a sudden throwback would just look silly.
No more so than the Mustang and Camaro are misfits in Ford's and Chevrolet's current lineup.
And besides, the XF and XJ are unattractive, and hopefully only temporary abominations. Not looking like them is an advantage.
Quote from: omicron on February 28, 2011, 06:36:29 AM
And besides, the XF and XJ are unattractive, and hopefully only temporary abominations. Not looking like them is an advantage.
Blasphemy! He is a witch!!!!
Quote from: SVT666 on February 27, 2011, 09:53:35 PM
Personally, I think the rendering looks better than the original. I understand where 2o6 is coming from and his objections to it. I disagree with him...completely, but he has already explained his position very well in a post further up this page and we should move on now.
BTW, the Excelero is and always has been sexy.
Coupe to coupe, yes, I think this is better looking than the original.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 28, 2011, 06:42:16 AM
Blasphemy! He is a witch!!!!
No, he's right, completely. The XF isn't as bad, but it's derivative and looks like a Lexus, and the XJ is just hideous. I saw one again the other day, from the back, and was horrified.
The XF is just a very bland car, which is a travesty for a Jaguar.
Quote from: 2o6 on February 27, 2011, 09:30:05 PM
What do you think I'm spouting, fact?
Again, you think your opinion can't be called into question or insulted, yet you're doing exxactly that by insulting the artists OPINION of what a modern interpretartion of the E type would look like.
Hypocritical at best.
Just can't let it go...
Quote from: sportyaccordy on February 27, 2011, 03:08:07 PM
I don't think 2o6 has been incoherent at all actually
Actualy he's been disengenuous, at best. And hypocritical.
QuoteNor do I see what his "experience" has to do with the validity of his opinion. If he agreed w/you his opinion would be no more or less valid
If you don't think knowledge and experience has anything to do with validity of an opinion, especially when discussing technical aspects of a trade, like design, then you obviously don't think that school is important, as it's very obvious that you think forming a quick opinion is way more important than knowing what you're TALKING ABOUT.
Shit, why don't you become a doctor? I mean, you obviously can form a quick opinion on medicine, therefore your opinion on any medical procedure is JUST AS VALID as any experienced doctor, and I'm sure they'll listen to you talk about the latest heart transplant procedure. Lawyers can make a lot of money, too. I can form an opinion on law. That should get me past the bar, right?
Do you actually think before you type?
Quote from: sportyaccordy on March 07, 2011, 01:58:31 PM
Just can't let it go...
Obviously neither can you as you had to post, too.
Fuck off, hypocrite.
Quote from: ChrisV on March 07, 2011, 01:57:12 PM
Again, you think your opinion can't be called into question or insulted, yet you're doing exxactly that by insulting the artists OPINION of what a modern interpretartion of the E type would look like.
Hypocritical at best.
And as you so well know about the art field, everyone always has something to say about your work, uninformed, or not.
Seriously, STFU.
Your blood pressure must be through the roof for you to be this angry over a thread on the internet
Thread has been dead for a week
You win ChrisV
All hail ChrisV in his boundless petty abrasiveness & insecurity driven need to remind all of his experience
Newsflash you're an asshole and nobody cares.
Right. I've made my point, people disagree with that, that's perfectly fine, we move on and discuss another car.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2011, 02:14:58 PM
Seriously, STFU.
Really? YOU are going to get snarly now?
Wanna talk about A-bodies some more?
:facepalm:
Quote from: hounddog on March 07, 2011, 02:21:44 PM
Really? YOU are going to get snarly now?
Wanna talk about A-bodies some more?
:facepalm:
You can, too. I don't have to have the same opinion as YOU!
Quote from: ChrisV on March 07, 2011, 02:03:29 PM
Obviously neither can you as you had to post, too.
Fuck off, hypocrite.
:lol:
I knew there was a reason I opened this thread.
(http://i241.photobucket.com/albums/ff207/lawhog/OH%20MY%20GAWD/rofl1.gif)
Quote from: ChrisV on March 07, 2011, 02:01:35 PM
If you don't think knowledge and experience has anything to do with validity of an opinion, especially when discussing technical aspects of a trade, like design, then you obviously don't think that school is important, as it's very obvious that you think forming a quick opinion is way more important than knowing what you're TALKING ABOUT.
Shit, why don't you become a doctor? I mean, you obviously can form a quick opinion on medicine, therefore your opinion on any medical procedure is JUST AS VALID as any experienced doctor, and I'm sure they'll listen to you talk about the latest heart transplant procedure. Lawyers can make a lot of money, too. I can form an opinion on law. That should get me past the bar, right?
Do you actually think before you type?
There is a big difference between having a valid professional opinion on a subject and offering an opinion on whether one likes a piece of automotive design, which essentially is a piece of art. And one doesn't need to be educated in automotive design in order to offer a valid opinion on whether one likes like a particular design. There's a lot of validity in the statement "I don't know art, but I know what I like". You may disagree with the reason someone likes or dislikes something but that dioesn't invalidate their liking or not liking it.
It's a lot like car colors. One can argue about the technical merits of one color over another endlessly, but it's meaningless if one doesn't like a particular color.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2011, 02:22:33 PM
You can, too. I don't have to have the same opinion as YOU!
But at least have a shred of knowledge about which you speak first.
:facepalm: :facepalm:
Quote from: hounddog on March 07, 2011, 02:24:33 PM
But at least have a shred of knowledge about which you speak first.
:facepalm: :facepalm:
Yet again. I don't have to have the same opinion as you. I defended my opinion before, and posted reasons WHY I don't like the design. If you don't like the fact I don't like it, then too bad. I'm not going to start liking it because you said so.
For being "knowledgeable" you guys are sure immature.
I'm going to inject a much needed dose of Natalie Portman-in-a-provocative-position.
(http://the-void.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Natalie-Portman-64.jpg)
Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2011, 02:26:03 PM
Yet again. I don't have to have the same opinion as you. I defended my opinion before, and posted reasons WHY I don't like the design. If you don't like the fact I don't like it, then too bad. I'm not going to start liking it because you said so.
Are you not the guy who likes the VW Bully thing?
I think that speaks volumes about what your opinion is worth in calculable terms.
QuoteFor being "knowledgeable" you guys are sure immature.
So, you want to argue about specific cars and platforms, but you do not want to argue based on facts or knowledge?
:facepalm:
I hope the "mature", 40-50 year old guys in this thread (ChrisV and hounddog) feel good about putting a 17 year old in his place by bitching him out for not liking a car. :facepalm:
Seriously guys, real mature. Liking a car is ALL about opinion and it's not based on any sort of experience at all. And 2o6 wasn't even being insulting. He even complimented the creator on his modelling skills.
You guys need to stop being butthur about everything. And ChrisV, all the car experience and knowledge in the world doesn't matter if you're still a massive douche.
They didn't put me in my "place" because I'm still going to have the opinions I do.
Quote from: thecarnut on March 07, 2011, 02:30:56 PM
I hope the "mature", 40-50 year old guys in this thread (ChrisV and hounddog) feel good about putting a 17 year old in his place by bitching him out for not liking a car. :facepalm:
Because he is young we should simply let him post what he wants to and not challenge it?
:facepalm:
QuoteSeriously guys, real mature. Liking a car is ALL about opinion and it's not based on any sort of experience at all. And 2o6 wasn't even being insulting. He even complimented the creator on his modelling skills.
I never claimed he needed experience to like a car. :huh:
QuoteYou guys need to stop being butthur about everything. And ChrisV, all the car experience and knowledge in the world doesn't matter if you're still a massive douche.
What is a "butthur?"
Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2011, 02:34:03 PM
They didn't put me in my "place" because I'm still going to have the opinions I do.
I was being sarcastic. Probably should've said "trying to put him in his place" instead.
Quote from: thecarnut on March 07, 2011, 02:30:56 PM
I hope the "mature", 40-50 year old guys in this thread (ChrisV and hounddog) feel good about putting a 17 year old in his place by bitching him out for not liking a car. :facepalm:
Seriously guys, real mature. Liking a car is ALL about opinion and it's not based on any sort of experience at all. And 2o6 wasn't even being insulting. He even complimented the creator on his modelling skills.
You guys need to stop being butthur about everything. And ChrisV, all the car experience and knowledge in the world doesn't matter if you're still a massive douche.
You have to understand that being in your 40s and 50s is a difficult age as well...mid-life-crisis and all that. However, once you reach your 60s, like John and I :praise:, rationale returns along with wisdom.
Quote from: Submariner on March 07, 2011, 02:28:35 PM
I'm going to inject a much needed dose of Natalie Portman-in-a-provocative-position.
(http://the-void.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Natalie-Portman-64.jpg)
Too literal and cliche. Marilyn Monroe did a similar pose 50 years ago.
I was going to say that she needed a sandwich. Her ribs are showing.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
I was going to say that she needed a sandwich. Her ribs are showing.
Dunno about a sammich, but she's sure begging for a meat injection.
Quote from: Rockraven on March 07, 2011, 02:40:26 PM
Too literal and cliche. Marilyn Monroe did a similar pose 50 years ago.
And, she did it better and sexier.
Her original interpretation of proactive-positioning was classic. This is just a literal re-play of the original, which was done much better and in a much more cinemagraphic manner.
Plus, I do not like how the cheeks are so small and the ribs show too much. The original was more cohesively executed.
Even the original headlights were better.
Quote from: hounddog on March 07, 2011, 02:46:08 PM
And, she did it better and sexier.
Her original interpretation of proactive-positioning was classic. This is just a literal re-play of the original, which was done much better and in a much more cinemagraphic manner.
Plus, I do not like how the cheeks are so small and the ribs show too much. The original was more cohesively executed.
Even the original headlights were better.
I do like how the exhaust sticks up though.
Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
I was going to say that she needed a sandwich. Her ribs are showing.
I was going to say that she needed a stiff banging. Her ass is begging for it. :huh:
Quote from: Rockraven on March 07, 2011, 02:40:26 PM
Too literal and cliche. Marilyn Monroe did a similar pose 50 years ago.
:clap:
Quote from: 2o6 on March 07, 2011, 02:41:07 PM
I was going to say that she needed a sandwich. Her ribs are showing.
She's on her side. They should be showing. Don't go around fucking up hot girls by making them fat.
Quote from: Onslaught on March 07, 2011, 04:53:47 PM
She's on her side. They should be showing. Don't go around fucking up hot girls by making them fat.
But if they're porkers they're not literal and cliche.
Quote from: Submariner on March 07, 2011, 04:56:22 PM
But if they're porkers they're not literal and cliche.
Sure they are. See the works of Peter Paul Rubens.
Quote from: Rockraven on March 07, 2011, 02:51:08 PM
I do like how the exhaust sticks up though.
That's not the exhaust.
Quote from: EtypeJohn on March 07, 2011, 02:23:50 PM
There is a big difference between having a valid professional opinion on a subject and offering an opinion on whether one likes a piece of automotive design, which essentially is a piece of art. And one doesn't need to be educated in automotive design in order to offer a valid opinion on whether one likes like a particular design.
Until one starts arguing the technical merits of it. Different than simple saying "I like this or "I don't like that."
I don't give a crap if he likes it or not. I don't give a crap what his or anyone's favorites are. It's good to have favorties, and hopefully they are all
different favorites. But once you start discussing something like this in a technical manner, and challenging or commenting on the technical merits, then the discussion becomes about training and experience, as well as kowledge of context.
If it was all ONLY subjective, you could not teach it OR learn it.
Quote
There's a lot of validity in the statement "I don't know art, but I know what I like". You may disagree with the reason someone likes or dislikes something but that dioesn't invalidate their liking or not liking it.
Ah, but if the reasons are misinformed (i.e "I don't like this" is unarguable. But "I don't like this
because of x and y fact" and x and y facts are learned items that are mistaken is quite examinable), then it stands to reason that learrning the real facts might change the opinion. It may not, but at least you have real facts instead of mistaken notions. Those facts, reasoning, and statements are what's being challenged.
We learn to like things that we didn't before all the time, from food to art, to automotive designs (and of all of them, cars are the least natural and most "learned" responses) as we learn new things. Sometimes it's simply from trying them again after a period of time, and sometimes it's through learning and education.
This is especially true of industrial design and architecture. Since these aren't natural things, VERY often people's likes and dislikes change over time as they learn about them and understand them better.
QuoteIt's a lot like car colors.
No, it's not. Color is natural by itself. The responses MAY be partially "learned" by associating a particular color with a particular event in childhood, but they are also intrinsic in that they may stimulate different brain chemicals (red causing anger, blue causing calming) naturally and you can't change that. They are also seen differntly by differnt peopel due to the makeup of the rods and cones in your eye, so that even if youre not colorblind, your rods and cones may see a shade of blue slightly differtly than another sees it, and where the shade THEY see ends up being their favorite, YOU see a slightly different shade that isn't as pleasant to you. Naturally.
Modern mechanical forms don't have that natural organic makeup and species history.
Quote from: Rupert on March 07, 2011, 08:36:03 PM
That's not the exhaust.
True. I prefer to think of it as a piston intake port.
Why.....why does this thread keep coming back!
Besides, I'm an art student anyways, going into Graphic Design, a field of study IIRC you make your living in! So really, unless you have an Industrial Design degree, by your logic, NEITHER of us are qualified to say anything!
What formal training or published editorials does ChrisV have on automotive design
Quote from: sportyaccordy on March 10, 2011, 08:21:15 PM
What formal training or published editorials does ChrisV have on automotive design
None that I am aware of, but to be fair, I think he is more knowledgeable in the area of automotive design than anyone here...just saying... :huh:
Quote from: Submariner on March 10, 2011, 09:07:47 PM
None that I am aware of, but to be fair, I think he is more knowledgeable in the area of automotive design than anyone here...just saying... :huh:
Yeah, I wouldn't disagree with that.
I might say things like, "that door looks funky", but that's about as far as my design critiquing goes . :huh:
Quote from: 2o6 on March 10, 2011, 03:18:24 PM
Why.....why does this thread keep coming back!
It's like Herpes...the gift that keeps on giving!
If I think a car is ugly, ChrisV berating me and discrediting my opinion won't change my mind. Being knowledgeable doesn't give one carte blanche to be an asshole, nor does it mean anyone has to listen to him.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on March 11, 2011, 03:05:05 PM
If I think a car is ugly, ChrisV berating me and discrediting my opinion won't change my mind. Being knowledgeable doesn't give one carte blanche to be an asshole, nor does it mean anyone has to listen to him.
YOUR OPINION IS WRONG
I don't think you guys are reading what ChrisV is writing. He's saying that an opinion, however uninformed, can't be wrong, but the information that leads to that opinion can be either missing or wrong. Therefore, with more or better information, it is reasonable to suggest that an opinion can be changed. He's berating people who are actually presenting misinformation to the board (at least as he sees it), which can lead to ill-informed opinions.
Ill-informed opinions, by the way, are extremely destructive to society as a whole, though not in this particular area.
I don't see what was wrongly presented by 2o6. He didn't cite anything or w/e, just said his piece and kept it moving.
LOL - this whole "qualified opinion" framework is ridiculous on so many levels it's laughable. It's nothing but pseudo high-brow bully tactics. It's childish, disingenuous and cowardly. LOL - "extremely destructive to society." For Christ's sake people, not everyone thinks the same. Deal with it. Buck up and get yer validation elsewhere.
TL;DR - ChrisV is being an idiot, as is anyone who agrees with him.
Hey, your opinion can be whatever, but without enough good information, you're an idiot. I don't even see how that's controversial, at least when applied to important matters (i.e. not this thread).
I'm not even saying that there is only one possible conclusion to be reached.
Quote from: Rupert on March 13, 2011, 12:48:08 AM
Hey, your opinion can be whatever, but without enough good information, you're an idiot. I don't even see how that's controversial, at least when applied to important matters (i.e. not this thread).
Oh yea, I agree with this wholeheartedly, especially the bolded. If you want to talk politics and have no clue what's going on its prob best to just keep quiet for everyone's sake. But you don't need a long storied resume in theater & film to see a movie and say you don't like it. Like Cougs said ChrisV is just looking to bully people into agreeing with him. He's had nothing to say that makes the case that 2o6 was wrong in not liking this car, or would have any more valid of an opinion in agreeing. The whole thing is silly and surprising coming from someone supposed to be mature. I can only imagine what kind of meaningless tantrums ChrisV has IRL
Dude's reputation is not limited to here either, someone's got some ridiculous quote from him as a sig on Bimmerforums.
Quote from: Rupert on March 13, 2011, 12:48:08 AM
Hey, your opinion can be whatever, but without enough good information, you're an idiot. I don't even see how that's controversial, at least when applied to important matters (i.e. not this thread).
I'm not even saying that there is only one possible conclusion to be reached.
Yeah, we get the implication - if everyone had "enough good information" they'd think just like you...
I don't see how knowing the reasons why a car looks the way it does would ever change anyone's opinion about whether they think the car looks good or not. I don't like cars from the 50s and I don't like hot rods, and I don't really give a rat's ass how much skill or money or time went into them, because it won't make me like them.
This car is being built, btw, according to a No. automotive news source.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 13, 2011, 12:13:08 PM
I don't see how knowing the reasons why a car looks the way it does would ever change anyone's opinion about whether they think the car looks good or not. I don't like cars from the 50s and I don't like hot rods, and I don't really give a rat's ass how much skill or money or time went into them, because it won't make me like them.
I agree. I'm sure the Bugatti Veyron looks the way it does for a reason. It's still ugly as hell.
Quote from: SVT666 on March 13, 2011, 12:13:08 PM
I don't see how knowing the reasons why a car looks the way it does would ever change anyone's opinion about whether they think the car looks good or not. I don't like cars from the 50s and I don't like hot rods, and I don't really give a rat's ass how much skill or money or time went into them, because it won't make me like them.
Well, 2o6 was kind of making the argument on a good/bad, creative/uncreative basis, not just his opinion. I don't think ChrisV was way off-base, just too overbearing.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 13, 2011, 11:13:48 AM
Yeah, we get the implication - if everyone had "enough good information" they'd think just like you...
Um, no.
There are things where that is true, sure, but there are plenty of disagreements that boil down to fundamental philosophical differences, which stem from, for example, the way someone was raised.
Quote from: GoCougs on March 13, 2011, 11:13:48 AM
Yeah, we get the implication
Yes, we certainly do.
Rupert = Thought Police
GoCougs = Defender of Freedom
I'm watching you!
Quote from: SVT666 on March 13, 2011, 12:13:08 PM
I don't see how knowing the reasons why a car looks the way it does would ever change anyone's opinion about whether they think the car looks good or not. I don't like cars from the 50s and I don't like hot rods, and I don't really give a rat's ass how much skill or money or time went into them, because it won't make me like them.
Well then you don't know shit. And I say that in the nicest way possible.
Quote from: sportyaccordy on March 14, 2011, 05:27:27 AM
Well then you don't know shit. And I say that in the nicest way possible.
Don't steal ChrisV's quotes!
Quote from: mzziaz on March 13, 2011, 12:35:12 PM
This car is being built, btw, according to a No. automotive news source.
I like this very much. Supercharged Jaguar V8, please, although an Aston V12 might be even tastier.
Quote from: omicron on March 14, 2011, 08:29:55 AM
I like this very much. Supercharged Jaguar V8, please, although an Aston V12 might be even tastier.
XKR's will be donors, iirc.
Quote from: Rupert on March 13, 2011, 02:52:13 PM
I'm watching you!
You need to do it better I think. I still have my thoughts.
That's what you think.