You beat me to it. I was about to edit my post to include the Cien as an example.

 

I wonder if Cadillac will ditch the Art & Science theme and bring back the tail fins. After all, you'd never know their cars were really Caddies without the tail fins.

 

If I was the son of a famous painter and I took one of my dad's 30 year old best paintings, xeroxed it and changed a few things to make it look new....would I be lauded or disparaged for my lack of originality.

A good designer creates new classics.....not recreates them.

 

Another winning statement...

Like I said somewhere else... I see this as basically Automotive Plagarism ...

 

That's what i was saying but not spelled out. "Automotive Plagarism"..........good phrase and it's so true. Wouldn't it be something if another auto manufacturer took someone elses designs and "freshened" them up and called it something else..........

 

It's not plagarism if you take your own sketch and refine it. This is Ford's car. They can do whatever they want. Say what you want about retro and the design concept (I still say if you slapped different headlights on the front it would be no more retro than the current car) this car was mobbed at the NAIAS, while the new "modern" GTO went pretty much unnoticed in comparison.

My prediction: For every person saying "retro sucks, May's is an idiot" there will be 5 people on the waiting list to buy one.

 

okay the reason the GTO was left out ofthe limelight to the stang..
one word

IDENTITY!

something that you recognize and can relate too...the staple of american commercial market..one big example..you see the golden arches..you think MacDonalds..

see thats what Ford did with the Mustang..took its most identified mustang and put it "fresh" in our minds and something that can be related to the buying public. Something they are farmiliar with.. The buying public likes the classic stang..would love the classic stang..see a new stang that looks lke the classic IDENTITY and voila...instant hit..they will flock to it and buy it..and its not like the Tbird where its out of price, or the Maurauder thats to not in touch.

but the GTO..YES its a great GTO..no doubt about it..they just dropped the ball by throwing a pontiac corperate style grill on the front and a GTO badge..thats it...nothing special that connects it to the past..does it need to..no its a great car..but to make the unknowing buying public..no one will recognize it as the mighty GTO..
but people will recognize the 05 stang and see the history in it..even though its brand new..alot of people will not see that in the GTO..alot of people will say Im not getting that rebadged Grand Prix..my friend thought that was the case and hes a huge GTO fan saw the new car and went..umm okay where is it???that looks like every other pontiac...what the big deal..he was very disapointed..he liked the performance but he said its nothing striking..he hates fords but said hey its got style and looks like a mustang..thats what I want the GTO to be..
If something is imbeded in out mind with Identity we relate to it..
Ford and even D/C and Nissan and others..
I dont see alot of that comming from GM..as much..they just cared to much about there trucks than anything it loks like..
I think its turning around..as fast as it can but..the damage might be done already..

 

I realize that the 64 1/2 Mustang is Ford's design, but Mays did not design the 64 1/2 Mustang... so he took another person's work.

Plagarism may be a strong term, but it was just to make a point....

 

But by your logic, wouldn't the 4th gen Camaro be "plagarized" from the 3rd gen?

 

To a lesser degree... I guess you could say that... can't really say no...

 

No IMO because there are many sharp creases on a 4th Gen not on a 3rd. The 4th Gen has trademark Camaro cues (mostly headlights and grill) but is an evolution. Much like the C4 and C5.

Also it should be included in the definition of retro that the car must try and copy a design not used for many years. You can't say that a C5 is a retro C4

 

And that wouldn't surprise me at all, it's one of the reasons I think retro styling is a cop-out...what worked before will work again, without any risk.

 

This is true.

The 4th gen is not retro because it is an evolution as was stated. It is even more so with the restyle of the 98'+ cars. The same can be said from going from the 94' Mustang to the 99'(except, that the 94' was not much of an evolution of the 93'). I think Ford did well with the redesign in 99' even though I didn't like the 94' cars much at all( the back end is still terrible). They could have easily made the new car into something fresh and modern that would have looked just as much like a "Mustang" but no, they had to go the retro route and kill off the current style. Like a said before, the real credit should not go to mays, but to the original designer of the 60's car.

 

Okay, well then I say that it carried over the sidescoops, fender flares, honeycomb grille, roofline and small trunk, and 3 split taillights from the current model.

It's similar, except lower, wider, and the creases aren't as sharp.

 

Exactly!!

All he did is take those designs, and then make them look a little more "today" to fit in.