I find understanding different perspectives so fascinating: from your perspective, what is it that makes the California right, and the new SL wrong?
They call it the dialectic.....
I'm saying that the AMG isn't an SL - that two seater luxury grand touring cruiser that people will want to look great in and flaunt it about a bit.
With the exception of the original 1950's 300SL, the SportLeicht has always been a soft luxury convertible targetted at wealthy folk who want a comfortable, luxury tourer. Something to get Hart to Hart to their latest investigation, Bobby Ewing into Dallas, Princess Diana down to the Harbour Club, and to enable Colin Montgomery's wife to drive from Scotland to London in comfort for a weekend away.
The SL has never been something to kill a naive actor like James Dean or Paul Walker.
This group of people isn't in the slightest interested in 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, or race start launch controls. It's not what that client group does - at all. Look at the massive success of the Ferrari California: something like 8,000 units sold, well beyond exceptions and, TBH, sold in equal numbers to women as well as men. (Let's not ignore the elephant in the room)
The SL lost its way with the R231 and got thrashed by the Bentley Conti et al but this new car isn’t the way to recapture that sector. Think client, not track day.
Which is not to diss AMG in any way. It's a different sector. There's a role for an AMG Convertible to compete with a Porsche convertible, but that's not what the SL is about.