 | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.belville, Shiri Dori writes:
> Hi all lego fans!
>
> Four months ago, lugnet.belville opened (1) and it was pretty empty. For a
> while there were only 12 or so posts, and no one seemed to have new ones...
>
> But recently, people have been getting interested in Belville (2) and I'm
> happy. It's nice knowing I'm not the only Belville fan in the world :-)
[...]
Woo! I was waiting for a post like this. I noticed the activity level too.
Speaking to those who don't like BV, I'll admit -- when I first saw a BV set..
long ago.. I gaged. But after years studying a wide variety of toys for their
quality of materials and design, I am repeatedly impressed by the exactness in
the BV figures' craftsmanship. I've never found a plastic poseable figure which
could even come close. The figures can be stood up, positioned in any way with
the brush of a finger, yet they won't slump over from their joints being too
loose. And kids are quick to realize they can swap heads, feet, arms, etc. to
make their own new characters (like King's head on Queen's body). I've made some
more "normal" looking kids by putting boy heads on the girls' bodies. I also
match up non-pink bodies with non-blonde heads.
as for cost... Hasn't there been a dramatic price drop? (to a level I'd call
reasonable.) The most expensive sets went from $99 down to $66. That's five
years later with same number of pieces. (1)
The witch's cottage set for instance has extremely high play value, is colorful,
durable, creative, AND is compatible with the huge, unparalleled building
system. for just over $10 (!) imho, a far better investment than say, a Barbie
doll of equal cost.
So, are anti-BVers just grossed out by girl-targeted toys in general? Are they
upset because it all seems too "un-LEGO-like"? Do they hate buying a set to use
only one tenth of its parts? Sounds like this is the case.
Unless, do they honestly think these products are overpriced and downright
hateable toys? If so, I'd like to hear. (from those who have experience with the
line)
I'm not pointing fingers, just want people to think a bit and take care in their
wording. Also I'm curious what could actually be "wrong" with LEGO Belville
sets. (2) Alternately, if you appreciate BV, I'd like to know why too.
So come on out, all you female (or male) lurkers! Let's write away the Belville
stigma. ;-) Or maybe bash those darn TECHNIC figs, eh?
-Suz.
(1) compare:
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=5890-1
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=5808-1
(2)'course SCALA is whole different story.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Suzanne D. Rich wrote in message ...
> Speaking to those who don't like BV, I'll admit -- when I first saw a BV • set..
> long ago.. I gaged. But after years studying a wide variety of toys for • their
> quality of materials and design, I am repeatedly impressed by the exactness • in
> the BV figures' craftsmanship. I've never found a plastic poseable figure • which
> could even come close. The figures can be stood up, positioned in any way • with
> the brush of a finger, yet they won't slump over from their joints being • too
> loose. And kids are quick to realize they can swap heads, feet, arms, etc. • to
> make their own new characters (like King's head on Queen's body). I've made • some
> more "normal" looking kids by putting boy heads on the girls' bodies. I • also
> match up non-pink bodies with non-blonde heads.
He he he... Yea, I've played around a bit with swapping body parts.
> as for cost... Hasn't there been a dramatic price drop? (to a level I'd • call
> reasonable.) The most expensive sets went from $99 down to $66. That's five
> years later with same number of pieces. (1)
Yea, that is a dramatic difference, though some of it may be attributeable
to smaller pieces and a vacuum formed baseplate instead of those base bricks
(though 5808 does have smaller base bricks).
> The witch's cottage set for instance has extremely high play value, is • colorful,
> durable, creative, AND is compatible with the huge, unparalleled building
> system. for just over $10 (!) imho, a far better investment than say, a • Barbie
> doll of equal cost.
Absolutely. I am not at all quibling about the value of the sets if you
include the value the figure (as compared to a Barbie doll). That was part
of my point that I'd be interested in seeing the figures sold seperately (or
in small 40 piece sets like the Witch's Cottage). Pulling the figures out of
5808 would pull it's price down to $50, making it just over 20 cents a part
(not at all unreasonable when you consider the large pieces, which for
Belville are no more unreasonable than a castle wall piece.
Unfortanately 5907 and 5805 aren't as good values
> So, are anti-BVers just grossed out by girl-targeted toys in general? Are • they
> upset because it all seems too "un-LEGO-like"? Do they hate buying a set to • use
> only one tenth of its parts? Sounds like this is the case.
Belville is definitely LEGO. True, set design tends to be simple, and based
on several large pieces, but it still has more customizability than
Playmobile (of course the age range is different). It could use some parts
packs (this is where it would be really helpfull to be able to buy the sets
sans figures, think about adding a 5805, several 5804s, and perhaps a 5807
or two to 5808. Now you could build a decent two story multi-room castle (of
course when you start doing that, it would become quickly obvious that the
older sets with the base bricks would be better than the baseplate).
> So come on out, all you female (or male) lurkers! Let's write away the • Belville
> stigma. ;-) Or maybe bash those darn TECHNIC figs, eh?
I do like the fact that the Technic figures are about the same size as
Belville. That does give options to expand the population of Belville a bit
(or the converse, diversify Technic). I need to modify my Turbo Command
vehicle a bit to make it a little more comfortable for the Belville woman
from 5890 (for which I got a decent deal on eBay - got 90% of TWO of them
plus 20% of a 6416 for about $100).
Of course there's another advantage, any Technic vehicle is close to useable
to provide the Belville series with vehicles (and now we really blow Barbie
away - what does she get? An airplane [and you thought minifig aircraft
looked a little compressed!] and a car, what else [I don't pay that much
attention to Barbie]!).
I definitely agree, Belville is a good play system. I like the figures
(though I won't be creating a Belville world). The set design is pleasing
(if spartan). Decent quantities of accessories are included. Play value is
good compared to other "doll" toys.
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I'll admit I am a Belville and Scala fan, although I *do* have the safety net of
saying that I'm buying them for my 12 yo daughter...;-) But seriously, I like the
BV figs for this reason-- the BV youth are just about the correct size for G scale
(1:22.5). When I get around to it, I am going to build a G scale train (10
wide:^D) and use BV midifigs to populate it. It is going to be KEEEWLL! BTW, I
think I may be BV complete (except 2000) <sorry about the bragging blather. I think
I've been hanging around Lar too long>
"Suzanne D. Rich" wrote:
> So come on out, all you female (or male) lurkers! Let's write away the Belville
> stigma. ;-) Or maybe bash those darn TECHNIC figs, eh?
LOL I *love* the way the TECHNIC guys look so darned jaundiced next to the BV
figs-- it's hilarious! There is only one worthwhile TECHNIC dude with respect to
BV-- the Cyberslam "Borg" fig!! (Resistance is futile)
After I build my BV train, I will work on a scale Enterprise and then a Borg
Cube.....now *that* is futile;-)
-John "forgive my anal nature I corrected the thread title" Neal
>
>
>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
John Neal <johnneal@uswest.net> wrote in message
news:3883D7B5.13F60B62@uswest.net...
> "Suzanne D. Rich" wrote:
>
> > So come on out, all you female (or male) lurkers! Let's write away the • Belville
> > stigma. ;-) Or maybe bash those darn TECHNIC figs, eh?
>
> LOL I *love* the way the TECHNIC guys look so darned jaundiced next to the • BV
> figs-- it's hilarious! There is only one worthwhile TECHNIC dude with • respect to
> BV-- the Cyberslam "Borg" fig!! (Resistance is futile)
What better is inserting a Belville adult female head on top of a technic
guy body. Looks very nice. I have "Princess" and "Girl Friend" sets just
for this purpose..:-) Scala looks nice, too, but its figures look somehow
ugly, I mean not cute as Belville ones.
And yes, I'm thinking that, too, it is a very very nice play system,
although I'm not collecting it (hey, I don't have enough bucks even for the
technic and model team and starwars and old town sets and...).
Selçuk
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.belville, John Neal writes:
> I'll admit I am a Belville and Scala fan, although I *do* have the safety net • of
> saying that I'm buying them for my 12 yo daughter...;-) But seriously, I • like the
> BV figs for this reason-- the BV youth are just about the correct size for G • scale
> (1:22.5). When I get around to it, I am going to build a G scale train (10
> wide:^D) and use BV midifigs to populate it. It is going to be KEEEWLL!
Forgive the ignorance (I'm a trainie fan, not a trainie expert), but what is G
scale?
> BTW, I
> think I may be BV complete (except 2000)
Ooooh! At the age of 11, I wasn't that much into completing themes and I only
have one BV set as of now (The BV yacht) but that'll change soon, after about
ten more baby-sitting hours ;-)
<sorry about the bragging blather. I >think
> I've been hanging around Lar too long>
Just hope he didn't see that :-)
> "Suzanne D. Rich" wrote:
>
> > So come on out, all you female (or male) lurkers! Let's write away the • Belville
> > stigma. ;-) Or maybe bash those darn TECHNIC figs, eh?
>
> LOL I *love* the way the TECHNIC guys look so darned jaundiced next to the BV
> figs-- it's hilarious! There is only one worthwhile TECHNIC dude with
> respect to
> BV-- the Cyberslam "Borg" fig!! (Resistance is futile)
LOL! I hated the tech figs ever since I held one in my hand...
> After I build my BV train, I will work on a scale Enterprise and then a Borg
> Cube.....now *that* is futile;-)
>
> -John "forgive my anal nature I corrected the thread title" Neal
-Shiri "forgive me but I'm an ESL and I see my mistake now" Dori
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.belville, Suzanne D. Rich wrote:
> Speaking to those who don't like BV, I'll admit -- when I first saw a BV set..
> long ago.. I gaged.
Yeah, they were sort of girlie-girl.
> But after years studying a wide variety of toys for their
> quality of materials and design, I am repeatedly impressed by the exactness in
> the BV figures' craftsmanship. I've never found a plastic poseable figure which
> could even come close. The figures can be stood up, positioned in any way with
> the brush of a finger, yet they won't slump over from their joints being too
> loose.
That doesn't make them *look* better. Those faces are just weird. I think
they're getting better, but they have a blank, staring quality.
Oh, well. They're head-and-shoulders above Playmobil. In both looks and
functionality.
> And kids are quick to realize they can swap heads, feet, arms, etc. to
> make their own new characters (like King's head on Queen's body). I've made some
> more "normal" looking kids by putting boy heads on the girls' bodies. I also
> match up non-pink bodies with non-blonde heads.
Huh? You can do this. Cooool. Maybe we will have to buy some extra belfigs.
Our castle needs some hangers-on.
> as for cost... Hasn't there been a dramatic price drop? (to a level I'd call
> reasonable.) The most expensive sets went from $99 down to $66. That's five
> years later with same number of pieces. (1)
And the current sets don't have those awful StarTrekish grid-walls.
> So, are anti-BVers just grossed out by girl-targeted toys in general? Are they
> upset because it all seems too "un-LEGO-like"? Do they hate buying a set to use
> only one tenth of its parts? Sounds like this is the case.
Some things I have (historically) not liked about Belville:
1. The figs aren't on the same scale as System mini-figures.
2. The buildings are too abstract -- a few base-bricks and grid-walls don't make
a building (IMO). (The new castle sets are a step in the right direction. More
solid-looking walls.)
4. Too much pastel. Some pastel is good, but can we get a balance? (BTW, I *do*
like Scala's colors -- reserved, but not cotton-candy pastel).
5. The figs are odd-looking. Robotic and clunky.
One more thing, which is only a slight nit to me, but I think other people are
probably much more concerned about:
6. The figures are too limited in variety. When I (brown hair, green eyes,
medium white-boy skin) notice there aren't enough figs that 'look like me',
there's a problem. LEGO can't ignore the issue of racial figs in Belville,
since the figs are all recognizably race-specific.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
>
> That doesn't make them *look* better. Those faces are just weird. I think
> they're getting better, but they have a blank, staring quality.
>
> Oh, well. They're head-and-shoulders above Playmobil. In both looks and
> functionality.
Long before the Ninja castle line was introduced, I thought that
the Belville figures would make good Ninja figures, due to their
posability. You could actually make them grip a katana with both
hands.
--
jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily"
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Steve Bliss wrote:
> > And kids are quick to realize they can swap heads, feet, arms, etc. to
> > make their own new characters (like King's head on Queen's body). I've made some
> > more "normal" looking kids by putting boy heads on the girls' bodies. I also
> > match up non-pink bodies with non-blonde heads.
>
> Huh? You can do this. Cooool. Maybe we will have to buy some extra belfigs.
> Our castle needs some hangers-on.
I could probably spare a couple figs (I have several copies of 5846,
almost 2 sets of 5890 figs, plus perhaps a few extras).
> > as for cost... Hasn't there been a dramatic price drop? (to a level I'd call
> > reasonable.) The most expensive sets went from $99 down to $66. That's five
> > years later with same number of pieces. (1)
>
> And the current sets don't have those awful StarTrekish grid-walls.
You don't want to know how many of those I have... Actually, I do have a
plan to use some of the pink ones as a fence around a rich estate in my
minifig town.
--
Frank Filz
-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Not to be a pain in the butt here.. though could someone please take the
general followup off here ????
Thanks
Tamy
Frank Filz wrote:
>
> Steve Bliss wrote:
> > > And kids are quick to realize they can swap heads, feet, arms, etc. to
> > > make their own new characters (like King's head on Queen's body). I've made some
> > > more "normal" looking kids by putting boy heads on the girls' bodies. I also
> > > match up non-pink bodies with non-blonde heads.
> >
> > Huh? You can do this. Cooool. Maybe we will have to buy some extra belfigs.
> > Our castle needs some hangers-on.
>
> I could probably spare a couple figs (I have several copies of 5846,
> almost 2 sets of 5890 figs, plus perhaps a few extras).
>
> > > as for cost... Hasn't there been a dramatic price drop? (to a level I'd call
> > > reasonable.) The most expensive sets went from $99 down to $66. That's five
> > > years later with same number of pieces. (1)
> >
> > And the current sets don't have those awful StarTrekish grid-walls.
>
> You don't want to know how many of those I have... Actually, I do have a
> plan to use some of the pink ones as a fence around a rich estate in my
> minifig town.
>
> --
> Frank Filz
>
> -----------------------------
> Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
> Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com
--
Keep on Bricken'
-Tamy
Follow the bouncing boxes!
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/jambalaya.html
http://home.att.net/~mookie1/
http://mookie.iwarp.com/ (mirror site)
Lego isn't a toy, it's a way of life!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.belville, Tamyra Teed writes:
> Not to be a pain in the butt here.. though could someone please take the
> general followup off here ????
Not to be one either.. but just in general do you have anything against
belville?
If so, PLEASE come out and say it, 'cause (as Suzanne mentioned) it's (1) very
interesting.
If not, why can't we continue our discussion in .general?
> Thanks
You're welcome...
-Shiri
(1) I checked this time. That's an "IT IS", not an "its"... OK, John?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.belville, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> In lugnet.belville, Shiri Dori writes:
> > Hi all lego fans!
> >
> > Four months ago, lugnet.belville opened and it was pretty empty. For a
> > while there were only 12 or so posts, and no one seemed to have new ones...
> >
> > But recently, people have been getting interested in Belville and I'm
> > happy. It's nice knowing I'm not the only Belville fan in the world :-)
> [...]
>
> Woo! I was waiting for a post like this. I noticed the activity level too.
>
> Speaking to those who don't like BV, I'll admit -- when I first saw a BV set..
> long ago.. I gaged.
The truth? I actually liked it to begin with (hey, I was 11 when I saw the
first catalog with Belville - cut me some slack here ;-), then I decided it
was stupid, but lately I just couldn't ignore the fact that it is a great
theme.
> But after years studying a wide variety of toys for their
> quality of materials and design, I am repeatedly impressed by the exactness in
> the BV figures' craftsmanship. I've never found a plastic poseable figure
> which
> could even come close. The figures can be stood up, positioned in any way with
> the brush of a finger, yet they won't slump over from their joints being too
> loose.
I didn't notice this until you mentioned it, but you're totally right. My
cousin had, like, twenty Barbie excercise girls that could never stand still
or hold their own weight.
> And kids are quick to realize they can swap heads, feet, arms, etc. to
> make their own new characters (like King's head on Queen's body). I've made
> some
> more "normal" looking kids by putting boy heads on the girls' bodies. I also
> match up non-pink bodies with non-blonde heads.
Yeah, I made my "dad" a ballet dancer just for fun ;-) I don't have enough
people (yet) to make normal swaps but I hope I will soon...
> as for cost... Hasn't there been a dramatic price drop? (to a level I'd call
> reasonable.) The most expensive sets went from $99 down to $66. That's five
> years later with same number of pieces.
Right, but for budgeted people even $66 could pose a serious problem while
wanting to buy a 6091 at the same time... (1)
> The witch's cottage set for instance has extremely high play value, is
> colorful,
> durable, creative, AND is compatible with the huge, unparalleled building
> system. for just over $10 (!) imho, a far better investment than say, a Barbie
> doll of equal cost.
Of course better than a Barbie Doll! Gosh, who's even comparing? I think most
Anti-BVers aren't comparing BV to barbie but to other lego stuff, in that
aspect it might seem like "not worth the price" or "not enough scope for
imagination" or whatever.
> So, are anti-BVers just grossed out by girl-targeted toys in general? Are they
> upset because it all seems too "un-LEGO-like"? Do they hate buying a set to
> use
> only one tenth of its parts? Sounds like this is the case.
Yep.
> Unless, do they honestly think these products are overpriced and downright
> hateable toys? If so, I'd like to hear. (from those who have experience with
> the line)
I'd like to too.
>
> I'm not pointing fingers, just want people to think a bit and take care in
> their
> wording. Also I'm curious what could actually be "wrong" with LEGO Belville
> sets. (2) Alternately, if you appreciate BV, I'd like to know why too.
I appreciate Belville because... because... hmmmm... OK, here goes:
I like BV's great piece choice. I like the way they all work excellently
with "regular" lego. (unlike, for e.g. Some other lego brand made for "girls
only" (2) who has baseplates with flowers and isn't so compatible... but I
won't mention names :-)
I appreciate BV's great figures, even though I don't really like them . It's
just a matter of taste - I think most of us FOLs (3) unconsciously like the
fact that the minifigs can be interpreted in many ways, while the BV figs are
all spelled out with all the little details - again, no "scope for
imagination".
>
> So come on out, all you female (or male) lurkers! Let's write away the
> Belville
> stigma. ;-)
Yes! Let's! (4)
Or maybe bash those darn TECHNIC figs, eh?
Oooh yeh... at the risk of being flamed by all those guys over at .technic - I
hate them tech figs. But I won't go there. :-)
-Shiri
> (1) compare:
> http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=5890-1
> http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=5808-1
> (2)'course SCALA is whole different story.
(1) Todd or Suz, could we PLEASE have a JrFOL support group? I've been
thinkin' of this lately - we JrFOL's have serious probs that you Adults don't
have with a full time job and a car and license etc. (5)
(2) Ew! I hate that!!!
(3) Yes, that's FOLs, *not* AFOLs!!
(4) For those who don't know (prolly most of you, sorry), that's an
improvisation game in which someone says "Let's all......" (e.g. climb the
everest, bake a cake) and everybody says "Yes! Let's!" and then everyone does
it...
(5) I know, not ALL adults have that stuff mentioned but most do... and most
of those who don't, could have if they really wanted to...
| | | | | | |
