 | | | | | | |
| |
|
Jeffrey,
Jeffrey Baldwin wrote:
> How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
(Oh No! Scott is getting on his Space Soapbox!)
I can appreciate sentiments of this type. However, since Space is
probably my favorite theme, and have been collecting it since I was 4,
and I have most of the sets since 1984. I think this line (497, 487, and
918) are still really neat, even without the special parts we have
today. The reason? Realism! These sets look like something feasible, not
some neon nightrider nightmare from Batman Forever or something. I can
see mankind actually going into space with these sets. One of my most
prized sets is the 487:
http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=487-1
Because it is a classic, and it is great. Not only is is realistic, it
has great play value as well. It can hold two to three minifigs in it,
plus a cargo area. They maybe not flashy, but it they all are a
testament for when TLC (TLG, LG, LC, etc.) made some really great sets.
My version of this line is my ADF-800 ship, which is here:
http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/800-series.html
My 900 series is simply an upgrade from the 800, which is here as well:
http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/adf.html
Anyway, I love these ships and I would love to see a continuation of
some type to these sets, even though I am not holding my breath! :)
Scott S., climbing off his Space soapbox, and getting back to work!
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
<snip>
>
> My version of this line is my ADF-800 ship, which is here:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/800-series.html
>
> My 900 series is simply an upgrade from the 800, which is here as well:
>
> http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/adf.html
</snip>
I like the clunky, non-aerodynamic "outer space" utilitarian look you have
going there. I think a lot of us have a tendency to make our spaceships look
like
airplanes. The smooth, sleek look is attractive, but not necessary.
~Mark
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Mark,
Mark Sandlin wrote:
>
> In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> <snip>
> >
> > My version of this line is my ADF-800 ship, which is here:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/800-series.html
> >
> > My 900 series is simply an upgrade from the 800, which is here as well:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/~legoguy712/adf.html
>
> </snip>
>
> I like the clunky, non-aerodynamic "outer space" utilitarian look you have
> going there. I think a lot of us have a tendency to make our spaceships look
> like
> airplanes. The smooth, sleek look is attractive, but not necessary.
>
> ~Mark
Thank you, Mark. When I built my ADF-800, I was trying to figure out how
to have some kind of wing, and I just built the sides on it. These ships
can go through atmospheres, but only because of the shields they run.
A lot of ships look really sleek, like you said, but in space, it really
does not matter. The Enterprise may look sleek, but the Borg cube does
not perform any worse.
Scott S.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Scott E. Sanburn-> ssanburn@cleanweb.net
Systems Administrator-Affiliated Engineers -> http://www.aeieng.com
LEGO Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/legoindex.html
Home Page -> http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Station/3372/index.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Scott E. Sanburn wrote:
> Jeffrey,
>
> Jeffrey Baldwin wrote:
>
> > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
I'm with Jeffrey. I think a lot of people get very nostalgic for Classic Space,
and rate it higher because of their history with the line.
Personally, I get nostalgic for the Explorien Starship, because it was the first
big set I bought completely for myself, without pretending I was just buying it
for the kids. Now, a lot of people don't care for this set, because of numerous
deficencies, but I think it is awesome. :)
Every LEGO set needs somebody to love it. (did I just write that? Blech!)
> (Oh No! Scott is getting on his Space Soapbox!)
>
> I can appreciate sentiments of this type. However, since Space is
> probably my favorite theme, and have been collecting it since I was 4,
> and I have most of the sets since 1984. I think this line (497, 487, and
> 918) are still really neat, even without the special parts we have
> today. The reason? Realism! These sets look like something feasible, not
> some neon nightrider nightmare from Batman Forever or something. I can
> see mankind actually going into space with these sets. One of my most
> prized sets is the 487:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=487-1
Realistic? Take another look at that set. The engines are mounted on the cargo
doors! How realistic is that? ;)
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi there,
My two cents... followups set to lugnet.space only.
In lugnet.general, Scott Edward Sanburn writes:
> Jeffrey Baldwin wrote:
>
> > How do you feel about the 928? I think it is kinda plain.
I never thought of the 928 (in the U.S., 497) as plain. Actually, it's a rather
busy model, what with those big engines hanging out over the wings.
> (Oh No! Scott is getting on his Space Soapbox!)
>
> I can appreciate sentiments of this type. However, since Space is
> probably my favorite theme, and have been collecting it since I was 4,
> and I have most of the sets since 1984. I think this line (497, 487, and
> 918) are still really neat, even without the special parts we have
> today. The reason? Realism! These sets look like something feasible, not
> some neon nightrider nightmare from Batman Forever or something. I can
> see mankind actually going into space with these sets. One of my most
> prized sets is the 487:
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/pause/search/?query=487-1
>
> Because it is a classic, and it is great. Not only is is realistic, it
> has great play value as well. It can hold two to three minifigs in it,
> plus a cargo area. They maybe not flashy, but it they all are a
> testament for when TLC (TLG, LG, LC, etc.) made some really great sets.
I have to agree with Scott. If you look in my profile, you'll see that 487 is
one of my two all-time favorite sets. (The other is 375, the yellow castle...)
It's neither too little, nor too much. A friend of mine owned the 497/928, and
at first I was lusting to have one. It wore off. I'm not sure why. Somehow
the 487 is a more "balanced" model.
It's interesting that the Lego movie just posted by Marc Leidy also features the
487.
http://www.lugnet.com/space/?n=1134
Long ago, I also experimented with Lego stop-action filming, using the this same
model. Seeing the film made me nostalgic, so I reassembled mine. It was like
saying hello to an old friend. My three-year old, Spencer, has been playing
with it for a few days. A few nights ago he was leafing through my early 80's
Idea Book (Cat. No. 6000, if you're wondering), looking for something to build.
This, too, has a section that features the 487. When he saw this, he pointed
excitedly and said, "Hey, that's the spaceship you built!"
Another one hooked.
--
John J. Ladasky Jr., Ph.D.
Department of Structural Biology
Stanford University Medical Center
Stanford, CA 94305
Secretary, Californians for Renewable Energy <http://www.calfree.com>
| | | | | | |
