| |
In lugnet.general, Fredrik Glöckner writes:
> "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> writes:
>
> > Jake, with all due respect, what models are you refering to? The
> > models of 10, 15, or 20 years ago were far superior in terms of
> > realism, details, and attractiveness.
>
> Are you sure about that? Since this thread goes on .starwars, lets
> take the X-Wing as an example. Could such a realistic looking X-Wing
> be constructed with the part selection as of 15 or 20 year ago? I
> would say probably not. The fairly new selection of various slopes
> are quite important to achieve the shape of the X-Wing.
Granted, SW is a bird of a different feather. We're all well aware that it's by
and large a return to old-school construction. Two points on this matter:
1) The X-Wing pretty much required new elements (engines, canopy, perhaps
wings). Had it been done in 78, it would have required new elements then as
well.
2) Set design: What really attracts me to the X-Wing is its quality
construction, not its new pieces. The X-Wing is done very well. I gave it 9
out of 10 studs. No arguments with its quality. However, just for the sake of
argument: Assume that Lego could have made this ship at any time without a
license. Had they done it in the late 70's, I think it would have been spiffy.
Had they done it in the 80's, fantastic! Early 90's? Very good. While
accuracy, playability, attractiveness, etc. wouldn't necessarily have been
guaranteed if it was produced in any of those 3 eras, what would have been a
sure-bet is that Lego would have put heart and soul into it. It wouldn't have
smacked of quality. Now, imagine TLC had put decided to release an X-Wing back
in '98, with absolutely no say-so or accountability to Lucas? Do you think it
would have been as good as the one that we have now? Personally, I don't.
Lucas' reputation - the reputation of SW is in some small measure at stake in
this licensing agreement, and while Lucas has his thumb in the pie, I don't
think that we'll ever get essentially juniorized SW sets.
>
> I think a lot of people have a too nostalgic view of yeasteryear's
> LEGO selection. Sure, the Town selection of the early 90's was better
> than today's. But then, it looks like Town has been made into the
> "entry point" for the youngest children, aka Town Jr. In the early
> 90's, the Town sets did not have this function.
>
> This set, from 1978, was my fav set as a child:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/673
>
> Ok, so it is slightly more than 20 years old, but I will still say
> that LEGO sets have evolved into being better and more realistic
> looking.
For what its worth, I find that an attractive set. Would I give it a 10-stud
rating? No. The car is of the mid-70's design - no doors, slope window, and an
imaginary driver. However, I'd take that set in a NY-Minute over *any* town
vehicle that I've seen since at least 1998. Lego did a relatively good job on
673 considering the company's stage of development when that set was produced.
There would be no excuse to produce that set today - not while a higher standard
has already been set. Similarly, I'd also say that Lego has no excuse in 2001
of returning to the style of construction worse than that of 1978. Heck, a
person could do other things with that motorcycle's pieces. What else am I
going to build with that lame 3-wheeler that is so common today?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: TLG and "Seeding"
|
| (...) Are you sure about that? Since this thread goes on .starwars, lets take the X-Wing as an example. Could such a realistic looking X-Wing be constructed with the part selection as of 15 or 20 year ago? I would say probably not. The fairly new (...) (23 years ago, 28-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.starwars)
|
81 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
