Subject:
|
Re: "MOC" Blacksmith Shop on lego.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 19:21:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5751 times
|
| |
|
|
allow me to add some colour (oops...that's canadian...) :) commentary.
<snip>
> > > >
> > > > Deja vu! That set has more than double the pieces of the Jack Stone set -
> > > > it's not a valid comparison.
but it does raise a contentious issue of reality of the set (design) vs.
ease of construction
plus, the older sets could be made into other creations, if the the child
didn't feel like making the primary model. Now adays, you have a much harder
time building alternative designs. (starwars / harry potter not withstanding)
<snip>
> > But on what basis do you think it is a valid comparison… that they are two
> > LEGO sets which are police stations? Why not throw the Duplo and Fabuland
> > equivalents in?
(again look at the above comments....about the different approaches to set
design)
<snip>
> > > > Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
> > > > rest of LEGO either.
> > >
> > > You're probably right. I guess the 50 - 60,000 bricks (all bought in the
> > > last 3 years) that represent my new collection (completely separate from my
> > > childhood collection) really doesn't qualify as a "major customer".
> > I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you were that large a customer, you’ve certainly
> > acquired more bricks than me. I’d inferred from your posts that you hadn’t
> > purchased much recently.
> You inferred correctly. 100% accurate. I haven't bought much from LEGO
> lately. Two packaged sets from Zellers (Darth's Tie Fighter/Y-Wing,
> packaged with Snowspeeder... for 50% off original retail) I bought two copies.
>
> Most recent purchase? I hate to say it, but it was eBay. An old Universal
> Building set. Had there been something at Zellers that day to buy instead,
> the money would have gone to LEGO. But I was frustrated on returning from
> yet another wasted trip to Zellers, so I logged onto eBay and gave money to
> a perfect stranger. If LEGO doesn't want my money I can't make them take it.
>
> But I honestly don't think my collection is of any significance. I'm
> certain there are many many folks around here with bigger, better collections.
I'd say that was a pretty sizable collection....I wonder what your childhood
collection is, if that isn't sizable.
I know some people have an insanely large-sized collection, but I'd say the
majority of collectors don't have that much.
I guess it all comes down to what you constitute piece make-up. If you group
all elements as pieces, it may seem large, but then some collectors only
collect technic pieces or train pieces, or only bulk bricks, and may not end
up using a lot of them.
Myself, I only have a small portion of "extra" bricks, some bulk, some
technic, but also have a bunch of pieces in buckets from "destroyed
taken apart / mixed in lego sets from my earlier town collection days.
>
> > > > > I disagree with your summation. Because it's not complete.
> > > > >
> > > > > I want better designs, better bricks selections AND better prices.
> > > >
> > > > Don't we all? I just think that LEGO is addressing the better designs and
> > > > better bricks selections, and the prices are not unreasonable...
> > >
> > > As I've said. You are entitled to your opinion. By all means, post a
> > > message to the Dear-LEGO newsgroup and tell them how pleased you are with
> > > things. I'm not trying to suppress your opinion.
> >
> > No, I think you’re putting forward an alternative view, which isn’t
> > supported by facts.
>
> In some ways you're right. I often spout off without really backing up what
> I have to say with facts and figures. However, since LEGO is a private
> company, most of us (myself included) can only speculate on what goes on
> 'inside'. That is one reason that I've lobbied Brad Justus and others to
> post any and all facts that they 'can' release, so that we're not operating
> blind.
>
> > > > > My dream is to walk into my local Zellers (or a Wal-Mart, I'm not fussy) and
> > > > > see something akin to the 30th anniversary buckets on the shelves again.
> > > > > Back then (only 3 years ago) I funneled a great deal of my disposable income
> > > > > towards the LEGO company.
> > > >
> > > > But that's nothing to do with set design...
> > >
> > > I agree. Where did I write that assorted buckets of bricks had anything to
> > > do with set design. These are really two separate issues Richie, please
> > > stop trying to cram them into one. You are again taking statements I make
> > > about one issue and applying them the other. I invite you to disagree with
> > > me. However I would ask that you stop trying to manipulate my postings in
> > > attempts to make your arguments appear more valid.
> >
> > I don’t think they are entirely separate issues. I don’t think it’s fair to
> > say that you’ll only buy sets for good designs, and you’ll buy bricks/parts
> > in buckets. If a set contains good parts, and you’re prepared to buy parts,
> > why not buy the set for the parts?
>
> I still have to disagree here.
>
> 1) I just want basic brick buckets so that I can get basic bricks (in a
> variety of colors at a reasonable price)
>
> 2) I really do buy sets only if the set interests me. Let me try to cite
> an example, and I promise this time to try very hard to make it a fair
> comparison.
>
> Take for example the Star Wars sets that I noted above.
>
> I feel (please note these are personal opinions, not backed up by facts of
> any kind) that the Snow Speeder is a good set. For several reasons. It
> looks like a Snow Speeder. It uses bricks and plates that can be made into
> this other than a Snow Speeder (some ended up in Engine 71, my fire truck).
> And even the colors are similar to what I felt the Speeders looked like in
> the movie.
>
> Now, compare this with Slave 1. I feel that this is a fair comparison,
> because the sets are roughly the same size and even come from the same
> series. Now, to my little kid brain the LEGO Slave 1 just doesn't look like
> the one in the movie. Was the one in the movie really green and brown?
> Maybe there's something wrong with my eyes. I could have sworn it was grey.
> Slave 1 was also packaged up into a buy 2 at 1/2 price deal at Zellers. I
> won't buy it. Not even at 50% off. I think it's a poor set (flawed color
> design mostly) and I have no interest in building it. It's not that I
> didn't like Slave 1, it just that I would be embarassed to explain to my
> co-workers why LEGO couldn't put out a properly colored Star Wars model. On
> the other hand, the copy of Vader's Tie fighter that's on top of my monitor
> at work gets 'OOOOOh's' and 'AAAAAAAAh's' because it looks.... like the
> 'real thing'.
>
> > My point was that you said they should be trying new things (except
> > Bionicle!), but that you also said that they should be doing the old things.
>
> I guess what I'm really trying to say is that when some of the new things
> aren't working, then why not look back and see why things once did work
> well. You don't have to repeat history, but it's a shame not to learn from it.
>
> > > > To me it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want new
> > > > designs, but old pieces; you want interesting sets, and you want increased
> > > > brick availability; you want new ideas, but you don't want Bionicles or Jack
> > > > Stone. And you want it all for less money.
> > >
> > > Hey, now you're really starting to understand me.
> >
> > I might be accurately summing up your view, but I won’t claim to understand >you.
>
> You wouldn't be the first to admit that. I'm a study in contradictions, I
> fully admit that. But I do feel I have some interesting points to make.
>
> > > > I'm not saying don't criticize the company. Be fair in your criticism and
> > > > comparison. Acknowledge the progress they are making.
> > >
> > > Which parts of my criticism do you find to be unfair?
> >
> > Your police station comparison
>
> Perhaps a poor comparison. You might be right. The set from the mid-70's
> was designed for and built by kids with attention spans. From what I'm told
> today that often isn't the norm.
>
> > Your rejection of Bionicle as a good thing
>
> I believe Bionicle is a big seller for the company. (Likely a bit of luck
> involved, but a big seller none-the-less). However, it concerns me deeply.
> I'm not being silly here, I'm being serious. This series may actually do
> more harm in the long run that the financial good it's doing now. It *may*
> raise up many kids to be Bionicle fans. But it's doing little to promote
> the brick and plate style of LEGO building to kids. It's not today that
> concerns me, as much as when these kids are adults. What will draw them to
> LEGO then?
>
> > Your rejection of sets of good design on the basis of price
>
> I'm a cheap bastard, what can I say? I want quality sets (like those
> Megablocks is beginning to come out with) that include a high piece count
> and I want it at a reasonable price (like Megablocks). But I want it filled
> with LEGO bricks, NOT Megablocks. Man, I'm hard to please. ;)
>
> > Your rejection of the availability of Lego Direct on the basis of price
>
> This is perhaps my particular regional bias showing through. I'm not a
> saint and I'm not above just firing off my opinion at the expense of reason.
> I think it sucks (quite frankly) that LEGO shut down their Canadian
> operations. I suspect few want to hear me bitch about this, other than
> perhaps Canadian ex-LEGO employees.
I think I agree with your assessments of the Lego availability in Canada.
If I go into the average department store, and even lately in Toys R US,
I find either dismal choices in sets (really bad sets) or good sets that
cost way too much....(mostly bad sets).
Since, most of my income comes from American sources, I don't have a problem
with ordering from shop @ home, but a lot of my lego friends can't do this
because of the exchange rates.
Lego pulled out of Canada because of this very thing, which makes me sad,
and upset because it reduces the amount of people (in Canada) from ordering
great sets that Lego (direct) has put out.
Brad mentioned that there would be more sets that Lego has previously deemed
"exclusive" that would be sold in stores. Personally, I think the
public would rather spend their money on a $190 CDN Metroliner (in Canada)
than the Railroad Express....
or perhaps a bunch of buckets, if they ever do intent to put them out again...
which is real messed up, since the bulk sections still don't have any real
availability of 1X1 bricks, any sort of plates, except in red, white, and
black, and only very select elements...
I, myself, have stepped into Zellars Lego toy section (well aisle) and
have been tempted by the BOGOHP (buy one, get one half-price) but didn't
get it because of the considerations like you mentioned, certain select star
wars sets that have no real appeal (not realistic enough) but don't contain
any parts that I need.
It may be a contradiction, but really its reality. I, myself, don't mind
forking out money if the set is what I am looking for (in design) or if I
am looking for some parts.
Personally, I think (Allen) has some legimate concerns, especially buying
Lego in Canada, but Allen does have some unrealistic expectations.
Megablocks do have some interesting, even realistic designs, but I don't
think I'd see Lego prices come down that low!!
Let's just see what Lego has in store for 2002. From what I hear, the next
catalogue should be pretty good.... (for everyone, except Canadians).... :(
Benjamin Medinets
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "MOC" Blacksmith Shop on lego.com
|
| We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate, already in progress. (...) Richie... I think we're getting somewhere. :) I'm sorry to come off sounding so verbally heavy-handed in my last post, but I really felt like our 'debate' was disolving (...) (22 years ago, 19-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
111 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
