Subject:
|
Re: AT-AT (#4483) - What were you thinking?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Jan 2005 05:17:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3857 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Paul S. D'Urbano wrote:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Joe Strout wrote:
> > I had read reviews saying that this model was fragile, but I had no idea how
> > ridiculously fragile it was until I got one for Christmas. You literally can't
> > touch it except in a few special places, without something breaking off. A
> > quick run-down of the major design flaws off the top of my head:
>
> SNIP
>
> > What were you guys thinking with this model? Is it intended to be a challenge,
> > i.e., you purposely made it flawed so we could have the fun of redesigning it?
> > Or was it simply designed by an inexperienced builder on the week the QA guys
> > were on vacation?
> >
> > If it's intended to be a challenge, you need to market it differently. If not,
> > you need to fix it. As it is, the model is completely unplayable, and if
> > somebody who wasn't already a dedicated LEGO fan were to get this one, they'd
> > probably give up on the whole product line. To put that much work into a model,
> > and then have it fall apart every time you touch it, is very disappointing.
>
>
>
> Dear LEGO,
>
> In the interest of equal time, it's important you know that not all of us feel
> the same about the AT-AT set. Personally, I love it. It looks great. It was
> fun to build. It captures much of the detail of the "real" (okay "movie")
> version. It has added playability such as a driver, snowtroopers (awesome,
> too!), Luke, and a speeder bike. You kept it in a scale that made it reasonably
> affordable while including these various things.
>
> While the construction has a few tricky steps, if built properly it is
> sufficiently stable. As with all LEGO models (perhaps except some Technic), if
> you manipulate it enough some pieces can come off. I don't think this set is so
> much more fragile than a typical set to warrant so much complaint. Personally,
> I'm willing to accept some fragility in the name of increased detail and
> accuracy to the original, but perhaps others disagree.
>
> Lastly, I want to apologize for a post with sarcastic and insulting comments
> being in this .dear-lego forum. PLEASE do not think all LUGNET users are as
> rude and insulting. It's a great and beautiful set and to make comments that
> insult the capabilities of the set designer is uncalled for in this forum, along
> with the sarcasm. Most of us appreciate that LEGO takes the time to read what
> us AFOLs have to say and most of us understand how to communicate respectfully
> as adults.
>
> Regards,
> Paul S. D'Urbano
Okay bad form to reply to self and all... Ever post something quickly and then
read it again later and really, really want to reel it back in? If anyone cares
or was paying attention, sorry for that last paragraph and the
holier-than-though attitude criticizing Joe's post. While I really do like 4483
and would rather folks take a softer approach to TLC than Joe did, I have no
place to get all preachy. Yuck. Sorry Joe and all. My bad...
-Paul D.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: AT-AT (#4483) - What were you thinking?
|
| (...) SNIP (...) Dear LEGO, In the interest of equal time, it's important you know that not all of us feel the same about the AT-AT set. Personally, I love it. It looks great. It was fun to build. It captures much of the detail of the "real" (okay (...) (20 years ago, 15-Jan-05, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
