 | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Gary R. Istok
|
| | | (...) OK as a professed LEGO Archeologist, and sometimes LEGO Anthropologist, LEGO... minifigs first showed up on the planet several decades ago. They were a limbless species (known by their Latin name of Minifigicus Stifficanus) that first evolved (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Gary R. Istok
|
| | | | | (...) I forgot to mention that there are those LEGO creationists who don't believe that LEGO Minifigs evolved. They will have you believing that LEGO just miraculously showed up on the planet via divine intervention. Don't be fooled by these (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —John VanZwieten
|
| | | | | | Gary Istok <gistok@umich.edu> wrote in message news:38C67488.21C488...ich.edu... (...) it in (...) have (...) rest. (...) What is (...) (Well, (...) prepares (...) minifigs are (...) stretcher in (...) to be (...) the (...) Now, (...) we (...) (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | | | (...) I spoke with the learned (and opinionated) Dr. Cornelius(1) on this subject not long ago, and here is what he said to me: "You fools! Ze minifig race is nicht deschended from zese 'schtiffies'! Zat is absurdt! Zey haff no limbs! Ve are clearly (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) You're all wrong--minifigs didn't "evolve"... They were created from the firmament so that to any logical observation they appear to have evolved, though in fact it's all a hoax! 8^) Dave! (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) As further support of this: We all know that modern minifig didn't exist before 197X (see Gary's post for the X, I think it's a 3, but I'm not completely sure). When they arrived on the scene they had complex tools and machines, like police (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Alex Farlie
|
| | | | | (...) There is also evidence in the Brickshelf Archives that the two species were for a short time co-inhabitants. Why Stiffcanus died out is unkown to me. More reasearch is needed on the follwing types : Minfigicus (Animus?) - A cross breed with (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Gary R. Istok
|
| | | | | | (...) Lest we forget that recent dreaded mutant subspecies: Minifigicus Timmycanus! Gary Istok (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Frank Buiting
|
| | | | | | (...) I thought Timmycanus was some sort of a disease... Minifigs who suffer from Timmycanus have wide open eyes and have to wear T-shirts with "T" on it so they are easily recognised (so other minifigs can avoid them). -Frank (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Allan J. Smith
|
| | | | | | (...) A medieval version of Timmycanus appears in the new castle set 4806. He has the tell tale freckles but has his eyes are closed. Maybe he doesn't want to see into the future! He also has his eyebrows joined together, a sign of madness? Allan J (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | (...) His eyes aren't closed, they're wide open- and silver, like all the Moo Men/Bull Men/Insane Catapult Engineers. eric (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Will Hess
|
| | | | | (...) LEGO... (...) limbless (...) evolved (...) and (...) There is evidence that Minifigicus Erectus is a subspecies of Maxifigius Omnipedus (sets 268, 5233, etc.) It appears that the two coexisted for a short time before MO died out. Some think (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Bruce Schlickbernd
|
| | | | | | | (...) Minifigicus (...) prolific, (...) short (...) evolved (...) different species. I think that a species classification is sufficient: Minifigicus Robustus Erectus (if one can say that in polite company). :-) Bruce (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Richard W. Schamus
|
| | | | | | | | (...) long (...) If I could properly spill it out of my mouth at all, I would probably be slapped, and not just by ladies within earshot. Rich -- Have Fun! C-Ya! Legoman34 ***** Legoman34 (Richard W. Schamus)... (No, I don't work for TLC, but I want (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | (...) Actually MO is a very strange evolution path. There is no relation between MO and Technifigius as you already stated. Actually, MO evolved into canadian arms/crane arms and the like..:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Tony A. Rowe
|
| | | | | | (...) short (...) evolved (...) Canadian arms? Are you inferring that the difference between MO and Technicfigius is that the MO's are Canadian (ala South Park)? Well, one thing is for certain. We know for sure that MO's need to "relieve (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Kevin Wilson
|
| | | | | | | (...) He means the Canadarm as in the Space Shuttle, the mechanical arm which lifts stuff in and out of the shuttle bay. Kevin (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | (...) I can't see any emoticon, so I think you get me (really) wrong..:-) I mean mechanical crane arms when I say "canadian arm" just as in Town space shuttles and Aquazone/Space thingies. Why someone called those type crane arms as "canadian arms" (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —James Powell
|
| | | | | | Why someone called those (...) Simple...because they were made in Canada by Spar Airospace :) Hence, they are Canada Arms (more correctly than Canadian Arms...) James P (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Selçuk Göre
|
| | | | | | (...) Wow, thanks. I didn't know that. I saw the word "canadian arm" at a web page about space shuttle, so I immediately got it as a technical term..:-) I love lugnet, and not only for the sake of bricks..:-) Selçuk (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Anders Isaksson
|
| | | | | Gary Istok skrev i meddelandet <38C66ED9.5E253B41@u...ch.edu>... (...) LEGO... (...) limbless (...) evolved (...) prolific, and (...) I think the 'Stifficanus' should be 'Rigorius'? And the 'Erectus'? Aren't they really 'Mobilus'? I mean, even the (...) (25 years ago, 8-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Alan Gerber
|
| | | | | (...) and (...) What about the figs from this set(is Gary wrong?): <set:1620> . Lugnet says 1978, but Brickset says 1976, which would make it the first set with minifigs. Alan Random set: 5987(not yet on lugnet, since number is from retailer (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Frank Buiting
|
| | | | | | (...) prolific, (...) The minifig as we know it today was introduced in 1978. I have browsed my catalog collection and found only limbless minifigs in 1977 and older catalogs. Also see the text on the top of page 13 of the 1978 catalog: (URL) sets (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Alan Gerber
|
| | | | | | (...) catalogs. (...) This set was a promo set, so it wouldn't be in any catalogs. And Gary's 1977 set is an American only set. Alan Random set: <set:107> (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Frank Buiting
|
| | | | | | "Alan Gerber" <foofoogood@hotmail....ed_e-mail> wrote in message news:Fr6tBo.K73@lugnet.com... (...) 1977 (...) I know the promo set, it's dutch (like me) there isn't a date printed on the instructions so I can't argue about it's release date. It (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Alan Gerber
|
| | | | | | (...) <set:575> is the 1977 set. Alan Random set: <set:6083> (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | | (...) What I want to know is what happened to the now extinct "Biggus Bendyarmicus"? They do share some resemblance to "Technicus Maximus" in terms of size but otherwise this spieces seems to have disappeared even though an occasional arm segment (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Erik Olson
|
| | | | | | | (...) I could be mistaken, but haven't these appearances involved grey or translucent colored arm segments? (Roboforce) I think these are artifical limbs made of metal, plastic or glass, not biological limbs. On only women have red hair.. maybe the (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Not so! At least in the mists of antiquity (Castle & Pirates) male 'figs sported red beards and moustaches...the Royal King and the Black Knight are two excellent examples...however they all apparently shaved their heads to make their various (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Craig Hamilton
|
| | | | | | | (...) hi y'all ~ i recently inquired under luget.FAQ as to what was the first articulated mini-fig. in all of the great responses, i uncovered set #208, (look up the pic; worth a thousand words) which supports my theory that modern mini-figs evolved (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | (...) I have noted some inconsistencies with your observations below. Perhaps we are working with different population samples? (...) I have noted some exceptions to this - most prominently the female represented <set:6024 here> who is relatively (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Shiri Dori
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I never thought that was a female... Pawel (I think) uses that face for Ewan... or might I be mistaken? -Shiri (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Alex Farlie
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The lack of smiles may be due to thier spritual concerns. They might consider that thier creator is becoming lazy. <Snipped RANT on Juniorization> (...) heads. In the case of sunglasses this may be due to the fact that Minfigus (Erectus?) has (...) (25 years ago, 10-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs (moved from Dear LEGO) —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | | | (...) Not so! The Royal King and the Black Knight among others are red-haired men. On the other hand, everyone with red hair wears it long...and everyone with blonde or grey hair wears it short! (...) Again, not so...look at the Dark Forest Chick in (...) (25 years ago, 9-Mar-00, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Speculation on the nature of minifigs —Arne Lykke Nielsen
|
| | | | (...) Spurred by a recent discussion in loc-Sweden, I'll like to take this 4 year old thread up again. I've identified 13 different kind of LEGO figs (not counting Galidor and Bionicle): 1974: The "round-head" big-figs without lower body (what do we (...) (21 years ago, 8-Dec-03, to lugnet.general)
|
| | | | |
