Subject:
|
Re: Islander Woman
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 23 Jun 2000 22:19:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3035 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Sheree Rosenkrantz writes:
> Steve Bliss wrote:
> > Good point. But if the generic and explicitly male minifigs have black
> > lips, then what do the red lips mean?
>
> Cherry popsicles at snack time?
Probably! ;-)
> > Whatever. I'm pretty happy with the general figs. Less happy with the
> > snarly faces (the more snarly, the less I like them). There are too many
> > sunglasses, and too much facial hair. We need more smileys and simple
> > faces!
> >
> > Steve
>
> Agreed! I prefer the generic smiley face to any others. The more defined
> the features are, the less one is able to project a unique vision onto the
> figure.
Yes, true. I like the faces with a *little* bit of details, such as the ones
with a moustache or a little bit of expression on their face. But the extra-
defined faces that come up OFTEN (e.g. Johnny Thunder, KK knight, WW bandit,
adventurers baddies) are NOT to my liking at all.
I've said this before, but I *do* like some well-defined faces that are rare
or come only in big sets... for example Ice Babe, *Princess* Strom (not Gail -
tho' I like her too), there aren't any good male examples (why? 'Coz the males
appear in every little set! Ugh).
> Especially for a child a less defined figure is better imho. Even
> with a limited number of figures totally different things can be imagined
> and built and role played . The child creates the vision as opposed to
> being dictated to by the figure or figure face.
Yeah. Kids need to develop their own ideas.
> [Please note, I am not
> advocating we use pegs instead of minifigs. I really like minifigs!]
<grin> Good, so do I. I love them, in fact!
> What comes to mind right now is how seeing the movie from a book first
> somehow limits one's picture/imagination upon reading the book later.
> Seeing someone else's vision of a story before one has had a chance to form
> one for oneself?
Agreed.
> Most AFOL have enough minifigs for every mood and ocassion, so I feel they
> are not dictated to by a defined figure/face. They create the figure from
> their vast array of parts... and they define the figure to fit their
> story.
YES!! Exactly. I do, at least. For many minifigs, I created the character
first and *then* decided how it would look. Others, I created the 'fig before
the character, but even then sometimes the minifig was changed as a result of
the character development.
(Other times I feel like the *character* is dictating my story... but that's a
whole other issue ;-)
> Still, for myself , I prefer the : )
> maybe its just nostalgia?
Maybe... I like the smileys too, but I also like a *little* diffrentiation
that doesn't evolve from clothes... :-0
-Shiri
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Islander Woman
|
| Steve Bliss <blisses@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:hsb7ls0f0784t9j...4ax.com... (...) Cherry popsicles at snack time? (...) Agreed! I prefer the generic smiley face to any others. The more defined the features are, the less one is able to (...) (26 years ago, 23-Jun-00, to lugnet.general)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
