To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.generalOpen lugnet.general in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 General / 28114
28113  |  28115
Subject: 
Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego
Date: 
Mon, 26 Feb 2001 04:21:34 GMT
Viewed: 
1545 times
  
"Frank Filz" <ffilz@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3A99D1EF.5BDE2965@mindspring.com...
Tim Courtney wrote:
I don't know figures...but POOPs are really a waste of money, especially • when
molds of their component parts already exist and have been in use for years.

I'll continue to disagree, and I'll happily take those classic space
printed 1x6x5 bricks off the hands of anyone who feels POOPs should
never exist.

Fine, if you're going to be picky about my statement, I'll revise it.  Certain
poops are a waste of money, and have no business existing.  Eg...2x4x3 brick,
speed bump with 2x4x2 protrusions on it (from City Center bridge set) etc.

I was exaggerating to make a point, I certainly don't think everything should be
reduced to 1x1 plates!  Nor did I expect to be nitpicked on it.

I'd also point out that if taken to extremes, and one names as a POOP
any part which could be made of component parts in a particular model,
that almost every single LEGO set would have dozens of POOPs (how many
bricks in the yellow castle could be replaced with 1x1 plates and still
be able to build the model, of course a finger flick would blow a hole
in the model since there would be all these columns of 1x1 plates, but
hey, you know, you can make any 1xN brick out of 1x1 plates if it
doesn't have to overhang anything, and after, we can't use POOPs to
increase the strength of models).

Taken to extremes a bit unnecessarily, I might add.

With that said, I think I will try and resist further comments on POOPs
vs individual bricks. Those of us who recognize that there are good
reasons for every single POOP TLC has ever molded can happily continue
to acknowledge that sometimes they are a good idea.

Well if that's the case, is Juniorization a good thing?  I don't believe for a
second that there are good uses for every single POOP.  A lot of them may have
good uses, to take it to extremes, a 2x4 brick, but a lot of them are quite
useless and a waste of the money for the new mold, in my opinion.  LEGO has
blown Juniorization and excessive POOP-making WAY out of proportion.  There's a
better way to market to kids than sinking to their level, I feel (and I won't go
into it here, I've stated it many times over online and in personal
conversations with a range of people from the community and the company).

Juniorization is ONLY good as a SMALL portion of LEGO's product range focused on
the transition between Duplo and System.  But, it should be kept very small and
in all ways possible encourage 'graduating' to the more complex systems of
building, which may have our beloved car doors back, headlight bricks, frame
plates and _separate_ wheel axle plates, etc etc.

My marketing ideas for LEGO are a bit on the 'pure' side, meaning, idealist.
But, I honestly think if taken to heart they can work and LEGO can remain true
to its roots.  Yes, I understand LEGO is a business (more on a personal level
than a lot of people here) and yet I believe that business can sell and
encourage growth in children, cater to AFOLs, and get out of the Juniorization
slump at the same time.  It will take some work, but it is possible, and I
personally will do what I can to see that my ideas get inside the company and
changes are made where people are receptive.

And of course those
of us who like making things other than giant LEGO sculptures will
continue to acknowledge the value of SPUDs and SPUD like pieces.

http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=2815

Don't try to put me off as a LEGO Purist(tm) - as in, the two guys who have the
webpage and build with only classic parts.

I'm sorry I committed the grave offense of confusing SPUDs and POOPs, I wonder
if I'll ever be forgiven.

-Tim



Message has 2 Replies:
  Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
 
Stop fighting! You're both right. (...) That statement is too strongly worded. I can come up with a justification for the existance of any part you care to name, and an example of a model that would be weaker if it had to use the composite parts (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)
  Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
 
[removed .dear-lego from crosspost list on this reply -- remember that dear-lego is for open letters to TLC] (...) Frank said "good reasons," not "good uses." Big difference. :-) --Todd (24 years ago, 27-Feb-01, to lugnet.general)

Message is in Reply To:
  Re: !!!IMPORTANT!!!-SPUDS No fault of TLG-!!!IMPORTANT!!!
 
(...) I'll continue to disagree, and I'll happily take those classic space printed 1x6x5 bricks off the hands of anyone who feels POOPs should never exist. I must say that I get tired listening to folks whining about POOPs when it is regularly (...) (24 years ago, 26-Feb-01, to lugnet.general, lugnet.dear-lego)

37 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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR