Subject:
|
Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 14 Mar 2001 15:04:09 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1871 times
|
| |
|
|
Yeah, I appreciate your posts, too.
In lugnet.general, Paul Gyugyi writes:
> Suz, you've become wise beyond my expectations. I now go out
> of my way to read your posts, whereas before I tended to skip
> the defender-of-the-lego-copyright posts. :)
>
> What I _hope_ the press release says is:
> "All that money we were going to spend on a Harry Potter video
> game and Bioniclemusic.com and comic books? We're putting
> it back into set design! Our sets will have a larger variety of
> small pieces. Focus groups will recommend more pieces to
> connect Bionicle to normal bricks! Martian legs will be
> redesigned so they fit on upside-down torsos! The entire
> division dedicated to designing cheap plastic boxes for
> slizers and racers will be canned! The Lego Pens that have
> bricks that are not even a normal lego size will be sold
> at loss and the profits invested in chalkboards where the decision
> makers can write "It's the BRICKS, stupid!" 1000 times. each morning.
> Themes will be exended to have a second release, like an extra year
> of Rock Raiders, with smaller cockpits (4x10, like the prototype
> pictures) and normal minifigs with smiles and no names. Castle
> buckets and Space Buckets (containing 50% basic bricks) will be
> released. Anyone who proposes a light-and-sound element larger
> than 4x6 studs will be defenstrated. A castle expansion for the
> RDS will be released, with instructions for building motorized
> drawbridges and waterwheels out of normal bricks. The LoM shuttle
> will be recalled and re-released to be plug compatible with the
> spaceport shuttle. We will sell the ZNAP fab machines and use the
> money to make molds for 1x2-plates-with-sidebar that don't have
> mis-alignement ridges that prevent them from staying in place in
> the new LoM sets. The FLASH web adventure for bionicle will be
> stopped immediately. The money will be spent on playtesting sets
> and seeing if splitting a 2x4 brick into two 1x4s allows a
> wider range of alternate models."
>
> But I doubt it. sigh.
>
> -gyug
>
>
> In lugnet.general, Suzanne D. Rich writes:
> > Because they've said it directly to my face. I didn't believe it, not in the way
> > most folks here see it meaning. I saw a face that wanted (in a fantasy) to have
> > things back-to-basics, but was having say something else.
> >
> > The words spoken to me were the same ones as in the PR.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: LEGO Company announces poor performance in year 2000
|
| Suz, you've become wise beyond my expectations. I now go out of my way to read your posts, whereas before I tended to skip the defender-of-the-lego-copyright posts. :) What I _hope_ the press release says is: "All that money we were going to spend (...) (26 years ago, 2-Mar-01, to lugnet.general)
|
41 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
