Subject:
|
Re: War Toys? (was: Re: New Dino sets now available from US Shop At Home.)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 10 May 2001 17:21:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
373 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.market.shopping, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> Does the appearance of 3451 Sopwith Camel--so out-of-character
> for TLC, IMHO, that I originally thought it was a MOC of some
> kind (albeit with parts in colours I had never seen before)--
> indicate a shift in TLC's attitude towards the dreaded War Toy?
> Or does this merely mean that the more antiseptic elements of
> the First World War are now "fair game," given that the genera-
> tion of the Great War and, in large part, their children are
> gone now (a la Wild West)?
Its a good questioon but i think its too early to tell. How they package the
set and the tone of the descriptive information provided will give some
clues. The idea is complicated by the fact that the the bi-wing baron was a
model of a very similar plane yet deprived of a name and rendered
ahistorical. I think its more likely that Lego will defend the model by
stating that its a historical replica along the lines of their expert
builder sets from the 70's. The Norton Motorcycle, a Rolls Royce, a Sopwith
Camel, whats the difference. While I think this argument is specious and
disingenuous, it follows from the standard LEGO defense of its pirates and
wild west lines. They can also minimize its war role and amplify its
importance in aeronautical history, an argument that would be more difficult
with, say, a sherman tank set(which I wish they'd make).
Jonathan
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
