Subject:
|
Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Tue, 4 Dec 2001 00:16:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
827 times
|
| |
|
|
> In lugnet.general, William R. Ward writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> > Bill, of course they did. Look back. Look way back. During the 70's and
> > early 80's the best sets were what was coming out of the company itself. I
> > think they had some phenominal designs. My complaints are with the
> > company's history, but rather with it's present state of affairs.
>
> Are you sure that's not just nostalgia? I can remember even when I was a kid,
> back in that time frame, thinking "Man, what an ugly set - but at least it's
> got some good pieces"... For example, Starfleet Voyager or <set:6882
> Walking Astro Grappler> or Mobile Lab are all designs that are,
> IMNSHO, ugly and completely unrealistic for a variety of reasons.
Definitely not nostalgia. I still have all my original LEGO sets (including
boxes and all instructions) going back to the mid-1970's. I'm not looking
at pics on the web, or just running old memories over and again in my head.
I can sit and hold one of these sets in my hands and know that the quality
(and the sense of LEGOness) was there. It's just not there now.
I own the mobile lab by the way. I think it not only fits into the Classic
space theme perfectly (as a ground vehicle in a line of space ships) but
also completely suits its name. In some sense it always reminded me of the
Chariot from Lost in Space. The multi-wheeled design is not only practical,
but also kind of cool.
> I think there's a tendency to think back in a nostalgic way towards a lot of
> the sets of our youth as the "good old days" but I maintain that even then,
> with a few notable exceptions, they weren't that great.
Everyone has their own opinions. I stand by my claim that from a
fundamental design stand point, things are dramatically worse now than they
were then.
A quick example:
A Police Headquarters circa 1976:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/585
A Police Headquarters circa 2001:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/4611
Something has changed. The old one looks like a building.
The new one looks an elevator. Interesting to note that the jail portion of
the HQ isn't even attached to the main structure. And why not use stacks of
traditional 2x2 bricks for the columns instead of running up the expense of
producing molds for those pathetic and very unLEGOlike pieces they've used
instead.
> > > There are too many economic and
> > > marketing restrictions hampering the Lego designers' talents.
> >
> > O.K. you've got me stumped. What sort of 'economic and
> > marketing restrictions' are you referring to? At the moment it can't be a
> > limitation of how many themes they can work within, since the company is
> > currently offering more than 20 distince themes.
>
> OK, some examples: They have to keep the costs of sets down, which means that
> they can't spend too much R&D time on a particular set, and the cost and number
> of the elements in the set needs to be in line with their desired retail price
> points.
The volume of new and odd pieces in recent years seems to counter the
argument that they are trying to keep costs down. If this were the case,
why are we seeing lines like Jack Stone, Rock Raiders, Bionicle etc. that
use more new pieces than ever before?
And if R&D seems to be too costly, then why not just use some of the ideas
from the past in new and exciting ways. We've had this discussion here
before and it seems that they really need to look at the way they used to do
things. Original LEGOland and Town sets used primarily *basic* bricks.
Today's sets seem to rely on more specialized bricks and pieces. This
points to a degraded design philosophy which is counter to the company's
stated objectives and ideals.
> Also, they are apparently under a contract with Lucasfilm that
> prevents them from releasing any space sets outside the Star Wars line. In
> addition there are some themes that don't seem to be popular with kids these
> days, like Castle or Pirates, so they are not being produced, even though
> AFOL's would want them.
Isn't Life on Mars a space line? Isn't Harry Potter a sort of Castle line?
Regardless of either answer the world is chock full of other themes and
subject matter to explore. Having contracts with outside companies
shouldn't limit the imagination the way it seems to have with the LEGO group.
> > It can't be # of pieces... just look at the new sculptures or the Blockade
> > Runner.
>
> That's Lego Direct, a different thing altogether. I agree that they've come up
> with some great new models. (I believe Blockade Runner is considered a
> sculpture, BTW)
LEGO Direct is producing the Blockade Runner? Or are they simply marketing
it? It was my understanding that LEGO Direct didn't have the budget or
resources to pull off this sort of set on their own.
> > It can't be colors... look at the Harry Potter stuff.
>
> It doesn't really cost any more to mold a piece in a new color, no.
Exactly true, which is why using some of the new colors to update some old
sets and/or designs shouldn't be an issue.
Example? Why not reissue this set:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/367
In the new light grey color. Isn't that a fantastic update/compromise that
would please both old and new fans alike? Do you know how many 45 degree
slopes are in this set?
> > It can't be subject matter... they've got everything from Darth Maul, to a
> > bi-plane, to the Statue of Liberty, to the Bionicles... whatever they are.
>
> But no classic space, for example.
But again, that isn't the only line/theme to explore. They need to think
outside the box. Cliche as that sounds, they are culpable of it.
> > The only thing that seems to be restricted, in my mind, is the ability of
> > the folks running the show to look at their own history... and learn from it.
>
> The designers at Lego are at least as creative as the average AFOL. It's the
> business of selling toys for children that is limiting their product line, and
> the decisions being made by the management based on their perception of what
> will sell and for what price.
I would argue that the designers for the theme parks are better than your
average Joe off the street builder. However, for some reason that same
attention to detail, homogeneous design and clever use of parts does not
translate into what we see on the shelves (or in the catalogs).
We shouldn't get "pretty good" sets coming out of the company itself. We
should get astounding sets coming from them.
I've begged them before, but I'm not to proud to do it again....
Dazzle me LEGO... I dare you.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| (...) Because they can patent new pieces? This is not a whole theory: it doesn't mean they're all basically useful inventions, just that it keeps Lego, uh, different. I guess they get a budget for theme development. Some gets spent on new parts, (...) (23 years ago, 4-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: End of Year Thoughts
|
| (...) Are you sure that's not just nostalgia? I can remember even when I was a kid, back in that time frame, thinking "Man, what an ugly set - but at least it's got some good pieces"... For example, <set:6929 Starfleet Voyager> or <set:6882 Walking (...) (23 years ago, 3-Dec-01, to lugnet.general)
|
60 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
|
|
|
|
