Subject:
|
Re: What is a "review"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2002 11:05:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2113 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Maggie Cambron writes:
> I figured Hop Frog would be in your neighborhood long before the next time I am
> down there, so I assumed he would pick it up. If he never does, or if it is
> getting in your way, LMK. Thanks BTW.
Okay, okay! I'll pick it up. Geez...
Anyway, back to the original topic of the thread...
Y'know, at the same time that it is dishonest to call these set opinions
"reviews" barring actually owning, opening, building, and bitching about the
sets in question -- you'd think there was some kind of happy compromise
between the method I have stated above and a situation that simply doesn't
call for it because of the circumstances. Barring the actual use of the
word "review" which does seem to require a certain methodology of approach,
I think the opinions stated by Allan were pretty much on target.
I don't have to buy #7201 Final Duel II to know that it is poorly designed
and overpriced. I figure the base of this set, the only part that needs
building, is compromised of perhaps 8 elements, most of which I can plainly
see in the promo photos of the set -- just how far wrong am I likely to go
with a set of only 23 elements? Except for one element, the huge LOM
stargate thingy, I think I can build the set design with bricks I have
sitting here on my computer desk -- so I well understand how the set will go
together. And consider this: it is possible to critique sculptures without
having to sculpt them yourself. I dunno, I definitely think I can most often
look at a set box and size up it's value and interest to me -- since TLC
doesn't provide element lists on the outside of the box, they obviously
think most buyers are able to do the same thing based on the photos on the
box, and without anyone having opened or built the set.
BTW, it is my opinion that there is nothing that excuses the set design of
these little SW sets. Clearly, with these sets as with many of the new
Alpha Team sets, TLC is trying to recover the costs of manufacturing many of
last year's terrible element designs ala Jack Stoned and LOM. The value is
just not there, sorry. And did they think I needed another Qui-Gon with that
hair element? Why? Why? Why? Couldn't they have at least given us a small
set with 2 brown SW cowl elements? What a missed opportunity! And no, I
have no idea about the scenes depicted and what would make sense in terms of
SW film continuity -- do people think TLC designers lost much time worrying
over that issue themselves? Please...
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) You know, I cannot find a dictionary definition that enumerates any kind of methodology for the word "review." Instead, there is a lot of sketchy wording like: To look over, study, or examine again. To consider retrospectively; look back on. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
| | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) I agree. A “review” is mere opinion nothing more – nothing less. As long as there is no deliberate deception at work, there is not issue here. Scott A (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) Yay, I knew someone would come through with what happened-- and funny, I thought it might be you Paul! (...) I figured Hop Frog would be in your neighborhood long before the next time I am down there, so I assumed he would pick it up. If he (...) (23 years ago, 9-Jan-02, to lugnet.general)
|
63 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
|
|
|
|
