Subject:
|
Re: What is a "review"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 9 Jan 2002 15:04:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
3965 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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 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
> 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 is in Reply To:
 | | Re: What is a "review"?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 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
|
|
|
|
