Subject:
|
Re: New legend is up
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 10 Jul 2002 22:36:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2411 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.general, David Eaton writes:
> > In lugnet.general, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
>
> > > I'm sure part of the selection was because they wanted to include sets of
> > > different sizes.
> >
> > Oh, definitely. And therein is another bag of worms. People tend to love big
> > sets more than little ones-- the classics that people remember as legends
> > tend to be large sets. Not as a rule, but usually. So that gives a bit of a
> > push for the other nominees.
>
> Not to disagree, but rather to offer an alternative position, I have to say
> I wish they'd look to some of the _smaller_ sets as possible reissues.
>
> Back when the Legends series was first announced, I posted a suggestion
> stating this. For some of us, our fondest memories of LEGO are built on
> small sets, not always the larger ones. For myself, some examples would
> include the following:
<snip list of sets>
> None of these sets has more than 135 pieces. The point being you don't need
> to be a monster sized set to be considered a true classic.
Yes. I would agree, you don't need a large set to become a legend. I would
find it a problem for the kiddies, too. (of which I am one)
While the 'average' kid would scrape up ar beg for the dough of a 25 dollar
set, they would have to wait for their birthday or christmas to get the BSB-
a $100 set. I myself, though I like the BSB, won't be able to afford it!
On the other hand, I could aquire the BFF or the Battrax if they were released.
>
> > But Space legends? Battrax isn't one of the
> > first few things that leaps into my head. Although, granted that I think
> > it's got more appeal for "today's youth" than the Galaxy Explorer or the
> > Alpha-I Rocket Base, versus things like Main Street, BSB, etc., which I
> > think are still pretty marketable as is.
>
> To be honest, I'd never heard of the 'Battrax' until this voting came about.
That's weird.
> Any of the original classic space sets would (in my opinion) have made
> better candidates. I'm sure the Galaxy Explorer has gotten more press on
> LUGNET and RTL than most any other space set. Though I'm not a hard core
> space nut, I am a classic space fan from the very beginning. I have several
> sets from the first year they were released. I think space has gotten a raw
> deal as of late from the company. I hope things improve soon.
Yes, I would agree. While the battrax is a great set, I think the ideal
space candident would be http://guide.lugnet.com/set/483. The alpha-1
rocket base was a great set, yet in my opinion, it would fare far better
with today's youths then the galaxy explorer. (though I do prefer the
Galaxy explorer)
>
> > Combine that with the fact that people just generally prefer larger sets and
> > I think Battrax kinda was at a disadvantage. Certainly I don't disagree with
> > them choosing it to "test the waters", but if this is regarded as strictly a
> > contest between *themes* (which it isn't by any means), then one could (I
> > think) fairly argue that the Space theme was at a disadvantage.
>
> I agree with your last statement. However, I think it was the quality not
> the size of the set that sank the Battrax. Put up against classic space
> sets like this:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/924
>
> or this:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/918_1
>
> it is simply outclassed. These were part of the line that helped make
> classic space.........classic. :)
Indeed!
>
> Regards,
> Allan B.
-JHK
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: New legend is up
|
| (...) Not to disagree, but rather to offer an alternative position, I have to say I wish they'd look to some of the _smaller_ sets as possible reissues. Back when the Legends series was first announced, I posted a suggestion stating this. For some (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jul-02, to lugnet.general)
|
87 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
