Subject:
|
Re: New colors and other info (Attn Jake)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Thu, 20 Nov 2003 07:48:46 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
910 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Jake McKee wrote:
some of the old colors (like
| |
light and dark gray) are fairly “muddy” and dull. In addition to consumer
feedback pointing this out – and not positively – we didn’t like the
“muddiness” either, and looked for a solution to make all the LEGO colors
“fit”. Check that picture from Joe again; you can clearly see how much nicer
the new colors look. These new colors are brighter and sharper and more
consistent with the primary palette for which the LEGO Brand is known.
2. The LEGO color palette has grown a bit organically (a nice way of saying
haphazardly) over time. As needs for new colors came up, new colors were
created somewhat independently of the rest of the colors. Since we have added
many new colors in the last few years, it was clear that we needed a
specific, focused, and defined color palette. In design terms, the colors
needed to “fit together” better.
|
I tried giving this a couple days to sink in but it makes less & less sense
every time I read it. In fact you’ve talked in circles with out really saying
anything. Grey is supposed to be “muddy” and dull that’s the whole point of
grey. No matter how much you try to convince me otherwise the new colors DO NOT
look “nicer”. The concept of a color pallet that “fits” is ridiculous. The world
is organic, haphazard, and full of contrasts. The pastel “focused” palette is
great for Belville but will take the rest of the LEGO line in a very poor
direction. It also looks as if you’re taking the concept of a toy that stays
constant through generations and just throwing it out the window. What is change
just for the sake of change?-Ken
|
|
1 Message in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
