| |
In lugnet.pirates, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.pirates, Reinhard "Ben" Beneke writes:
> > I really do not understand all this complaining against the paper roof. • <snip>
> > http://www.1000steine.de/gallery2/g127/05.jpg
>
> Ben, you must be kidding...
No, I'm 100% serious about this...
> What is wrong with the plastic sheet roof has everything to do with the
> tactile feel of the brick. These plastic sheets should never replace bricks
> when its possible to do the same thing with some other kind of brick form,
> even if they have to create a new mold.
Here I could not disagree more: I really hate new (monofunctional) molds (poops
and whatever they are called.) This sheet is - in my eyes - the same as the
paper behind the shops in diagon alley. Costs are really very low and the
effect for the eyes and for playing kids is very high. (And for the
much beaten and hated collectors: sets with sheets will increase in prices
because all used sets might have damaged or lost sheets. So buy Hagrid now and
put it for 5 years in the attic: will be really wortfull then :-)
[That last argument was in fact just some kidding!]
> After all, they had to create this
> plastic sheet also, right?
For a handful of cents. The costs are so low: forget about them....
> For example: the more I look at set #7315 Solar Explorer, the more I am
> convinced that the quarter round elements used in #7106 Droid Escape could
> have been used instead -- to have done otherwise is just TLC being cheap.
> The bottom line is that I could have had a usable element with some cool
> snakeskin printing instead of a plastic sheet I will probably never use for
> anything. Could I use it? Yes. Will I use it? Never.
For 7315 I might agree: I do not like any of the LOM sets too much. I do not
care about the set design of them at all, since I simply ignore them as bad
sets (Bad for me - maybe not bad for TLC and other customers)...
> To me it's only okay to use cloth or plastic when it somehow makes sense in
> terms of what the items is supposed to be in the first place -- the cloth
> covered wagon of the Western sets made sense because something like canvas
> was probably used to cover wagons in the real world. Cloth capes are okay
> because capes are actually made from cloth in the real world. Modelling
> cloth with cloth makes some sense. That said, I still like the old plastic
> capes, the old styles of plastic flags, and etc. I am just trying to show
> that flexibility is possible and can be a good thing -- but there needs to
> be limits.
So you may buy bricks from S@H and build your own roof. Throw away the
"useless" sheet. But be happy: 299 bricks for 30$ is more than ok. I complain
much more against Fluffi. His set is expensive and the 3-headed dog is useless
crap (again only my very personnal point of view). The first to offer 5 bucks
for Fluffi, will get him - I am no collector, who need a intact set. I
just wanted the spiral stairs and some other bricks of that set.
> And while the conical oragami roof of #4707 Hagrid's Hut is BAD, I think
> that the use of cardboard for the slanted roof sections of the #4709
> Hogwart's Castle is even worse. Those roofs could have been redesigned to
> incorporate some versions of the old Fabuland roofs if nothing else. And
> yeah, I think they could have made a new element too. They are making
> dozens of new moulds for Bionickles, Jack Stoned, Dinosaurs, etc. -- they
> can make newer stuff for the the more traditional system themes too.
A roof in Fabuland style would have been great (especially in new colour like
statue green or sand red). But we have not got it and I can in fact live with a
sheet as roof, as long as I have chances to get sloped bricks at S@H.
> If they can't do it for a decent price, then they should get out of the
> construction toy business and have done with it. Nothing excuses bad design
> or the inability to meet market realities.
In my eyes the Hagrid Hut is an excellent design. The Hogwarts Express and the
castle are in fact quite lame. Imagine a hut completely without roof: that
would have been just 10 cent cheaper, but by far worse.
> If these sets were not marked with the HP logo, kids would not be interested
> in them at all and parents would not be buying them at those prices.
I disagree again. I buy sets for the bricks. I love the new brown doors, the
door keys, the well known classic shapes in colour tan, the new hair pieces.
Harry Potter delivers lots of cool bricks for 10cent per piece. That is in fact
a good ratio! (This from the point of view of an AFOL). For kids the sets are
great, because they offer lots of playing fun, nice new details + bricks and
they are of course also cool because they bear the HP logo.
I see you have your opinion, I have mine. If you believe Lugnet database, than
people seem to agree with me, that the Hagrid set is one of the above average
Harry Potter sets. It has at least by far better ratings than Fluffi. And with
that argument this discussion had its start...
Kind Regards,
Ben
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: ISCC (mini-)entry: pirates
|
| (...) I agree with Ben. I hate the large moulds (SPUD/BURP/POOP pieces), but I think what the roof does far outweighs its limited uses in MOCs. (...) This is the main thing - it keeps the cost down, and the way it lets the hut open out is a (...) (23 years ago, 13-Dec-01, to lugnet.pirates, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: ISCC (mini-)entry: pirates
|
| (...) What is wrong with the plastic sheet roof has everything to do with the tactile feel of the brick. These plastic sheets should never replace bricks when its possible to do the same thing with some other kind of brick form, even if they have to (...) (23 years ago, 11-Dec-01, to lugnet.pirates, lugnet.harrypotter)
|
14 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
|
|
|
|
