Subject:
|
Re: Minifig heads
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.lego
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 2004 03:55:02 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2433 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.lego, Eric McCarthy wrote:
> Of course that is why, although I think that problem is solvable.
> However, you took my comment out of context.
The true irony here is that I started to explain a reason for why the heads are
still attached, but I got halfway through it and decided that it was superfluous
to the cape bit, so I trimmed that part out.
> I was asserting that if they left the head attached to the torso out
> of concern for young children seeing headless torsos, then they should
> also attach the capes, since having to actively remove the head
> is even worse. Therefore, I doubt that is the reason they attach the
> heads to torsos. Or maybe it is the reason and the cost of solving
> the cape problem trumps the concern for kids having to remove heads.
I suspect it might have something to do with weight considerations. I've gotten
sets that were missing one or two of the 1x1 round plates, and a single minifig
head doesn't weigh much more than two of those plates. It's possible that a
missing head wouldn't trigger the weight sensors while a missing torso/head
combo would. And if a set ships without a head, how much more traumatized do
you think kids are going to be over having to perform a temporary nogginectomy
to put the cape one?
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Minifig heads
|
| (...) Of course that is why, although I think that problem is solvable. However, you took my comment out of context. I was asserting that if they left the head attached to the torso out of concern for young children seeing headless torsos, then they (...) (20 years ago, 20-Apr-04, to lugnet.lego)
|
12 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
