Subject:
|
Re: Mad Legos
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:06:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
24613 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, John P. Henderson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.mediawatch, Bob Parker wrote:
|
To be fair, if LEGO started with 100% smiley, they had no where to go but down.
My take: I’d prefer a greater proportion of happiness, especially among the
two-face heads. Why not make one side happy?
I’m less worried by the out-right “mean faces” than the “stern”/”confident”
faces that seem more bleak or sneaky than happy.
| |
I’m not bothered by the facts or story here, but I do find it annoying that
a) the author/editor chose a challenging headline when the conclusion of the
article does not actually get that challenging (it’s misleading!) and b) the
picture used as an example of what the smiley used to be is in fact not a
classic ‘yellow smiley’ (note the eyebrows). News authorship FAIL.
|
I’m not sure if you mean the image of the oversized lego head (with a modern
smiley) or the image of the minifig with the Harry Potter hair (with a classic
eyebrows smiley). In either case, they didn’t say it was the original minifig
face, they said “All Lego figurines ... wore smiles when they were first
produced.”
I’m amused by their angry example - I feel the Hulk face is actually *less*
inherently angry/mean than other examples they could have used. Maybe it’s
because the Hulk is supposed to be anger personified, I expect worse from his
faceprint.
Steve
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Mad Legos
|
| (...) I'm not bothered by the facts or story here, but I do find it annoying that a) the author/editor chose a challenging headline when the conclusion of the article does not actually get that challenging (it's misleading!) and b) the picture used (...) (11 years ago, 16-Jun-13, to lugnet.mediawatch, FTX)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
