Subject:
|
Re: "MOC" Blacksmith Shop on lego.com
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 19 Dec 2001 01:40:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5796 times
|
| |
|
|
We now return you to your regularly scheduled debate, already in progress.
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richie Dulin writes:
> > > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Allan Bedford writes:
> > > > I wasn't comparing piece counts, I was comparing building styles. But since
> > > > you brought it up, and to be fair, let's compare it to something else.
> > > >
> > > > Try this one [to compare the Jack Stone police station to]:
> > > >
> > > > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/370
> > >
> > > Deja vu! That set has more than double the pieces of the Jack Stone set -
> > > it's not a valid comparison.
> >
> > Richie...
> >
> > For whatever reason, you seem to latch onto one or more specific notions and
> > ignore other parts of my argument in order to make your point.
>
> I have “latched onto…specific notions” because I believe your arguments are
> flawed or contradictory.
Richie... I think we're getting somewhere. :)
I'm sorry to come off sounding so verbally heavy-handed in my last post, but
I really felt like our 'debate' was disolving into something like the 'Scott
and Larry Show' and I really didn't want any part in something like that.
Thank you for fully responding to my questions/concerns and in laying out
what it is that you find so troublesome about some of my arguments.
Since this post is getting really long I will do some snipping (as is normal
in most cases) but as I always do I will try to maintain the integrity of
your initial comments.
I get the feeling that much of what bothers you is that some of my
comments/criticisms are contradictory. To be honest, I hadn't noticed this
at first, but it's probably very true. As I mentioned, I'm really laying
out arguments for and against several aspects of the LEGO company's current
situation and product lines. Some of these feelings do conflict with one
another. But my final goal is the same. I hope to simply provide the
company with my thoughts and opinions. What happens after that is not under
my control.
> > The above is
> > a perfect example. I have already stated that I was NOT comparing piece
> > counts.
>
> But on what basis do you think it is a valid comparison… that they are two
> LEGO sets which are police stations? Why not throw the Duplo and Fabuland
> equivalents in?
>
> > Please go back, review what I said and then make a point. But
> > please do not snip my original comments,
>
> Nothing snipped in this post. The snipping was purely to make for a shorter
> post and nothing contentious was intentionally left out.
The completeness of your posting was appreciated. I just want to state that
directly. I have no argument with you Richie. It was just that from this
end, it was beginning to look like you were manipulating some of my comments
in order to take them out of context. I'm glad to hear that this wasn't the
case. Let the debate continue! :)
> > > Except that you're not a customer of S@H. And not a major customer of the
> > > rest of LEGO either.
> >
> > You're probably right. I guess the 50 - 60,000 bricks (all bought in the
> > last 3 years) that represent my new collection (completely separate from my
> > childhood collection) really doesn't qualify as a "major customer".
>
> I’m sorry, I didn’t realise you were that large a customer, you’ve certainly
> acquired more bricks than me. I’d inferred from your posts that you hadn’t
> purchased much recently.
You inferred correctly. 100% accurate. I haven't bought much from LEGO
lately. Two packaged sets from Zellers (Darth's Tie Fighter/Y-Wing,
packaged with Snowspeeder... for 50% off original retail) I bought two copies.
Most recent purchase? I hate to say it, but it was eBay. An old Universal
Building set. Had there been something at Zellers that day to buy instead,
the money would have gone to LEGO. But I was frustrated on returning from
yet another wasted trip to Zellers, so I logged onto eBay and gave money to
a perfect stranger. If LEGO doesn't want my money I can't make them take it.
But I honestly don't think my collection is of any significance. I'm
certain there are many many folks around here with bigger, better collections.
> > > > I disagree with your summation. Because it's not complete.
> > > >
> > > > I want better designs, better bricks selections AND better prices.
> > >
> > > Don't we all? I just think that LEGO is addressing the better designs and
> > > better bricks selections, and the prices are not unreasonable...
> >
> > As I've said. You are entitled to your opinion. By all means, post a
> > message to the Dear-LEGO newsgroup and tell them how pleased you are with
> > things. I'm not trying to suppress your opinion.
>
> No, I think you’re putting forward an alternative view, which isn’t
> supported by facts.
In some ways you're right. I often spout off without really backing up what
I have to say with facts and figures. However, since LEGO is a private
company, most of us (myself included) can only speculate on what goes on
'inside'. That is one reason that I've lobbied Brad Justus and others to
post any and all facts that they 'can' release, so that we're not operating
blind.
> > > > My dream is to walk into my local Zellers (or a Wal-Mart, I'm not fussy) and
> > > > see something akin to the 30th anniversary buckets on the shelves again.
> > > > Back then (only 3 years ago) I funneled a great deal of my disposable income
> > > > towards the LEGO company.
> > >
> > > But that's nothing to do with set design...
> >
> > I agree. Where did I write that assorted buckets of bricks had anything to
> > do with set design. These are really two separate issues Richie, please
> > stop trying to cram them into one. You are again taking statements I make
> > about one issue and applying them the other. I invite you to disagree with
> > me. However I would ask that you stop trying to manipulate my postings in
> > attempts to make your arguments appear more valid.
>
> I don’t think they are entirely separate issues. I don’t think it’s fair to
> say that you’ll only buy sets for good designs, and you’ll buy bricks/parts
> in buckets. If a set contains good parts, and you’re prepared to buy parts,
> why not buy the set for the parts?
I still have to disagree here.
1) I just want basic brick buckets so that I can get basic bricks (in a
variety of colors at a reasonable price)
2) I really do buy sets only if the set interests me. Let me try to cite
an example, and I promise this time to try very hard to make it a fair
comparison.
Take for example the Star Wars sets that I noted above.
I feel (please note these are personal opinions, not backed up by facts of
any kind) that the Snow Speeder is a good set. For several reasons. It
looks like a Snow Speeder. It uses bricks and plates that can be made into
this other than a Snow Speeder (some ended up in Engine 71, my fire truck).
And even the colors are similar to what I felt the Speeders looked like in
the movie.
Now, compare this with Slave 1. I feel that this is a fair comparison,
because the sets are roughly the same size and even come from the same
series. Now, to my little kid brain the LEGO Slave 1 just doesn't look like
the one in the movie. Was the one in the movie really green and brown?
Maybe there's something wrong with my eyes. I could have sworn it was grey.
Slave 1 was also packaged up into a buy 2 at 1/2 price deal at Zellers. I
won't buy it. Not even at 50% off. I think it's a poor set (flawed color
design mostly) and I have no interest in building it. It's not that I
didn't like Slave 1, it just that I would be embarassed to explain to my
co-workers why LEGO couldn't put out a properly colored Star Wars model. On
the other hand, the copy of Vader's Tie fighter that's on top of my monitor
at work gets 'OOOOOh's' and 'AAAAAAAAh's' because it looks.... like the
'real thing'.
> My point was that you said they should be trying new things (except
> Bionicle!), but that you also said that they should be doing the old things.
I guess what I'm really trying to say is that when some of the new things
aren't working, then why not look back and see why things once did work
well. You don't have to repeat history, but it's a shame not to learn from it.
> > > To me it seems you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want new
> > > designs, but old pieces; you want interesting sets, and you want increased
> > > brick availability; you want new ideas, but you don't want Bionicles or Jack
> > > Stone. And you want it all for less money.
> >
> > Hey, now you're really starting to understand me.
>
> I might be accurately summing up your view, but I won’t claim to understand >you.
You wouldn't be the first to admit that. I'm a study in contradictions, I
fully admit that. But I do feel I have some interesting points to make.
> > > I'm not saying don't criticize the company. Be fair in your criticism and
> > > comparison. Acknowledge the progress they are making.
> >
> > Which parts of my criticism do you find to be unfair?
>
> Your police station comparison
Perhaps a poor comparison. You might be right. The set from the mid-70's
was designed for and built by kids with attention spans. From what I'm told
today that often isn't the norm.
> Your rejection of Bionicle as a good thing
I believe Bionicle is a big seller for the company. (Likely a bit of luck
involved, but a big seller none-the-less). However, it concerns me deeply.
I'm not being silly here, I'm being serious. This series may actually do
more harm in the long run that the financial good it's doing now. It *may*
raise up many kids to be Bionicle fans. But it's doing little to promote
the brick and plate style of LEGO building to kids. It's not today that
concerns me, as much as when these kids are adults. What will draw them to
LEGO then?
> Your rejection of sets of good design on the basis of price
I'm a cheap bastard, what can I say? I want quality sets (like those
Megablocks is beginning to come out with) that include a high piece count
and I want it at a reasonable price (like Megablocks). But I want it filled
with LEGO bricks, NOT Megablocks. Man, I'm hard to please. ;)
> Your rejection of the availability of Lego Direct on the basis of price
This is perhaps my particular regional bias showing through. I'm not a
saint and I'm not above just firing off my opinion at the expense of reason.
I think it sucks (quite frankly) that LEGO shut down their Canadian
operations. I suspect few want to hear me bitch about this, other than
perhaps Canadian ex-LEGO employees.
> PS Did you notice the latest announcement wasn’t on a Friday?
I did! I only put forward that theory to see if anyone was paying
attention. I guess someone was. ;)
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: "MOC" Blacksmith Shop on lego.com
|
| (...) [snip] (...) I think we are/were a long way from that point. At least I hope we are/were ;-) (...) [Same here. I've left in the relevent bits I'm commenting on] (...) I'd invite you to have a look at the parts selection in Slave I. There are (...) (23 years ago, 19-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: "MOC" Blacksmith Shop on lego.com
|
| allow me to add some colour (oops...that's canadian...) :) commentary. <snip> (...) but it does raise a contentious issue of reality of the set (design) vs. ease of construction plus, the older sets could be made into other creations, if the the (...) (23 years ago, 19-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: "MOC" Blacksmith Shop on lego.com
|
| (...) I have “latched onto…specific notions” because I believe your arguments are flawed or contradictory. (...) But on what basis do you think it is a valid comparison… that they are two LEGO sets which are police stations? Why not throw the Duplo (...) (23 years ago, 18-Dec-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
111 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
