| |
I tend to lean towards the "modifying is bad, mmmmkay?" camp, though I have
done some in the past. I've used paper to reinforce the joints of a mech,
and I've removed the cross from a 24 tooth gear on one of my technic
projects, but those were both so that I could see the creative visions of
the project through. Trust me, both modifications were met with a great deal
of thought on my part (especially the cutting of the gear!). If I've
exhausted all the other methods of making it work with current pieces, and
have a method to make it work EASILY with other pieces, then I'm likely to
do a little bit of modification.
I don't know yet how I feel about scraping the paint off things. I have
tended to frown upon that, but with the new Action Team heads, I really
think that without the walkie-talkie bits, some of those faces would look
really nifty. Thus is the eternal struggle between good and evil that
forever rages in the heart of the Lego pseudo-purist :)
Adrian
--
www.brickfrenzy.com
In lugnet.general, Dave Schuler writes:
> This has been discussed previously, but I've noticed a number of posts
> lately on the topic of modifications to bricks, minifigs, and accessories.
> Some involve the removal of printing from parts, while others are wholesale
> alterations of existing bricks. The vast majority of these are cool and are
> rightly greeted with enthusiasm for the creativity involved.
> However, it might be argued that the modification of LEGO parts
> compromises their purity and makes them, in essence, no longer "real" LEGO.
> As such, what do purists think of such modifications? How does the
> community as a whole think modifications affect the "purity" of a brick?
> For that matter, when does a modification become so extreme that the brick
> no longer counts as LEGO?
> I expect some purists feel that any modification--perhaps even down to the
> cutting of rubber tubing--pushes a brick beyond the realm of "pure." Others
> have a more liberal (!) view, allowing modifications as long as the overall
> brick remains true to LEGO's design.
> Bearing all this in mind, might there be a point at which a clone part
> will be more welcome in a model than a modified part? How, and where, does
> one draw the distinction between acceptable modification and unacceptable
> clone? TYCO is generally well-regarded in terms of quality and
> compatibility; does a TYCO brick have a better chance of welcome than a
> MegaBloks brick? Put another way, if I can cobble/glue together a copy of a
> MegaBloks part out of existing LEGO parts, creating thereby a clone of a
> clone, would that new part be greeted with praise or revulsion? (assuming,
> of course, that the original clone part had no direct analog in LEGO).
> Just a few idle thoughts...
>
> Dave!
>
> FUT off-topic.debate and off-topic.clone-brands
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Modifications okay?
|
| This has been discussed previously, but I've noticed a number of posts lately on the topic of modifications to bricks, minifigs, and accessories. Some involve the removal of printing from parts, while others are wholesale alterations of existing (...) (24 years ago, 30-Oct-00, to lugnet.general)
|
9 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
