| |
In lugnet.trains, Ross Crawford wrote:
| |
Oh come on people, Lar was expressing his *opinion*. But Lar,
I gotta say, water is painted blue on most of the layouts I’ve
seen, scale MR or not. An example:
|
That appears to be on a backdrop, am I missing where the water is on the
scenery? MR here in the states seems to run an article about how to do
polyurethane (clear) water with fair frequency so I ‘m not sure I agree with
your limited sample’s implication... maybe Oz isn’t as far along as some of the
big US layouts?
I think I’ve stated my feelings about this before. While it is true that LEGO is
a toy, I’m, in my work, trying to transcend the toyness. (1) At the extreme,
what you get if you embrace toyness all the way is something that looks like
this:
rather than something like this:
Don’t get me wrong. I like the Disney look. At Disneyland.
But for me, I’d rather try to get stuff to look (within the limits of the
medium, the space available and the resources I have) as real as I can. That
means clear water. And for mountains that means more horizontal than vertical
and it means mountains that dwarf the tunnel portals and it means no snow on top
unless the mountain is a scale 10,000 feet high, or unless there is snow at the
bottom.
You all may not agree, which is fine. But I think something like
this project will wow people that are (so
called, by them selves if by no one else) “serious” model railroaders more than
something toylike, however big it is. That project if it gets done will show
that LEGO can be used for “serious” models and get amazing results.
Again, that may not matter to anyone else which is fine.
Now, is Brian’s mountain completely toylike? Of course it isn’t. It has, in
fact, many great innovations, like the tan road/parking lot and many other
things. And I bet if he took some closeup pics instead of just high angle wide
shots we’d see a lot more detail. A lot of things look less toylike up close, in
my view... for instance:
But I think it has to be said... when you post MOCs on LUGNET, you ought to be
willing to take input on them, the bad with the good(2). You don’t have to
agree, you don’t have to change anything unless you want to, but (as Rosco said,
and thanks for that!) you should take it on board and everyone else ought not to
jump on it (or worse, miss the point and pounce on one phrase).
++Lar (trimmed indylug from FUT)
1 - note that I was a scale modeler, not a tinplate guy. Tinplate doesn’t do
much for me... It *is* a toy and can’t transcend it without stepping outside the
medium.
2 - perhaps not quite as much as on Classic Space... the criticism there is very
honest and forthright, but it’s a great place to see people grow and develop
because they take it on board. I was a bit disappointed that no one had much
constructive criticism on my recent project posting here, by the way...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: A lil' Mountain with10 Tunnel Portals
|
| SNIPPIFICATION (...) Hey! *I* criticized... okay so it wasn't what you might call constructive, but then I'll put an addition. You need to open that canyon box and change that black facet on the end coach to a grey one. IMO, it isn't worth the (...) (20 years ago, 4-Feb-05, to lugnet.trains, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
32 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
|
|
|
|
