| |
In lugnet.starwars, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> In lugnet.starwars, Chris Maddison writes:
> > In lugnet.starwars, Mike Petrucelli writes:
> > >
> > > > Yep, both the Islanders and Indians did have yellow heads. But, once • again,
> > > > those weren't based on one SPECIFIC person. I say that TLC should go for • an
> > > > accurate portrayal, if they make Lando and Mace (forgot about him...)
> > > > -Chris
> > >
> > > What color head does Luke, Han, Obi-wan, Qui-gon, etc. have? Yellow. Why?
> > > Because all living, healthy, "human" mini-figs are yellow. If TLC makes a
> > > Lando or Mace mini-fig it will be yellow just like all the rest. Luke, Han,
> > > etc. don't have tan heads so it would be illogical for Lando to have a brown
> > > one. All three of those CHARACTERS (they are not real) are human. All Lego
> > > humans are yellow so...
> >
> >
> > I *know* they're characters. Here's my point. Tell me the name of the guy
> > who is portrayed by the Indian Cheif. The actual guy. There isn't one! • It's
> > just a generic figure. Now, I can tell you the names of the guys who are
> > portrayed by the Luke and Han figs. They are Luke Skywalker and Han Solo.
> > These are no different than the Indian Cheifs or King Kahukas. What makes
> > them different is that Mark Hammill and Harrison Ford portrayed Luke and Han.
>
> But that makes them absolutly NO DIFFERENT as a mini-fig. If mini-Han and
> mini-Luke had tan heads then it would make sense for mini-Lando to have a • brown
> head. However they are not based on the actors. Mini-Luke and mini-Han have
> yellow heads even though Mark Hammill and Harrison Ford do not. So it would
> make sense for mini-Lando to have a yellow head even though Billy Dee Williams
> does not.
Like Dave says, if this is true, then Vader should have had a yellow head
too. He's a Star Wars "person/character" too. Yes, I understand that it is
gray for effect, and I want it to be gray, not yellow. But, how can scarred
and old/tattered pass as OK for a different head color, but one's actual skin
color cannot. Makes no sense to me.
>
> > It's kind of a "double portrayal" thing. That's my point.
>
> But it is not as the above explains
> >
> > > -Lord Insanity
> > > (who is still trying to figure out why people don't understand that skin
> > > pigmentation doesn't change one's race, that of human.)
> >
> > I apologize. You're right that "race" is the wrong word. Insert word that I
> > can't think of in it's place (something like ethnic background?)
> > -Chris
>
> Ethnic backround also has nothing to do with the amount of pigmentation in
> one's skin.
>
> -Lord Insanity
Well, OK, that's true also. So, YOU tell me what word to put there.
-Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
66 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
|
|
|
|
