Subject:
|
Re: Bionicle going away?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.technic
|
Date:
|
Wed, 6 Jun 2001 01:29:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2131 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.technic, Steve Lane writes:
> Also Technic sets are always built in a skeletal
> framework style, while the UCS Tie Fighter is a solid form.
In other words, almost every Technic Formula 1 racer ever released (not sure
whether this includes the Silver Champion) is not actually a Technic set?
> I thougt we'd agreed Bionicle wasn't Technic, it's pretty obvious, and I
> like the 'is it in the spirit of Technic' test.
Well, the main problem with that is that when you get right down to it,
nobody really knows exactly what entails Technic-ness except for Lego
itself. If it's the parts, Bionicle is Technic, but then so are some System
sets, and I bet that also makes some early sets lose their Technic-ness. If
it's the level of difficulty, Bionicle is not Technic, but then neither are
many recent sets, and that also makes the Master Builder X-Wing a Technic
set (which we know it isn't). If it's the "spirit" thing, then we run into
another snag: what IS the spirit of Technic?
In other words, we all agree that they're different from most Technic sets.
We're measuring the difference to determine whether it's different enough to
be considered a totally separate line, but unfortunately no two people are
using quite the same scale.
> I thought the argument was
> whether both lines should be grouped together on Lugnet.
I don't see how it makes a difference. The only thing it really affects is
the Bionicle group's name, and I believe there was a monologue in Romeo &
Juliet about just how important a name is. Personally, I'm for keeping it
under Technic--not necessarily because it fits there, but because it fits
best there. Unless you want to put them under Robotics, or Space, or maybe
Adventurers... hmm... You know, lugnet.trains.bionicle doesn't sound too
bad... (Just kidding, naturally. But seriously, if we don't have Bionicle
listed under Technic, where WILL we list it? Is it significant enough to
merit a lugnet.bionicle?)
> I'd be interested in picking up some of the new gears :-).
I'm a fan of the cans myself. I fill them with with water, and prop them up
(with the lids off) on doors cracked slightly open. Actually, RoboRiders
may have been the worst techbot line, but they had the best containers--they
were the only ones that a) stacked well and b) integrated well with the toy
(the storage cases with Throwbots/Slizers were laughable, and the Bionicle
lid only works as a display stand.
Actually, one of the reasons I get techbots is BECAUSE they have those
specialized parts that people complain about. The best feeling I ever get
from Legos is when I build something weird out of parts that AFOLs won't
touch with a ten-foot pole. Especially when I get it to work really well.
My Amazon/Electro helicopter had me excited for weeks.
-Andrusi &&
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bionicle going away?
|
| (...) There's a simple test, has it got a transparent windscreen, Yes!! then it can't possibly be Technic. Also Technic sets are always built in a skeletal framework style, while the UCS Tie Fighter is a solid form. I thougt we'd agreed Bionicle (...) (23 years ago, 31-May-01, to lugnet.technic)
|
51 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
|
|
|
|
