MstrOfPppts, on 21 July 2011 - 08:54 PM, said:
@Aanchir: Sorry mate, I can still not agree with you. And don't go mixing two different things. Lord of the Rings is a masterpiece and therefor you can't say a ten years old kid could have done it. But sadly that is not the case of this set. Anyway for example if we change the kid to 15 years, is that still humiliating? I remember myself putting together more complicated things than this when I was that age, although it was my dark ages. The thing is I really do understand that the set creators have a lot of experience and education. Therefor even more is expected from them. The least thing they could do is the set to look attractive. I understand that caricaturization of an actual thing is required to build in the minifig scale but it can still be done better. The QAR is a great example.
In general, I think saying anyone but a LEGO set designer could design a set would be fairly demeaning. I'm not going to belabor it, though. It's just one of my pet peeves when that argument is used, whether it's in reference to something good or something bad. Say the set's hideous, say it sucks, it won't bother me too much. But treating any sort of creative work like it didn't require the effort/experience of the person who designed it tends to strike a nerve with me, because it assumes that by seeing the end product we can automatically judge all the work that went into it.
Quote
For example actual QAR has far less bones and none of them are actually white. But the creator of this set really has put a lot of effort into it. He made it completely different from the actual ship in color scheme and in some shapes. But look, the ship is still recognizable and on top of that looks good. For my taste it's the best LEGO ship ever! It also has the best figure composition possible that fits the movies and gives you enough people to be able to sail the ship. There could of course be more, but we really don't expect that from LEGO ...
But I do agree on the note of price range and things concerning the piece count. Still my thoughts are, it could have been done better. Your saying that the BBs back isn't detailed. It might not be the best, but 5 colors, bigger windows, golden studs, crossed cutlasses and a flag does make it a lot more impressive then the Black Pearls plain black stern. Take this picture for example and you'll clearly see at least 3 mayor mistakes in the set.
I'm not talking about the windows count, because I'll take that as a part of caricaturization. But still LEGO could have done some new molds since these windows clearly don't fit this set. The only way to make them fit is to use the arcs which disables them of being less then two studs apart! But the mayor problem is the height of the cabin. In the picture it's clearly seen how far from water the cabin starts. Also the supporters for windows could be a really nice touch but with the cabin so low, there is no space for them. Last but not least, the greenish top is a very nice detail on this ship, which completely makes it not so black only. It could easily be done with some green colored feathers as by imperial flag ship. Also it's LEGO's own fault they didn't want to make an extra mold for the back of the new ships and in this case it hurts them a lot. but even using the second black piece under the cabin to make it similar to QAR, plus all the above mentioned changes would not increase the piece count by more then 20, but would significantly change the look of the ship and add to recognition! Because of the low cabin, for me it still looks like an old western engine with sails instead of wheels.
At the end of the day this really is a toy, but I think LEGO should listen to the AFOL community a bit more. After all we're the ones spending a lot more money and some for over 50 years, compared to children, who get a few sets a year and only for about 10 years. For example in a past year when I restarted collecting LEGO I almost doubled my collection and was getting a quite some LEGO as a kid. And even for kids, it's not like anything they'd produce is good for them! Of course opinions have to be said for something to change and this is, I think, the best place to place them.
I am a LEGO Pirate fan and will still buy this ship. After all it has quite some interesting pieces in black, the sails and of course the minifigs! But sadly it will not stand displayed as the other ships are, but will get modded or just brought to pieces used for MOCing.
I agree on just about all of this. I also agree that there's more detail that could have been put into the back of the Black Pearl. I just feel that compared to other ships in the franchise, it's rather plain, and so I don't feel the LEGO version really needs much improvement. Now, I'd love it if some MOCist would make a revamp of this set once it's out-- and frankly, I look forward to it if you decide to do this yourself!
Jack Bricker, on 21 July 2011 - 09:18 PM, said:
I would like to say that I am making a statement not an insult and as a member here on these forums I am entitled to the privilege of saying my true opinion however blunt it may be. Now looking at this set with all of the "experience" you credit those designers with It really does not show a lot of effort compared to the BSB, SES, IMF, or even QAR. Now for that reason I am very disappointed with Lego for not making a better BB and I want to voice my true opinion so that Lego knows to avoid the same mistakes with other sets. Now if you like this set and you think it is great you go an buy it and enjoy it but, I am not satisfied with it like the majority of Lego pirates fans and I would like to see a much better ship next time.
You can't
see effort. That's the thing that particularly bothers me-- that assumption that the end product clearly shows all the effort behind it. Really, though, effort isn't visible as a measure of how complex a set is. As I said, making a set as simple as possible can be just as difficult as making a perfect likeness.
Frankly, somebody could look at a lot of modern art, including Cubist, abstract, or non-representational works, and say "a four-year-old could have made this". And really, in the same vein as the infinite monkeys reproducing the complete works of Shakespeare, that's probably true-- there could very easily be a four-year-old who on an impulse draws something not unlike the artwork in question. But this sort of thinking ignores the thought processes behind the work, instead just seeing the artist as a means to an end. And I think that's just the wrong perspective to have, especially when you're dealing with people who for whatever reason have chosen some type of art or design job as their profession.
Again, I'm not going to belabor this. I find that sort of comment extremely insulting in any context where you haven't actually
seen the effort behind a design. You can call a set ugly, disappointing, or even utter garbage, but I don't think it's acceptable to demean the
designers (whom you don't even know) just on an assumption that they aren't doing their best. Because on the off chance that they
did their very best, that they put their design effort towards characteristics other than making a realistic or detailed likeness (believe it or not, there is more to set design than just that), you're telling them they wasted all that effort.
4
