Ugliest Big Piece Ever?

[Sting]

Castle fans...

http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=30272

How long has this piece been around and could it not have been just built from smaller pieces?

[Scouty]

No, because thier are slits on the two tower bricks, and a slit across the top, this allows the "gate" to be lowered. Hope that helps :-) . The piece first appeared and only appeared in the King Leos Castle set(refer to this: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemIn.asp?P=30272&in=S ) So I guess in 2000 it appeared.

[oo7]

Wow, I've never seen that peice before and I've been planning on getting Kings castle. But I guess it's well worth it if it lowers and raises the gate. :-)

[Scouty]

Well, the gate just drops, I think. Nothing to hold it up.

[Sting]

Oh I see it now! There are holesin the piece for the gate to go through. Makes sense. I really want that set still... I better update my list.

[Sir Dillon]

Actually, the piece was in three castles, I think. Kind Leo's, The Castle of Morcia, and the newest one that just came out (I can't remember the name of it)

[Norro]

Much as this is a large pre-molded piece it isn't top of my complaint list because it performs a function you can't (easily ;-) ) achieve with a combination of smaller parts... For me that puts it in the same category as a decent cockpit, <insert that tiresome argument> but necessary.

God Bless,

Nathan

[xwingyoda]

I do agree with Norro ;-)

Those kind of big parts (that term of <insert that tiresome argument> means nothing at all and really aggravates me) do have their function and role in sets !! I think this part is quite nice once you "decorate" it !!

*yoda*

[Sting]

I will never understand the animosity towards the word "<insert that tiresome argument>". It is the truth with many pieces. There are more pieces in the past 10 years made bigger so the set contains less pieces and thus they are easier to build. Look on new Lego sets and it says "desgined to be quick and easy to build and ready for play". Lego never used to have that on there boxes, as building it was half of the fun. Now it is implied that building should be very easy and quick to build, and than ready for play. Easier and meant for younger children. <insert that tiresome argument>. That is what most large pieces are like. I simply do not understand how you say it means nothing when yes, it does mean something, and it is happening. Whether you believe in the aesthetic value and price value of these larger pieces is a matter of opinion. My opinion is they look ugly and most of the time, look cheap on lego sets. Many of these pieces cannot be used for anything but there single purpose, and if they can, there specialized design makes them stick out and the look is unflattering.

The word <insert that tiresome argument> does mean something and just because mods on this board and others don't like it (and do childish things such as censor the word, which I believe was the case a while ago and the reason I still on occasion say "jun1orized" with a "1"), it shouldn't be considered meaningless.

I have no problem with people liking these pieces, but I do not like most of them. This one is an exception because it serves a purpose many smaller pieces would have trouble doing exactly. (The Gate could go behind or in front of the arches... but obviously they wanted it to go through.

[Jipay]

The world juniorize doesn't mean a thing by itself actually. And it wasn't censored, it was just switching to a definition of the word.

"juniorize" refers to big pieces but only appeared with old grumpy afols complaining about every single set out. Sets always contained "<insert that tiresome argument>" pieces. Lego pirate hull ? Ever heard of them ? I hardly can find a more "<insert that tiresome argument>" piece.

While I wouldn't mind about the word "<insert that tiresome argument>" being used to describe sets aimed at younger kids, using it for pieces seems rather... Well...

This thread is a good example of the problems with the various uses made of that word. You jump in and create a thread pointing out a piece and say "could it not have been just built from smaller pieces?", thinking "yes", meaning "<insert that tiresome argument> piece of crap" in your head.

But no, the piece does fill a purpose. As almost all the "<insert that tiresome argument>" pieces. Burps and Lurps have their purpose. Windscreen aswell. Those are just lego pieces. Otherwise we wouldn't even have 1X1 bricks as they could be built with 3X1/3 bricks. We're fighting for pieces diversity, and I think this is why we hate that word so much. Even the most "<insert that tiresome argument>" piece can be an excellent building tool if well used. There are plenty of nice MOCs everywhere to demonstrate this statement.

[mrts]

I guess i'm with both sides here. Some of these larger pieces i do like, others i dont. Sometimes these new pieces give you new building oppertunities sometimes they totally don't...

As for the piece mentioned here in this thread. I think its ok. It indeed serves a purpose and if camouflaged it doesnt stand out too much.

As for the ugliest pieces ever i think it would have to be the new plane pieces. (these pieces makes lego almost playmobil *sad* )....and i think the cockpit and the wings are the worst parts ever.. :-)

[Sting]

The world juniorize doesn't mean a thing by itself actually. And it wasn't censored, it was just switching to a definition of the word.

"juniorize" refers to big pieces but only appeared with old grumpy afols complaining about every single set out. Sets always contained "<insert that tiresome argument>" pieces. Lego pirate hull ? Ever heard of them ? I hardly can find a more "<insert that tiresome argument>" piece.

While I wouldn't mind about the word "<insert that tiresome argument>" being used to describe sets aimed at younger kids, using it for pieces seems rather... Well...

This thread is a good example of the problems with the various uses made of that word. You jump in and create a thread pointing out a piece and say "could it not have been just built from smaller pieces?", thinking "yes", meaning "<insert that tiresome argument> piece of crap" in your head.

But no, the piece does fill a purpose. As almost all the "<insert that tiresome argument>" pieces. Burps and Lurps have their purpose. Windscreen aswell. Those are just lego pieces. Otherwise we wouldn't even have 1X1 bricks as they could be built with 3X1/3 bricks. We're fighting for pieces diversity, and I think this is why we hate that word so much. Even the most "<insert that tiresome argument>" piece can be an excellent building tool if well used. There are plenty of nice MOCs everywhere to demonstrate this statement.

Don't assume anything about my post. I said that I felt this piece was acceptable after I recieved information (which I asked for).I wanted to know the reason for it. Do you not question anything Lego does? I wanted to know why this piece was designed like this, and people answered and I accepted its use. Suggesting that I, or any other "old grumpy AFOLs" (I hope you are not implying I am an "old grumpy AFOL" from what I felt was a fair argument on the subject) believe that any brick larger than a 1/3 is <insert that tiresome argument> is a ridiculous statement. And many <insert that tiresome argument> pieces look like garbage in my opinion, particularily the new ones.

I believe the word <insert that tiresome argument> means something because many people use it and have a common definition for it, as well as the obvious trend of it happening (which is why so many have been claiming it) It is possible that some pieces (the new prefab castle walls) are more <insert that tiresome argument> than others (the old prefab castle walls). Its how the pieces fit and flow and allow for addons.

I am not saying it is unacceptable to like <insert that tiresome argument> pieces or for Lego to use them. I like BURPS, LURPS, old prefab wall pieces, and Pirate Ship Hulls (more of a baseplate in my opinion), which is why I don't mind the new airplane pieces. Perhaps I do not like "New Juniorization" which I feel in most cases is unneccesary.

In regards to the topic name, I still think this piece is ugly, but so are LURPS and BURPS without decoration and flow.

[Brick Miner]

I believe the word <insert that tiresome argument> means something because many people use it and have a common definition for it, as well as the obvious trend of it happening (which is why so many have been claiming it) It is possible that some pieces (the new prefab castle walls) are more <insert that tiresome argument> than others (the old prefab castle walls). Its how the pieces fit and flow and allow for addons.

i have to agree with this... if somebody types a single word, and someone else reads that word, and understands what the author was referring to, then that single word has a meaning...

in our community, when someone says "<insert that tiresome argument>" we know what he is referring to... it doesn't mean we have to agree with his description. <insert that tiresome argument> is just that... a description.

example...

what kind of brick is is ??? its a junorized brick.

what kind of set is it ??? its an ugly set.

what kind of MOC is it ??? its a beautiful MOC.

just an opinion, like ugly or beautiful. but it does have meaning.

--------------------------------------------------

as for the arch (possibly BUAP), i think its a decent piece, because it has an over-all LEGO look. and that is my main complaint with most of the new "<insert that tiresome argument>" (for lack of better word ;-) ) pieces... the airplane panels (already mentioned) and new rock panels don't blend well with the traditional brick-and-plate look.

on a similar note, i don't know why everyone dislikes the BURPs or LURPs so much... i think they are great (they definitely blend with the brick-and-plate look). only when they are used in abundance like in 6766, do they become a problem. however, they are super abundant in 6761, and that set is very well designed *wacko*

- BrickMiner

[Sting]

I agree with you about LURPS and BURPS... they look stupid when too many are used and too spaced out and not blended. oDDerFisken, a user on Eurobricks made a small harbour and fortress MOC and it employs quite a few BURPS and LURPS but I love how it looks because of the pieces attached to make it look natural. I agree with you Brick Miner that some of the <insert that tiresome argument> pieces Lego is coming out with now look awkward when mixed with other lego. (I am not sure what to think of those new rock walls you used as an example. I haven't tried to use one yet).

[xwingyoda]

I totally do NOT agree with you guys !!

Do not forget that Lego is...a TOY (wow, what a shocking news !!) and therefore, its just molded parts, some bigger than others !! meaning that per se every part is <insert that tiresome argument>.

That term (i.e. juniorization) just came from the vivid imagination of some Grumpy always complaining AFOLs that can't accept any changes TLC is making !! I am sure the AFOL community (at least the always ranting one) could not even agree on a clear definition of what a <insert that tiresome argument> part would be (apart the obvious BURPs ...).

Liking or not those bigger molded parts is just a totally other debate !!

*yoda*

[mrts]

I totally do NOT agree with you guys !!

Do not forget that Lego is...a TOY (wow, what a shocking news !!) and therefore, its just molded parts, some bigger than others !! meaning that per se every part is <insert that tiresome argument>.

That term (i.e. juniorization) just came from the vivid imagination of some Grumpy always complaining AFOLs that can't accept any changes TLC is making !! I am sure the AFOL community (at least the always ranting one) could not even agree on a clear definition of what a <insert that tiresome argument> part would be (apart the obvious BURPs ...).

Liking or not those bigger molded parts is just a totally other debate !!

*yoda*

Offcourse i know lego is a toy. I love toys haha. But if Lego decided to make lego pieces larger to make lego more aproachable for smaller kids, isn't lego then trying to juniorize the pieces?

Anyway i'm ok with larger pieces. I think its just a matter of taste. I for example am totally ok with the rock pannels (burp & lurps you call it?? 8-|) Lets just decide to use the pieces you like (like we didn't already haha :-P )

on a side note:

@Brick Miner:

Do you mind the burps and lurps in my custom castle? I used them alot there...Just wondering.. :-)

[xwingyoda]

Anyway i'm ok with larger pieces. I think its just a matter of taste. I for example am totally ok with the rock pannels (burp & lurps you call it?? 8-|) Lets just decide to use the pieces you like (like we didn't already haha :-P )

I totally agree with you: its all a matter of taste ;-) I totally dislike catapults and other ASD (annoying shooting mechanism - I love my new acronym loool), therefore I do not place them on my sets - end of story - no need to rant forever on such futile matters ;-)

I really like Burps and Lurps, two part rocks, and what have you !! I even like those new planes ;-)

I won't rant on that or new colours... My only rant would be on set sizes for city, but thats just a whole other debate :-P !!

*yoda*

[mrts]

maybe we could turn the topic of this discussion too who's able to find the most ugly lego piece ever made. :-)

Posting pictures of the named pieces would be welcome for me since i'm not very used to all the short terms like burps/lurps...asd :-D

Just post your pieces and give an argumentation with it why you choose this particular piece...But lets try not the discuss over every named piece for too long....everyone has a differnt opinion.

My first input would be the new plane cockpit piece...

(not sure how the find the piece picture though haha)

Why?:

I think it looks too much like playmobil & you can't make anything else with it.

Try to top that! ;-)

[Brick Miner]

@Brick Miner:

Do you mind the burps and lurps in my custom castle? I used them alot there...Just wondering.. :-)

i think they look fine... you used them just as LEGO intended.

maybe we could turn the topic of this discussion too who's able to find the most ugly lego piece ever made. :-)

that is a fun idea, especially if the entries were a little more abstract...

i have always thought this piece looked funny cockpit 7x4x3.

and as a kid, i always felt the shape of this piece was strange windscreen 4x4x4 1/3.

but these entries are odd shaped pieces (kind of a better discussion) and quite a different story from unuseful, or unLEGOlike.

for that category i would have to go with the dino with light up eyes

- BrickMiner

[mrts]

oeoeoe, the dino is a nice one! :-P Try to make a airplane out of that ;-)

Odd shape is also a nice category idea btw.

[Sting]

I totally do NOT agree with you guys !!

Do not forget that Lego is...a TOY (wow, what a shocking news !!) and therefore, its just molded parts, some bigger than others !! meaning that per se every part is <insert that tiresome argument>.

That term (i.e. juniorization) just came from the vivid imagination of some Grumpy always complaining AFOLs that can't accept any changes TLC is making !! I am sure the AFOL community (at least the always ranting one) could not even agree on a clear definition of what a <insert that tiresome argument> part would be (apart the obvious BURPs ...).

*yoda*

LoL. We know it is a toy, but the big change from lego from its old parts, but its all relative. There is simply more of these larger <insert that tiresome argument> pieces in most new sets than there used to be.

The term didn't come JUST from the vivid imagination of AFOLs, as I am a 19 year old fan of Lego and if you look I want quite a few lego sets. I like the new minifigures, I like the new grey, and I like the new modern look of lego. I am anything but a grumpy AFOL fan, and I started using the word before I even came to the online Lego community. Besides, I'm sure the AFOLs can and have agreed on Juniorization. It is a general term (Like Dog, Animal, Door, Tree, ect) .Its just how much in each set is the problem. All of them agree that castle walls, raised baseplates, pirate hulls, the aforementioned BURPS and LURPS, horses, ect, ect, are Juniorization. Some is done very well to look like Lego, and isn't used too much in sets. Other sets have alot of juniorization, and my opinion that it looks fine. It is obvious alot of people do not mind the further juniorization, but I do not like too much. All the sets I mention have enough value to me to want them, so I say keep going Lego. Its getting better anyway.

My main and only reason for continuing on this is the idea that <insert that tiresome argument> is not a word. Many people use it, and it has a general meaning, so it is a word. A slang word. But a word none the less. Just because a few people do not like the word doesn't mean it means nothing. My main and last point on this entire stupid debate is that it is a word with a general meaning to many people. Many people use the word and understand what it means. *y* Perhaps in the end we should understand, as you so elegantly said Yoda

Lego is...a TOY

Maybe we should respect other peoples opinions on what they like and don't like about said Toy, and let them describe it how they want without getting offended and insulting how they express that opinion. :)

There are a many ugly <insert that tiresome argument> pieces I hate. This one is the worst, and thank god I don't think Lego uses it much anymore (maybe its some town sets I dont have). If we do talk about ugly big pieces though it really could be in ANY page... as every theme has had there ugly pieces.

http://www.peeron.com/inv/parts/3754

What a lazy piece.

[xwingyoda]

I like the new grey

Loooool, pfew X-D :-P Lets not start on that ever rant !! I said it X times before and will say it again, I LOVE the new colours !!

Maybe we should respect other peoples opinions on what they like and don't like about said Toy, and let them describe it how they want without getting offended and insulting how they express that opinion. :)

Pardon me ? Was I not respectfull of other members' opinions on that subject ?? Was I ever offended nor insulted on that matter (or the other way round for that matter) ??

I think you do take things way too seriously there !!

On the topic at hand I just stated my opinion: the J word is of course a word but a meaningless word IMO.

BM, I think you spotted the UGLIEST piece of Lego never produced there - I would add all the Dino crap parts (except the wings which I do love !!) the whole rest is absolute garbage :-X

*yoda*

[Sting]

Pardon me ? Was I not respectfull of other members' opinions on that subject ?? Was I ever offended nor insulted on that matter (or the other way round for that matter) ??

Those kind of big parts (that term of <insert that tiresome argument> means nothing at all and really aggravates me) do have their function and role in sets !!

:)

I think you do take things way too seriously there !!

I think you will find all of my posts on the issue are laid back and calm. Like it should be. LOL.

On the topic at hand I just stated my opinion: the J word is of course a word but a meaningless word IMO.

Fair enough. It has meaning to me and many others. So I shall continue to use it.

[xwingyoda]

Saying that something aggravates me is neither offending nor insulting :-|

And I never said that word should not be used on these boards :-|

*yoda*

[Norro]

I said it X times before and will say it again, I LOVE the new colours !!

To be fair you don't build many castles... I might feel differently if I was a town builder, not sure about space...

On the topic at hand I just stated my opinion: the J word is of course a word but a meaningless word IMO.

Ironically 'Juniourized' is NOT a word according to the oxford dictionary, it only exists as a word on lego fan forums because it carries a certain meaning X-D X-D ...

God Bless,

Nathan (who is just looking at the funny side)