The Kid Posted February 15, 2007 "You're livin' in the past, [nostalgic people]. Quit livin' in the past!" [/Homer] :-P TK Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hewkii9 Posted February 15, 2007 Useless, non-reusable character-specific faces, more clones to toss with each new set...actually, incompatibility with other minifigs wouldn't bug me so much if they werent so UGLY! It's like TLC decided to use DragonBallZ as their reference material for 'manga', ugh, they don't look anything remotely close to a typical manga...at least not a good one Ironically, the Avator head looks pretty good in comparison, even though Avatar is an american cartoon! (still not worth buying though, that huge grin hes got is just scary :-D ) I agree. If anyone would compare, could you tell me which is longer? A coin piece's diameter, or Ryo's eye? I am just glad nobody is complaining about that wonderful hair. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pianodude2494 Posted February 15, 2007 Ahh! More juniorization debates? Oh well, here's my two cent's worth... LEGO is going down the drain. For the most part. I must admit that 2007 looks like a great year for LEGO, one of the best years in awhile! But as a whole, the set TLC is making just aren't what they used to be. Parts are far too customized, making them difficult to use again; minifigs are becoming way too "theme-specfic", making mixing and matching a pain. So yeah, I will agree that juniorization, and customization are destroying LEGO. :'-( Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Norrington Posted February 15, 2007 I agree. If anyone would compare, could you tell me which is longer? A coin piece's diameter, or Ryo's eye? I am just glad nobody is complaining about that wonderful hair. The eye, but not by much. Also, the hair is kinda queer. WHo has natural green or blue hair? They had to die it. Which I wouldn't have had a problem with normally, but when it's that, the person dying their hair like that (Unless it's a girl :-$ )is probably a queer. (No offense to anyone meant if that's your type of 'lifestyle') Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Berry Syedow Posted February 15, 2007 In a broader economic context, i'd say that the consumer has become very lazy and wants some direct output from whatever product he buys. He doesn't want to spend hours of figuring out what goes where, he buys it, plays with it and throws it away... he doesn't want to have to put too much effort in it... Same with Lego: the company not only provides the product as simple as possible, but also creates everything around it, so the poor customer doesn't really have to do much extra, then basically to put it out of the box and to play with it... That's different compared to the early 80's when Lego was still perceived as a construction toy, even though many sets didn't have more bricks than today's sets... Sure, many sets today are very very very large. I think that's part of our modern world too. Sets have to be noticed, they have to impress potential customers. However, it does not mean these sets are <insert that tiresome argument>. Snefroe, when you describe the "lazy consumerist", what portion of TLC's consumers are you describing, specifically? (I realize you were describing the broader market.) Also, I'd say the size factor does help fuel the junorization epidemic. Just look at TLC's latest sets of 50 and 100 dollars/euros from the Castle Theme. They're loaded with bulky junorized elements to increase the size of the product and justify the price (the dang dragon doens't help one bit). I also think that its simple nostalgia that makes a lot of the AFOLs complain about the recent sets. The only way to truly satisfy AFOLs would be to rerelease every single set from the mid 1970s to the late 1990s, something that Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
alex54 Posted February 15, 2007 The city sets from 1997 to 2001 are the best example of a <insert that tiresome argument> line, so :-X ! They look so simple, without any interesting part to build, and no playability. They are not construction toys nor toys. I'm hard, but I really dislike those years! And maybe the nostalgia makes the difference between classic sets from the 80's and 90's and the new ones, which are really detailed and nice designed for me. I think one reason is how TLC makes its catalogue. In fact, with the old ones, the scenaries were really nice, you dreamt on nights and nights, you wanted all the line for having the same thing than on the paper. But now, we don't have this... and it removes charm with those new sets. But with th new city port line, we find this charm again... Way to go TLC! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Garet6 Posted February 27, 2007 i wouldnt exactly say juniorize, id say modernize. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dark Brick Posted February 28, 2007 I did a search on www.Peeron.com for the Town Jr. Theme and came out with quite a list. This theme reminds me more of the Jack Stone sub-sets that came out. In fact I have some these pieces to these sets(soon to be auctioned off) from bulk LEGOs that I have purchased. Either way LEGO is changing thier stripes for the better this time around and the sets are almost on par with what we got back in the 80's and 90's. I agree with the "nostagia factor", I can attest to loving all those old set, in fact Pirates maybe the big one that comes to mind. Yeah I would love for TLG to reproduce some of the major iconic sets of those two decades but that is wishful thinking. But if anyone from TLG is reading this, the Airport Shuttle 6399 would be great as a LEGO Legend set. *wub* ;-) DB Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JINZONINGEN73 Posted February 28, 2007 and your saying that that nre ucs millenium falcon is junoirized are you? I get what you meant. He's saying if Lego's so <insert that tiresome argument>, then what the heck's a UCS Falcon doing there? Alot of stuff is "dumbed down" both in content (castles that are a WALL with 2 protruding walls on the sides) and in large, too-specific parts (Bionicle pieces, castle walls, rock faces)... but the fact remains that there's still plenty of tiny parts to go around. You can still build as complex as your mind allows you to. You don't need an instruction booklet for it. I do sympathize on the concept that new fans and kids are missing out on learning complex configurations, but heck... it doesn't mean that ability has been removed from Lego. If, say, you had a Transformers robot who one year took 5 minutes to transform and was highly detailed, followed by next year's model "auto-transforming" from the spring-loaded push of a button... yes, yes THAT would be bad. Lego is timeless though. Until they stop making bricks in high quality, anti-aging plastic... it's still Lego. I agree. If anyone would compare, could you tell me which is longer? A coin piece's diameter, or Ryo's eye? I am just glad nobody is complaining about that wonderful hair. Sure, Lego went all Dragonball Z with faces and stuff, but I don't think it drags the play experience down as badly as alot of AFoLs say. I remember my brother's space sets in the late 70's... everyone was smiling. As I've said before, Lego faces looked like "child's learning toys", so sterile that they should have been stocked on the toy shelves mixed in Playmobil. I ask you... as a young kid, did you not do or at the very least want to whip out a pen and draw "better" faces on them? I sure did. It just made sense. When I saw Alpha Team's dynamic faces, my only gripe (and a small one) was that they added microphones next to some of their mouths. THAT'S an example of cutting down on playability, not the dynamic expression or detail, the fact that you couldn't hide the microphones under different hair or hats. The new faces though, ... I LOVE them. Similarly though, there's definitely a NEED for the classic smilies. I'll explain... When you walk around on a city street, you probably look at everyone walking by as just a bunch of identical forms moving about... UNTIL one person catches your eye for being different to your interest. I don't think someone's cityscape would be harmed by a bunch of smilie figs doing their thing with a small scattering of the more detailed newer faces. And think about this... Lego's minifig tools have graduated from space-cone guns to legitimate weapons. Would it not be kind of twisted to have a smiling gunman caught in time shooting a smiling victim? Shouldn't that victim be allowed to show more horrified expression or anger than simply tilting backwards a few degrees and raising their arms in the air? Shouldn't that gunman be allowed anger or some other emotion? I dunno'... dynamic faces just make sense... as do smilies. One's incomplete without the other. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
