Grima
-
Content Count
307 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Everything posted by Grima
-
My point is that people consider Terak the "original" because the design makes more sense for him. Terak is a mole, an earth-y creature. Melum is a.... white mole, I guess. Could Melum have been designed first? Maybe! We'll never know! But because the design feels more like an earth creature than an ice creature, people think of Terak as the original, and Melum as the recolor, and thus complain that Melum is just a clone.
-
Well, a creature with large front claws makes more sense for Earth than for Ice, which could be part of it. Sure, they're arguably no better or worse than the other, but when one makes more sense than the other, the one that doesn't is going to be the one people wish was different.
-
Lewa's definitely nice, but I'm not a fan of how they got rid of the keetorange and basically filled the missing space with even more silver.
-
I thought trans orange worked with 2015 Tahu, but 2016 Tahu appears to have PoF's problem: far too much trans orange, not enough red.
-
Do you mean Jaller? Hakaan had gunmetal, not gold. The gold twins of the Piraka were Zaktan and Reidak (who both pulled it off rather well IMO)
-
I agree. Also, I'm kinda disappointed that all but one of the Toa have blue eyes. I was hoping 2016 would step forward with diversity of eye colors, not backwards.
-
Visually, Onua is about 25% gold. Tahu is at least 50% gold. Considering another ~35% of him is trans orange, not red, it's easy to see how red can stop feeling like his primary color, while Onua strikes a far better balance. (Granted, with Onua's main color being the same color as most CCBS bones, it's easier for him to feel more grounded.)
-
I suppose, but they seem awfully final-looking for prelims. Granted, Tahu looked pretty final before they changed his mask, and they did completely change Gali's pose, but those were more the exception than the rule.
-
This seems most likely, but at the same time, I'd expect one of their poses to show it off if that were the case. But in all the pictures, their shoulders and hips are in the same plane. If their function was torso rotation, I'd expect at least one of them to be showing it off.
-
Actually, it's that the head is designed to slip over the top of the Toa's masks when the creature is snapped onto the Toa's back. With that in mind, making two different head molds that would still need to generally be the same shape in the front would be a waste.
-
Oh my god. The complaining has come full circle. We now have people complaining about armor that attaches exactly like armor in G1.
-
It looks fairly animation accurate to me, and it certainly doesn't look broken. (For starters, if anything it's got more on it than the animation mask, not less.) Chances are the differences can be chalked up to working with a preliminary design and/or the simplification involved in the current animation style. Huh? As near as I can tell, the Toa's builds are all completely symmetrical barring weapons and Gali's shoulders. I'm pretty sure the technic is just an attempt to try some different ways of building limbs. Which, in my opinion, is a little hit-or-miss right now. Anyway, I gotta agree with DV; these don't seem to quite live up to the 2015 Toa's standard. (Though it could just be the same reason I haven't fallen in love with an Ace Attorney Pursuit theme since the first one; the original was so iconic and defining for what it should be that attempts to recreate it just can't live up to the expectation.) I'll need better pictures to pass final judgement, but I can't say I'm the biggest fan right now. And Umarak's legs are quite the mess. It's like if you built legs the same way Gadunka built a body. It's not a good look. The creatures look cool, though the Creature of Stone is rather lackluster, and I can't quite get a good enough look at the Creature of Water, but its build looks a little iffy as well. Still, it's not every day you see more than one arthropod as a good guy. (I'm a little disappointed the Creature of Fire is the only dinosaur, though.)
-
I definitely prefer Vader's sleek, solid build to Grievous's mess of bones and weirdness.
-
You can't assume LEGO doesn't have a problem with it. It took LEGO a while to respond to the set list, and that was on the front page of several sites. This discussion in a subforum could just be going under their radar.
-
Which doesn't make it not wrong. People murder all the time. Doesn't mean murder isn't illegal. Is this your "solid reasoning?" Because it's fundamentally flawed. Copyright protected =/= classified. You can discuss the contents of a book. You cannot discuss the contents of classified documents. Similarly, you can discuss the contents of a LEGO catalog, but you cannot discuss the classified contents of a retailer's LEGO catalog.
-
No, it's not, because the contents of a movie aren't classified. It's more like leaking the plot of an unreleased movie from a leaked script, which would be just as wrong as posting the entire script. I realize I'm being a bit of a hypocrite, because I'm just as excited for information as everyone else. But your arguments as to why it's not in the wrong are completely ridiculous.
-
So a leaked image is wrong, but a thorough description of that exact same image is not? On the shaky grounds that "you can't prove it's legitimate"? If someone in the military tells you something from classified documents, it's still every bit as wrong, even if you can't "prove" it's from the actual documents.
-
Except if these leaks are real, something tangible is being distributed: confidential information on upcoming LEGO sets. Doing nothing in the wake of illegal activity on a site you moderate is as good as endorsing it.
-
But you'd have no way of telling the fakes from the reals. Allowing them all on the off chance they're fake would still give wiggle room for real leaks to come in. The staff gets "upset" over it because, in theory, it puts their relationship with LEGO at risk to allow leaked information.
-
We only know that there's a special watermark system, not exactly what it is. Anyone could imitate the few details of it he gave and only those with a catalog could say whether or not it was the real deal. My point is, "you can't prove it's not fake" is a ridiculous defense, because you also can't prove it is, and of the two possibilities, one of them is highly illegal and would in theory get Eurobricks in trouble, so why the hell would they risk it?
-
Oh, that's a grand leaks policy. Why not allow any images, too? After all, there's no proof they're actually leaked images; could just be fakes! Let's allow them all, just in case. Usually, you go the other way, and say "better safe than sorry", but I guess "better sorry than safe" works too.
-
You mean that constitutional right? The one that blatantly says it's just about the government making laws? A website telling you what you can and cannot say does not violate the first amendment. Someone telling you to shut up does not violate the first amendment. The only thing that violates the first amendment is the government making a law that restricts your freedom of speech. Everyone else is free to do as they please.
-
...this is not the government telling you you cannot speak, this is a moderator of a website telling you if you're going to use that speech, use it somewhere else. Freedom of speech applies exclusively to the government. The government cannot tell you what you can and cannot say. A moderator of a website is free to tell you what you can and cannot say on a website.
-
Wait, are the creatures the same color as the Toa, or different, complementary colors? (complementary meaning they fit with the Toa's color schemes, not that they're on the other side of the color wheel.)
-
I'm not saying any such thing. I just thought it was interesting wording.
