GregoryBrick

I find it misleading and unfair to say that proposals are allowed to continue "just for show" or "simply to attract attention knowing they will fail anyway". It's entirely possible that proposals might include new elements, but the review team would have a better knowledge of how crucial those elements are in order to turn the proposal into a set while keeping its spirit intact. If there's huge interest in Proposal A, but the new element in it is inessential, it's not a problem. I can't see the review team scouring every proposal for new elements within and then turfing it automatically. CUUSOO is a negotiated, iterative process. It's not a contract like "You do X this way, and we owe you Y". The only alternative is for the review team to pre-review every proposal as to its feasibility according to every criterion, which is not reasonable and I doubt it is possible.

It seems like a fun little set; thanks for the review. I don't see any problem with the asteroid field using two of the same part.

The price seems consistent to me, especially compared to sets like the 9392 quad bike and the 8081 extreme cruiser, which are also based around a chassis (rather than the emphasis being on crane or excavator functions). You get four wheels with fully-independent suspension, which means 4 shock absorbers and 4 track rods; and 4-wheel steering, which means 2 power joints with 2 universal joints inside them. If you are used to buying every flagship set and using BrickLink a lot these parts may not mean much. However, these parts in these quantities are rather uncommon in a $50 set - often, even more expensive sets will only have a swingarm suspension in the rear or only 2-3 shock absorbers, along with rather simple steering, as far as I can see, until you get to supercar terrain. I actually think it is good value.

I would put it as 'NO set can accomodate every AFOL's preferences', so I'm wary of people presenting their individual desires as objective 'improvements'. It's the difference between "LEGO didn't do what I wanted" and "LEGO didn't do something they could and should have done". I don't think the OP or anyone else did this explicitly, but sometimes I think people get the two perspectives confused.

You're not the only one. I'd rather have a different set (or the money in my pocket). There's lots to choose from in Galaxy Squad, especially with the new sets; I like the good-guy ships more than the bug-ships generally. The two smallest sets from the first wave seem like they have really good play value.

Do you really think the review team doesn't consider what molds they already have and how flexible they could be around proposed elements? As you say, the Minecraft set differs quite a bit from the model in the proposal, which shows that the review team and LEGO have no problem thinking broadly about how to interpret proposals and make them work as they see best. The following, from CUUSOO, has already been posted: "While we love considering new elements, if a model depends on a new element, there are more potential factors on which it can fail review." If we read this closely, we see it it is more complicated than simply saying yes or no to a project because it has new elements. As Aanchir and Faefrost explained, new elements increase the number of intersecting considerations ("potential factors") which the review team has to address.

Well, count me in for liking the Ultimate Showdown set. I can get Iron Man and the Mandarin for under $20 CAD (presumably); I get a cool little vehicle to shoot missiles at said Iron Man, and the parts selection looks good, especially for a smaller set. There's Technic bits and pieces, distinctive bits like the hose and steering, and also non-specific items, like the slopes, grilles, and wheels that are really flexible for building alternate models.

Do you really doubt that explanation? Of course it's so the minifig can ride the horse - I can't imagine any reason which would make more sense than that.

Are you sure about this? It is hard to say how much of a hand Universal will have on the model's design, and I doubt that their criteria for what makes a good set are the same as those which will make you or other AFOLs happy. I am confident the final version will be very good.

Thanks very much for the review, it gives me a good idea of what this set is like. I think you are overstating how representative your current and 12-year-old LEGO preferences are. LEGO designed their Star Wars sets for a specific age range, and it worked, as shown by how important they were to you at 11-12. If you still think highly of those sets, that is great, but it is not LEGO's priority. It might also mean you have the same preferences now that you did when you were 12 (which is fine) or you had an AFOL's preferences at that age (in which case you are not representative). I do not find nearly all Star Wars sets to have an incredible attention to detail and accuracy, nor do I find this set do have poor attention to detail and accuracy. I knew what the vehicles were from the moment I saw them; I have seen the DKR films; and yet I didn't pay any attention to the presence of two wheels vs. four on the Tumbler's rear axle in this set or in the films. I think we simply disagree on this then. I find the criticism of 'most MOCs I have seen did a better job than this' peculiar. MOCs, particularly the ones which appeal to Eurobricks members, operate under much different constraints and obligations than LEGO designers do, as already discussed - LEGO designers have to make a model which holds together under play conditions, they have to have an economy of parts and they have a price to meet, and they have to make a model which appeals in ways other than just accuracy. As it stands, I do not find the linked MOCs particularly compelling anyway. Basically what Aanchir said. Also, I agree with his point about how this set is more faithful to the film than many other TDKR toys, which he did not present as 'the best thing that can be said about this set'. Thanks again for your review and commentary and the opportunity to discuss the set.

3. Loftus Base on Graidarrn - A Plastic Infinity - 1 13. Invasion! - 4estFeller - 3 23. Micro USS Enterprise NCC-1701 Bridge - toutouille - 1 *** Excellent participation! Good work everyone. Loftus Base - composition and colours are great, fun features, but the BURP zig-zag is what gets the point. Invasion! - Perfection. Micro USS Enterprise - Clever and immediately recognizable.

I think you are right that we are coming at it from different perspectives. If you would like to 'agree to disagree' that is fine, but I am not posting to disagree but to understand what others are saying and obtain some clarity. The prescriptive rules of English teachers are stylistic conventions which are approved or rewarded in particular contexts; they are not grammatical rules. Furthermore, these conventions are often taught as 'rules which make language more clear' but this is incorrect - they do not necessarily make language any more clear, and they are often arbitrary conventions which people have been taught as The Right Way to Speak and Write, based on false authority, not grammatical fidelity. Linguists are tasked with understanding what fundamental rules language follows (such as Subject-Verb-Object [sVO] structure) and this are far less fluid than the prescriptions of historically- and contextually- specific English classes. This may be tangential on this forum; I am content to continue it or leave it here as a friendly disagreement. Grammatical usage is determined through usage, as has been explained in this thread. I can make up a series of letters and say that people must use it a certain way, but my demands have nothing to do with what is grammatical.

If we want to know what the rules of a language are, we have to study the language as it is practiced and deduce its rules from observation. We describe the observed language accurately if our rules actually describe how people use their language. Most appeals to what people 'ought' to say are based on arbitrary rules they learned in grade school, not on the rules language actually follows. Following arbitrary rules presented as grammatical rules has nothing to do with 'precision' or 'technical' status. How does one know if one is being simply 'correct' or if one is 'technically correct'? I am not asking this sarcastically; it seems to me to be a meaningless distinction. Either an utterance fits the rules of a language (which we have deduced through observation of language in practice, not by corporate decree) or it does not. A few points: 1) English professors are not experts on grammar, linguists are. 2) The distinction between 'literary' and 'colloquial' English is not a distinction based on grammatical correctness, they are simply different registers. 3) Statements in any register either follow the rules of the language in which they are uttered or they do not - but the distinction between registers is again not based on how well they adhere to the language's grammatical rules. You can't say 'just about anything you want to in the vernacular' - if it's ungrammatical, it won't be language whatsoever. Because the pluralisation of LEGO is not ungrammatical. The rules of grammar are not determined by TLG nor selective understandings of 'mass count nouns', or anything else brought up in this thread. That said, it is a sign of respect to call people and entities what they wish to be called. Since this is a LEGO forum, it is considerate to use LEGO as TLG requests (and there may be other good reasons to do so), but it has nothing to do with grammar whatsoever. I would recommend that people read the following http://people.ucsc.edu/~pullum/MLA2004.pdf. It is written by an accomplished linguist, is accessible, and addresses some of the confusion in this thread. I am not an expert on language; if there happens to be a practicing linguist in the audience that could be illuminating.

I snipped your response because I already read what your positions are; the point wasn't to go over them again (they've already been responded to by others) but to suggest that future commentary keep these different matters from being conflated. Perhaps I was unclear. As for the bolded text, if the best defense of the project is "just because, basically", I don't think it's in good faith to complain about opacity in LEGO's interpretation of the project.

It strikes me there's two arguments being confused here: 1) Whether there's something wrong with children being exposed to female anatomy (specifically the breast), including through their toys 2a) Whether LEGO should alter the minifigure to represent the female breast as in the OP 2b) Whether LEGO is wrong to find those alterations 'inappropriate' I think it could certainly be inappropriate for LEGO to alter the minifigure in such a way, because I cannot think of any 'appropriate' reasons for doing so. The defense of 'realism' fails because it's awfully selective - why the female breast and not other aspects of anatomy, or of other secondary (or even primary) sexual characteristics? The claim that the female breast is the most distinctive or distinguishing feature between men and women is also rather extravagant - I'm willing to bet clothes, hair, and voice rank highest (and LEGO already addresses the first two, so there you go). I find it inappropriate because it is such a peculiar request with very little or no benefit; I cannot understand the motivations of the proposal. I remain open to having my mind changed.

I think there's a general consensus that the article which prompted this discussion was rather silly, but there's a few points I'd like to make. At what point do you stop? When there is no more racial injustice, of course. And I don't know if every single film with a racist stereotype should be 'complained about', but every single film with a racist stereotype should have its use of that stereotype called into question, absolutely. I do not believe this to to be the case for the LEGO Jabba's Palace and I do not wish to the debate the Star Wars' films on this, but it's legitimate to ask the question. If we look at the broader picture we will see that the problem of racial stereotypes isn't because people have trouble differentiating fiction and reality. It's because popular depictions of race, such as in hollywood film, often reflect, affirm, and sustain harmful racial distinctions. The world which produces and reproduces racism also produces cultural products, such as movies and toys which reflect that culture - a cursory look at history will show just how much toys, films, and literature reinforce prejudice. Furthermore, that prejudice wasn't recognized as such, rather, people saw it as harmless or 'the way things were'. The same happens today. People are rarely aware of how they reproduce social inequities. Introspection ("I don't harbour racist sentiment or think bad things about people of other races") doesn't address how racism works any more than people who think they aren't affected by advertising. I quoted you selectively but only to be succinct; I hope I did not misrepresent you. I also suspect we agree - I posted not to argue with anyone but to elaborate on some aspects of the conversation.

Absolutely great. The blast colours are perfect, as are the falling buildings - and all the other buildings! The absence of greebling reinforces how large the ship is (a ship the size of a few city blocks wouldn't display tiny details at this MOC's perspective).

Thank you very much for the review. I think it is really a small gem of a set.

Hi everyone. I am glad to become a member of Eurobricks as it has lots of news and well-moderated discussion. I hope to contribute in the near future. Alien Conquest got me back into LEGO. I like most themes, but particularly non-licensed ones. Favorites are Alien Conquest, Monster Fighters, Creator, and Technic. I very much enjoy building alternate models; I find it more challenging than buying whatever I need on BrickLink. I like flick-fire missiles, I very much like minifigures included in sets but don't like collecting them on their own, and I don't bother reading any of the themes' storylines or knowing characters' names. I think LEGO is doing things extremely well in recent years. I think that's it in a nutshell. EDIT: I hope to get an avatar sorted out very soon too.