def

1-dix 2-Priovit70 1-lisqr 1-dede_la_fee

Yeah, all Ultimates stuff seems somewhat based on the leather suits from the first X-Men ficks. But (with a few strong exceptions) I think the Ultimates one and two were quite good superhero books. The main criticism was that they were written like Hollywood movies, which is good and bad. The writer, Mark Millar, has simply amped up the proto-film writing since, and sold a pile of screenplays from it (Kick megablocks, Wanted, more in the future). As a comic lover, I'm on the fence about blockbuster comics. But, I think he did a fairly good job with Ultimates, and he wrote it at a time when the Avengers was still somewhat low-selling (from the mid-70s to the early 00's, it was either a B or C title, but never an A title). He was also the one who cast Samuel Jackson as Nick Fury, though he cast Johnny Depp as Iron Man and Steve Buscemi as Bruce Banner. Anyway, Hawkeye was Ronin at some point, but I don't follow the Avengers so much. I read Secret Invasion, and a few of the Avengers issues in "The Heroic Age" storylines, but none of it really caught with me. He was done with being Ronin at that point though. That's one of the great things about Wikipedia though Still, with this movie and the cartoon out at the moment, it'll be fun to see what's done with the characters 20 years from now. I'm sure the 90's Iron Man and X-Men cartoons are half the reason those flicks were so successful.

Oh yes, he's the prime bathroom politician, but it's also inspired by: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Davis_%28Mississippi_politician%29 (actually a decent guy, I think) http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2010/08/george_randall_scott_bryan_pas.php http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_McGreevey George Alan Rekers Ted Haggard etc etc I don't think I'll be pushing sex and taboo in LEGO form, but when I saw that mini-fig when I reviewed his set when it came out, that was the first thing I thought. Never trust a man with a mustache.

I like the purple suit too, but it's the Ultimate version. The main Marvel one switched just recently to match this style too, so the 0.1% of people who watch the movie and pick up a comic because of it won't be confused by it. Hawkeye (I chose this image because his fly-scooter is so awesomely dorky ) Ultimate Hawkeye New Hawkeye (hard to find a pic, I only saw a few, and haven't read any of it) Sadly, I enjoyed him most as Goliath. It just so happened that when I started collecting comics in 1985, some of my first dollar bin purchases were reprints of early Avengers when Hawkeye had replaced Giant-man. And for some reason, Marvel has never revived that idea in well over 30 years.

Arrrgh, I hate having to like something on Facebook to access something Anyway, interesting stuff. Some of it looks a little cheap, like Captain America's costume, but the second half of it was pretty awesome. Hulk will be pretty great when he's not the lead of a film I reread Ultimates one last week (up to issue 12 of 13, actually, I'll finish it before bed tonight) and I'm really impressed with the build up and the writing of it. I wonder if any story points will be borrowed. I know the characterizations and universe were from there, but I wonder if the story arcs have any similarities. The Ultimates' use of Hulk was pretty awesome, though I like Ultimate Hulk less than the regular one. All the same, I haven't been in a theater since Super 8 last summer. I nearly went to see Tin-Tin and Mission Impossible 4 this winter holiday, but neither of them had reviews that convinced me it would be great to see them in the theater. I will have to see this one... Then nerd out on their LEGO counterparts after

I'm sorry, but please don't make that out to have been an equal, mutual thing. I know there has been problems with fighting and insults in some recent games, and specifically went into this game with a hope to avoid it.

Thanks so much for the friendly feedback! Now back to work on something new

How about we wait till after the game to decide what behaviors are in line, and which are out of line? By the time it's done, people's heads will be cooler, and statements will be less emotion-fueled

I had wanted to do this for a while. I'm not a MOC'er, so just to do this little thing is a new experience for me. Try not to hold me to higher standards. Anyway, here's how this story went down. It was a Monday afternoon, and in the washrooms of the airport, the man in the stall in the corner has been there just a little too long. A person enters the stall next to him. The first man shuffles his foot toward the divider between them. The second man is no stranger to this activity. He slightly mimics the first man, and also moves his foot toward the divider. The first man whispers, "I never do this sort of thing." The second man whispers back, "Don't worry, I do." Confidence bolstered, the first man drops his trousers. "Why don't you come over here?" the man says, voice wavering somewhat. The second man opens the stall door, exits, and coos, "Alright, open up." The first man opens his door, stammering, "I've never... never... I have a wife and kids..." He avoids eye contact. "Alright, put your hands in front of... Hey! I voted for you! What the~!" The first man recoils, realizing what's happening. Within seconds, a 1940's style newsboy pops out to take a pic. "What a scoop! Wait'll the boys in the newsroom set their peepers on these! Smile!" >click< ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ I actually don't really know how these kind of events go down in real life, but I had fun imagining it The MOC is fairly simple. The toilets were made with Speeder helmets (a technique I think I saw on EB a long time ago, but I don't remember, and google didn't turn up anything). The black thing on the back wall is meant to be a toilet seat cover dispenser. The doors were the most challenging part, having them be thin, but also not have a big hinge on them, so that they could open in a tight space. They are a little flimsy, but a MOC doesn't need to be played with. Thanks for looking

Thanks for your reply Aanchir. It's great that she was interested in a LEGO set I think it's a bit different than the topic that came up as 'controversy,' which is the meaning and impact of gender marketing. I think most people can agree that gender marketing is often successful. Same as above. On top of that, you write over and over again to let the kids choose, and before, you wrote that there should be images of all different boys and girls playing with all different LEGO. I wrote a serious reply to you, asking if you understood that gender based marketing does the opposite, it splits boys and girls up. You didn't reply, but you keep on with your refrain. Why is it that advertising for children is restricted in many countries in a way that it isn't for adults? Well, one reason is that kids are more susceptible to it. So, this controversy, and most of the discussion on the Internet about it is mainly about that, and not the set quality. I think it's great to have options, and to let kids choose their interests, but when the topic of this kind of gender marketing comes up, I don't think that's the argument winner. We all know Barbie and GI Joe are successful. That's not evidence of being quality or of being healthy. I'm really sorry to have posted so many times in this topic, but there seems to be a lot of confusion as to what the 'controversy' is in the first place, and I've tried to set it straight. Still, it comes back to defenses that don't have to do with the complaints made. I will say that it is not about the quality of the sets (although some have said that's a problem too, but not people who've seen the sets) and it's not that girls will not like them.

I don't think other themes are unacceptable for girls at all. When the company specifically labels things as "For Girls," that is the difference. Having a "girls" section on the website, having a girls magazine, this is a conscious effort on TLG's part to differentiate things between boys and girls. There is overlap, as Harry Potter is advertised to both, but they are still dividing things. I don't think they'll complain if a kid takes it upon themselves to cross the gender line they've drawn though. I agree that LEGO is targeting a different market, and it's been said in this thread and elsewhere that it's (probably) good business. I don't disagree with that fact at all. Whether I like it or not is another thing I didn't like gender-based toys before I was a parent, and I like them less now. That's my thing I don't see any relevance to the fact that they have the same ad agency though. Ad agencies have internal shifts. LEGO has had more than one internal shift. I'm sure a large number of staff involved in this project were not connected to the things they were doing in 1981. I do hope this line is successful, and that in the 2013 or 2014 wave, it broadens, even to the point that it isn't just "for girls." We'll have to wait and see what happens. Elsewhere on the Internet, I read today about DC reviving the Watchmen after 25 years, which, in comic terms, is pretty much sacrilege. Most people don't care, and for the company, it's just business. But a lot of people dislike it. The way some are diffusing things is to say, if you don't like it, you don't have to buy it. That's been said here too, about this topic. I find this to really be unhelpful to discussion, and discussion is one of the great things about the Internet. If I reviewed a set here, and somebody said, "I like that set!" I wouldn't reply to them, "If you like it, buy it." Whether you like or dislike something, there is a value in discussion of it, and a better statement would to be, if you don't like it, don't read it (or reply and explain why you disagree). Not aimed at you Aanchir, just something I was thinking about as I read some Watchmen articles today. I'm impressed that you can make your point and counter an opinion without making things up

I found there to be some difficulty in remembering the names. I did something similar in Bloodbrick I, where the names were independent of the players, for the sake of humor, but I found it a little confusing. In this game, it was a week before I could tell the difference between me and Cornelius Murdock.

Yeah, that part you bolded, I should have phrased it a bit different. The company has labeled what is for girls through their advertising. Though they haven't "stated" that girls may only play with one. That was the first post of the day, and a little excessive But I do think they've managed to do it with both boys and girls. The main issue is what's being done with girls toys, but it's fair to say that the type of advertising they're doing excludes boys from peaceful play. Of course, progressive parents will allow their boys to play with the purple sets from the "girls" catalog if they so wish. But having it only be in the girls section is a type of discouragement.

This is exactly the opposite of what LEGO is doing, which is much of the reason for this discussion in the first place. I reread that petition last night, and while they have a few points blatantly wrong (saying the sets are dumbed down, or pre-built), they do have some things right. So many defenders of the Friends line manage to say that everyone should be able to equally play with any type of LEGO, ignoring the fact that that is not the marketing stance LEGO has taken. LEGO has categorically stated which sets are meant for girls, that being, NOT all different kinds of LEGO. Right? You can see that LEGO doesn't agree with you on this point, right? That's clear, lightningtiger? I would call that all conjecture. Truth is, most ad campaigns from 1981 were discontinued by 1982. "Where's the beef?" was a wildly successful ad campaign, and it is no longer with us, so no longer existing in 2012 shouldn't be considered a show of failure. It should be considered that that ad was one of three, and the other two featured a boy alone, and a brother and sister. So, that was a really balanced, progressive ad campaign.

I don't think that's what's being said at all. The general criticism is not that LEGO is a leader in the gender marketing stereotype, it's that LEGO is falling in step with it. In general, despite Belville, LEGO had been a unisex company. If Kenner or Mattel were releasing the same toy line, there would be no complaint, since those companies have been guilty of gender enforcement for decades. The quote in that interview about the sets being simplified is ignorant, and shows that the speaker hasn't used them/doesn't use LEGO in general, but I don't see a criticism about the point you did. Way to understand the other side of the table For encouraging them to build, I think it's too soon to say. I think in the next few years, if we see a shift from the current "9%" that's been quoted, it will have been a success. I wouldn't ask a child about marketing personally, since few are aware that marketing exists. They tend to just see it as a fact of life. I think it's pretty rare for young kids to analyze the world in that way. I'm not the target audience, but that's my two cents.

You should be working at a high resolution all the time anyway, and then export the file for the web at a lower resolution. If you work at a low resolution, when the time comes to print, you'll be frustrated.

Standard screen resolution is 72 dpi (if I remember correctly... it's low, anyway). Printing is usually minimum 150 dpi, but for good printing, 300 dpi is a good number. So, net images are not good for printing. I would suggest posting an image, with a link to a large size image for download. Good luck

I think I'm going to nominate you for that same award next year, since it's 2012 and you're still going on about it In other news, you may want to coach some Imhotop players with your strategy, since the NPCs are listed with the players in that game too. Personally, I would never try to vote for them, but, you know, they are really involved in the plot

Thanks for the review! I don't know how early it is though. The green Ninjago sets all debuted here on January 1. I wasn't so excited by those new sets, except this one. There's something in the design which makes me want it. The other Ninjago sets I've bought were also Asian flavor buildings, as compared to, say, the Skull Motorbike. I'm still on the fence about the mini-figs in this set, but I've put this in my Amazon wish list.

It's fair enough to disagree, and I respect that (You're disagreeing in a mature, respectful way) For me though, I was an atypical boy, and found a lot of stress in 'boys' toys'. I hated GI JOE. But, I also knew that to enjoy girl toys was a form of social suicide, even at age eight or nine. Which I guess lead to me having the attitude I have now (that plus the five years I worked at Toys R Us reinforcing those stereotypes). I've been a teacher for years now, and I do think boys play different than girls. Around age five, there is a strong difference in how they tend to play. But it's not uniform, and some boys are relaxed, and some girls are aggressive. And I do think they are susceptible to the messages sent by adults (ie. marketing from companies). So when they are trying to learn what gender means to them, it is forced through a filter of what it means to adults first. Which, in the case of LEGO, means no Ninjago for girls, but a special edition of the LEGO Club mag covering only 10% of their product line, including LEGO Friends. By age three, kids tend to reflect the messages sent to them. It's great to consider a "be yourself" message, but realistically, a lot of kids don't have the self-confidence to be 'unique'. So, boys do what other boys do, and girls do what other girls do. I think it's great that there is variety in the LEGO line, I just wish they would leave the gender stereotyping out. By labeling things as they have, by color coding it, they have instructed kids how to understand it.

It's a nice article you put together FallenTomato, capturing the general issue with the series. There are some people on the Internet with extreme opinions either way, and they tend to make discussion difficult. Your point here gets a lot of my issue with the series: "...TLG fundamentally believes that boys and girls have entirely separate needs and desires. This is a harmful belief that we as a culture need to rid ourselves of." Those might be fighting words to some, but they seem completely sensible to me. As a parent, I want to encourage open possibilities for my child, not streamed directions based on gender. So, I'm all for diversity in the LEGO line, and by diversity, I don't mean toy lines divided by gender but a more open field. Personally, the new lady-figs don't bother me at all, and the more I see them, the more used to them I am. I love all the old discontinued figs of the past Thanks

It's true; I am so defensive, I started a blog to highlight the need of LEGO fans to support every detail of the company, rain or shine, believe it or not. Now, where's that link... I'll edit this later and add it in You're very, very welcome. Hopefully, I've provided a service for you, and you can rest easier now that I've satisfied your needs. If I only have one purpose, it is to satisfy needs.

Very funny 'article' about the new DC logo, and the nature of discussion on the Internet: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/01/17/dc-comics-logo-history/