Jump to content

danth

Members
  • Posts

    1825
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by danth

  1. Thanks for the kind words! Your epic Macross builds definitely made something click in my head. I guess they made me realize I had no excuse, for one, and that the things I wanted to build were possible, for two. My MOC above is sorta cheating a bit in the "transformation" department. The arms & legs fold up but the fuselage doesn't change shape. I guess it transforms into a Gerwalk but not a full Battroid so to speak. It's more like something from Gall Force than Macross. I could imagine the main unit ejecting its arms & legs if they got damaged and shooting away. I actually have a much bigger project almost ready to reveal. I'm just waiting on a package full of Lego parts to get here from Budapest! Not my choice; it's just how Bricklink's "magic buy" split things up. Anyway, this next project is maybe more comparable to your Macross stuff, in scale. I can't wait to get your thoughts on it! Going back to the topic of joint strength you guys were discussing earlier -- I'm already feeling angst about it myself. The Mixel joints are barely strong enough for my little MOC above. And the technic click-joints are barely strong enough to support a biggish minifig scale transforming mech. For a transforming Lego build you really need joints that are small but have a large range of motion (180 degrees to enable "folding") AND strong enough to hold up the weight of the robot when standing. It's tricky!
  2. I finished my first transforming Lego project. It's nothing that great, but I like it! Shout out to @M'Kyuun who inspired me to get off my ass and finally build something! Album: https://www.flickr.com/photos/75562601@N00/albums/72157720031764664 Stop motion transformation: https://imgur.com/a/S2coDYz
  3. I'm not paying rent for games. I'd pay good money for any Nintendo game collection on disk. But nothing recurring.
  4. Rumor has it that there will be a Lamborghini Countach in the Speed Champions line early next year. Also someone found this pic which may show minifigs from next year's City Space theme:
  5. Original movie aired in 1982...so 2019 was almost 40 years in the future at that point. The newer movie was 2049. So this movie being "alternate future" is a first for Blade Runner. They can do that, but I think it's less compelling. "In the year 2032...in an alternate universe where the flying cars in 2032 would totally make sense..." I mean do they explain that? And if they have to explain it, that's already a lose, IMO.
  6. Voice acting/dialog is bad. 2032 is not believably distant enough for flying cars. Teenage girl killing people with a katana is very cliche...wait, did they take the name literally?
  7. I always laugh when people think actors are burning bridges because of a lawsuit. That's just how things are done in Hollywood. Its not personal. As long as movie execs want to make money, ScarJo will have jobs.
  8. Wow. He wasn't that old. I never really "got" his kind of humor until recently. It finally clicked for me when I heard this one, though: "I'm on this new seafood diet. When I see fish, I eat it." It's not really funny unless you understand exactly what he's doing.
  9. Outside? *Hiss* Well, I'm borderline obsessive about Classic Space and sort of constructed this hypothesis subconsciously so...I guess my point is: I have an excuse... Also, who am I going to share these stupid theories with? My wife? Ha! I'm working on a MOC that I hope to share soon. But damn if it isn't nice to be able to buy a Lego set of something you like and just put it together. For me, MOCs don't replace sets, and vice versa.
  10. For now, and for all time, apparently! But did you actually look at the pics I posted? Surprised someone can see all that and just say "Nah, nothing to see here. Must be something else." I agree that SW is basically their Sci Fi space theme, and good look getting a non-licensed Space theme to sell like SW, but they've also been doing tributes to old themes in Creator Sets, and Space is conspicuously absent there. I think it's probably just not worth it to upset Disney when they can rake in SW money. Combined with whatever their license agreement says.
  11. Rumor is that there will be a Creator Viking Ship in 2002. Good news for AFOLs and the idea of Classic-Themed Creator Sets. Bad news for Space fans since we have to wonder why Space has been passed up yet again. See my post above for my theory. 😒
  12. I suspect there is a legal/contractual issue with Disney. It would explain some of the weirder things we've seen. Like Benny's Space Squad, which if you look carefully at the box art, is portrayed as a group of people on a mechanical surface -- not technically on another planet. Same with the Emmet & Benny Build and Fix Workshop, which is clearly on Earth. And then you have the new creator Mech which IS on an alien planet but doesn't have a minifig/human operator (???). And the creator Cyber Drone which has a Space minifig, but it's a Robot for some reason, and is shown above a futuristic city, not in space or another planet. It seems very clear to me that Lego is tip-toeing around very specific contract language here. Disney says no sci-fi sets with human/minifigs on another planet unless it's Star Wars.
  13. I hate that Marvel, DC, SW and Harry Potter have all become "evergreen" themes for Lego. Seems like they'll release sets for those licenses no matter when the last movie was made or how bad the movies get or how many times they've release a very similar set. And if they release every vehicle or playset they can think of, instead of moving on to other themes, they'll just get meta and release sets where you build a large minifig out of Legos. Seriously: Lego has really changed. It's all about licenses now, and that's it. No alt builds, no building your own worlds, just endless rehashes of the same licenses. Hell even some of the city sets this year are slightly changed re-releases of previous sets. It's weird. I guess you can say they've gotten extremely creative with how to scrape the barrel on licenses, with the above as an example. I mean I'd buy one of those if it was a classic Space or Castle figure.
  14. To me these pics illustrate the tendency for main line Transformers toys have drastically better bot modes these days but at the expense of the alt modes. Instead of, you know, using 30 years of improved techniques, tricks of the trade, computer aided design, etc to make both better. I guess if you want both you go for the MPs.
  15. Thanks. It's a good reminder for me that different people with different experiences have preferences just as valid as mine. Agreed on wanting options to achieve cartoon or toy accuracy like Maketoys Jazz. Agreed. It's pretty fun to rant/complain sometimes though...
  16. To be more specific, what really made me laugh was the scene where they're all fighting with swords and the main guy stabs someone, then stops in the middle of battle to open his visor and try to look badass. And all the silly pseudo-religious wailing/singing. Who knows if the movie will be good or bad. But the trailer seemed pretty cheesy IMO.
  17. But remember those Christmas mornings where you didn't get any Transformers toys, but watched the cartoon instead and had the character's poorly drawn, simplified animation models burned into your soul, creating overwhelming nostalgia to this day? Neither do I. I'll never get it. The original toys were awesome looking, with panel lining and cool stickers full of circuitry, and there's no way the cartoon with it's cheap animation was going to be able to capture all of the toy's coolness. So now, we're going to make the toys just as boring looking as the animation? Why? Don't get me wrong, the cartoon usually fixed the toy's goofy proportions. And in cases like Ironhide completely deviated from the toy in perhaps a good way. But man, for me, those cartoons were just commercials. The toys were the things I spent hours playing with and looking at. Jazz has wings!
  18. The argument is that a "theatrical release" is by definition exclusively in theaters. Otherwise the contract would have specified "hybrid theatrical/home streaming" or whatever. Pretty big smoking gun here:
  19. Did you read the whole contract? Do you know what time frames are inherent in industry standards? Did you know that industry standards are actually considered in these kinds of lawsuits, and that they affect how contracts are interpreted by judges? I think you guys are handing Disney the benefit of any ambiguity here, without giving and benefit to the plaintiff.
  20. I don't think so. "If release, then theatrical". Home streaming is not theatrical. A theatrical release literally means in theaters. It specifies exactly the kind of release. It does not include home video, streaming, etc. There would be no point of having a contracts specifying how movies were released if they weren't binding. This argument that "they CAN do what's in the contract...Or something else" doesn't make sense. It defeats the purpose of a contract.
×
×
  • Create New...