Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - EdSolo

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 41
Watto's Junk Yard / Re: LEGO #2, Hasbro #3
« on: September 6, 2013, 02:32 PM »
Another thing I forgot to add is quality control. LEGO must have their toys made in some magical fairy land because they always seem to have the correct paint apps, the boxes aren't falling apart on the shelves, etc.

Hasbro seems to really struggle to maintain quality across all their lines. They use the wrong images, inferior packaging, sloppy paint apps, you name it. It just comes across as half-assed.

I have purchased just about every Star Wars Lego set.  I have been a bit behind on my building, but I finally started building the large Imperial Shuttle set a few weeks ago.  This is the first set I have encountered that was actually missing pieces.  They put in two copies of one bag of pieces (that should not have had two copies) and missed one bag.  I called customer service and they had my missing parts shipped to me at no cost about two weeks later (and they shipped from Denmark).  The real neat thing is they have everything on their computer and can tell you how many bags came in the set and can virtually open each bag in the set on the computer and tell you what should be in each bag.  With over 100 unique part types in the set, it made it much easier than taking an inventory off of the parts list.  The whole call probably took less than 10 minutes.  I have never had to call Hasbro CS, but I doubt they could beat the department at Lego.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: LEGO #2, Hasbro #3
« on: September 6, 2013, 02:26 PM »
One factor there is that LEGO can afford to have exceptional QC because LEGO sets cost WAY more than Hasbro toys.  I'm sure if Hasbro could charge $20 for a 3.75" figure, the QC would be amazing.

They are not that far off from that price point now.  Even at $10/figure, I don't think the bubbles should be falling off.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: LEGO #2, Hasbro #3
« on: September 6, 2013, 11:00 AM »
I think another thing that helps Lego is that they retire sets.  The 2014 set list looks like a lot or rehashes, but they are items that haven't been around for years.  Hasbro doesn't hesitate to have three Luke or Vader figures out at the same time.  The Greatest Hits stuff has killed Hasbro.  The only thing I ever see at stores is GH and whatever was the first wave of the year.  I am still seeing TPM wave vintage figures on the pegs.  With Lego, you almost always see the new product when it comes out.  I can't think of anything Hasbro has done in the past five to ten years that is as cool as the Lego Death Star and Ewoks Village sets.  Maybe the Big Millennium Falcon is as cool, but that Death Star set is hard to beat.  I would love to see a Hasbro set with that many play features.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: LEGO #2, Hasbro #3
« on: September 5, 2013, 02:08 PM »
Lego puts out a lot better and more consistent product than Hasbro.  Also, Lego is lot easier to find and they actually sell their new product on their website.

LEGO / Re: LEGO 2014
« on: August 15, 2013, 03:26 PM »
Seems like a lackluster list.  Just about everything is a rehash of some sort.

No doubt it'd have been a random clone, but damn it is always amusing to watch the completists go into meltdown for the SDCC exclusives.

That really didn't apply with Sideshow.  All of their convention exclusives have been offered in non-attendee versions so they have been quite easy to acquire.

One point = $0.01

You receive one point for every dollar that you spend.  You do not earn ANY points on an item that you use reward points to purchase, even if you only partially reduce the price.

LEGO / Re: LEGO Sets - Do You Keep the Boxes?
« on: June 19, 2013, 11:43 AM »
I've kept all the boxes, but I have disassembled my sets and moved them once, and will probably have to do so again.  This time around, when I reassembled them, I part all the extra parts in a gallon zip lock bag.  I have also put boxes inside boxes to save some space, but they do take up a lot of space, especially if you have every set.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Xbox One
« on: June 11, 2013, 07:09 AM »
Between the price and the inability to buy/sell used games, I think they are in big trouble.  It looks like PS4 should easily outsell Xbox 1.  However, I'm sure each platform has its fanboys so only time will tell.

I wondered about Theon as well.  I think that in the book that other things were sent to his father than what was sent on the show.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: June 4, 2013, 03:58 PM »
I'm not sure we can assume that Khan always intended on ending up on Kronos either.  What happens if he killed everyone at Starfleet HQ and Kirk doesn't trash his ship?  Does he still transport out or does he try to find the torpedoes that contain his crew?

The Sequel Trilogy / Re: Star Wars Episode VII
« on: May 31, 2013, 01:43 PM »
Maybe he has gone method and is going to be playing the crazy old Jedi Master like Yoda in ESB.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: iPod-racing
« on: May 30, 2013, 03:19 PM »
I ditched my ipod nano and got a 64 GB iPhone 5.  I wonder if the ipod is on the way out with things like the ipad and touch.  Considering the nano hasn't gone past 16 GB, it doesn't really seem that viable anymore.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 30, 2013, 11:06 AM »
I see this movie getting a lot more criticism for sloppy writing than just about any other Hollywood blockbuster with similar sloppy writing.

You're making the same mistake as before - just because one movie gets a pass for plot holes doesn't mean EVERY movie should get a pass for plot holes.  Films aren't and shouldn't be reviewed objectively.  You don't do that with art.

The plot holes in Trek2 are particularly egregious, IMO.  So bad they pulled me out of the film.  That never happened for me with IM3.  Thus it draws my ire.

Plus I expect Trek NOT to be gallingly stupid.  There's no reason for it to exist if it becomes another dumb popcorn flick franchise.  I don't want to have to shut off my brain when I go into a Trek movie.  Sorry for holding the franchise to such a high standard.

Have you watched much Trek?  Transporter malfunction was a pretty frequent plot device.  This is science fiction after all.  This movie was certainly more entertaining that the vast majority of other Trek movies.  Space whales aren't gallingly stupid?  A god-like being trapped in the middle of the galaxy?  Heaven as ribbon floating through space? A fountain of youth planet?

I'm not saying any movie should get a pass for plot holes, but this one is getting slammed overly hard for them.  I certainly don't see them as egregious as you do.

Watto's Junk Yard / Re: Star Trek
« on: May 30, 2013, 07:45 AM »
I didn't want to hate it.  I wanted to enjoy it.  Who goes into a theater wanting to hate what they're about to see?  Other than a professional reviewer?

Just because you don't agree with the criticism, don't try to paint those who hold a different opinion as somehow biased and thus their criticisms invalid.  Transporters in Trek2 only worked and only failed when it conveniently served the plot.  It was one of many signs of EXTREMELY sloppy writing.

And the fact that other movies have plot holes, some of them excused by various people, is not a meaningful rebuttal.  Reviews are subjective and thus not bound by objective criteria like consistency.  I love me a good, bad zombie movie... that doesn't make any criticism I'd make of a bad good zombie movie invalid.

If you want further proof of just how stupid this movie is, enjoy:

I see this movie getting a lot more criticism for sloppy writing than just about any other Hollywood blockbuster with similar sloppy writing.  Yes, I read that article and the writer starts off with a bit of a flawed premise.  Kirk steals the scroll to get the primitives out of the temple so that Spock and company can get to the volcano unseen.  It wasn't about getting them away from the killer volcano.  The cold fusion bomb comment is just really nitpicky.  The average viewer isn't going to know what cold fusion is other than a buzz word about energy generation.  I think the term was used just to sound "sciencey".

As for the Enterprise under water, the merits of that analysis are debatable.  While the vessel was built for the vacuum of space, we don't really know the structural specs of the ship.  On Voyager, they landed the ship on a planet.  I would think the ship would be subject to some strong stresses from an atmospheric landing.  The ship is also designed to fly faster than the speed of light.  Since that is impossible by today's standards, one really can't calculate the stresses involved with warp travel, thus it may be entirely feasible for the Enterprise to be under water due to the structural requirements to withstand warp travel.  At 500 feet of depth in salt water, the pressure would be somewhere in the neighborhood of 300 psig.  At that depth, it would make the swimming into the ship impossible so either it wasn't that deep or Kirk and McCoy should be crushed.  Really, they shouldn't have survived the cliff jump at the height it appeared to be from.

The Khan criticism if legitimate, but that was more a casting choice than anything.  They essentially ignored his back story and I don't think they even mentioned the Botany Bay.  They certainly didn't mention his background of the Eugenics War.  I would think they were more concerned about comparisons to the old Khan, however, the climax of the movie was written to draw comparison to Wrath of Khan.  Not necessarily the character, but the plot.   Really, they may have been better served by having Harison being another Botany Bay crew member that was either pretending to be Khan or attempting to revive Khan thus saving Khan for the next movie... which looks like they could be doing anyway.

While the writer is being tongue in cheek with a lot of his writing, he brings up a lot of "original universe character did this, and new universe character did this".  They aren't the same people anymore after the universe changed.  I believe I mentioned in several posts earlier that the entire crew is closer in age than they should be.  Sulu, Uhura and Chekov should all be like 15 to 20 years younger than Kirk, Scotty and McCoy, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

The secret branch of Starfleet, Section 31, was something that was created for DS9 and later used in Star Trek Enterprise.  It isn't out of the realm of possibility for it to exist here.  It also really isn't a stretch to believe there is a militant wing of Starfleet due to Nero's actions in the previous movie.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... 41