Travel the dunes with the LEGO� Star Wars™ Ultimate Collector Series Sancrawler™

FBTB - From Bricks To Bothans

Follow us: RSS
News? Questions? Comments? Email!

Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

The official Lego set review forum. Please read the Guidelines before posting!

Re: Under-boob

Postby Mister Ed » Sun Jul 21, 2013 5:51 am

freight69 wrote:The original comment was meant to express my surprise that something like under-boob would make it onto a LEGO toy. I think it's funny more than anything.


That's not underboob. It is part of the bra. The coloring just doesn't stand out as that different on the fleshie version. Look at the same printing on the yellow version and you'll see.
Mister Ed
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Under-boob

Postby Mofo Jones » Sun Jul 21, 2013 9:04 am

freight69 wrote:
it's just a couple of lines on a chunk of plastic. I would not call that risque.


Yeah, and this month's Playboy is just some different shaded lines on pieces of glossy paper. It's fine, I'm an adult and I'm not bothered by it.

The original comment was meant to express my surprise that something like under-boob would make it onto a LEGO toy. I think it's funny more than anything.

But to say it's not risque for a toy meant for children ages 8+ makes me wonder what you would consider risque.


Next time you want to express surprise at something, include some language indicating so or perhaps an appropriate smiley, cool? Lacking that I can only assume that you're serious about your statement. :)

I have a 5 yo daughter and although I haven't had to worry about this so far, I'd be more concerned about the unwritten messages or barely appropriate marketing from some of the doll lines out there,than two lines (and no molded curves) on a LEGO piece. IMHO, the new Padme or Oola draw more attention to that part of the body than Slave Leia does. :)
Will Tactically Consult for money, food or LEGO.
Mofo Jones
Staff Writer
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Tue Feb 10, 2009 9:56 pm
Location: Shawnee, KS

Re: Under-boob

Postby freight69 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 6:41 am

Mofo Jones wrote:Next time you want to express surprise at something, include some language indicating so or perhaps an appropriate smiley, cool? Lacking that I can only assume that you're serious about your statement.


Dude, I said this:
I've never examined the 6210 Slave Leia up close before. The side-by-side comparison really draws attention to her chest. I'm surprised Lego greenlit the 2006 version--it's fairly risque. That's a lot of uncovered breast.


[Bold added for this post.]

I was serious about my statement--I was surprised. I am even more surprised that you would click "Submit" on a post asking me to "include some language indicating so" when in fact I did that. It appears as if you didn't actually read my initial post. Or maybe you made an assumption that I was "concerned", when in fact I never stated that I was, nor implied it. Then you ran with that assumption. You made a mistake.

Mr. Ed wrote:That's not underboob. It is part of the bra. The coloring just doesn't stand out as that different on the fleshie version. Look at the same printing on the yellow version and you'll see.

Image

I'm gonna go ahead and disagree with you there, pardner.
freight69
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

Postby Mister Ed » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:06 am

Really? You think her boobs turn gold underneath? The thick black line surounding that area (the cleavage, by contrast, uses orange lines) and the gold color which matches the rest of the bra, makes it pretty blindingly obvious to me that it is supposed to be part of the bra. If you choose to view it as underboob, to my mind that says more about you than it does about the fig. ;)
Mister Ed
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

Postby dWhisper » Mon Jul 22, 2013 7:43 am

Let the record show that when I wrote the review, I didn't focus on that aspect of the figure at all. XD

If you look at the production stills of the costume, the underside of the top had a metal cutout for support that didn't have fabric between the cup and metal.

Image

If anything, I just like an excuse to post that picture. But the discussion on this being risque or not risque is really more of how you look at things like this. The costume was certainly risque back in the early 80s when it was first out, but is much more of a pop-culture icon at this point. The figure is no more or less risque than the movie it's based on, which in both cases it's trying to emulate the character.

The only real difference between the two figures is the stylistic changes that LEGO has gone through since it was first made. Before, it was more about LEGO figures that were made to look like Star Wars in general. Now, figures are more stylized, and characters are modeled after the specific costumes and faces, thus the change between the two. I don't really see this figure as being anything other than a character in the setting. And in that setting, Leia was wearing a gold bikini.
If the above post didn't offend you, you're probably reading it wrong.
dWhisper
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:56 pm
Location: The Arkansas Wasteland

Re: Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

Postby freight69 » Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:53 am

Mister Ed wrote:Really? You think her boobs turn gold underneath? The thick black line surounding that area (the cleavage, by contrast, uses orange lines) and the gold color which matches the rest of the bra, makes it pretty blindingly obvious to me that it is supposed to be part of the bra. If you choose to view it as underboob, to my mind that says more about you than it does about the fig. ;)


:facepalm: I've never seen that yellow figure in person. After reading your post and looking at the picture closely, I can't disagree with you. Clearly there was an intention to depict the clothing and not the flesh. I guess it's a case of pareidolia, but it's kind of an easy mistake to make given the overall effect of the art. I assume part of the reason for the change in artwork on the new Leia figure from 75020 was to remove all doubt.

Now, as to what this all says about me--I wager it says there's little difference between me and any other male of my generation where Bikini Princess Leia is concerned!
freight69
 
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2013 2:52 pm

Re: Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

Postby buriedbybricks » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:05 am

I am unconvinced either way. Perhaps more pictures of the subject would help me make up my mind.

Not minifigure pictures.
buriedbybricks
 
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:41 am
Location: The Great White North

Re: Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

Postby Mister Ed » Mon Jul 22, 2013 9:23 am

freight69 wrote:Now, as to what this all says about me--I wager it says there's little difference between me and any other male of my generation where Bikini Princess Leia is concerned!


Well, yeah. You have a point there. :D
Mister Ed
 
Posts: 1159
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 3:18 pm

Re: Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

Postby Zacherano » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:51 pm

Thanks for another fabulous review, Nick! I enjoy your detailed reviews, especially for their attention to the source material (something that remains constant and wonderful in your Man of Steel reviews, including today's). I personally feel that this Sail Barge model is special at least for coming out seven years after the first, seeing as the Gunship and AT-TE are getting new iterations only five years after their CW variants. The Sail Barge model is different and cool, though I agree that the front section could use some improvement. It seems kind of reminiscent of the gulf between TLG's DeLorean and the original Cuusoo model.
Zacherano
 
Posts: 3
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:02 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

Postby dWhisper » Mon Jul 22, 2013 12:59 pm

Glad you enjoyed it.

As for the time difference, I'd assume it's more to do with the source material than anything. There are a lot more "things" in the OT to work through a limited number of spots, while the Clone Wars had been going strong since the RGS and AT-TE were last out.

With the anniversaries for the movies, and the now-scrapped 3D versions, we're seeing more stuff pop up in those lines. Sadly, when it comes to Episode II, there are very few things that we could have seen come up in there, especially in the high-end range. And while we got a couple of new Episode II sets, most of what is out are re-releases, and some of them are 11 years old at this point.
If the above post didn't offend you, you're probably reading it wrong.
dWhisper
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:56 pm
Location: The Arkansas Wasteland

Re: Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

Postby jonah2013pal » Wed Jul 24, 2013 12:00 pm

cephalopoid wrote:
jonah2013pal wrote:I'm sorry, but I have to say that I have never liked a single one of your reviews. When I read a review, I expect a detailed account of the set and its elements without excessive judgment. We don't want to hear you constantly complain and criticize. And what was the point of those football paragraphs? You always ramble on about something that's not related. We just want to hear about the set! Did you ever think that maybe you could describe the set and all of its elements, briefly and subtly give your opinions, and let everyone else decide what they think? Maybe a lot of people actually like the pirate cannon because it adds playability to the set. Instead of saying, "What the *bleep!*", you can say, "personally, I don't think this belongs in the set, although I understand why LEGO chose to include it." Also, if you think something is completely wrong with the set, maybe you can tell us how to fix the problem with pieces from our own collections. For example, if you prefer the upside-down boat method on the front of the old sail barge, you can give steps on how to swap out the new one with the old one.

If you follow these simple steps, you may find that people will enjoy your reviews more. Don't ramble, don't overly criticize and complain, focus on the set itself, give brief and subtle opinions, suggest improvements we can all make, and be careful what you say. Thank you!


I'm sorry, but I've never liked a single one of your comments. We don't want to hear you constantly complain and criticize. And what is the point of reading the review if you don't like it? You always complain about the complainers. We just want to hear about the set. Did you ever think that to review something means to evaluate and judge it by giving an opinion about it? Maybe some people are able to make decisions for themselves by agreeing or disagreeing with the reviewer on the merits of the set?. While I understand you are trying to be constructive here, I personally like FBTB reviews because they are not like the "Look at the box. Now look at a page in the instructions. Now look at I'm halfway through building it!" reviews that are ubiquitous on other sites. This is his blog; this is his style of writing; this is his style of reviewing. If you want a full range of different types of reviews, take a look how different movie reviews can be. And, like movie reviewers, if you don't like one, don't read it! Pick a reviewer you like and read those. I suggest Brickset reviews for those who like "subtle opinions."

Jonah2013, if you realize that everyone has a certain style of writing and pick the writers you like best, you'll find you will be a much happier person and won't leave overly critical of a writer. This blog is for everyone, not just you, and some people might like his review style. If you do feel like you want to criticize a reviewer or review, don't criticize the style, as that isn't what really matters to a good review. Good reviews establish clear evaluative criteria, and if they are really good, set to define those criteria. In the future, complain about unclear criteria or when the writer's own criteria is not constant. Thank you!


Now, hang on a minute! This is the first time I've commented on anything on this site. How can you say you've never liked a single one of my comments? I only read these reviews so that I know what's in the set. You should be surprised that I've gone this long without commenting ever since my first discussion "Building Suggestions" was rudely locked. And I don't mean the locking of it was rude; I mean the things your wrote just before locking it were rude, and locking it without explaining it was rude. I'm starting to think you're being rude in general. I'm truely sorry, but I've jumped out of my comfort zone to voice my opinion only to be shot down. I'm very disappointed.
jonah2013pal
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 5:16 pm

Re: Review: 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge

Postby Solo » Wed Jul 24, 2013 11:08 pm

A few things. cephalopoid never replied to your other thread, nor was he the one to lock it. He's just another member commenting on your behavior in general and started off by mirroring your own statements in here. As far as that thread of yours from four years ago being "rudely locked" without explanation, what? Ace's comment was relatively polite and he gave his reason for him shutting it down. If there was ever any confusion about it you could have PMed him or any other staff member for clarification, rather than stew about it this whole time. That aside, it has nothing to do with this thread or your posts as of late.

I get that you don't like the review style here. That's fine. You've made your opinion clear and found that not many agree with you, and the format won't be changing as you suggested. You can either move on and ignore future reviews as you said elsewhere, or maybe just skim them for pictures and draw your own conclusions if the thought is too tempting, and everything will be fine... or you can continue derailing threads and it will become a problem. The choice is yours.
                                                                                                                           Image
Solo
 
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:53 am
Location: right here

Previous

Return to Reviews

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests