Work in Progress

I understand the subjectivity of art. However, do you still not believe me when I post side by side pictures of the outline of the MOC and real drawings of human anatomy? Is there something I am missing? The outlines and the drawings look pretty similar in terms of how skinny the legs are. Yes, art is subjective, but human anatomy is objective.

I am trying to look at this from an objective viewpoint. If in fact the shape is wrong, I am willing to change. But by making the outline, I am trying to make the shape as clear as possible to the eye so that everyone sees it the same way.

it’s just the shape of the system beams, they just dont have any shape, I would use something like LoSS claws to give it atleast some shape

let me do something…

No, I don’t believe you. I’m staring straight at a design that - while I suppose is not inherently too skinny - lacks the shaping to make it NOT too skinny. Look at a real lower leg. There’s shaping and muscles there that simply aren’t present on your design, making it appear more skeletal than truly humanoid.

It’s a hard design to pull off but you seem determined, so it shouldn’t be a major issue.


this is how I see it should be done,

here is a comparison

I think something like that would it make much better, if you can pull it out

Time spent== quality, I don’t care if a moc took a year or a day, all it means is that you’re heavily personally invested into the moc, which does explain your adamant defense of it.

If I can’t see it, there isn’t a face, humans are particularly good at seeing faces, paradolia and all that.

If ‘stiff as a board’ is how you display figures than sure poseability isn’t important, however I tend to like my figures to not look taxidermied.

I understand you like your moc, but you’re blindly defending it, you don’t have to listen to criticism, but you’ll never improve if you excuse your works faults.


It’s only a little skinnier than the illustration.The widest part of the calves is 3 units, while the widest part of the thighs is 4 units. The calves are only 1 unit skinnier than the thighs. Can you tell a big difference between the legs of the illustration outline and those of mine?

Point taken

The lighting was bad. You can’t really see something covered in shadow. You can clearly see the face in the other photo because there was light.

Personal preference

My personal standards for judging MOCs are different than yours; if our standards were the same I would be more keen on the criticism. Doesn’t mean you’re wrong, doesn’t mean I’m wrong. What I see to be a fault you may not, and vice versa. I do not dispute that the color is bad and that the torso is off. What I am disputing is the accuracy of the proportions and how well it approximates proportions.
I am open to suggestions on how I can improve the color of the MOC and make the thing look more interesting other than being a humanoid, but personally it doesn’t bother me that much that it doesn’t have that many interesting features and that the technic stuff sticks out.
Edited for Double Post - Slime

He says after saying that the legs are too long.

Like, if I were to pretend this was all black and look only at shape, the legs would be the biggest problem. They look like you took a photo, and stretched it, causing the skinniness to be really obvious. I think the overall design is good, it just needs to be ‘squished’

1 Like

I guess this is just personal preference because I think the longer legs make it look better as opposed to stumpier legs. Earlier versions of the MOC had much shorter legs, I just kept elongating them. By the way I did post the shape there take a look.
I, for one, prefer skinniness to bulkiness. I think the MOC is about as skinny as the models nowadays.

I’m not saying to change the thickness, I’m just saying to make the skinny part less stretched out.

Also, you seem to approximate the shaping of the legs a bit.

Yeah I am approximating. It’s extremely difficult for me to get the shape exactly right and have it be skinny at the same time. I don’t think the approximation looks bad though; I think it looks fine in the context. I get what you’re saying. I can add in a tile or two.

Alright, I’m done, if you’re just going to ignore my points and denounce any criticism as ‘that’s just like, your opinion man’, than I see no reason to continue trying to help.


I was talking about the drawing. I get the build

I mean, good for accuracy, but its not very interesting in the least, its just a person.
I also feel as if the launcher pieces are too forward? if that makes sense,like if they were slightly placed more inwards it would give the torso a more natural look.
But we only have frontal shots so take that as you will.

If I draw back a little and look at the overall shaping of your leg, you’ve approximated the shape really well.

The issue lies with the inherent nature of LEGO bricks. Standard LEGO bricks and plates (of which you use many here) are blocky and geometric in nature.

As you know, human anatomy is full of flowing curves. There are very few jagged edges anywhere. So when we see a human body made up of small jagged lines, our brains immediately think “wait a minute, something’s not right here”.

Make sense?


Yes, I get what you’re saying, Although I can’t think of a way to use bionicle pieces instead to get a more elegant curve and at the same time be as accurate in shape.

How about using some bow bricks? Alternatively, take a look at some other similar sized MOCs that replicate human anatomy and try to see how they do it.

Those are the pieces I used lol. I haven’t found Mocs that can replicate human anatomy better.

1 Like

Darn. I guess we’ll just have to live with that then. Compromise is the price we pay for working with LEGO.

1 Like

Lookin’ pretty good!

1 Like

Loving it! It’s great to see Mocs that can nail anatomy pretty well

1 Like