Has Indiana Jones made ancient history of Johnny Thunder?

[Unknownartist]

Maybe there will be sets from ''The Temple of Doom''

My ideas: 2 Big Elephants [For Indy and Willie] and 1 small for Short round..

The dinner suprise: The Maharadja, Willie, Indy, Short round, Captain Blumburtt, and some snakes, bugs, etc..

The Mine: The rails from Dwarves mine.. 2 Mine carts, Indy, Willie, Short round, 2 simple guards [Like in the movie] and maybe the Rock crusher? ;-)

Maybe the Club from Lao Che: Lao Che, Willie in japanese dress.. Indy in Bond suit [Lol] Wu Han..

Just my idea.. Lol.. >:-)

[blueandwhite]

Frankly, I'd disagree with this statement. True, JT and Indy share common themes, but only due to the fact they both pull from the same source material: pulp of the 1930s and 40s. Should you say JT is a "rip off" of Indy, rest assured that Allan Quatermain or Doc Savage would be tapping on your shoulder soon enough.

Indiana Jones certainly pulls from the aforementioned series, however I'm inclined to believe that Johnny Thunder draws more from the success of Indiana Jones than it does from anything else. As far as LEGO is concerned, Johnny Thunder was the first line to bring a strong narrative into the theme. Previous themes like Pirates, Castle or Space were generally pretty ambivalent when it comes to plot, giving only a few vague details. I'm pretty sure that the popularity of Indiana Jones didn't go unnoticed when the line was being developed.

Of course, that isn't to say that Indy bringing 30s pulp elements into the public consciousness didn't at all influence TLCs decision to base a line on this theme but to make a 1:1 correlation between Indy and JT frankly shows a lack of appreciation of the inspirations behind the Indiana Jones series.

Personally, I suspect it played a major role in the establishment and design of Johnny Thunder. Just as EXO Force borrows heavily on the modern successes of Japanese animation, I believe that Johnny Thunder was designed with the success of Indiana Jones in mind. LEGO is first and foremost a company looking to make a profit. Basing a line around material that hasn't been popular in fifty years is a fairly risky move. The fact that Indiana Jones had already established that it was viable marketing strategy can't have gone unnoticed.

Keep in mind, however, it was only after several years of SW sets did TLC begin to venture outside of the film continuity for sets. I'd also debate the viability of "EU" Indy sets. The Indiana Jones character is well-established in the public mind as existing in those three (soon to be four) films, unlike Star Wars that has always had a very strong presence outside of the films (comic books, novels, videogames, and the like). True, Indy has had some nonfilm media, but nothing approaching the kind of volume SW had on the market. As such, I can easily picture the average TLC buyer (particuarly parents) picking up a nonfilm Indy set and saying "I don't rememer this," and being somewhat turned off.

If the Indiana Jones licence isn't viable outside of the established film universe, then why is Johnny Thunder? I simply don't believe that 'the average TLC consumer' would reject an Indiana Jones set that isn't directly tied to one of the movies. The Indiana Jones brand is incredibly recognisable with characters that are well respected (both in and outside of the LEGO community).

The fact that Indiana Jones hasn't had the broad media success that Star Wars has is kind of moot. What franchise has? The fact remains, Indiana Jones is a solid brand that is incredibly familiar, and looks to go even further with a new movie. LEGO has changed considerably since the mid 90s. Licences are certainly a big part of LEGO's current identity. Much like a high-paid actor, they bring a certain celebrity to the LEGO brand and give it a definite push. I could see casual consumers viewing Johnny Thunder as being rather dull after a year or two of the Indiana Jones licence.

That was the fun of the JT theme: it could pull from any of the 30s pulp elements without any boundaries. Trip to India? Why not! Dinosaur adventures? Worked for The Lost World! Aside from a fantastic variety of new elements, part of the fun of the JT line was where JT and his companions would end up next.

Again, I don't see this as being a quality unique to Johnny Thunder. There is no reason to say that Indiana Jones must be limited to his on-screen adventures. Why is it so inconceivable that Indiana Jones travels to Tibet, India or Australia? Why are you so certain that Indy would fail in any setting that isn't directly ripped from the film?

I wasn't a huge fan of the idea of Indy sets, but what's been produced thus far I like. The prototype sets for Indy 4 look like a good start as well, but I, for one, still hold a place in my heart of JT.

badger

This is the crux of the matter; isn't it?

Personally, I was never a fan of Johnny Thunder so I can't say I feel much love for the line. Thunder came out at a point in LEGO's history where I felt set design was going down hill. Personally I disliked the colour-coded building schemes often featured in sets during that era, and I wasn't too fond of the Adventurers line. Don't take me the wrong way; I appreciate that the introduction of Indiana Jones was a real stab in the heart for alot of Johnny fans. Heck, the same thing happened to spacers with the dominance of Star Wars, and for a time Castle fans with the popularity of Harry Potter. I'm simply of the opinion that Johnny doesn't really offer alot for many casual fans when juxtaposed against the more far more familiar Indiana Jones.

I'm thrilled that LEGO picked up the Indiana Jones licence. Then again, I have no soft spot for good ol' Johnny.

[Looking for a display name]

something i did while building all 4 indi sets

sorry about the big pix

Edited January 6, 2008 by Looking for a display name

[jedikermit]

However, for another Indy film to occur, it would require the mutual consent of Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford. Given the fact this lastest film had a somewhat torturous development history in terms of getting all three of those individuals to agree to a script as well as working out scheduling issues, a fifth Indy film would like entail the same kind of difficulties.

Of course, if Indy 4 makes an extremely large box office, that couldn't help to grease the wheels a bit ;-)

badger

Ford's last several movies have bombed at the box office...and I don't know what else George Lucas has planned. At this point I think the only one of the three who has much going for him is Spielberg, and he seems pretty game. Maybe they've got a few adventures left in them yet?

[the enigma that is badger]

I'm pretty sure that the popularity of Indiana Jones didn't go unnoticed when the line was being developed.

As I previously said:

Of course, that isn't to say that Indy bringing 30s pulp elements into the public consciousness didn't at all influence TLCs decision to base a line on this theme but to make a 1:1 correlation between Indy and JT frankly shows a lack of appreciation of the inspirations behind the Indiana Jones series.

What I particularly disagreed with was your characterization of JT as a "rip-off" as this statement implies that JT also lacks any inherent value apart from the themes it shares in common with the Indiana Jones series and was conceived only to take advantage of the Jones series popularity and contribute nothing original.

I'd bring up the example of Kurosawa's film The Seven Samurai which has been reinterpreted, remade, revised, and reimagined over the years than probably any other film in history. Some legimately bring something new and interesting to the formula (The Magnificent Seven, A Bug's Life) while others simply don't (Roger Corman's Battle Beyond the Stars).

Again, the two certainly share pulp elements, but the JT line was clearly willing to explore areas of that field left untouched by the Indy films

If the Indiana Jones licence isn't viable outside of the established film universe, then why is Johnny Thunder? I simply don't believe that 'the average TLC consumer' would reject an Indiana Jones set that isn't directly tied to one of the movies. The Indiana Jones brand is incredibly recognisable with characters that are well respected (both in and outside of the LEGO community).

Instantly recognizable, yes, but in the context of those films. Show Indiana Jones fighting a soldier on a truck, and the average consumer can easily accept this situation given it's what they expect from the Indiana Jones character as they've previously seen him in that situation. Put Indiana Jones in the middle of an Oriental Temple or riding a dinosaur, and the familiar context is instantly lost, along with the power the recognition of the Jones name conveys.

Could good Indiana Jones sets be made that are not directly inspired from moments of the film? Possibly. Would people recognize them as Indiana Jones? Most likely not, despite the fedora-ed minifig whipping away center stage.

JT, on the other hand, was a blank slate with no preconceptions onto which TLC could write any story that they thought the public would enjoy. There was nothing unexpected or unusual about seeing JT in a new and different surrounding each new line the character's "stock" nature made him the perfect vehicle to explore all kinds of different themes naturally.

I could see casual consumers viewing Johnny Thunder as being rather dull after a year or two of the Indiana Jones licence.

Certainly, if they released new JT sets right after the Indy ones. A public expecting to see Indy sets would be confused as the character and story shift. However, after a period of time, new JT sets as innovative and creatively storied as the previously lines would undoubtedly be as popular as the original lines were. Keep in mind, JT is a line that ran successfully for several years, and despite your dislike for the line, continues to have many fans. Despite their popularity when new media support them, licensed lines (apart from SW) have always needed the boost in consumer awareness those films/tv shows give them while in-house lines where able to thrive on their own merits.

Why is it so inconceivable that Indiana Jones travels to Tibet, India or Australia?

Actually, I'm quite willing to admit he would visit Tibet as this is where he first meets Marion Ravenwood in Raiders of the Lost Ark. As for the rest, I can certainly envision the Indiana Jones character visiting those places, but as I have never read or seen anything depicting him doing so, anything I would say would be idle speculation.

Also, you forgot Lancaster. With the power of the Ford name, who needs the Indy character!

Really, I'm all for licensed lines, and I've certainly enjoyed the Indy sets they've released thus far. However, what I don't like is that licenses have come to dominate TLC product as the expense of in-house lines. It's only with the release of the new Castle and City sets we've seen a return to the values that built the TLC company - well-built sets with a variety of parts and figures that encourage creative thought and play, not merely repetition of a recently watched film or TV show.

badger

[gylman]

A thougthful discussion.

Let me add one thing I witnessed when I saw my two kids playing with JT and the Adventurers between the ages of 5 & 7 (they are girls, and are 2 years apart) and 8 & 10. A span of 3 years, to this year.

Johnny's strength came from the humor and childishness of the character and his adventures. They would actually pretend to be Johnny and Pippen playing outdoors, searching for the "Golden toilet", and other very funny kid-ish things that I wouldn't have imagined would come from a LEGO line. Much of this came from the little comics in the sets, and web site, and the supporting material. LEGO did an excellent job of supporting the Adventurers with the Orient Expedition set, and at least at my house it paid off.

There is no way my kids at these ages could have watched the Indiana Jones movies. They are too violent and scary. They tried to watch the first one a year ago, and gave up before the first chase scene. They have expressed zero interest in the Indiana Jones line. Fact is, other that the Ferrari sets that one of my daughters likes, they kinda lost interest in new LEGO after JT was gone. They still play with their old stuff, and JT still is strong in there.

Because it was fun, not violent, and there was a strong female character, the Adventurers line was TLC's strongest line for appealing to girls (IMHO) except for Belville and stuff like that. Indiana Jones will not have that appeal.

p.s. my kids refuse to play with fleshies. They think they are wierd. All fleshies go in the "bin of doom" upon arrival.

[Shadows]

"Golden toilet"

I can already hear Hinckley's mind working on a new comic series based on this. ;-)

Because it was fun, not violent, and there was a strong female character, the Adventurers line was TLC's strongest line for appealing to girls (IMHO) except for Belville and stuff like that. Indiana Jones will not have that appeal.

I would have to agree there. In many cases, it seems that TLG makes decisions based on what will work best with children (the supposed reason for the bley fiasco and 'juniorization'), but in the case of Indiana Jones, I think it was purely name recognition, movie association, and to some extent, a way to prey on the Star Wars AFOL crowd. I don't disagree with the concept, but I think it does bode poorly for JT's future.

You're right, the Indy movies are violent, way too violent for the age range associated with the sets themselves. I've always found that concept weird, sort of like selling a Terminator line of toys aimed at kids, for an R rated movie. JT really was a more innocent form of the concept, one devoid of nazis, religion, and graphic violence. In this day and age, innocence doesn't seem to be considered important, as kids are surrounded by things that aren't age appropriate constantly.

Actually, if TLG is smart, they'll finally get around to dropping those age recommendations on their sets before they start losing an even larger portion of the target audience who doesn't want to be associated with things that aren't "older" as opposed to their own age.

p.s. my kids refuse to play with fleshies. They think they are wierd. All fleshies go in the "bin of doom" upon arrival.

As the official keeper of the Big Billboard o' Doom

[KimT]

RIP Mr Thunder You're adventurous days are over!

When the Indy license is over, I'm pretty sure something else will take over, but not dear old Thunder.

KimT

[the enigma that is badger]

Or they continue the franchise with Shia Lebouf. Why else would they introduce his son, and with an up and coming actor like him?

Actually, it looks like that might be the way certain minds are thinking.

badger

[jedikermit]

Badger, I've gotta just pop in and say that your arguments are the most eloquent and well-reasoned that I've seen in on online message board in some time. Even though I don't agree with 100% of what you're saying, you're convincing me anyway. It's a treat to actually see someone take the time to write something worth reading.

Or in other words, *y* *y* *y*

[blueandwhite]

Really, I'm all for licensed lines, and I've certainly enjoyed the Indy sets they've released thus far. However, what I don't like is that licenses have come to dominate TLC product as the expense of in-house lines. It's only with the release of the new Castle and City sets we've seen a return to the values that built the TLC company - well-built sets with a variety of parts and figures that encourage creative thought and play, not merely repetition of a recently watched film or TV show.

badger

I find this last comment quite interesting.

For me, Johnny Thunder and the Adventures line stands out as being very distinct from LEGO's earlier lines with a clearly defined set of characters and a distinct plot. The characters had names and personalities attached to them, unlike the nameless denizens of earlier LEGO worlds. These characters are fleshed out far more than the generic forestmen, Blacktron astronauts, or police officers of Castle, Space and City. For me, Johnny Thunder and crew actually share more in common with the later licences than they do with the older themes.

What is the difference in a child acting out the further adventures of Batman or Indiana Jones as opposed to the continued tales of Johnny Thunder? I remember playing with a number of licenced toylines as a child. I didn't simply regurgitate the same story I had seen on TV. Conversely, when I see adventurer MOCs, I notice a strong emphasis on Johnny and co. The characters are just as defined as their licenced counterparts. I don't see how Johnny Thunder encourages creative play any more than a licenced theme does.

As I see it, the Adventurers line seems to fall mid way between a licenced theme and the completely open play of classic sets.

[the enigma that is badger]

Badger, I've gotta just pop in and say that your arguments are the most eloquent and well-reasoned that I've seen in on online message board in some time. Even though I don't agree with 100% of what you're saying, you're convincing me anyway. It's a treat to actually see someone take the time to write something worth reading.

Thanks for the kudos! Really, LEGO has been a passion of mine for over 20 years, and it's exciting to be able to discuss with others who share the hobby. I do greatly enjoy posting in forums like this, although even more fun was to talk to AFOLS and younger fans in person at Brickworld last year.

For me, Johnny Thunder and the Adventures line stands out as being very distinct from LEGO's earlier lines with a clearly defined set of characters and a distinct plot. The characters had names and personalities attached to them, unlike the nameless denizens of earlier LEGO worlds. These characters are fleshed out far more than the generic forestmen, Blacktron astronauts, or police officers of Castle, Space and City. For me, Johnny Thunder and crew actually share more in common with the later licences than they do with the older themes.

True, JT did start the trend of more explict storylines built around TLC themes, but then the characters and stories are broadly sketched in the extreme - who's good, who's bad, and a slight bit of character and story background.

Even many of the older sets you mentioned have clear built-in story element with one faction clearly opposing the other. When a group of castle soldiers is show on the box running towards forestmen with swords raised or approaching the castle of another castle faction with a seige weapon, even the youngest of TLC fans can assume there's some type of conflict going on. I can even recall an interview with a TLC representative awhile back that part of the mission of TLC products was to provide older children a chance to better understand conflict and resolution through play. Aside from effect including axes in those sets would have on what the kids would learn, the intent is still clear: the sets had an embedded, loosely-defined story of conflict between two groups.

Then we come to JT where characters are named, and the story is given a bit more depth: JL is somewhere with his companions looking for something ("the golden X" or some other babbles of history). True, the characters were more establish with names and some background but even this info was more archetypal than anything else (the explorer, the aged professor, the female reporter sidekick) that were as much staples of 30s Pulp as anything else in JL line. Conflict is also established with the clearly evil antagonist also after the "Golden X". Beyond that, how the story manifested itself was up to the individual builder.

Then we come to licensed lines where detailed characters and story points are preestablished which by mental association limit play options. We know what kind of situations these characters should be in and how they will act in them because such moments have been played before us (many, many, many time in the case of the Indy films and myself). Just by pure association are we more locked into thinking only those situations and actions are appropriate to the characters by pure mental association.

An example from social psychology: give a person a story with no ending, then present them with three ways the story could end. Generally, people will pick every ending with an equal probablity. Give them the same story and ending, but also tell them one ending is how it really happened (doesn't matter which one), they will show a clear preference towards the "real" ending.

As social animals, we are powerfully motivated by social cues, and children emulating films and TV shows they've seen is a clear example of this. In JL and other nonlicensed lines, the storylines establish a framework that directs, but does not constrict the play.

badger

[blueandwhite]

Even many of the older sets you mentioned have clear built-in story element with one faction clearly opposing the other. When a group of castle soldiers is show on the box running towards forestmen with swords raised or approaching the castle of another castle faction with a seige weapon, even the youngest of TLC fans can assume there's some type of conflict going on. I can even recall an interview with a TLC representative awhile back that part of the mission of TLC products was to provide older children a chance to better understand conflict and resolution through play. Aside from effect including axes in those sets would have on what the kids would learn, the intent is still clear: the sets had an embedded, loosely-defined story of conflict between two groups.

Actually if you look at a number of the early catalogs, different castle factions were often shown marching and interacting together. Factions that were fighting each other in one catalog could be co-operating in the next. Even the idea books showed the different factions interacting with each other in non combative ways. Where there were conflicts, the names of the different characters involved were left entirely to the child who was playing. Heck, the castle line of the 80s had several civilian sets (Guarded Inn, the Blacksmith's Shop, the Armour Shop, and the Maiden's Cart) which had nothing to do with conflict.

Let's not forget that other themes like Space and Town had virtually no disputes whatsoever during that time. LEGO from the 80s really emphasized building more than anything else.

Then we come to JT where characters are named, and the story is given a bit more depth: JL is somewhere with his companions looking for something ("the golden X" or some other babbles of history). True, the characters were more establish with names and some background but even this info was more archetypal than anything else (the explorer, the aged professor, the female reporter sidekick) that were as much staples of 30s Pulp as anything else in JL line. Conflict is also established with the clearly evil antagonist also after the "Golden X". Beyond that, how the story manifested itself was up to the individual builder.

I guess this is where I feel Johnny Thunder suffers the most. For me, this puts Johnny Thunder squarely between the more open-ended themes of the 80s, and the more familiar characters and storys that LEGO has taken the trouble to licence. The Johnny Thunder storylines sell the features of a series of playsets rather than the flexibility of the LEGO brand. Having a clearly established protagonist and antagonist, along with a defined objective and supporting characters who stumble through a series adventures doesn't really stand out as being very different than your typical licence IMO.

Then we come to licensed lines where detailed characters and story points are preestablished which by mental association limit play options. We know what kind of situations these characters should be in and how they will act in them because such moments have been played before us (many, many, many time in the case of the Indy films and myself). Just by pure association are we more locked into thinking only those situations and actions are appropriate to the characters by pure mental association.

The thing is, we know the same things about Johnny Thunder. As you previously mentioned; he is a pulp adventurer archetype. As that archetype, we know what sorts of adventures and situations Johnny Thunder belongs in, and how he will act. This is why I don't really see much distinction between Indiana Jones and Johnny Thunder. Both are pulp cliches produced for a more contemporary audience. They are globe trotters who come into contact with fantastic objects and exotic dangers. Just as Indiana Jones is defined by these cliches, so too is Johnny Thunder.

An example from social psychology: give a person a story with no ending, then present them with three ways the story could end. Generally, people will pick every ending with an equal probablity. Give them the same story and ending, but also tell them one ending is how it really happened (doesn't matter which one), they will show a clear preference towards the "real" ending.

As social animals, we are powerfully motivated by social cues, and children emulating films and TV shows they've seen is a clear example of this. In JL and other nonlicensed lines, the storylines establish a framework that directs, but does not constrict the play.

badger

Do you think that nonlicenced themes are immune to the effects of film or television? Heck, Exo Force plays heavily on a number of Japanese animation cliches to entice kids. Those same cliches and stereotypes are not easy to overlook regardless of whether a theme is licenced or not. A child who is playing Star Wars doesn't necessarily reinact the movie over and over again. Many tell their own stories within the Star Wars universe. The same can be said of any licence. How is that really much different than what kids do with the non-licenced themes that are story driven (particularly when those storys borrow heavily from popular culture)?

[Two-Faced Batman Fan]

This has been a very interesting thread to read through and I must say, I don't know which side to choose.

You could say that JT had the elements that LEGO has been recently looking at. Conflict between characters, story lines, lots of playability, and heck even juniorization. Thinking about it I'd say that it has just as much playability as the new IJ sets.

But unfortunately the truth is that what really made ancient history of JT is JT itself. The last wave of JT sold very poorly from what I saw. I saw all the sets at at least 50% off at Target and heck I remember seeing some at KB Toys not over a year and a half ago, which is never a good thing for LEGO. I don't think it was LEGO's fault at all. The sets were really cool, they were well-designed, and had lots of playability, but the main problem is that kids aren't creative or are just not interested in that anymore. Or maybe it was the time period when they were released that caused the JT to do so badly. Well I certainly don't think that IJ caused the downfall of JT, it was more that LEGO wanted a line similar to JT, but since that didn't do too good last time they decided to go for Indy.

I'm just glad that we've seen an adventures line come back into the fold, and since we won't be seeing JT return for a while I just hope the best for Indy.

[Col. Whipstick]

Holy blue monkey bubblegum frosting...

Didn't expect this sort of response on the argument but I'm thrilled to see it because much as I've always been a big Indy fan it saddens me to think of Johnny disappearing into one of those Egyptian Pharoah thombs and I'm glad I'm not alone in this sentiment. :-)

[BrickBob Studpants]

I think that Indy really made ancient history of Johnny Thunder. Here's the proof: (fans of Johnny Thunder shouldn't scroll down X-D )

I hope you like it! :-$ .....well, some of you won't. :-D

[Wout]

Hit him after it, Pippin. Maybe the shark eats Indiana instead.

[General Zen]

Lego-freak, you pretty much hit the nail on the head. ;-) In this vignette of yours, indy represents the foul overtaking of liscened products taking lego by storm, johnny represents the fading creativity lego used to offer us, Pippen represents the fans in horror (us) of this transformation. I like Indy and other liscensed lego products, but I miss adventerers and all the old themes from long ago. They had a spark that generated creativity.

Good bye, Johnny. :-(

[wulf]

The lego company should Jonny-T back,well said General Zen.

[brickzone]

While one can't blame the Indy theme for doing away with JT (I for one am not convinced Lego intended to go back to the adventurers), there's no doubt that the presence of the indy theme is certainly a hard and fast obstacle to any slim hope whatsoever that anyone had of Adventurers returning.

And I agree with Adventurers being more fun and kid oriented.

It's hard to see how the Indy theme will do with today's kids. It seems an obvious theme to do only to those of us who have forgotten how long ago Indy was and who grew up during the movie releases. Once you realise that, then you have to wonder how connected the theme is with the kids of 2008. I guess it depends on whether they get taken along to the new film and enjoy it.

I'm happy to take it as it is though, however much I'd prefer to see Adventurers return and no fleshies please. I like the new Indy sets, and having bought the lost tomb, I'll have to get the temple set at least (the chase one seems overpriced here at

[Svelte]

I've been reading this thread with interest and I can see both points of view. I love the old Adventurers theme, but it did sometimes feel like a cash-in on interest in the Indiana Jones, albeit not directly copying the movies directly.

In several threads I've also seen a lot of discussion about where this line is heading and puzzlement about what sets would make up future waves in the next few years - will they be based on the past movie, or the one coming out in May?

I bought and built all the new IJ sets, primarily because of I like the gentleman-adventurer type style of sets that the JT themes had rather than out of any love for the Indiana Jones movies. (I buy Star Wars sets for the same reason; I like the movies but I'm not a massive fan and I buy Lego SW more for the great designs and for the satisfying builds.) As a line, the first 4 IJ sets are a mixed bunch but I have to say that the traps in 7621 and 7623 are really enjoyable for play value and are extremely sturdy, reliable and well thought-out compared to some earlier flimsier ones in the Adventurers lines.

From reading in this forum I get the impression a lot of AFOLs in this forum aren't buying the sets for play value but seem to prefer the minifigs, new accessories or potential for army building that the line offers. The opinion is not uncommon that this line is not really going to appeal to kids in the same way that SW does or that IJ even has the same brand-awareness.

Building the sets, found myself asking the same kind of questions. Who are these sets really aimed at? Why have an IJ line at all, especially one so obviously similar to one of Lego's own previous themes which they wouldn't have had to pay licensing fees on?

Basically, what is the future of the IJ line, if even AFOLs aren't sure to whom this line is directed or where it will go in future?

My suspicion is that once the next 4 sets come out, the IJ theme will have a limited shelf-life. Ie, that this licensing deal is really a one-off deal with LucasArts to ride on the popularity of the movie coming out in May. I don't really see this line as continuing year after year, wave after wave, with more and more sets coming from the older movies. Even if the movie is a massive success with Shia LaBeouf taking on the lead mantle, there isn't going to be another new movie for at least 3 years. I can't see an endless line of IJ Lego waves in the meantime to feel the gap. Even HP Lego faltered and there was a movie to support that every year, almost - and HP is way bigger with kids than IJ has been in the last ten years.

Here's my theory: I suspect that a large part of why this initial line was released was incidental to the production of the Lego Indiana Jones video game. I think TLC is hoping that an IJ game licenced released to ride on the success of the new movie is going to be a larger cash-cow than a line of brick-built sets ever could be. And with the potential for sequels or 're-imaginings' of the old films in game form, this is going to continue to be a lucrative form of future income. We're seeing this trend already with Star Wars: The Complete Saga and Batman, also due this year.

Advertising for the yet-to-be-released IJ game is in the January 08 catalogue and in the building instructions for the new sets themselves. The game is going to be an integral part of TLC's marketing strategy for the 08 IJ sets and, I suspect, the cornerstone of their future projected sales for this theme. Once the new sets for the Crystal Skull movie are released, I honestly don't think we'll see much more of IJ in the physical brick form. What could they possibly release in 09 without a new movie to support the theme and without a dedicated young fanbase interested in the old movies? But with digitised minifig designs already rendered and a market hungry for endless platform games, I'd be amazed if we weren't seeing releases and re-releases of IJ Lego games for several years to come.

Edited January 29, 2008 by svelte_corps

[xwingyoda]

You guys do crack me up :-D

JT will never come back and I think its a good thing :-P Why do I say that ? Because JT was a ripp off of Indy !! As a kid I loved the JT line but tell me who doesn't play with JT thinking its Indy ?

You guys complain about Indy moving away from JT BUT historically its the exact opposite afterall: it was the JT line who did not follow Indy movies enough :-P

So now that we finally have a sweet Indy line, I don't want the cheap imitation line to come back but the real deal to expand ;-)

*yoda*

[Batbrick]

I disagree, JT was obviously a rip-off of IJ, but it was better.

Indiana Jones sets are limited merely to the films and nothing else, but Johnny Thunder could go anywhere and do anything! :'-) Who wants to see a Temple escape set when Johnny Thunder had the beautiful Pharoah's Tomb and Dragon Fortress *wub*

Batbrick Something! *wacko*

[Canticleer blues]

I love the JT line. It's one of my favorites, and it always will be, even though it was discontinued in 2003 due to poor sales. It's not more dead becaue of the new Indiana Jones line. After all, we can still build Johnny MOCs- Indy certainly isn't stopping anyone from doing that! :-P

This whole "JT is better because IJ is limited and Johnny can go more places" thing dosen't make any sense to me. You could appy that to just about any lisensed theme. It's like saying, "Classic Space is better than Star Wars becasue they can have more original ships/planets", which no one seems to mind...

Adventurers had a long life, four whole lines to be exact. No other "in-house" series of sets compares. I think Johnny would be happier if we were not argueing, but instead adventuring. ;-)

[xwingyoda]

This whole "JT is better because IJ is limited and Johnny can go more places" thing dosen't make any sense to me.

Indeed !! And that proves the narrow minded views and total lack of imagination (reminds me of naming the jester topic and the rant I made in there :-P !!)

Lego is all about creation and imagination. Therefore one should not be construed by the use intended by TLC !! Indy can explore whatever you want him to explore, imagination knows no boundaries !!

*yoda*