Captain Nemo

Licensed Moderator
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Captain Nemo

  • Rank
    Vulnerable Pies
  • Birthday 04/01/93

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Rockford, Illinois
  • Interests
    NBC's Hannibal, James Bond, Superheroes: DC & Marvel, Castle, Adventure Time, Game of Thrones, Adventurers, Eurobricks Mafia, Flickr, The Office, South Park, Family Guy, Batman: The Animated Series, Scooby-Doo


  • Country
    United States
  • Special Tags 1
  • Special Tags 2
  • Special Tags 3
  • Special Tags 4
  • Country flag

Recent Profile Visitors

1137 profile views
  1. No he will not be doing that, because as we all know, Eurobricks is not a dumping ground (like Reddit) for leaked images. Leaked images that can get people in deep doo-doo. This site has changed, but not by that much!
  2. Its been clear for a long time now that we won't be getting anymore Dr. Who characters (or more year-one themed characters for that matter). Not sure why we need to keep acting like we don't know that already...
  3. [quote name='Robianco' timestamp='1474300877' post='2660767'] Maybe little versions of the images can be added to the first post to keep that up to date. [/quote] Those pictures are allowed of course as they have been unveiled publicly, but I won't be adding them to the first page here as technically they are branded under the Lego Dimensions theme and not Superheroes/LBM itself. Dimensions product discussion should go under [url=""]physical brick discussion[/url] or the [url=""]game discussion[/url] itself.
  4. Everyone please do not post or inquire about where to find "leaked" images. Even though they are drawings of preliminary/set images, we cannot allow them on Eurobricks. In the past we have gotten in trouble for members posting detailed drawings of unreleased sets. Thanks!
  5. Seems a bit bold of Dimensions to be throwing Supergirl out there like this, considering she's basically the cause of the only large negative public response that Dimensions has received thus far. Plus LSP [s]wore it[/s] narrates better!
  6. Let's keep the focus on the sets we do know about as opposed to the movie plot points that many people would rather not know about. Spoiler tags would be appreciated in this regard. Please keep in mind that we also have appropriate threads in the Community forum to [i]openly[/i] discuss the films, such as this [url=""]Marvel[/url] one. Thanks!
  7. Yesterday I went hopelessly hunting for Rogue One sets (like everyone else!) for some reason and then came home with[i] 75158 Rebel Combat Frigate[/i] from Toys R Us at a nice 20% discount. For some reason, Toys R Us decided every Star Wars set was 20% off, so it turned out to be a great deal for an admittedly overpriced [s]minifigure[/s] set. In short review, it's a spectacularly nice ship/set on its own merits, but not so much when compared to the show. Larger than I thought it would be, it's still easily swoosh-able considering the strong handle connection. Very sold rock hard build. It's the first "capital" Star Wars ship I own and it makes a nice impression in that regard (that is until I can get my hands on a Star Destroyer). Now, is it screen accurate to Phoenix One? Not necessarily, the colors are off, and some of the shaping is a bit wonky, but it's a nice looking ship on it's own. Scale is also way off obviously. All the features work very well especially the tandem wing movement. Ahsoka is entirely worth the price of the set FYI, but she gives off more of the feeling of Ahsoka rather than a 1:1 representation of the character. Her headpiece is very nice, made of a semi-soft plastic, and is printed rather well. But her unique Medium Blue blades are a far cry from screen white/clear design, and her eyes don't seem right. So not screen accurate, but neither is the odd inclusion of Kallus, who despite being my favorite Star Wars character, should have been replaced with a more appropriate character like the Seventh Sister (which I think would have made the set far more interesting for buyers). The worst part of the set surprisingly, is Commander Sato, whose face print is just utterly horrible. Lego used dark orange for the facial feature lines and they look inhuman--his alternative face is the worst I've ever seen. It looks like a freeze frame of the moment he was kicked in the shin by a kid a terrible galactic birthday party. So good set for Rebels fans; mild set for others; great set on sale!
  8. Glad to see this helps (myself included). I would prefer that we keep unofficial info in various "future" threads, as much as possible. Obviously, sources posting in the year threads gives their information most exposure, but it also opens up the thread up to speculation and wishlists. To help circumvent that problem, we as staff, focus members towards confirmed information on the first page of each year thread. But yes, if sources were to post their information in current or new future threads that would be very much appreciated. On rumors in the title, as Hinckley note it has been an ongoing process.
  9. [quote name='linnormlord' timestamp='1473535403' post='2655216'] I'm going to try this again. And I'm going to address it directly to Nemo. Nemo, please make it expressly clear what you think belongs in the fora you moderate. If discussion of info about future sets that does not come from Lego officially does NOT belong in the fora you moderate, please state that explicitly, so that we can be clear with each other. You have implied this several times, and I suspect that's what you want. If that's so, that's fine, but allow us to create a [b]new[/b] forum where we discuss unofficial info, and allow the community to come up with a reasonable set of rules of behavior for posts in that new forum. Note that I am not talking about leaks of watermarked images, which are always off limits. There would be separate fora for set discussion and rumor discussion in the licensed (and other?) themes. Is this ok? *together with a moderator [/quote] Thank you (and the other members) for your input. In relation to your question about my standards of the Licensed thread: it is my personal objective to ensure that members conversing in the Licensed forum (specifically the 'year' threads) focus on official information first and foremost, as much as possible. Discussion of non-official info, such as that provided from members (while appreciated), often causes the thread(s) to derail. Members not participating in the discussion actively come to me, the thread itself, or through use of the report button, to ask questions about the validity of claims and/or to report to the staff that the thread itself has become too confusing for them to follow. [i]My intent behind keeping the threads on topic is to ensure that they are easy for anyone to understand at a glance[/i]--not only for those members actively participating in the discussion, but also for the many more members and site visitors that read the thread but don't actively participate in the conversation. When I see that we are getting reports of off-topic conversations and when I see members asking if unofficial information is 'true', I know that it is time to step in and attempt to sway the conversion in the right direction. This is not an easy task to do--which is why I become (clearly) frustrated when the discussion does not change after I ask members to focus on the central topic on hand. I apologize to those who have been offend by my statements, that is not my intent, and for the record I do not come to Eurobricks to harass other members. I do not intend however to change my core principle of keeping the thread focused. All that said, I will attempt to do so from now on with a more cordial tone, as per the request of the Licensed community. So what does this mean going forward? I don't have any problems with people discussing various topics across the forum, I only ask that they be discussed in their proper place (to the best of one's ability). The Licensed forum already contains many underutilized threads where the conversation on unoffical information (etc.) can be openly discussed, such as: the [url=""]Marvel Super Hero General Discussion[/url], [url=""]DC Super Heroes General Discussion[/url], [url=""]Future Marvel Super Heroes Discussion[/url], [url=""]Future DC Super Heroes Discussion[/url], [url=""]Marvel Super Heroes Wishlist[/url], [url=""]DC Super Heroes Wishlist[/url], among many others. It is also entirely appropriate for members to create new threads to discussion topics that they feel are not applicable in any of the current threads. Incidentally, we also have the movie threads in the Community forum for [url=""]DC[/url] and [url=""]Marvel[/url], which I often point towards when discussion gets too spoilery or too speculative for the year threads. I understand the close relationship between the movies and the sets makes this separation difficult, but I and many members would appreciate if spoilery material could be left to these two threads, whenever possible. I hope this helps clear up my stance on thread discussions, but I am always available here or through PM if anyone wishes to further discuss this or other mod-related conversations with me.
  10. I don't know what to say. Clearly people don't seem to grasp the difference between on-topic and off-topic discussions. Or more likely they just choose to ignore me completely. [b][i]SO[/i][/b] I'm just going to hide away all the off-topic garbage that people keep dumping here. If you want your posts to show up in the Licensed forum, you better damn well be sure they're on topic. We'll see how many people read that I suppose.
  11. Personally, I wish we didn't have [u]any[/u] members posting information from "sources" (ergo leakers). Or the ramblings of uninformed Toys R Us employees for that matter. They cause nothing but rampant speculation and endless postings of questions like "what about the polybag?" when there's no indication, whatsoever, that we are getting such a set. All that said, last time I checked this was the Lego Marvel 2016 Discussion thread--so let's focus on the sets shall we?
  12. Here's a spoiler tags should be used at all! Because this is not a movie discussion thread--you shouldn't be talking about spoilery plot points in the first place! This is a Lego set discussion thread. Talk about Lego Marvel 2017 sets, or don't talk at all. Simple as that.
  13. Great review Oky! I find the box art rather hilarious, so I hope they keep the 360 degree photographing going on for the actual line. That being said, I don't really care for the styling or concept really of these figures in the first place. As a convention exclusive--they're great. As a full line? Rather derivative of Funko and not original--which really seems off for Lego. So it will be really interesting to see the reception of the full line and how well they seem to sell.
  14. After fighting his way out of the labyrinth of lines that is SDCC, Eurobricks Review Academy teacher Oky presents his review of this convention exclusive set; a set which foreshadows the upcoming Lego Brickheadz line, to be released in 2017.
  15. As always, the [i][b]only[/b][/i] confirmed information is what has been posted to the first page of this thread. Everything else is just conjecture, speculation, and baseless wishes--and should be treated as such. I've been getting a lot of reports coming from this thread so I'll say it now, again, and clearly since members choose not to comprehend my posts: [b]This thread is not for wishlists. [/b][b]This thread is not for speculation. [/b][b]Discuss the sets[/b][i]--the ones we actually know about--[/i][b]or don't discuss anything at all. [/b][b]Take the movie talk to the [url=""]right place[/url]. [/b] Thanks.