Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Tariq j]

11 minutes ago, danth said:

Yeah pretty much, except those movies didn't seem to focus on existing lore that much if at all. And they had the weird outer story with the kid and his dad and sister. 

Yeah, there were quite a few themes that didn’t really get featured at all. 

[icm]

@danth

New Elementary could probably do a pretty good analysis about that (how new monorail track parts could be visibly more versatile or usable than old monorail track parts). These are the things I would look for in hoping that new monorail track would be more usable in other applications, or more affordable in its main application, than old monorail track:

• Relatively small, simple molds make it easier to reuse specialized parts elsewhere. The old monorail pieces are very large, heavy pieces of plastic, some of them composed of multiple elements joined together. The roller coaster pieces are much smaller and lighter, and some of them are as short as four studs long! Similarly, modern railroad track pieces are single plastic molds that are cheaper to produce than the old 9V track pieces. While there are various pros and cons to the different methods used to power Lego trains, the point here is that now Lego can include stretches of track in smaller, simpler push-train sets like the most recent playscale Hogwarts Express. Similarly, I'd expect new monorail track to be as cheap and simple as possible, for the sake of affordability, versatility and, let's be honest, corporate cost-cutting.
• Abundant connection points. The old monorail pieces have four sideways studs for connection on each end, but that was intended for joining monorail track parts to each other rather than joining them into larger builds. Since sideways building wasn't very common back in the day, that made the monorail pieces harder to work with than they would be today. Compare that to train track parts with their abundance of studs intended to make it easy to build in layouts and trackside structures. Roller coaster parts have two studs and antistuds for connection on each end, but those studs face up so they're easy to work with, and the entire length of the roller coaster rail uses a standard 3.18-mm bar that any clip can hold. There are also diagonal 3.18-mm cross-members in the longer roller coaster parts.
• An emphasis on making sure curves and dimensions are "in-system". New Elementary could do a better job describing that than I can, but with my very limited knowledge of old monorail track parts I don't get the sense that their curves were in-system.

Edited March 19 by icm

[danth]

22 minutes ago, Murdoch17 said:

I was an adult when Ninjago came out and I liked it, so am I not "Normal" by your measuring stick? And as an aside: there is no pink ninja besides a one-TV-show-episode gag about washing red with white clothes. Also, @icm did respond about new monorail parts in the post directly above your latest one.

Okay, then green ninjas, red & blue ninjas, ninjas with pink hair and cat ears. Ninjago is weird. That's not necessarily bad -- I like weird. I'm just wondering if that's why the movie didn't do as well as Lego Batman. 

Maybe a Lego movie like I want, with Space and Bionicle and Exo Force would be just as weird, I dunno. 

[icm]

26 minutes ago, danth said:

Do we have any reason to believe they will be fundamentally "more usable" than the old ones? As in, something you can see by comparing them to each other? 

Yeah pretty much, except those movies didn't seem to focus on existing lore that much if at all. And they had the weird outer story with the kid and his dad and sister. 

I either missed this because it was an edit, or maybe I went blind, but I'm surprised your first reaction isn't "Oh great, more new huge parts that will only be used in Space or City." And obviously Education. By looking at them, I don't see any obvious reason why they'd be more useful than the old. 

See my previous post about what could potentially make new monorail parts fundamentally more usable than the old ones.

Yeah, the frame story didn't have enough legs for a continuing cinematic franchise. But the sets themselves were that fun mash-up of genres. More so for the first movie, less so for the second movie.

I'm not intrinsically opposed to huge new specialized parts - I've said before how I appreciate Pirates hull bases and, sometimes, City airplane wings. The main idea I'm trying to express in this thread is that we shouldn't be kidding ourselves that old-school Lego was less reliant on big specialized parts than modern Lego. This argument has been rehashed so many times over the years (with every new wave of online AFOLs) that it's been partially banned in the past. Can I say the word, or will the censor block it? J-u-n-i-o-r-i-z-e-d! <insert that tiresome argument>! J-u-n-i-o-r-i-z-a-t-i-o-n! Juniorization! Wheee!

I'd have to take a good look at the new maybe-monorail parts and see how they're used to get a good understanding of them.

Edit: See <insert that tiresome argument&gt

Edited March 19 by icm

[danth]

9 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

I have a feeling some of you are a bit stuck in the past  It’s not the 80s or 90s anymore.

People who say this are a bit stuck in the past -- it's the same argument I've been hearing for 20 years!

Meanwhile Lego are still cranking out toys from a 1977 movie. 

[BrickBob Studpants]

14 minutes ago, danth said:

Meanwhile Lego are still cranking out toys from a 1977 movie. 

Because it’s a timeless movie  Very few things remain relevant for 50 years or longer. Comparing ANH to comparatively short-lived LEGO themes from the 80s and 90s is a bit disingenuous.

Edited March 19 by BrickBob Studpants

[danth]

2 minutes ago, icm said:

The main idea I'm trying to express in this thread is that we shouldn't be kidding ourselves that old-school Lego was less reliant on big specialized parts than modern Lego.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that argument either. 

The most I can say regarding "specialized parts" is: I'm not a fan of parts that I think look very specific to a certain license or even unlicensed theme. I prefer more archetypal/generic stuff. But this mostly applies to minifigures and their gear. For instance, I wouldn't really want to reuse any Ninjago or Dreamzzz minifigures or their parts in MOCs because they're so freaking weird. Big bionicle-style parts or giant ninja stars are also not of much use to me. But that all depends on what you're trying to MOC I guess. 

[Wolfpack]

3 hours ago, icm said:

Ok, so now we're narrowing down what your complaints are about. You're mainly objecting to bespoke licensed minifig accessories, rather than the broader variety of parts in the modern parts catalog, and you're choosing not to highlight the many highly bespoke unlicensed minifig accessories in themes like Chima, Ninjago, or Dreamzzz.

Yes, the FIFA trophy for minifigs is an extremely bespoke specialized part that wouldn't have been made in the old-school era.

CCBS has been abandoned for eight years now, and for the past several years Lego action figures have been made out of basic Lego that unquestionably feels like Lego: bricks, plates, slopes, brackets, etc. This has been done in large-scale buildable figures that are comparable to medium-sized mech builds, and in small-scale character mechs.

That's not to say that there were no such parts like the CCBS Darth Vader helmet in the old days. Remember Scala? Belville? The less said about My Dad/Christian With Gifts, the better ....

Yes, the Golden Snitch minifig accessory is an extremely bespoke specialized part that wouldn't have been made in the old-school era.

Monotrail track parts were only used in two themes. The prototype Seatron monorail is just that: a prototype that doesn't count as an actual use for this discussion. Your argument that they could also be useful for mines in Western, Jungle, etc, goes both ways: that is precisely what we are trying to say can be done with modern parts. So, you either accept that the monorail track parts were huge and virtually useless for anything besides Space monorails and they don't help your argument for old-school parts versatility being better than modern parts versatility, or you accept that modern parts are equally versatile in a wide variety of themes.

As a kid in the main age range that Bionicle was intended for, I never had enough imagination or enough Bionicle parts to do much creative building with them, but many other kids did. There's a huge Bionicle moccing community out there doing truly astonishing things with parts that always struck me, when I was a kid, as being ridiculously specialized. It just takes a little bit of imagination to see the potential in an accessory as being something that other characters can use besides the named character that originated the accessory, or to see a core torso part as a platform for creative building, etc. Besides in that era Lego sets were using Bionicle parts wherever they could. I never thought it looked very good or worked very well to have a random Bionicle part on a building or on a race car, but some people did.

Yes, Lego produces more part types overall than ever before. Therefore, it produces more specialized part types than ever before. As a proportion of the total parts library produced in a year, I'm not convinced that today's specialized parts are more prevalent than they were in the old-school era. If there used to be 1000 different parts and you could build anything, now there are six or ten thousand different parts and you can build anything even more than ever before. Do you not see how your arguments go both ways? You can build far more subjects in a far wider variety of applications with modern parts than you could in the old-school era.

There are still plenty of generic heads and generic people. Not so many knights and spacemen, except on Pick A Brick.

Europa was never released, so it doesn't count as an actual use for this discussion - only a potential use.

The old, narrow range of minifig hairstyles was generic enough for anything within a narrow Eurocentric cultural context. The modern range of minifig hairstyles certainly can't match the actual range of hairstyles worn by everybody all over the world, but it at least gestures toward broader cultural representation.

The saddles were used in Castle, Western, Paradisa, etc ... wherever there was a need for a horse with a saddle. That's an extremely specialized part used in an extremely specialized application that appears in a variety of cultural contexts, since many cultures around the world use and have used horses! But you never saw the saddle part being used for anything but a saddle for a horse! It's emphatically not a good example of having less specialized pieces in the old-school era than in the modern era.

The same raised baseplate mold was used for themes as distinct as Space, Pirates, and Castle [edit: not Aquazone], but it required dramatically different prints to work for those contexts. There was no such thing as a basic, unprinted raised baseplate that didn't have a specialized theme suggested for the build by a print. Would you have been happy to use the raised baseplate from 6983 Ice Station Odyssey (Space, Ice Planet 2002, 1993) as the moccing base for a castle, or the raised baseplate from 6276 Eldorado Fortress (Pirates, 1989) as the moccing base for a space station? I would not have been happy about that if I had those as a kid.

Also, the basic bricks, slopes, and plates used in the facsimile of a raised baseplate in the modern Icons remake of the Eldorado Fortress can immediately be used in a wide variety of things, because they're such basic, common parts!

Some helmets, swords, and other minifig accessories made in the modern era are used for a variety of factions, themes, and subthemes and are still in use after what is now decades, others aren't. Exactly the same thing can be said about helmets, swords, and other minifig accessories from the old-school era. Any broad claim of systematically wider use, versatility, or longevity of old-school minifig headgear and accessories compared to modern minifig headgear and accessories should be supported by statistics. I don't have time to run a statistical analysis of this topic, do you?

I agree with the most things you say, althouh I have a feeling that we are talking about different things. Whether Seatron or Europa were released or not is irrelevant for me, as I am talkinkg about possible uses. And I simply do not see another possible use for a FIFA throphy or a golden snitch. And of course a saddle is used as a sadle. What else should it be used as? But as you nicely said it is used in different cultural contexts, therefore different themes, that is the versability and usability I am talking about. The FIFA throphy can be used only in a cultural context of football world cup, many Star Wars pieces can be used only in a cultural context of Star Wars etc.

And yes, I have some statistics to back this up. 

"We see here again that the 1980s and 1990s were a good period in relative terms for releasing long-lived parts that have only just been retired."

more here: https://safetydave.net/lego-and-software-lifespans/

[SpacePolice89]

The 2010s had some very nice successful in house themes that coexisted with the licensed themes. It doesn't have to be 80s or 90s style sets and themes, the modern versions of the in house themes like Kingdoms proves that if the sets are good the theme will sell. Kids didn't suddenly lose interest in castles in 2013, it was Lego who made a subpar Castle theme that wasn't popular that year and many people take this as proof that in house themes like Castle are unpopular nowadays. 

[Dolor]

 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Wolfpack said:

I agree with the most things you say, althouh I have a feeling that we are talking about different things. Whether Seatron or Europa were released or not is irrelevant for me, as I am talkinkg about possible uses. And I simply do not see another possible use for a FIFA throphy or a golden snitch. And of course a saddle is used as a sadle. What else should it be used as? But as you nicely said it is used in different cultural contexts, therefore different themes, that is the versability and usability I am talking about. The FIFA throphy can be used only in a cultural context of football world cup, many Star Wars pieces can be used only in a cultural context of Star Wars etc.

But then a canoe can only be used as a canoe, a forestman's hat can only be used as a hat, a sword can only be used as a sword. Of course a part made according to a licensed design and agreed to be exclusive to that license will only appear in official LEGO sets for that license. But that does not mean other people (or, at least, people with an imagination) can use that part in other ways in MOCs. If the World Cup part is cheap to buy multiples, then I'd use it in a City stadium for people in a crowd holding it up, I'd also use it in a pub window advertising they show live football, and I'd also use it in a man-cave style room. My son has a nice MOC of his bedroom, and he uses the Darth Vader minifig helmet, a Boba Fett helmet and a Luke Sywalker Pilot helmet on shelves, representing the Helmet Series of sets. I've seen other people using those and things like The Simpsons heads in City MOCs as masks or full figures in Modular fancy dress shop windows. Similarly some people use movie characters as advertising mannequins for the Palace Cinema, or replace heads with generic ones to look like cos-players at a convention. The famous SW weapon, the lightsaber hilt, has been used in 1091 sets across 67 different themes according to BL. Not at all bad for versatility.

There are other things like the Classic Dragon that LEGO has only used as a dragon in Castle sets, but others have used it in other ways.

[icm]

Not to mention that a Golden Snitch can be used as architectural detailing (nearly any small part can be used as architectural detailing), and anything at all (like a forestman's hat) is liable to show up as NPU in Botanicals sets or a fish tank.

@Wolfpack, I'm glad that we agree on most things. However, I think that whether a prototype or concept theme was released or not has a lot of bearing on the "true/proven/released/verifiable/etc" versatility of a part as long as we're batting database links back and forth, with how many times a piece was used in how many themes or how many years or how many distinctive applications or what have you. An unreleased prototype, concept, or sketch theme is just a MOC by someone with access to prototype elements; its uses of parts are only potential but unrealized uses as far as the released portfolio goes, no different than the potential to put a FIFA World Cup piece in someone's MOC of a pub window or the hypothetical potential of Lego to put that piece in a later licensed FIFA stadium for minifigs.

If your notion of the versatility and usability of a part just boils down to which cultural contexts you can use it in (old-school Castle, Space, and Pirates being more versatile and usable than modern Ninjago or Star Wars), as opposed to the potential for creatively using the part in a build in a variety of different contexts and applications than in its retail set appearances, then the whole argument reduces to "my cultural interest A is better somehow than your cultural interest B and therefore deserves more Lego products". That's not a very interesting or useful argument, however much any of us want evergreen revivals of those classic themes or however much we want new original themes.

I'll have to spend some time thinking about those statistics plots you linked to. I'll probably have something to say about them, just not yet.

Edited March 19 by icm

[Wolfpack]

56 minutes ago, MAB said:

There are other things like the Classic Dragon that LEGO has only used as a dragon in Castle sets, but others have used it in other ways.

Glad you mentioned that. It is a great example. The classic dragon was made that way, because the head and the tail part was the same as the crocodile and the designers also showed a possible use of that parts for the Loch ness monster that is why it wass allowed to be made in the first place.

54 minutes ago, icm said:

An unreleased prototype, concept, or sketch theme is just a MOC by someone with access to prototype elements

This is not true at all. The prototypes I am talking about show the actual official plans of the lego company and its designers, most of them were shown by the former employees in BrickJournal. Of course a random MOC-er can use anything, but generally lego is not, they are bounded legally, just look at the BDP palettes and PAB.

58 minutes ago, icm said:

If your notion of the versatility and usability of a part just boils down to which cultural contexts you can use it in (old-school Castle, Space, and Pirates being more versatile and usable than modern Ninjago or Star Wars), as opposed to the potential for creatively using the part in a build in a variety of different contexts and applications than in its retail set appearances, then the whole argument reduces to "my cultural interest A is better somehow than your cultural interest B and therefore deserves more Lego products".

Again, not true, you are relativising this. It is not about cultural interests, but cultural contexts. I am explaining this from the designers point of view, not interests of someone. The Darth Vader helmet can (and even legally needs to!) be used only in one single cultural context, the cultural context of the Star Wars. The same goes for FIFA trophy or golden snitch. The designer cannot really be creative about it. And even in the rare occasion when he theoretically could be, he is legally not alloved to. So the question is not in which cultural contexts you can use a part, but in how many and I strongly believe that old parts were possible to be used in more cultural contexts then (some of) the new licenced ones. The old parts were certainly produced and designed with that in mind, which I cannot say for the Star Wars helmets or similar parts. If modern parts were so usable and versatile they would not need ten thousand of them and they would not create so many new each year.

[icm]

3 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

This is not true at all. The prototypes I am talking about show the actual official plans of the lego company and its designers, most of them were shown by the former employees in BrickJournal. Of course a random MOC-er can use anything, but generally lego is not, they are bounded legally, just look at the BDP palettes and PAB.

Actually, in the early sketch/concept phase of product development, Lego set designers are encouraged to cut, glue, paint, 3d print, use long-obsolete retired parts, etc, as they please, in ways that would make a purist moccer wince. I've heard that willingness to do that, instead of restricting yourself only to available molds, is a positive qualification for becoming a set designer. Obviously, by the time a set makes it to production it must be production-ready, by definition. But that's not true in the early stages of product development represented by the available pictures of Seatron and Europa. Those are some pretty early prototypes, as you can tell by the fact that Seatron was developed into Aquazone; the production version of Seatron was Aquazone and it didn't have a monorail. Seatron was a concept and at the concept stage it didn't have to follow all the production rules. So, a sketch model or a concept theme is just a MOC that can potentially be developed into a set, like an Ideas project with access to prototype parts.

3 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

Again, not true, you are relativising this. It is not about cultural interests, but cultural contexts. I am explaining this from the designers point of view, not interests of someone. The Darth Vader helmet can (and even legally needs to!) be used only in one single cultural context, the cultural context of the Star Wars. The same goes for FIFA trophy or golden snitch. The designer cannot really be creative about it. And even in the rare occasion when he theoretically could be, he is legally not alloved to. So the question is not in which cultural contexts you can use a part, but in how many and I strongly believe that old parts were possible to be used in more cultural contexts then (some of) the new licenced ones. The old parts were certainly produced and designed with that in mind, which I cannot say for the Star Wars helmets or similar parts. If modern parts were so usable and versatile they would not need ten thousand of them and they would not create so many new each year.

Ok, now we're finally getting somewhere. What you really object to, and consider less versatile than old-school Lego, is not the bulk of today's parts library, it's the practice of having special, unique molds for minifigure parts and minifigure accessories, when those are new parts (excluding minifig prints) are intended to be used in one or two sets or waves and are not intended to have much future use. You object to Darth Vader's helmet, Statler's head, Pythor's tail, and Logan's huge blue sword. You contrast these short-lived minifig parts and minifig accessories to the relatively long-lived minifig accessories of the eighties and nineties. (The late-nineties UFO, Insectoids, and Batlord helmets were just as short-lived as modern minifig helmets.)

So, restated, what you object to is the proliferation of unique minifigs.

That's fair. I'm not much of a minifig collector myself. I'm more interested in how to build a shape or a mechanism out of Lego than how to make a minifig satisfy my vision for it, and I pretty much skip past the minifig sections of new set reviews.

But when you start out by making a broad claim about the specialization of Lego parts in general now and then, you can see how people like me can be confused about what you're actually trying to say.

7 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

But as you nicely said it is used in different cultural contexts, therefore different themes, that is the versability and usability I am talking about.

You yourself said that different cultural contexts are the versatility and usability you are talking about, not the compatibility of the part with different building applications. But I did misspeak, misstate, or misunderstand what you meant. You didn't mean that parts made with cultural context A in mind are better than parts made with cultural context B in mind, you meant that parts made with cultural contexts A, B, and C in mind are more versatile and usable than parts made with only cultural context A or only cultural context B in mind. As a corollary, if a part is made with only cultural context A in mind (ie a sword for Castle), it's better that it be made with cultural contexts A1, A2, and A3 in mind (applicability to several Castle subthemes) than only cultural context A1 (the particular Castle subtheme currently in development). And that's fair, I agree with you about that.

[Wolfpack]

4 hours ago, icm said:

You yourself said that different cultural contexts are the versatility and usability you are talking about, not the compatibility of the part with different building applications. But I did misspeak, misstate, or misunderstand what you meant. You didn't mean that parts made with cultural context A in mind are better than parts made with cultural context B in mind, you meant that parts made with cultural contexts A, B, and C in mind are more versatile and usable than parts made with only cultural context A or only cultural context B in mind. As a corollary, if a part is made with only cultural context A in mind (ie a sword for Castle), it's better that it be made with cultural contexts A1, A2, and A3 in mind (applicability to several Castle subthemes) than only cultural context A1 (the particular Castle subtheme currently in development). And that's fair, I agree with you about that.

Exactly! That is why I said we mostly agree, but are talking about different things. Maybe I was not clear enough all them time, but most of what I am saying here is actually founded in stats, that is why I find it unfair that some people (not saying you) try to dismiss or discredit it as pure nostalgia. I gave you link before and here is another one that proves my points. It is from a few years ago, but the trend are clear. https://www.kaggle.com/code/martinellis/prominence-of-special-parts-over-time-visualised

[Erik Leppen]

On 8/22/2019 at 8:46 PM, Ronan54 said:

• HS is better than MF

My unpopular opinion is that people (in general) use too many abbrevations whose meaning is assumed clear, but isn't to outsiders. I, or example, have no clue what this is about.

[Toastie]

40 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

My unpopular opinion is that people (in general)

Hehe - same here. I simply gave up. But that one was really easy, wasn't it? HS = Henry Shotter (you know the wizard stuff) and MF = Monster Flips, these cars that can flip over. This is how I read it .  

Have all a nice day
Thorsten 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Erik Leppen said:

My unpopular opinion is that people (in general) use too many abbrevations whose meaning is assumed clear, but isn't to outsiders. I, or example, have no clue what this is about.

HS is Hidden Side. MF is Monster Fighters.

This is a specialist site and so specialist language is used. There is a balance between using jargon and spelling out everything every time it is used so someone without any knowledge of the subject can understand. Hidden Side was a new theme in 2019 when the post was written and HS was a common abbreviation used for it. Knowledge of LEGO themes of the previous few years at the time means MF is Monster Fighters. Anyone reading other posts on this site at the time should have been able to understand it fine. But jumping in without context years later could be a problem. But that is the problem with a forum with conservational type posts and when people can read and reply to things written five or ten years before.

Edited March 20 by MAB

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Wolfpack said:

Exactly! That is why I said we mostly agree, but are talking about different things. 

So what you are really saying is that unlicensed parts can be used in other themes, whereas licensed parts locked to a particular theme cannot be used by LEGO  in other themes. 

But of course the good thing is that if you don't like the license and never buy the sets as then you won't have any of those licensed parts that you feel cannot be used in other contexts and it won't affect you. The fact that they are licensed locked means they won't appear in any unlicensed sets. Where it is 1 part in 1000, I'd prefer they get the detail right (especially for a minifigure or accessory) rather than compromise the detail of a design so it is generic enough it can be used elsewhere. It would be different if every piece in a Star Wars (or other licensed) set was a specialised part and could not be used with other LEGO parts. But that is far from the case.

I've got quite a few LOTR Rohan helmets, and I think they are great for both LOTR and also other MOC armies outside of Middle Earth. Similarly for wargs, they are license locked but great for other MOCs. They could have used a generic castle helmet instead or done a generic wolf but that have been too much of a compromise and ruined the official sets. 

[Wolfpack]

2 minutes ago, MAB said:

So what you are really saying is that unlicensed parts can be used in other themes, whereas licensed parts locked to a particular theme cannot be used by LEGO  in other themes. 

Yes! Both by design and by legal contracts. I do not like this. I prefered the old lego universe where parts were versatile and a theme like Time cruisers was possible.

And it is not a good thing, because there are only two (or three) nonlicenced themes left.

[BrickBob Studpants]

2 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

And it is not a good thing, because there are only two (or three) nonlicenced themes left.

Huh? We have City, Ninjago, Dreamzzz, Monkie Kid, and the Lunar New Year sets (which more often than not have minifigs), plus 50% of Icons and Ideas. If you count non-minifig themes, we also have Classic and Creator, plus Friends as a minidoll theme. And like 80% of Technic

[icm]

And just like that, we've circled back to the start of this iteration of this perennial discussion. Thank you everybody, let's wrap it up.

[MAB]

7 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

Yes! Both by design and by legal contracts. 

No! If a licensed part cannot be used in another theme because it is locked to the license, it cannot be used in another theme because it is locked to the license. That does not mean that it is not used in another theme because of its design, it is the license stopping it being used and not because the part is not versatile to use elsewhere. There are parts that were introduced in a licensed theme but not locked to that license and have been used in other themes. The lightsaber hilt is one such piece, and has now been used in 67 themes. Then there are parts like this, now appeared in 95 sets, despite being designed for Star Wars but not licensed locked.

7 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

I do not like this.

Yes, it is very clear that you do not like licenses that use a very small number of parts that are licensed locked. Although I cannot understand why, because the licensed parts that are locked are locked because they are from that license, and you don't like the license.

7 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

I prefered the old lego universe where parts were versatile and a theme like Time cruisers was possible.

That old universe still exists. LEGO can make any mixed up theme and put in characters and use parts from another of their unlicensed properties. The vast majority of parts from licensed and unlicensed sets are versatile in that they can be used to build whatever EGO can image, but some are licensed locked and cannot be used outside that theme. However, all parts from licensed and unlicensed sets are versatile in that they can be used to build whatever a person can imagine as a license block does not apply to individual builders that own the parts.

There are parts such as windshields from Space themes that cannot be used in Castle, and there are parts such as castle doors and dragons  from Castle themes that cannot be used in Space. That doesn't mean they are not versatile, they just don't fit every possible theme. It is the same with licensed parts.

It is fairly clear that you just don't like licensed themes and also that you don't like that other people enjoy licensed themes. That is your problem, not their problem and definitely not LEGO's problem. You have to accept that LEGO make products for other people to enjoy and that, in doing so, they might make products that you don't enjoy. If you cannot find something that you enjoy out of their now vast product range then that is your problem, not theirs. Because there are plenty of people that are buying their modern sets. Some because they enjoy one or more of the licensed themes, some because they enjoy one or more of the unlicensed themes, and some because they enjoy both unlicensed and licensed. LEGO can easily afford to lose stubborn past consumers that don't like their current sets and insist on them being the same as they were decades ago and refuse to buy if they are not.

Edited March 20 by MAB

[icm]

I think if we limit the topic to the broad statement that it's generally preferred when:

• New parts designed for licenses are not license-locked and get wide uses in other themes, and
• New parts designed for unlicensed themes also get wide uses in other themes

Compared to the alternative where:

• New parts for licenses are license-locked and do not get wide use, and
• New parts for unlicensed themes get very narrow use.

I think we can all agree on the broad statement that:

• We like new parts to be used as widely as reasonably possible, and
• Sometimes new parts are not widely used because of:
  • License restrictions, or
  • Overly detailed looks or out-of-system decorative items.

Edited March 20 by icm
Rearranged paragraph into bullet points.

[icm]

8 hours ago, Wolfpack said:

I prefered the old lego universe where parts were versatile and a theme like Time cruisers was possible.

You know, Dreamzzz is the modern zany wacky mash-up theme like Time Cruisers. Early buzz about Dreamzzz was that maybe it would be like the second coming of Time Cruisers, before it was clear that it had its own identity. The main difference, for the purpose of this discussion, is that Time Cruisers didn't have a budget for new molds and Dreamzzz does, and Time Cruisers had a two-year run while Dreamzzz has had a four-year run. Speaking of Time Cruisers, what I'm going to say is anathema to you because of the license, but the BTTF Delorean in minifig scale is right there ... get yourself those wheels and go wild!