LEGO The Legend of Zelda - Discussion and Speculation

[Karalora]

Now that the second set in this theme (#77093 - Ocarina of Time - The Final Battle) has been officially revealed and made available for pre-order, I thought the theme should have its own thread separate from the overarching Video Games thread.

The only serious speculation I have at this time is that they might release some tie-in playsets when the live-action movie comes out next year, but without more information about said movie, I can't imagine what the sets might be like.

[BrickBob Studpants]

The Mario movies didn‘t get any tie-in sets, so I kinda doubt it, but maybe it‘ll be different since it‘s live-action

Either way, we need more sets and in a much faster pace! One set every 1.5 years ain‘t enough

[Karalora]

2 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

The Mario movies didn‘t get any tie-in sets, so I kinda doubt it, but maybe it‘ll be different since it‘s live-action

There are significant differences between Mario and Zelda as franchises that might result in them handling things differently. The main one is that Mario merch doesn't tend to be "of" any specific Mario game, but rather the franchise as a whole, because Mario is more a collection of icons than a set of defined stories. Which Mario game is being referenced by The Mighty Bowser set? No specific one. How would you even indicate that a given rendition of Bowser was from this game as opposed to that one, or the ride at Universal Studios for that matter? It's nearly impossible, because Bowser is always the same. Mario is always the same. But Link and Zelda and Ganondorf and the Great Deku Tree and Bokoblins and Zora and Kakariko Village and Hyrule Castle--everything that might be considered iconic or emblematic of the Legend of Zelda--are different each time. So you can make merch of just one Zelda game--or movie!--that you can't with Mario.

[nicknack116]

5 minutes ago, Karalora said:

There are significant differences between Mario and Zelda as franchises that might result in them handling things differently.

100% agree. I’m very curious how Nintendo will handle licensing of their first live action movie generally. Will we get action figures that resemble the actors? Or toys that lean on the closest game design to the movies?

LEGO’s contract was likely just for the game series. I could see them expanding the deal to make a dedicated movie-based line. But I could also see them arguing the movie is risky. LEGO seem less interested in making direct tie-ins for new movies, even for properties like Marvel, DC, Indiana Jones, etc.

[Mandalore_The_Indomitable]

Sorry if this has been discussed in the older Videogame Tie-ins thread, but are there videos or instructions out there of people building some cool side builds with the leftover parts from the Deku Tree set? Especially for those who built the Breath of the Wild version and are left with the Ocarina of Time spare parts?

[Karalora]

octane thermoplastic has done three alts of that set.

If you've built the BotW version and want to do something with the OoT spare parts: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-201551/octane thermoplastic/skulltulla-arch-spare-parts-builds-from-77092/#details

Conversely, if you've built the OoT version and want to do something with the BotW spare parts: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-195331/octane thermoplastic/satori-mountain-spare-parts-build-from-77092/#details

And finally, if you want to try a third version of the Great Deku Tree himself: https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-198363/octane thermoplastic/wind-waker-great-deku-tree-alternate-build-of-77092/#details

[Mandalore_The_Indomitable]

Thank you very much for your answer.

[Lyichir]

I think for a new movie series it's sometimes a safer bet for Lego to stay focused on the original property, which can still synergize with the demand from a new movie without having to worry about whether that new adaptation specifically will be received as well. You see that sort of "adjacent license" with other themes too... for example, cartoon-based Lilo & Stitch sets to tie in with the live-action movie, or Sonic the Hedgehog sets that have Shadow to sorta kinda tie in with the third Sonic movie. By sticking with the version of a property that has a more proven track record, Lego can reap the sales benefits of a property getting an enhanced pop culture profile without worrying about the new version specifically bombing a la Prince of Persia, The Lone Ranger, or Speed Racer. As an extra bonus, basing sets on media that's been out for a while means they aren't limited to potentially inaccurate or incomplete concept art when it comes to designing tie-in sets, unlike what you sometimes see with themes like Star Wars or Marvel.

[Karalora]

3 hours ago, Lyichir said:

I think for a new movie series it's sometimes a safer bet for Lego to stay focused on the original property, which can still synergize with the demand from a new movie without having to worry about whether that new adaptation specifically will be received as well. You see that sort of "adjacent license" with other themes too... for example, cartoon-based Lilo & Stitch sets to tie in with the live-action movie, or Sonic the Hedgehog sets that have Shadow to sorta kinda tie in with the third Sonic movie. By sticking with the version of a property that has a more proven track record, Lego can reap the sales benefits of a property getting an enhanced pop culture profile without worrying about the new version specifically bombing a la Prince of Persia, The Lone Ranger, or Speed Racer. As an extra bonus, basing sets on media that's been out for a while means they aren't limited to potentially inaccurate or incomplete concept art when it comes to designing tie-in sets, unlike what you sometimes see with themes like Star Wars or Marvel.

These are all good points, and honestly? Using the film release as a launchpad for playsets based on the games is probably the best plausible scenario for the theme going forward.

It just strikes me as a wasted opportunity if they take this license for a series of video games that generally get E10 ratings and only use it to make display sets catering to adult nostalgia.

[Karalora]

For a change of subject, I've seen a few people express disappointment that the Ganondorf minifigure doesn't have a unique molded head with a prominent nose. What do people here think? Personally, I think it's unnecessary--while the schnoz is a fairly distinctive trait of the OoT character model, I don't think it's essential to his character the way it is with e.g. Pinocchio (a comparison someone made).

[strangely]

51 minutes ago, Karalora said:

For a change of subject, I've seen a few people express disappointment that the Ganondorf minifigure doesn't have a unique molded head with a prominent nose. What do people here think? Personally, I think it's unnecessary--while the schnoz is a fairly distinctive trait of the OoT character model, I don't think it's essential to his character the way it is with e.g. Pinocchio (a comparison someone made).

Agreed, unnecessary.

Pinocchio is also a hilarious comparison as his nose plays a part in the story and that's sort of why it matters that it's represented on the minifigure. Ganon's nose is just a nose lol

[Karalora]

23 minutes ago, strangely said:

Agreed, unnecessary.

Pinocchio is also a hilarious comparison as his nose plays a part in the story and that's sort of why it matters that it's represented on the minifigure. Ganon's nose is just a nose lol

My take exactly. Actually, I think the nose on OoT Ganondorf is as much an artifact of the 64-bit low-poly modeling as a deliberate design choice. His whole head is a bit flattened from side to side which makes it look elongated front to back.

[BrickBob Studpants]

Yeah, minifigs of near-humans should not have noses. Sure, you could make the same argument for ears, but so far they‘ve been consistent in only giving them to elves or elven-like characters  And I‘d say pointy ears are way more distinctive than a pointy nose.

[Karalora]

Also, unusual ears tend to be molded as part of the hair and/or hat, not part of the head, keeping the head itself clean and LEGO-standard.

[strangely]

5 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Yeah, minifigs of near-humans should not have noses. Sure, you could make the same argument for ears, but so far they‘ve been consistent in only giving them to elves or elven-like characters  And I‘d say pointy ears are way more distinctive than a pointy nose.

Totally agree. The elf ears are non human features, so it makes sense to represent them.

The Zelda series is littered with weird/distinctive noses due to the art styles of the various games, so Ganon's nose isn't really special or significant in any particular way.

[Karalora]

It occurs to me that the differences of opinion between the other community and here might come down to whether people are approaching the question mainly as Zelda fans or LEGO fans. Here, we're presumably approaching it as LEGO fans, and we want the Zelda LEGO figures to maintain the LEGO design integrity, but people who are approaching it as Zelda fans first might be hoping for more visual fidelity to the source material.

[BrickBob Studpants]

40 minutes ago, Karalora said:

It occurs to me that the differences of opinion between the other community and here might come down to whether people are approaching the question mainly as Zelda fans or LEGO fans.

Interesting point! As longterm LEGO fans, we are used to idiosyncrasies that newcomers might bother (like regular minifigs not having noses or fingers)  Personally, while I want LEGO sets to accurately represent other things I‘m a fan of, they should always adhere to what makes LEGO LEGO. Otherwise, what‘s the point? Might as well buy action figures then ^^

[Voncasey223]

So, I think the minifigures are amazing and more importantly I think the price is fair. Especially given the IP and the pricing we could have gotten.

My only question for the community is…what pieces do we buy to make Ganondorf look like his TP version 👀

[Lyichir]

2 hours ago, Voncasey223 said:

So, I think the minifigures are amazing and more importantly I think the price is fair. Especially given the IP and the pricing we could have gotten.

My only question for the community is…what pieces do we buy to make Ganondorf look like his TP version 👀

Hm... to be honest, I don't think there exists a hairpiece that quite fits the bill for that version (with the coifs and elaborate crown). You might have to sculpt or 3D-print something to pull that off.

[6129c04]

23 hours ago, Voncasey223 said:

So, I think the minifigures are amazing and more importantly I think the price is fair. Especially given the IP and the pricing we could have gotten.

The price is anything but fair.

Analysis of this set's inventory reveals that the fair price is at most 100 $/€.

Using 100 and comparing the price to content ratio to other licensed sets like 76989, 77037, 76255, 77072, 77073 this Zelda set is more expensive than all of them relatively speaking -> meaning the profit margins are more than plenty for reasonable people, but of course TLG higher-ups are anything but reasonable.

The price to content ratio is almost as high as 75398 and that is Star Wars tax we're talking about. Nothing is as brutal as Star Wars tax.

Not only is it overpriced but TLG saw fit to gimp the set by putting the 3x 67696 pieces in black instead of dark green even though dark green was used for set 31058 since 2022. And it could've been used for set 31151 as well if TLG didn't want people to buy the pieces separately from Overpay-A-Brick. Just as they're doing now with this Zelda set. Imagine paying more than fair and still getting an improper set that you have to spend extra to fix.

Judging Lego sets emotionally instead of rationally will always produce the wrong results and effects -> such as normalizing TLG's unhinged price hikes.

A real shame, another release marred by pathological greed.

[Karalora]

9 hours ago, 6129c04 said:

Nothing is as brutal as Star Wars tax.

The Nintendo tax--especially for this relatively prestigious brand--says hi.

Look, I'm not going to claim it's not a high PPP (and I'm also not going to say TLG isn't profit-motivated like any corporation), but I honestly think that's what we might have to expect going forward, just from normal inflation + increased production costs for specialty plastics. LEGO stuck with a rough 10 cents per piece for a long time by progressively decreasing the size of the average piece, but I think that tactic has gone as far as it can and the only thing left is to raise the PPP.

[6129c04]

@Karalora

Of course there is a tax but as I said the Star Wars one is where TLG goes off the rails without separating children sets vs adult ones as far as price per content goes.

TLG is only profit-motivated, there is nothing else. They're clearly not like an artist that takes pride in the quality of his work, they are releasing many half baked (even slop) sets at a crazy pace. They do this because people still buy, it's only natural that they would choose the path of least resistance and what is advantageous for them.

And the prices, particularly for adult marketed sets, are of the "what they are willing to pay" variety instead of "fair, reasonable even if licensed" variety. Also the hikes are done to counter the discounts, for example if one will buy the Zelda set for 100 thinking he got it for a discount he's actually paying the full fair price.

It's not news that adults ruined Lego post-2020, their deeper pockets compared to children alongside their sometimes poor tastes and/or inability to properly gauge value has brought us the Lego slop age where we have landfill like 11384 (which actually has a good price per content ratio) or nice (even beautiful) sets that are (very) overpriced. A good indicator for this problem is the number of "day one buy" or "preordered" statements seen online regarding various sets. Buying at full price is signalling TLG that their methods are working so next time they'll push even more.

I said it in other threads that inflation is not actually a thing, unless we are going back at least 2 decades*. Otherwise the needle doesn't really move. If it would how do we still get sets that match ones from 10 or more years ago sometimes even 20-30 years ago in every parameter (price, no. of pcs, weight, no. of minifigs etc.)? Not because of generosity. *Even if we go back several decades in order to see a clear difference, the difference is smaller than inflation so is it actually inflation that's causing the increase?

It'a test, every set is a test, that's why it has to be analyzed and compared to death to its contemporaries and predecessors, because they're always trying to see if people take the bait and pay more than it's worth compared to their backlog. 60449 was an example to see if people are still able to recognize when a set has great value for the price, 60478 is an example where they're testing if people are willing to pay 40 for a 30 set. Sets like 76232, 76458 and others are incredibly overpriced because they're IQ tests there is no other objective justification, when analyzing those sets nothing stands out, literally nothing.

Also the increased production costs for their "questionable quality" plastic is not really a thing (they are much more skilled at this than they were 20-30-40 years ago for example). What people are actually paying for (indirectly) is the sets that TLG is gifting LANfluencers (which are quite numerous) alongside the paid trips for RLFM Days and also the R&D of unsolicited flops like the (not so) smart brick. That is things that we are not actually getting in the box for the normal sets that we buy. If people are okay with this and want to enable this who am I to argue otherwise? 

[Karalora]

3 hours ago, 6129c04 said:

I said it in other threads that inflation is not actually a thing, unless we are going back at least 2 decades*. 

This is a nonsensical statement. Those "2 decades" are roughly the time that LEGO sets were reliably priced at about 10 cents per piece. And during those 20 years, the average size of a piece gradually decreased. It's a kind of "shrinkflation" rather than standard inflation, but it slightly disguised the fact that the toys were steadily getting more expensive alongside most everything else.

In any case, you can't characterize what LEGO is doing as price-gouging, because LEGOs are a luxury, and a rather specific one at that. If you can afford them, props to you for your success in life, and if you can't, you'll have to do something else with your leisure time and/or decoration space. Options are abundant in this world.

I'm not defending everything they do in pursuit of profit; corporate business practices are generally reprehensible. But TLG, at least, as the purveyor of a product no one actually needs, isn't actually hurting anyone in the process.

[BrickBob Studpants]

4 hours ago, 6129c04 said:

 

Sets like 76232, 76458 and others are incredibly overpriced because they're IQ tests there is no other objective justification, when analyzing those sets nothing stands out, literally nothing.

Calling people stupid for buying sets you deem overpriced doesn‘t exactly comply with netiquette, you know. Also, speaking as a psychologist, IQ tests are overrated and almost always interpreted wrongly, but I digress  Can‘t help but point it out every time I see IQs being used as an argument. 

Feel free to call sets overpriced, but please don‘t call people dumb for buying them.

Edited January 22 by BrickBob Studpants

[6129c04]

4 hours ago, Karalora said:

This is a nonsensical statement. Those "2 decades" are roughly the time that LEGO sets were reliably priced at about 10 cents per piece. And during those 20 years, the average size of a piece gradually decreased. It's a kind of "shrinkflation" rather than standard inflation, but it slightly disguised the fact that the toys were steadily getting more expensive alongside most everything else.

I know of the whole part decrease/shrinkflation aspect but as I said if the decrease is less than what adjusting for inflation would produce is it really inflation?

Concrete example: a set 20 years ago was $50. Adjusting for inflation says that the same or similar content should be priced at $82 today. So is it true, are we paying $80 today to get similar contents to what we got for $50 some 20 years ago?

What if the math shows that it's actually less, say $65? If that difference is not proportional to inflation is it really inflation? Or just TLG trying to get more profit using inflation as a pretext? And steadily pushing up prices until eventually meeting the actual difference we would get when adjusting for inflation. Post-2020 they seized the opportunity they've been waiting for decades -> adults buying Lego like they're kids again and it's their birthday everyday. The perfect opportunity to push prices up and use inflation as an excuse.

^I don't blame them for trying I blame regular people for blindly enabling them and going like "well they gotta eat too" when a quick look at their profit reveals there isn't the slightest need for concern over their financial situation. That should end every debate, if the profit shows they are well fed then why should we accept their higher prices?

4 hours ago, Karalora said:

I'm not defending everything they do in pursuit of profit; corporate business practices are generally reprehensible. But TLG, at least, as the purveyor of a product no one actually needs, isn't actually hurting anyone in the process.

Well I would argue that promoting very unhealthy foods to small children is at the very least not ethical. Sets like 60488, 60452, 60404 and their predecessors in this subtheme. I'm strictly referring to the message, design wise they're absolute bangers but that is a different matter. I don't see people getting upset with TLG for that, certainly not as upset as with me for criticizing them for some of their prices.

The implications of say fast food chains paying TLG big money to promote fast food products to small children is certainly something that supposedly responsible parents should be aware of. There are parents which specifically like Lego for not promoting actual military/war/violence unlike other toy makers.

3 hours ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Calling people stupid for buying sets you deem overpriced doesn‘t exactly comply with netiquette, you know.

I didn't say that actual word, it was perhaps implied yes but still it's different. And it's not so much about people being actually stupid but making stupid decisions instead. Because they're poorly informed, because they're misled by the influencers etc. Only when people have all the relevant information and still decide to burn the money can we objectively say that... well you know...

I don't subjectively deem those sets (or others) to be overpriced the statistical analysis does, I just relay the data results, those sets are massive outliers, without any exaggeration and I'm taking every relevant aspect into account including license.