Tired of licensed sets

[fred67]

My two cents:

First, vexorian, it seems like you understand the problem with your complaints... that TLG doesn't really care about any individual in particular, and that TLG does what's financially best for TLG. A lot of idealists don't like to think of TLG as just another profit driven company, but that's what they are and the decisions they make become an easier pill to swallow when we get over it. But I do think you have every right to complain about things you don't like. I did the same thing when they dropped 9V for RC... I'm still not happy about it and I still complain from time to time. I do accept it, though. Just know that, while it seems like everyone is jumping on your case, I think we all recognize your right to complain and voice your opinion about it.

Second, it's true that if all TLG was licensed, or even if it was all licensed except things like buckets, I would not be very happy. I do think they're doing too much lately, and I fail to see how it helps them in the long run. I finally got the latest issue of brick journal the other day, and here are some quotes from Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, w.r.t. licensing:

"I think is has been fantastic with some strong licenses suitable with our brand. Star Wars is, of course, by far the best example. Indiana Jones is good, also. There is a limit as to how far we can go, in my opinion and also how much licensing products should make up of our total portfolio. We haven't gone over too far, yet. Some of the licensed products have also become core products, like Star Wars, because they are long-term propositions. That's probably what it should be when look [sic] at a license, it should be something that is fairly long-term, not something that is going to be one season."

So here you have a recognition that they understand the need for balance between licensed and unlicensed themes; it means I don't think we need to worry at this point that TLG will decide to just to licenses. Having recently attended a marketing presentation by the president of LEGO marketing in North America, from what he said, they realize part of the ongoing, generation after generation appeal of LEGO is that parents (mostly fathers) can look at a LEGO set, like a castle, and say "I had one of those when I was a kid and I loved it," and is then motivated to get it for his child (and usually participate in the building process, too). Licenses destroy that paradigm... sure, SW has been going on for some time, but will they still be doing it in 10 years? I find it doubtful. 20? I simply can't imagine that at all.

Secondly, there seems to be a contradiction in there, IMO. As far as we know (someone correct me if I'm wrong), POTC's run is less than one year. Cars 2... Toy Story 3... all short term propositions that I myself questioned at the time (although I did buy some of those sets for various reasons). I do think they if they keep having these two year or less licenses that they may start to falter. I also think they may be doing too many lines. Cars 2 and TS3 didn't really matter a whole lot... small lines separate from everything else. Star Wars interfered with space to an extent; POTC with pirates, and LOTR most certainly with castle.

As far as the efficacy of licensed themes on my personal buying habits... I got into LEGO for the trains, and started buying SW (as a long time, middle aged fan of the OT). So, right there, as opposed to being simply a train enthusiast, the fact that they made sets from such a beloved franchise certainly got me to buy more. I tried staying away from other themes because of the expense, but I finally succumbed to HP. Again, these are not sets that replace some other line I'd be buying. Still hesitant to get too deeply into new themes, I bought a couple of the POTC sets that I was really interested in. I was not a pirates fan before that (although I did buy the impressive imperial flagship, it was my only pirates purchase prior to POTC).

I don't like the Cars 2 line, but I still bought a Mater because I like Mater.

I don't like the Toy Story 3 line, but I still bought a Great West Train because I like trains.

So... based on my personal experiences, licenses certainly have the potential to suck in a lot of revenue for TLG. That's only good for us, ultimately, in the long run. They should keep doing whatever it is that makes them so highly profitable - it ensures they'll be around for my grand kids.

So... yes... as long as they don't go too far, I'm fully behind licenses. They are not perfect, and sometimes the licenses bother me; they do TS3 and Cars 2 because they will do well with the kids, and that's their core group. While those licenses didn't usurp some other theme, it does take resources away from everything else. I knew those wouldn't be long term propositions, so the Kjeld's comments might either be an admission they are not perfect, or delusionally optimistic... (I'm sure there's other options I'm not thinking of).

Edited December 16, 2011 by fred67

[Fallenangel]

A silver pipe is a silver pipe and George Lucas does not have a monopoly on silver pipes.

It's a flashgun, not a pipe.

[happymark]

Thank you Ralph_S, as the original poster, I totally agree with you. (actually I like your way to purchase LEGO - such as sometime,

bought a set but do not build per instruction at all but for the pieces).

I want to clarify that I should not talk 'Licensed sets' in general. because they are different. such as Cars 2, as Rook mentions.. too over-Decal for me.

but others, like PtoC, or Harry Potter, do give us many very good pieces and in nicer colors.

oh well, I am not complaining , (I believe I am going to buy some Batman sets for sure. and of course the Joker!)

but maybe will think twice for over-decal sets..

or.. maybe I should NOT buy too many sets after all!!

Thank you all guys for reply. I really appreciate all the comments!

Wow, this discussion has turned hot!

To those of you who don't like them:

-Nobody is putting a gun to your heads to buy them.

-There are lots of other sets that aren't in licensed themes -not just City and Dinos, but also the utterly brilliant creator sets, so there's plenty of other stuff to buy. Some stores may mainly stock the licensed sets at the expense of the non-licensed ones (because they're cash cows), but with online resources such as brickset, eurobricks, flickr and whatnot, you actually get a better look at the sets than you can from looking at the box in a store. I buy almost all of my LEGO on-line.

-While it's true that LEGO could introduce new parts in other themes, the licensed sets are some of the biggest sellers. Their sales help fund the development of useful parts that eventually will find their way into non-licensed sets -such as light-sabre blades and handles- and into our collections. They simply wouldn't be able to introduce as many new parts as they do if it weren't for the money they rake in with the licenses.

Finally, a personal note, some of you seem very hung up on the design of the sets -something that I think applies to a lot of people active on Eurobricks. Everybody is free to enjoy their hobby the way they see fit, of course, but for me LEGO is about building my own stuff and I appreciate what licensed sets have to offer for that.

Ralph

fred67,

Thank you so much for the reply!

well said!

My two cents:

First, vexorian, it seems like you understand the problem with your complaints... that TLG doesn't really care about any individual in particular, and that TLG does what's financially best for TLG. A lot of idealists don't like to think of TLG as just another profit driven company, but that's what they are and the decisions they make become an easier pill to swallow when we get over it. But I do think you have every right to complain about things you don't like. I did the same thing when they dropped 9V for RC... I'm still not happy about it and I still complain from time to time. I do accept it, though. Just know that, while it seems like everyone is jumping on your case, I think we all recognize your right to complain and voice your opinion about it.

Second, it's true that if all TLG was licensed, or even if it was all licensed except things like buckets, I would not be very happy. I do think they're doing too much lately, and I fail to see how it helps them in the long run. I finally got the latest issue of brick journal the other day, and here are some quotes from Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, w.r.t. licensing:

"I think is has been fantastic with some strong licenses suitable with our brand. Star Wars is, of course, by far the best example. Indiana Jones is good, also. There is a limit as to how far we can go, in my opinion and also how much licensing products should make up of our total portfolio. We haven't gone over too far, yet. Some of the licensed products have also become core products, like Star Wars, because they are long-term propositions. That's probably what it should be when look [sic] at a license, it should be something that is fairly long-term, not something that is going to be one season."

So here you have a recognition that they understand the need for balance between licensed and unlicensed themes; it means I don't think we need to worry at this point that TLG will decide to just to licenses. Having recently attended a marketing presentation by the president of LEGO marketing in North America, from what he said, they realize part of the ongoing, generation after generation appeal of LEGO is that parents (mostly fathers) can look at a LEGO set, like a castle, and say "I had one of those when I was a kid and I loved it," and is then motivated to get it for his child (and usually participate in the building process, too). Licenses destroy that paradigm... sure, SW has been going on for some time, but will they still be doing it in 10 years? I find it doubtful. 20? I simply can't imagine that at all.

Secondly, there seems to be a contradiction in there, IMO. As far as we know (someone correct me if I'm wrong), POTC's run is less than one year. Cars 2... Toy Story 3... all short term propositions that I myself questioned at the time (although I did buy some of those sets for various reasons). I do think they if they keep having these two year or less licenses that they may start to falter. I also think they may be doing too many lines. Cars 2 and TS3 didn't really matter a whole lot... small lines separate from everything else. Star Wars interfered with space to an extent; POTC with pirates, and LOTR most certainly with castle.

As far as the efficacy of licensed themes on my personal buying habits... I got into LEGO for the trains, and started buying SW (as a long time, middle aged fan of the OT). So, right there, as opposed to being simply a train enthusiast, the fact that they made sets from such a beloved franchise certainly got me to buy more. I tried staying away from other themes because of the expense, but I finally succumbed to HP. Again, these are not sets that replace some other line I'd be buying. Still hesitant to get too deeply into new themes, I bought a couple of the POTC sets that I was really interested in. I was not a pirates fan before that (although I did buy the impressive imperial flagship, it was my only pirates purchase prior to POTC).

I don't like the Cars 2 line, but I still bought a Mater because I like Mater.

I don't like the Toy Story 3 line, but I still bought a Great West Train because I like trains.

So... based on my personal experiences, licenses certainly have the potential to suck in a lot of revenue for TLG. That's only good for us, ultimately, in the long run. They should keep doing whatever it is that makes them so highly profitable - it ensures they'll be around for my grand kids.

So... yes... as long as they don't go too far, I'm fully behind licenses. They are not perfect, and sometimes the licenses bother me; they do TS3 and Cars 2 because they will do well with the kids, and that's their core group. While those licenses didn't usurp some other theme, it does take resources away from everything else. I knew those wouldn't be long term propositions, so the Kjeld's comments might either be an admission they are not perfect, or delusionally optimistic... (I'm sure there's other options I'm not thinking of).

[Peppermint_M]

Ralph S hit the nail on the head. All the Lego I buy is for building my own MOCs, the last licensed set I bought was the Knight Bus, for all the lovely purple parts.

[______]

I love some licensed themes, yet I would rather they stay separate to the other sets, i.e. they are there, you do not have to buy them.

But when they interfere with normal LEGO themes (POTC with Pirates, LOTR inevitably with Castle) I get slightly annoyed, Some Pirates fans admire the new pieces which POTC brought to Pirates, but in the end of the day we also want LEGO to produce their own Pirates sets, original ships, redcoats and the like. Licensed sets are very expensive, (More so in the last couple of years) so if we had no interference, such as a Pirates theme at the same time as POTC then die-hard fans could buy POTC but general fans of a certain theme could buy LEGO's official sets, which would not have the licensed theme tax added on.

However I suppose the interference forces Castle or Pirates fans to buy licensed themes just to get these good pieces, if we did have two themes at the same time one might get a lot less sales than the other, so it wouldn't work out anyway. Well, TLC knows what sells, they are a "For-profit" business.

[Piranha]

its kinda getting crowded a little I think

I would prefer both such as Classic Pirates and POTC at the same time and LOTR and Kingdoms. (Compare Star Wars and Space themes).

Now I like the new parts and the logic of marketshare having two similar themes competing which is where the problem is.

Edited December 16, 2011 by Macoco

[Vindicare]

I love some licensed themes, yet I would rather they stay separate to the other sets, i.e. they are there, you do not have to buy them.

But when they interfere with normal LEGO themes (POTC with Pirates, LOTR inevitably with Castle) I get slightly annoyed, Some Pirates fans admire the new pieces which POTC brought to Pirates, but in the end of the day we also want LEGO to produce their own Pirates sets, original ships, redcoats and the like. Licensed sets are very expensive, (More so in the last couple of years) so if we had no interference, such as a Pirates theme at the same time as POTC then die-hard fans could buy POTC but general fans of a certain theme could buy LEGO's official sets, which would not have the licensed theme tax added on.

However I suppose the interference forces Castle or Pirates fans to buy licensed themes just to get these good pieces, if we did have two themes at the same time one might get a lot less sales than the other, so it wouldn't work out anyway. Well, TLC knows what sells, they are a "For-profit" business.

I wouldn't want two of relatively the same theme on the shelves. If that were so, we may not have gotten Dino next year, or AC this year.

Edited December 17, 2011 by Legocrazy81

[382nd Legionnaire]

Lego hasn't been particularly successful if they have tried to make an unlicensed set with their own story. The only successful one I can think of off the top of my head is Bionicle. I don't know what Lego was thinking replacing it with Hero Factory. Lego has also had success with Kingdom, Pirates sets but they lacked their storyline like the licensed sets did.

[CP5670]

I don't particularly like licensed themes but don't mind them either and can see their benefits. There have always been Lego themes and product lines that I never had any interest in, so I largely just ignore them. The licensed themes still give us excellent parts that find their way onto Bricklink (although there is no need to buy the entire sets just for those) and they do occasionally throw up a standout set, even if you look at them purely as Lego sets and ignore the fact that they represent something from the license. We also get plenty of non-licensed sets these days, more than we did in the 80s and 90s before any licensed sets existed.

[1980-Something-Space-Guy]

I know that many Lego fans will want to kill me for saying this, and will probably think that I'm not a real Lego fan. However, I like licensed sets for the minifigs we get. That's practically all I care about.

Still, figs are getting too pricey.

[Jareth]

In general I support Licensed sets, because they have forced TLG to produce new molds that are then used for other sets. Now TLG is making new pieces for it's own lines (like the snakes for Ninjago)I just hope the pieces don't get too specialized like Megablocks licensed sets are.

Some things I don't like about Licensed sets are the prices and the "incompleteness" of the lines. Let's take Indiana Jones for example. Three movies, 16 sets, and some of the sets are just "army builders" how many scenes are missing from the movies?

With star wars the habit of releasing multiple sets for the same spaceship is a little annoying too.

This is why I am not that excited about the lord of the rings sets. Although I think they chose good scenes to make sets, I can't help but feel that a lot is going to be missing from the trilogy and TLG is going to concentrate on the Upcoming hobbit movie.

Oh well, I am glad there is a castlish theme this year, and I hope it looks like a combination of Fantasy and the civilians in kingdoms.

[fred67]

I know that many Lego fans will want to kill me for saying this, and will probably think that I'm not a real Lego fan. However, I like licensed sets for the minifigs we get. That's practically all I care about.

Everybody has their own reasons for loving LEGO. I wouldn't have thought at first that I was so interested in minifigures, but it turns out I am. I love the CMFs, and while I didn't care for POTC in general, I wanted the iconic figures and ships from it (I ended up getting pretty much everything, but that's a story in itself and I didn't spend any money on them). Now, previously, I'd only bought one shop I thought was cool (IFS). Anyone that thinks licenses won't suck people in to buy sets is delusional; TLG is making a great choice.

With LOTR, I love the whole fantasy genre, so am very enthusiastic about it. I'll likely get every set, both for the characters and sets.

I do think that I don't like to see too many licensed themes at once, but the way I see it, I'd be willing to bet we get back to classic pirates next year while the castle theme goes to LOTR. I don't really see it as a problem. Other themes, like Cars and TS3 seem to be their own themes, they don't usurp another theme, so I have no problem with them, either. I think the superheroes will be like that, and I will likely try to get some of the superheroes just for the figures, too.

The bottom line is you can't make everybody happy; I'm fairly certain that the licensed themes make more people happier, though.

Some things I don't like about Licensed sets are the prices and the "incompleteness" of the lines. Let's take Indiana Jones for example. Three movies, 16 sets, and some of the sets are just "army builders" how many scenes are missing from the movies?

I get the feeling that the same thing that happened with IJ happened with POTC - the initial wave of sets HAD TO have stuff from the new movies, which weren't nearly as popular as the originals.

With star wars the habit of releasing multiple sets for the same spaceship is a little annoying too.

There's little else to do with SW, IMO, although I'd like to see new versions of some sets that were only released once (Cloud City!) instead of third and fourth versions of other ships.

This is why I am not that excited about the lord of the rings sets. Although I think they chose good scenes to make sets, I can't help but feel that a lot is going to be missing from the trilogy and TLG is going to concentrate on the Upcoming hobbit movie.

My problem with your complaint is that it hasn't happened yet. You're already disappointed when they haven't even shown us a single set. Maybe you've got a great idea... if you expect it to suck, then it'll at least meet your expectations, and likely you'll be ecstatic at some of the sets. On the other hand, if you're picturing a Helms Deep set like some of the MOCs you've seen online (that have like 20k pieces) you're definitely going to be disappointed.

I think if we have some reasonable expectations... things like Helms Deep or Minas Tirith being multiple small sets, like Hogwarts, I don't think you'll be setting your sights too high.

Edited December 19, 2011 by fred67

[sharky]

I'm actually tired of all the city police and fire sets. How many versions of a police car, police helicopter, police ATV, or fire related vehicle do we need? For every licensed set one is tired of I can show you an equally tiresome set from a non-licensed theme. I think licensed sets give lots more variety to Lego. I'm already kind of a nut for toy collecting my favorite movies. At least with Lego, I can always expand my hobby into MOCs when I get tired of building and displaying just the sets.

[Ardelon]

...

I finally got the latest issue of brick journal the other day, and here are some quotes from Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, w.r.t. licensing:

"I think is has been fantastic with some strong licenses suitable with our brand. Star Wars is, of course, by far the best example. Indiana Jones is good, also. There is a limit as to how far we can go, in my opinion and also how much licensing products should make up of our total portfolio. We haven't gone over too far, yet. Some of the licensed products have also become core products, like Star Wars, because they are long-term propositions. That's probably what it should be when look [sic] at a license, it should be something that is fairly long-term, not something that is going to be one season."

...

This makes me a bit worried that TLG will only see long-term potential in licensed themes, while non-licensed themes will only get a short 1-2 wave run without growing to their full potential, like PQ, AC, etc. Core themes won't suffer this fate of course, but they could be subject to long hiatuses like space between the Mars themes, and we'll see what happens to Castle. Ninjago seems like a long-term thing, but as it's not my cuppa tea, I'm not too heartened by it.

[Blondie-Wan]

I am completely sick of them too. They are overpriced, over-hyped, dependent on movie franchises rather than set design for success. People only buy them for minifigs - Peach minifigs that are unusable in conjunction to real minifigs.

LEGO could just stop making licensed sets altogether and just sell the licensed minifigs for 5 dollars each. I think everyone would win. LEGO would milk customers away with overpriced figures. The fans of those works would get their real objective, LEGO-looking dopplegangers of their favorite characters so that they can forget about the Hassle of building things. And everyone else would have shelf space for sets that focus on good design rather than shielding over a movie franchise.

Unfortunately, they actually can't just sell the licensed minifigures on their own, at least not in the case of Star Wars, which of course is the largest licensed theme (one of the largest themes of any kind, actually), and possibly others. Since other toy companies hold rights for "action figures" for given properties such as Star Wars, TLG has to include enough of a real building experience in a set for it to unmistakably be a "construction toy" as opposed to just a "figure," even one that comes in pieces.

I've seen those pics, and the only piece that seems to make sense as exclusive to licences is Darth Vader's helmet which is used on a minifig and nothing. Unless you counted the droid heads, but in that MoC their use seems to be forced. Things like Droid torsos and those silver legs could have easily existed without StarWars and indeed, the droid torsos were used in Life On Mars and tons of other non-licensed themes.

The battle droid torsos (and many other droid elements) were designed for Star Wars, and then reused for all sorts of other things in numerous other themes (as well as being used in Star Wars again in different ways, just like any other good LEGO element). Indeed, those parts aren't considered licensed elements, since even though they were specifically designed for specific needs of the theme, they weren't so specific that they couldn't be used any other way and weren't immediately, necessarily evocative of Star Wars in particular (unlike, say, the Darth Vader helmet). You can in fact buy those very droid torsos (and all the other parts of battle droids, except the heads which are very clearly Star Wars battle droid heads) in Pick-a-Brick for that very reason (whereas the heads are considered licensed elements, so no). As noted, other elements in some of these images were specifically designed for Star Wars - some of which are so specifically "Star Wars-ian" as to be considered licensed elements (such as the Rebel trooper helmets) and thus not used by TLG in any other sets, and some which aren't (such as the lightsaber hilts and blades), which even though they were specifically called for by the theme, are sufficiently "generic" enough in shape that they work well for many, many other functions and that TLG routinely uses them in other sets for other functions. But even some "true" licensed elements are useable for other things by clever builders. For example, I've seen those very Rebel trooper helmets seen there also used for lighting fixtures on the side of a vintage "movie palace"-style theater.

Sometimes licensed themes help bring about elements which for which there already exists some demand, but which might not ever exist had the themes not been done. For example, TLG never offered minifigure fedoras or shoulder bags until they did a licensed theme for which they were absolutely necessary, Indiana Jones - but once they did that and had the molds, they began using them in all sorts of other themes. Indiana Jones has benefited enthusiasts of City, Wild West and other themes whether they had any direct interest in Indiana Jones or not.

None of those parts seems to be simultaneously very relevant and exclusive to a licensed theme. And in fact, this ship's looks seem to rely a lot on non-licensed parts like the Shadow Panther's spikes and tons of Atlantis canopies.

Exactly.

All that said, one major complaint of yours regarding licensed sets is definitely an issue:

And retailers, specially in small countries like mine, make it a priority to bring all of those licensed themes over anything else. This year no Kingdoms or Alien Conquest set arrived this city. It really blows.

Yes, and this over negativity is fed by LOTR's announcement today. I have reached a point in which I had enough, really. The last thing I wanted was for LEGO to get another multi-year deal on another theme that will obviously use all the shelf space available and make me unable to get any set that doesn't pay a movie studio tax.

Now, if the retailers in your country are eschewing non-licensed sets in order to devote all of their limited LEGO shelf space to licensed themes, that is unfortunate, and I do feel for you. That is a very serious problem that needs to be addressed.

[Blondie-Wan]

Some things I don't like about Licensed sets are the prices and the "incompleteness" of the lines. Let's take Indiana Jones for example. Three movies, 16 sets, and some of the sets are just "army builders" how many scenes are missing from the movies?

Actually, four movies (and a neglected TV show) and 17 sets (18 if one counts the ultra-limited Comic-Con exclusive), and there aren't exactly any battle-packs (I'd actually argue there aren't enough "army builders," or at least enough that were really cost-effective for that purpose), but your basic point does stand. Fortunately, I for one have enough elements to make my own versions of most things in those movies (and I'd prefer to do that anyway), but it would be nice to have had more actual sets. In particular I would have dearly loved to have seen sets from The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, but that was always unlikely.

I get the feeling that the same thing that happened with IJ happened with POTC - the initial wave of sets HAD TO have stuff from the new movies, which weren't nearly as popular as the originals.

Actually, the initial wave of Indiana Jones was made up entirely of stuff from the earlier movies, and then the second wave was built around the launch of the new movie (a theme launch strategy similar to the ones used by Toy Story and Star Wars, two other themes built around long-established movie franchises that got new installments after long waits). Pirates of the Caribbean was the exception in having a launch wave made up primarily of sets from the new movie mixed with some from the older ones.

I finally got the latest issue of brick journal the other day, and here are some quotes from Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, w.r.t. licensing:

"I think is has been fantastic with some strong licenses suitable with our brand. Star Wars is, of course, by far the best example. Indiana Jones is good, also. There is a limit as to how far we can go, in my opinion and also how much licensing products should make up of our total portfolio. We haven't gone over too far, yet. Some of the licensed products have also become core products, like Star Wars, because they are long-term propositions. That's probably what it should be when look [sic] at a license, it should be something that is fairly long-term, not something that is going to be one season."

That's really interesting; it's at odds with a number of short-lived licensed themes they've done that had single waves, right up to pretty much the present (Avatar the Last Airbender, Speed Racer, Prince of Persia). It's especially interesting that he specifically cites Indiana Jones, since I don't think that's been extraordinarily long-lived, though it was longer-lived than so many others (Indiana Jones had four waves, two years with two waves each; those first three I mentioned earlier in this paragraph had a single wave apiece and were gone - Avatar had just two sets, I think). If anything, I'd have expected him to cite Harry Potter before Indiana Jones... but Indy was probably the third-largest prior to the current development with the DC Universe, which can be viewed as an extension / expansion of the earlier Batman sets and vice versa, perhaps making DC the largest licensed theme up to now.

Anyway, I'd always thought those single-wave licensed themes were done with no expectation of carrying them beyond their launch waves, as a means of quickly capitalizing on an opportunity without a lot of long-term risk from planning multiple waves. These remarks seem to me to suggest otherwise, as though they'd thought Speed Racer or Prince of Persia or the like might have gone on a while. While I don't profess to have any particular insight into what movies and franchises will be successful and generate long-term, ongoing merchandise lines, I certainly never would have expected those themes to go on; I pretty much assumed TLG itself intended them as single-wave themes, even months before they were launched (I also further expected / hoped Indiana Jones to resume the year after Prince of Persia took its temporary turn in the spotlight).

I wonder if he's referring not to the specific themes but to the partnerships with their rightsholders, as there are really just a small number of companies from which the overwhelming majority of the licensed themes are licensed - just the three companies of Lucasfilm, Disney and Warner Bros. together account for Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Mickey Mouse, Winnie the Pooh, Disney Princesses, Toy Story, Cars, Prince of Persia, Pirates of the Caribbean, Marvel Universe / Avengers, DC Universe / Batman, Harry Potter and Speed Racer. Each of those three companies' agreements with TLG began a decade ago or longer.

[BrickBucket]

When one takes into account the ever-expanding scope of the Star Wars universe, one will find that it is just as generic as City or Castle. The same goes for Harry Potter, Pixar, and other franchises that have been licensed. What it all comes down to is creativity.

How are licensed sets as generic than Lego standard themes? The jack sparrow minifigure is jack sparrow from the movies with all the history that comes with it, the Lego pirate can be what you want him to be. Lego Batman is batman, not generic man with mask/cape. Obi-wan's starfighter is the starfighter from the movies not a generic space ship. Same for all the licensed sets, their all based on something that existed prior. Course if you never saw the movies that would have no effect on you, but you'd still wonder why sets where designed to have certain elements that seemed strange unless you understood why they where there from the movie.

I like some of the licensed sets (parts, nostalgia for the theme), but I think the standard Lego themes are much more open to creativity as they have no back-story. Which is not to say you can't be creative with licensed themes, just I think it's not as open ended.

I hope they keep doing them, but I think they have been doing far to many (toy story, pop, cars, avatar). And I'd rather see more Lego themes.

[AndyC]

Anyway, I'd always thought those single-wave licensed themes were done with no expectation of carrying them beyond their launch waves, as a means of quickly capitalizing on an opportunity without a lot of long-term risk from planning multiple waves. These remarks seem to me to suggest otherwise, as though they'd thought Speed Racer or Prince of Persia or the like might have gone on a while.

I wonder if maybe that's the problem. They were launched as one-off waves and then six months later parents were asking why they couldn't get another set to go along with the one they bought earlier in the year. Maybe they've learnt that whilst one-off waves are low risk, they're problematic for purchasers who then tend to steer towards things like Star Wars that they know they'll be able to add to six months or a year down the line.

[Jareth]

My problem with your complaint is that it hasn't happened yet. You're already disappointed when they haven't even shown us a single set. Maybe you've got a great idea... if you expect it to suck, then it'll at least meet your expectations, and likely you'll be ecstatic at some of the sets. On the other hand, if you're picturing a Helms Deep set like some of the MOCs you've seen online (that have like 20k pieces) you're definitely going to be disappointed.

I think if we have some reasonable expectations... things like Helms Deep or Minas Tirith being multiple small sets, like Hogwarts, I don't think you'll be setting your sights too high.

Perhaps I am predicting the future too much, but I am not expecting a set that perfectly shows the set of those scenes. One of the scenes I am most interested in is "Balin's Tomb" or "They've got a troll" How can they do this without it being hideously expensive? In order to do it right, you would have to have the entire LOTR party several goblins and the troll. If they do that many figures, then just to make the set work you would have to do the entire room....all of a sudden this becomes a $100 to $200 set. In all likellyhood, It will probably have the tomb, the well, a doorway and a couple of figures...but which ones?

Yeah, I can go on with predictions and hopes, but in the end we will just have to wait and see. As far as lego goes, I know they can't make every scene into a set and make a profit, and If they made every set huge and complete, then I wouldn't be able to aford them. It's a balancing act, and I think lego does a good job, even if it isn't exactly the way I would do it.

Anyway, gotta run.

[legotrader]

All i can say is WOW!

[Flipz]

Perhaps I am predicting the future too much, but I am not expecting a set that perfectly shows the set of those scenes. One of the scenes I am most interested in is "Balin's Tomb" or "They've got a troll" How can they do this without it being hideously expensive? In order to do it right, you would have to have the entire LOTR party several goblins and the troll. If they do that many figures, then just to make the set work you would have to do the entire room....all of a sudden this becomes a $100 to $200 set. In all likellyhood, It will probably have the tomb, the well, a doorway and a couple of figures...but which ones?

I imagine that, since this is based off the movies, it'd be: Pippin, Gimli, Boromir, and either Sam or Frodo. Maybe Aragorn if Lego decides to turn him into LotR's Jack Sparrow. With 4-5 minifigs, I could see it as a $30 set, and if they cut Pippin and/or Boromir (neither character is particularly well-known or popular among the average person who isn't a Tolkien nut), then it could easily be a $20 set, which wouldn't require too much background scenery (aside from the troll itself, which I would want to be brick-built rather than a prefab figure). Personally, I think that's just about right--if I want to build a giant, massive cave system and mine, I'll go to bricklink or ebay or something and buy used gray bricks and rock pieces in bulk, I wouldn't want to pay full price plus licensing fees for a set that I'd likely want to take apart later on. If I build something huge, I'd want to keep it together long-term, and for a set like the tomb, there'd be far too many useful pieces to keep it built.

TL;DR, it's not LEGO's job to "do it right" for movie scenes, the set should suggest the theme but not recreate it exactly (UCS sets notwithstanding). If you want a scene "done right", that's YOUR job as the fan and LEGO builder.

I think the licensed themes are alright, aside from two things: 1.) licensing fees (when I'm rich and famous and owner of a thousand franchises, I'm going to cut LEGO a better deal so the licensing fees don't hit customers so hard--as long as they give me free LEGO of course ), and 2.) repeat 'figs of unique characters. It started with the identical Indiana Jones 'figs in the first IJ wave (they fixed it later in the theme), then got worse with Dastan in PoP and most recently with Jack Sparrow in PotC. Listen: there is only ONE of each of these characters in the theme world, so we don't need them in EVERY set! Follow the example of Luke Skywalker and the characters in the LEGO Star Wars (etc.) games: If the theme is centered around a given character(s), give them several different "forms" to liven up the monotony! I realize Lego is limited by the constraints of the theme, but come on: every character has SOME costume changes, make the most of them! Please?

[Fallenangel]

How are licensed sets as generic than Lego standard themes? The jack sparrow minifigure is jack sparrow from the movies with all the history that comes with it, the Lego pirate can be what you want him to be. Lego Batman is batman, not generic man with mask/cape. Obi-wan's starfighter is the starfighter from the movies not a generic space ship. Same for all the licensed sets, their all based on something that existed prior. Course if you never saw the movies that would have no effect on you, but you'd still wonder why sets where designed to have certain elements that seemed strange unless you understood why they where there from the movie.

Pirate and City sets are also based on “something that existed prior” - pirates and cities. The LEGO policeman is a policeman, not generic man in black suit with gun.

I was referring to Hrw-Amen's comment that one may be “constrained by what is in the world of the theme”. For example, the Star Wars franchise is so incredibly broad that virtually anything can fit in (much to the fans' distaste – but that argument is over and done with). The same could be said for Batman with all its alternate universes. It isn't quite the same situation for Indiana Jones and Harry Potter, but throw fanon into the mix and suddenly anything is possible.

And of course I must echo the recurring point that the parts have a number of other uses unrelated to the license.

[BrickBucket]

Pirate and City sets are also based on “something that existed prior” - pirates and cities. The LEGO policeman is a policeman, not generic man in black suit with gun.

I was referring to Hrw-Amen's comment that one may be “constrained by what is in the world of the theme”. For example, the Star Wars franchise is so incredibly broad that virtually anything can fit in (much to the fans' distaste – but that argument is over and done with). The same could be said for Batman with all its alternate universes. It isn't quite the same situation for Indiana Jones and Harry Potter, but throw fanon into the mix and suddenly anything is possible.

And of course I must echo the recurring point that the parts have a number of other uses unrelated to the license.

Yes your right everything comes from something, but licensed themes are more specific and classic Lego themes more generic. They are not equally generic. Generic themes leave more to the child's imagination. Licensed themes leave less. Although looking at the current crop of Star Wars clone wars ships it looks like a space ship and a bunch of alien's to me since I'm not familiar with that series, so yah their looking more generic nowadays like you said. Who the heck is Ko Ploon and Cad Bane anyway?

Edited December 25, 2011 by meatbucket

[Flipz]

Yes your right everything comes from something, but licensed themes are more specific and classic Lego themes more generic. They are not equally generic. Generic themes leave more to the child's imagination. Licensed themes leave less. Although looking at the current crop of Star Wars clone wars ships it looks like a space ship and a bunch of alien's to me since I'm not familiar with that series, so yah their looking more generic nowadays like you said. Who the heck is Ko Ploon and Cad Bane anyway?

*resists urge to link to Wookieepedia. *

I take it you've never played the Star Wars Rolplaying Game? The entire experience of that game is about taking the Star Wars realm and making it your world, even if sometimes that means changing the way things "actually" happened. It's the same with licensed Lego themes; if you don't have the imagination to make something new from a licensed set, then most likely you don't have the imagination to make something new from a "generic" set. Even if the world of the license were "limiting" (which it isn't), this is Lego; if we get bored with something, we can always tear it apart and build it into something else. There are licensed sets that I want just for parts, just as much as there are generic sets that I would buy just to build the model shown (if I had the spare cash, that is ). A perfect example is the sets Sandy and other Quest Masters build for the Heroica RPG: the sets themselves use licensed parts and minifigs in highly creative ways (parts and minifigs that, it should be pointed out, might never have been made were it not for the licensed sets), while the RPG illustrates a highly creative use of an existing theme. (Granted, Heroica is a Lego-created theme, but the RPG expands on it in several ways far beyond the original scope of the theme; something similar can be done to any pre-existing theme--licensed or otherwise.)

[Larrynautik]

Personally having licensed sets instead of classic ones is not a problem for playing with them, as I integrate them in my own universe (for example, Star Wars sets suis well in a generic space base).

I'm also interested by the peculiar characters these sets offers.and their equipment like blasters lightsabers etc. The only problem I see is the prices, the redundancy of ships ( nearly 10 Millenium Falcons since the beginning) and the lack of basements. I could also notice that there is a redundancy of characters ( What will I do of 5 Jack Sparrow and 18 Luke Skywalker ? )

I hope some of these points will be rethinked by the Lego group. It could be cool to get some explanations on paper accompanying Licenced sets (Who are Plo Koon, Cad Bane and the others ?)