Sick of lego license's

[Joebot]

crappy themes are not enterily related to licenses. lego produced a bunch of dreadfull themes of their own... :-X

Oh, absolutely! I certainly wasn't trying to argue otherwise. There is not a direct relationship between licenses and crappy themes, or vice versa.

I guess my point is is that if Lego is forced by economics or marketing to use licenses (and I think they are), then I hope they choose those licenses VERY carefully and judiciously. A couple of well-conceived licenses, like Star Wars, is a real benefit. You get a built-in fanbase who will do all the advertising and marketing for you! If there's a collectables aspect to it too, then all the better.

Some of these other licenses, like Spongebob or Batman, have made for some nice sets and figs, but I don't see a Star Wars-esque 12-year run here. Those themes don't offer the variety in characters and locations that Star Wars does. In fact, I would argue that Star Wars is a freakish once-in-a-lifetime anomaly that Lego will NEVER be able to surpass. It was the perfect storm of popularity, rabid fanbase (both kids and adults), collectability, and set possibilities. What other pop culture franchise offers all of that??

[natelite]

Some of these other licenses, like Spongebob or Batman, have made for some nice sets and figs, but I don't see a Star Wars-esque 12-year run here. Those themes don't offer the variety in characters and locations that Star Wars does. In fact, I would argue that Star Wars is a freakish once-in-a-lifetime anomaly that Lego will NEVER be able to surpass. It was the perfect storm of popularity, rabid fanbase (both kids and adults), collectability, and set possibilities. What other pop culture franchise offers all of that??

If you ask me, any movie with the potential to army build can be a big seller. I think that's the difference between lego and the other toy makers. Mattel, hasbro thrive on a selected few characters since they are mostly based on action figures. Lego is on create and build, and the potential to act like a god or general overseeing the battlefield. For that though, you need army building. Lots of it. For that, I think LOTR could have been a big seller (recreate the big battle scenes, etc). Maybe even the new movie "300". Alexander. King Arthur. Well, those are rather bad movies so maybe TLG should not associate itself with bad movies. :-P don't know of any good sci-fi movies that you can army build with.

[Joebot]

If you ask me, any movie with the potential to army build can be a big seller. I think that's the difference between lego and the other toy makers. Mattel, hasbro thrive on a selected few characters since they are mostly based on action figures. Lego is on create and build, and the potential to act like a god or general overseeing the battlefield. For that though, you need army building. Lots of it. For that, I think LOTR could have been a big seller (recreate the big battle scenes, etc). Maybe even the new movie "300". Alexander. King Arthur. Well, those are rather bad movies so maybe TLG should not associate itself with bad movies. :-P don't know of any good sci-fi movies that you can army build with.

Your army builder theory is interesting. I never thought about that before. That's definitely part of the appeal to Star Wars, and something that Lego's other licenses don't offer. Who wants to build an army of Spongebobs or Hagrids??

I would argue that the genius of the SW license is that it offers that army building concept IN ADDITION TO having lots of unique characters. You get the best of both worlds. After all, it's those unique characters that drive the collectability craze. C'mon, who here is buying the new Jedi Fighter strictly for Kit Fisto? I know I am.

LOTR is the only other franchise I can think of that offers that ideal combination of main characters (Aragorn, Frodo, etc.) and nameless army-builders (uruk-hai, elves, Riders of Rohan, etc.). But I think LOTR isn't as conducive to Lego sets. SW has an a huge range of ships that falls neatly into varying price points. I don't know that you could do that with LOTR sets. A $20 Rivendell set? A $50 Gondor set??

I think the problem with Batman is that it's almost entirely character-driven, with no army-building possibilities. Unless people are dying to build an army of Joker henchmen? Lego is going to soon run out of characters, and then the theme will be done.

[mutley777]

For instance I think that an Indy license is really stupid !! Sure it will have great sets and MFs, but what annoys me is each time TLC fails to use the momentum to release unlicensed products !! They could have loaded on easy cash by releasing a new pirate line with each of the POTC instalments, and the same goes with Indy4: release a new adventurer line at that time !! G I don't count how many times wrote this |-/

Comic Books, video games and cartoons are great for licenses !!

So I will finish by... :-D

License On !!

*yoda*

While i agree with you on the pirate line i don't think lego would have dared to bring out their own adventure line in time for the new indy film. Just think about who will has the licence rights to indy and you have you answer as to why lego is doing the indy theme. It would have been biting the hand that feeds them! :-D

[natelite]

I think the problem with Batman is that it's almost entirely character-driven, with no army-building possibilities. Unless people are dying to build an army of Joker henchmen? Lego is going to soon run out of characters, and then the theme will be done.

In fact, I think that is precisely the problem. Plus TLG's own doing. What were they thinking coming up with magnet sets for batman - a theme solely centered on a few key characters? Once you get the mf, you don't need to buy the sets.

[The Brick Rat]

Isnt it ironic that a company that prides itself in thinking and CREATING makes 11 themes on franchises in less than 10 years (and its becoming more frequent).

This got me curious and so I decided to do a little homework. The following is a list of the beginning of each license by year:

1999

Disney

Star Wars

2000

No new licenses

2001

Bob the Builder

Jurassic Park

Harry Potter

2002

Galidor

Spider-man

2003

NBA

2004

Dora the Explorer

Ferrari

2005

Thomas and Friends

2006

Batman

Nickelodeon

2007

No new licenses

2008

Indiana Jones (unconfirmed)

That's ten years worth of LEGO licenses. In the first five years eight licenses were added and in the second five years six licenses. So, instead of becoming more frequent, licenses are becoming a little less frequent - which is in keeping with LEGOs announcement of a few years back when they said they were going slow down some and be more choosy in what licenses they aquired.

Of the licenses from the first five years only two seem to still exist: Star Wars (currently running until 2011) and Harry Potter (and this years castle may be the last set we see from this theme). Bob the Builder may also be current (the last new set was released last year - I don't know if any new sets are in the pipeline).

Of the licenses from the second five years only Dora the Explorer is defunct. In 2008 I would guess the following themes will see new sets:

2008

Star Wars (of course)

Ferrari (most likely)

Thomas and Friends (maybe)

Batman (I'm hoping that the release of 'The Dark Knight' will give this theme a second wind)

Nickelodeon (Spongebob almost certainly and perhaps a new 'Nick' property)

Indiana Jones (I hope)

Noticed how lego had its themes start to suck around 97-98 (developing SW) where as the years before (when i was just a wee kid and major lego fan) their themes ruled.

To be fair, the LEGO suckage that started in the late '90s had nothing to do with licensed products. LEGO has admitted to straying from it's core product (the brick) during this time. However, it's ironic that what saved LEGO financially during the 'dark years' ('97-'03) was a licensed product (Star Wars) and a non-system product (Bionicle).

The reason why lego has been able to get away with creating subpar and down right crappy products is because they have a label that guarantees them to be sold. People will always buy things for their label, and when it has two very big labels (lego and the brand) it is bound to be sold.

I've seen horrid licensed sets and I've seen licensed sets with great builds. I can say the same about LEGOs non-licensed themes. I like both licensed and unlicensed themed sets because they provide me with 1)general parts to build MOCs and 2)Minifigs and minifig accessories to add 'life' to MOCs. As for #2 I currently lean to licensed sets since I've become sold on flesh-toned figs.

Look the mighty castle line of 07, even though it is a huge step up form the previous decade of castle sets, compare it to the pre-liscense lego. The royal knights, black knights, dragon masters, it pales in comparison. How about mission mars, in the face of classic ice planet, or spyrius, its downright pitiful.

In my book the new castle sets can hold their own against any castle subtheme of the past. However, I agree about the new space theme. Mars mission is the Knights Kingdom of outer space.

However what angers me most is this latest rumour, which will most likely be true with Indy Jones 4. They are replacing the adventurers theme, with this crap. Im sorry to all indy fans, but i dont want pieces to recreate a movie scene, but rather pieces to suit my visons of making a temple or pyramid.

I'm not sure Indy would be 'replacing' Johnny Thunder since we havn't had an Adventurers theme in four years. I do believe that an Indiana Jones license would be a good thing for LEGO for the following reasons:

1)LEGO has spent the last nine years developing a strong relationship with Lucasfilm. I'm sure the possibility of an Indy license has been discussed. If LEGO turned the license down and then turned around and released a new Adventurers sub-theme I'm sure a lot of feathers would be ruffled at Lucasfilm.

2)If LEGO turned down an Indy license it could go to MegaBloks. If I were a bigwig at LEGO, I wouldn't want Lucasfilm and MegaBloks getting all friendly like.

3)Indiana Jones has always been popular worldwide and next year will be a hot property. If it came down to an Indy license or no adventurer type theme at all, I would opt for the license.

Does anyone else share my views?

I don't, but I read several different LEGO forums and know that you are in good company.

Ken

[Turaga of Force]

I like LEGO Star Wars a lot, but they do go a bit heavy on licenses. And the 80s and 90s sets are much better than the current ones. Much, much, much, much, much, much, much better.