Lack of original themes

[Peppermint_M]

You know, all this is a moot point if you are buying sets for parts and not to sit them on a shelf to collect dust.

There, I said it.

The whole "collect" culture where people hoard things to sit around and look at/show off is what is affecting LEGO the most. The toy aisle ten years ago was fashion dolls and their accessories/play sets. Action Figures and their vehicles. Hot wheels/ toy cars and the parking garages/stunt sets. LEGO and K'nex etc (Maybe airfix too). There was always a healthy chunk of pocket money toys like practical jokes and goo/slime rubber balls and little animal figures.

Now vast chunks of the toy aisle are given over to Pop Vinyl, Metal Nano Figs, Pint Size Heroes and the like. The traditional is even given over to these, I can find three different licensed Hot Wheels series, in which regular cars have been painted with slogans/imagery related to Ghost Busters, Star Wars and Superheroes. All things more focused on collecting and owning. Not play or imagination.

"Oh!" you cry "But a car with Slimer on it will still be played with like any other car!" And yes, yes it can. So can LEGO that has Batman in it. Just because they have Batman, not Johnny Thunder doesn't mean they will not be creating/playing scenarios of their own.

TLG is keeping up with the trends and right now there seems to be massive attraction to collecting items related to media properties. Sure, it is not what most AFOLs seem to want, but from what I can tell, AFOLs (who complain the most) simply want the rose-tinted interpretation of the LEGO they had as a child. 

[Giantorange]

On 1/23/2018 at 10:27 AM, MAB said:

I agree, but then LEGO knows what sells. Blame the people that want (and buy) licensed sets.

This.

While I would love a Classic Castle and Classic Space reboot, and more trains.  LEGO will make what sells, and that's going to be Star Wars and Superheroes.

[Orange Leader]

On 23-1-2018 at 2:48 PM, Nantucketdink said:

Anybody can think up a new Lego creation and build it.  Imagination is a wonderful thing.

Yet no one seems to be bothered with your post. I wonder for a long time why and what arguments are against this.

[Aanchir]

18 hours ago, Digger of Bricks said:

With the way the theme did turn out, it offers more for Space fans than it seemingly does for Castle fans. Now when we heard some of our first rumors of this theme back in mid-2015, I thought that there was going to be a World of Warcraft like theme in store, as some rumor sources were describing it as "Steampunk-like" (honestly, I still have no idea where they got that notion). 

Well, honestly, if you painted a set like the Fortrex or King's Mech colors like brown and gold and removed the hologram and computer decals, it would be pretty easy for somebody to mistake for steampunk. There are some people who are super strict about steampunk having to have things like actual steam engines, but a lot of other people's idea of what defines steampunk is much more superficial than that. We also have no idea how much the person who originally shared those rumors knew — for all we know, they could have only had basic ideas like "rolling castle on treads" or "horse-shaped mech that changes into a motorbike" described to them, without knowing much about the theme's more cosmetic aspects.

15 hours ago, danth said:

The problem with Ninjago, Chima, Nexo Knights, etc is that they are just in-house licenses. They all have defined stories (cartoons), settings, and characters. Everything is predetermined. So, they aren't comparable at all to classic themes or even modern City. 

"In-house licenses" is an oxymoron, IMO. A theme having a defined story doesn't make it licensed — even back in the day, themes like Pirates, Time Cruisers, and Adventurers dabbled in storytelling, just in less elaborate and sophisticated forms. I don't see how the media being more developed makes a theme inherently "licensed" or "predetermined", especially when it's the LEGO designers themselves creating the content of that media with the express goal of jump-starting kids' imaginations.

Look at the amazing stories, artwork, and MOCS created by Bionicle fans and it should be obvious that an elaborate storyline is no limit whatsoever on fans' creativity (arguably, I'd say Bionicle and Ninjago fans are in many ways much more creatively open-minded than what I see among fans of other themes, since they express their creativity and love of the world and characters in more ways than just LEGO building).

So much storytelling AFOLs do, like the storytelling in many of the traditional themes, tends to be fairly shallow. For instance, a MOC of a pirate raid on an imperial fort doesn’t need a whole lot of explanation. Why, then, is there this idea that your creative potential is more limited with Ninjago, in which you could just as easily build a completely original Serpentine raid on a rural town or sky pirate raid on Ninjago City? I’ve seen kids — actual KIDS — craft much more detailed stories for their Bionicle and Ninjago MOCs than AFOLs (including myself) ordinarily do, inspired by but not in any way constrained by the events of those series.

On some levels I’d even say that themes with more detailed stories can make kids MORE creative than themes with paper-thin stories. Basically all AFOLs know that you can learn new building techniques by looking at the complexity of other people’s set and MOC designs. We learn storytelling skills and techniques the same way — by experiencing the intricacies of other people’s stories. The idea that kids are a fountain of raw creativity has some merit, but being able to express that creativity isn’t something you’re born with. It’s something you learn by experiencing new ideas and ways of doing things. When you see elements of the stories a kid experiences come out in their play, that is creativity happening right in front of you. They have learned tools and techniques and they are experimenting with what new things those tools and techniques enable them to do. And that creativity can continue to develop provides you don’t try to convince them that there’s something wrong about playing in other people’s narrative worlds.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Aanchir

[General Magma]

1 hour ago, Peppermint_M said:

You know, all this is a moot point if you are buying sets for parts and not to sit them on a shelf to collect dust.

There, I said it.

The whole "collect" culture where people hoard things to sit around and look at/show off is what is affecting LEGO the most. The toy aisle ten years ago was fashion dolls and their accessories/play sets. Action Figures and their vehicles. Hot wheels/ toy cars and the parking garages/stunt sets. LEGO and K'nex etc (Maybe airfix too). There was always a healthy chunk of pocket money toys like practical jokes and goo/slime rubber balls and little animal figures.

Now vast chunks of the toy aisle are given over to Pop Vinyl, Metal Nano Figs, Pint Size Heroes and the like. The traditional is even given over to these, I can find three different licensed Hot Wheels series, in which regular cars have been painted with slogans/imagery related to Ghost Busters, Star Wars and Superheroes. All things more focused on collecting and owning. Not play or imagination.

"Oh!" you cry "But a car with Slimer on it will still be played with like any other car!" And yes, yes it can. So can LEGO that has Batman in it. Just because they have Batman, not Johnny Thunder doesn't mean they will not be creating/playing scenarios of their own.

TLG is keeping up with the trends and right now there seems to be massive attraction to collecting items related to media properties. Sure, it is not what most AFOLs seem to want, but from what I can tell, AFOLs (who complain the most) simply want the rose-tinted interpretation of the LEGO they had as a child. 

The only sets I've bought in the past few years that are still assembled have been the UCS Slave I and the little Dimensions A-Team van. All other sets have since disappeared into my parts bins and 90% of my LEGO purchases come from Bricklink.
It's not so much out of a personal need, it's simply a statement about the current state of LEGO and their rather limited theme offerings. Iconic themes more or less vanishing to make way for licensed sets. Out of themes like space, pirates and castle, where they had been default themes for years at one point, we now really have none of those themes on the shelves at all anymore. When I was a child, LEGO Star Wars was still at the foreground for a good percentage of the time, but I always had the original themes to also indulge in and this gave me a wider variety of things to tinker with, including a broader variety of settings from a broader variety of time periods.

Certainly, LEGO is chasing trends, and understandably so - but that does not mean that these traditional themes have to disappear almost entirely.

[MAB]

11 hours ago, danth said:

The problem with Ninjago, Chima, Nexo Knights, etc is that they are just in-house licenses. They all have defined stories (cartoons), settings, and characters. Everything is predetermined. So, they aren't comparable at all to classic themes or even modern City. 

Classic Castle, SPace, Pirates and current City sets are just as defined as characters. A knight is a knight. A spaceman is a spaceman. A pirate is a pirate. A firefighter is a firefighter. Just because they are not named somewhere doesn't mean their "job" role is not already clear from the detailing.  Similarly, just because a minifig has a name, it doesn't mean he has to be played with in the same way as a character acts in a cartoon. For example, In Monster Fighters, LEGO told us the monsters were bad and the humans good. That the monsters were after the moonstones to unleash doom by taking out the sun. Yet it was perfectly possible to play such that the monsters (whose basic appearance was defined, but not their nature) were the good guys and the bad humans were attacking them to steal the moonstones, that the monsters believed gave them special powers from their forefathers.

 

[danth]

4 hours ago, MAB said:

Classic Castle, SPace, Pirates and current City sets are just as defined as characters. A knight is a knight. A spaceman is a spaceman. A pirate is a pirate. A firefighter is a firefighter.

A knight is not Clay Moorington. A spaceman is not Han Solo. A pirate is not Jack Sparrow. So no, your argument makes no sense here. It's obvious what I meant by defined characters so I'm not sure why there is any misunderstanding

Classic Castle, SPace, Pirates and current City sets are just as defined as characters. A knight is a knight. A spaceman is a spaceman. A pirate is a pirate. A firefighter is a firefighter. Just because they are not named somewhere doesn't mean their "job" role is not already clear from the detailing.  Similarly, just because a minifig has a name, it doesn't mean he has to be played with in the same way as a character acts in a cartoon. For example, In Monster Fighters, LEGO told us the monsters were bad and the humans good. That the monsters were after the moonstones to unleash doom by taking out the sun. Yet it was perfectly possible to play such that the monsters (whose basic appearance was defined, but not their nature) were the good guys and the bad humans were attacking them to steal the moonstones, that the monsters believed gave them special powers from their forefathers.

I don't remember Monster Fighers having a cartoon. Maybe it had a set story but I don't remember one. Which is why you could play however you wanted. Because there was no set story.

This is why I always thought the Black Falcons were the freedom fighters and the Lion Knights were the jerky aristocrats. And Blacktron were mostly misunderstood. 

6 hours ago, Aanchir said:

"In-house licenses" is an oxymoron, IMO. A theme having a defined story doesn't make it licensed — even back in the day, themes like Pirates, Time Cruisers, and Adventurers dabbled in storytelling, just in less elaborate and sophisticated forms. I don't see how the media being more developed makes a theme inherently "licensed" or "predetermined", especially when it's the LEGO designers themselves creating the content of that media with the express goal of jump-starting kids' imaginations.

It's not an oxymoron. All of those themes had cartoons and/or movies. They all had defined settings, events, and characters. The characters were named and had their own colors. There was a mythos, even specific magical powers defined with their own symbols. No different from Star Wars or Avengers except who owns the license.

So a helmet is not a helmet, it's Clay Moorington's Helmet. A shield is not a shield, it is the Hawk Holler shield which combos with the Tractor Beam shield. 

Yes you can ignore the stories and names and defined story elements, but that takes extra work to pretend "I know this looks like Clay Moorington but it's really just a knight I named Fred."

[Aanchir]

36 minutes ago, danth said:

So a helmet is not a helmet, it's Clay Moorington's Helmet. A shield is not a shield, it is the Hawk Holler shield which combos with the Tractor Beam shield.

A hat is not a hat, it's Johnny Thunder's hat. A mask is not a mask, it's King Kahuka's mask. A wand is not a wand, it's Majisto's wand. Do you see how ridiculous it sounds to pretend this is something unique to themes with TV shows and movies, let alone an meaningful obstacle to creativity? LEGO sets frequently reuse parts for different purposes even if they were originally intended for one particular character in one particular theme. How long did LEGO keep using the Holy Grail/crescent valley map from Indiana Jones whenever they needed a map? Even in Bionicle, one of the LEGO Group's most story-driven themes, the same masks and tools — easily a Bionicle character's most recognizable features — were frequently reused for totally different characters and sometimes even assigned totally different powers (or sometimes not even used as masks/tools, like how in the Mask of Light story arc Makuta used two silver Mask of Light pieces as claws). It doesn't take any "extra work", all it takes is using your imagination. If you demand that all sets, parts, and characters lack any specific significance to a theme or character for you to use them in different contexts, you're basically saying that you refuse to use your imagination without the LEGO Group's express permission.

The obvious way to make a knight using Clay Moorington's parts not look like Clay Moorington? Well duh — it's LEGO! Just mix and match the parts, same way you would to create a new character in literally any theme. Clay's visor on Aaron's helmet with Macy's face? Bing, bang, boom, you have a brand-new character.

Edited January 25, 2018 by Aanchir

[GregoryBrick]

1 hour ago, danth said:

Yes you can ignore the stories and names and defined story elements, but that takes extra work to pretend "I know this looks like Clay Moorington but it's really just a knight I named Fred."

Extra work by who? I have a bunch of Ninjago and Nexo Knights sets - as far as I'm concerned, there's a bunch of (different?) ninjas in red outfits, some in blue, etc. I don't know much or really care about who is who and it didn't take any 'work'. As for children, the ones i've seen playing with LEGO might not know the names to begin with either, and/or they have have zero problem renaming and reframing the characters (and shields, etc.) they are playing with. I'd like some evidence that the provision of a narrative structure does what people here speculate it does.

[xzanfr]

Unlike the in house themes, there's no real design going on in these licensed themes.

The characters, scenes and vehicles are all designed by some mega corporation with Lego just following the brief of "make this in the most cost effective way with the least number of lego bricks". This is typical of the modern accountant lead design where the whole point is to harvest money above anything else - it's the reason we've got identikit films, homes for battery humans and Ed Sheeran!

The pursuit of money above everything else goes against the nordic concept of lagom, showing that Lego really have ditched their old vales of quality and education.

[Aanchir]

12 hours ago, xzanfr said:

Unlike the in house themes, there's no real design going on in these licensed themes.

The characters, scenes and vehicles are all designed by some mega corporation with Lego just following the brief of "make this in the most cost effective way with the least number of lego bricks". This is typical of the modern accountant lead design where the whole point is to harvest money above anything else - it's the reason we've got identikit films, homes for battery humans and Ed Sheeran!

The pursuit of money above everything else goes against the nordic concept of lagom, showing that Lego really have ditched their old vales of quality and education.

I feel like this is a disservice to the designers of licensed sets for lots of reasons.

For one, the brief you describe is EXTREMELY oversimplified. LEGO designers are still trying to make anything they design the best building and play experience they can, and meet specific price points — not just the lowest price points possible. If it were just about making the models as cost effective as possible with the least number of bricks, then Star Wars sets would probably have stayed as small and simple as they were back in the early 2000s, whereas instead over time we've seen many of them get much bigger, more complex, and consequently, more expensive. Just compare any recent TIE Fighter or X-Wing set with their late 90s/early 2000s counterparts and this should be obvious.

For another, there are a lot of licensed themes where even with a license, designers are exercising a LOT of creative freedom. Take The LEGO Batman Movie, for example. The designers helped brainstorm entirely new designs for models like the Batmobile and the Batwing that were used in the movie. Same with the designers of many of the LEGO Batman Movie minifigures. They weren't just copying designs handed to them by DC comics, they were radically reinterpreting some of those characters. We see the same thing with a lot of the non-movie-based Super Heroes sets or Star Wars sets from spin-off series like The Yoda Chronicles and The Freemaker Adventures, which may have totally different designs from anything that's been in TV shows, cartoons, or comics. In the DC Super Hero Girls line, the Kryptomite characters were actually developed for the main (non-LEGO) series based on creative input from LEGO designers, who though the theme needed some cute, mischievous villains that kids would enjoy building and collecting.

Finally, in the grand scheme of things, the idea that designers are having to copy things from real life is hardly any different in a licensed theme than in some non-licensed themes! Again, all Architecture sets and landmark series Creator Expert sets are copied from specific real-world landmarks. Likewise with a theme like City, Creator, or Technic, a designer making a real life inspired vehicle like a fire truck or police car doesn't really have much more creative freedom than a Super Heroes designer making a Batmobile. It still has to, on some level, meet kids' expectations for what that subject is supposed to look like. This applies even in themes like Castle and Pirates. Why do you think every LEGO pirate ship has a skull flag, and nearly every LEGO pirate captain has an eyepatch and peg-leg? Why do you think that castles in the LEGO Castle theme often include (and omit) a lot of the same characteristics?

Design as a profession is NEVER purely about freeform creativity — it's about communicating to your audience and finding solutions to problems. A lot of times, you WILL be given a brief, and it's up to you to find the best way to fulfill that brief. There's nothing inherently uncreative about that kind of problem-solving.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Aanchir

[MAB]

15 hours ago, danth said:

A knight is not Clay Moorington. A spaceman is not Han Solo. A pirate is not Jack Sparrow. So no, your argument makes no sense here. It's obvious what I meant by defined characters so I'm not sure why there is any misunderstanding

 

 

That is not what I meant. If you have a generic knight, it is a knight. It is not a policeman or a spaceman. You are told it is a knight by the costume. Is that any worse than telling you that the name of the knight is Clay?

15 hours ago, danth said:

I don't remember Monster Fighers having a cartoon. Maybe it had a set story but I don't remember one. Which is why you could play however you wanted. Because there was no set story.

1

 

There was a story as defined by Lego.

 

If you were able to play with MF without adhering to the story (whether you knew of it or not), then why can you not play with NK without adhering to the story? Or POTC? Or SW? Even if you know (or decide) these guys are good and these guys are bad, you can still make up stories. And that is what many kids do, even if there is a cartoon with a story. They don't have to only act out what they saw on screen, they can use their imagination and make stories up. Just because there is a story doesn't mean there cannot be other stories or that kids are wrong if they use their imaginations.

 

 

 

[xzanfr]

3 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I feel like this is a disservice to the designers of licensed sets for lots of reasons.

.....

I'm not saying they're bad designers, in fact they're excellent - they're fulfilling their brief perfectly by bringing to market the required product at the desired price point.
What I'm getting at is Lego have changed from trying to be the best at what they do to making the most money as possible. As part of this they are "buying in" designs from IP's and bypassing the R&D and subsequent brief creation elements associated with creating a theme from scratch. Without this the licensed sets are just the best model you can make to fit in with the desired price point - therefore the brief is determined by money people and not creative people.

When given enough headroom in the price they come up with some great sets but more often than not, it's all about the figs with a token build - eg microfighters, battlepacks & sets like 75169, 75200, 75205 from this year.
 

[Lyichir]

15 minutes ago, xzanfr said:

I'm not saying they're bad designers, in fact they're excellent - they're fulfilling their brief perfectly by bringing to market the required product at the desired price point.
What I'm getting at is Lego have changed from trying to be the best at what they do to making the most money as possible. As part of this they are "buying in" designs from IP's and bypassing the R&D and subsequent brief creation elements associated with creating a theme from scratch. Without this the licensed sets are just the best model you can make to fit in with the desired price point - therefore the brief is determined by money people and not creative people.

When given enough headroom in the price they come up with some great sets but more often than not, it's all about the figs with a token build - eg microfighters, battlepacks & sets like 75169, 75200, 75205 from this year.
 

Considering not keeping good track of costs and budgets was one of the factors in Lego’s near-bankruptcy, I’m not sure what alternative you’re trying to suggest. Things like budgets have to be paramount if Lego is to remain a sustainable business. That doesn’t prevent the designers from being creative and innovative within those essential constraints.

[LEGOshibainu]

I personally feel as though a lot of licensed sets only sell for the minifigures.

 

*Edited to better reflect my true opinion

Edited January 26, 2018 by LEGOshibainu

[MAB]

1 hour ago, xzanfr said:

What I'm getting at is Lego have changed from trying to be the best at what they do to making the most money as possible. As part of this they are "buying in" designs from IP's and bypassing the R&D and subsequent brief creation elements associated with creating a theme from scratch. Without this the licensed sets are just the best model you can make to fit in with the desired price point - therefore the brief is determined by money people and not creative people.
 

2

Haven't they always tried to make the most money they can? Toy sales have changed from the 60s and 70s. Licensing tie-ins for toys really took off in the 80s and has increased ever since. Kids want licenses, sometimes. Imagine what would happen if LEGO didn't have SW or other popular brands. Other companies would snap them up. Megaconstrux / Megabloks would probably be the ones making buildable SW spaceships and minifigs. LEGO wouldn't have that share of the market. That would hit both their sales and their image/reputation. If people were used to seeing famous franchises like SW with MB, then MB sales would soar.

2 minutes ago, LEGOshibainu said:

Back on the topic of licensed themes; we all know they only really sell because of the minifigures

1

In some cases, that might be true. But not in all.

My kid has loads of Batman minifigures, for example, but he still wants sets with Batman in. Even though he has no need of the minifigure.

Then take a set like an X-wing. Are people really buying that for the Luke and R2-D2 (or Poe and BB-8)? In my view, no.

[rodiziorobs]

Once again, @Peppermint_M, your comment perfectly mirrors my own thoughts on the subject. How do you do that? 

[Digger of Bricks]

Putting aside all my nitpicking opinions about "big bang" themes' setup and how I think they should be executed if I were to steer the design process, I have to agree with @Aanchir and @MAB about the narrative argument. I have nothing against in-house themes with rich storylines, and don't necessarily prefer simpler, archetypical ones over more complex ones; but, it's still unfortunate that more traditional in-house themes have been nearly squeezed out of the picture.

That is why I always argue that Lego needs to find a preexisting outlet to direct many of their archetypical genres into, as not all kids desire "big bang" and/or licensed themes. Sure, it's probably a much smaller demographic than who Lego typically caters to currently, so why couldn't Lego at least give us a limited retailer released theme made up of multiple genres? I know I sound like a broken record, but Lego already has such a unrestricted line, and that theme is Creator.

[Echo]

I wonder if there is perhaps a compromise to be made? Not every non-licensed action theme needs to be a big bang theme like Nexo, Chima, or Ninjago that is expected to be a flagship brand for the company, but the concept of the archetypal themes doesn't seem like it works super well these days either as evidenced by the lackluster 2015 pirates and 2013 castle themes. Maybe some sort of middle ground; a "medium bang" strategy, if you will; could work for the archetypal concepts. Say a castle theme with defined characters and an ongoing storyline, but without a TV show or some of the other really extensive marketing done for big bang themes. A more minimal, streamlined approach to presenting the story through online/mobile content might suffice for a more short term theme that only lasts, say, two years and awareness of the brand could be increased by promoting it in ads on the big bang brand TV shows. 

[Hive]

I just personally don't understand why we only see themes like Castle, Pirates and Space every 7 or so years. As others mention, Playmobil has such lines at all times - targetting the exact same age groups (look them up if you doubt me). And I'm sure they wouldn't do it if the target demographic didn't buy those themes.

 

And the argument I read elsewhere in this thread that Playmobil could better afford to due it because they're a smaller company is completely illogical; smaller companies has less leeway to experiment and has to stick closer to what they deem safe. LEGO, if anything, should be the ones experimenting more.

 

And yes, this is just me being bitter that I'll likely have to way 2 and 4 years respectively for more Castle and Pirates...

[Digger of Bricks]

12 hours ago, Echo said:

I wonder if there is perhaps a compromise to be made? Not every non-licensed action theme needs to be a big bang theme like Nexo, Chima, or Ninjago that is expected to be a flagship brand for the company, but the concept of the archetypal themes doesn't seem like it works super well these days either as evidenced by the lackluster 2015 pirates and 2013 castle themes. Maybe some sort of middle ground; a "medium bang" strategy, if you will; could work for the archetypal concepts. Say a castle theme with defined characters and an ongoing storyline, but without a TV show or some of the other really extensive marketing done for big bang themes. A more minimal, streamlined approach to presenting the story through online/mobile content might suffice for a more short term theme that only lasts, say, two years and awareness of the brand could be increased by promoting it in ads on the big bang brand TV shows. 

That is pretty much exactly how themes such as Atlantis, Power Miners, Space Police III, and Agents/Ultra Agents went about it, and I definitely prefer that model over the direction most zany, flagship "big bang" themes take.*

* But, I do sort of like Nexo Knights over Ninjago and Legends of Fabuland.

[Aanchir]

1 hour ago, Hive said:

I just personally don't understand why we only see themes like Castle, Pirates and Space every 7 or so years. As others mention, Playmobil has such lines at all times - targetting the exact same age groups (look them up if you doubt me). And I'm sure they wouldn't do it if the target demographic didn't buy those themes.

Castle gets re-imagined basically every three years without fail (2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016), sometimes without even much of a hiatus between the different incarnations. It's just that the latest re-imagining (Nexo Knights) is a lot more "out there" than a lot of AFOLs are willing to tolerate. I think it's highly probable that this will be Nexo Knights' last year and that next year we'll be due for another refresh.

Space was until recently on an even more frequent two-year refresh cycle, with new Space themes in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013. What seems to have interrupted that cycle was the return of new Star Wars movies, much like how the prequel trilogy seemed to be a factor in the Space theme's previous hiatus.

Pirates is the one classic theme that hasn't had an especially predictable release schedule. Granted, even outside of LEGO, the pirate genre these days is largely held up by the Pirates of the Caribbean films, with few other major blockbuster movies in that genre. It could be that the popularity of pirates just isn't what it was in the 80s and 90s.

1 hour ago, Hive said:

And the argument I read elsewhere in this thread that Playmobil could better afford to due it because they're a smaller company is completely illogical; smaller companies has less leeway to experiment and has to stick closer to what they deem safe. LEGO, if anything, should be the ones experimenting more.

Being a smaller company means that Playmobil doesn't have to think as globally. Believe it or not, Playmobil's popularity in the United States seems to be a lot less than it is in Europe. You can find Playmobil at specialty toy stores (whether independent ones or chains like Toys 'R' Us), but usually not at stores like Target or Walmart, at least not to anywhere near the same extent as LEGO. And as you and others have said, this narrower geographic focus doesn't seem to imperil them, so they can afford to keep doing things the "safe" way they have traditionally done, with just a few forays into IP development and licensing.

And anyway, you're contradicting yourself a bit there, since LEGO has not in any way been failing to experiment. A recurring complaint in this thread is that they've been focusing TOO much on experimental stuff (licensing partnerships, genre-blending IPs like Ninjago and Nexo Knights, and non-minifigure-based properties like Friends, Elves, Mixels, and BrickHeadz) and not enough on the "old standards" that served them well in the past. By your own argument, LEGO has more incentive and more leeway for this kind of experimentation than Playmobil does.

Edited January 28, 2018 by Aanchir

[danth]

On 1/25/2018 at 10:24 AM, Aanchir said:

A hat is not a hat, it's Johnny Thunder's hat. A mask is not a mask, it's King Kahuka's mask. A wand is not a wand, it's Majisto's wand. Do you see how ridiculous it sounds to pretend this is something unique to themes with TV shows and movies, let alone an meaningful obstacle to creativity?

 

On 1/25/2018 at 11:52 AM, GregoryBrick said:

Extra work by who? I have a bunch of Ninjago and Nexo Knights sets - as far as I'm concerned, there's a bunch of (different?) ninjas in red outfits, some in blue, etc. I don't know much or really care about who is who and it didn't take any 'work'.

These are both false equivalencies.

Are you really going to pretend that a boonie hat or a ninja minifig is just as reusable within one's own made up world as a Boba Fett helmet or a Storm Trooper minifig? Let's be real here. And let's use an example.

This is a Classic Space man:

He is generic and archetypal enough to be used for any made-up space man character a kid wants. He can be this guy:

 

He can be this guy:

Now let's look at another minifig. The Star Wars Storm Trooper:

Instantly recognizable as the Star Wars Storm Trooper. You cannot unsee it. Yes, maybe you can find some creative use of the helmet as the thumb piece of a giant robot or something, or reuse most of the body pieces, but the helmet is going to be really hard to see as anything else than what it is designed as. 

There are some other Sci Fi worlds you can use this figure in of course. He can be a HALO EOD trooper:

Of course the EOD trooper was specifically designed as a Storm Trooper homage so that's close to cheating. So you have HALO, maybe Fallout power armor (although that's also based on the Storm Trooper), and possibly something from Destiny.

So the Storm Trooper is kind of reusable in cases where you have something based on the Storm Trooper design already.

Now let's take this guy:

It's Boba Fett. Almost every part of him is instantly recognizable. It's pretty hard to unsee Boba Fett and pretend he's someone else. Maybe another Mandalorian trooper? Other than the gun and antenna most parts aren't generic enough to reuse and not just see Boba Fett. 

So, am I saying generic is good and specific is bad? No.

Am I saying someone from another planet who has never seen Star Wars cannot make up whatever identities they want for the Storm Trooper or Boba Fett minifigure? No.

But I am saying, if you are familiar with Star Wars, there is a difference between playing with a figure like the generic Space Man and a figure like Boba Fett. One is easy to make whoever you want. One encourages you to make your own characters and stories. The other encourages you to play in a world from a movie.

If you cannot understand this very basic concept, it's intentional on your part.

Edited January 28, 2018 by danth

[BrickJagger]

I, for one, think that Ninjago is starting to wind down. The movie, regardless of what people say to defend it, was both a critical and commercial disappointment, and while it does have a large core of fans who have been with it since the start, those kids are somewhere between 16-19 and will most likely be moving away from Lego soon. Ninjago seems to be having a harder time attracting new, younger fans, because those kids are being lured away by the resurgence of Star Wars and the never-ending MCU. 

Another issue with Ninjago would be the complex storyline, which is not quite nearing Bionicle levels but is confusing enough to make it hard for a new fan to get a full grasp of the storyline. I don't remember exactly who Bionicle ended, but Ninjago is starting to follow the same parallels. Finally, the theme has been running for eight years straight, and it would make sense to end it after ten years.  If this were to happen, it could open up some room for Castle (which I think is coming next year no matter what) and maybe a couple of smaller themes. 

1 hour ago, Aanchir said:

Castle gets re-imagined basically every three years without fail (2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016), sometimes without even much of a hiatus between the different incarnations. It's just that the latest re-imagining (Nexo Knights) is a lot more "out there" than a lot of AFOLs are willing to tolerate. I think it's highly probable that this will be Nexo Knights' last year and that next year we'll be due for another refresh.

This makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't be surprised it that's how Lego sees things. Furthermore, they also might be trying to draw in kids with wacky themes full of multi-colored knights, and then slowly move them towards more realistic sets as they get older. KKII --> Fantasy Era --> Kingdoms/Castle 2013 --> Fantasy Era II?

Edited January 28, 2018 by BrickJagger
Typo

[Hive]

2 hours ago, Aanchir said:

And anyway, you're contradicting yourself a bit there, since LEGO has not in any way been failing to experiment. A recurring complaint in this thread is that they've been focusing TOO much on experimental stuff (licensing partnerships, genre-blending IPs like Ninjago and Nexo Knights, and non-minifigure-based properties like Friends, Elves, Mixels, and BrickHeadz) and not enough on the "old standards" that served them well in the past. By your own argument, LEGO has more incentive and more leeway for this kind of experimentation than Playmobil does.

That is true, if we adhere to the premise (which I myself do) that Pirates and Castle is quite safe - due to them being safe for Playmobil.

But if you adhere to the belief (which many claim) that Pirates and Castle are no longer safe for LEGO, theorizing that they're no longer appealing to the demographic, my point stands. And I was aiming at those people with my comment. But I did not make that clear, so I understand your comment.