General Magma

Lack of original themes

Recommended Posts

In the debate over the relative merits of external IPs versus internal IPs in theme development, and the parallel debate over the relative merits of themes with named characters and a story in which TLG has invested significant effort versus those without, most of the arguments for or against the versatility of minifigures and sets in imaginative play (or the lack thereof) seem to be based on general principles as viewed from an adult perspective. 

We argue about these things without taking the time to describe how we actually played with our minifigures and sets as children.  Younger forum members like me were children when TLG first began to license on a large scale (that is, to seek licenses for new themes as opposed to releasing a promotional Shell or Maersk set every now and then), so these memories might be relevant to the current thread.  I will link to Brickset with examples to illustrate how I applied minifigures and characters within and without their original “intended” context.

My brother and I arranged our sets in opposite corners of our shared room and treated those arrangements like towns (we called them "groups") with designated mayors, doctors, and prominent citizens drawn from our favorite sets or from the loose parts bin; some characters lived outside the groups as recurring bad guys.

First, I almost never played with the minifigures from in-house sci-fi/action themes.  The Aquasharks (link), Aquanauts (link), Exploriens (link), UFO aliens (link), and Rock Raiders (link) had no characters or roles sufficiently well-defined for me to play with them in their “original context” (as far as I knew), so I paid no attention to their names in the mail-order catalog.  (I believe the UFO and Rock Raiders lines had names and story.)  When I mixed and matched the parts of these minifigures in imaginative play, their torsos never fit well in my town-like group, so I was always dissatisfied with the resulting characters until I could redefine those characters with minifigure parts from other Town sets.  I think if I was in the target audience today, the more defined characters and roles of comparable modern themes like Ninjago and Nexo Knights would help me integrate the minifigures into my town-like group when I got a new set.  However, the parts from the in-house sci-fi/action sets (link, link, link, link, link) went into my most enduring early MOCs, which I still have today.  Perhaps with the more defined characters and roles in modern big-bang sci-fi/action themes I would not scatter the parts of their polybag-class sets and use them in my own builds, since I wouldn’t have to invent a name and a story to go with the kit on my own.  Note, however, that I never asked for those sci-fi/action kits, so I never had anything in mind before I got them.

Second, I had no trouble using Town, Castle, and Pirates minifigures in my town-like context without pre-defined names and outside their pre-defined roles.  This pirate (link) was a grumpy old troublemaker with a crude rowboat until I finally built a pirate ship for him out of basic bricks when I got a pirate captain in this set (link).  The classic blue-suited Octan race car driver (link) became, with a different head, my town’s doctor; his opposite number’s torso (link) piloted a little starfighter MOC.  One fellow from the Dark Forest subtheme of Castle (link) became my town’s mayor after a convoluted story in which he dissolved into a pile of tomato salsa and was somehow reconstituted; his fellow bandit’s torso (link) got an Exploriens head and became a bandit who harassed the groups from a zippy little speeder.  The torso from a Coast Guard minifigure (link) became the base of the doctor in my brother’s town, and a Town pilot (link, link) was good for anything.  All their corresponding sets were swiftly parted out.  However, Town people packs (link) never did anything for me because there were too many new figures without names or context, and I didn’t have adequate parts to build contexts for the minifigures without them (fire engines and a firehouse for the firefighter, a restaurant for the chef, a bank to go with the banker).  The banker torso eventually made its way into a headless bandit who drove the first Harry Potter car (link).  I think as a little kid getting the same relative size of sets today (polybag-class or just larger), I would play much the same way with today’s Town, generic Castle, and generic Pirates.

Third, sets and minifigures related to things I was really interested in stayed together: Space Port support vehicles (link), Adventurers cars and airplanes (link, link), Star Wars vehicles.  If the minifigures had a pre-defined name and role that I was aware of, they generally kept their name, but usually not their character (I’m bad at getting inside somebody’s head).  For example, this Imperial officer (link) became a bureaucrat from some distant government agency who repeatedly drove a little car up to the town gates with a load of onerous regulations to try to impose on the town, and the stormtroopers I got at the same time were his bodyguards.  My interpretation of Yoda (link) trended toward the batty old hermit frog: he was always trying to get people around town to try his latest stew, not battling droids and Emperors.  My rebel mechanic (link) got a custom tool cart, flying tow truck, and makeshift Y-wing; my Anakin Skywalker minifigure from Episode I (link) was never treated as a child or as any relation to Darth Vader, who (link) was never very menacing.  As previously described, my Harry Potter car ended up in the hands of a headless bandit with a penchant for potatoes.  Even the TLG original characters with a story that I followed closely ended up with very different characters than they had in the story, because they had to conform to the town-like context: Pohatu became a friendly giant who taught people how to run fast, and the brave leader Tahu became a dim-witted coward who was never any help in a crisis.  But sometimes even sets I really liked came apart: this space shuttle (link) got miniaturized into a starfighter because it was too big and bulky to swoosh on its own, and the loose astronaut minifigure I got from my friend was a very poor fit behind the windscreen of the stock set.

So even sets corresponding to a very specific IP, owned by a child who likes that IP a lot and knows all about the story and its most trivial details, don’t force that child to re-enact scenes from the story.  Sometimes such sets and minifigures can be points of departure for imaginative play and sometimes they can be stifling, but that’s true for the most “original” in-house themes and the most “classic” in-house themes as well.  I could relate well enough to Yoda to play with him as a batty old hermit, but I found the Harry-Ron-Hermione trio (link) stifling because I couldn’t make my H-R-H interact like the book H-R-H.  Tahu’s character was sufficiently well-defined and larger-than-life in the source story that I could be happy with that as a point of departure for my own buffoonish take on it, but Onua’s character was stifling because it was boring at the source.  Unnamed TLG original minifigures and characters could take on any role I wanted in the town-like group, but only if I really wanted that role and I liked the figure to begin with.

I can summarize my childhood attitude toward this thread’s debate as follows: The specificity or lack thereof of an in-house or licensed theme, its named characters, and the sets of which it is composed, is not what determines how well it will encourage imaginative play for any individual child.  What matters is how well any individual set or character matches with that child’s interests and personality traits.  As other people in this thread have posted, modern licensed themes and big-bang themes with stories and named characters still have a tremendous amount of variety to engage children with a very broad range of interests and personality traits.  Presumably these are reasonably well matched to the range of interests and personality traits of children today, thanks to market research by TLG.  They may leave out kids who just want a simple generic spaceship (like Classic Space), a simple generic castle (like Classic Castle), a simple generic pirate ship (like Classic Pirates), and even kids who get books of TLG propaganda (link) for Christmas and grow up wanting the 928 Galaxy Explorer and 375 Castle because of pictures in that book and end up as AFOLs (like yours truly), but there is not enough finely-targeted production capacity in the world to satisfy every interest.

And how do kids react to today’s themes, today?  My only nephew who is into Lego went through a phase where he built big walls out of basic bricks in a futile attempt to close off a cave in the play room.  Now all he wants are sets with as many minifigure weapons as possible.  Every set and every figure he receives (including the most detailed Star Wars figures) disappear into a big bin and reappear as mis-matched hodgepodges of parts in which I can discern no imagination, in the sense of a clear goal before, during, or after the build process.  What they have in common is that the figures and vehicles are bristling with weapons or features that I am told are weapons, and that they are drastically overpowered gangs which always beat whatever I send against them, no matter what.  I’d say that pretty well matches the kind of imaginative play that Lego may be encouraging with big-bang themes like Ninjago, Chima, and Nexo Knights.  I wish it was more peaceful, like how my brother and I played with our Lego, but if you transplanted my nephew to the 1980s or 1990s and gave him Castle or Space sets from those decades, I'm sure his play would be just as violent.  How many times has someone said on Reddit or on this forum that they used the various protruding and/or transparent parts on old Space sets as ray guns?

TL;DR: Stop whining about big-bang themes and licenses and mourning Classic themes.  Kids will be kids.  Personal experience.

Edited by icm
I thought I could separate this into multiple posts, but the forum automerged them so I removed the front and end matter of each post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, xzanfr said:

Licensed sets require less creative personnel to bring to market, so they make more money.

 

No they don't. Sometimes you have to be more creative in designing a set that matches specific requirements than if there is no specific design brief. For example, a SW spaceship needs to look like the ship it is meant to be, whereas a generic ship can be easier to build since it doesn't need to look like anything in particular.

3 hours ago, danth said:

So would you say there is no difference with how a kid who has seen Star Wars would play with a classic Spaceman vs how that same kid would play with a Boba Fett minifig?

It depends what else he has seen or read. If he has read space novels or seen other space based films, he will probably play out scenarios from or based on those stories. If he hasn't then he may well feel he has no connection with the classic spaceman as he has no feeling for who the character is. When kids play, they normally play something they know. So if they are given a generic pirate, they will often act out scenarios from or based on existing pirate stories, making people walk the plank or burying treasure. That the pirate doesn't have a name makes no difference, they play based on what they have been told about pirates. Some may make up their own stories based on the stereotypical pirate behaviour that they have been taught, just like some playing with Boba Fett will create their own stories about Boba Fett based on him being a bounty hunter. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, GregoryBrick said:

Speculation about how children use established narratives in their play doesn’t tell us much without actually checking how children play in practice. You can’t just deduce the facts from your intuitions.

Actually I have a Ph.D, have studied cognitive and developmental psychology and used to be part of a NSF funded research team specifically exploring the developmental impact of young children playing with Lego.  There's a lot of literature on the topic of narratives, cognition and play (even broken out in to solo, parallel and interactive play) for young children and while I doubt most people posting here have ever read it, most of the anecdotal and "intuitive deductions" I've seen here aren't that far removed from actual findings that represent man-years of scientific study.

Do all the professionals agree, of course not, but the majority find that kids embrace narratives, whether of their own creation or directed.  Kids with rich fantasy lives tend to have (or develop) better abstract reasoning skills, visualization skills and tend to be early bloomers (academically speaking).  This is a mathematically proven correlation, the question of _causality_ is still up for debate (i.e. Does having a good imagination make you "smarter"? Does being "smarter" mean you also have a good imagination? Does using bubble-gum flavored toothpaste make you smarter and help your imagination? Who knows...)

Some studies have shown that children who engage in fabricating their own narratives score higher on intelligence and visualization tests than children who favor directed narratives ( the He-Man effect), but, to my knowledge, I don't think these have been found to be definitive.  Brain scans however do show that children asked to make up a story from scratch (or seed) show much higher levels of activity than those of the same children being asked to recount a story they've been told repeatedly.  Some people use this as the basis for the argument that an open narrative is "better" for a developing brain than a directed one.

The place where a directed narrative does hold an advantage over an open ended one is in interactive play.  In solo or parallel play, the child might be near other kids, but the narrative is his/hers alone, the other kids are doing other things.  In interactive play, a shared narrative requires a "buy-in" by all parties (e.g. if Suzie says the block is a dinosaur and George insists it's a teapot the game breaks down).  A directed narrative is ideal for bridging this gap (i.e. "Let's play Star Wars"), it establishes a lot of common ground to open up what would have been a solo experience to a social one - a valuable skill, but this a different one than what is being exercised by creating open-ended narratives.  

Even solo play in a directed narrative is not _bad_. Star Wars had a whole extended universe of books and comics that were, in essence, people extending a well defined narrative in new directions, but some studies do suggest (and some pre-school philosophies have been built up around the idea) that the more "original" and open-ended the narrative becomes, the better.

Both types of narratives offer benefits and a multi-player, open-ended narrative might be the best of all worlds, but it is also the hardest to achieve in practice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, MAB said:

No they don't.

Yes they do: They don't need to go through the cost & process of designing a theme, so only need to employ people to create the actual bricks and the lego sets. That’s a huge saving of both time and money.

In addition they lower the risk by committing to established IP's that they know will be in great demand as they'll be advertised heavily (Usually in the form of a film).

I maintain that the reason we're seeing more licensed themes is that Lego have modified their business model to give financial decisions significantly more weight than they have in the past, as the decision makers in the company are from an accounting rather than creative or educational background.

Edited by xzanfr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

Actually I have a Ph.D, have studied cognitive and developmental psychology and used to be part of a NSF funded research team specifically exploring the developmental impact of young children playing with Lego.  There's a lot of literature on the topic of narratives, cognition and play (even broken out in to solo, parallel and interactive play) for young children and while I doubt most people posting here have ever read it, most of the anecdotal and "intuitive deductions" I've seen here aren't that far removed from actual findings that represent man-years of scientific study.

Do all the professionals agree, of course not, but the majority find that kids embrace narratives, whether of their own creation or directed.  Kids with rich fantasy lives tend to have (or develop) better abstract reasoning skills, visualization skills and tend to be early bloomers (academically speaking).  This is a mathematically proven correlation, the question of _causality_ is still up for debate (i.e. Does having a good imagination make you "smarter"? Does being "smarter" mean you also have a good imagination? Does using bubble-gum flavored toothpaste make you smarter and help your imagination? Who knows...)

[...]

Yes, so you agree that evidence matters when it comes to understanding these things (as does anybody doing research into play). When it comes to the question of whether a Nexo Knights figure takes 'more work' to animate than Mr. Classic Spaceman, and whether this supposed effort is significant in limiting children's play, I'm not committed to any conclusion, just that we should both (1) consult the evidence, and (2) according to your report of the evidence, the answer is 'it depends', not 'it's undeniably true' (which I grant you did not assert).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, danth said:

Doesn't Lego license out the rights to make video games, cartoons, and movies for Ninjago, Nexo Knights, etc? Is that what your bold text is describing?

I've watched the toys that made us. 

So would you say there is no difference with how a kid who has seen Star Wars would play with a classic Spaceman vs how that same kid would play with a Boba Fett minifig?

Yes, but it's not LEGO licensing, let's say, Ninjago from the other company, it's the other company licensing Ninjago from LEGO. It doesn't make sense to treat it the same as a brand LEGO is licensing from somebody else, like Star Wars. Warner Bros. licensed the LEGO Pirates, Castle, and Space brands to make the game LEGO Battles. That doesn't somehow make LEGO City, Pirates, Castle, and Space licensed themes.

3 hours ago, icm said:

So even sets corresponding to a very specific IP, owned by a child who likes that IP a lot and knows all about the story and its most trivial details, don’t force that child to re-enact scenes from the story.  Sometimes such sets and minifigures can be points of departure for imaginative play and sometimes they can be stifling, but that’s true for the most “original” in-house themes and the most “classic” in-house themes as well.  I could relate well enough to Yoda to play with him as a batty old hermit, but I found the Harry-Ron-Hermione trio (link) stifling because I couldn’t make my H-R-H interact like the book H-R-H.  Tahu’s character was sufficiently well-defined and larger-than-life in the source story that I could be happy with that as a point of departure for my own buffoonish take on it, but Onua’s character was stifling because it was boring at the source.  Unnamed TLG original minifigures and characters could take on any role I wanted in the town-like group, but only if I really wanted that role and I liked the figure to begin with.

Hmm this post has lots of great insights into a child's play experiences during that period when story-driven themes were first beginning to emerge, I don't see anything wrong with… HOLD THE PHONE, how DARE you say Onua is boring!

I'm kidding, of course. Great post! Really good to hear some more perspectives from somebody who grew up with a lot of the same sets I did. I definitely had some similar memories — for instance, I have this really peculiar memory of magically changing my Aquazone figures into mermaids by swapping the legs with slope bricks? — but I also do distinctly remember devouring the character blurbs and story tidbits from the LEGO Mania Magazines and incorporating them into my play. I was an avid reader back then, and that was a part of how I engaged with the brand. When I learned the alien Alpha Draconis was terribly ashamed of his scary alien face, that was too funny NOT to use in a play scenario and see where it might lead. And of course that didn't stop me from building my own stories around (or even contradicting) the tidbits we got in books and video games. So for me, Rock Raiders took place on the same planet as Ice Planet, only in the far future when around two thirds of the planet's ice had melted. The Throwbots had been built by the Matoran of Mata Nui to protect them while they waited for the arrival of the Toa, but the Throwbots weren't really interested in the task they'd been built for so they were sent to a distant world of their own. Etcetera, etcetera.

Also, ShaydDeGray, your insights are quite interesting as well! I think the social element is particularly fascinating. My introduction into the organized LEGO fan community was definitely through my interest in Bionicle, which was one of the most structured themes of its time story-wise. Being able to find people who can relate to the same characters and worlds as you and share their own spins on them is still delightful to me, and part of why I love looking at Bionicle and Ninjago and Elves fan art and story discussions (and regret that there isn't more of that kind of stuff for other themes). The challenge of finding common ground with reference to the classic themes is also something I've noticed a lot. For instance, ask three people what kind of role M:Tron played in the Classic Space universe and you might get three totally different answers. For some people, that might be a good thing! I'm not so fond of that myself. To me, having an overall lack of common ground makes the LEGO fan experience feel more isolating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

Also, ShaydDeGray, your insights are quite interesting as well! I think the social element is particularly fascinating. My introduction into the organized LEGO fan community was definitely through my interest in Bionicle, which was one of the most structured themes of its time story-wise. Being able to find people who can relate to the same characters and worlds as you and share their own spins on them is still delightful to me, and part of why I love looking at Bionicle and Ninjago and Elves fan art and story discussions (and regret that there isn't more of that kind of stuff for other themes). The challenge of finding common ground with reference to the classic themes is also something I've noticed a lot. For instance, ask three people what kind of role M:Tron played in the Classic Space universe and you might get three totally different answers. For some people, that might be a good thing! I'm not so fond of that myself. To me, having an overall lack of common ground makes the LEGO fan experience feel more isolating.

Yeah, this makes me wonder whether a big part of the "generational gap" between those who prefer open-ended themes and those who prefer a more crafted story might be the advent of the internet. I know a lot of older AFOLs grew up with Lego as a much more isolated, independent activity, with interaction only happening between real-world peers and, once they got older, feeling like they had to hide their interest until the advent of newsgroups where they could finally discover like-minded adult fans with whom they could share their hobby. But while I wasn't necessarily the MOST social kid growing up, I got into the organized fan community at a comparatively early age via the internet—first as an outside observer, using databases like Bricklink and downloading MOC instructions off the internet, and later as an active participant on sites like Brickshelf and BZPower. And that was in the '90s and early 2000s! Today's kids are probably engaging with other fans socially even earlier in life, whether that be with friends on social media, watching their favorite YouTube MOCists and reviewers, or engaging with other fans their age in safe spaces like the Lego message boards or Lego Life app. For kids who engage with Lego not just on an individual level but also a social one, being able to identify with their favorite themes and characters might be that much more important. That said, I don't think that the sort of open-ended play has gone away—as Aanchir and icm can attest, kids can still freely pick and choose how much of the "established" story they want to lean on and how much they simply want to do their own thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...well, I would like to see a generic fantasy theme alongside City. As others have said, City is where LEGO has been putting a lot of the ideas that went into original themes in the past, which I enjoy, but it's all mostly grounded in reality. It would be fun to see an adjacent theme that functions the same way as City, but instead contains sci fi and fantasy sets that don't need to be big fleshed-out themes like Ninjago, Nexo Knights, Chima, etc...

I've no idea how realistic that idea is, and I'm not claiming it's what they ought to do. I'd just enjoy seeing it if it could happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, MR Swordfish said:

well, I would like to see a generic fantasy theme alongside City. As others have said, City is where LEGO has been putting a lot of the ideas that went into original themes in the past, which I enjoy, but it's all mostly grounded in reality. It would be fun to see an adjacent theme that functions the same way as City, but instead contains sci fi and fantasy sets that don't need to be big fleshed-out themes like Ninjago, Nexo Knights, Chima, etc...

So, you're proposing a broadly defined fantasy/sci-fi theme, with multiple, periodically returning subthemes, and the potential for all-new subthemes throughout its run? I would certainly dig that. :thumbup: :smug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Digger of Bricks said:

So, you're proposing a broadly defined fantasy/sci-fi theme, with multiple, periodically returning subthemes, and the potential for all-new subthemes throughout its run? I would certainly dig that. :thumbup: :smug:

Yep, exactly that! It's clear that LEGO's old model of having tons of original themes is out the window. Hopefully this would be a more modern approach to offering unlicensed sets for many classic recurring genres :classic:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Digger of Bricks said:

So, you're proposing a broadly defined fantasy/sci-fi theme, with multiple, periodically returning subthemes, and the potential for all-new subthemes throughout its run? I would certainly dig that. :thumbup: :smug:

Sounds like...(drumroll)... Ninjago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, icm said:

Sounds like...(drumroll)... Ninjago!

What @MR Swordfish was proposing is a theme made up of various archetypical fantasy subthemes, not one with a set storyline focused upon single group of characters and their ongoing adventures. Instead, it would be a storybook of a theme, covering almost everything and anything, from medieval adventures to intergalactic voyages and everything in between. Much like City, there would be no named characters, only archetypical ones much like those seen in the Collectable Minifigure line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I think I see what you mean.  But how would that be any different than a bunch of single-wave castle/fantasy/action themes?  It sounds like you want to (for example) release Galaxy Squad one year, Castle 2013 the next, and so on, but all branded under the same theme name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, icm said:

OK, I think I see what you mean.  But how would that be any different than a bunch of single-wave castle/fantasy/action themes?  It sounds like you want to (for example) release Galaxy Squad one year, Castle 2013 the next, and so on, but all branded under the same theme name.

Well, it might not necessarily be only a single subtheme a year, but several with only one to three sets per subtheme each year. In a way, think of the DC/Marvel Superheroes and Disney Princess themes, where various characters may see at least one set a year, as opposed to a wave of five sets every four years like the City theme in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Digger of Bricks said:

What @MR Swordfish was proposing is a theme made up of various archetypical fantasy subthemes, not one with a set storyline focused upon single group of characters and their ongoing adventures. Instead, it would be a storybook of a theme, covering almost everything and anything, from medieval adventures to intergalactic voyages and everything in between. Much like City, there would be no named characters, only archetypical ones much like those seen in the Collectable Minifigure line.

Yes, precisely.

42 minutes ago, icm said:

OK, I think I see what you mean.  But how would that be any different than a bunch of single-wave castle/fantasy/action themes?  It sounds like you want to (for example) release Galaxy Squad one year, Castle 2013 the next, and so on, but all branded under the same theme name.

Put simply, a full theme (like Space Police or Castle for example) generally has to have an entire lineup of sets across various price ranges. This is to justify the use of the resources that go into creating something with a defined logo, concept, storyline, etc., as well as to make the theme adequately represented on store shelves, which is what the retailers want. For these reasons, you won't see a properly realized Castle theme with, for example, two sets. On the other hand, LEGO has probably discovered that full blown licensed themes are selling better than full blown unlicensed themes, so they won't dedicate themselves to doing something original unless it's very well realized and gets a huge marketing push (like Ninjago).

Enter the current City theme. This is where Lego is putting sets that they couldn't, for practicality's sake, dedicate a whole theme to. They do some adventure sets. Some realistic space sets. Some city cars. Some construction vehicles. Miners. Whatever. They can make one, two, three or even four sets covering a certain concept without dedicating too much of their resources (aka money) to making it happen. It also avoids the issue of having to make a theme large enough to be presentable on shelves. This is clearly a practical model that is working best for them as a way to sell unlicensed sets -- otherwise they would not be doing it.

The limitation here is that City covers modern real world inspired ideas. You likely won't see crazy concepts like Mars aliens, classic knights on horses or people fighting mutant dinosaurs in City. So the idea here is to have a second theme that functions like City, but exists for other set ideas that both don't fit into City, and won't get made into a full theme, either. You would get multiple different types of sets in this theme each year as well -- the lineup would not be limited to one concept.

Edited by MR Swordfish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MR Swordfish said:

Enter the current City theme. This is where Lego is putting sets that they couldn't, for practicality's sake, dedicate a whole theme to. They do some adventure sets. Some realistic space sets. Some city cars. Some construction vehicles. Miners. Whatever. They can make one, two, three or maybe four sets covering a certain concept without dedicating too much of their resources (aka money) to making it happen. This is clearly a practical model that is working best for them as a way to sell unlicensed sets -- otherwise they would not be doing it.

The limitation here is that City covers modern real world inspired ideas. You likely won't see crazy concepts like Mars aliens, classic knights on horses or people fighting mutant dinosaurs in City. So the idea here is to have a second theme that functions like City, but exists for other set ideas that both don't fit into City, and won't get made into a full theme, either. You would get multiple different types of sets in this theme each year as well -- the lineup would not be limited to one concept.

You've defined it better than I certainly did. :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, that makes sense.  I would like to see a theme like that.  The way you describe it reminds me of the Juniors line, but applied to a higher age range.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, icm said:

OK, that makes sense.  I would like to see a theme like that.  The way you describe it reminds me of the Juniors line, but applied to a higher age range.

Yeah, kind of like that. I have always loved full blown themes for one original concept, but if LEGO can't make them work anymore, maybe they could do this instead? *shrug* I honestly don't know, but it sounds better to me than what we have now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, icm said:

The way you describe it reminds me of the Juniors line, but applied to a higher age range.

The Creator theme, Expert or otherwise, can be thought of this way too.

8 minutes ago, MR Swordfish said:

I have always loved full blown themes for one original concept, but if LEGO can't make them work anymore, maybe they could do this instead?

With such a broadly scoped concept, think of all the other possibilities for themes and genres that Lego would've otherwise never have been able to turn into a full blown theme to begin with.

Edited by Digger of Bricks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Digger of Bricks said:

The Creator theme, Expert or otherwise, can be thought of this way too.

With such a broadly scoped concept, think of all the other possibilities for themes and genres that Lego would've otherwise never have been able to turn into a full blown theme to begin with.

Very true. You might see ideas in a theme like this that could realistically only ever be standalone sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, MR Swordfish said:

Very true. You might see ideas in a theme like this that could realistically only ever be standalone sets.

For instance, what I'd hope for from such a theme would be anything within a Retrofuturistic vein, stuff like Steampunk airships, Sky-Fi warplanes, Decopunk steam/diesel locomotives, Raypunk rocketcraft, Dieselpunk exploration vehicles... :purrr:

You know, it would all be possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've had Creator space shuttles, robots, dragons, dinosaurs, modern buildings. Basically anything goes at this point, so...why not make one Castle and Space Creator set each year?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, danth said:

We've had Creator space shuttles, robots, dragons, dinosaurs, modern buildings. Basically anything goes at this point, so...why not make one Castle and Space Creator set each year?

Precisely! :smug:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting concept, but I think TLG would need something narrower - more precise.  But I don't run TLG, so what do I know?  They never cease to annoy me with their profit motivated decisions instead of catering specifically to me.  :classic:

It would be interesting - for me, anyway - to create those kinds of sets that actually CAN fit into the city theme.  I'm a railfan, I have a lot of trains and creator sets - including almost all the modulars and many of the creator houses and three in one sets for building up a LEGO city.  A lot of teen fantasy novels revolve around the "fey" co-existing with the modern world.  Think "Bright," if you've seen that Netflix movie (which was panned, but I liked it).  It wouldn't have to be a separate line, it would actually work with city.  And just be sets that people who weren't interested in that sort of thing wouldn't have to buy.  This would actually also work for aliens and other themes.  Alien Conquest was easily incorporated into any city.  Monsters, zombies; there are even movies like Reign of Fire depicting dragons in the modern world.  It's all about imagination, right?

As a side note, the Haunted House set was a big hit (I missed out on), and many people included it with their modular cities. I'd also point out that castles still exist in the modern world; a castle made to the standards that modular buildings are would be phenomenal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fred67 said:

It would be interesting - for me, anyway - to create those kinds of sets that actually CAN fit into the city theme.  I'm a railfan, I have a lot of trains and creator sets - including almost all the modulars and many of the creator houses and three in one sets for building up a LEGO city.  A lot of teen fantasy novels revolve around the "fey" co-existing with the modern world.  Think "Bright," if you've seen that Netflix movie (which was panned, but I liked it).  It wouldn't have to be a separate line, it would actually work with city.  And just be sets that people who weren't interested in that sort of thing wouldn't have to buy.  This would actually also work for aliens and other themes.  Alien Conquest was easily incorporated into any city.  Monsters, zombies; there are even movies like Reign of Fire depicting dragons in the modern world.  It's all about imagination, right?

Hmm, an ingenious concept. You mention Alien Conquest's modern setting, and come to think of it, that theme can be thought of as a subtheme to City of sorts.

But still, we do need a City-like outlet for period set genres, and you bring up trains for instance. Where is there a home for steam locomotives within the City theme? The only idea for a set I can think of is perhaps for a railway show. :shrug_confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.