Lego Eras

[Khscarymovie4]

Very great read! I always think splitting things into eras is a fun little idea. I can't say much about the classic and vintage eras as I was never apart of those. I know that they look fun and simple especially compared to today's models. I would love to buy more from these eras to get a better on them. I got into Lego around Millennium/Renaissance era. I don't know if I would call the Millennium era bad bit I think Lego got a bit lazy with some of the themes, particularly Lego's original themes like space and castle. It was not all bad though, the Johnny Thunder sets were fantastic, and I think Dragon Fortress was one of the best sets of the decade. I think Lego made some big improvements in the licensed themes. Star Wars expanded and gave us some amazing sets like the Imperial Star Destroyer and Cloud City. Harry Potter was all around fantastic, and the Spiderman sets were very unique for the time and still look fun. This is an impotent era for Lego though however you think about as it almost put the company into bankruptcy, hopefully we never come close to that again. The Renaissance is a fantastic era and probably my 2nd favorite, The Batman theme and Indiana Jones sets are still some of my favorites and this was around the time Lego made sets aimed more for adults but they were rare. Also impotent to note that during this time Lego started making video games which I think really helped the company in terms of sales and all that. The Modern era I think is the best. Sets have way more pieces then sets that were in their price range years ago were. The builds are more complex and fun, and the minifigures keep getting better and better with new molds coming out every year. This era has sets aimed more towards adults coming out every year unlike the past where the were few and far between. I definitely think this era was the one Lego realized they had and pretty big adult market. I think Lego keep getting better and better so I can only imagine how good the next era will be. Maybe we can do another topic in 10 years. Also nice to note that Eurobricks was created in the Millennium era. It has seen a lot. 

[Lego David]

The era and the renaissance Era and the millennium are my favorites. And (controversially) the modern era is my least favorite. 

[Lego David]

On 6/17/2019 at 8:31 PM, Medzomorak said:

I'm quite sceptic any kid would want a set like Jack Stone instead of a proper Lego City set, the re-released Enchanted Island, a Bionicle figure, a Transformers action figure or a simple rounded ball:

I have to disagree here. At the time, almost everyone wanted that Bionicle figure. Bionicle was a massive success upon release, and the Toa Mata (first Bionicle sets to be released) even got a Best Toy of the Year nomination. Do you think Bionicle community would still be alive today, almost 10 years since it's original cancellation, if "Who could  want a Bionicle figure?"  The fandom is still doing everything they can, to bring the theme they miss so much back. And too be honest, those Bionicle figures were far more interesting than any "proper" City set at the time!

Christian Faber, one of the original creators of Bionicle, is currently working on another attempt to reboot the theme, which (hopefully) will pay off. And fans are a bit skeptical, that is true, but they are ready to support him with whatever they have. 

Bionicle is arguably one of the biggest branches of the LEGO community, and in their (and my) hearts, the theme is not dead, but only sleeping, waiting to be awakened. 

So, no offence, but your argument is completely false. Do more research before stating something that could easily make people mad.

Other than that, great topic!

 

[Medzomorak]

3 hours ago, Lego David said:

I have to disagree here. At the time, almost everyone wanted that Bionicle figure. Bionicle was a massive success upon release, and the Toa Mata (first Bionicle sets to be released) even got a Best Toy of the Year nomination. Do you think Bionicle community would still be alive today, almost 10 years since it's original cancellation, if "Who could  want a Bionicle figure?"  The fandom is still doing everything they can, to bring the theme they miss so much back. And too be honest, those Bionicle figures were far more interesting than any "proper" City set at the time!

Christian Faber, one of the original creators of Bionicle, is currently working on another attempt to reboot the theme, which (hopefully) will pay off. And fans are a bit skeptical, that is true, but they are ready to support him with whatever they have. 

Bionicle is arguably one of the biggest branches of the LEGO community, and in their (and my) hearts, the theme is not dead, but only sleeping, waiting to be awakened. 

So, no offence, but your argument is completely false. Do more research before stating something that could easily make people mad.

Other than that, great topic!

 

I've said instead of. Instead of a Bionicle figure.

Anyway, thanks for the applause!

Edited June 19, 2019 by Medzomorak

[MAB]

18 hours ago, Medzomorak said:

Also, the exact moment you've said Modular Buildings can't be seen as some kind of a city expansion, not even a little bit, that it's not more city-like than a random Marvel one, I instantly knew you are only here to find quarrels in a straw. To argue it's not a city-kind of set, because it has Expert Model logo.

3

Show me where I wrote that. I don't believe you can. I have said multiple times that you can use them how you like. They can be used with City, they can be used with Superheroes. They can be used however you like. However, that does not make them part of or an expansion pack for the City line.

[Medzomorak]

9 hours ago, Khscarymovie4 said:

Very great read! I always think splitting things into eras is a fun little idea..

 ..I think Lego keep getting better and better so I can only imagine how good the next era will be. Maybe we can do another topic in 10 years. Also nice to note that Eurobricks was created in the Millennium era. It has seen a lot. 

I'm glad you liked it! I agree, present times offer almost the widest variety in designs and pieces!

About the future I'm not in any role to make forecasts of course, but I think Lego will keep growing the palette of Licensed lineups as that brings in the profit the most, also those brands are already have tested themselves in the market.

As a stubborn goat as I am, I am always waiting for a proper Pirates reboot, considering that PoTC as a movie brand may be dead for good now. To speak bluntly, I think Lego did not give justice to PoTC by releasing just a handful of quite inconsistent sets - meaning the release of only 10 sets for 5 movies -, skipping very potential scenes and ships. Yes, it is not that easy with a Licensed one, we've seen that with Indiana Jones earlier. Lego has learned that even their own sets are competing against each other on the market, so diluting shelves with sets for the same amount of buyers can easily end up as a waste of money.

Still, a complete theme is quite more attractive for AFOL collectors, so I hope Lego gives the whole original idea a new shot, implementing every potential subthemes, spanning through more years of releases now.

3 hours ago, MAB said:

Show me where I wrote that. I don't believe you can. I have said multiple times that you can use them how you like. They can be used with City, they can be used with Superheroes. They can be used however you like. However, that does not make them part of or an expansion pack for the City line.

Edited June 19, 2019 by Medzomorak

[Lego David]

6 hours ago, Medzomorak said:

I've said instead of. Instead of a Bionicle figure.

Anyway, thanks for the applause!

Oh... Yeah, I can see now. Sorry, it seems like I misunderstood what you said. I am really sorry.

Anyways, I don't think Construction and Technic sets should be excluded from this topic. Like, it's only system sets in those images...

 

[MAB]

^^ yes, they are eurobricks forum headings. That doesn't make Modular Buildings part of City, any more than Lord of The Rings is historical.

[Medzomorak]

11 minutes ago, MAB said:

^^ yes, they are eurobricks forum headings. That doesn't make Modular Buildings part of City, any more than Lord of The Rings is historical.

Are you done?

[Peppermint_M]

It is nice to see people making an in depth post and sharing it. While I may disagree with some of the opinions, it was fun to read. Thanks for sharing. 

[Toastie]

The "historical interpretation" (and it will hardly be any more than that) of LEGO history will always be a matter of discussion. The moment one puts any kind of any "personal" aspect into that - and >missing a thing< or >pointing to a thing< is such a personal thing, among so many other things - the entire discussion may skip into a battle. In other words: Any kind of historical assessment of any temporal evolution is - inherently personal. There is no absolute truth. I bet: Even TLG does not know, what - on an absolute scale - is going on. No way.

Particularly with regard to this thread, whatever TLG prints on boxes, whatever they push, whatever they do see fit is - essentially meaningless. For the best, it is a marketing thing. Or: A best guess or best try. What does the label "Expert Set" mean? I am not an expert, but I could build these sets. Somebody over there decided to call it "expert". Honestly? Good guess. So what. Modular? Who is defining modular? Because they stick to each other, have the same scale (sort of) they are defined as modular? That is crap. They do fit. That is all. Put it anywhere you want, but don't hunt it down to some sort of "truth". As in: I know better than "X".

LEGO is no absolute measure. Nor is TLG. No higher authorities power. They are a company. As Amazon is. Or Microsoft. All of these believe they make the world a better place. And all they try to achieve is: Making more money. We may want to pull up the graphs shown before.

No one here knows things. There are interpretations.

And with that: Pipe down. This discussion has reached a temperature absolutely not worth it.

All the best
Thorsten

[icm]

The post that started this thread is a pretty fair assessment of how Lego has changed over time, bearing in mind that it's usually impossible to draw a bright line between eras in any field and that any opinions as to what time period is "best", etc, inevitably vary according to individual taste.  I think it's a good idea to split the 80s and 90s according to when the boxes changed from "Legoland" to "Lego System."  That's a bright dividing line for convenience - call them the "Legoland era" and the "System era."  The "crisis," "recovery," and "modern" eras don't have such easy markers for division, but going by boxes I'd start the "crisis era" in 2000, when "System" was dropped from the boxes, combine the "crisis" and "recovery" eras into a single time period, and perhaps start the "modern" era in 2010, the year I bought my first Creator Expert set.  I don't like to make value judgments about preferences, favorites, and superlatives, because there's a lot to like and a lot to criticize in every period of Lego's history, but I'll say that according to my personal preferences the sets I'm least keen on collecting are those released between 1997 and 2003, which period spans the late "System era" and early "crisis era."  I just don't like how sets from that era rely so much more on large, complex molds than do sets from the preceding and following decades (according to my personal perception, anyway).  However, unlike the OP, I consider the 1999-2000 waves of Star Wars to have actually aged quite well.  Those sets introduced a large number of new molds, but they were almost all simple, versatile shapes like wedge plates, cylinders, and hinges that were quickly used in almost every other theme, and almost all of them are still used today.  I honestly don't think Lego could have done a better job representing most of the subjects in those waves in sturdy retail sets with the available parts.  They're easy to build, rebuild, and modify, have loads of potential for alt builds and combiners, are sturdy and swooshable, and are all easily recognizable interpretations of the source material in Lego bricks.  Sure, some of them look a bit awkward (the Naboo Fighter and Snowspeeder especially), but Lego still hasn't released retail sets that hew as closely to the source material as I'd like in those cases, so I applaud the 1999 designers for doing the best they could.

Anyway, those are my two cents.

Edited June 20, 2019 by icm

[MAB]

Splitting by packaging / labelling is an interesting one, but a major problem is the sheer number of packaging types now. For example, the CMF era could be defined, when blind bags came along, running concurrently with the modern era.  There have been huge developments in different areas of LEGO products at different times that don't necessarily feed into a generic timescale. For example, we are nearly a decade into the App era, after Life of George, Fusion, etc. after false starts and probably a bit of stagnation. We are well into the CMF era, and also into the IDEAS era.  Developments in these occur at different times to developments in other products and so grouping them together misses the point. LEGO history is massively multi-threaded. There is no mention of the "girl era" when products primarily aimed at girls took off (having been tried in the past).

I think it is is easy to look back and see when the company was doing badly financially and link it to products of the time and say they were crap and blame those products, easy to call out mistakes with hindsight even if at the time they were not viewed as mistakes. In the "crisis" era, there were loads of good sets, many of which are still sought after today. It is fashionable to knock themes like clik-its, Jack Stone and Galidor. I don't think it was the products as such that was a problem, it was management decisions across the entire range that lead to the crisis. Some people think they are the worst toys ever made, yet the Galidor competition on EB last year showed what could be done with those parts. There are some superb supposedly single-use parts in those sets that are not really that different to some parts of today that have single-use; Groot's head or Vader's Helmet. I doubt if LEGO would have been any better financially during the crisis if they had not done Jack Stone, clik-its and Galidor. Without taking risks to develop a product area, we would not have Modulars, or CMF, UCS or other large adult targetted sets. LEGO has made similar mistakes with Apps (Fusion was terrible), yet without trialling these ideas, would we have Boost? Without Jack Stone would we have Juniors? Without the ready made storylines of Knights Kingdom II and Exo-Force, would we have the ready made storylines of Ninjago, Chima, Nexo Knights?  If there were no risks taken, we'd be building with basic bricks and have no minifigures.

 

 

[tafkatb]

On 6/20/2019 at 8:55 AM, MAB said:

If there were no risks taken, we'd be building with basic bricks and have no minifigures.

Very good points! You could go back even further and say if no risks were taken, we'd be playing with wooden toys instead of plastic ones. Or even no toys at all, and collecting wooden furniture instead!

[Medzomorak]

On 6/19/2019 at 4:20 PM, Lego David said:

Oh... Yeah, I can see now. Sorry, it seems like I misunderstood what you said. I am really sorry.

Anyways, I don't think Construction and Technic sets should be excluded from this topic. Like, it's only system sets in those images...

 

No worries!

I would include Construction and Technic sets, especially old classic Technic, but unfortunately I don't have the time to do research and I'm not very experienced with those themes as well. I certainly won't abandon the post and will expand it some day later on.

On 6/19/2019 at 11:47 PM, Peppermint_M said:

It is nice to see people making an in depth post and sharing it. While I may disagree with some of the opinions, it was fun to read. Thanks for sharing. 

I'm happy that you have mostly liked it. Thanks for reading along!

On 6/20/2019 at 2:55 PM, MAB said:

It is fashionable to knock themes like clik-its, Jack Stone and Galidor. I don't think it was the products as such that was a problem, it was management decisions across the entire range that lead to the crisis. Some people think they are the worst toys ever made, yet the Galidor competition on EB last year showed what could be done with those parts. There are some superb supposedly single-use parts in those sets that are not really that different to some parts of today that have single-use; Groot's head or Vader's Helmet. I doubt if LEGO would have been any better financially during the crisis if they had not done Jack Stone, clik-its and Galidor. Without taking risks to develop a product area, we would not have Modulars, or CMF, UCS or other large adult targetted sets. LEGO has made similar mistakes with Apps (Fusion was terrible), yet without trialling these ideas, would we have Boost? Without Jack Stone would we have Juniors? Without the ready made storylines of Knights Kingdom II and Exo-Force, would we have the ready made storylines of Ninjago, Chima, Nexo Knights?  If there were no risks taken, we'd be building with basic bricks and have no minifigures.

Considering that I've written the post it is clear that I can't agree with you completely, though you make very good points. Lego has indeed learned from mistakes taken in the past and the late 90's and early 2000's were hard times for toy companies to react the video game and internet boom on the entertainer market. I still think Galidor and Jack Stones were - somewhat understandable on the conception - poor implementations and poor attempts. I may be called biased - and I may be truly am - but I was there as a kid and they were not enough seductive enough. I was there with my friend at Knights Kingdom II as schoolboys and we generally liked the sets, but comparing them to our older brothers' and cousins' vintage sets was a recurring event.  We did it as 10 years old kids. We wanted to collect factions, and KK II offered just a couple of 4 colored, story-based knight character in every set. Maybe we were too Lego-oriented kids and that only made us another consumer audience category in Lego's eye, who wanted to sell sets for all type of kids globally. Maybe selling just one set for only-football-fan kids means more success then creating something 'better' for already Lego fan kids. This is just some theoretical assumption and I think - or want to think - it is not true, but I don't know for sure,

So let me rephrase myself in case I was unclear. Not the attempt for innovation was the problem itself, nor the taking of some risks. They've made Jack Stone to provide less assembling experience and more time for the playing itself. I think it is against Lego's all eternal identity, but their researchers have suggested to try this. The problem is not necessarily here. The problem is that Jack Stone's fire truck was not a good firetruck, without or with assembling either. It did not look like an attractive and realistic fire truck for us kids. This is just one example mentioned in the book Brick by brick by David Robertson. I can just confirm this being a kid at the time, remembering the exact moment seeing the sets for the first time. Lego designers and management consultants had no such organic connections to kids like they have today. They were grown-ups making toys for kids without properly thinking and feeling as a kid. It is hard to do so for sure, when you are trying to make a toy that can compete with a brand new Play Station platform.

Still I'm really trying not to push my own feelings too hard. I've just sent catalouges to one of my friends who had some Lego experience as a kid, but not anything serious that would call him a Lego fan. He thinks Lego is a very strong and valuable brand but he was never really into it. Now the interesting thing is, he had nothing to say seeing Jack Stone because he may not even notice that as something not Lego-ish. Because it is truly not. I think as an outsider adult he may simply considered that as a junior-ized lego theme.

But seeing Galidor made him laugh and being an economist with quite a lot of marketing studies behind him, he said it definitely looks like a very common example of a weak market research result, pointing out that many companies with too much aggregated liquid capital or overforced innovation incentives may forget their main line of territory. Galidor is an action figure and Lego was not skilled in action figures, also it did not match thier production portfolio and brand integrity. Oil companies in the 80's have built car production lines with their accumulated spare money instead of innovating the oil production technologies to be better at the thing they are already good at, bringing those subsidiaries to bankruptcy soon while causing serious damages to the parent companies and the shareholders themselves. Even one of Warren Buffett's oftenly phrased wisdom is to avoid investing in companies which are diluting themselves with too many adventures unfit for their previous experiences. The only time this has worked when the company has completely abandonded its old work and started something new and more important for current world. Playing the jack of all trades is a very dangerous road for a company and Lego was doing the same. I think the system brick with the minifigure will always be the most important brand value for them to cultivate. This two has integrated themselves into the souls of millions and you have to build around that.

Edited June 22, 2019 by Medzomorak

[MAB]

On 6/22/2019 at 12:53 PM, Medzomorak said:

But seeing Galidor made him laugh and being an economist with quite a lot of marketing studies behind him, he said it definitely looks like a very common example of a weak market research result, pointing out that many companies with too much aggregated liquid capital or overforced innovation incentives may forget their main line of territory. Galidor is an action figure and Lego was not skilled in action figures, also it did not match thier production portfolio and brand integrity.

3

I agree Galidor was different to the rest of LEGO's production. Action figures with interchangeable arms and legs is, to me, a decent idea. After all, being able to take a minifigure, break it into parts and mix those parts up and being able to rebuild a completely new figure has made LEGO billions of dollars. Why not for action figures too? It had also been done in the past, for example, Kenner did it with The Six Million Dollar Man:

With Kenner you could buy the individual sets of arms and legs, and Maskatron also had similar detachable limbs.

LEGO may not have made action figures at the time, but they came up with a very good way of attaching limbs and body parts together. I think the production values were equally as good as those in Bionicle, for example. Why did it bomb? To me, it was not to do with the parts, it was the media. Taking a risk like that producing different style of toys compared to their normal portfolio had to be backed by a decent storyline. People were not going to buy them because they were LEGO branded, as they were not normal LEGO. There had to be a reason to buy them, and the reason was not very good. However, if they had used an external, well-known license such as Star Wars or Superheroes, they might well have taken off and introduced a whole new range of LEGO figures. For me, the toys (and parts) were decent in themselves. There was just no reason to buy them. Ninjago is now a huge success. Yet if that had not taken off after the first wave, it could have similarly been cut and seen as a useless experiment. The same with Chima and Nexo Knights. Of course, for these the parts are always useful since they are based on the normal LEGO system. If the storylines bombed, the parts were still parts. Galidor had neither the system nor the storyline, which is two risks at once. If it had paid off, people would look back with hindsight and say it was a genius move. If it didn't (and it didn't), people look back and say it was a dreadful mistake.

[LEGO Historian]

I doubt that anyone has done more thought to how to divide the LEGO eras than I have.... and you'll pull your hair out trying to get it right.... 

You folks can argue until you are blue in the face over how best to divide the eras... so I'll just stick with the early ones... of the LEGO System.

1949-53 Automatic Binding Bricks era

1953-55 LEGO Mursten era

1955-58 LEGO System era

1958-67 Town Plan Era era

1968-78 Early Legoland era

--------------------------------------

I'm working on finishing up a herculean task of documenting all the LEGO System of Play sets.

But breaking up the sets into logical series of years has been one of my biggest headaches.  The years are still not finalized, but this 9 volume 4000+ page Encyclopedia (will be available in English and Chinese) I've been working on it since 2016 (although I've been documenting it all for my online computer desktop guide since 2006).  I hope to have it done by the end of this year...

Like I mentioned already... ignore the listed years... they'll be off by 1-3 years (Volume 6 years should be 2012-2019).  

P.S.  I got my first LEGO set in 1960... so I have been around thru most of the last 59 years worth of different eras collecting LEGO.

 

Edited June 25, 2019 by LEGO Historian

[Toastie]

6 hours ago, LEGO Historian said:

You folks can argue until you are blue in the face over how best to divide the eras... so I'll just stick with the early ones... of the LEGO System.

Hi Gerhard,

two things: First, I did purchase the electronic version of your encyclopedia - and it is a fantastic resource of depth and width I have neve seen before. In addition it is not only documenting but partly also interpretation; I believe one cannot go without the other. Your work is beyond believe and unbelievable valuable.

Second: Is it really the case that one era ends and another one begins - more or less seamlessly? We work with a number of rather large companies having a range categorized in their portfolio of things they sell. I could try and do the same thing you are trying: A temporal evolution. But: Although some instruments are not even listed on their websites anymore they do still sell these. No more research and development, just getting the stuff out. Eventually that also fades out. However, many other products became available much earlier. It it thus tough or better not feasible to have clear borderlines. In contrast: these lines overlap; sometimes for many, many years.

Could this be applicable here as well? At least for a couple of years? Maybe one or two, as some sort of temporal uncertainty?

Best,
Thorsten

(Whoa, look at the post number … no harm meant)             

Edited June 25, 2019 by Toastie
... and the devil had done for the rest - Yo ho ho ...

[MAB]

Yes, eras overlap because eras are not well defined.  It is like trying to put music into eras, but with a constraint that you are only allowed one era to be active at any one time.

 

[Medzomorak]

On 6/25/2019 at 10:36 AM, LEGO Historian said:

I'm working on finishing up a herculean task of documenting all the LEGO System of Play sets.

But breaking up the sets into logical series of years has been one of my biggest headaches.  The years are still not finalized, but this 9 volume 4000+ page Encyclopedia (will be available in English and Chinese) I've been working on it since 2016 (although I've been documenting it all for my online computer desktop guide since 2006).  I hope to have it done by the end of this year...

Wow. That looks....immersive.

Any chance you're going to print physical copies to sell? I'd buy those a hundred times.