Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[danth]

Do architecture sets of famous buildings have to be licensed?

[Murdoch17]

13 minutes ago, danth said:

Do architecture sets of famous buildings have to be licensed?

Skyline sets - probably not. Individual buildings - possibly.

Edited June 21 by Murdoch17

[Lyichir]

11 minutes ago, danth said:

Do architecture sets of famous buildings have to be licensed?

AFAIK it can depend on the age of the building and whether the building itself is trademarked. I've heard that is why the "Australia" postcard set depicted a generic outback scene instead of a city like the other postcard sets—many recognizable landmarks in Sydney would require licensing and the "extended line" team responsible for small Lego-exclusive sets like that didn't have the budget for that.

[icm]

I think they generally don't, but I include them in my licensed count because they're clearly intentional, deliberate, specific models of something rather than coming directly from the designer's imagination. In that sense an Architecture model of the Colosseum is no different than a Speed Champions model of a Ferrari. I would count a similarly sized model of a generic ruined Romanesque arena as unlicensed, but if it's specifically the Colosseum in Rome, then I count it as licensed.

[Lion King]

29 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

AFAIK it can depend on the age of the building and whether the building itself is trademarked. I've heard that is why the "Australia" postcard set depicted a generic outback scene instead of a city like the other postcard sets—many recognizable landmarks in Sydney would require licensing and the "extended line" team responsible for small Lego-exclusive sets like that didn't have the budget for that.

Same for Art? Like Mona Lisa and the Great Wave?

[Renny The Spaceman]

No other minifigure has the innate aura and Sauce of the Demolition Dummy, unbeatable figure, any counter arguments are wrong

[icm]

Same for Art. I don't know if any licensing had to be negotiated for Mona Lisa and the Great Wave, but I count those as licensed because they are clearly faithful Lego renditions of unique, easily identifiable, world-famous paintings, rather than a more generic Lego Art portrait of some other woman in a vaguely Renaissance style, or a more generic Lego Art picture of some rough seas in a vaguely Japanese style.

[Lion King]

Yup i totally agree with you, jcm.

[Lyichir]

1 hour ago, Lion King said:

Same for Art? Like Mona Lisa and the Great Wave?

Yes. In general, copyright laws that affect other media also apply to art, so something like the Andy Warhol set would still need licensing from his estate whereas things like the Mona Lisa and Great Wave have been in the public domain for as long as modern copyright law has existed, so would require no specific licensing.

[MAB]

On 6/21/2024 at 6:02 PM, icm said:

I think they generally don't, but I include them in my licensed count because they're clearly intentional, deliberate, specific models of something rather than coming directly from the designer's imagination. In that sense an Architecture model of the Colosseum is no different than a Speed Champions model of a Ferrari. I would count a similarly sized model of a generic ruined Romanesque arena as unlicensed, but if it's specifically the Colosseum in Rome, then I count it as licensed.

So would you count things like the botanicals range as licensed as they are specific models of something. Similarly all the objects type sets that have appeared in IDEAS, or are things like the typewriter, maze and piano generic enough as they don't have a brand name? Presumably the Polaroid is licensed but the box art of the Creator camera looks very much like typical 70s and 80s cameras but would remain unlicensed.

On 6/21/2024 at 4:23 PM, Lyichir said:

Technically speaking, all NASA sets are unlicensed... while usage of NASA logos or imagery is encouraged to go through a review process by the organization to ensure accuracy and compliance with standards for its use, as a government agency NASA is prohibited from profiting from externally-produced merchandise (i.e. receiving licensing fees) or from seeking any sort of exclusivity agreement with external companies.

I understand that from a Lego fan perspective, the distinction between a licensed set and an unlicensed set often has more to do with whether a subject is based on a specific well-known brand than it does with the actual business transactions that take place, but it's still an interesting "edge case" in the question of licensed vs. unlicensed sets.

The interesting thing with that minifigure set is that they have a perfectly good in-house space logo that they could have used that would probably be popular with LEGO fans - the classic space moon logo - yet they chose to use the NASA logo (and presumably needed external permission to do so). The figure goes from being in the LEGO world to the real world by the use of the real world logo, much like the early sets containing Esso and Shell logos rather than generic garage signs.

[icm]

I count the botanicals as unlicensed because there is considerable creative freedom in how they are interpreted, as plants take a huge variety of forms and colors, even for plants of the same kind. 

If you read my prior posts more closely, you will understand that I already said that specific makes and models are licensed, generic versions aren't. The licensed Polaroid is licensed. The generic Creator camera and the generic Ideas typewriter, Piano, and Maze are not. 

Please show more reading comprehension.

[Lion King]

Wicked, Fornite and Wednesday are the new licensed themes.  

I don’t think plants and animals are counte as lincsned? I feel that they are leaned toward unlicensed since they have creativity freedom to me.  Like - who owns plants and aniamls? Not like a specific tiger from Aladin or a human-eating plant from Little Horror Shop production.  So I am with jcm.

Oh and a few year ago, Pickup Truck was only unlicensed Icon vehicle set. 

[icm]

Exactly. The botanicals are like the Creator animals - clearly based on the real world, but there's a lot of freedom of interpretation and no one canonical prototype to reproduce.

[The Island Chronicles]

I think the trains subtheme for City needs to be dropped. I'm going to put how I think trains should be distributed through the City theme by quoting my good buddy @Vilhelm22 on what he said in the Ideas For New Lego City Sets forum on page 69 of that forum. 

"......The trains subtheme in itself shouldn’t be a thing.  Stations and passenger trains should be part of a public transport subtheme (we could easily have enough to make with a couple more sets) whilst cargo trains would be in a cargo subtheme.  Cranes and lorries would be part of this too.

 I feel like beyond the standard trains others could be parts of other subthemes as well.  For a start, fire trains do exist, even if rare.  A maintenance of way (MOW) train could be in the construction subtheme.  A car transporter train could be for some great vehicles type thing.  Circus trains have existed in the past.  Hospital trains also have existed - particularly in wartime - a prime preserved example can be found at the National Railway Museum, York, UK (arguably the best railway museum globally, as trains were basically invented by the British).  RPOs (Railway Post Offices) were big in the USA for years.  Fuel train for Octan.  Even prisoner transport trains exist.  NASA had a train at one stage.
 

It’s never going to happen, but a train could easily be added to every subtheme, and the trains theme abolished". 

[TeriXeri]

Probably in a tiny minority here but:

LEGO making that JAWS set was a bad move, yes it's nostalgia for "just a movie" , but 50 years later, the world is looking at millions of sharks killed a year, at an increasing trend.

And yes, this did come from IDEAS, I'm not pointing at the original designer or submission here.

But if you like it, buy it.

 

That said, I wouldn't mind an update of 31088: Deep Sea Creatures at a larger scale, seeing how that set is actually still made in 2024, it must be popular.

Edited July 4 by TeriXeri

[Alexandrina]

On 7/4/2024 at 10:13 PM, TeriXeri said:

LEGO making that JAWS set was a bad move, yes it's nostalgia for "just a movie" , but 50 years later, the world is looking at millions of sharks killed a year, at an increasing trend.

I'd go several steps further than that. It's a mediocre-at-best looking set, based on a film that was slightly above average for the time of its release but which is now 40+ years old and hasn't aged especially well. There's nothing in the film that makes for an obvious compelling set, and what Lego have chosen to do doesn't seem to have been done well.

This on top of the ill-advised nature of 'encouraging' people to fear sharks

[Lyichir]

1 minute ago, Alexandrina said:

I'd go several steps further than that. It's a mediocre-at-best looking set, based on a film that was slightly above average for the time of its release but which is now 40+ years old and hasn't aged especially well. There's nothing in the film that makes for an obvious compelling set, and what Lego have chosen to do doesn't seem to have been done well.

This on top of the ill-advised nature of 'encouraging' people to fear sharks

I don't know if I'd agree with your perception of the set quality itself. I feel like both the boat and shark look quite nice, and significantly more detailed than you'd tend in themes like City or Creator where you'd typically see those sorts of subjects. The appropriateness of the license is obviously a matter of opinion but I don't think it's executed poorly.

[Alexandrina]

1 minute ago, Lyichir said:

I don't know if I'd agree with your perception of the set quality itself. I feel like both the boat and shark look quite nice, and significantly more detailed than you'd tend in themes like City or Creator where you'd typically see those sorts of subjects. The appropriateness of the license is obviously a matter of opinion but I don't think it's executed poorly.

I think partly because it hits on all the things I don't like in Lego sets:

- Brick-built creatures

- Sets built on frames with a 'plaque' brick

- That terrible machete piece (imo the worst piece Lego have ever come up with)

But the boat looks really stubby to me and the minifigures are uninspiring.

I might be influenced by the fact that Jaws was such a massive disappointment to me when I saw it (hyped up as one of the greatest films ever, when actually it's a middling summer blockbuster that was probably exciting when it was new but that was a long time ago now) but I just look at it and see nothing to get enthused by. Usually, even for licenses I'm disinterested in, there's something in the sets that I find interesting (even Hocus Pocus, which for my money is Disney's worst film ever but the set still looks cool)

[Yoggington]

31 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

..the boat looks really stubby to me..

Would you go so far as to say they need a bigger one?

[Alexandrina]

Just now, Yoggington said:

Would you go so far as to say they need a bigger one?

Not necessarily, they could probably get away with having it be more narrow. The proportions just look off to me

[Murdoch17]

1 hour ago, Alexandrina said:

Not necessarily, they could probably get away with having it be more narrow. The proportions just look off to me

Just so you are aware @Alexandrina, @Yoggington is referencing the "We're gonna need a bigger boat" line from the film.

Also: If you think the machete is worse than ZNAP, Jack Stone, or Galidor parts, I have no words to express my disbelief / shock. And aren't Brick-built items (such as animals) the literal point of LEGO?

Edited July 6 by Murdoch17

[Alexandrina]

2 hours ago, Murdoch17 said:

If you think the machete is worse than ZNAP, Jack Stone, or Galidor parts, I have no words to express my disbelief / shock.

In fairness I've never actually held any ZNAP or Galidor, but my issue with the machete is that it's clearly meant to be held by a minifigure but unlike every other minifigure accessory, it doesn't actually seem to fit. Every machete I've ever had is slightly too wide to go in a minifigure's hand, so they're functionally useless.

2 hours ago, Murdoch17 said:

And aren't Brick-built items (such as animals) the literal point of LEGO?

IMO if they're meant to be in scale with minifigures, they should be a single piece/a couple of specialised pieces. Brick-built animals to scale with the figures never look good and quite often seem to be a way to inflate part counts. It's different if the set is specifically an animal rather than part of the minifigure system (like the Tuxedo Cat for example)

2 hours ago, Murdoch17 said:

Just so you are aware @Alexandrina, @Yoggington is referencing the "We're gonna need a bigger boat" line from the film.

I guess it shows how much I enjoyed Jaws that I don't remember that line (or any other line tbf)

[Black Falcon]

I don´t care much about the films or the set either, but couldn´t say it isn´t well made.

26 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I guess it shows how much I enjoyed Jaws that I don't remember that line (or any other line tbf)

Well, me neither, but it is basically printed on the Set ;).

[MAB]

5 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

Not necessarily, they could probably get away with having it be more narrow. The proportions just look off to me

The boat is pretty accurate compared to the movie. The shark is so much bigger than people, and would be about 20 studs long based on minifigure height. I'm glad that it isn't just a single molded part at that size. The shark and boat are the main parts of the set, and should be buildable. If people want accurate scale models that do not need to be assembled, well there are other brands that make such stuff.

[Murdoch17]

48 minutes ago, MAB said:

The boat is pretty accurate compared to the movie. The shark is so much bigger than people, and would be about 20 studs long based on minifigure height. I'm glad that it isn't just a single molded part at that size. The shark and boat are the main parts of the set, and should be buildable. If people want accurate scale models that do not need to be assembled, well there are other brands that make such stuff.

Agreed 100%!