Lego David

Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Lego David said:

Wouldn't the Crocodile Locomotive set sort of fit into that category though? It was a set that was never approved, but LEGO still released it on their own later, despite being a rather niche vehicle. I don't think that many people outside of Trains fans would even know what this particular Locomotive even is.

Did it reach 10K and get rejected? Looking at what is archived on IDEAS, one person submitted in 2015 and got to about 1500 votes, then a different user submitted in 2018 and got to almost 2300, and a third user submitted later in 2018 and got to just over 600. Was there another one that is missing?

Who did LEGO steal the idea from? The middle one that didn't make even 25% of the required vote, or the first one that had even less. And did the second submission steal the idea from the first?

Maybe LEGO asked some train fans what adult builders might be interested in and they came up with that.

The dates also don't quite match up. The official set was released July 2020, and the 2300 vote one was automatically rejected for not enough support in Oct 2019. So LEGO managed to design and produce one of the first ICONS sets and get it on shelves in a little over six months. Why would they be taking such a big risk on a train that didn't even get to 25% of the required vote to make it to the review stage? Surely they would have stolen an idea that actually achieved review status because they know there is some demand for it. Or do you think they stole the idea when it got to maybe 1000 votes and started planning their version then?

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My two cents regarding the LEGO Ideas topic,

(although I am a bit biased since I have a project up on LEGO Ideas and more planned)

You do have to sign away your rights when you submit an idea, it's part of the risk/rewards assessment you have to make at the time. For LEGO to release a set they need to work on it for years to get it to market, through design stages and production approvals and marketing and box graphics etc. I think the argument should be more towards why does LEGO allow you to post ideas that might be in the works elsewhere in the company.  Its safe to say that the employees that run Ideas are not the same employees who run the Disney IP designs

In terms of the Snow White example, maybe they should've said it could not be submitted.  Disney is a big portfolio for LEGO and especially regarding to Disney Princesses.  It's not out of the question that, eventually, they would do a Snow White set. So people shouldn't be surprised when something like this happens.  their list of not allowed IP is actually rather large, but maybe they need to be more quick to update it.

As for plagiarism, its hard to say on an open forum like Ideas.  If I see an IP that I really like hit 10K and then not get accepted.  What happens if I decide to build something from the same IP? What if my design is accepted? Would that first person claim that I plagiarized them?

Sorry for rambling a bit, I can be scatterbrains sometimes and wanted to get a lot out here

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really have much of a dog in the ideas plagiarism debate but I think people are really ignoring some simple truths here.

One, the agreement you sign when submitting something for ideas is supposed to cover coincidences. It's right in the language of the contract. When Lego releases a set pretty soon after a the same set idea is submitted and rejected, is that really a coincidence? Not just something from the same IP, but the exact same object/location in the same style and scale as the one submitted?

If you expected a Snow White Lego set, it would not be even close to what was just leaked. You would expect a set focusing on, you know, Snow freaking White and the Castle. Not the seven dwarves. Not a side location. And you'd expect a set that matches the design of other Disney Princess sets. Something with minidolls. And you know what? They did release that set and it looks nothing like the leaked Dwarves Cottage set. That's a Juniors set. Here's another non-Juniors set related to Disney Princess. You get princess minidolls and a Castle. You know, the standard things you would expect. If someone put a set like that on Ideas, yeah, it would be a coincidence if Lego then made a similar set because those are the kinds of sets Lego typically makes. Focusing on princesses and castles.

But just compare the Ideas set to the recent leak. The scale, style, the roof and chimney detailing. It's about as close as any Ideas set is to the original submission. Not a coincidence.

Another thing people seem to be missing. Signing away your rights to Lego doesn't mean they can't give you recognition. Maybe you don't get the Ideas prize. Tough luck. But they could say "So and so made this popular and essentially gave us the idea."

And another thing people have missed. Most fans who really want this set to happen are Castle/Fantasy fans. Those people couldn't stop talking about this set. They see it as another medieval/fantasy cottage. Nothing about it looks like it's specifically a Snow White, Disney set. But that's not something that you find out until you build the set in that style and put it on Ideas and see who reacts and how. That's an accident. That's info Lego benefits from only because of the Ideas experiment. Lego wouldn't have planned that set without the happy accident of the original submission.

So, maybe they don't even release the dwarve's cottage. Or maybe they do and they actually do give some credit to the Ideas submission. I don't know. But the leaked set definitely would never have been planned/considered if it weren't for the original submission.

Edited by danth

Share this post


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

If you expected a Snow White Lego set, it would not be even close to what was just leaked. You would expect a set focusing on, you know, Snow freaking White and the Castle. Not the seven dwarves. Not a side location.

I dunno, when I think of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" the iconic location that immediately springs to mind for me is the dwarves' cottage - the dwarves are right there in the common title of the fairy tale, after all. I rewatched the movie not that long ago and I have no idea what the castle looks like. The castle is the side location in Snow White's personal journey. The dwarves' cottage is the main location in the story.

Edited by icm

Share this post


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

when I think of "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" the iconic location that immediately springs to mind for me is the dwarves' cottage

Well yeah. I think the Castle in the Disney film is just a background set apart from a few internal moments that are more for the Evil Queen than Snow. The only other "iconic" location is the flipping Glass Coffin. Not exactly something that would make a prestige set eh? (I mean, a transparent clear coffin piece would be super neat, but not going to have a lot of public appeal!)

Also a point of order: The "Coincidence" Is such Legal bull-droppings to cover them if/when they make a set exactly like a failed submission. "Oh, what a coincidence. We have made a set that closely resembles your submitted build. Isn't it good that you agreed that it was all a coincidence when you submitted it. So we don't need to give you a single red cent." 

1 hour ago, danth said:

doesn't mean they can't give you recognition. Maybe you don't get the Ideas prize. Tough luck. But they could say "So and so made this popular and essentially gave us the idea."

Yes it does mean they can't give recognition. If a massive company says they "took" an idea from someone in any way shape or form, they are open to all kinds of IP ownership issues and again, the designer/source of said idea could use that admission from the company to try and get some money. Or even a lot of money.

LEGO used to have to send out a letter to fans who mailed design ideas in the past, telling them they couldn't accept them because of the legal ramifications. A lot of companies don't accept those sorts of unsolicited creations for the exact same reason.

TLG started the IDEAS platform to have the legally binding agreements in place to allow them to do exactly as they pleased with unsolicited design ideas (and of course the contests that are soliciting for specific Ideas). Sure, some breadcrumbs of recognition and royalties are scattered to a chosen few, again, to give it a veneer of a super neat community/crowd sourcing project instead of a cold hard method of data collection. 

Very few people would be happy if TLG said that they outright used their IDEAS submission without some monetary compensation. Maybe if all they want is to be a Big Guy in the fan community. But it would also attract lawyers like flies to the aforementioned bull-droppings, who would see a chance to get money out of one of the biggest toy companies in the world and possibly even a couple of coins to chuck at the "plaintiff" after they've skimmed their fees off. If you are a lawyer, sorry... ish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Peppermint_M said:

Also a point of order: The "Coincidence" Is such Legal bull-droppings to cover them if/when they make a set exactly like a failed submission. "Oh, what a coincidence. We have made a set that closely resembles your submitted build. Isn't it good that you agreed that it was all a coincidence when you submitted it. So we don't need to give you a single red cent." 

Yes it does mean they can't give recognition. If a massive company says they "took" an idea from someone in any way shape or form, they are open to all kinds of IP ownership issues and again, the designer/source of said idea could use that admission from the company to try and get some money. Or even a lot of money.

I see what you're saying. I'm not a lawyer so I can only guess.

So there are two main disagreements here I think. What makes a Lego set obvious/unsurprising vs a set that probably would have only happened due to an Ideas submission. And what should Lego do to make everyone feel better if there is a perception from enough fans that the latter kind of sets are being made often.

I can give an example of a something that IMO would definitely qualify as a coincidence: if Lego made a Knight Rider car set. We know 80s cars are popular. Ecto-1, BttF Delorean, Optimus Prime, etc etc. A Knight Rider car would follow in those footsteps and shouldn't surprise anyone. If you submitted that idea to Ideas, well, honestly it wasn't very original anyway (unless it was submitted a long time ago).

Share this post


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

I think the argument should be more towards why does LEGO allow you to post ideas that might be in the works elsewhere in the company.  Its safe to say that the employees that run Ideas are not the same employees who run the Disney IP designs

In terms of the Snow White example, maybe they should've said it could not be submitted.  Disney is a big portfolio for LEGO and especially regarding to Disney Princesses.  It's not out of the question that, eventually, they would do a Snow White set. So people shouldn't be surprised when something like this happens.  their list of not allowed IP is actually rather large, but maybe they need to be more quick to update it.

It is unrealistic to expect them to say you cannot submit a Snow White set if they have one in development. It would be akin to saying we are doing a Snow White set. To keep their development sets secret, they'd have to hide it by banning loads of submissions, whether they were in development or not.

Edited by MAB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/5/2023 at 10:00 AM, BrickBob Studpants said:

Me :tongue: I always wanted a set based on the first feature-length animated movie in history, even before the Ideas project. A true childhood classic!

Sure, the project got a lot of attention, but suggesting nobody cared about the idea before that is a tad silly. The source material isn’t exactly obscure, you know

Yeah, the dwarves' cottage is pretty much the most obvious subject for a Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs set, and while LEGO has had Duplo and 4+ sets of it before, it's not too shocking that a set based on a classic film like that also appeal to older Disney enthusiasts.

Snow White is also a character Disney is really heavily promoting as part of their 100th anniversary celebration (as the star of their first animated feature film), so right now is an especially unsurprising time for LEGO to turn their attention towards that character.

14 hours ago, Lego David said:

Wouldn't the Crocodile Locomotive set sort of fit into that category though? It was a set that was never approved, but LEGO still released it on their own later, despite being a rather niche vehicle. I don't think that many people outside of Trains fans would even know what this particular Locomotive even is.

Given that it's a type of locomotive that has previous sets have depicted TWICE (4551 and 10183), I feel it's not nearly as niche/obscure/risky a subject as you're making it sound.

Heck, the fact that builders pitched either of these two projects to LEGO Ideas shows that it was something they expected other AFOLs to be interested in, so the idea that nobody would've cared about them before those projects were posted seems rather silly!

On 2/4/2023 at 3:16 AM, Lego David said:

LEGO has been stealing from rejected LEGO Ideas projects for long enough, and it is about time they stop. They either approve the projects they are interested in, or they don't. Giving the benefit of selecting certain projects and giving the creators of those projects all the rewards associated with that, while rejecting most other submissions, but still reserving the right to release the exact same set under a different theme and not giving any credit to the creators of those original sets is simply unfair and wrong. 

The Ghostbusters HQ, Welcome to Jurassic Park, Fiat 500, Crocodile Locomotive, Bonsai Tree, Harley Davidson Fatboy, The Colosseum, and now, the Snow White Cottage, were all straight up plagiarized from rejected LEGO Ideas projects. It is about time they stop, and give the creators of those projects the proper credit they deserve.

I feel like a lot of the "Ideas plagiarism" charges are simply a result of how many Ideas projects there are, even just among those that achieve 10,000 supporters. It's hardly shocking that some of these would overlap with products that LEGO is already working on, especially when many of them are things that builders would obviously have quite a bit of interest in, with or without a successful Ideas project to "prove" it.

The Colosseum and Fiat 500 in particular were both part of well-established Creator Expert/Icons product lines (Landmarks and Classic Cars), so it's especially weird to act a though those two are things that LEGO would never have thought of on their own. I suspect that the LEGO Ideas projects THEMSELVES were heavily influenced by these two already popular product categories. Likewise, the Ghostbusters HQ and the Jurassic Park gate and T. Rex are ridiculously iconic subjects from their respective IPs, so it's weird to act as though those product ideas wouldn't have been on their mind as soon as the rights to those IPs were secured (if not sooner)!

As for Brent Waller's Bonsai project, it reached 10,000 supporters less than six months before the official set's release. There's no doubt that development of that set was already well underway by that time, especially since it has a fairly complex build that shares no major parts or building techniques with Brent Waller's MOC.

I'm most confused about why the Harley Davidson Fat Boy is on your list of supposed "stolen" Ideas projects. As far as I can tell, no Ideas project of that bike has ever achieved more than 62 supporters. It's one thing to think that designers have no better way of coming up with concepts than sifting through Ideas projects that have made it to review. It's another thing entirely to imagine that they have nothing better to do with their working hours than browse failed Ideas projects that never even came close to 10,000 supporters (on that note, no Crocodile Locomotive project ever achieved more than 2277 supporters, either).
 

But suppose we look at this from a different perspective. Even if LEGO designers were scraping the LEGO Ideas site for product concepts to copy/steal… why would they end up picking these projects in particular to plagiarize? I mean, there are hundreds of train/locomotive projects that have either been rejected in the review phase, or expired well before reaching 10,000 supporters. Why would they prefer to plagiarize this one middle-of-the-road train project rather than any of the others? Likewise, why plagiarize a Fiat 500 project instead of any of the other classic car projects that achieved large numbers of supporters?

While we're at it, let's consider the projects that get to review and DO get approved. Why would they decide to credit/reimburse the "Motorized Lighthouse", "Jazz Quartet", "A-Frame Cabin", "BTS Dynamite" "The Office", "Winnie the Pooh", "Medieval Blacksmith", "International Space Station", "Steamboat Willie", and "Central Perk Coffee" project creators — but rip off the creators of the Snow White cottage, Colosseum, and Fiat 500 projects from those same review periods?

I haven't seen any explanation for the grounds LEGO would hypothetically use to determine which projects they approve (with credit and royalty payments to the original builder), and which they "steal". It seems downright arbitrary — even among non-licensed projects, or projects based on licenses from one particular company like Disney! Whereas it's much simpler to explain if many of these rejected projects really ARE just ones that happened to be similar to sets that were already in development by the time of the review period, while the approved projects are the ones that LEGO genuinely decided to produce based on the popularity of the fan submission.

If you apply Occam's Razor — the scenario seems much simpler to explain if you accept LEGO's claims that these purported "thefts" were really just coincidence (and the supporting evidence designers have presented in particular cases like the Jurassic Park gate and T. Rex) than if you propose some inscrutable system for picking out particular successful or expired projects to plagiarize instead of simply approving them. After all, approving a project bolsters the reputation of the Ideas platform and the company as a whole in exchange for a meager 1% share of profits (not even of sales/revenue like most royalty payments!) and collaboration in the development process — perks they've been willing to grant other fan builders without hesitation.

I get that basically ANY company has an incentive saving money when possible. But even many of the individual accusations of LEGO Ideas plagiarism over the years have failed to pass the smell test. And these sorts of accusations of routine plagiarism seem to create far more questions than answers.

Edited by Aanchir

Share this post


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

I see what you're saying. I'm not a lawyer so I can only guess.

All this IP shenanigans was something I had a passing interest in during my late teens (long story short, in my "senior year" I had a lot of free time and a lot of resources I could consume, teachers and school staff never minded that I only had 10 hours of class in a 25 hour week simply because I was reading so many educational texts and taking full advantage of the school's nascent web-access to academic papers). I have also been a dabbler in Fan Fiction writing, for decades now, so it was something I brushed up on if only to understand where I stood depending on which media work I was drawing from. (A mention of Anne Rice can still make fan writers shudder).

It is what has made me very wary of participating in IDEAS myself, I enjoy whole ownership of my creations that I drew from my own mind :tongue:

31 minutes ago, danth said:

I can give an example of a something that IMO would definitely qualify as a coincidence: if Lego made a Knight Rider car set. We know 80s cars are popular. Ecto-1, BttF Delorean, Optimus Prime, etc etc. A Knight Rider car would follow in those footsteps and shouldn't surprise anyone. If you submitted that idea to Ideas, well, honestly it wasn't very original anyway (unless it was submitted a long time ago).

An excellent example! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2023 at 10:02 AM, LegendaryArticuno said:

Whichever Lego executive in charge of the Pokemon RFP completely dropped the ball. Ninjago/Monkey Kid is proof that Lego can do anime inspired sets well.

The quality of the Avatar: Last Airbender sets was a complete embarrassment, Lego needs to redeem themselves in the anime category by producing the Ideas Naturo Ramen Shop or Ideas Appa set. 

First time I'm hearing about the pokemon thing, any more info out there?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ideas drama is pointless and dumb.

As a professional designer and artist I see crap I had thought I basically invented done by someone else. There's 7 billion people in the world.Most thoughts aren't original. Someone suggesting the Snow White set and LEGO doing something similar is IMO 100% coincidence. It's like when a vaguely similar Pokemon is revealed that looks similar to some fan art someone made, there's bound to be some overlap... doesn't mean GameFreak is trolling the internet stealing Pokemon designs (which some people have foolishly suggested).

The original Ideas... ideas... are almost never original thoughts. LEGO could have easily had similar stuff going on before, or heck, even AFTER that wasn't influenced by the random Ideas submissions. Someone suggesting an incredibly unoriginal idea of a Snow White set (that anyone who has seen the movie can come up with) doesn't blanket mean that's THEIR idea. Heck, even if it came later from LEGO maybe the first time they chose not to do it, then later through some circumstance a similar thing was proposed and accepted... it's still not bad! So someone presented the idea of a Snow White set and now they blanket own that entire IDEA for all of time even though it's incredibly generic?

 

And suggesting things like "maybe they should say this idea is already in development" or any suggestion that makes them market something before they want to, or before they're contractually allowed makes zero sense too.

 

100% of the complaints against LEGO on this issue are basically irrelevant. Coincidence happens all the time and I've seen them and experienced them constantly in my work and it can easily exist in anything creative because, humans just arne't THAT creative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BrickG said:

The Ideas drama is pointless and dumb.

As a professional designer and artist I see crap I had thought I basically invented done by someone else. There's 7 billion people in the world.Most thoughts aren't original. Someone suggesting the Snow White set and LEGO doing something similar is IMO 100% coincidence. It's like when a vaguely similar Pokemon is revealed that looks similar to some fan art someone made, there's bound to be some overlap... doesn't mean GameFreak is trolling the internet stealing Pokemon designs (which some people have foolishly suggested).

The original Ideas... ideas... are almost never original thoughts. LEGO could have easily had similar stuff going on before, or heck, even AFTER that wasn't influenced by the random Ideas submissions. Someone suggesting an incredibly unoriginal idea of a Snow White set (that anyone who has seen the movie can come up with) doesn't blanket mean that's THEIR idea. Heck, even if it came later from LEGO maybe the first time they chose not to do it, then later through some circumstance a similar thing was proposed and accepted... it's still not bad! So someone presented the idea of a Snow White set and now they blanket own that entire IDEA for all of time even though it's incredibly generic?

 

And suggesting things like "maybe they should say this idea is already in development" or any suggestion that makes them market something before they want to, or before they're contractually allowed makes zero sense too.

 

100% of the complaints against LEGO on this issue are basically irrelevant. Coincidence happens all the time and I've seen them and experienced them constantly in my work and it can easily exist in anything creative because, humans just arne't THAT creative.

I'd argue that in the event that something was submitted to Ideas which used a new or very novel/unorthodox building technique - and a few years later the exact same technique was used in an official Lego model - then there might be an argument of them copying the idea. (Might. I'd still give Lego the benefit of the doubt unless there were compounding similarities.)

I'm not really aware of the goings-on on Ideas, but I'm not aware of this happening at any point. My understanding is that the sets which are claimed to be similar to rejected Ideas submissions use the same concept, but aren't the same build.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I'd argue that in the event that something was submitted to Ideas which used a new or very novel/unorthodox building technique - and a few years later the exact same technique was used in an official Lego model - then there might be an argument of them copying the idea. (Might. I'd still give Lego the benefit of the doubt unless there were compounding similarities.)

They always have the explanation: The reason we designed the parts like that was so they could fit together in many different ways including that way.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I'd argue that in the event that something was submitted to Ideas which used a new or very novel/unorthodox building technique - and a few years later the exact same technique was used in an official Lego model - then there might be an argument of them copying the idea

Oh I definitely want them to "steal" techniques if it makes Lego sets better. I also hope that Ideas influences what kinds of sets and what aesthetics Lego uses in sets, since I generally like how AFOL MOCs tend to look. And I assume that has happened over the last few years.

Share this post


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

I'd argue that in the event that something was submitted to Ideas which used a new or very novel/unorthodox building technique - and a few years later the exact same technique was used in an official Lego model - then there might be an argument of them copying the idea. (Might. I'd still give Lego the benefit of the doubt unless there were compounding similarities.)

I'm not really aware of the goings-on on Ideas, but I'm not aware of this happening at any point. My understanding is that the sets which are claimed to be similar to rejected Ideas submissions use the same concept, but aren't the same build.

 

 

Kind of like art style, you can't really protect technique (or rules). I'm talking copyright and stuff. For example you can't copyright rules (and I'd argue techniques that aren't connected to some protectable technology) for a game. You can try, and some big companies do and bully smaller companies/people to give up on things they could actually win (given the resources).

Like if someone has a distinct art style, and you made art in that art style, there's nothing that can be done. You can't protect the style. People can call you out on it but it doesn't matter, no legal recource can happen. It's a different thing if we talk like copying a SYMBOL or TRADEMARK like Supermans <S> symbol. But go to a Dollar Store and you'll find Zuper Man with a <Z> and it's fine.

You can't copyright or protect or trademark rules to a game. That's why there's offbrand monopolies. D&D can't protect their rules which is why there's games that are almost clones to it.

Again, any techniques would... probably, since they don't involve fans like 3d printing unique pieces and inventing new methods via some options not actually made with LEGO parts... I doubt there's any legal protection there... or even moral... If someone finds a new way to stack bricks using the same bricks... it's all free game.

 

Again, it mainly gets complex when you talk big companies. I guess LEGO is that. But I haven't seen LEGO try to copyright or trademark curved corners on icons like Apple did... or "tapping" cards in Magic the Gathering which was a travesty and I have no idea how they got away with it (besides being a big company)...

 

I'm no expert so take what I say very lightly. I've dealt with this stuff before in a limited extent.

 

If LEGO did give any credit to someone, if anything it would probably be a liability to them. I don't know what kind of doors it would open... but that could go haywire probably.

 

Anyways I'll shut up.

Share this post


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

Oh I definitely want them to "steal" techniques if it makes Lego sets better. I also hope that Ideas influences what kinds of sets and what aesthetics Lego uses in sets, since I generally like how AFOL MOCs tend to look. And I assume that has happened over the last few years.

I completely agree. For the record, my stance is that Lego are free to do whatever they want - it's part of the terms and conditions after all, and we as consumers of the product just want the best sets.

I just think that unless there's something concrete and tangible that links a specific rejected build to a later-released set, people saying Lego have stolen an idea don't have a leg to stand on - before you even get into the issue of whether Lego are within their rights to take ideas or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is also the issue with design techniques that if someone claims they were the first person to use a technique in an IDEAS submission then chances are someone else will have used it on a public viewable space before. I remember a decade or so ago some telling me to take down a MOC on Flickr because I used a technique without crediting them (a tiled floor from headlight bricks to create a dogtooth like check pattern) that they claimed to have invented. Yet I know I put four together like it 20 years before that, even though at the time I never had enough to create a larger pattern, or the Internet to claim it as mine. And I have no doubt some else did it 10 years before me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Daily Bugle > Rivendell

Imo taking into consideration the set as a whole from design, play, display, and value, the Daily Bugle is still Lego's best set ever released.

I think that sort of thing is going to be massively subjective, depending on what interests you. For some people the modern day subject matter and more realistic architecture of a set like the Daily Bugle is just less interesting than the ornate fantasy architecture and organic landscaping of Rivendell. Personally I'm more impressed with Rivendell as far as its design and techniques are concerned, though considering I rarely collect licensed themes I'm not really interested in buying either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Daily Bugle > Rivendell

Imo taking into consideration the set as a whole from design, play, display, and value, the Daily Bugle is still Lego's best set ever released.

 

2 hours ago, Lyichir said:

I think that sort of thing is going to be massively subjective, depending on what interests you. For some people the modern day subject matter and more realistic architecture of a set like the Daily Bugle is just less interesting than the ornate fantasy architecture and organic landscaping of Rivendell. Personally I'm more impressed with Rivendell as far as its design and techniques are concerned, though considering I rarely collect licensed themes I'm not really interested in buying either.

The opinion the Daily Bugle is LEGO's best set is probably an unpopular one. Quite fitting for this thread. Give me a cheap, swooshable airplane/spacecraft with a minifig and I'll have more fun with it than any Rivendell or Daily Bugle. Both of those monster sets may have great designs, techniques, or look fabulous, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. My opinion may be unpopular too, but it's Mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LEGO is really forcing the use of rounded plates lately. That said, the way they are used as they are in SETS does not bother me, and even looks quite nice, even for MOC vignettes/sidebuilds etc , but for larger custom floor/ceiling plans they feel less useful to me.

2019 8x8 :

6249092.jpg

2022 10x10 :

6379418.jpg

(and yes I know City literally just introduced a new 8x8 and 8x16 studded "road plate" for easier , sturdy floor/ceilings or perhaps sidewalks to use with road plates)

6425972.jpg6425973.jpg

I can appreciate that a set like 31139: Cozy House uses a lot of larger rectangle plates in useful colors as well, for grass/water/dirt/wood etc.

I know quarter rounded plates are practicly ancient at this point 1955 with the 4x8 "waffle" plates , but most of the larger half-circle, full circle / rounded squares, and special shapes like hearts are really a recent thing

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?pg=1&amp;catLike=W&amp;sortBy=Y&amp;sortAsc=A&amp;sz=50&amp;catType=P&amp;catID=28

 

 

 

 

Edited by TeriXeri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, TeriXeri said:

LEGO is really forcing the use of rounded plates lately. That said, the way they are used as they are in SETS does not bother me, and even looks quite nice, even for MOC vignettes/sidebuilds etc , but for larger custom floor/ceiling plans they feel less useful to me. 

(and yes I know City literally just introduced a new 8x8 and 8x16 studded "road plate" for easier , sturdy floor/ceilings or perhaps sidewalks to use with road plates)

I can appreciate that a set like 31139: Cozy House uses a lot of larger rectangle plates in useful colors as well, for grass/water/dirt/wood etc.

I know quarter rounded plates are practicly ancient at this point 1955 with the 4x8 "waffle" plates , but most of the larger half-circle, full circle / rounded squares, and special shapes like hearts are really a recent thing

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?pg=1&amp;catLike=W&amp;sortBy=Y&amp;sortAsc=A&amp;sz=50&amp;catType=P&amp;catID=28

I think what shapes are most useful for floor plans varies depending on what sort of stuff you're building. To me, a lot of the recent rounded plate pieces (including the thicker ones from the Super Mario sets) feel super useful for the floors of castles in particular (i.e. for towers, turrets, bartizans, oriel windows, etc). They offer a great alternative to the more angular square or octagonal tower shapes that have been the default in the Castle theme for pretty much as long as it's been around.

A lot of these round plates are also a great complement for exciting round pieces of the past decade like the 2x2x5 quarter cylinder panel, 5x5x5 quarter cylinder panel with half arches, 3x3x2 curved fence, 3x3x2 curved bay window, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone, i'd like to talk about what i really dislike about lego (except the price): 

Why more and more minifigures have flesh skin tone insted of classic yellow.

I believe that the cool thing about lego is to simplify real life stuff in a toy aspect, trying to seize some key features to make it recognisable. Reallistic skin makes it less toyish, too close to the real world, so less "legoish".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, CDKiii said:

Hello everyone, i'd like to talk about what i really dislike about lego (except the price): 

Why more and more minifigures have flesh skin tone insted of classic yellow.

I believe that the cool thing about lego is to simplify real life stuff in a toy aspect, trying to seize some key features to make it recognisable. Reallistic skin makes it less toyish, too close to the real world, so less "legoish".

So buy from the many in-house sets that have yellow skins. Licensed sets need to look realistic to sell, so they use more realistic skin tones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but i think it looses it charm.

A pirate of caribbean boat will not be mixable with a imperial fort, or a marvel building will not takes place in a city, except if you replace all minifigures. 

Licensed sets become a bigger part of lego catalog and the system of lego which would be everything could fit together is a little away.

It is not a huge deal but it is too bad, my opinion.

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.