Lego is dropping behind dragon designs

[Mylenium]

12 hours ago, Toastie said:

It looks to me to be so much more expensive that it seems to me as comparing a tube of mustard with a car of mustang - or am I wrong?

I tend to agree, though this is kind of a chicken vs. egg problem with the Bionicle parts themselves. There's tons of parts nobody really wants (too specific, weird colors) and then there's some highly sought after ones that of course are expensive. In the grander scheme of things this seems to be the crux with all of Bionicle/ CCBS. It appears LEGO never quite knew what to do with it after a certain point and it never evolved beyond that. It took/ takes some talented MOC builders to actually show them what can be done with it...

Mylenium

[Medzomorak]

5 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

I haven't bought that many, either. I usually just browse through the digital instructions and then make up my mind whether it's worth it (and if I can afford it). The green dragon is easily the best of them, though I still wish it was only half as complex as the actual dragon in the movie..

Mylenium

I agree.

As far as I'm concerned with Ninjago beasts the green dragon is actually most the authentic asian dragon so far in the whole series. I like this dragon for different reasons. It is not so unnaturally vivid in coloring like the rest of the Ninjago builds. This milder pastel green (sand green in Lego maybe?) is so much acceptable for an actual beast. There's also lesser mechanical feeling to it. BUT. It's still supposed to be a mech, isn't it? 

This actually resembles a folklore japanese dragon and of course it has some character by the molded headpiece.

Here's Moko‘s asian dragon for comparison. Altough this is classic green again, but the build itself is very conservative, very beasty serpent-like.

Anyway, if you guys really made me choose from the Ninjago palette, I'd say this Green Dragon was the best of them. Funny, it is from the movie series and I think it's no coincidence. Everything had just more refined design there.

[The Brick Boss]

I miss the dragons they had for Ninjago. 

[Lego David]

10 minutes ago, Medzomorak said:

This milder pastel green (sand green in Lego maybe?)

Sand Green is the official name of that color.

[Peppermint_M]

I think another way to put the comparison of the two sets: it is similar to comparing the Galaxy of Adventure Han Solo figure to a Black Series Han Solo. Both are an action figure and both are the same subject. But designed for two different markets. Sure, you find them close to each other in the toy aisle, but that doesn't change the reasoning behind it.

[gotoAndLego]

I think what's being discussed is, in Star Wars set terms, the desire for a UCS dragon set vs a playset dragon. I agree that would be cool but I think Ideas is the only avenue a UCS dragon would be produced through; just look at the upcoming Medieval Backsmith Ideas set vs Next Knights.

Edited February 19, 2020 by gotoAndLego

[Medzomorak]

3 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

I think another way to put the comparison of the two sets: it is similar to comparing the Galaxy of Adventure Han Solo figure to a Black Series Han Solo. Both are an action figure and both are the same subject. But designed for two different markets. Sure, you find them close to each other in the toy aisle, but that doesn't change the reasoning behind it.

I beg to differ.

Those two figures have different backgrounds to implement on. I did not know anything about them but after a quick search I see this Galaxy of Adventure is somewhat of a cartoon tv program, based on the original Trilogy. So it is not the same subject interpreted in different ways. At the toy layer, they are based on already two different products. One of them is a derivate of another of course, but at that the end they are different. And we can agree that not the action figure came first, but the show. So this is why the cartoon action figure goes after the cartoon design. In the toymakers eye this is now not a question of interpretaion just authentic implementation.

At least if you mean the two Horntail sets; this case it is a false comparison because the dragons are strictly modeled after the same movie scene. 

33 minutes ago, gotoAndLego said:

I think what's being discussed is, in Star Wars set terms, the desire for a UCS dragon set vs a playset dragon. I agree that would be cool but I think Ideas is the only avenue a UCS dragon would be produced through; just look at the upcoming Medieval Backsmith Ideas set vs Next Knights.

This is not about scale, this is about design authenticity. You are implying the root cause again in piece number. For that argument I had my answers above (Drogon already starting as a ~1600 piece build).

Still you are right in a way. If we would get someting more minifig scale, ultimate badass dragon version (like they've built a hulkbuster and a - somewhat too oversized - ultimate hulkbuster as well) I'd have almost no problem with that bad Horntail attempt.

But Lego had not done so yet.

Edited February 19, 2020 by Medzomorak

[Mylenium]

45 minutes ago, gotoAndLego said:

the desire for a UCS dragon set vs a playset dragon.

I have to disagree. This isn't about the complexity or number of pieces, it's merely a design issue. It would in fact not be too difficult to create better quality creatures by e.g. leaving out some of the joints. That's a bittersweet irony, anyway. Many Ninjago dragons and mechs have a ton of such movable parts, yet a lot of times they are virtually useless because there is only a handful stable poses for your model, anyway. So IMO foregoing some of that stuff in favor of a more rigid model with greater stability, better design and only a mildly increased number of pieces would not be an impossible thing to do. In fact it might even go down better with kids as those large dragons with dangling tails can indeed be a health risk as I wrote in some of my reviews (Stormbringer Dragon, Green Dragon). I'm not saying that an UCS level dragon couldn't be awesome, but i think once the quality of the regular dragons goes up again the demand for that would minimize.

Mylenium

[Ron Dayes]

Whilst many good points were given in this discussion why not to compare a 700 part set to a 130 part set (or whatever), the true question is: What the hell are the TLG designers doing lately to dragon designs?

I must agree with @Medzomorak, TLG really doesnt hit the nail in many modern dragon designs. The Harry Potter Dragon and recent Hogwarts Castle Basilisk (yes, not a dragon) are just plain awful. Yep, on the last one the part count was amazingly low - but why even try when its impossible to recreate it that small for them? Could have just used the classic snake in green (considering the micro size model), would have been better actually than that utter garbage they offered.
That Horned Dragon - again - is just another example of them obviously not knowing how to recreate it with that part limitation. Looks like a bird went to the gym and never skipped leg day^^
Dont they look at source material? Or dont they care?

It almost feels like they are too lazy to try, or dont have enough time at hand on designing it well. A good MOC takes time, we all know that. Maybe the sheer array of sets they have in each theme is just too much to manage in a short time. Who knows...
But im hoping, a company that big, has at least one guy ONLY doing the dragon digitally and giving his/her heart and soul for this ONE Set. Otherwise it could really explain these poor offerings.

Just knowing the parts availiable, and how decent some ninjago dragons look, i just refuse to believe thats all they could do.
And since it was further up stated " the dragon probably wasnt the main focus in the set" - well, when there is a DRAGON in the set, make it the focus! Its a sales argument.

In my honest opinion, TLG is missing out on quite a lot of basic moulds, to get a cool system dragon done easily. Just check some wedge parts on that chinese GoT thing. I wish TLG offered these. Would it hurt so bad to release a few more spike, scales, teeth, claws, wings elements? It seems they should...


 

[Vindicare]

13 hours ago, Mylenium said:

I haven't bought that many, either. I usually just browse through the digital instructions and then make up my mind whether it's worth it (and if I can afford it). The green dragon is easily the best of them, though I still wish it was only half as complex as the actual dragon in the movie..

Mylenium

That, again, boils down(I imagine) to the wave as a whole. They chose to lessen that(and the Water Strider) a lot. I certainly wish there was more to the dragon, it was originally the only mech from the movie I planned on getting...but ended up getting almost the entire theme. Looking at what the movie version was it’s a bit of a disappointment. But that kinda goes to all of them. 

[TeriXeri]

Well, there is one big chance for LEGO Dragons fairly soon (June?)

The upcoming Skull Sorcerer Dragon set is listed at €79.99 Germany price, so that should be a larger set then the Firstbourne, which was €69.99 in Germany , and it had 882 pieces, 6 minifigures.

Since the Dragon is seperate from the Dungeon, I do hope the dragon is the main focus and by far the largest build of the set.

 

Edited February 25, 2020 by TeriXeri

[AmperZand]

On 2/17/2020 at 7:21 AM, Medzomorak said:

True, I did not mention Ninjago dragons. Most of them are actually pretty great indeed. My only concern that the whole Ninjago design concept includes a lot of mecha/robotic, modern weaponry vibe to the builds so I can't really say which one should they be, beasts or robots. So they're a bit off, but only from a fantasy point of view.

Sure, the Ninjago dragons are mechs but some are easily modded to represent actual dragons. Here is my mod. Not very much required to make it look organic.

On 2/17/2020 at 10:37 AM, Peppermint_M said:

Point 1 - A Dragon has 7 limbs (Wings, tail and 4 legs) a Wyvern has 5 (Wings, tail, two legs) so it is not a dragon at all! A lot of literature is guilty of messing this up! #seriousbusiness()

I belong to the camp that believes that euro-centric dragons have 2 hind legs, 2 forelegs (or arms) and 2 wings, but that is not a depiction that has always been true historically. Tolkien and Gygax (the co-creator of Dungeons & Dragons) had 2+2+2 dragons and the latter had wyverns as having 2 hind legs and 2 wings which is probably where the modern concept comes from. But if you go back to earlier texts, iconography and heraldry, occidental dragons were sometimes portrayed without forelimbs or even as giant serpents with no limbs or wings at all. So Peter Jackson's portrayal of Smaug in the Hobbit movies as a 2+2 beast, while untrue to Tolkien, is a legitimate representation of a dragon.

On 2/17/2020 at 11:51 AM, Medzomorak said:

The Harry Potter horntail is still nothing like the one we saw in the movie. It would be great as some kind of general giant bird (with feathered wings), but for a horntail, it is a lazy design. I wouldn't even say it looks bad as a Lego build, only it is not what it should represent. For an unnamed castle or creator set I'd even like it.
 

While I am a big fan of fantasy, I am not keen on HP/WW. For me, the latest horntail looks much like a Warhammer-like wyvern and that is how I treat my slightly modded one:

On 2/17/2020 at 10:00 PM, Lyichir said:

In my opinion the molded head of that Mega dragon looks awful. The standard of detail is so completely different from the entire rest of the build that it looks like someone chopped the head of a completely different action figure off and put it on a blocky dragon body. At least Lego's molded heads tend to match the standard of detail of their models more (with simple shapes, patterns, and textures).

Completely agree. I considered getting the GoT Mega dragon but the aesthetic of the head and the rest of the dragon is entirely disjoint and I decided not to partly for that reason. Also, after seeing Jang's Youtube review, I felt that the dragon's joints are too small in relation to its musculature creating a 'blocky' or 'chuncked' effect that I do not care for.

My favourite LEGO dragons are the Fantasy Era ones, though I also like and have in my display collection the small, moulded ones from the '90s, one of the Vikings dragons and a couple of Ninjago ones that I modded. I also have Smaug and intend to add it to my display collection when I eventually get round to opening my Lonely Mountain box. 

Overall, I do not think that LEGO is dropping the ball in its dragon designs though I would prefer more moulded dragons, not just moulded heads.

Edited March 3, 2020 by AmperZand

[sammy_zammy]

Sorry to bring up an old topic from the depths but I was browsing and thought I'd say something.

What about the Creator dragons?

The newer smaller ones seem to nail good dragon designs without going too large or too many pieces or too expensive. Only downside is that Lego'd forgotten dragons don't have to be red (although I like the blue wings on the new one).

2020, 234 pieces, $20:

2018, 223 pieces, $15:

2014, 221 pieces, $15:

 

Then there's two older sets, which were 3 in 1s and 8 in 1s, both of which had two slightly larger dragon builds that look really cool - but again, without a huge piece count or price:

2009, 479 pieces, $40:

2007, 588 pieces (with lots left over as you can build 2 smaller models at the same time), $30:

 

All these dragons are fantastic in my opinion. And there's a wide variety of types of dragon, especially in the older larger sets. I feel they could've upped the part count of say the HP dragon by a little to be on par with the new smaller sets (which may not increase the price too much since these are largely brick-built) and we'd have a fantastic dragon in a new style in a new colour.

Lego clearly know how to do dragons.

[Lego David]

8 hours ago, sammy_zammy said:

Sorry to bring up an old topic from the depths but I was browsing and thought I'd say something.

What about the Creator dragons?

The newer smaller ones seem to nail good dragon designs without going too large or too many pieces or too expensive. Only downside is that Lego'd forgotten dragons don't have to be red (although I like the blue wings on the new one).

2020, 234 pieces, $20:

2018, 223 pieces, $15:

2014, 221 pieces, $15:

Then there's two older sets, which were 3 in 1s and 8 in 1s, both of which had two slightly larger dragon builds that look really cool - but again, without a huge piece count or price:

2009, 479 pieces, $40:

2007, 588 pieces (with lots left over as you can build 2 smaller models at the same time), $30:

All these dragons are fantastic in my opinion. And there's a wide variety of types of dragon, especially in the older larger sets. I feel they could've upped the part count of say the HP dragon by a little to be on par with the new smaller sets (which may not increase the price too much since these are largely brick-built) and we'd have a fantastic dragon in a new style in a new colour.

Lego clearly know how to do dragons.

Is it just me or those Creator Dragons got worse and worse as time went on? The 2007 and 2009 versions look fantastic, while the more recent ones don't look as good in my opinion (the 2020 one being my least favorite).

Edited May 8, 2020 by Peppermint_M
Please don't quote pictures.

[sammy_zammy]

2 hours ago, Lego David said:

Is it just me or those Creator Dragons got worse and worse as time went on? The 2007 and 2009 versions look fantastic, while the more recent ones don't look as good in my opinion (the 2020 one being my least favorite).

I strongly disagree. For a start the 2007/9 ones have 2 times the number of pieces so can be a lot more detailed so it’s a bit unfair to compare them. But to me all of them just look like dragons, of varying types, with the most recent ones being smaller versions of the older ones... maybe the 2018 one isn’t so good because it doesn’t look quite as menacing? Imo they’re all equally great.

Edited May 8, 2020 by sammy_zammy

[TeriXeri]

This looks great for a €20 Dragon

 

 

And this is just amazing , it is a skeleton dragon but still very large, possibly one of the largest set dragons ever made.

 

Edited May 8, 2020 by TeriXeri

[AmperZand]

@TeriXeri, I respect your opinion, but I'm not crazy about the forthcoming Ninjago dragons. Sensei Wu's dragon has a head that is too small and blocky, and limbs that are too chunky. The skeleton one, the Skull Sorcerer's Dragon, has a head, forelimbs, hind limbs and tail that look too much like white musculature, not like bones as they are supposed to be.

[Wardancer]

Like most of you I love dragons. That is why I gave arms to Smaug. I case you ever wondered how he looks with arms.

[AmperZand]

On 5/9/2020 at 1:46 PM, Wardancer said:

Like most of you I love dragons. That is why I gave arms to Smaug. I case you ever wondered how he looks with arms.

Could Smaug be the best dragon LEGO has ever done? I haven’t taken mine out of the box yet, but when I do, I’m planning on giving him arms, too. I already have the spare dragon forelimbs and will attach them with Blu Tack so I can position them. If I change my mind, it will allow me to remove them.

[Vindicare]

On 5/8/2020 at 3:14 AM, TeriXeri said:

This looks great for a €20 Dragon 

 

And this is just amazing , it is a skeleton dragon but still very large, possibly one of the largest set dragons ever made.

 

I agree. For a small, cheap set that dragon looks very well done. And the bigger one is really impressive. I imagine they couldn’t make it quite a s skeletal as it should be in order to make sure it stays together throughout play. 

I got three dragons semi recently, Castle of the Forsaken Emperor. The think it’s a great dragon. Has a cool look & feels pretty fearsome. 

And the two from the Digi wave. For a $30 dragon the Empire one is excellent. And Jay’s is equally great. I love the departure from the organic dragons & think both of them hit the mark. 

[Aanchir]

On 2/18/2020 at 3:07 AM, Mylenium said:

Let me correct that: Some of them are. Though actually it looks like they're really getting worse and worse due to LEGO trying to trim them down more and more and use less pieces.

I don't think it's fair to treat that as any sort of trend. Ninjago dragons have ALWAYS covered a range of different sizes and levels of detail/intricacy. And when two of the biggest and most elaborate Ninjago dragons (Firstbourne and the Ultra Dragon) have come out in just the past three years, it seems a bit excessive to worry the quality is on a steady decline just because a few of the dragons since have been less remarkable.

I think price point considerations also partly account for a lot of the discontent regarding the Horntail, Basilisk, etc. A lot of the time, the highest price points in a particular wave are relegated to stuff that couldn't possibly be represented at lower price points — location-focused builds and so forth. If LEGO had wanted to make the Basilisk or Horntail bigger, they might have had to wait for a wave when the higher price points weren't already being devoted to other scenes — and bear in mind, there's rarely a guarantee that a licensed theme will GET additional waves if buyers aren't excited enough for the current lineup!

On 2/17/2020 at 4:45 AM, Medzomorak said:

I don't see how the horntail is not the main focus of the set, or why a brick built dragon shouldn't ever be.

I haven't really noticed these elven dragons, that's my bad. I don't really like them being four legged, I'm more like a wyvern concept fan, but these are well built in their own league, I agree.

Regarding the "are wyverns a kind of dragon" debate, I think some medieval people might have considered them such, depending on who you asked — they were hardly applying any scientific standard of taxonomy to their monster myths and legends at that point in time.

But sidestepping that, I also think I ought to point out that at least one Elves dragon — Ashwing from 41183 — was wyvern style, and also a lot more aggressive in its design than the more peaceful dragons that appeared in other sets.

On 2/19/2020 at 9:45 AM, Medzomorak said:

This is not about scale, this is about design authenticity. You are implying the root cause again in piece number. For that argument I had my answers above (Drogon already starting as a ~1600 piece build).

Design authenticity can be a fair concern with stuff like the Horntail that's modeled on existing IPs. But when it comes to non-licensed sets, I think that these types of debates can quickly get mired in subjective nitpicking. Historical portrayals of dragons could vary tremendously, to say nothing of subsequent pop culture portrayals that have further shaped our perception. Many modern on-screen portrayals of dragons in movies like "Harry Potter", "The Hobbit", and "Game of Thrones" are probably FAR from how medieval people might have imagined them, in part because the design choices for these dragons are informed by cultural exposure to sciences medieval people had far more limited awareness of — stuff like paleontology, aeronautics, physics, marine biology, optics, etc.

Also, when building an articulated creature, just raising the size and piece count indefinitely usually isn't going to be an option. I'm not sure if you've ever tried custom designing creatures at that scale, but most LEGO hinges can only support a limited amount of weight or force. And while there are options for adding more friction to support more weight (doubling up the hinge pieces, adding pistons or gears, using the rubber CCBS friction connectors, etc), it doesn't take too much of this for the amount of force to rotate a joint to become greater than the amount that will literally pull the pieces apart from one another! Mark Stafford has spoken about this on Reddit, but I don't have the patience right now to dig up a link for you. Suffice to say, there's a genuine reason for the oft-criticized lack of knees or ankles on many larger LEGO mechs and creatures.

Even from a biological standpoint, a bipedal body plan is only viable for a lot of creatures (including us!) because we can intuitively adjust our balance using our muscles if we begin to teeter this way or that. An inanimate object like a LEGO model doesn't have that ability, and I've found my own efforts at building particularly large models stymied by the pull of gravity on various occasions!

None of this is to say that what you're proposing is impossible. In my opinion, LEGO has been raising the bar in tremendous ways with many of their recent character and creature builds (though it sounds like you've been less impressed with those efforts). But like pretty much ANY dream project or proposal, it's FAR easier said than done. Even with the Mega Construx dragon you shared, it's hard to know just from a picture whether it has other drawbacks (like hinges that fail to withstand the test of time, or poor balance, or inconsistent friction and clutch power) that might not be fully visible from a still image, particularly one that appears to be CGI.

On 2/19/2020 at 6:33 PM, Ron Dayes said:

Whilst many good points were given in this discussion why not to compare a 700 part set to a 130 part set (or whatever), the true question is: What the hell are the TLG designers doing lately to dragon designs?

Given the perennial popularity of dragon sets in themes like Ninjago and Elves, I'd say what they've been doing lately is "an outstanding job". It's important to recognize that while screen accuracy is something people can generally reach a consensus about, most other aspects of set design are vastly more subjective.

For every LEGO fan who thinks brick-built creatures look too blocky and inauthentic, there's a LEGO fan who thinks molded creatures look too "Playmobil-ish" and not true enough to the LEGO brand's core values. For every fan who loves elaborate printed detail, there's one who feels like it's too far removed from the open-ended minimalism epitomized by the classic minifigure. For every fan who is excited to see LEGO show just how scary and intense they're willing to go, there are fans complaining that LEGO has already ventured too far from the friendly, wholesome, and nonviolent ideals that were such a major selling point for LEGO sets in the 70s and 80s, back when many other toy companies were dialing up the dark or violent imagery in their own toys to outrageous extremes.

The horntail in the Harry Potter sets definitely isn't perfect, but even just in terms of screen accuracy, I feel I should point out that the mouth of the Horntail design from the movies DOES taper to a point like that of an eagle or snapping turtle. I feel like the recent set incarnation is FAR more accurate to that design than the previous one, not just in terms of the head shape, but also the rough skin, the mottled colors, and the way the designers opted for smaller, straighter, more numerous "horns" over just a few huge curved ones.

Suffice to say, I fully expect LEGO to continue to improve their creature designs, perhaps even implementing some of the ideas that have been suggested in this thread. But even so, I don't feel like their recent track record is cause for alarm.