10305 Lion Knights' Castle 90th anniversary set

[jodawill]

31 minutes ago, RichardGoring said:

I totally get it. FWIW, I will buy it, and I will let my daughters play with it. They like female characters in things, so they'll enjoy it and won't see any issue.

More broadly, think about it from LEGO's perspective. Those people that don't like the idea and want historical accuracy will kick up a small fuss (and that's fine), but then buy the set anyway and swap the heads, which is easy to do. Very, very, very few people are going to not buy the set because of this. However, more general sites like The Verge, IGN, and bizarrely, Business Insider, who also picked up the story of this, showcase the set to a much broader audience. Some of them might be interested in castles and could well be tipped into getting it for the idea of a group of female knights. LEGO needs to cater to both AFOLs and getting in new high-spending customers with this kind of set. The Ferrari SP3 Daytona is another example. Beautiful model, but not really very good as a Technic set. But you can bet that quite a few people will buy it who have never bought a LEGO set before.

So it has the potential to generate good publicity and have people consider buying it. There's very little negative (to LEGO as a company) from doing it.

Here's another perspective which I hadn't considered before. There's been a lot of talk about labeling boxes as 18+ to give adults "permission" to buy a Lego set, to make them feel like it's made for them and not children. You could look at this the same way. Nearly everyone in this thread is a man, probably mostly 30-50 years old. We already feel like this was made for us. We've been asking for this for literally decades, and it's finally here. It's our big moment. But castle was never aimed at girls in the past. This is the first time they've attempted to target that audience. You could say that just by putting female heads on half the soldiers, they're giving women "permission" to buy the set. If this set was yet another sausage fest, I imagine most women (even if they're already AFOLs) would probably look at it and think that's just for men. This invites them to participate.

When looking at it in these terms, I 100% back the idea (as long as the torsos aren't feminine). There's really only been one half decent wave of castle sets since the '90s. We can't allow this theme to die out. If Lego can expand the consumer base of the castle theme by making it more inviting to women, this is good for all of us.

The only real complaint I have about the head swapping thing is that this is a really nice box, probably the only one I'll ever keep on display in my home. But if having female soldiers increases the chances of getting more sets like this, that's ok.

[Black Feather]

That whole issue was never worth more than an eye roll to me.  I don’t think a statistically important number of people are going to buy or not buy the set based on the heads.  If they kept everything the same and used blank yellow heads for everyone I would have thought that was weird, and then bought the set.  I would gladly have all female heads if they would just give us another forestman torso or the double axe torso.

[Rattlebricks]

1 hour ago, jodawill said:

Here's another perspective which I hadn't considered before. There's been a lot of talk about labeling boxes as 18+ to give adults "permission" to buy a Lego set, to make them feel like it's made for them and not children. You could look at this the same way. Nearly everyone in this thread is a man, probably mostly 30-50 years old. We already feel like this was made for us. We've been asking for this for literally decades, and it's finally here. It's our big moment. But castle was never aimed at girls in the past. This is the first time they've attempted to target that audience. You could say that just by putting female heads on half the soldiers, they're giving women "permission" to buy the set. If this set was yet another sausage fest, I imagine most women (even if they're already AFOLs) would probably look at it and think that's just for men. This invites them to participate.

When looking at it in these terms, I 100% back the idea (as long as the torsos aren't feminine). There's really only been one half decent wave of castle sets since the '90s. We can't allow this theme to die out. If Lego can expand the consumer base of the castle theme by making it more inviting to women, this is good for all of us.

The only real complaint I have about the head swapping thing is that this is a really nice box, probably the only one I'll ever keep on display in my home. But if having female soldiers increases the chances of getting more sets like this, that's ok.

...and they can actually gives us King and queen instead of just queen. Off course they didnt, it just the queen. Saying we can easily swap the head is just an excuse , because if they give us a pirate torso in Castle sets we should be ok too because they can use that "just swap the torso" excuse? 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Rattlebricks

[Roebuck]

4 hours ago, Mandalorianknight said:

 Plus, how many children are you expecting to buy this set?

I am sure quite a few kids will get this as a gift, to a lot of people today 400$ are not a lot to spend on a gift for a kid

This was definitely not the case when I was a kid (maybe one of the reasons I buy Lego today since I can buy the big sets we could not afford when I was young).

Best regards

Grumpy old man

[Hive]

8 hours ago, Rattlebricks said:

...and they can actually gives us King and queen instead of just queen. Off course they didnt, it just the queen. Saying we can easily swap the head is just an excuse , because if they give us a pirate torso in Castle sets we should be ok too because they can use that "just swap the torso" excuse? 

Well how often have we gotten only a King? I don't recall anyone making much of a fuss over that, any of the times it happened.

Would it have been nice to have a King, a Prince, a Princess, a jester, more civilians, more animals, etc...? Yes, for sure. Do we *need* them? Not really. As previously mentioned, there are plenty of valid reasons why a King is not necessarily present in the set - also when looking through historical lenses.

[dimc]

2 hours ago, Hive said:

Well how often have we gotten only a King? I don't recall anyone making much of a fuss over that, any of the times it happened.

Would it have been nice to have a King, a Prince, a Princess, a jester, more civilians, more animals, etc...? Yes, for sure. Do we *need* them? Not really. As previously mentioned, there are plenty of valid reasons why a King is not necessarily present in the set - also when looking through historical lenses.

I like how King's Mountain Fortress has...a princess or lady or whatever she is. No king in sight.

[Blazej_Holen]

7 minutes ago, dimc said:

I like how King's Mountain Fortress has...a princess or lady or whatever she is. No king in sight.

And thats the beauty of it… none of those castles of old includes a specific king figure… Black monarch castle, Black knights castle, Lion kings castle or That Black Falcon fortress… its always some knight with a small cape or a plume in different colour. And thats it. The rest is on our imagination… I remember that back in early 90´s I always made my own Castle lord or a king. Usually it was the best of my knights, in full armour, on horse with barding and a big flag on spear… Personally I didnt like that chrome crown piece from 1995 Royal Knights theme. It was weird for me. Like a crown and helmet in once but weird… :) Now there is enough pieces on market that enyone can make his or hers own king or lady or whatever :) 

Edited July 20, 2022 by Blazej_Holen

[dimc]

21 minutes ago, Blazej_Holen said:

And thats the beauty of it… none of those castles of old includes a specific king figure… Black monarch castle, Black knights castle, Lion kings castle or That Black Falcon fortress… its always some knight with a small cape or a plume in different colour. And thats it. The rest is on our imagination… I remember that back in early 90´s I always made my own Castle lord or a king. Usually it was the best of my knights, in full armour, on horse with barding and a big flag on spear… Personally I didnt like that chrome crown piece from 1995 Royal Knights theme. It was weird for me. Like a crown and helmet in once but weird… :) Now there is enough pieces on market that enyone can make his or hers own king or lady or whatever :) 

At some point I acquired a handful of parts from 10223 Kingdoms Joust, including the queen's body and face and the king's crown, plus the princess and nobleman. With a little from the collection, I made the queen a scepter with a jewel and now it's Queen's Mountain Fortress with the original lady and the Joust princess. Plus the Joust Lion barding works well, so I added that as another mounted knight.

[MAB]

On 7/19/2022 at 12:51 PM, Poco Lypso said:

Female knights is part of the design.  Imagine: Lego brings out a set with mermaids, but the 'mermaids' have male torsos, thats simply a design choice. Some people will like it, while others may not and some people will say you can easily replace them torsos if need be. 

That wouldn't be a set with mermaids though, it would be a set with merpeople and the male ones would be mermen. Otherwise it is like saying a figure is a 'policeman' with a female torso. Far better to use the term policewoman or the unspecific "set with police officers" where there is a mixture of genders .

12 hours ago, jodawill said:

But castle was never aimed at girls in the past. This is the first time they've attempted to target that audience. You could say that just by putting female heads on half the soldiers, they're giving women "permission" to buy the set. If this set was yet another sausage fest, I imagine most women (even if they're already AFOLs) would probably look at it and think that's just for men. This invites them to participate.

The original castle sets should have been fine then, as there were no male or female heads, just generic smileys. Unless the person assumed all the soldiers/knights were male based on their roles. The female characters had the same faces as males, so if anyone wanted to believe that the some or all soldiers were female, there was no barrier there. It was only when they went from this to this

that genders were more heavily suggested.

Edited July 20, 2022 by MAB

[Aanchir]

3 hours ago, Hive said:

Well how often have we gotten only a King? I don't recall anyone making much of a fuss over that, any of the times it happened.

Would it have been nice to have a King, a Prince, a Princess, a jester, more civilians, more animals, etc...? Yes, for sure. Do we *need* them? Not really. As previously mentioned, there are plenty of valid reasons why a King is not necessarily present in the set - also when looking through historical lenses.

Yeah, I think the designers most likely opted for a queen/lady instead of a king/lord was mostly because it was a way of keeping things fresh and different, even in a set as heavily nostalgia-influenced as this one. It's not as though they're somehow trying to insult/punish men or insinuate that "only women are fit to rule" or anything weird or petty like that.

1 hour ago, MAB said:

The original castle sets should have been fine then, as there were no male or female heads, just generic smileys. Unless the person assumed all the soldiers/knights were male based on their roles. The female characters had the same faces as males, so if anyone wanted to believe that the some or all soldiers were female, there was no barrier there. It was only when they went from this to this that genders were more heavily suggested.

I think the original Castle sets arguably left girls in the lurch in other ways. As you mentioned, a lot of the figures' roles were definitely ones people would primarily associate with men, which was surely reinforced by some countries' set names and descriptions referring to them using gendered terms like "Men-at-arms" or "Forestmen".

But beyond that, the set designs were also heavily geared towards the sort of "action play" that boys tended to enjoy, and that was typical of "boys' toys" from other brands. "Dollhouse" style play features like bedrooms, dining rooms, gardens, and even horse stables were scarce (the Guarded Inn was the main set with any of that sort of stuff in those early years of LEGO Castle). In fact, many early LEGO castle sets were largely devoid of interior furnishings aside from dungeons and places to store weapons!

Obviously, girls can enjoy battles and jousts and other "action play" scenarios just fine if that's what they're drawn to. But overwhelmingly focusing on the sorts of features that people tend to think of as "boyish" over ones that people tend to think of as "girly" is hardly a neutral stance. Because usually, that means prioritizing the tastes of boys who would feel alienated by features they think of as "girly" or "dollhouse-like" over the tastes of girls who genuinely enjoy those same features.

This article from the Atlantic about the development of LEGO Friends even used LEGO Castle as an example of where traditional LEGO themes had been failing girls:

Quote

To see how boys and girls play, you just have to watch them do their thing. That’s what Lego did over the course of its research in past decade. For one project, Lego gathered a group of boys and asked them to build a Lego castle together. Separately, they gave the same task to the group of girls. Both groups worked together to build the castle, but once it was assembled, there were stark differences in how the two groups proceeded.

“The boys immediately grabbed the figures and the horses and the catapults and they started having a battle,” McNally said. “The facilitator said, ‘What about the castle?’ And they said, ‘Well, that’s just the backdrop for the battle.’”

The girls, on the other hand, were more focused on the structure—and not too impressed with what they found. “They all looked around inside the castle and they said, ‘Well, there’s nothing inside,’” McNally said. “This idea of interior versus exterior in the orientation of how they would then play with what they built was really interesting. If you think about most of the Lego models that people consider to be meant for boys, there’s not a whole lot going on in there. But [the girls had] this idea of, ‘There’s nothing inside to do.’”

“Both girls and boys were saying they liked building, but there were nuances in what they were looking for,” he added. “We heard girls overwhelming saying we would much rather build environments than single structures. They were really just looking for a lot more detail than we were offering.”

Again, I'm not saying any of this is biologically innate, or that there are no girls who'd jump just as eagerly into the same sort of combat play as the boys in those research sessions. But when a child grows up with plenty of opportunities to play with dollhouse-type toys, as many girls do, it goes without saying that it will influence their expectations of what features a toy playset needs in order to offer a truly complete play experience. They learn to take notice when a toy house or castle doesn't have places for its inhabitants to eat and sleep, or lives to return to at the end of the day when their work is done or their battle is won.

Of course, adult-targeted sets like this one, Medieval Market Village, and the Modular Buildings have a much better track record for balancing these sorts of details than traditional Town or Castle sets. I figure that's partly because by adulthood, a lot of our tastes and expectations have become more complex, regardless of gender. We expect enough details to make these models feel authentic, not just enough to keep us busy during "playtime".

But it makes me happy that even KFOL-oriented themes like City and Creator have gotten better over the years at balancing some of these sorts of features. And I hope that whenever LEGO decides they're ready for another dedicated KFOL-targeted medieval/fantasy theme, the same will be true there!

[dimc]

I'm definitely one of the kids who wanted more interior stuff. Life was more than just battles! Also, as a child, it frustrated me a lot how there was never any way to get around in many buildings. No steps, ladders, doorways. I spent a lot of time making horribly mismatched color structural additions to make them more realistic. This is one area that has gotten so much better over the years. Even in the modulars theme, they added this over the years and I am so here for it.

Edited July 20, 2022 by dimc

[jodawill]

I wonder if I'm in the minority among AFOLs. I actually prefer to not have interior designs. I love castles that are all about the walls and towers with no internal detail. I don't sit and play dolls with my minifigures. I arrange them in action shots, defending the fort and so on. Fort Legoredo and Sheriff's Lockup had some interior details, but the reason I liked those is because the interiors have play features. The sheriff has a primitive rocking chair, there's a place to stash gold under his desk, and there's a safe for the bandits to try to steal. Fort Legoredo had that amazing trap door feature with the guys playing cards, as well as the hiding spot inside the fireplace. To me, this is the perfect level of detail for a Lego set. I'm not bothered by more detail, but for my personal taste, something like 10305 borders on overkill. I'll build this castle from the instructions when I get it, but I'm sure I will very quickly take it apart and build my own castle with no interior details, recreating the style of the Black Knights castles - build some siege weapons, load it up with soldiers. That's my style.

You can see the shift in emphasis in Lego sets in the variety of parts available. In the '90s, for example, we had almost no food pieces at all. We had pizza, cups, a skillet, and a pot, and that's about it. Looking back in the '80s, and there's pretty much nothing. Lego wasn't meant to compete with dollhouse style sets. There's nothing wrong with that style of toy. But if that's what you're looking for, Playmobil has historically done a much better job filling that role.

As a parent, it's nice to have toys that appeal to both girls and boys so they can share and play together. Girls love pink princess castles, which are a huge turnoff to most boys. But you can take something like the Playmobil 3666 castle and fill it with both male and female klickies. You can get both siege weapons and dollhouse type accessories, like banquet scenes and so forth, and the kids can play together. 10305 is a great example of that type of gender neutral toy, although it's not the price range (or piece count, for that matter) I'd look at for kids.

[SirBlake]

25 minutes ago, jodawill said:

I wonder if I'm in the minority among AFOLs. I actually prefer to not have interior designs.

I think it's safe to say that yes, you are in the minority on that one. With a big collection of original 80's/90's castles, obviously it's not a deal breaker for me, but detailed interiors are one of my favorite aspects of contemporary Lego sets, and I think most would agree with that. 

Put another way, if this new castle lacked interior detail, the majority of people would lose their damn minds.

[Poco Lypso]

6 hours ago, MAB said:

That wouldn't be a set with mermaids though, it would be a set with merpeople and the male ones would be mermen. Otherwise it is like saying a figure is a 'policeman' with a female torso. Far better to use the term policewoman or the unspecific "set with police officers" where there is a mixture of genders .

The original castle sets should have been fine then, as there were no male or female heads, just generic smileys. Unless the person assumed all the soldiers/knights were male based on their roles. The female characters had the same faces as males, so if anyone wanted to believe that the some or all soldiers were female, there was no barrier there. It was only when they went from this to this

that genders were more heavily suggested.

Yeah, bad example, my bad. 

 

17 hours ago, Rattlebricks said:

...and they can actually gives us King and queen instead of just queen. Off course they didnt, it just the queen. Saying we can easily swap the head is just an excuse , because if they give us a pirate torso in Castle sets we should be ok too because they can use that "just swap the torso" excuse? 

Thats actually hilarious. Had to think about that lackluster majisto fig, just swap for the BAM magician, haha. 

 

[rebelpilot]

9 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Yeah, I think the designers most likely opted for a queen/lady instead of a king/lord was mostly because it was a way of keeping things fresh......

I registered on EB to say I've really liked your posts and contributions to this topic, so thank you.

On 7/6/2022 at 5:35 AM, Aanchir said:

Also, in many countries such as Denmark, the term "Lion Knights" (or the equivalent in the local language) was used much more prominently in set names and marketing than in the US set names that have been adopted as the norm by most online reference catalogs like Brickset and BrickLink these days. Mind you, it was not used as universally/consistently as the term "Forestmen" in the US names of sets based on that faction. Even so, to give some examples, both 6080 King's Castle and 6081 King's Mountain Fortress were named "Løveriddernes Borg" (Lion Knights' Castle) in many Danish catalogs — the same as the name this new set has in Denmark.

So perhaps LEGO felt that specifically including the name of this classic faction in the name of the set would boost its throwback appeal for AFOLs in many of the European countries that have been most vocal about wanting new Castle sets — without requiring them to change the name completely from one country to the next like they often did in the old pre-Internet days.

The U.S set names and factions are generally the accepted nomenclature for Castle but I'm now fascinated by the idea 
of Danish sets names and their translations. Do you have a link or resource that identifies the Danish
names, brickset doesn't seem to have Danish catalogues from that period?

I may just consider them now as gospel as Denmark is where they were designed.

Edited July 21, 2022 by rebelpilot

[Roebuck]

The main reason people keep nagging for a king is the false rumor of the set name; Lion King’s Castle. Had the proper name; Lion Knights' Castle leaked instead, most people would not expect any monarch at all and the queen would be a bonus. Now instead it seems that some people think that the king was swapped with the queen in the last minute and feel cheated.
There was no budget for a king, just look at the wizard to see the budget was used up on these parts:


Probably used the budget from this set for the forestmen shield and torso also. The 3 minifig heads I would not be surprised if came in other sets since it make little sense in using budget on them here. Is not the middle one from the CMF bard, if so all the parts for it is in the set(a excellent way to use the CMF budget to make this set better then)?

Edit the CMF bards legs and feather plume is not used in the set I think

Edited July 21, 2022 by Roebuck

[Merlo]

On 7/19/2022 at 10:41 AM, Agent Kallus said:

Lego model design peaked in 1992?

Relatively, not absolutely. That is to say 1992 Lego wouldn't be all that great in 2022. But 1992 Lego was much better in 1992 than 2022 Lego is in 2022. Back then Lego was pretty close to checking all the boxes on what you can do with Lego given the limitations. Nowadays they're nowhere near. Not only are they not pushing the envelope, they're kinda sitting on their laurels and going with "this is fine" approach.

[Sir Dano]

Spoiler

Man, the more I see those new bardings the less I like them. Would it have killed them to reverse the lions on the right side so they faced the front on both sides?

[Merlo]

On 7/19/2022 at 12:38 PM, LegoJakob said:

I wonder how you make such assumptions.

I don't like the madewithbrix design, Loewenstein and Bluebrixx castle designs.
They all may have some merits, but they don't manage to blend the world of minifigures with the impression of thick castle stone walls well enough.

10305 on the other hand I like, it's in my eyes a modern take on the art style you called "design peak of 1992".

That comment wasn't aimed at you personally, it's just my general experience that holds the same across all the Lego forums I'm a member of.
Lego is that first, iconic thing, and therefore just by being Lego it has unsurpassed additional value.

That phenomenon is really universal and not tied to Lego specifically.
Say... like Fender with guitars. If you have a vintage Fender and I have an equally good guitar of lesser known manufacturer, then yours is automatically much better. And if my guitar is much better, then they're in fact both good. It's that kind of attitude.

I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence.
10305 from memory reminds me most of 1984's 6080.
6080 didn't have much of a design by itself but it was superb in contrast with the colors of the flags and minifigures, where each colorful element was roughly of the same size and had a really playful thing going with different color combos on knights and horses, etc.
So great color composition, very plain design.

But what 6080 did have is that it was really adorable with it's blocky style and was wonderful for letting your imagination go wild by rebuilding what you wanted with those big elements.
Now look at 10305 with its huge flags and smooth surfaces.
It's certainly something (as a castle of that size), but it's not cute and blocky and neither is it something you could even remotely easily rebuild and play with regularly.
So I have to think of it as a display model. And as a display model it's just ok. The ugly grey rocks that are not even BURP's so there's no excuse, the huge green circular elements...
Like I said before, none of it is *bad* or anything. It's just "this is fine". If I did it, I'd be shoving it down everyone's throat. But from Lego I expect more. And for something costing 400 euros I also expect more.
You have only so many bricks at your disposal? That's more than enough to wow me several times over if you really put in the effort.

Edited July 21, 2022 by Merlo
lousy grammar

[Hive]

2 hours ago, Roebuck said:

 

Thanks for that image, I hadn't even realized that there were two different Lion Knight torsos in the set.

[Merlo]

On 7/19/2022 at 9:57 PM, Aanchir said:

In other words, it's not that the designers put less time and effort into its design than the sort of castles you favor, but that they put their efforts towards emulating a different style of castle entirely! And rather than being uninspired, it wears its inspirations and influences on its sleeves — they simply aren't the more decorative sorts of inspirations and influences that you've shown a preference for.

Make no mistake, I myself often prefer Gothic-inspired castles with elaborate shapes and textures and contrasting colors a lot of the time! After all, LEGO Elves remains one of my all-time favorite themes, and its sets take heavy influence from both Gothic/late medieval architecture and from all sorts of "fairy-tale"/"storybook" castles. But I also appreciate the authenticity and commitment to detail in this new castle, even if it's far from the sort of castles that I would usually rather design in my own free time.

Those are all great points you made. However, I do in fact prefer the 10305 style of castle over the more ornate styles. The style of 10305 is easily more appealing to me than the style of Madewithbrix castle, I just find the latter better executed. Lego has a lot of sets that I feel are "really great, but not my thing". Lego doesn't really have a lot of "my thing" (Castle/Pirates/Space) so when the little that shows up goes into mediocre efforts I cannot help and feel disappointed.

I feel historical accuracy is a value onto itself. If Lego made a historically accurate castle, or say replicas of actual existing castles... I think that would be amazing. I'd buy that any day of the week, no matter how gray or boring. Like Architecture, small format, but with real castles. Where do I sign up for that?

But I don't feel historical accuracy is at the forefront of their minds when designing sets. In fact, it's possible to take anything at all and do "that, but fun". It doesn't have to be crazy, ornate, fantasy or over the top to just be a fun take on something.
It does, however, require a little bit of imagination and adherence to some proven design principles.

Right now it feels a little bit like "oh, it's crazy and colorful and full of minifigures and features and action and it's like a big dollhouse and we have female knights and all sort of wacky things, but it's also grey and boring because it's historically accurate".
 

[Roebuck]

17 minutes ago, Hive said:

Thanks for that image, I hadn't even realized that there were two different Lion Knight torsos in the set.

Thank:
https://www.newelementary.com/2022/07/lego-icons-parts-review-10305-lion.html

They focus on new parts, prints etc so worth following them for news

[unclejeffie]

Next challenge: how to expand the castle using only pieces from the blacksmith or 3-1 set

[GeoBrick]

Why limit yourself to pieces from those sets only? PAB exists for a reason!

[MAB]

15 hours ago, jodawill said:

I wonder if I'm in the minority among AFOLs. I actually prefer to not have interior designs. I love castles that are all about the walls and towers with no internal detail. I don't sit and play dolls with my minifigures. I arrange them in action shots, defending the fort and so on. Fort Legoredo and Sheriff's Lockup had some interior details, but the reason I liked those is because the interiors have play features. 

I don't think you have to play with figures like dolls to enjoy interior detail.  You can also pose figures inside a castle (or any building) to make it come alive. It just depends what side you want to display, the inside or outside.