Tired of licensed sets

[Fallenangel]

Yes your right everything comes from something, but licensed themes are more specific and classic Lego themes more generic. They are not equally generic. Generic themes leave more to the child's imagination. Licensed themes leave less. Although looking at the current crop of Star Wars clone wars ships it looks like a space ship and a bunch of alien's to me since I'm not familiar with that series, so yah their looking more generic nowadays like you said. Who the heck is Ko Ploon and Cad Bane anyway?

Plo Koon and Cad Bane are two of many, many characters which have nothing to do with the Original Trilogy but were nonetheless created and integrated into the Star Wars universe. (A Jedi and a bounty hunter, respectively.) No explanation is necessary because the target audience (kids who watch THE Clone Wars) will recognize them.

Over the years, the franchise has expanded to include time travel, zombies, hot chocolate, and many other things that wouldn't strike most people as Star Wars. As far as source material goes, I would even go so far as to say it's more generic than City. Technically, The LEGO Group could release this or this as a Star Wars set, because that's where it comes from. Basically, whatever generic thing Lucas slaps the Star Wars label on becomes Star Wars. Someone on Wookieepedia put it this way:

Canon is canon. If Lucasfilm decides that something is canon then it is, even if that means there are contradictions. Wookieepedia is a canon encyclopedia, so it documents what Lucasfilm says canon is. If tomorrow they create a canon war where the two opposing sides are made of ballerinas and drag queens, then you'll be finding the Great Ballerina-Drag Queen War article.

So you see, Star Wars is not so exclusive after all.

I'm also interested by the peculiar characters these sets offers.and their equipment like blasters lightsabers etc. The only problem I see is the prices, the redundancy of ships ( nearly 10 Millenium Falcons since the beginning) and the lack of basements. I could also notice that there is a redundancy of characters ( What will I do of 5 Jack Sparrow and 18 Luke Skywalker ? )

I honestly think ship redundancy is a rather moot point against Star Wars. How many Fire Trucks have there been? Let's see:

1.336

2.340

3.602

4.620

5.640

6.2940

7.4208

8.4681

9.4977

10.5682

11.6621

12.6911

13.7213

14.7239

15.7891

16.8289

17.20002

Add to that thirteen mobile cranes, ten police cars, and four street sweepers, none of which are any more different from each other than each of the seven Millennium Falcons that have been released. Redundancy is inevitable, because there are only so many things people would be interested in buying in LEGO form.

Edited December 27, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Syn]

I have to agree with the OP, I was very disappointed in the amount of normal sets Lego has right now, Its hard to find anything that isn't licensed. now LOTR will be the next with a LOTR/LEGO price. ugh. I mean don't get me wrong I like LOTR but these will be ridiculously priced. I was on LEGO just this morning when I looked I saw all the new sets that City had to offer, not a single one was a building, they have a "cave" in one set but not a building. It's all cars and most of them fire related. Ninjago seems like it has taken over as well and I hate everything about that entire line. The whole ninja thing to me is completely over done, cliched, and useless. I don't have a problem with having licensed sets, I like them, I own a couple, but when I go to the store to pick something out and all I see is LITERALLY, STAR WARS | HARRY POTTER | NINJAGO | CARS(PIXAR) | Misc Licensed | 2 or 3 fire trucks or cop car sets under 15 dollars it really is annoying.

[Legoist]

We have a brand total of 0 licensed sets, the reasons being that our children are still too young to ask for them, and that I still haven't managed to accept the fleshies. This probably sounds stupid to some, but it is ultimately the typical reason why I say "no" to a set.

But I see no reason why I should be against licensed themes... They have introduced a lot of new bricks, minifig parts, and unusual colours. The problem is that these parts tend to be excessively pricey on the secondary market because licensed sets are significantly more expensive than normal and don't stick around in shops for very long.

[Larrynautik]

I honestly think ship redundancy is a rather moot point against Star Wars. How many Fire Trucks have there been? Let's see:

1.336

2.340

3.602

4.620

5.640

6.2940

7.4208

8.4681

9.4977

10.5682

11.6621

12.6911

13.7213

14.7239

15.7891

16.8289

17.20002

Add to that thirteen mobile cranes, ten police cars, and four street sweepers, none of which are any more different from each other than each of the seven Millennium Falcons that have been released. Redundancy is inevitable, because there are only so many things people would be interested in buying in LEGO form.

I would rather see other Star Wars spaceships instead of 7 Millenium Falcons. There's a ton of ships they could do instead of the same one in so many versions. The different versions of City vehicles don't have anything to do with the Star Wars sets. We get City sets since 40 years, and the main themes are still the same, it's normal. Redundancy could be avoided for licensed themes, as they offer a huge background material.

[Jareth]

I imagine that, since this is based off the movies, it'd be: Pippin, Gimli, Boromir, and either Sam or Frodo. Maybe Aragorn if Lego decides to turn him into LotR's Jack Sparrow. With 4-5 minifigs, I could see it as a $30 set, and if they cut Pippin and/or Boromir (neither character is particularly well-known or popular among the average person who isn't a Tolkien nut), then it could easily be a $20 set, which wouldn't require too much background scenery (aside from the troll itself, which I would want to be brick-built rather than a prefab figure). Personally, I think that's just about right--if I want to build a giant, massive cave system and mine, I'll go to bricklink or ebay or something and buy used gray bricks and rock pieces in bulk, I wouldn't want to pay full price plus licensing fees for a set that I'd likely want to take apart later on. If I build something huge, I'd want to keep it together long-term, and for a set like the tomb, there'd be far too many useful pieces to keep it built.

Hmm...a brick built troll....what a simple elegant solution. I like it and I hope that's what lego does.

Also, let's be honest, TLG doesn't always come up with good themes themselves

http://peeron.com/inv/sets/6494-1

Geh! I'll take knight's kingdom over that any day. But licensed themes...well, I'm not a huge collector of them, btu I can't think of any of them that are truly irredemable.

[Ralph_S]

I would rather see other Star Wars spaceships instead of 7 Millenium Falcons. There's a ton of ships they could do instead of the same one in so many versions. The different versions of City vehicles don't have anything to do with the Star Wars sets. We get City sets since 40 years, and the main themes are still the same, it's normal. Redundancy could be avoided for licensed themes, as they offer a huge background material.

I think you have to keep in mind that LEGO is selling most of these sets to kids. Lots of little boys will want a fire engine, so LEGO constantly brings out fire engines. The same goes for the Star Wars sets. Kids might be interested in Clone Wars or whatever, but if they've seen the original trilogy, they'll definitely want a Millenium Falcon, so LEGO constantly brings out fire engines. It's not rocket science.

Cheers,

Ralph

[Legoist]

I honestly think ship redundancy is a rather moot point against Star Wars. How many Fire Trucks have there been? Let's see:

1.336

2.340

3.602

4.620

5.640

6.2940

7.4208

8.4681

9.4977

10.5682

11.6621

12.6911

13.7213

14.7239

15.7891

16.8289

17.20002

Add to that thirteen mobile cranes, ten police cars, and four street sweepers, none of which are any more different from each other than each of the seven Millennium Falcons that have been released. Redundancy is inevitable, because there are only so many things people would be interested in buying in LEGO form.

Yes, I also think that redundancy is not a good point when discussing Lego sets. It doesn't matter if a subject has been done before and how many times, because there is always a new generation of children reaching the age of Lego. If "fire truck" is a top-notch subject/concept that pretty much every child would like to have in Lego, then it is right to keep making new "fire truck" sets all the time (could they keep the same one set forever? there is two reason against this: first it's a good thing to update the set models in order to follow how the correspondent real life subjects change; second why not giving the same children generation another model so that they could buy two instead of one?). We should realize that our AFOL perspective is very differente, we are not suitable to judge TLG choices on this.

[lightningtiger]

Points of observation, Lego Star Wars came at a time when Lego was in trouble money wise and helped saved their bacon....actually almost anything with those two words sell....must be a Jedi mind trick ?

Remember it's the minifigs that kids want and there is nothing wrong with Sponge Bob holding a lightsaber or Indiana popping up at Hogwarts or in a city scene....kids will be kids, Lego is a creative tool to allow what is impossible in real life be possible from their own imaginations.

It has been the license sets that have given us new colours and parts, I guess there will always be people who don't have time for licensed sets.....but that's their choice.

Edit - I forgot to say that for the first time a Lego theme becomes a license itself.....Ninjago - a 2012 Cartoon Network series.

Final point in this edit, Galidor was a licensed theme.....a licensed failure, just goes to show what good designs sell and poor crappy designs are and should be forgotten.

Edited December 28, 2011 by lightningtiger

[Fallenangel]

I would rather see other Star Wars spaceships instead of 7 Millenium Falcons. There's a ton of ships they could do instead of the same one in so many versions. The different versions of City vehicles don't have anything to do with the Star Wars sets. We get City sets since 40 years, and the main themes are still the same, it's normal. Redundancy could be avoided for licensed themes, as they offer a huge background material.

There have been plenty of other ships which have been done, as well as plenty that haven't been done but are sure to be done. In the 12 years that we've had the license, we've seen such obscurities as the TIE crawler, background craft like the Sentinel-class landing craft and the laser ice cutter, and even little things no one really wanted too badly, such as the Class-6. There have also been a number of one-offs we're unlikely to ever see again, such as the Freeco speeder, Ahsoka's Delta-7B, and the Halo. Granted, there are huge portions of the continuity that AFOLs have wanted the designers to draw from but are likely to remain largely ignored, such as KOTOR, but as far as source material from the films and THE Clone Wars goes, I feel that the LEGO Group has drawn from a broad enough range of source material to keep AFOLs and kids reasonably satisfied.

Yes, I also think that redundancy is not a good point when discussing Lego sets. It doesn't matter if a subject has been done before and how many times, because there is always a new generation of children reaching the age of Lego. If "fire truck" is a top-notch subject/concept that pretty much every child would like to have in Lego, then it is right to keep making new "fire truck" sets all the time (could they keep the same one set forever? there is two reason against this: first it's a good thing to update the set models in order to follow how the correspondent real life subjects change; second why not giving the same children generation another model so that they could buy two instead of one?). We should realize that our AFOL perspective is very differente, we are not suitable to judge TLG choices on this.

Precisely. So please, don't bash the Star Wars license because of rehashes. Our six Y-wings aren't anything special (especially since none have yet to best this one made in 2005 ).

[lightningtiger]

Another way you can look at rehashing is improvement....older sets were sometimes more blocky, now days curves and smooth pieces help the look of some sets....though there are a few people who prefer the blocky/studs look.

[Blondie-Wan]

The problem is that these parts tend to be excessively pricey on the secondary market because licensed sets are significantly more expensive than normal and don't stick around in shops for very long.

You know, I see this brought up all the time, but I don't see much actual evidence of it cited anywhere, and I'm not sure it's true.

Well, Ok, technically "they" are significantly more expensive in the sense that several of the most expensive sets ever (in MSRP) are licensed ones, but that's also because they're just plain huge sets with scads of pieces (I'm obviously talking about the UCS Millennium Falcon, UCS Super Star Destroyer, etc.). But there are also lots of very inexpensive licensed sets. In pure, absolute terms, saying they're more expensive makes no sense - some are, and some aren't, just as among LEGO sets in general some are expensive and some aren't.

The question is really whether licensed sets are inherently more expensive than comparable sets, and I'm not convinced at all that they are. Yes, I am of course aware that the licensing fees are figured into TLG's cost for a given set, but that's not all there is to it. For example, some licensed sets might be expected to sell lots more copies, which could mean the set price can be brought down a little. Price-per-piece is the most widely applied yardstick for determining how well a set is priced, but again it's subject to a lot of variation with other factors. Just what sorts of pieces are we talking about? Obviously a set with lots of large or complex pieces isn't going to be priced the same as a set with an equal number of mostly tiny, simple, common elements.

[vexorian]

What are these licensed parts? It is inaccurate to call a part like the weapon handle part a "licensed part" just because it first appeared first in SW under the name "light saber handle". These parts are clearly not licensed parts. NinjaGo uses light sabers just fine without paying to George Lucas. Ame with Droid torsos and tons of themes.

Truly licensed parts would be those droid heads or Darth Vader's helmet and they are particularly less useful outside of the license...

[eliminator]

Not a fan of the licensed themes. I feel that they're taking away from the traditional themes, like Pirates.

The SW theme has proven to be a great success for Lego, and I hope they continue even though I have no interest in them. Hopefully the LOTR doesnt kill the Kingdoms theme which is finally getting some new blood.

[Fallenangel]

What are these licensed parts? It is inaccurate to call a part like the weapon handle part a "licensed part" just because it first appeared first in SW under the name "light saber handle". These parts are clearly not licensed parts. NinjaGo uses light sabers just fine without paying to George Lucas. Ame with Droid torsos and tons of themes.

Truly licensed parts would be those droid heads or Darth Vader's helmet and they are particularly less useful outside of the license...

The battle droid torsos (and many other droid elements) were designed for Star Wars, and then reused for all sorts of other things in numerous other themes (as well as being used in Star Wars again in different ways, just like any other good LEGO element). Indeed, those parts aren't considered licensed elements, since even though they were specifically designed for specific needs of the theme, they weren't so specific that they couldn't be used any other way and weren't immediately, necessarily evocative of Star Wars in particular (unlike, say, the Darth Vader helmet). You can in fact buy those very droid torsos (and all the other parts of battle droids, except the heads which are very clearly Star Wars battle droid heads) in Pick-a-Brick for that very reason (whereas the heads are considered licensed elements, so no). As noted, other elements in some of these images were specifically designed for Star Wars - some of which are so specifically "Star Wars-ian" as to be considered licensed elements (such as the Rebel trooper helmets) and thus not used by TLG in any other sets, and some which aren't (such as the lightsaber hilts and blades), which even though they were specifically called for by the theme, are sufficiently "generic" enough in shape that they work well for many, many other functions and that TLG routinely uses them in other sets for other functions. But even some "true" licensed elements are useable for other things by clever builders. For example, I've seen those very Rebel trooper helmets seen there also used for lighting fixtures on the side of a vintage "movie palace"-style theater.

Sometimes licensed themes help bring about elements which for which there already exists some demand, but which might not ever exist had the themes not been done. For example, TLG never offered minifigure fedoras or shoulder bags until they did a licensed theme for which they were absolutely necessary, Indiana Jones - but once they did that and had the molds, they began using them in all sorts of other themes. Indiana Jones has benefited enthusiasts of City, Wild West and other themes whether they had any direct interest in Indiana Jones or not.

[fred67]

Points of observation, Lego Star Wars came at a time when Lego was in trouble money wise and helped saved their bacon....

That's a popular meme in the LEGO community, but it's not entirely true. I saw a presentation by the president of LEGO Marketing in N.A., he went into detail about the "abyss" and never suggested SW played any significant role in solving the problem.

In fact, SW started in 1999 and TLC were still on the brink of bankruptcy in 2003. Their problem had more to do with trying to do too many non-LEGO things (movies, TV, video games, non-brick merchandising) and trying to compete with people they didn't need to (once they abandoned trying to compete with Mega, profits soared). SW helped... sure... but the changes they made would have pulled them out of the "abyss" anyway. SW was nothing more than a catalyst. Bionicles probably played just as much a role.

Back on subject, though, ultimately you guys can complain all you want; the only way TLG will listen is the impact on their earnings. Don't like -> don't buy it.

I know this thread is not solely about LOTR, but I guarantee the set of people who will buy LOTR > the set of current castle buyers. That's all TLG cares about.

I'm not suggesting every license is a great one, but a lot of them displace nothing, so there's really no valid complaint about those anyway.

[Peppermint_M]

Point: Galidor was full owned by LEGO, it was part of their plan to diversify to survive... It ended up being part of the problem. TLG then shed everything but the core building toys and lisenced out themselves to games/clothes/themparks instead of trying to do it all themselves.

Oh, on thread: For everyone getting fed up of lisenced themes there is someone who wants something else to be made by LEGO. Star Wars will go on and on, Superheroes has the potential to, a never ending cycle of less popular/more dependent on film currency themes will carry on.

[Sam892]

Hello everyone, the other day I bought the last marvel set I needed to complete the collection ( the quinjet ). I was in the Lego store with my cousin who I have just converted back into a AFOL. She said as we walked out " Lego was a lot different when I was a kid there wasnt as many colours or parts, and there was certainly no Licenced sets". This got me thinking that theres a link between the two. In my opinion the new bricks and colours that the licence sets create help benefit standard themes. Some of the parts we use frequently today could have never existed if it wasn't for star wars or superheroes. So I ask all of you guys do you think Licenced sets benefit Lego? Or do you obstruct and coverup the original themes?

Edited June 7, 2012 by Sam892

[Lego Otaku]

Hello everyone, the other day I bought the last marvel set I needed to complete the collection ( the quinjet ). I was in the Lego store with my cousin who I have just converted back into a AFOL. She said as we walked out " Lego was a lot different when I was a kid there wasnt as many colours or parts, and there was certainly no Licenced sets". This got me thinking that theres a link between the two. In my opinion the new bricks and colours that the licence sets create help benefit standard themes. Some of the parts we use frequently today could have never existed if it wasn't for star wars or superheroes. So I ask all of you guys do you think Licenced sets benefit Lego? Or do you obstruct and coverup the original themes?

Some licensed themes like PoP should have not come out. Other than a large load of tan and dark tan parts, there wasn't much demand for it. LEGO could probably have made it a generic Arabian Night theme and still sold about the same but without licensing fees.

Other licenses like Star Wars and LotR are great as you have familiar and popular characters to play with in sets or just to display.

Beside if what I heard is correct, Star Wars kept LEGO from going bankrupt at the turn of century.

[Lyichir]

I think licensed themes are a huge boon to LEGO. Not only do tried-and-true licenses bring lots of money to LEGO, they're one of the driving forces in creating new LEGO fans. I've heard many stories, both here on Eurobricks and elsewhere, of teens and adults coming out of a "dark age" because LEGO licensed a property they were a fan of.

Also, as you said, licensed themes can result in useful new colors and elements even for fans of traditional themes. A perfect example is the Cars theme. Many AFOLs scoffed at the large new printed parts, but they're starting to warm up to them now that they've started appearing unprinted in City and other themes. And of course that theme also resulted in the new Aqua color, the old one having long been discontinued.

Licensed themes can help to breathe life into LEGO's non-licensed lines. The LEGO space theme had somewhat lost track of its roots before Star Wars came along. It seemed to end with the imaginative but bizarre and overly-simple Life on Mars theme, and many FOLs feared that Star Wars had completely supplanted all other space themes. But in 2005 Space returned with the fantastical and complex Mars Mission theme, which returned the Classic Space logo and, in many respects, the imagination and variety of that same theme. In addition, it showed how far the Star Wars theme had helped the LEGO System progress since that dark time in the early parts of that decade. After that came the revival of the Space Police in a theme which in many respects was a paean to the space themes of old, as well as to that old standard of LEGO itself, the LEGO City theme. I imagine sometime in the future the LEGO Castle theme, seemingly displaced by Lord of the Rings, may experience a similar renaissance.

I would never suggest that licensed themes are naturally superior to LEGO's own intellectual properties, or that licensed themes should supplant them. But I can see how these themes, in moderation, helped save LEGO back in the late nineties and early noughts, and how they continue to benefit both the company and its fans in the present.

[Faefrost]

It's a mixed bag, but mostly positive. A lot of it does depend on he quality and longevity of the license. A good license is self marketing so it gives Lego a lot more freedom for experimenting with new molds, plus often it's subject matter encourages the new parts and techniques. Just think how much Star Wars has given us as AFOL's above and beyond he basic " it paid for the company for years". Many of the newer processes and techniques came about in support of the licenses. The gorgeous minifig printing. Thank the licenses. Not to mention the steady parade of parts. The only non licensed subjects to give as much were Bionacle and Ninjago ( well ok Technics, but hat's another whole subject.)

The strongest licenses, that support many subjects over many years really are a boon to everything else. SW is the king of these although I think the Superheroes, especially the Marvel stuff will be similar.

He downside to licenses is they often take up way more shelf space than they really deserve, pushing out our beloved unlicensed themes. ( Space Alien Conquest fans are still sobbing over this one). And they are not always a huge improvement over the unlicensed themes they at least temporarily displace. For example PoP just takes up shelf space that could have better gone to a new Agents or Action line.

Sometimes it's a mixed bag. I don't think very many of us jump for joy when we see a new Spongebob set, and yeah it does eat up shelf space and designer time. PBut we have gotten a ton of new stuff from it, especially that globe, bowl helmet. Cars is sort of a love and loathing situation. It makes AFOL's skin crawl and takes up way too much shelf space. But just from new colors alone it does give back... Somewhat. (ok I still hate it, but I like the colors).

So in short, a limited or less than seller license hurts us ( PoP, The Last Airbender, to a more limited degree PotC) the big successful ones drive us forward more so than an equivalent none licensed theme could, because they can reduce the risk of new stuff.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Faefrost

[purpleparadox]

Licensed themes definitely benifit TLG, or they wouldn't have them. They've also brought us a lot of great new parts. My personal opinion on them varies with each theme. Love some, hate some. I'll buy the ones I like. And LOTR... just plain freaking awesome!

[Sam892]

Looking overt some of the licences that have been produced its hard for me to find one that hasnt benefitted in someway. POP gave us two new hair moulds (Dastan and Tamira) a new hat ( the cloth scarth head dress) and the big round domes. POTC gave us a bottle and some new hair moulds. Both these two themes have given us some great additions even though the themes were unpopular.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I think that licensed sets are what keeps LEGO as one of the biggest toy companies today.

Edited June 8, 2012 by Bilbo Baggins

[HumanPackMule]

Were the PotC sets really that bad? I may have been out of the loop for a while, but I thought they were pretty good(I got QAR, Whitecap Bay and CC). At least these were tied to a successful movie franchise, unlike PoP.

That aside, I feel that licensed themes are great. They may be a bit of a gamble, but when they are successful, everyone benefits. Plus my dreams of getting a Lego Sauron may soon become a reality.

[HawkLord]

The licenses definitely provide a reliable revenue stream for Lego. For example, right now everything that is related to Avengers is very popular and Lego has a strong product out in stores. Especially when you consider that there is very little Avengers stuff at retail (from the stores I've seen) from other companies. Meanwhile, licensed Legos Like Star Wars have been going strong for over a decade.

Lego has become one of those companies that I look to when a new movie comes out or a new IP develops. I almost expect that they'll have a hand in some of the major movies each year. Sure, they don't cover licenses that are based on "R" rated movies, for example - but they don't have to in order to hit their target audience.

As for parts, I have to think that the licensed themes definitely contribute. Even if one is not a Star Wars fan, surely there is some piece that was made for Star Wars that one could find a use for. Basically, anything that adds to the Lego pile of useful pieces has to be a good thing.