Eurobricks Ladies
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Alexandrina

  • Birthday 04/26/1997

Spam Prevention

  • What is favorite LEGO theme? (we need this info to prevent spam)
  • Which LEGO set did you recently purchase or build?

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender


  • Country
    United Kingdom

Recent Profile Visitors

3243 profile views
  1. I mean, Galadriel I can agree with but she's probably going to be in a Rivendell set anyway. As for the others: Theoden isn't in the first film and is a mindless thrall in the second, his importance essentially hinges on his speech and imo he's about as important as Eowyn. Saruman is very important but has a tendency to not be in the same place as many other main characters (other than the one Hobbit scene where he fights with Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond, does he ever actually interact with more than one main character at the same time?) This makes it hard to include him in a singular set that's trying to hit as many bases as possible - he never shares a scene with Frodo, iirc, and of the two you kind of have to take Frodo. The Witch King is... who? I genuinely have no idea who that is.
  2. Rivendell is imo the only thing that makes sense for a standalone set (we can all hope for a full theme, but it may be the case that this one set is all we get). It's easy for those who were around when the previous LotR run was happening/have since collected the sets to want the gaps in their collections to be filled, and hopefully they will in time, but there's a reason the missing characters had been left aside for the hypothetical third year of sets. I love Eowyn, she's probably one of my favourite characters in the films, but she's solidly in the B-tier of characters by importance. The likes of the Fellowship, Arwen, Elrond and Gollum are the most important characters that need to come first. And while many people did collect them all last time, just as many didn't. How many people weren't able to afford the sets at the time, and can't justify paying the aftermarket price for them now? I know I'm one. I have Frodo, Gandalf and Eomer from the original run because they happened to come with the sets I had, and I've since supplemented them with Tauriel because she's my favourite, but I've just not got the money to buy all the main cast, not unless I want to get literally no other Lego all year. Lego have to plan their sets for the largest possible subset of their target audience, and a D2C is already an expensive set. The potential market is pared down significantly by the price point. Realistically, anybody in that group of people prepared to spend $500 on a Lego Rivendell who has the characters already is likely to buy the set anyway. People who might spend that money but don't have the characters might decide not to bother if there are too many major characters missing. At least some of the market is going to be new customers, for whom the D2C needs to stand alone as a collector's piece. Those people are going to want all the Fellowship at least for their $500. Rivendell is the only location where *every* major character can justifiably be included (obviously the Fellowship meet there, Arwen and Elrond are there as is Bilbo, and iirc Gollum turns up too to swim in the pond) which would also make for a good D2C set. Something like Amon Hen, on the other hand, would be a good set as part of a full wave but a pretty terrible D2C.
  3. I mean, I grew up (and indeed still live) in the Welsh Marches, which were one of the most fortified areas in post-Conquest England - and the castles around me are nothing like the standard image of a castle (not helped by the fact that the biggest castle in the area, which apparently was one of the finest in Europe in its day, was sold to private developers and dismantled in the 1700s). If Lego ever put out a set that was based on Longtown Castle in its heyday people would be all over it picking up how it's not a proper castle. What Lego have always done well is representing the cultural image of a medieval castle - and that's really what most kids care about.
  4. Alexandrina

    40567 Forest Hideout (GWP)

    Doesn't appear to be regional. @jimmynick is based in the UK according to his profile and got 19O2. I'm also UK, and mine is 17O2. Wouldn't have thought it was batch number either unless there's evidence of numbers going well beyond 19. I ordered my copy on the day of release and had it dispatched the following day, so I'd figure mine was probably relatively early.
  5. I can't help but be reminded of Birgitte and the Queensguard she cobbles together for Elayne in "The Wheel of Time". So that idea's not without precedent, really.
  6. Hang about... why are you making a strawman about "woke" people complaining about gender roles (something which there's literally no evidence for) when it seems to me that the only people complaining are those who don't want women in their Lego sets? Honestly, you can tell it's either satire or made by someone who needs to live in the real world, because the title includes the phrase "woke problem" I don't know where you got that from. There's no good or evil - just the pattern that complaints are coming from Youtube and individuals who for whatever reason are unhappy with the amount of female minifigures, whilst most people are more interested in the quality of the set rather than getting hung up on the amount of female knights there are.
  7. It really, really doesn't. The Forestmen, Lion Knights and Black Falcons all have an even gender balance, in keeping with recent Lego policy on all in-house themes (and aligning with the gender balance of the knights in last year's Castle offerings and this year's GWP, none of which came in for criticism). There are two soldiers (the Black Falcon with the full-face helmet and the Lion Knight with the bugle) who could be male or female, I can't tell from the images. There's a Queen but no King, sure - but there are three male civilians (one kid, the baker and the guy with the oxen cart) compared to two female civilians (one kid and the maid) and none of those roles are out of place. If anything, the fact that we've never had a maid before is a pretty egregious omission. I honestly fail to see how Lego doing the same as they've done for years can be seen as being 'tacked on'. There's no controversy here apart from the controversy bigoted minds want there to be - I don't believe any serious-minded reviewer is going to see this set and go "hmm, build's good, interesting animals... too many women"
  8. It's a close enough approximation without getting into the uncanny valley of too-realistic-given-its-plastic-bricks. Honestly, this makes no sense to me at all. There are all sorts of reasons to decide not to buy this set - too expensive, don't like the build, not a castle fan - but being angry at the amount of female minifigures is a really weird one imo. Especially when it's entirely in keeping with standard Lego practice for gender representation in the past few years. I don't remember anybody having an issue with the female knight in the Blacksmith or the 3-in-1 Castle last year. What exactly is the issue? Common misconception - Medieval Knights were very rarely covered in grime. The sheer amount of sweat from being covered head-to-toe in steel and swinging swords about tended to wash the grime away
  9. This... is... BEAUTIFUL. I don't know about anyone else, but this set is EVERYTHING I wanted in a castle - all I hoped for and more. Barding for horses, Lion Knights reborn, shields with the old Yellow Castle insignia, dark green trees, presumably a few BURPs hidden away in there - but most of all, the maid's headdress It's honestly like Lego read my mind with their medieval offerings this year. There were two things I needed for MOCs/films that Lego had never produced - a medieval headdress and a lute - and they've delivered on both. Day 1 purchase for me, and a contender for the best set ever imo
  10. Alexandrina

    LEGO Dungeons & Dragons - one step closer?

    I want to say you're right (in the sense that I'm an AFOL desperate for any fantasy-related Lego) but I'm not sure the pull of the brand is enough. People have brought up an upcoming film (which tbf I'd not heard about before) and I suppose if it's a hit then it might warrant making sets for - but we also can't assume it will be a hit, and without that the franchise is short of recognisable and unique characters/locations. However, I think the main issue is that I'm not sure how big the set-buying market is. I've seen people here and on Reddit suggesting that Lego could essentially make a series of sets that would allow the bricks to be used in conjunction with the tabletop game (ie as battlemaps and tokens) and I think this is a strong concept - I've often considered using Lego for my own campaign, and only haven't because I play online and I can't build to save my life. But it's also a limited concept. Kids might buy some of the sets like battlepacks, but I don't know that they'll buy them in a huge volume - after all, to an eight-year-old, generic orcs or dwarves will have less allure than stormtroopers or superheroes. On the other hand, I can't see what D&D set would make a good large display piece. Sets like the Nou Camp or the Titanic are targeted at a very particular audience which I don't think is the same people who buy battlepacks in large quantities to build armies. I'd be happy to be proven wrong, of course, but I feel like D&D doesn't necessarily offer anything that will bring in a wide enough market consistently - unless, of course, the upcoming film proves to be a huge success and cements specific characters in the public eye.
  11. Alexandrina

    LEGO Dungeons & Dragons - one step closer?

    This imo serves to strengthen the argument that Lego won't ever bother licensing D&D. Why do they need to spend money on the licence, when they can just do whatever they fancy anyway - even inspired by the games. That's not to say a D&D-esque theme won't ever happen, but I suspect Lego would be better off doing it in-house.
  12. Alexandrina

    Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

    I mean, I very specifically said in my comment that it is MOCing - while also drawing a distinction between it and the more conventional MOCing. Perhaps it's my interpretation, but it seems to me that when people say "people should MOC more" they're not saying "people should stick a few trees on a baseplate". If I made a solid wall of 2x4 bricks and posted it as a MOC, it would rightly get ignored. Stuff like this is MOCing in the literal sense of the term but does not really fall into the MOCing community - and that is the point I was trying to make. I'd also add that it's only through personal preference that I make my own sets for films - there are people out there who buy sets from Lego, or download other people's instructions, and just use those as-is for their backdrop. They're not buying the sets for display in the way that often gets disparaged here, but nor are they MOCing. Not to mention the existence of kids who will just play with their sets straight out of the box. This isn't even new - I was exactly this sort of kid. When I got a new set, I'd build it, play with it for a bit exactly as it was presented, then dismantle it. Never put on display, and no original creativity on my end applied to the Lego.
  13. Alexandrina

    Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

    I'm not sure MOCing and displaying are the only two options here, nor are they binary. I have never made a MOC in the conventional sense (disclaimer: I made one terrible MOC when I was about twelve) - that is, I have never built a fully-formed model of my own design with the intention of displaying it/taking photos of it/whatever. In the same token, I'm not a displayer of sets. Right now, I have three sets actually built up, one of them a set I only built within the past week. Everyone Is Awesome, which I've had on my shelf for just under a year, is easily the longest I've ever kept a set built up in my life. My enjoyment of Lego comes from making stop-motion films using the medium (though I've not completed one for nearly a decade - time flies!). So I MOC to the extent that I make custom sets for my films - which for 95% of the time is going to be a single backdrop wall or some trees on a baseplate, or something to that effect. Even on the rare occasion that I make something with more detail than that, it's very illusory, designed to look good from the specific angle I'll be filming from but far from being a complete model. This is MOCing in the technical sense, but it's also I feel distinct from the sort of MOCing that many forum users go for, where they end up with actual models to take photos of/display/share. I also know that MOCing like that is not really for me. A finished MOC and a finished set feel the same to me: a model which is nothing unless I can turn it into a story. The difference is that a MOC is more work, and limited by techniques I know of. A set, on the other hand, is easier for me to build - following instructions, without needing to make up the plans - and often exposes me to new techniques I can adapt when making sets for my films.
  14. Why is it not even close to realistic to want 20+ minifigs in such a large and special set? Where people are talking 40+ minifigures I can see your point, and even 30+ is pushing possibility - but there were multiple sets last year alone that had more than 20 minifigures. There's no reason to rule out a similar number in this set, especially since figures like knights can easily be duplicated or just given a different facial expression to make a new minifigure.
  15. Alexandrina

    LEGO Dungeons & Dragons - one step closer?

    I was saying that the show is brilliant (I'd argue it outshone Game of Thrones at its peak and even at its lowest ebb was comfortably the best drama series since the first season of Broadchurch) but that's my opinion and neither here nor there. I really don't get how you're not understanding my other point, though. Yes, you might get different things out of a book or series to me - but there are still things you can make sets out of, as with existing licenses. When everyone watches Star Wars, they see Luke Skywalker in an X-Wing. When they read Wuthering Heights they read about the ghost of Catherine. Minas Tirith is objectively a part of the Lord of the Rings narrative, and Nynaeve is objectively the Wisdom of Emond's Field. This doesn't apply to Dungeons & Dragons. I've played in hundreds of sessions - in all probability, I've spent more time in Dungeons & Dragons than any existing Lego license (Doctor Who excluded). In all that time, other than a handful of generic baddies, there is nothing from my experience with the game which would feature in a hypothetical Lego set, and vice versa. Lego aren't about to make a set of the beloved innkeeper Hestja and her Rascal's Retreat, or Ead's great battle in the ruins of Fort Damarys, because these things exist only in one campaign enjoyed by half a dozen people. That's the big failing point of Dungeons & Dragons as a potential Lego license. It's not about coming away with a different reading on the material. It's about the content being fundamentally different. There are no characters to recreate. No locations. Any set is just going to be a generic fantasy-themed set, at least to most people, and Lego can do that just as well without forking out the licence for another company's property. That's the fundamental question that doesn't have an answer as far as I've seen. If Lego could make Dungeons & Dragons sets, what sets would they make? I don't mean vaguely, like "a set with a Beholder in a tower" or something. Specific sets. What can they home in on? And if there aren't any such sets, why should they bother with the licence? Let me frame it another way. When I think of Star Wars, I think of lightsaber duels and starfighters and Darth Vader, stuff like that. When I think of The Lord of the Rings, I think of Frodo and Gollum and Gandalf. When I think of Dungeons & Dragons, I think of the litany of multi-faceted dice. And I can't see that Lego would want to resurrect the old dice mould and make equivalents for D4, D8, D10, D12 and D20 - given that the dice was famously one of the most expensive moulds Lego ever made - for what would ultimately be a non-descript theme.