rodiziorobs

Thank you for answering! I'm relieved there are only two you named that I need to catch up on--AoU I haven't seen since opening weekend in 2015 so I definitely need to go back for that one (I just hope it is better than I remember it), and even though I have seen CW more than once, its been over a year; I could do with a refresher on it as well. The others are all recent (enough) views for me. Thanks again!

One thing to consider: if you are willing to box them up and ship them to a buyer, why not ship them to yourself at your future address? Yes, you end up paying your own shipping, but it can take the hassle out of trying to fit them with your other possessions during a move, and could be cheaper than you expect if you can package them together. That way they are still yours when you arrive at your new home. Of course, Lego you already own is pretty easy to turn into money, so that's still a good option. It just seems too narrow a view to think you have to get rid of it. Good luck!

I know I am asking for trouble coming in here while still trying to avoid spoilers, but I am going to go see IW soon--probably a week or so--and feel like I need to do some catch-up on some previous movies. So, if you had to name three previous MCU movies that were essential to be up to speed when IW starts, what would they be? Don't explain why, and don't consider whether they were good or not (suggest IM3 or Thor:TDW all you want If they're relevant), just name three movies I should rewatch before going in. P.s. probably no Phase 1 stuff--I feel like I know those all pretty well. Thank you!

Earlier this week, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, followed by an evening out with the kids for Peter Rabbit, and last night To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar, because I've always known about it but never seen it, and it's leaving Netflix next week. Admittedly, each of these movies has its share of problems, but I have no regrets about anything.

Ocean's Thirteen. Not as good as Eleven (only comparing the Clooney one, never seen the Brando), but much better than Twelve.

So far I have held out on buying Noctura's tower--I haven't seen a good discount yet, and after seeing it in person and it looked a little slight for the price. I may not regret it, though--depending on the price of these two, I can still get Noctura along with some sets that so far look Aces. I really hope this isn't the end of Elves, since it has been one of the most consistently appealing and well-designed themes ever; even if I haven't bought every set, I have liked most of them.

@cebelicamya My local store had the same things last week.

I did not return again to the Bat Corner of Embarrassment (I have been slowly catching up on BTAS episodes on Amazon, but those don't count), but instead watched Captain America: the First Avenger. It had been awhile since I saw it, and I had clothes to fold. I am still amazed how much this movie had to accomplish and how, even though it feels stretched a bit thin in places, it makes it all work.

I would be surprised if we see Lego tie-ins to the Amazon LOTR series, mostly because Amazon's in-house content tends to be exclusively for mature audiences; rumors are that Amazon wants a Game of Thrones clone (not sure how the Tolkien estate would appreciate the gratuitous sex, but I imagine the violence and gore would not be too far a stretch). Anything lower than TV-MA is limited to pretty much The Grand Tour or the occasional kids-only show that makes grown-ups vomit. Plus, the only times I can think of getting sets for a TV show before are for superheroes (DC Girls, Spider-Man) or a Lego original (Ninjago, Elves, Mixels, etc.)--again, squarely aimed at the target market. I suppose no one can stop you hoping, though.

I fully support this decision! I was a lurker until the Pimp my Camper Van contest years ago. I didn't create an account until then, and even though I couldn't vote in that contest, being able to enter got me hooked and now I check in at EB almost daily. As for the contest at hand, I don't own any Galidor, have no plans to acquire any, and am still slightly skeptical this thing is even real--you really could have chosen a better day to announce an actual Galidor contest than April Fools. Heck, some other sites even included this in their roundup of pranks. Yet here we are, three days later still talking about it as if it's real, so either you're playing the long game here, or this is legit. Shucks, maybe I'll enter Cat B, if for no other reason than to play along.

I saw this set at my local Lego Store yesterday (on display in the window, not for sale--they were sold out) and thought to myself, "hmmm. That is a pretty good looking set. I take it back, it's totally worth the $20 price tag." It wasn't until I got back to my car I remembered it was $30, and not until posting this now I realized it is actually $35. It is a very slick set, I'll give them that. The display base is a nice touch and supports the prestige pricing, somewhat. I can see how someone invested in the source material might be willing to pay that much, but I for one would only consider it at half the asking price. Good luck to those trying to track this one down! Hopefully they mistakenly overproduce them so the rest of us can find them marked down, Exo-suit style.

I went back to the well of Cinematic Batman Shame and watched Justice League. It wasn't...bad... Just overwhelmingly *meh*. I might share some comments over on the DC-specific thread, if I decide I care enough.

Batman and Robin. And before you ask, yes, apparently I am a glutton for punishment, because before that I watched Batman Forever. It came out of a conversation I had with my brother-in-law over how bad those movies really were (or were they?) so naturally I had to find out. B&R is bad, but has a kind of charm like a full feature-length toy commercial (the transforming Robin™ hover-sled! Available at all fine retailers) that has a live-action Saturday morning cartoon built right in. Arnold's ice-pun shtick is so heavy it's practically a side character, and there are a ton of so-bad-it's-good moments. Plus there is the genuinely emotional side-plot of Alfred dying (which I had completely forgotten) that belongs in a better movie. I'd watch it again, sometime down the road. Batman Forever is downright unwatchable. Un-watch-a-ble. The less said, the better. I suppose now that I've established the baseline I really ought to get around to seeing BvS. You know, someday.

Frankly I admire LDD builders--I have tried many times but the program frustrates the snot out of me; I can never build anything satisfactory in it. Hats off to you, my good fellow. @Peppermint_M I am glad to see another mini-contest in the AA subforum, thank you for having it! It's rare I'm able to finish a big MOC in my spare time, let alone meet a deadline on a contest entry, so these side quests are great!

Not a great price for sure, but the minifigures and printed parts look great for Sci-fi MOCs. I will wait for a discount or prowl the secondary market though.

I thought of this thread when I saw TBB's review... From what I can see that set is one heck of a parts pack, definitely going to pick up a few of it if possible (and I have very little interest in BrickHeadz). The Blacktron stickers? icing on the cake. I also love that they are clear water slide decals. Awesome.

I feel the same way. LOTR vs Hobbit is a good way to look at it, or DC Super Heroes vs Lego Batman Movie. Two distinct series/themes with their own branding, but with the same license owner, and probably the same (or very similar) terms, with some definite overlap between them, including specific characters. I think for now they (HP and FB) will fly under different banners, since FB merch is brand new and HP is making a grand return. However, I would not be surspised to see them eventually unite under a "Wizarding World" (e.g.) theme the same way that Star Wars sets now do: perhaps they get a small title card ("Rebels" for example) in the corner of the box, but for all practical purposes belong to the same theme.

I rewatched Thor: Ragnarok last night. I still enjoy it immensely, but it confirmed to me what I thought when I first saw it, that it's biggest flaw is that it is too eager to make a joke, at the expense of the rest of the movie. Also, the first act feels really sloppily edited compared to the rest. After Hela gets to Asgard the rest of the movie's pacing is smooth, but it's choppy and frenetic before that.

I understood the modular-castle connection to be based on the typical buying demographic. Those who would buy castles are likely AFOLs with larger disposable income who enjoy seeing advanced building techniques. If TLG makes castles for them, then they only sell to castle fans; of TLG makes modulars they can sell to castle fans and everybody else. I am not saying this is my view, or even that I agree with this, it is just what I understood to be TLG's perspective when I read that part of the interview.

This. Rereading the interview I realized your questions were very good. I hate reading interviews from people who obviously don't know how to ask appropriate topical questions, but yours allowed him to engage without being awkward or asking useless things. Thanks again @Jim!

Thanks for posting the interview, Jim. It must have been tricky balancing time to complete this with everything else. There is a lot of insight in this interview, especially in regards to the "discontinued" classic themes. I find it interesting that modulars are seen as somewhat analogous to castle sets in TLG's eyes. I can see where they are coming from, but I also think they are mistaken. And of course our suspicions about SW competing with other Space themes have been partially confirmed. His immediate change of topic away from potential Mars exploration sets seems...dodgy to me though (in a good way). There is always hope!

Real Steel is a movie I enjoy popping in every now and then, for the reasons you name. I don't remember it getting much press when it came out, but I think it's a very watchable, somewhat underrated flick.

Yup, the distribution of the policeman is all spelled out in black and white.

I don't see a need to aim as high as $100, even. One of my favorite sets growing up was this: It is essentially a wall. A wall. Yet the playability was there as if it were a full castle. The wall was hinged in sections so that you could change the shape, and of course had modular connections in the ends--all castle sets at the time did, so you could combine them. I never did, though because I didn't need to. Inside the wall was a little jail cell, and outside there was the invading force with a catapult. Best of all there were enough figures for each side to actually have a mini-siege. Modern examples of a similar sets are this: and this: They both have similar elements: an invading force, a small jail, but what they lack is the suggestion that there is a larger castle included. They are very finite, closed-off, and self-contained. This isn't a bad thing, but this is where you find a pitfall. @Lyichir brought up how difficult it is to make a self-contained castle, and how small those end up being due to real-life limitations such as piece count. That is why the two newer sets are self-contained. But the answer is that not every set needs all four walls. I stopped being a kid before those two newer sets were even a concept, but I can't imagine 7-yr old me playing with them as if they were a castle--they would be a remote outpost or a single tower. But, for all play-related purposes the older set I did have was a complete castle. None of my friends ever asked "hey how come you only have half a castle?" or "why can't we just sneak around the side and break open the jail that way, instead of breaking down the door?" The open-endedness of the wall suggested that it stretched on forever, either to encircle the entire kingdom, or to a larger castle, and that's the way my friends and I played it. You wanted in, you stormed the castle. I think the same approach could be taken with new sets. Make a large gatehouse with some wall extending to the sides and budget it at $40. Kids who can't afford a $100 toy (which was definitely my childhood) still get their castle. Include technic bricks at the back to connect to the $100-$150 castle set for those kids or adults who can afford it. Have the opening to the castle a portcullis or drawbridge only, so that both sets feel like something on their own, but also feel like they don't repeat each other when combined. I'll even take a step further: those lone tower sets could still be a thing also, but with a modular base, two ways: either pins at the sides, so it can be inserted into a larger castle wall, or pins on the bottom, so I can be added on top of (or inserted into the middle of) an existing tower on the castle. Both gatehouse and tower sets would easily be standalones. No kid getting them as a present would feel like they only got half a castle. But if they did have more sets--or even multiples of the one--all those different sets could 'play nicely' together to form a larger whole if the child playing with them wanted them to. I know this idea isn't new--modular castles have been around a long time, Ideas (or Cuusoo) projects have suggested it, but I think the major problem is when we have the perspective that kids won't enjoy a castle set unless it is a "complete" castle with four walls. As long as no set has an obvious "you have to buy parts 3 and 4 separately" feel to it, I think it would be successful and satisfactory. It seems like this is the kind of approach TLG is taking with the HP sets, where we are hearing that the great hall won't be repeated in the full castle, and that the whomping willow set will connect, etc. From the sound of it, each playset will be completely able to stand by itself and feel complete and unique, but can also be made into part of a larger whole. I hope they do this with a medieval castle line next time we get one of those. A 2000 piece castle could exist as the flagship of a castle theme while the theme offered plenty of complete play scenarios that would satisfy lower budgets.