Joebot

I told my wife last night, this is my favorite time of the year because we get to see illicit pictures of upcoming Lego sets. I can remember doing this same thing however-many-years ago on rec.toys.lego, and it's still just as much fun now as it was back then. Unfortunately ... I'm not seeing very much that I'm interested in. I'm pretty well set for police / fire stuff. Even the slight variation on the theme this year isn't enough to grab my interest. That fire plane seems like MASSIVE overkill to put out a fire in ONE freakin' tree!! I think I would feel sorry for any child just starting to get into Lego City these days. It would be really hard to build a town out of nothing but vehicles. Granted, they are very nicely-designed vehicles, but they don't create a setting or a sense of PLACE. That's something that's missing across a lot of TLC's product lines. Oddly enough, the new Friends line looks terrific in that regard. Lots of varied and specific locations with excellent details to create that sense of place.

As DaveE said, all the so-called "assertions" are at best, "educated guesses." Nobody on this board really KNOWS anything. As an example, the convention wisdom is that one-and-done themes like Speed Racer and Prince of Persia were poor-sellers. The movies were both busts, the themes only had one wave of product, so therefore hey were flops. However, no one really knows if this is actually true. Maybe the reason there was only one wave was that TLC's license with the movie studios was for one wave. We're not privvy to the contractual details like that, and because TLC is privately held, we likely never will be. And yet ... we all say stuff like "Speed Racer was a huge flop for TLC." Might be true. Might not. Doesn't stop us from stating it as absolute gospel. If Internet message boards were limited to only stating provable facts, the Internet would be a desolate ghost town.

I think a lot of people object to "speculators." It's the seedy underbelly of any collectible -- people who buy low / sell high, with no intent of ever actually ENJOYING the thing itself. Those sorts of people can eventually take over and ruin an entire hobby (see comics in the '90s as Exhibit A). People who snag an extra set because they got a good deal on it are not nearly the same thing as a speculator. That's just a hobbyist trying to fund his own hobby. True speculators don't care about the hobby at all, beyond it's ability to generate profit. To get back to Fred67's point, I think it's great that you decided to build the Cafe Corner with your family. I'm actually in a very similar situation. My mom called me a few weeks ago to tell me that she discovered an unopened UCS X-Wing Fighter and UCS TIE Fighter in her attic. She'd bought them ELEVEN YEARS AGO to give to me for Christmas, then forgot about them! I'm still trying to figure out what to do with them -- build them for display, part them out, or sell them ... Not sure yet what to do. It's a good problem to have though, you know?

Assuming that TLC is pursuing a license for the MOVIE (as opposed to the books), the license would be with New Line Studios, the company that is producing the movie. The legal issues that New Line ran into with trying to get the movie rights were a lot more complicated, because MGM owned part of the rights, and MGM was in the midst of a bankruptcy mess. For any toy company looking to make Hobbit-based merchandise from the movie, the situation is much simpler. They would be dealing directly with New Line Studios, not with the Tolkien estate, or MGM, or any other parties.

According to the set list posted within this thread, TLC is releasing a Duplo set based on "Snow White." That movie was released in 1937. Yep. The Cars movies are Pixar's least-well-reviewed films ... but they've made more money off merchandising then all their other films combined. It's like Pixar has to churn one of these out every once in a while to pay the bills, then they can get back to their more unique, compelling stuff like Wall-E and Up. Seems like a reasonable tradeoff to me!

Great point, and very well said. I agree that with the licensed themes, the rules are different. The sets can be awesome, but if the license itself has limited appeal, then the line will be unsuccessful. I think Speed Racer and Prince of Persia both fall into that trap -- good sets, bad license. I understand the possible obstacles that have been brought up in this thread (too violent, too location-driven, competes with Castle line), but I think TLC could make it work. The benefits far outweigh those obstacles -- it's an action-based, conflict-driven story with tons of characters. That fits perfectly with TLC's licensing strategy.

I was kinda hoping that some new pictures might surface yesterday since DC relaunched their entire comics universe yesterday. They had a big marketing push behind it, and I was thinking that TLC might piggyback onto that with a splashy reveal of the new DC sets. Ah well ....

Very nice! Yeah, from the heading, I thought this was going to be a "Fight Club" MOC, which would be amazing. I love that movie.

Interesting topic, with some thoughtful responses. In general, I think the negative aspects that you describe apply to any hobby or interest, and are not at all unique to the Lego hobby. Whether you're collecting Pokemon cards or Faberge eggs, the same issues apply. A pleasant hobby that provides you with entertainment or relaxation or intellectual stimulation or whatever can cross a line into addiction and obsession. I think this is an interesting point regarding "fantasy vs. reality" and potentially getting caught up in the fantasy. But again, this is not at all unique to the Lego hobby. You could make the same claims about an author writing a book, or a group of friends playing a role-playing game, or a guy who collects and paints miniatures for his table-top war game, or a kid reading comics. You're talking about "escapism," which is not necessarily a bad thing. Having a fantasy world to drop into on occasion can provide you with stress-relief, creative stimulus, etc. Like anything though, it has the potential to become unhealthy if that fantasy world starts being more appealling than the real world. Any individual who has problems with this aspect of the Lego hobby would likely have had these exact same problems with ANY hobby. The issues lie within the individual, not within the hobby itself.

In the DC universe, Batman, Superman, and Wonder Woman are easily the Big Three in terms of popularity and cultural awareness. It makes total sense for TLC to focus on them for the initial product release. If the license goes longer, it's easy to think that TLC would want to delve a little deeper into DC's enormous catalog of characters. Green Lantern is definitely in that next tier of characters. Remember back when the Star Wars license first started? We got Luke and Darth Vader in that first year. It wasn't until the second year that we got Han, Leia, and Chewbacca. I could see TLC taking the same basic approach with the Superheroes line. To make a tortured analogy, Luke = Batman, Chewbacca = Green Lantern.

I think the reason this rumor keeps persisting is because the pattern fits. The Star Wars license started with the release of the prequel trilogy, giving TLC 3 new movies and the original 3 movies to draw set ideas from. The Indy license started with the release of "Crystal Skull," giving TLC a new movie plus the original 3 movies to draw set ideas from. POTC started with the release of the new movie this year, giving TLC a new movie plus the original 3 movies to draw set ideas from. Likewise ... a Tolkein license starting with "The Hobbit" would give TLC the two new Hobbit movies, plus the original 3 LOTR movies to draw set ideas from. I'm not saying it's definitive PROOF or anything ... but it's an interesting parallel.

Maybe for a while, but over the long haul, they'd end up undermining their own brand image. The thing is, TLC has trained its consumers to pay more for a high-quality product. We all complain about the prices, but we keep buying, because we value that quality. TLC is perceived as a premium product. Other companies like BMW and Apple have done the same thing. If TLC were to slash their prices, they'd slowly destroy their own image as a premium product. It's the same reason BMW doesn't sell a $10,000 compact, or Apple doesn't sell a $200 laptop. Besides, slashing prices to sell more volume is a slippery road. Once you start doing that, there's no telling where it will stop. I don't know what TLC's profit margins are, but I'll bet they're pretty healthy. There's an old salesman saying: "We take a loss on every unit we sell, but we make up for it in volume!" That is not where TLC wants to be.

I was in TRU earlier this week. They didn't have any Series 5 yet, but they still had some stock of Series 3 and 4. The price on those had been jacked up fifty cents as well. I haven't been to the nearby Lego Store yet to see what their price is. Does anyone know if TRU's new $3.50 price is just TRU's typical price gouging, or is that the new standard retail price?

I did??! Wow, I don't even remember that. They don't HAVE to be boring though. Okay, maybe the Fortress of Solitude wasn't a great example. A set with Superman standing around brooding over the destruction of his homeworld probably doesn't offer a lot of play opportunities. But ... TLC has done some decent location-based sets. The Spider Man theme had that bridge set that was pretty good, and the "Origins" set with the lab was okay. The Batcave and Arkham Asylum were both excellent. How about the Baxter Building, for example (for you DC-only folks, that's the headquarters for the Fantastic Four). You could have Doctor Doom attacking the F4 with a bunch of Doombots. The building could have some funky lab equipment and a Fantasticar. I think it's safe to assume that every set is going to be focused on a CONFLICT. There will likely be a good guy and a bad guy. That's practically a given these days. But that conflict doesn't have to be a good buy vehicle vs. a bad guy vehicle. A location (be it a lab, a sewer, a castle, a space station, a skyscraper, a city street, the surface of the moon, or whatever) could be just as fun as a vehicle, and provide just as many play opportunities for the kids. All I'm saying is that comics are full of crazy batsh-t ridiculous stuff. It would be a shame if TLC didn't take advantage of that, and bust out of the same ol' vehicle vs. vehicle concept.

That's my concern too. As much as I loved the Batman line, the vehicle vs. vehicle approach that was used for almost every set (with the sole exception of Arkham Asylum) got really boring and repetitive. There are so many other approaches to this license that they could take. Think of all the locations they could do -- The Daily Planet, Xavier's Mansion, the Watchtower, Wayne Manor, Ryker's Island, STAR Labs, the Baxter Building, the Fortress of Solitude. How about a creepy, gothic castle for Dr. Doom? Obviously the main appeal of this theme is going to be the mini-figures. I hope TLC puts some creative energy into the sets though too. Nobody wants a set with Superman driving a little buggy, fighting against Lex Luthor on a motorcycle.

In short, I would say that Lego "lost their way." They got sidetracked by video games, amusement parks, clothes, and furniture, and they lost their focus on where their real value was -- a system of little plastic bricks. I think it was in '04 when they had a really dire financial report, after which they jettisoned a lot of that extraneous stuff, including selling off their amusement parks, and returned their focus to their core product. Within 2-3 years, you saw the results in the revitalization of pretty much their entire product line. For those of us who lived through The Dark Times of Town Jr. and Galidor, it's been a pretty remarkable turnaround. Not everything is all rainbows and unicorns though. Lego still makes mistakes, but they're fewer and less damaging. For example, I think Prince of Persia is largely regarded as a failure of a license, but even so, the sets and mini-figs were pretty cool. I had no interest in the license, but still bought about half of the theme. And they've had some massive successes recently too, like the Collectible Mini-Figs. I'm also thinking that the Marvel / DC licenses are going to be like printing money. That could end up rivaling Star Wars.

That's always puzzled me too. Why are the criminals always wearing prison jumpsuits? It makes sense for the Police Stations sets, where the criminals are in jail. But in sets like the Bank? Why is the bank robber wearing his prison outfit? Are we to believe this guy broke out of jail and THE FIRST THING HE DID, before he even found a change of clothes, was to go rob a bank?!?

That's funny. I'm seeing Mirandir as a black ops agent, relentlessly pursued by TLC operatives. Mirandir: "Do you expect me to tell you what my sources are for the 2012 sets?" TLC Operative: "No, Mr. Mirandir. I expect you to die."

This seems exactly right to me. TLC doesn't need an entirely separate "Girl Theme." They just need to tweak their existing City theme slightly to make it more appealing to girls (and simultaneously keeping its current boy-appeal). In my experience with my now-15-year-old daughter, she liked PLAYING with my Legos more than she liked BUILDING. Girls naturally gravitate towards the female mini-figs to do their role-playing. Presumably TLC has done a bunch of market research to arrive at their decisions for this new line, so I guess they know what they're doing, but it sure seems to me like they're missing the point.

Yeah. On the one hand, the idea of forest rangers is something TLC has never done before. But then you realize it's just the same police / fire sets in a different color scheme. Sigh ... The brown bear sounds cool though. I'm always happy to have a new animal in my zoo.

Hey everyone, sorry for the long delay. Has it really been almost two months!??! Yikes. The new chapter is done and posted. There's a flashback to the Golden Era of superheroes. Plus, the gang gets a new team member, and he's immediately forced into action against the villainous Crankshaft. As always, thanks for reading, and please let me know what you think!

That's certainly true. It does go both ways. As corporations increasingly treat employees like replaceable, fungible parts, employees have less loyalty, and are more inclined to take a job down the street for an extra nickel or two. There was a time, not that long ago, when people stayed with a single employer for their entire career. Getting back to the original post (says the guy who highjacked the thread ...), TLC deserves a lot of credit for not letting the quality slip in their offshores operations. Quality is typically the first thing to go when you start cutting corners on your employees.

Really?!?! ALL of them got new jobs? You know this for a fact?? At the same salary as their old jobs? And with the same benefits?? That is amazing. With that kind of callous attitude, I can only assume that you must be in senior management. Don't you go cluttering up my principled rant with your "facts!" Okay, that's a fair point, and TLG has certainly shown themselves to have a social conscience. This issue of offshoring is one that hits close to home for me. I've seen good friends and co-workers lose their jobs because of it. I understand the financial reality of why companies do it ... but that doesn't mean I have to like it, or even agree with it.

In my opinion, the reason is that with all these popular licenses in the past ten years, Lego is increasingly being viewed as a "collectible," and not just a "toy." Within the collectibles industry, artifical scarcity is a tried-and-true marketing tactic. Companies intentionally under-produce. That creates heightened demand and hype. A consumer perceives that lack of availability as "Wow, this product is really popular!", and is therefore more likely to buy the product on a whim. Don't wait! Buy it now! It might be gone next time! The bane (no pun intended) of every collectible manufacturer is the "peg warmer" -- those products that nobody wants, that just rot on the shelves until the retailer dumps them on clearance. Artificial scarcity helps prevent that from happening.

Just because everybody does it, doesn't make it okay. Technically what TLC has done is "offshoring," not "outsourcing," since the employees in Mexico and China and so forth are employees of TLC, not of some other company that they've contracted to do the work. But whatever it's called, it still sucks as a business practice. A few years back, my employer laid off 200 people here in the U.S., and opened a new branch in Central America. I didn't personally lose my job, but I watched a lot of friends and co-workers lose their jobs so that the company could pad the bottom line by hiring cheap labor. The message this sends to employees is loud and clear -- you are replaceable. Your education, training, and expertise mean nothing. I would imagine that the people in Denmark who lost their jobs when TLC sent their manufacturing operations overseas probably felt likewise.