Itaria No Shintaku

Let's hope something like this for the female Genie:

I really fail to understand why people are disappointed, after three "meh" series, finally a decent one!

FINALLY! FINALLY after two not outstanding series... these designs are EXCELLENT! This is superb, outstanding. I love those six, really!

I instead believe they were right. They are mystery bags, ok you can feel them. But what if someone was wrong? I mean, it is possible, if they are sealed, that you say "ehy, one was the wrong one, I have two milhouse and zero ralf" EVEN if you got the complete collection. In this way, paypal claim and you keep both the minifigures and the money. Actually I am sorry for squizz but I believe they did their work properly.

No, but you do not have to worry :D it is just that "figa" means the female genitals in italian. I found that funny, it was no scold, really, I put a smile on it just to make myself clear. :) Let's get back on topic! WONDERFUL maxifig, for me :)

This is actually a bad word in italian ^_________^

Same in Italy, I got them for 1,75€ each at my usual Lego pusher He could if there was any actual difference, but there isn't. ANY princess is a damsel in distress, if put in the proper situation. It doesn't depend upon the minifigure itself, but on the contest. There's no doubt about this.

Monsters are actually accurate because they represent something about mythology or licterature. Which is just the same jester with a female face, no different torso print, no different hat, nothing new. This is why it would be a total waste of a minifigure slot.

Ah ok, since you quoted me :) By the way, I don't think facial prints are stars of CMF (apart from some cases like the cyclop or the evil knight), accessories and headgears are to me. IMHO it's really a waste of a minifigure if you do a female jester, since there hasn't been any notice of female jesters in the middle age.

Why are you afraid? If someone wants a female jester, just pickup one of the previous isntalled jesters, and put a female face on it. After all, isn't it what Lego is about?

I do not understand all this concern about female figures... a female swashbuckler or a female jester would be totally historically inaccurate and a waste of a minifigure. We already have 4 (Battle Goddess, Princess, Spooky girl, Genie girl (I hope it's some sort of "I Dream of Jeannie")), I hope the remaining 1 is the rockstar.

Good find. If legit, I like this!

Coming from an Italian, I really share the feelings that leaded Dario to build this stunning MOC, but I wouldn't be able to reach his detail and amazing outcome!

However I still dream a "Ghost ship" a la flying dutchman, for real, not the spongebob one.

Oh... I am so, so, so looking forward for this...

Agreed... this said, it's sad to me that the only Castle-themed set, since TLC knows about a long passion for this theme (not including lot of kids playing RPGs on line), it's that stuff from TLM. Ok, we will have a Hobbit wave in December, but it's one of the poorest years ever for Castle addicted. Good news for my wallet, but I am actually disappointed.

I can't believe really there are no sets of LoTR for 2014... how can this happen?

Another fact that wasn't stated is: no castle resembles real world castles, nor armies recall any real historic armies. For the ones not knowing that, Europa was a theme that could have filled such gap, but was never released, see http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/Europa. It would be pretty impossible for TLC to make generic no-factions armies and vehicles which wouldn't recall a specific army in a real conflict.

Er... not. This is an opinion. But while I apologize for my behaviour you do not. And usually who doesn't apologize doesn't feel guilty.

I'm surprised you felt offended and I apologize for this, as I stated this was not in my intentions. By the way I think that if one's logic is flawed, that's flawed, wheter that people is offended by putting this on his face or not. We can live in Cloud Cuckoo Land where if you find someone's logic not working you don't point him that, but you where the first claiming that we are not living there. I must tell you, and that's not an opinion of mine, that's a fact, that one cannot hide himself behind the wall of "well that's my opinion". 1+1 = 2. It's a fact, not an opinion. What I was suggesting, while you were busy being offended by mere logic, and I apologize again, is that nobody would ever put a restriction on a theme that would make it earn a godzillion of dollars and break this restriction for other minor themes. Choose one of the two: -either TLG doesn't break their policy on other themes, and some people see facticious links between their policy and that theme -or the army theme won't provide TLG a godzillion of dollars, but not even the small incomes they had from Lone Ranger (which was pointed out to be possibly breaking the policy) -or both the above I personally think both the above are valid. However, I accept the invite to stop the argument at least between you and me. We have totally different points of view, I really cannot reason in a decent way with someone putting innocent and army related together in the same sentence. It offends me. And since you are offending me purposely, while I did it not on purpose, I really find that cutting this here is the only working solution.

It didn't even cross my mind that using three letters could offend someone. So, since I am a respectful person, I do apologize and I will correct the post. I do that, because I am respectful, I do not mock people calling them nitpicky or using funny sentences about what they feel or do not feel offensive. This because I am a respectful person. Denied. I can accept Lego does CIVIL version of military sets, not military ones.

This is your opinion, which is not mine. You state this as a fact, where is just your opinion. I see all universes they put soldiers in are totally fictional. I don't see any hypocrite attitude in that, you do, your opinion do count as much as mine. Further more, both Ojik and Super Goblin, your thought really makes no sense to me. TLG is a toy company whose aim is to make money. But they don't want to make money with the surely top seller theme: military army. (Frankly, I doubt about these facticious selling boosts, but whatever) But they don't want to produce military army for their policy. But they don't respect their own policy because of something I fail to acknowledge, but you say do exist. So, closing the circle, TLG renounces to make mountains of money just to stick to a policy they do not respect? Well, either you two feel you are 100 times smarter than TLG, or maybe your logic is totally flawed. Obviously it's the second point. To me, your logic is flawed. Because: if this is the fabolous top selling theme of all times, then TLG renouncing to a lot of money is to me they're sticking to a moral policy very well. No hypocrisy. On the other hand, if TLG is hypocrite and doesn't stick to his policy, then they do not produce this theme because it won't sell as good as you two think. This is flawless logic. My politeness prevents me from telling what I really think of unpolite sentences like the above. I would never give a lot of money buying products from a company which I define "silly" and "hypocrite". This, because I would feel very silly and hypocrite.

But actually their policy prevents them to earn a lot of money from putting in a military theme that would no-doubtly sell good. That's what I always say.

They look nice.