Slegengr

Very cool build, @soccerkid6! Maybe it's my nostalgia for Ice Planet 2002 or the fact that I recently filled out my collection of original sets and am currently working to complete more, but I really like this rover! The custom wheel treads are well built, but it seems they might provide more traction if they were flipped around so the sharp corner would dig into the ground while travelling forward (the small inner treads are what I would consider to be the "correct" way but should probably also be flipped as the smaller of the 2 for reverse grip, since the vehicle would likely be designed to go forward more than reverse, though maybe this is incorrect due to the rear-mounted drill). Just curious if you had reasoning for this or just made a decision... I like to pick apart the engineering details. The mechanical components of the drill arm are well done. Does the hydraulic cylinder rod slide into the cylinder base when the arm lifts? Using the classic windshield piece in this sideways configuration works very well. The entire cockpit is well-shaped, and I like the inclusion of the transparent neon orange rear windows (1x2 bricks?). I also really like the functional control hatch and seat that drop open for access. The pentagonal 2x3 wedge tiles in blue really add a lot to the aesthetic. Through all of the LEGO Space themes, my personal opinion is still that the Ice Planet 2002 color scheme tops all others, though I am nostalgic for many of the 90's Space color schemes and like the different contrasts for the factions. Also, it's always great to see the classic minifigure, especially with an excellent updated mini-drill/chainsaw... I may be using the same/similar technique in my Ice Planet 2002 updated MOC's in the future.

Ooh, almost missed this response! It is pretty obvious that flashy colors appeal to children, whether inherently or by design of toys, and I agree that TLG would be foolish to ignore the trend. Is it even such a new trend? There were some crazy colors used in the 90's in different marketing for many products. Likely, the only reason we did not get so many colors in the 90's LEGO sets was due to higher cost of increasing the color palette versus a more limited color palette. Though I do think there is (at least a little) something more to this than just nostalgia, it clearly plays a strong role. Will the set designs and trends shift over the next decades as the children of today become parents with a new nostalgia set than those around our age that grew up in the 90's and are more likely currently to have children in LEGO's target age demographic? I think so, which is why I think LEGO should capitalize more on the nostalgia (classic remakes, factions, original themes, etc.) while they have the chance, not just for nostalgia, but also to increase interest in TLG's own history/brand. Licensed sets seem certainly here to stay, but I still wish there could be more room for more original themes alongside. Not all sets from the 70's/80's/90's were perfect, for sure (were even any perfect aside from nostalgia?). Yes, indeed, there can be negative, inert, or positive False Nostalgia depending on how it is applied. I also like your point that the sets of the earlier eras sold well enough without media tie-ins or licensed IP franchises. The question that is probably unanswerable is: is this a difference in The LEGO Company, or a difference in people/society/technology more broadly speaking? Agreed, agreed. I have found it strange over the last decade how many complaints (that seem to be based on false nostalgic impressions or the over-idealized view of adults) are given to TLG's sets produced today. TLG produces playsets to appeal to children (also now more than ever along with 18+ display sets for adults, which more rightly can be criticized from an adult perspective). The questions here seem to be less about the actual products and more about our perceptions and applications of ideals, which indeed is all subjective and will almost certainly never converge into one singular opinion.

Agreed, another strong point for me is that the old sets were made as playsets that could be broken apart and recombined infinitely according to my own imagination. The 90's sets directly encouraged this through alternate build pictures on the back of the box and instructions. The large 18+ sets, though occasionally interesting to me, are mostly just display pieces to build once according to instructions. The core purposes at the hearts of these LEGO enthusiasts is different in these cases, one for LEGO as an extension of the imagination, the other as an IP enthusiast that finds it interesting to have a model of said IP. This is a more direct statement of my thought earlier, and I agree wholeheartedly. Obviously, I could argue that the 90's were LEGO's Golden Age due to my nostalgia, but I think there is something more real in this than just my nostalgia. Just as you said, I think the 90's sets show the ideals of the LEGO company at its founding (fundamentally, imaginative play) more directly than sets of more recent days, especially since there are so many licensed sets after the early 2000's. What are the percentages today of original vs licensed sets today? I suspect it is less than 50/50 (more licensed sets, probably due to more sales of these sets). Agreed, I do think many children today still mix up their LEGO pieces and build what they like. I think the difference is that The LEGO Company does not seem to encourage this as much as in the 90's. In the end, people (especially adults) will find different reasons to be LEGO enthusiasts. Though I would like to believe that more ideals of imaginative play, more original themes, and more link to nostalgia and the history of The LEGO Company would lead to more overall benefit to the fans and The LEGO Company, it seems obviously clear that licensed IP is more profitable, and that profit seems to be the primary goal of The LEGO Company (and ultimately any company, for that matter). At least The LEGO Company is testing the waters with nostalgic ties with the classic set remakes and Easter eggs with nostalgic references (such as original factions from the 70's/80's/90's).

I think what makes those sets appealing to so many, particularly the sets from the 90's (which era seems to be considered by many to be LEGO's "Golden Era"), is not just nostalgia, but what could be considered "Classic", or what defines what LEGO sets are in most peoples' minds. The 90's sets were a great mix of defining LEGO details, a higher level of development of the basic building blocks and components, enough variety of parts an colors to give good detail but also a limited enough variety of colors and parts to still be different from other toys and real objects (distinctly a LEGO product), all original themes covering a reasonably broad area of interests that relate to history, modern day, and future, no licensed IP's (although the popularity drives sales and increases profit margin, the popularity is not due only to the LEGO brand like original themes). The same thoughts apply to the sets of the 70's and 80's, but I think the LEGO style was still more under development during this stage and the LEGO products were not as wide-spread worldwide as in the 90's (due both to still-growing popularity and to communication limitations across nations or the globe when compared to today). In more recent days, I think many LEGO sets today (at least unlicensed sets) often approach a similar ideal to the 90's sets (but with a more varied color palette and part-shape selection). The limitation today is that there is so much focus on media connections (which seem obviously considered the modern way of society) and on pop-culture connections (licensed IP's; this follows fads/trends that come and go, so not as stable over time as the classic components). I think there is a significant difference between the sets from the 90's (which were loved because they were imagination realized in LEGO form, so love for the product/brand itself) versus the sets of today (which I think are loved for pop-culture/media references that overshadow the basic love for the brand/product). I think there has been a realized interest closer to the core values of the LEGO company that has brought set designs closer to the ideal than it was between 2000-2015, though there have always been some sets that I really liked throughout the entire history of the LEGO System and beyond. This type of question is one that I could go into any aspect in great detail, as I find it quite interesting. I was born in 1991, so I certainly know nostalgia plays a role (considering that I spent hours every week reading from the LEGO Shop-at-Home and dreaming of having all sorts of playset dioramas, especially sparked by the wonderful dioramas made for the marketing images). I would not want to be born in any other era with regard to LEGO, since my childhood was in the "Golden Era" and I started collecting LEGO sets and pieces second-hand as an adult before the collector aspect really took off and prices for old sets jumped. Maybe it is mostly nostalgia, but, whatever the reason, I don't think my love for 90's era (and 70's-80's, though not as much for me personally) will be lost. I am glad to have most of the sets today that I dreamed of getting as a child (along with so many sets from pretty much every birthday/Christmas throughout my childhood). "BrickLinking" sets or acquiring old mixed lots to salvage classic sets is one of my favorite aspects of the hobby.

That works, but it may be more complicated than or not as versatile as it needs to be in some cases. I most often use bar and clip connections when placing parts in odd positions since the bar/clip connection allows for small-increment adjustments and free rotation for off-angle (or upside down) connections. Since it is just a temporary jig, the bars can be slid through each other with interference that can be ignored. Edit: EuroBricks is not an image-hosting site, so it is best to upload images to an image-hosting site (I use Flickr) and share from there through different methods (I copy BBCode). There are tutorials on EuroBricks for this, and I can explain further if necessary.

Very interesting project! I also have a deeply seated nostalgia with LEGO Island and have been recently listening to the original soundtracks (along with LEGO Racers 1&2 soundtracks) while building and sorting my bricks. The Pizzeria is an excellent starting point, and I like your updates (except maybe not the new tree style; I will probably forever be a fan of the original palm trees!). I do wish there were a better head for Mama, though, as the one you chose seems too youthful and a bit snarky (though it does have the appropriate beauty mark), at least if you want the original LEGO Island look. I had forgotten how much the appearance of Mama and Papa changed in LEGO Island 2. The chef's toque with brown hair matches quite closely to the LEGO Island 2 version of Mama, but Mama had black hair in the original LEGO Island. I'm looking forward to some "hot-a pizza and cool-a music!" As Papa says: "Thatsa right, we make a pizza, we make a pasta, we make a lotsa money. Why? We're the only place to eat on the Island! Just remember our motto: 'Brickolini's: Where else you gonna eat?'"

I agree that BrickLink's Stud.io program is an excellent 3D LEGO build planner. Using Stud.io, you can build, export parts lists through BrickLink Wanted list, and generate fairly logical/intuitive building instructions that do not require lots of graphic design if you plan your build steps well. It is also free to download. I've used and continue to use Stud.io to make custom sets and building instructions for gifts for my nephews as well as prototyping larger MOCs and checking parts for fit in specific designs.

I can't answer your question, but I am absolutely glad that we got Adventurers and Johnny Thunder before licensing Indiana Jones. The similarities are obvious, but Adventurers seems to fit LEGO's values better leaving the theme open to doing what they want rather than being limited to a licensed theme as well as being in full control on what is included (maybe more child-friendly than Indiana Jones, though the inclusion of all the weapons could still make the themes comparable). As it is, I am firmly of the opinion that original themes are far better for LEGO's ideals than licensed themes and I like them a lot better as well, probably due to nostalgia as an early 90's kid. It is quite likely from a marketing stand-point that LEGO would not have produced a similar theme like Adventurers if they were producing Indiana Jones sets under license, since the similarities would likely cause the themes to hinder sales for each other. I've heard (without sources to back this up) that this is a similar issue as to why LEGO does not produce much for Space sets in contrast with Star Wars sets. Even though I dislike it since I prefer the LEGO originals, licensed themes draw more attention and generate more sales due to pop culture. Two similar themes will not sell as well individually as only one theme of the type, and the licensed themes will almost surely outsell original themes every time.

@-DoNe- What great updates for on of my favorite childhood themes! I like what you have done mixing classic pieces and styling with a more modern and much sturdier-looking design. I really like how solid and heavy the machines look in comparison to the originals, especially the update to the lower cockpit. I have an extensive Rock Raiders collection with at least one of each of the standard-release sets (missing all Kabaya at this time...) plus a few extras of each vehicle, so I mostly build MOCs in the classic style with pieces available at the time the theme was released, but I recently started into updating classic sets (focusing on Adventurers right now) and these builds are wonderful inspiration when I get back to the Rock Raiders theme! P.S. You may find R.R. Slugger's YouTube channel interesting if you like the Rock Raiders theme enough to make such nice updates! Check it out if you like. I'm not affiliated, just a fan of both his channel and the Rock Raiders theme as well as your work now!

@Marooned Marin Nice work and interesting to see how well it did after a bit of collaborative effort/suggestions for improvement and your marvelous rework! It was interesting to watch the boat race in the mini set category; the wind must have slackened a bit near the end allowing the paddled outrigger to pull ahead and that shark-pulled tub to almost catch up! Being limited to 5 votes each is necessary for the contest, but it would have been interesting to see everyone's thoughts on all the builds he or she liked instead of just the top 5 that received votes. I know there are many builds in this contest that I really liked but did not receive one of my votes.

Indeed, that triangle is the optimization that all manufacturers and design engineers have to take into account. Judging by the quality of LEGO pieces, tolerances of the molds are obviously very tight which is going to make them more expensive than molds for most other plastic toys that do not have or maybe need such tight tolerances. I wonder how long TLG's molds last before degradation from use makes them too imprecise to pass quality assurance? It would be interesting to know about how many new molds TLG buys each year on a regular basis.

Thanks for confirmation. The full-depth discussion is precisely why I prefer forums way ahead of social media formats. I'm mostly disappointed here that the user that I may have dissuaded from the conversation with my multiple quotes and long posts may actually be a manufacturing engineer with very useful insight into the discussion at hand. I think a merge of the two options is the best path: Make mostly new themes based on similar open-story concepts to the classic themes (particularly Space, Pirates, Castle, Aquazone, Adventurers, etc.) with some references to the original themes (same/similar iconography, some updated main characters, etc.) while also making the occasional classic set remake to really hit the nostalgia. New, updated themes can draw new interest while references to the classics can keep or rekindle interest in adults with nostalgia. Maybe this is heavily impacted by my own nostalgia from being a child through what seems to be referred to as TLG's golden age (around 1985 to 2000).

Yes, it is not an unusual size but a baseplate still seems an unlikely inclusion in a current mid-size set based on observable trends in available sets. To all, sorry for previous long posts; I did not mean to derail or end discussion here. Often I forget that even discussion forums are impacted heavily today by social media trends toward only short posts.

I'm aware that baseplates are vacuum molded and cut to size from a larger sheet. Unique sizes still require special production runs (and related market research) and different tooling/automation. I'm not sure I understand your point here? Though baseplates are still produced, TLG seems to have a current philosophy opposed to their inclusion in sets, especially middle-sized sets such as 6267 Lagoon Lock-Up. The use of rectangular, rounded, and wedge plates instead seems to me a better option as it lends far more to the modular concept. See the new 10320 Eldorado Fortress for example. Not only is the original raised baseplate replaced with a brick-built mimic, the use of individual plates at the base instead of baseplates allow for the design to be modularly rearrangeable. My assumption is that one significant reason TLG does not seem to have interest in reproducing original sets is that some included baseplates that TLG is not interested in including in current production.

Special limited reproductions could be viable within controlled circumstances, but I still think the best option is to make new designs with references to the original and make them available on TLG's Bricks and Pieces service where individual parts can be ordered. It seems to work well enough as they did with the new Black Falcon and Lion Knight torsos and legs. Since resources are always limited, though, there will never be a system where everyone can get everything they would like...

@Mylenium You are a professional manufacturing engineer? I would be very interested to know more related to icm's questions and general manufacturing insight, especially if you have mold-specific experience. I must admit that your previous claim about molds being cheap lead me to a different conclusion about your experience. Maybe I missed significant nuance in what you were trying to say. Though this discussion seems to have taken a slight turn into mold quality and costs specifically, it is a discussion in which I am very interested. One specific question that comes to mind: Was your earlier point about TLG's " self-motivated propaganda" about molds being expensive related to the fact that molds are not as expensive as they used to be and therefore should not be a significant hinderance to TLG's design considerations or that TLG faces the same design decisions as other toy manufacturers when it comes to molds? ...or maybe some other point that I am missing? It seems clear to me that there are a lot of viable options for producing molds today that were not available 20 years ago, but I still think that the cost is relative to profitability of the product made with the mold. I also still firmly believe that experience shows that TLG's products are of better quality than competitors, which directly implies more thorough part design and manufacturing tolerances, which in turn mean higher costs than companies that cut corners.

I think I understand what you are saying here and agree with most of the points with some nuance to the discussion. A quick point: I do not think design tolerances really should change much whether or not a part is intended to be mid-structure or at the top. Each connection should be viable on its own. A baseplate or large plate does not care whether it is connecting to a tile or a brick; the stud tolerances need to be viable enough for either connection. Most of this is not just fanboy discussion of LEGO PR talking points. The market shows what people believe, and LEGO still has the largest volume share at the higher price than most (all?) competitors. If they did not prioritize quality assurance, the product quality would show this lack, and the market decline would follow. I very highly doubt that a significant portion of LEGO's multi-billion dollar revenue is due to fanboy positions without real-world justification. Now, I also agree that a reasonable measure of doubt of a company's claims about their own products is a good thing. I apply this to all companies and products. In TLG's case, the quality assurance seems to speak for itself with the market agreeing, rather than it just being my personal opinion. I've had some competitor products and have read many reviews from other builders. It still seems to me that there is no competitor very close to the same level of design refinement and quality assurance as TLG. (Though I will mention it, I don't intend to redirect discussion into my extreme dislike as a design engineer for any company that directly steals designs that TLG spent time and money to do the research and development; competition is fine as long as the competing brand offers their own designs, both at set and part level; this is a real problem that likely will not go away, but I still dislike it nonetheless) When it comes to discussion, yes, it is best to back up points with evidence from MOCs and reviews and I am always interested in hopes and dreams about future sets. Probably the best way to be more effective with these discussions is to have them directly with TLG rather than debating it with other hobbyists that don't have full data at their disposal about what TLG can/cannot or should/should not do. I have about 30 years of continual experience with LEGO products, but I don't document or share much of this online, so my arguments can be taken as unproven and are essentially only anecdotal, not true evidence. Then again, this is a thread of discussions about opinions, so sharing of opinions (no matter how wrong they are :) is acceptable. For myself, I try to never just repeat or internalize propaganda but rather try to base all of my discussion/opinions on direct experiences (even though I will never be able to cover all the nuances through text alone...).

"Harm" is a relative term here. It would certainly impact the secondary market. If all designs were available through TLG at similar pricing to TLG's Bricks and Pieces plus an up-charge for limited production manufacturing, these parts could still be cheaper than secondary market prices, sometimes significantly. This would demotivate a potentially significant portion of the secondary market since sales and pricing would not be high enough to justify time spent sorting old parts for resale. I speculate that almost all sales would shift to the primary market (TLG) since you could order parts in new condition and source all desired parts through the same store. In general, I think the impact on market is harder to predict and of less consequence. The more significant reason TLG does not (and should not?) keep old designs in continual production is the difficulty in maintaining reasonable production coupled with unpredictable marketing. Another thing to note is that companies regularly refresh logos and marketing, sometimes reverting back to "retro" or old designs again. This helps keep the marketing fresh and tends to generate interest in the brand (unless too much change occurs and loses the connection to the brand image). This same idea applies to TLG: new designs, sometimes with references to old designs, are likely to draw and keep interest better than producing the same dated product over and over again. Though I am sure that LEGO has self-motivated propaganda to justify their costs, this seems absolutely not true to me with regard to mold cost (in general; to get specific, I would need in-depth data I do not have but TLG would have). I am quite confident that LEGO molds are more expensive than those produced by many toy manufacturers. There is a reason why no competitors (as far as I know; I do not have exhaustive data) produce a product close to the same quality: they don't fully understand the depth of design tolerances TLG applies and they likely don't want to risk as much cost on just the mold for the parts. I think what is being missed by most in this discussion is just how expensive tolerances are, especially when we are talking about the small scale of LEGO pieces. Smaller tolerance equals higher cost. If you think molds are "cheap", try to get a quote yourself. Though manufacturing methods have improved and new methods are available today, you would be foolish to assume that this means that these manufacturing methods are cheap. Another major complication in this discussion is that costing for a manufacturer is always relative. Base cost is not the only factor; profitable return from the use of the tooling or part is what is significant. For a random example, if you buy a mold for $1 and sell 3 parts made from that mold for $0.30 each, net profit is a loss of $0.10. If you buy a mold for $1000 and sell 10,000 parts made from that mold for $0.30, net profit is $2000. I think this is generally understood, but it is a crucial element in TLG's decisions for new molds. This is exactly why they repeat the use of molds as often as possible, and also the reason why they tend to release molds for some licensed product parts through CMF or other outlets to retain rights to the design/mold and be able to use the part in more than the limited licensed applications in order to increase likelihood of recovering costs in design and production of the part through increased volume (necessarily at a profit, of course; increased production volume at a loss is obviously an increased net loss). Also keep in mind that molds are only one small piece in the costs of design and production, so I am sure TLG does not allot excessive or unlimited funding for this at the start of design. Nobody intentionally degrades quality in the hopes of producing cheaper molds? How familiar are you with manufacturing? Of course, it is never the intentional degradation of product quality, but wider tolerances result in cheaper production and degraded quality and are absolutely a viable and often-applied decision that companies make. This is the exact reason why TLG molds are sure to be more expensive than most other toy company molds: they claim tighter tolerances and the product shows this clearly. If this was all smoke and mirrors, so to speak, there surely would be competitors stealing significant market share and TLG would not be viewed as the premium product like they are today. Free market will always tend to prove the concepts and discussion points here, and relative market shares and prices people are willing to pay show clearly that TLG is the best in the market when it comes to quality, and, again, quality comes from tighter tolerances which drive up costs of molds (the one specific aspect being discussed here). It is an entirely different discussion on how many molds (new or old) TLG should/could produce in the year, and simply a discussion we do not really have enough data to narrow down conclusively. TLG surely keeps marketing and costing data and makes the final decision from that data as they are the one with all the risk in this decision. For background, I do not have extensive training in manufacturing, but I work as an engineer corresponding regularly with manufacturers, so I feel I have sufficient experience to make the claims and share the insights above. CMF lines are a great way to merge new and old, though I also hope to see more of this in sets as well, such as the classic remakes. As you mentioned and as fits my general ideology, the merge between classic and new is a good choice. The discussions on this thread are directly related to research and development. Without new experiments and some lines potentially netting a monetary loss, companies really could not exist in general. Risks must be taken and TLG would have the most data available to make their own decisions on what risks to take. Some have flopped, but they must be doing something right in order to be the leading toy manufacturer in the world. Molds are indeed a complex subject. I agree with your points here, especially the ones directly relevant to the original question on this thread about reproducing old sets. ...and, of course, due to the number of times I mentioned the same thought, I agree that modern set remakes are a much better/safer choice than reproduction of original sets. Agreed, the market agrees with the premium status of LEGO products. I only have experience with clone brands from 1990's to 2000's (some of which were terrible experiences!), but I have not yet found compelling enough reason to consider clone brands since LEGO still maintains their quality assurance (not without issues or hiccups here and there, but this is nearly a guarantee with any product and brand; TLG seems to stay on top of these issues fairly well). I think there is a lot of misunderstanding in the general discussions surrounding this topic since most people do not seem to have much understanding of the manufacturing processes or realize the marketing surrounding these products. My interactions and general experiences as a design engineer working with manufacturers match your points quite well. Can people outside the manufacturing/engineering work fields understand tolerance stacking? I know I did not really understand it until I learned it in my engineering schooling, and even then really learned it when I saw issues I caused by not understanding it while working as a design engineer. The point on action figures is certainly a valid one, as is the general joining/mate faces point. LEGO has to have more precise tolerances since there are so many more connection points as intended. I think what you are saying here about necessary clutch force could be accurate in some application, but I don't think TLG applies this thinking with their design/manufacturing philosophy as shown in the quality of their parts, especially when it comes to tolerance stacking as icm mentioned above. Every stud/anti-stud is a single connection point, along with other types, and must have tight enough tolerances to work independently. If they lowered the quality assurance of larger parts by widening tolerances, there would be failing connections at some point. Consider baseplates for an example: every stud is a viable connection to a single piece (like a 1x1 brick) and repeated connections on-off-on-off have a very low failure rate as evidence of the quality assurance from tighter tolerances in production. Working as a design engineer has widened my realization of the depth of intent needed for good design, and, though I would be thrilled to be a LEGO engineer/designer, I am quite glad to not be working in such small scale with tolerances. I design elements of large structures where 1/16" tolerances are acceptable for most parts and assemblies in almost all cases.

Though there could be ways to theoretically make it work from a primary-market and manufacturing perspective, this is still not an easy task. As a consumer, most seem to assume that LEGO could just print money by reprinting retired parts that are expensive on the secondary market. The challenge is in predicting profitability limits on how many to run at once to make it justifiable. I am quite certain that the manufacturing lines are not as simple as a home paper printer, where you just print this or that sheet on demand. There is setup time needed for a production line that makes small production runs not cost effective. As you mentioned, if they got preorders of sufficient quantities, they could justify it, but that is a big IF and it still faces the issue seen with the secondary market considerations as MAB mentioned below. It still seems like the Pick-a-Brick method with current-production parts and average 1 month delivery time (essentially preorders) will work best for TLG and fits the consumer needs fairly well. If every past print was an option, not only would it directly harm the secondary market but it would also give so many options that most consumers would be overloaded. Try randomly searching for a good torso for a personal interest by skimming through all printed torsos on BrickLink right now... without a theme reference or very extensive and accurate search terms, it takes a long time to skim thousands of prints to find what you want. Most of the old printings would likely be missed and never get enough preorders to justify a production run. This means that, as my general stance indicates, the current methods are likely the best with a secondary open market and new releases of redesigned classics as well as new designs. This is certainly an important aspect that TLG needs to consider (and likely are considering). There is no perfect solution since demand is not completely predictable. Secondary markets exist for a reason and TLG is in the unique position of owning one of the largest secondary markets (BrickLink) for their products. They draw interest, collect market data, and bring monetary return directly from the secondary market and thus far seem to have handled such a unique position well enough in my opinion. The only thing I'd like to see is more steady release of new sets or modern remakes in the "evergreen?" classic themes like Space, Castle, and Pirates to keep alive the imaginative play concept of the brand instead of the profit-hungry pop-culture-heavy path into mostly licensed themes. Are open-ended imaginative themes really in such low demand these days? They could be, but it seems a shame if TLG does not continue to push their original intents to encourage these concepts to continue. Alternate build ideas and non-movie-or-story-specific themes seem closer to the original company ideals.

I agree that a significant element of the secondary prices is tied to collecting originals, but I also think that there is a market for sets that people would like to buy as adults that they dreamed of getting as a child, regardless of the exact form. I still think the modern remakes of sets are the best course for almost all considerations, since they have less impact on the collector's market, hit heavily with nostalgia, and can still be nice new sets with appeal to children. Today's market is definitely more complicated now that people are buying LEGO sets as an investment. This seems to be the case with Benny's Space Squad: many people likely bought the set for nostalgia while children were also likely interested, but some people likely bought the set out for a while in hopes of investment when supply ran out and demand (especially to nostalgic adults) was still high. This does put TLG in a position that is hard to predict, though I am quite confident that there is enough demand for the classic themes that at least small releases or 3-5 set waves could do well, maybe even every few years. This could all be a view limited by my personal nostalgia for the classics and near-complete disinterest in all the licensed themes (though I do understand why pop-culture connections increase sales). If LEGO would reproduce original sets, it is always likely to frustrate the secondary market investors, since sets with high enough demand to be worth reproducing are the sets with high secondary market prices due to the rarity/collector-aspect/investment cycle. This is something I don't think TLG takes lightly, especially now that they own BrickLink and have direct source of secondary market information. The case with the Taj Mahal seems likely to be repeated if they reproduce other large retired sets like the ones you mentioned. As I stated previously and as you mentioned, modern remakes seem a much better course for profitability, interest to AFOL's, and interest to children, so I still do not really want to see classic sets reproduced nearly exact to the original, even if TLG would bring back or refabricate retired molds to make the originals as historically exact as possible. Nostalgia is such a funny thing: starve it and the demand skyrockets; feed it too much and main-stream modernity might kill interest; I'm sure this is a delicate balance that TLG has to take into account, but I still hope they can see that a few nice modern remakes of Space, Pirates, and Castle (or even new sets with similar classic appeal merged with modern parts/techniques) are in demand enough to produce instead of having almost none. I also hope that they don't continue wrapping the whole nostalgia package into primarily large, 18+ sets or GWP. I'm really curious how sets like the Forest Hideout GWP would have faired financially if they are sold like typical sets. This might be discussion for a different thread, though. Interesting, I did not even know this set existed. It's definitely a case of a set remake without parts from discontinued molds.

Hoo, boy... though I touched on it earlier, the GWP discussion is a long one that goes a different direction than intended in this thread (though still an interesting discussion to be had, just probably elsewhere). Yes, that is what I think: many sets from the 80's and 90's have critical pieces/molds that have been discontinued. Though there are sometimes similar modern counterparts, the differences are enough that they justify (in my opinion) a complete modernized remake with reasonable faithfulness to the original (the Forest Hideout mentioned above is a perfect example).

I was in the middle of responding to your message when you submitted this response, so hopefully I can be forgiven for a double-post... Though I would be thrilled with reproductions of classic sets, I think I understand the marketing behind not doing so. Thankfully, I bought into the second-hand market for classic themes heavily during what is now likely historically the peak time: 2010-2015. Second-hand availability was good with online sales methods while pricing was reasonable due to relatively niche interest. I bought many second-hand collections through eBay and sorted out classic sets, especially Castle and some Pirates with a little Space, sourced the few missing pieces through BrickLink, and made great progress towards completing a collection of my childhood dreams, often in multiples of many Castle sets. Through 2020-2022, the value of these sets has doubled according to BrickLink average sales prices. The Icons sets are the perfect idea, in my opinion, due to reasons mentioned above. I am taking this opportunity to revel in the improvements with new pieces while having the similar nostalgia and being able to share my childhood with my nephews through these sets. One of my most favorite interests in the LEGO hobby is redesigning my own versions of updated classic sets, which I plan to do extensively over the coming years to share these sets with my nephews.

I don't know all the details, but the Legends sets were in the Shop-At-Home catalogs in the USA, so they had advertising. The marketing was likely still less than it could have been! My older brothers bought 2 of the Legends Black Falcon's Fortress and 2 of the Guarded Inn while my mother ordered the Black Seas Barracuda that I and my brother earned through summer work. The concept was great for me having a chance at sets I had missed being too young or not born at time of release. I don't recall the switched hair pieces; do you have any more details on that? The gray-scale box was a mistake for sure, in my opinion. It seems like TLG in general does not understand their market information properly and consistently bungles the concepts. Maybe I am just missing the insider information as a consumer, but it seems like TLG could make a lot of money off more nostalgia connections, especially right now when people in their 30's/40' who lived through LEGO's "Golden Era" may have children to introduce to LEGO and would love the nostalgia connection. Does TLG really not understand the meaning behind second-hand prices on old sets? They certainly seemed to understand with the Eldorado Fortress remake: price matched the BrickLink average sales price for the original almost exactly... The concept of competing with themselves is sometimes a valid one, but I don't know that comparing classic reproductions/nostalgia to Star Wars is quite the same thing. Classic Space and Star Wars, though both "Space" are really not at all in the same market, in my opinion.

@SpacePolice89 In some cases it is possible, but I think the concept runs into trouble for numerous reasons: 1. The "Legends" sets released in the early 2000's are reported to have not done very well, so TLG is less inclined to consider set remakes. (Would this concept work better today with more parents with a nostalgic connection to the sets from 1980-2000 with children at a good introductory age for LEGO sets? I think so, and think there is evidence of such with the success of The LEGO Movie and the current Icons line.) 2. Techniques as well as pieces are dated. Old builds are basic compared to standards of today (partly due to more limited piece types available). Some parts used require out-of-production molds. 3. Market disruption would occur since people collect the old sets for nostalgia and due to rarity today. Reproducing a set would upset collectors and is less likely to draw in new customers without the nostalgia/collector connection. 4. Modernized remakes with appeal to nostalgia seems much more likely to do well. I personally think this is the best route as evidenced by the success of the recent Icons sets and Gift-With-Purchase (whether or not consumers like GWP...). This gives the best of both worlds: appeal to nostalgia and interest for today's modern consumer, potentially rebuilding/reinforcing nostalgia for the LEGO brand and originals with new connections to the original "Golden Era" nostalgia. For examples of retired molds from your example sets (all would require updates to outdated colors): 6267 Lagoon Lock-Up: 16x32 baseplate (baseplates in general are rare today), cloth sail, 2-piece jail cell door, adjustable palm tree trunk pieces 6927 All-Terrain Vehicle: 2x2 short support columns?, windshield slope, inverted cockpit slope, short ladders, rocket cones?, technic wheels 6078 Royal Drawbridge: 2x2x4 octagonal columns, 16x32 baseplate, 4x4x6 corner wall panels, small triangular LURP? (maybe BURP as well?), chrome great-sword, dragon helmet, dragon plumes, cap helmet with chinstrap aventail 6615 Eagle Stunt Flyer: wing plates, tail plate, tail fin, engine circular housing, propeller, exhaust pipe 6145 Crystal Crawler: wheels, bendable grapple arms (all pieces), faceted octagonal bubble windshield, propellers, octagonal corner column piece, spring-loaded pieces for locking the direction of the front propeller supports In each of these cases, the pieces that are out-of-production (some for many years) are very critical to the sets. I think it would be difficult to try to maintain the original set while replacing these parts with modern pieces that are a near-exact match to the original (sometimes not even an option, as far as I know). The way I see it, in almost all regards, the modern Icon remakes are a much more viable option, since they maintain a nostalgia connection with the freedom to use modern pieces to reinterpret the original sets, sometimes with significant improvements to the build and design. I also agree with all of the points @MAB made above.

Ah, sorry you did not find it there. I will look through my old catalogs and leaflets, but I doubt I have enough from the 80's to be confident I might find what you want.