PrinceLucius

Not to diverge too much from the Legos, but to just slightly continue to give some examples of intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation: According to this definition, Frodo is a hero in Lord of the Rings. He has a clear mission, which he accepts, and which consistently drives him forward and he does not even want anyone else to take his role for him, so in the end he wants to be the hero himself. On the other hand, Cassian Andor is an anti-hero considering the big picture of his motivation. He gets into troubles by accident, not as a price for his decisions. He does not want to join the rebellion, and even when he does, he does not do it for any singular intrinsic motivation (like to avenge the death of his loved one), but he rather ends up on the rebel side for a number of accumulating reasons, and when he finally fights for the cause, he is rather fulfilling the will of others than that of his own.

You are right, now that I checked it, it indeed seems more common to use the term anti-hero to describe the morally gray nature of the characters, but I swear it is sometimes also defined as "a hero who does not want to be a hero". My point is that the literature concepts do not tend to have strictly unitary definitions (there are about a dozen different common opinions what should count as a metaphor, for example). The interesting thing is rather the phenomenon behind the term being used. Many use "anti-hero" the way you referred to, but it is also used to describe the type of the character's motivation, which can be intrinsic or extrinsic. So to avoid confusion the best practice is to define what one means by the concept in use, so in this case I wanted to define "anti-hero" on the basis of motivation, not by morality, because the character classes are more suitable and precise for the latter purpose. So I define or use the definition of a hero to describe intrinsic motivation, a self-driven purpose, which actively guides the character: they want to be heroes. In contrast, anti-hero is then its opposite in this definition: a character, who does not want to be a hero, but who gets kicked into action anyway by extrinsic motivation like random accidents or the will of other characters. When defined in this way, we can name the typical Disney pattern for a protagonist as a lawful good anti-hero considering the nature of their morality and motivation, but the terms could be different under different lining of the definitions. "Pure hearted protagonist driven mostly by extrinsic motivation" is conceptually the thing I want to express.

I would rather define him as "chaotic good" considering the average morality of his actions, but you are right that some writers and theorists refer to the same thing as an "anti-hero". Generally the literature terms are not very consistent across different users, so it is better to clarify the intended use of a term. So to clarify, the Disney concept seemingly tends to favor protagonists who are morally "lawful good" but motivationally "anti-heroes", so characters who do not have strong intrinsic desires or dreams to pursue, but rather their adventure consists of random external elements kicking them going, but wherever they end up, they refuse to do any bad deeds. The point is not that such a concept would be bad as such (Luke himself is a lawful good anti-hero) but that the Disney executives/rules/etc. enforce it regardless whether it fits and whether it has been used too many times. So much so that it makes at least me a bit sad that we will not likely see much alternatives to the pattern. Cassian was a happy surprise, though, but the creators apparently saw a lot of trouble to make it happen. And a clarification of the different levels of morality commonly used by writers: https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fckyjzu0ndqi71.jpg

I had to check the Falcon rumor myself, because the old one is still available on shelves in Finland at least, so that's a surprise. Not necessarily a bad one, though. A neat re-iteration would be a somewhat playscaled Falcon model with complete and very detailed interior and complex design akin to the Sail Barge and a price tag say 400 €/$ or so compared to the extremely huge and expensive previous version.

Rey is mostly an anti-hero, because she initially does not want to leave Jakku and join the rebellion, and even when she does, she is mostly motivated by things happening to her or to someone else around her, not by pursuing things she wants herself. Of course, this eventually changes, when she does want to confront Kylo Ren, but nevertheless, her character is not defined by an arch of pursuing something, but by a series of events moving her around. Generally the division between an anti-hero and a hero is not totally black and white. It depends on the average type of motivation, which kicks the character going. In Disney's style, it tends to be the anti-hero type more often. (And to be clear, an anti-hero can be completely "good" and on the good guys' side and do heroic deeds. The definitive question is what fundamentally motivates the character, their own spirit or circumstances.) Anti-hero is not necessarily any worse or better choice for a character than the hero type. Andor is an anti-hero, too. It is just a common trope and particularly common for Disney, so much so that one can see a pattern. And yep, Andor has questionable morals, and he is more interesting and realistic exactly because of that, and indeed in contrast to the typical Disney pattern. What I learned, they shot Andor in England and tried to keep it low and not really ask for permissions, so that's at least the story how they avoided being constricted by the Disney ideals. Anyway, the Disney ideals are a seemingly strict even if not totally opaque pattern. There are exceptions, but generally the Disney concept does dictate a lot what kind of content they can produce. In fact, the concept of Star Wars does too: a movie (at least an episode movie) should open by a ship entering black space, it should include a chase scene and a beast and a double fight at the end, and it should be told linearily and over a short span of time without written tags on the screen. Does not strictly apply in all parts to every episode, but the concept generally holds firm. As a personal opinion, the Disney concept does not suit well to Star Wars, because it makes Star Wars feel and taste more like Disney when it should feel and taste primarily like Star Wars. For this reason I generally would prefer the only restrictions to be set by the concept of Star Wars itself, and otherwise explore the different ends of the lore. Not that the Disney era hadn't done it all. Andor was an espionage thriller fitted into the Star Wars concept (though I would have preferred them still cutting on screen tags and use more background shots and intercourse to reveal the location, but the series typically don't have budget for it; you don't see much aliens in Andor, for example).

Fair, Solo is perhaps not the best example from this point of view. The origin story I refer to is the one presented as a sidenote in some of the old books, though can't recall which one, and it was a very short sidenote anyway. In the spirit that Han, Leia and Luke and others are having a dinner and Han tastes a particular type of food, which reminds him of having a dinner with his original family in Corellia, or something of the sort and he shortly reminiscents a piece of his story. Similarly the Thrawn-trilogy refers to the Clone Wars in a very short sidenote of Mara Jade's thoughs as if the Clone Wars were a clash between humans and clones, when they later were turned into the clash between the clones and the droids. But I think the general point stands, nevertheless: Jyn is an orphan and anti-hero, Rey is an orphan and even stronger anti-hero, Cassian Andor is an orphan and anti-hero (though it works on him), funnily enough even Dedra Meero is an orphan. Like Andor demonstrates, the Disney pattern does work on some characters, but I genuinely doubt if the writers would really have a choice, if they wanted to. The Disney pattern includes some other things besides orphan and anti-hero, like the requirement that the main protagonist cannot display questionable morals. But you are right that the Disney pattern may not be the most crucial factor, why some pieces of media have suffered but more the other reasons you mentioned. And the pattern can be used in genius ways, too. Mandalorian is an interesting example how you can combine a ruthless bounty hunter and the Disney pattern without turning the bounty hunter too dull and nice, considering that a bounty hunter is a person who is paid to kill people, by revolving him and the show around the dad jokes between him and the baby Yoda. He never had the chance to kill almost anyone with a face, much less so for the sole reason of earning money, but it doesn't bother the viewer, because it feels like a motivated choice due to baby Yoda, not an external limitation. And this is not a critique, that was a genius idea. Nevertheless, the pattern seems to affect the story choices, even limit them.

I would hope it mean a general derivation from the 4+ line towards more sophisticated models for young children, too. Maybe a bit akin to the microfighters: an exaggerated and small ship with reasonably complex building techniques instead of the big one-use molds and overly simplified techniques. I firmly believe that if a build is too complex for a child to build it by themself, the better solution is to spend some family time together and help the child to build it, not to degrade the set itself. The main reason for the whole 4+ line, I believe at least, was originally the somewhat weird and rigid way how adults read the age recommendations. I worked a few years in a toyshop and many adults found it surprisingly difficult to believe that a 9+ can easily be bought to a child aged at 8 or 7 or 6. On the other hand, if a 9 year old needed help to build 7+ set, they often thought that the set design was broken, and inversely were weirdly proud if a 9 year old child could build 14+ set...

Thanks for the tip, I actually haven't looked these, but I will! Generally I have enjoyed many of the Expanded Universe/Legends books/other media pieces. One jewel regarding the gloomy atmosphere in some media pieces more than others is the Revenge of the Sith book by Matthew Stover. Episode III is my favorite movie, both considering Star Wars and generally any movie I have seen, but the book really does honor the original concept of the movie only adding a layer of poetic and profoundly dark atmosphere to it. So much so that I once said to my ex, who is a teacher of literature, that The Revenge of the Sith is perhaps one of the most genius examples of post-modern narration with art-like style serving the feeling of an epic. She initially despised the idea to grant such an honor for any popular culture book (literature students want to make a difference between the literature of high and low esteem), but I read the book aloud to her, and even she had to admit that I had a point.

I take it that the Brickarms and other such 3rd party add-ons are not what is meant by this?

I think this is generally very true. Personally I would prefer the approach, in which different works would serve different audiences. Something like Andor for those who wish to see the dark end of the galaxy (that's me), something like Mandalorian or The Skeleton Crew who wish some lighter adventures with more humor. What I detest are the mismatch between the source/theme and the representation, general lack of long-term planning and vision on Disney's end, and the overwhelming disregard of the logic and lore of the Star Wars universe, which unfortunately has been commonplace during the Disney era. Probably exactly because the directors have enforced their own visions, often without any particular love for the lore itself. I mean, Rian Johnson does not strike me as a person who would have ever read the Thrawn-trilogy for example, the original episodes VII - IX as a background material and source for his own work. The mismatch between the source/theme and its representation means, how, for example, a horrible and dark theme is being delivered to the eyes of the children in some naive form. Probably not a popular opinion, but I personally never learned to like the Clone Wars exactly because of this. It does not really catch the atmosphere of the war, particularly not the first seasons. On the other hand, the Skeleton Crew is kind of genius in how it combines the adult elements of space piracy in a way, which is fitting for a child audience. It does not change the world as such, merely the way how it is delivered on the screen. There are a lot more dark things happening in the background, which you can see as an adult, but which are not totally obvious to kids following the same series. I would have wished something similar with the Clone Wars, too. Oh, and I almost forgot. The Disney concept does not serve Star Wars well. It may work on children's animations based on ageless fairytales like the Lion King or Cinderella, but it is too rigid and ridiculously overwhelming in Star Wars. Just some examples, the Disney concept tends to force the main characters to be orphans and anti-heroes, so characters who do not want to be heroes but accidentally end up as ones by accident, and usually they are motivated by a will to escape something rather than by a will to pursue something. Think about how different the Solo movie had been, if they had rather followed the somewhat more original idea that Solo was from a middle-class family on Corellia, which was one of the flourishing industrial core worlds, something like an image of the United States or European Union in the real world. This Solo then actively pursued the ideals of the New Order as a young man, even competed to be the best pilot in the Imperial fleet against the Baron Soontir Fel, until a turning point, which led to him abandon his friends in the fleet and free at least one wookie from horrible slavery, and how this experience shaped his later cynicism and self-reliance (and partly motivated to not abandon his friends the next time during the battle of Yavin). What we got instead was a Solo story crunched through the Disney machine: an orphan anti-hero driven only through the will to escape, and having no motivation whatsoever to pursue anything, just accidentally bumping from one adventure to the next, freeing even Chewbacca by a sheer accident without any sort of choice between loyalty and morals, friends and compassion, to be made. Then compare this ideal to Rey, and you see what I mean. To tie the whole thing back to Lego, instead of just complaining about what should have been done and how, I'm going to produce some own Star Wars content with Lego, which tries to be more clever regarding these kinds of things (I'm semi-professional screenwriter, so it combines well two hobbies). I could share some snippets soon, actually.

Ah, I love these kinds of big and detailed interiors, and this one is certainly an inspiring one with a lot of intriguing areas in it! I'll be happy to see more later on. One slight idea to consider might be recoloring the bunks? Even the stormtroopers assumedly had mattresses, so maybe some other color than gray for the bunks to represent some piece of comfort? Like sand green or sand blue? I have actually spent a year in a barracks, and this floorplan like the security station and its position at the crossroads, the cantina, the stocks and the bunks and the general atmosphere does catch the glimpse of it very well.

The one place where this would work probably the best in Star Wars would be Coruscant. You could do almost dozens of great sets of the nature: A big set (100 to 200 €/$): a building akin to a modular building, though with some key differences: Taller towers but no backwalls, which is a good compromise as it enables higher buildings for the same price while also enabling better playability. The street level would be microscale city scape and the actual minifigure street would be one level higher akin to the streets in Ninjago modular buildings. This cheap yet efficient optical illusion would better feel like the minifigures were actually living high above the visible ground of the megapolis. Some compromises would need to be done, like locations being allocated to the same tower building even if they were not intended to be in the same building in-universe. However, this is no different from what Harry Potter is doing. The sets as a whole could be combined in similar style as in HP. Tall buildings physically separated from each other but as a whole creating the feeling of the towering heights of a megapolis in which you use an air speeder to travel from one tower to another. A medium set (50 or so): a flat compatible with the big sets so that you could just add another floor in between like a ham into a sandwich. Small set (10 to 20): a speeder or a battle pack focusing on alien folks Just to get your imagination running: A Coruscant tower with three locations (big set): Basement level: Coruscant underworld club Street level: Dexter's coffee Level 3: Padme's apartment Andor's and Bix's hideout apartment on Coruscant (medium set) You could add this to the Coruscant tower set as another floor. Luthen's gallery with a landing platform (medium set) You could add this to the Coruscant tower set as another floor. Anakin's and Zam Wesel's speeder (small sets). They would fit to land on the roof or some small landing platform of the big Coruscant tower set. Mon Mothma's air speeder (small set). Would fit on the gallery's platform. Some more: The senate (a big set) Half of the mushroom showing exterior, interior being a couple of senate podiums in the rotunda and the rest being squeezed podiums to create an optical illusion of depth (4 x 4 podium with microfigures and at the very bottom 2 x 2 podiums). The chairman's tower could be lifted with a mechanism. In addition to the rotunda, it would include a small hallway area from the door to the two openings to different podiums. The front yard would be a small section of street/bridge over micro scaled city. Chancellor's office (medium set) You could stack this under the Senate set. The medical bay for Darth Vader's transformation (medium set) You could stack this as another level at the bottom of the Senate set. Bail Organa's speeder (small set) Could stick with a Technic axle to flow under the Senate mushroom so that Yoda could jump into it from a hatch in the Senate set.

It has probably something to do with a long term strategy, not with immediate resale winnings. Clearly buildable Chewie does not affect long term fans and kids so much, but it isn't meant to. It is meant to attract new adult fans and more than that, all the 18+ sets are a spearhead with which Lego fuels the culture of a trendy new adult hobby. It is not just the 18+ sets alone, it is the Lego Masters TV shows, collaboration with nostalgia brands (Pokemon!) and advertisement campaigns towards adults which clearly reflect their overall purpose to win a new market for years to come. Individual sales are of secondary importance next to this grand scheme. If a set make revenue, even small, then great. If it doesn't, consider it as a marketing cost. In this regard they are probably pulling the right strings given that the new generation of adults (millenials) care a lot about hobbies, unlike most of their parents did, whereas the kids tend to become more inclined to digital addiction than toys.

My thoughts exactly as well.

Generally the in-universe numbers, especially considering money but also things like army size, production value, population or distance are so weird and poorly fit that I personally try to avoid attaching myself to the numbers too much, as much as I would love to if they only made any sense. Just some funny examples: Galactic credits have more or less the same course as US dollars in our universe. Yet in Star Wars universe, you can buy an X-Wing for 60 000 credits, even if you barely buy a Tesla on Earth for the same amount of dollars. Just for comparison, Abrams tank costs something like 10 million dollars and F-35 something like 300 million dollars. And in Andor they tell us that 80 million credits will suffice as the pay roll of a quarter of a year for a an Imperial sector. In Earth terms that would roughly give you the payroll of 800 doctors and 10 000 nurses for a quarter of a year. In the small country of Finland with a population of 5 million, we have 20 000 doctors. The GAR army size has been commonly referred to have had about 3 million clone troopers. Even Russia is not so far from it at the moment (1 million casualties and another million still standing at the front), and the Soviet Union deployed as much as 30 million troops against the Germans. Personally I let the numbers just flow and try to keep some sort of cohesion of the logistics at play only in my head with numbers and logic I adjust myself to please only myself. Applies to the Lego universe as well, of which I mentioned an example a while back that I use as a downscale for the army organization for the Empire, Alliance and Republic (droid have a different system, though), which makes sense in terms of Lego but still has the right kind of feel of size in the Lego context: Private (1 trooper) Patrol (2 troopers) Squad (4 troopers, one of them a sergeant) Platoon (2 squads led by a lietenaunt so 9 together) Company (2 platoons led by a captain so 19 together) Battallion (2 companies led by a major so technically 39 together) Brigade (2 battallions of similar type of force, like a bridage of stormtroopers, led by a colonel, technical size about 80) Regiment (2 battallions of different types of force, like a combined force of artillery, armor and different sorts of infantry, led by a colonel, technical size about 80) Division (a combined and independent fighting force including artillery and armory and air support as well as field hospital totaling a number larger than a brigade or a regiment with the technical size being well over a hundred, led by a general) Notes: Corporals' role is to be the second in command in a squad if the sergeant falls or is needed elsewhere. Corporals do not command units as such. Unit sizes are technical paper sizes counting only the regular troopers. E.g. companies often employ a medic, battallions always have other officers and aids and technical specialists and often a small special force at the command station and platoons can have attached specialists like flametroopers at their disposal raising their actual size from the technical. Legion is an honorary title granted for successful units, not a unit size as such. Sector force or an army refers to all combined units on a particular planet or the land units of a fleet. Its size can be big or small, and it is commanded either by a moff (the sector force belonging to his or her sector) or an admiral (the army belonging to his or her fleet). Military, like the Imperial Military or the Alliance military, refers to all combined arms of a faction including armies and fleets and intelligence etc.