Karalora

Bingo. You know what you've done here? You've made a breakthrough in the discussion. There is undoubtedly a much greater diversity--of genre, target demographics, medium of origin, etc.--in the licensed themes than the unlicensed. Now, unlicensed themes can't provide diversity in the area of medium of origin, since the medium of origin is LEGO, but there's a lot they could do to diversify in the other areas. When it comes to what you might call storytelling themes, with characters (named or not, but recognizable from set to set) portrayed in a number of scenarios, there should be more options than just "relatably flustered (but also aspirationally hip) Kids Just Like You (TM) Build Things (TM) to Defeat the Forces of Evil (TM)" and "relatably diverse Kids Just Like You And Your Friends have everyday lives, but with more cute pets" (this may be an unfair view of the Friends line, but it's what it always looks like to me when I peruse the shelves).

The design of the Harpy makes me wonder if she was devised for something specific that fell through, and hastily repurposed as a CMF. That's certainly not what a mythological harpy looked like!

I haven't seen anyone deny that licensed themes far outnumber unlicensed ones. What I have seen is a position that the theme count matters less than the set count, which is closer to parity.

Oh, definitely. And in addition to de-emphasizing the creativity aspect, the focus on visual fidelity to source material is probably partly to blame for the recent explosion in new part shapes, which certainly has its upsides but also increases the price of sets overall (in order to amortize the cost of new molds) and makes it difficult to maintain a decent stock of general-use parts. Because if the thing has to be shaped perfectly, then there's a good chance you'll have to invent new shapes for it.

Just FYI, we now have a thread for the LoZ theme!

I share your loathing of the plastic-animal-skeleton-with-ears genre of Halloween decor. I have come to accept the invertebrates, despite objectively being more ridiculous, as projects from a necromancer who had a bunch of little bones left over and said "You know what would be funny?"

Fair point. Maybe the manufacturing process was just finicky enough that they could justify it for a limited-release CMF series but not long-term production? That could apply to the mouse as well. And on the subject of fragility, that long skinny flamingo leg probably wouldn't hold up well in a BAM bin, getting jostled around and bent and stressed in all sorts of ways that make it unappealing for purchase, even if it didn't break. Maybe this is naive of me, but I tend to assume that if TLG is withholding a popular animal from wide availability, it's for reasons relating to cost-effectiveness rather than, say, spite.

I wouldn't go quite that far. They can still be allowed in as long as they wear child-sized boxing gloves for the duration so they can't pick anything up.

Duplicate post (oops)

I fully understand the sentiment, but I suspect the flamingo is too big and the mouse too fragile for BAM (it only takes one toddler to rip the tails off every mouse they can grab).

You calling my villagers dumb, willie?

Dangit, I just want white cherries to be mistletoe berries in my Winter Village!

There is no upper limit to how right someone can be on the internet. Or how wrong they can be. The internet multiplies all to infinity.

No, you're 400% right about this. How are we supposed to depict the moment that the fantasy heroine makes psychic contact with the wild horse that will become her bonded companion if it's already wearing a bridle? TLG needs to think about these things!

The dress on the flower lady looks nice, between that and the S29 "unicorn elf" we're getting a mini-boom in parts for nature nymph type characters.

Can I just say that I despise the term "kidult?" What a miserable portmanteau that is, both aesthetically and in the implied judgment against what some people choose to do with their time and money.

I assume the LEGO designers are relying on well-worn character design tropes without interrogating them too closely, and you know what? That's fine. These things were codified in pulp adventure and fantasy of previous generations, when both the production and consumption of things were very much a "good old boys' club." LEGO play is very much not that, which robs the tropes of much of their baggage. Whenever someone accuses me of reading too much into something, I know I'm on the right track.

It's complicated. Visual media has a bad habit of using a female character's hair color as shorthand for her personality. Blondes are either innocent or extremely catty, black-haired women are sultry, brown-haired women are virtually unrepresented...and redheads are "fiery." Which is to say they're assertive and maybe a bit quick-tempered, but never to an extent that might be perceived as threatening to the presumed male audience. Because red hair is also, for some reason, coded as "sexy." It's kinda the opposite of feminism, actually--the red hair is essentially "permission" for the woman to be in a more active or combat-focused role, because she has a striking enough appearance to justify her existence.

In the case of the modular vehicles or Dreamzzz, I think the intent is that the builds should be modular within the fiction that kids might be playing. Having to completely take apart and rebuild something would bring the game to a grinding halt, but modular constructions could be altered within the flow of play.

Your first guess is correct. "Dubious food" in Breath of the Wild and Tears of the Kingdom is what you get from cooking an illegitimate combination of ingredients, and the pixelation is a joke: "This is so bad, we won't even show it to you." (It still restores a quarter-heart of health when you eat it, and there's a unique animation of Link steeling himself before shoving it in his mouth.)

No, it totally tracks!

If the price increase is less than overall economic inflation, then what in the world are you complaining about? Sounds to me like the company is doing its best to keep sets affordable even with pressure from the overall economy to raise them a certain amount. Well then maybe it's a good thing if fewer people can afford LEGO so they can avoid this dangerous messaging. I have to say, you have completely lost the thread here. You're just grasping at straws to criticize TLG. Why are you even here if you hold the company and their products in such disdain?

This is a nonsensical statement. Those "2 decades" are roughly the time that LEGO sets were reliably priced at about 10 cents per piece. And during those 20 years, the average size of a piece gradually decreased. It's a kind of "shrinkflation" rather than standard inflation, but it slightly disguised the fact that the toys were steadily getting more expensive alongside most everything else. In any case, you can't characterize what LEGO is doing as price-gouging, because LEGOs are a luxury, and a rather specific one at that. If you can afford them, props to you for your success in life, and if you can't, you'll have to do something else with your leisure time and/or decoration space. Options are abundant in this world. I'm not defending everything they do in pursuit of profit; corporate business practices are generally reprehensible. But TLG, at least, as the purveyor of a product no one actually needs, isn't actually hurting anyone in the process.

"Irish Parade Fan," maybe?

Do my taunts aggravate the crrrippling arthrrrritis in yer index fingerrrrrrrs?