Karalora

I tend to think the D&D wave is, functionally, a Castle wave (and I look forward to the prospect of a follow-up). But for something more akin to classic Castle as we usually think of it, I think we'd need: King Queen Princess Knight Captain Pikeman Archer Wizard Peasant Man Peasant Woman Peasant Child Outlaw/Rogue Blacksmith You'll notice only one formal faction is implied here, plus a handful of relatively neutral parties. I thought about representing two opposing factions the way Castle usually does, but with only 12 slots there wasn't room for much variety. As for colors...maybe blue/white? With a red/yellow faction in a second wave? I would want to avoid any impression that one side is "good" and the other is "evil."

I keep saying, any method you use to find one of the minifig you want, scalpers can use to find all of the minifig you want before you even get there. The overall community would be better off if the process were truly blind.

Interesting. Are you envisioning a selection of existing characters from various anime or something more archetypal?

Oh, wow, that broken-up ice looks really good!

I stan octane thermoplastic all the way! He specializes in speculative Legend of Zelda themed sets and MOCs, but that's not all he does.

I believe the word you're looking for is hippocampus.

You'll notice that with all of these, the signature exaggerated feature that makes the character recognizable is the head, while the bodies and limbs are less extreme and/or less important to the aesthetic of the character. CN shows like to experiment wildly with character shape and silhouette (@Lyichir mentions Dexter and Dee Dee for a perfect case in point), which would be utterly demolished by homogenization into the minifigure form. I mean...I love Steven Universe, and I think some of the Gem constructions would make stunning models, but the characters would look awful as minifigures. The wide variety in body shapes and sizes is a big part of the point of those character designs.

Right? You can imagine someone building a cute fem-coded robot, but even if cyclopses were a natural breeding species, there's literally no reason the females would wear lipstick. I don't object to female counterparts in principle; just don't make them look inherently ridiculous.

Meh. Cartoon Network seems to specialize in characters with the kind of exaggerated proportions that would be hard to translate into proper minifigs.

You could also point out that people might not want the genuinely sacred parts of their religion commodified as, let's be honest, rather silly-looking toys.

Christmas and Easter LEGO sets are, to the best of my knowledge, based exclusively on the secular side of these holidays. Though it's debatable to what extent they can be separated from their religious legacy.

Amazing work! Some of the details that stand out to me: The use of the dome to represent berries, where the stud becomes the flower-end The green grass stalks with stacks of 5-petaled flowers on top. I see grass like that every spring and summer! Flower headpieces repurposed as actual flowers You get a sense of the interior structure of the boot/factory from those tiny little windows in the side Old wine bottle as a greenhouse! It's all so charming!

I'm sure there are plenty of kids who are interested, but it mostly seems to be something the grown-ups are after.

Agreed about the Temple of Time--if you want an iconic building that has appeared in multiple games, that's the one to use! I think part of the reason there has been such a struggle get any Legend of Zelda LEGO sets is that most of the pressure is coming from the AFOL side, but the most memorable aspects of the series aren't really things that AFOLs usually value. For all its history, LoZ is pretty light on really iconic, recognizable structures that you can enjoy having on display. The meat of the series is in the monsters and puzzles, which are things kids love to play with...but kids aren't, as a rule, the ones going "LEGO Zelda please?"

I'm not surprised. I think I've brought this up earlier in the thread, but I don't think Hyrule Castle is an ideal pick for a LEGO set at all, for a few reasons. The main one is that it's not, in itself, an iconic structure. Not only does it look like a fairly generic medieval castle (unlike Princess Peach's castle, which has unique features like the red roofs and stained-glass window which make it instantly recognizable), but it's not even the same generic medieval castle from one game to the next! It gets redesigned for every game, to a degree that makes even something like a 2-in-1 or 3-in-1 set unfeasible. What it boils down to is that as important as Hyrule Castle is to the franchise, on a visual level it doesn't scream "Legend of Zelda." The Great Deku Tree, in any incarnation, arguably does (especially with the Master Sword pedestal out in front).

Call it a wallaby instead of a kangaroo, and you can make it small enough to fit in the bag without anyone batting an eye. It could double as a joey for one of the bigger species.

Because he's an iconic part of the two most popular games in the franchise. Now this I agree with--the best way to amortize the design and production costs of those new molds and prints would be to re-use them (at least some of them) in more sets. Another good point! As much as I want more LEGO Zelda, I do hope it doesn't only take the form of huge expensive display sets. A variety of price points would do more to help them determine how much demand for the theme there really is. I know a lot of people who were really looking forward to the Deku Tree but balked at the price tag.

I suspect a lot is contingent upon whether the Deku Tree hits desired sales metrics.

If the argument is "LEGO could if they wanted to," I don't think anyone is disagreeing. I'm not entirely sure what the pro-Sam people are trying to prove.

We have been over this already in this thread.

That...would not be Yosemite Sam. That would be someone cosplaying him. He might technically be "human" as opposed to the funny animal characters, but he has a very distinctive, extreme silhouette that is vital to making the character "read" correctly. In any case, I was just pointing out one more factor that might have led to TLG omitting Sam from the lineup. "Let's see...we can violate our anti-handgun stance, lose one of our already-rare opportunities to inject a little gender balance into this wave, AND have to figure out how to create THAT head using our current molding and printing technology...or we can just not include this character.

I mean...another reason not to do Yosemite Sam is his abnormally awkward head shape for molding and printing.

If it's meant to represent a cardinal, I wish they would produce a new mold with the crest (which could also be used for blue jays, waxwings, and other small crested birds), but I'll take what we can get.

I don't know about "plenty of," but I do get the feeling you didn't read my entire post. Context is everything with fictional violence shown to children, and yeah, there's some arbitrariness to where the lines are drawn, but I don't think it's all that arbitrary if parents are more worried about their kids acting out Rabbit Season/Duck Season with Dad's hunting rifle, than about them acting out the cantina fight from Episode IV with their own "blaster" (i.e. a toy). As a rule--not an ironclad one, but a pretty solid guideline--LEGO tries to steer away from including modern-style weapons in sets targeting children. A quick check on Bricklink shows that the standard rifle was last produced in 2013, and the handgun is now used mostly in display sets for AFOLs, and half the time isn't even there as a gun but as a small bent element. Knives seem to show up mostly in the context of kitchen/eating utensils (where they won't, in and of themselves, inspire anyone to stab each other) or in fantasy settings where they are more comparable to swords than modern switchblades. As for swords themselves? How many children are likely to have access to a real sword that they could use to damage someone IRL? Not many. The objective is not to completely eliminate the possibility that kids will cause real harm by imitating the fiction they see (which is impossible), but to minimize the likelihood.