Lyichir

I initially dismissed Mars Mission outright. It was too much darker, weirder and less friendly than Life on Mars (one of the themes of my childhood). A couple things changed my mind. The first was Lego Battles, which played up the space horror nature of the aliens through allusions to films like the Alien series, and presented the conflict as a more equivalent conflict like the Pirates theme, which had no clear good vs. evil but was rather a battle for resources between evenly-matched factions. The second was building a number of the sets on Lego Digital Designer and discovering how much they surpassed the Life on Mars theme (and for that matter, a great number of other space themes) in terms of complexity and originality. Since then I've taken to building all sorts of sets on Lego Digital Designer, since sometimes you can't appreciate a set or theme until you've built it yourself.

Personally, I think that might be a plus. I don't have to be tempted to buy any of the winter sets until I've seen the summer ones and can more effectively plan my purchases!

I encountered a problem with part 30387. When the hinge clip is attached to part 44567 (either right-side-up or upside-down), it refuses to hinge to either 67.5 or -67.5 degrees, which should be one of the normal intervals for it to "click" to. Other parts like 30365 or 30388 do not seem to have this issue, nor does 30387 when it attaches to other parts like 30389.

Are they that popular, though? I was under the impression that the first one at least only saw moderate success and the newest one was only made because of the original's "cult classic" status. They're popular, but not nearly on the same level of popularity as Disney's real blockbusters. But keep in mind that even popularity isn't enough to save some cartoons. Young Justice is a testament to that, as are so many other series that succeeded with audiences yet failed to sell toys.

In addition to the laser pointer someone already pointed out, one of the stickers in Wyldstyle's bike appears to be a partial "Good Work" sticker of the sort a grade-schooler might find on a returned assignment. I can't think of any more off the top of my head, but I have no doubt there'll be more in the movie itself.

Hey... um... you guys. Didn't know where exactly to post this, but... we've been noticed.

Well, unlike Green Lantern, Batman is a main character, so it's only fitting that he show up in at least one set. As for the green ninja, he belongs to Lego, and could help sell the set to Ninjago fans who missed out on Lloyd the first time around. I was skeptical of Green Lantern's inclusion for a while, since if they were to put him in a new set they'd probably give him a more classic appearance than the one from the unsuccessful movie (though it would have been nice to get him somewhere... we still don't know a lot about the summer DC sets, so maybe there's still hope).

I can't finalize any wanted list for the year until I've seen what's in store for the summer. Once Toy Fair hits I should have a better idea of which sets are most appealing to me and which ones have the most desirable figs (and conversely, would give me the fewest duplicates). That said, I've started putting together a list that comprises both my "must-buys" and my "potential purchases" (which may be added to the must-buy list once I have more information about what summer has in store). My must-buy list currently contains: 10243 Parisian Restaurant (Our family has all of the modular buildings save for the Market Street, so we would be remiss not to get this) 44018 Furno Jet Machine (Aanchir's favorite of the winter Hero Factory wave) 44022 Evo XL Machine (My favorite of the winter Hero Factory wave) 70724 Ninjacopter (Ninjago, for the most part, is still up in the air until we've seen what's available this summer, but unless another set features both Pixal AND battle-damaged Zane, this one is a must-buy) 70800 Getaway Glider (The Lego Movie sets are some of the ones we know the most about for the summer. This set is cheap, packed full of useful parts, and has figs that don't look to be appearing later this year) 70803 Cloud Cuckoo Palace (Uni-Kitty is one of my favorite Lego Movie characters, and this is the kind of set I'd regret not getting down the line) 70807 MetalBeard's Duel (The MetalBeard in the Sea Cow may not be fully accurate; and besides, I don't know yet if the Sea Cow will be worth the purchase) 70809 Lord Business' Evil Lair (I do love me a good evil lair set. This one looks to be the only set to feature the fully-outfitted Lord Business, and also has Biznis Kitty as well as the Kragle) 70816 Benny's Spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP! (The only summer set so far that I know to be an insta-purchase. A luscious send-up to classic space that features Benny as well as a Uni-Kitty in a spacesuit with a classic space "cutie mark"!) My potential purchases list is so far made up of Friends sets (which are great this year, but I don't collect that theme compulsively), Ninjago sets (which I'm waiting until Toy Fair to decide on, so I don't get TOO many duplicate ninja), Hero Factory sets (which again, are on hold until I've seen the summer sets and can figure out the optimal way to get the best sets with the fewest duplicate figs), and Lego Movie sets (many of which don't feature main characters even if they're fine sets in their own right).

In general, that depends on the license. The Star Wars figures, for instance, can't be sold on their own because Hasbro has an exclusive license for Star Wars articulated figures (from when they acquired Kenner). The Super Heroes line is more vague. Certainly, no company has exclusive rights to Batman articulated figures; just a walk down the toy aisle will show you ones from various companies (and Lego themselves even made one in their "Ultrabuild" Constraction line). But because superheroes span such a wide range of media, a company COULD potentially have exclusive rights to articulated figures from "The Dark Knight" or "Beware the Batman". This isn't saying they necessarily do, mind you; I haven't done enough research to suggest that. But it is a possibility inherent to the roles of superheroes as cross-media properties.

Doesn't Andrew appear in both the Dolphin Cruiser and the Heartlake News Van? He's wearing basically the same thing (save for a hat with headphones instead of his mid-length blond hair), but I think that still makes him a recurring character.

Back in those days there weren't sets based on the games, since the games themselves were already based heavily on the sets. Lego Island featured Town sets, Lego Loco featured Train and Town sets, and Lego Racers featured a mishmash of currently-running themes. This was one of Lego's first attempts at a video game, so it's not surprising that they played it safe in terms of product tie-ins. Of course, not much has changed. Lego Universe only got a few promotional sets, and when Lego City Undercover was released, Lego just integrated some of the characters into the current City sets (and then put the sets back into the game). The Lego Movie is the first media property of Lego's to get this level of attention, and for a good reason: its audience is far wider than any video game of Lego's ever has been.

Well, you know what they say: you get what you pay for... I do think Lego sends free replacement parts for missing parts, but if they did so for broken parts I think you'd see more and more collectors claiming their army of minifigures all "broke".

That doesn't mean it doesn't work. That means that some thieves (not all), are determined enough to keep going. But even if they've only reduced the number of thieves, they've succeeded in part. And meanwhile, they've made it so that more are likely to be caught in the act. No method of theft-protection will be foolproof, of course (at least none that wouldn't be extremely inconvenient for honest consumers). But every little bit helps.

The only way that could conceivably happen is if a new Lego Racers-type game featuring modern themes instead of ones from the late '90s came out. As cool as that could be, I'm not convinced of the sales potential of a crossover racing theme, considering Lego's dedicated racing themes (World Racers, etc.) have had iffy sales. And frankly, I don't know how interesting such a theme could be. Certainly you'd have some potential for interesting models... but would they outclass the models for their respective themes? Would a Ninjago racer of a standardized size be better than the vehicles within the theme that are not burdened by such constrictions? Don't get me wrong, I'd love a new Lego Racers game, especially if you were no longer required to use a prefab chassis and the physics were better. But I don't know if it would make a good theme.

I can't see where you get that perspective. Lego has had "battle packs" of minifigures since at least the days of my childhood (the early '90s), when you could buy a pack of Space- or Aquazone- or Pirates-themed minifigures and accessories through the shop-at-home catalog. And the boxes of that era displayed minifigures prominently, too: in fact, the largest sets of that era featured cut-out sections of the box where a plastic screen displayed all the most unique minifigures and accessories of the set. I just don't see a big difference between then and now, when all sets just have a lineup of images of the minifigures along the top of the box (making the figs harder to steal than they were back when they were packaged separately) and "battle packs" have only changed in their method of packaging and their wider distribution.

The thing is there's a significant difference between a large-scale architectural set (Sydney Opera House, Taj Mahal, Tower Bridge, etc.) and the actual Architecture series. And this set was clearly designed as the latter. And it should be. Wasn't the survey that voted this the most wanted architectural model specifically about the Architecture series? Even if we ignore WHY the set got a limited release, the option of NOT producing the set (or even producing it but not putting it in the Architecture series) would be disappointing fans by default, since it would be essentially ignoring the results of that fan survey. I'm sure Lego thought that releasing the set in the Architecture series, but on a limited scale, was the best possible compromise, even if it's clear that the majority of posters here disagrees with that assessment. As it is, I'm tired of discussing this. I'll never really understand the collector's perspective whereby the branding on the box of a set carries such a heavy weight, even if the contents are the same, and I'm tired of my attempts at deductive reasoning being written off as "unfounded speculation" or the legitimate possibilities I propose being unfairly compared to historical impossibilities (the difference between "what if Napoleon had a stealth bomber" and "Lego must have had a reason to release the set this way, so let's narrow down what possible reasons there could be" are as stark as night and day, and to say that they're the same is an insult both to my intelligence and to the time I wasted trying to apply logic to this issue that doesn't affect me at all in the end). I'll know better in the future to avoid entering a discussion that seems to solely exist for the purpose of fomenting outrage and exchanging pity, and trying to point out that there might be another side to the story that is being ignored by all involved parties.

Your ignorant reduction of my argument to "what ifs" is becoming infuriating. I'm not "making up facts", I'm using logic to, to the best of my ability, narrow down the only conceivable reasons why the set could be released this way, because I'm interested in why it was done. If having an interest in why the company that makes the product I love made a seemingly consumer-unfriendly decision makes me a shill, I'm sorry. But if you didn't want people to discuss the issue then maybe you shouldn't have started a discussion topic about it. I don't have time to argue with someone who's more interested in drumming up dissent than actually giving issues any thought, or someone who would rather resort to personal attacks than actually trying to see things from another point of view.

I don't see how speculating that Lego had a motive for releasing the set this way (as opposed to doing it completely differently than they had before for no reason whatsoever) is "inventing facts". I think that if Lego were free to release the set the traditional way and were likely to make more money by doing so, then, well, they would do so. By process of elimination that suggests that either Lego was not free to release the set globally (either because of an agreement with the licensor or for some other, inscrutable reason), or that they did not see the set selling well in the traditional way (either because of the subject's relative obscurity or, again, for some unknowable reason). Like I said, I'd appreciate some transparency from Lego regarding this decision, but failing that all I can do is speculate. I'm not trying to support a bad decision, but since Lego hasn't made any statement on the matter, and since everyone else seems content with assuming Lego did this for no reason at all, or because they hate their customers, then I suppose it falls on users like me to play devil's advocate. P.S. I don't appreciate you slighting me in conversation with another member, instead of engaging me directly when you think you see a flaw in my argument. A smiley-face at the end of a post is not enough to mask a bad attitude.

I stand corrected. But I still fail to see how making a single set from the theme more exclusive is "evil". Some transparency regarding why this set's release is limited would be nice, since I'm sure they have a very good reason for doing so (most likely that the appeal of this set would be more limited, but it's not impossible that it's a matter of the licensor's terms).

The problem is that there was never any choice between this set being in the Architecture theme or not. You look at it and you can tell right off the bat that it was clearly designed from the ground up as an Architecture model. The choice is "the set existing" and "the set not existing". This is what I hate about a lot of completionists: they would rather that everyone go without a set if they personally can't obtain it (which, as I pointed out, is not the case for the majority of AFOLs, since AFOLs as a rule have a ridiculous number of options for obtaining hard-to-find sets). As for the collectible nature of Architecture sets, I was arguing against the quoted poster's argument that they were limiting distribution of a single set "from a series Lego is encouraging us to collect". Lego isn't doing squat to encourage you to collect the series, any more than they're doing for Star Wars, or City. You are personally choosing to collect the theme because you like it, which is totally fine, so long as you don't start to get the idea into your heads that you deserve special treatment, and that Lego adding another set to the series that might be slightly harder for you to obtain as a hard working, internet-savvy adult is "evil" or betrayal. Out of curiosity, what do you all think about the upcoming Lego House set? I hear that one's only going to be available in Billund: an even more restrictive release scheme that, from what I've read, will still in fact be branded with the Architecture theme.

The main point of yours that I take issue with is the notion that Lego is encouraging buyers to accumulate a complete collection of Architecture sets any more than they do with any other theme. I don't recall any "Collect them All" message on the box of the Architecture sets (indeed, something like that would be incredibly tacky, and tacky is the one thing the Architecture sets have never been). I'm not trying to suck up to moderators or TLG by simply suggesting that they may have had a rational reason to choose to release the set in this way. They wouldn't release the set differently than previous sets unless they have some (perhaps even flawed) justification for doing so; that's just common sense. If this set's sales potential is less than other architecture sets, as I speculated, then it would make a lot of sense to limit the release scheme (especially since, as you yourself are demonstrating, the most devoted fans are fully capable of getting the set through other channels)

You and me both, bro.

Oh my god. This was exactly the news I DIDN'T need to hear. The original Agents was one of my all-time favorite themes, and if this even comes close it'll make it EXTREMELY hard to prioritize my Lego budget for the coming year.

Cute! As a brony who has written a Doctor Who/My Little Pony crossover fanfic featuring the background pony known as Doctor Whooves, I myself have tried my hand at conceptualizing a slightly "girlier" Tardis interior. This one is fairly subtle, opting for cool hues like blue and lavender but succeeding at feeling just a bit more frilly than most of the actual Tardis interiors in the show. I love the idea of the heart-shaped gem on the sonic! Uni-Kitty is rapidly becoming my favorite character from The Lego Movie, too. She was adorable enough before we knew about all the variations she'd have, but now? Every time I see a new face from her my heart melts.

It could just be because of the fact that it's a less well-known building worldwide. I had actually never heard of it until I found out it was going to be a set. Compare that to some other earlier Architecture models; almost everyone knows what the Eiffel Tower is, or the White House, or Big Ben. And while things like the Farnsworth House or Robie House are less well-known generally, they're quite well-known in architecture circles, and the architects behind them are some of the most well-known architects of the past century. I could be entirely wrong, of course, and it could be much more well known than I could imagine, but I can't help but feel it's not a coincidence that I'd never heard of this building despite having studied design history in college, and learned a lot about architecture over the course of that.