Lyichir

Awesome review! I used to long for sets like this one looking at old catalogs and posters, but didn't realize at the time just how many hidden and integrated features each of them had. The way the garage door piece automatically angles the scout ship is extremely cool!

I'm sorry, but the review shows it to be very akin to previous City sets. It shares characters with last year's ocean exploration team and the vehicle has a lot in common design-wise with other City vehicles—both ones for previous exploration subthemes and ones there have been for more typical City subjects like police, fire, or construction. I feel like you're stubbornly fighting a lost cause, since exploration subthemes like this have been a part of the City theme for more than a decade now and the inclusion of references to separate themes like Adventurers doesn't fundamentally change that.

I don't know... 16 studs is quite narrow even if you use it for the depth of the model instead of the width. Would you be able to effectively adapt something like Borg Tower at that scale, without being able to overlap on any side? I'm a little skeptical, especially if you wanted a fully enclosed interior featuring iconic interior scenes like the Nindroid factory, elevators, helipad, and office. Beyond that I'm not totally sure Borg Tower is well-suited to the Ninjago City format in the first place (regardless of baseplate size), given their typical layered approach with new construction above older traditional buildings. Having Borg Tower on the "ground level" would clash with the buildings neighboring it, while raising it up could make the whole thing too tall. I dunno. I've thought about ways to have a Borg Tower module for Ninjago City but it's easier said than done. Anyway, on the subject of Ninjago City I feel like a good direction for the next one in the series might be basing it more on the Crossroads. There's a lot of good subjects and characters there to adapt, and the "post-Merge" city would allow for a nice mix of new and classic subject matter. They could maybe even take the "crossroads" title literally and make a module that could be expanded in three or even four directions.

A half-size Ninjago City modular is an interesting concept for fans to explore, but as a set it might be harder to make appealing on its own compared to a full-size one. This is an issue that affects traditional modular building sets as well—an individual half-baseplate has less "frontage" to show off its best angle compared to a typical horizontal or corner build, and a Ninjago City modular might suffer even more from that since they tend to be taller than your average modular building, making for an unappealingly tall and narrow module in isolation. Cutting down on the width also cuts down on potential floor space to incorporate access between levels (which has been a major aspect of the Ninjago City series to begin with).

Personally I think it's also hard to argue that those sorts of subthemes are taking up too much room in the "main" City theme when there's still plenty of great "traditional" City sets being released each year. Traditional City subjects continue to flourish and innovate even with those other subthemes rotating in and out.

"MOC inspired" feels a little accusatory for a set like this, since the MOC itself was obviously inspired by the previous Fast & Furious set. When you're dealing with a licensed theme like this it's really no surprise when MOCists create obvious accompaniments for the first set in the theme, nor should it be a surprise for Lego to eventually follow that same path to create the logical follow-up to their own work.

To be honest I think something has to be more floors than that to qualify as a skyscraper—traditionally "skyscrapers" were ten stories or more. Some of the Marvel modulars (Daily Bugle and Avengers Tower) have faked that effect by using smaller windows on the exterior to create the illusion of buildings having more floors than they actually do on the inside, but I don't know if that trick is necessarily appropriate for the main modular series. I'd much rather continue to have smaller buildings with logical exteriors and interiors, with the option remaining for fans with the resources to do so to expand those buildings upward by duplicating floors if they so choose.

I appreciate the reviews! It's nice to get views of all of the models from many angles and with good looks at all the details. The Z-Blob mech is an amazing looking set and might be my favorite mech/creature set in the theme so far. I like that not only are there three alt-builds, but even the "base model" seems to stand on its own as a little spaceship/escape pod. The first two alt-builds are both great and distinctive. The third (the centaur mech) is a little weaker, but frankly including three alt builds in the first place is awesome, let alone one as ambitious as a four-legged mech. I also like the C-Rex model much more than the weirdly proportioned Pterosaur, but the C-Rex build is excellent and like with the Z-Blob mech I like that the "base model" functions as a decent model of its own (in this case, a scrapyard with the container, engine, and "cockpit" separate). Castle Nocturnia is still really cool but yeah, I do wish it had more going on in the interior. As it is it has a lot of interesting 3D spaces but doesn't really do a lot with them. Looking forward to Mind's review of the Midnight Raven set, which is another one I'm really looking forward to.

New E has a review of the parts from the new McLaren: https://www.newelementary.com/2024/07/lego-technic-parts-review-42172-mclaren.html

To be honest, while I would be sad if it meant the theme was ending I don't mind getting only two sets if the two sets we get are good. Fewer sets means less I have to spend on them, after all.

Very cute! Incidentally, since the print on the torso is the new Reddish Orange that might be a closer match, though while arms exist thanks to the construction workers in some of the new City sets, and hips and mid-length legs will soon exist thanks to Audie from the Animal Crossing theme, it may be a while before we see hands, helmets, airtanks, or full-length legs in that color.

I don't know if I'd agree with your perception of the set quality itself. I feel like both the boat and shark look quite nice, and significantly more detailed than you'd tend in themes like City or Creator where you'd typically see those sorts of subjects. The appropriateness of the license is obviously a matter of opinion but I don't think it's executed poorly.

I thought the fact that licensed sets have to bundle in licensing fees (which vary license to license) had been common knowledge for a while. It's far from the only factor in licensed set pricing (bespoke molds for licensed subjects that can't be reused in other themes can be another big factor, and of course licensed and unlicensed sets alike can have varying prices based on factors like part size among many others), but it's one of the clearest ones that sets licensed set pricing apart from typical unlicensed sets.

Oh, that polybag is hilarious. That nightmare creature looks like it's terrified—clearly it didn't bargain for Zoey to take to the air herself! And Dreamzzz BAM figures could be exciting. I can't help but hope for non dream world versions if only because they might be more likely to appear in something like BAM than they ever would in your typical Dreamzzz set, and the kids' real-world fashions are pretty cool designs in and of themselves.

I'm very much looking forward to it! Also looking forward to reviews of the sets, which will most likely come out a little earlier than the actual set releases. In general, this wave feels extremely strong—while I so far only got two of the year one sets and two of the sets from wave one of this year, four of the sets from this current wave are on my wishlist thanks to both the wide variety of new minifigures and the incredibly strong set designs overall. I feel like compared to a lot of themes, the multiple builds in each set also give Dreamzzz sets a lot more potential "surprises" as far as builds and features are concerned. This is partly because compared to other themes, which often show off all the features of the main model on the back of the box and alternate online pics, many of the alternate pics of the Dreamzzz sets are dedicated to covering all the different alt builds so there's much less of a "comprehensive" look at each individual model. As I am wont to do about sets I'm curious about or excited for, I've made some rough attempts to figure out the builds of at least the base models of some of the sets on Stud.io, but there's a lot less that I've been able to totally figure out on my own compared to your typical set in themes like Ninjago (which isn't to say that the challenge of doing so hasn't been a lot of fun).

I'm getting tired of arguing this. The creators of many of these corporate AI products have been practically bragging about how they can replace workers in these sorts of creative industries, so forgive me for not believing the comparison to things like word processors, photoshop or CAD (tortured comparisons because again, those things you describe gave creators more control over their craft instead of actively taking it away from them like generative AI does). You seem to be completely suckered by the AI hype cycle so I doubt I can convince you that, at least in this case and most likely in many others, these are solutions in search of a problem.

I don't think humans are perfect and that technology can't help, I certainly don't think so about myself. Please don't put words into my mouth. But there's a world of difference between the mathematical or engineering problem-solving of creating a sort algorithm and the largely creative, aesthetic skills required for something like Lego set design. And that is where AI does not (and arguably CAN not) exceed human creativity, because ultimately all it is attempting to do is IMITATE human creativity, and (so far) generally doing it remarkably poorly. Expecting an AI to come up with an artistic design, even in the concept stages, is a misaimed pursuit because a neural network is incapable of knowing what works aesthetically and what doesn't, let alone why certain things work and certain things don't. And ultimately, it's trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Human concept artists already exist and for the most part, those with actual skill and talent do not want or need generative AI to automate away the work that they both specialize in and genuinely enjoy (especially given how unethical all major art-based GPTs are when it comes to plagiarizing training data). If I do hear Lego designers praising AI for concept art generation, I will indeed be disappointed, not because I was wrong about its use case or lack thereof, but because it would represent a cheap, dubiously-ethical shortcut for something Lego has proven perfectly capable of doing with human talent for decades upon decades.

Your argument relies on the assumption that organizations getting into AI are doing it for smart, informed reasons, rather than because it is an overhyped product that makes investors excited. You have failed to describe a use case that is more than just a lazy shortcut for idea generation with inferior results to actual human-driven concept work. Tools like spell checkers or photoshop or calculators are things that have definite use cases—assisting development in ways that humans without those tools could not do as efficiently or effectively. Unlike something like a calculator or spell checker, which are used to intelligently root out human error, or something like Photoshop, which simplifies editing tasks by granting editors more deliberate control over their image files, removing the human element from design exploration undermines the entire endeavor by outright eliminating the deliberate human choices of the creative process. The point of design exploration is to consciously explore possibilities and push them toward a finalized state through iteration, and existing GPTs are fundamentally incapable of both of those tasks (lacking conscious understanding of the subjects it was trained on, and incapable of iteration due to not being able to recall and learn from its past outputs). For the purposes you are proposing it for, it is nothing more than a creative dead end.

8 studs wide. But it feels appropriate for the subject. The previous 2010 version was mostly 6-wide but a similar overall width to the new one if you included the wheelbase and mirrors, whereas this one makes much better use of its scale throughout both for interior space and exterior detail. The access to the interior of the trailer is a big improvement—I remember my little brother packing the earlier version with the boxes and other loose parts that I'd have to pry out, but this new one allows easy access both for the included forklift as well as human hands.

Built the new Lego truck set yesterday. Surprising nobody, it's really good. Just a really well-done rendition of a classic subject, with great detail and playability.

I disagree with this completely. An important part of the brainstorming/idea forming stage of design is being able to mindfully select inspiration and know the provenance of any concepts. This is important for any artist but especially for a corporation like Lego, which will want to avoid accidental plagiarism or copyright/trademark infringement. And frankly, generative AI as it currently exists is useless for that purpose. Pretty much all major generative AI platforms are trained on databases that include plagiarized material, and none can effectively trace the results they generate back to their original sources. Frankly, the best ways to come up with concepts and ideas are still good old fashioned research and development. AI is a lazy and irresponsible means of skipping that step, at best useful for amateurs without the skill or means to put forth the appropriate effort but of no use for skilled designers and concept artists or for a company with the means to hire the appropriate human talent.

Sure. but I don't think we're ever gonna see an animal that big sold as a BAM accessory. :P

While more colors of foal would be nice I don't really see why an equestrian athlete like that would come with a foal—it's not like an athlete like that would be working with a horse she couldn't ride.

Yes. In general, copyright laws that affect other media also apply to art, so something like the Andy Warhol set would still need licensing from his estate whereas things like the Mona Lisa and Great Wave have been in the public domain for as long as modern copyright law has existed, so would require no specific licensing.

AFAIK it can depend on the age of the building and whether the building itself is trademarked. I've heard that is why the "Australia" postcard set depicted a generic outback scene instead of a city like the other postcard sets—many recognizable landmarks in Sydney would require licensing and the "extended line" team responsible for small Lego-exclusive sets like that didn't have the budget for that.