Lyichir

I wonder what this'll mean for how LDD continues to be updated. On the one hand, the LDD team might face budget cuts seeing as Design-by-me was really the only part of LDD that brought in revenue. On the other hand, seeing as a limited-parts mode like Design-by-Me will be less necessary now that models can't be ordered, perhaps more of the LDD budget can go toward adding new part designs, rather than just those which can be ordered. We'll really have to wait and see.

There's definitely a more complex function there--having partially built the set on LDD, I can tell that there's some function triggered by pushing on the rear section; note the technic construction attached to the rear wheelbase. Perhaps all that does is invert the cockpit section? I agree that the underside is less impressive now, but I suppose it's probably sturdier. I wonder if the snake-y transformation has to do with the hypno-staff that appears in that set? Anyway, I'm very excited for the Ninja vehicles for next year. I was skeptical when we first heard about them, but the elemental patterning combined with the amazing functions have made them into must-gets for me.

It sounds like you're referring to the original Hogwarts from the first few years, rather than the recent one. In the recent HP sets there are a total of two sets that fit together, far from the massive modular mess that was the early Hogwarts. Even then, Hogwarts doesn't cut nearly the same profile as some of LotR's castles with extremely iconic overall forms. I see what you're getting at, though, and I suppose for some sets like Helms Deep they could shrink the scale down and still have room to recreate iconic scenes. Recent castle themes have actually been heavier on vehicles, particularly fantasy era. But again, I agree that things like Treebeard could fill the same function in some cases. I think the Creator idea someone suggested is rubbish, though. That type of release model would eliminate one of the main draws of licensed themes, that being role-play. You can't recreate the battle of Helms Deep with a microscale fortress city. A similar idea works for the Star Wars Midi-scale ships, but that's because it's easier to role-play with a ship than a structure.

But extra bricks add to the price of a set. The only reason extras of those parts you listed exist is to safeguard against faulty weight checks: since those parts are light, it's possible for the weight checks to miss their absence, so the required weight is raised slightly -- that way even if one of them gets left out, buyers will still have all the parts required to build the model. That's why later collectable minifigs lack extra parts: the weight checks in the Chinese plant were made more accurate, so LEGO no longer needed to provide backups.

I'm not about to trust Brickipedia on it if it hasn't been sourced. Red is a prominent color that hasn't yet been used, but I don't think we've had any confirmation of what Series 7 is.

I'm thinking they've avoided using red because it's a bright enough color that it would overpower the minifigs in the foreground, not to mention how the minifigures logo itself uses red heavily.

Light blue? I hope not. We've already had Dark Azure for series 5, and if you get any lighter than that you lose vibrance. My guesses would be something like 28 Dark Green (Bricklink's Green), or 268 Medium Lilac (Bricklink's Dark Purple). Maybe even 221 Dark Purple (Bricklink's Dark Pink) if it didn't scare off the adolescent males LEGO targets. Didn't we see something saying Series 6 would be White?

I was still a TFOL when I got the first Arkham Asylum set, and in fact the ONLY Batman sets I got were the two biggest (Arkham and the Batcave). And I doubt there'll be sets modeled specifically after the Arkham games or TDKR. That doesn't rule out sets which evoke aspects of these: I would not be surprised to see a TDKR-style Batwing, or an asylum that'd include significant characters like Hugo Strange. But I doubt we'll see movie-styled Catwoman or any Arkham-style characters. I expect half-measures, like the Tumbler or Batpod sets that blended aspects of recent media with timeless aspects of the Bat-mythos.

An article Brickjournal issue 10, volume 2 from March/April 2010 had directions for building sliding puzzles, and used that as an example of an image you could use.

But Fantasy Castle wasn't much better selling than any other Castle theme, as far as I know, so I think LEGO felt the need to start fresh after a good three-year run. It also wasn't a story-intensive theme. Mind you, many story-intensive themes end early too, but that usually is genuinely when sales drop off--see Exo-Force, for example. Ninjago, if anything, seems to be becoming more successful as time passes, with a wide range of new parts and concepts as well as a full TV series on the way! And I figure if LEGO's willing to make the TV gamble after Galidor, they know they have a keeper.

Eventually I hope they do some sort of pirates. Pirates vs. Ninjas is too good to pass up. Bug people could also be good. My opinion is that if it would look badass as a tattoo, it'd work as a Ninjago villain.

With the RCX you can use two motors per port, but only if you want them to do the same thing at the same time. Or, by rotating the connection, you could make them do opposite things at the same time; for instance, when one turns clockwise the other turns counter-clockwise. But you can't control them independently if they're using the same port.

Slightly off topic, I've long pondered if such a game would be feasible. It'd be wonderful to mix up the standard first-person shooter formula by making it second-person instead. But yeah, that game looks pretty cool. I'll reserve judgment until I've played it, of course; if it is truly web based then lag could be an issue.

Kids would probably look at him as his character in the PotC movies, who is a total badass. AFOLs would be the ones who saw him as Keith Richards. So I don't think it'd be too hard to get kids to buy a set with Captain Teague in it. And I can picture kids buying sets based on other scenes, like Will's blacksmith shop. That scene just screams action features.

It's starting to look a bit like it, isn't it? I'm anxious to rebuild the Ninja vehicles into a giant robot! That said, I was never a Power Rangers fan. But Ninjago has got to be my favorite new theme from Lego!

But if they did that, there would be far less variety in the collectable figs. First of all, AFOLs are not a big enough market for LEGO that they can produce figs kids don't want and assume that AFOLs will pick up the slack. So many of the more unique yet less popular figs (such as the crash test dummy) would go unproduced. What would we be left with? A series of figs featuring plenty of army building figs, sure, but we fans who like the quirkier, more niche figs would be left out in the cold. As an aside, think about themes that don't use blind packaging; specifically, City. City releases new fire stations and police departments on nearly a yearly basis. People complain about any repetition in the collectable figs already, and it would become far worse if LEGO had to tailor each series according to what types of figs consistently sold best. So it's not a fraud; it's a business strategy tailored toward those fans among us who appreciate variety.

I don't know about that; how much do they need to be disassembled? Taking the sets apart completely would be bad, but splitting them into modules (for example, separating the "hallways" and "rooms" of Castle Fortaan) might still make transport easier. Mind you, I have neither the Heroica Games nor the Storage Box, so I could be assuming that the "boards" are a lot more durable than they actually are.

Lucky! I'm over in the U.S., and so I have to wait until December to see the movie. I've been a lifelong Tintin fan, although as Aanchir pointed out there would be a ton of complications with doing this as a Lego theme. But I'd be excited to see some MOCs based on this movie; I once saw a beautiful MOC of the "moon tank" used in Explorers on the Moon.

I try to do this too, particularly when I notice a dispute between a kid and their parent regarding how expensive a set the kid is allowed to get. I'm very good at recommending small sets with quality builds. Of course, in many cases these sort of situations can't be defused. For parents determined to take the bargain option, it's hard to convince them of the importance of quality.

Or it could be that the name was official before the Wikipedia edit, and somehow said name got leaked without actually appearing in any official content (that we've found, at least) until now. Stranger things have happened.

I think those sideburns are printed on the face, rather than being part of the hair.

I was going to give a well thought-out reply, but I've been rendered speechless by the unfortunate typo in the topic subtitle... Kiddic-fart?

I'm sorry, were you looking for this? We've already been discussing this there.

Unlikely. With Superheroes, there's really only two companies LEGO needs licensing with. On the other hand, I don't think characters from books have the same type of ownership as comic book characters. While DC Comics owns most of their main superheroes, I doubt if most publishers have the rights to the characters from books published by them; those rights would probably belong to the individual authors. That would mean a huge amount of legal wrangling for a theme that, let's face it, wouldn't be very cohesive. Most DC heroes occupy the same world, and crossovers are the name of the game in comics. But there's less freedom to mix and match characters with novels. The final nail in the coffin for such a theme is that unless there is a tie-in movie, merchandise based on novels alone will be abyssmal. One only needs look at the wares in Toys R Us to see that movie merchandise is far more common, and more successful, than toys based on books alone.

LEGO has said that the blind packaging is a means to produce figs that otherwise might not sell as well among the target age range. After all, if a kid gets a fig they didn't want specifically they're not going to flat-out reject it. I'm certain that if not for blind packaging we might not see figs like the Space Woman or the Cheerleader, who probably aren't as popular among the 5- to 12-year-old boys who make up LEGO's main market.