Lyichir

I feel that this is partially correct (Bionicle's success kept them afloat when everything else was failing, but could never have solely returned Lego to greatness without the revitalization of other core themes like City, Technic, and Duplo). But I also feel like treating Bionicle purely as a short-term fix undervalues how much its success served as a blueprint for other successful themes in the modern era, especially Ninjago. Modern story-based themes owe a lot to Bionicle as one of Lego's first fully-original IPs, and one that demonstrated how the value such in-house themes could bring could rival even major media licenses.

Worth mentioning that one of those early 2000s action figure themes (Bionicle) was not only highly successful but basically was the only thing keeping them afloat in 2003. Anyway, I feel like fears of Lego repeating those sorts of mistakes fundamentally misunderstand both the context of that time period (when Lego was in a much less stable place than they are now), and the reality of what those mistakes entailed and what was done to fix them (for example, fears of Lego having too many parts or colors currently ignore the way that older parts are systematically retired to make room for them and how all expenses are much more carefully tracked and monitored than they were back then).

Thickening both bars would probably require more space than could be used for a 1x1 hourglass—it might have to be more around the size of something like the lantern piece to allow for those sorts of connections. And either way that would require a new mold (this one is reused from way back in the 2016 Elves sets).

Most likely a sticker or print—but if it IS an actual cutout, then it's definitely a new piece. I agree that it looks like it's meant to be an outhouse but I don't envy anyone who has to use an outhouse like that in the cold weather!

Sorry to say but there's practically zero chance of a molded figure modeled after a distinct Disney character like this being reused for a non-Disney character. It's almost certainly IP-locked.

I feel like for an inverted corner to be released it would need to be at least 1 and a half if not two baseplates in size so that it would at least have a little more "frontage" to look good on display on its own. The challenge of an inverted corner is that viewed from the "front", the two connecting sides (typically some of the least attractive views of a modular) would both be fully visible. I don't think that's 100% impossible to work around, but it's certainly a challenge that classic straight or corner buildings don't have to overcome.

I mean, they COULD do anything. I don't know if a remake of one of the quirkier, more niche Castle subthemes would necessarily be on the shortlist for what they'd opt for if they do another castle theme, though. I think they'd sooner either return to a more "basic" faction or come up with something completely new. Of course, for fans, MOCing is always an option. Fright Knights' color scheme is wonderfully accessible (especially if you substitute newer greys for the older ones), and the design language of using inverse arches for curved roofs is not only still doable with modern parts, but arguably moreso than ever with the introduction of new curves and arches. And spooky figure parts are fairly plentiful in the collectible minifigures and in the selection of seasonal parts from the Build-a-Mini, so it shouldn't be too hard to give some of those classic characters a fresh look if you want! I've seen some fantastic Fright Knights MOCs over the years at conventions.

Nintendo has confirmed that Super Mario Bros. Wonder, a game releasing later this fall, will feature a new voice actor (and they sound good in the trailer we've seen so far). So if Lego does continue with this style of set (and personally I don't mind if they do), it shouldn't be an insurmountable challenge to have new voice lines recorded for it.

It's definitely a neat sort of spaceship design, but while I'm fine with a good mashup, personally in this case I feel like the spaceship parts are outdone by last year's Monkie Kid's Galactic Explorer and the bus parts are outdone by 2019's Paranormal Intercept Bus 3000. I'd chalk that up largely to the minimal interior of this set—compared to the dense array of control consoles in the Monkie Kid ship or the well-detailed lab in the back of the Hidden Side bus, the interior of this combination spaceship/bus is disappointingly sparse. I can see how you might find it to compare favorably to 90s space themes like Exploriens (which similarly tended to have more sparse interiors), but I feel like it's not quite the best showcase of what designers have been able to do with modern sets.

The couple in the Parisian Restaurant literally has a ring to propose with. It's pretty textual that they're a couple. And "don't Dylan Mulvaney Lego"? Grow up and join the 21st century. Gay people exist, and their mere existence isn't inappropriate for kids let alone adults. If that's "controversial" for some people then too bad for them. It sounds like you are the one whose worldview is fragile if you feel threatened by the existence of gay people in Lego (which, by the way, already exist—there is a gay couple in the Lego Friends theme).

Haha, that's great! Makes me nostalgic for trying to create combined "Toa Kaita" out of various Bionicle sets.

See, I feel like I strongly disagree with this on all counts. For Galaxy Explorer, I feel like it still feels wonderfully bulky and true to the spirit of the original. Yes, aspects have been made sleeker and more complex angles have been introduced, but not to the extent that the qualities of the original are lost. I feel like your criticisms of it speak more to your particular, individual perception of what the original was "supposed" to be like, rather than any actual deficits of the new version. For the Lion Knight's Castle, I feel like the introduction of more complex texture and the reduction of more basic color-coding go hand-in-hand. The new version, for instance, doesn't need the scattered dark grey stonework to add detail because parts have been introduced that physically add actual texture. Yes, these features are subtle, and you can lose them if you squint—but why are you squinting instead of properly taking in the subject with your senses uncompromised? Why is the inconsistency between flags or types of trees a negative, rather than adding a realistic level of variety to the build? I especially feel like your critiques of Lego's designers not understanding composition are harsh and unwarranted. The fact is that compositions have become more complex and interesting over the years, and while your subjective opinion that you preferred the older, simpler compositions is not invalid, the complexity and advancement of modern design and composition is something that takes more skill, not less, to achieve. Set design is a complex task, now more than ever, and it comes with the understanding that there likely is no way to please everyone. The designers of these sets understand that, and have done the best they can to create something that can satisfy a range of consumers, all with their own subjective tastes and preferences. And despite your insistence that they are "amateur" or have failed, I think the success of these sets speaks to the fact that the designers have succeeded at that challenge. Critiquing the results, based on your own personal preferences, is all well and good. But frankly I don't think you've done anything good enough to merit personally insulting their artistic skill as if you have done or could do any better.

Wow! The scale of this is incredible—it very much feels like the kind of set that could have come out in the theme back then if sets got as big as they sometimes do today. The aesthetic is very accurate to the original sets, but like some of the best entries in this contest, it doesn't merely content itself with the rearrangement of elements from existing sets, but rather innovates with novel features like the double-length diagonal rope bridge. Classic sets rarely engaged with such unique angled construction, but by doing so with period-accurate parts and techniques the result doesn't look at all out of place. Well done!

This is cute! I have mixed feelings sometimes about the Islanders faction (loved them growing up but as an adult recognize some harmful and dated stereotypes in how they're depicted), but I really appreciate this set design that instead of focusing on conflict features a peaceful story framework. The play feature is both simple and incredibly clever—I never would've thought to use the classic "mailbox" compartment that way!

Now THIS is sharkracing! Anyway, not much to critique here. It's very silly but that's what it's trying to be. The gray arches are a little bulky for my liking (they give the impression of concrete or something rather than something cobbled together with wood or similar seaworthy materials), but their simplicity is appropriate for the era of sets it's emulating.

Older kids can still enjoy Duplo—especially if they have younger siblings, since with Duplo they can play together with the same bricks even if the younger sibling isn't quite old enough for the "real deal" yet. But really whatever you decide will probably be fine, especially since whenever she does "graduate" to regular Lego, the Duplo she has will still be compatible while she's getting started with standard bricks.

Personally I LOVE the different varieties of Z-Blob in the sets—the big dome, the "little dude" (as New Elementary's been calling them), and the tiny "handheld" dome version in the Shark Ship set. The very basic nature of his print (just a couple of eyes) also makes him feel really easy to reinterpret as a different creature or character in fantasy or sci-fi MOCs.

Welcome to Eurobricks! This looks really neat, but it took a few extra steps for me to see your images! It would help if you edited your post to embed some of your images or turn some of them into hyperlinks so others didn't have to copy and paste the addresses into their browser to see them. Eurobricks has a helpful guide to embedding images for new users here: EDIT: It looks like, by quoting your post, the forum software automatically turned the addresses into your quote into hyperlinks! No idea why it didn't automatically do that for you—but it would still help to edit your own post to embed at least one image of your MOC in the post so people can see it without having to visit a separate site, and turn the rest of the addresses into hyperlinks so that people can access the rest more easily!

I'm gonna be honest... even non-licensed themes (and that includes Classic Space) have no guarantee of matching or gelling with kids' own unique characters that they make up. Maybe the chances are better with something more archetypical like Pirates or Castle (by riffing on popular historical genres established not by licences but by public domain works like Treasure Island or Robin Hood) or Town/City (by representing the real, modern world as kids learn to experience it), but space themes have always (by their nature as speculative instead of based on historical fiction) had to present their own distinct "vision" of what the future would look like. And I think that's a part of why modern themes, even non-licensed ones, (and including unlicensed themes stretching back to all but the most classic of classic themes) often try to establish characters (or at least factions) and scenarios that can excite kids, rather than merely hoping the toys they put out will resonate with kids' own individual imaginations. Licensed themes are a bit of a shortcut to that (since Lego doesn't have to put in as much of their own marketing work just to explain who Darth Vader or Spider-Man are), but themes like Ninjago do the same by establishing their own characters, and even themes of yesteryear had to do some of that in creating factions like Blacktron or Ice Planet with their own distinct settings and aesthetics. That's the nature of design work, and I get a little tired of the implication that just because modern toys have more clearly established characters, modern kids are less creative or imaginative than kids in the 70s or 80s. Because, to be honest, kids back then pretended to be Darth Vader or Batman too—they just didn't have Lego sets that strongly enabled telling those stories through construction play. I think of licensed themes, and also unlicensed "story themes" like Ninjago, as something that was not only inevitable but something that Lego lagged far behind their competitors on (companies like Hasbro and Mattel were licensing popular movies or TV series, or creating their own like My Little Pony or Transformers or He-Man, long before Lego recognized the value of doing so). So it's little surprise to me that Lego has found greater success in the modern era by embracing those ways of playing instead of pretending to be above it all by sticking to only well-trod archetypes and consequently missing out on a lot of potential sales.

My sister mentioned to me that another advantage of the stands might be to more easily pick up, move, and display the insects. The mantis in particular is bigger with more accurately slim and articulated legs than the one in the original project, so posing it to support its weight (and having it hold that pose even when picking up/moving it) might be trickier without having a robust stand for it to rest on. The bee and ladybug are also still there—just more accurately scaled to the other, larger insect species.

Sure, there's a reason even the most kid-targeted Lego sets are restricted to four years of age and up. But most Lego parts that are small enough to accidentally swallow could probably pass through a kid's digestive system without lasting damage in a worst-case scenario. By comparison, the damage magnets can do can be pretty grisly. And again, this isn't merely a matter of proactively looking out for kids—there are actual legal restrictions in that would prevent Lego from producing and selling M-Tron-style magnets in sets today. In the U.S., that means that magnets must either be too large to swallow (hence why most modern Lego magnetic parts are fully encased in non-removable plastic), or must be magnetically weak enough that they'd be unlikely to risk severe damage if swallowed (a limitation that would likely compromise M-Tron-style magnetic functions that require a certain amount of strength to consistently lift a given amount of weight). I've thought a lot about how you could recreate M-Tron-esque functionality in modern sets using magnetic parts that satisfy current safety standards, but ultimately I don't know if you could do so in a way that truly satisfies the nostalgia necessary for classic set remakes/homages like the recent ones in the Space and Castle themes. Modern magnetic parts are quite bulky and trying to fit them into those sorts of classic functions would require major aesthetic compromises.

I believe current U.S. laws (at least, don't know about EU or other countries' regulations) about magnets in toys (requiring them to be physically large enough to avoid ingestion) apply to ALL toys or entertainment products whether or not they're aimed specifically at kids. Also, while Lego has branched into sets that are labeled 18+ for their audience or complexity, I'm not sure they'd want to make parts that are less physically safe for kids even if those were restricted to 18+ sets. After all, one well-known aspect of Lego is the preservation of its quality even secondhand, and there'd be no guarantee that parts bought for adults wouldn't potentially find their way to kids.

It does indeed! And the printed ladybug tiles from it seem like they could be very useful even in minifig-scale MOCs—the eyes/face in particular are more realistic/less cartoony than the existing one, which some people might prefer.

This is really great—it perfectly nails the kinds of parts and techniques you'd see in classic sets, but it also does new things with the theming and aesthetics instead of merely remixing aspects of existing sets. I love the elongated islander face used for the trapdoor exit.

Wow, this already has some wild techniques going on! I feel like it's almost a little TOO complex—the attachment for the bridge is quite bulky and I can't help but wonder if it could be simplified, and the technique with the alternating rail plates is similarly quite dense. But that's just my personal preference, and there's no denying that what you have so far has style.