Alexandrina

At the moment I've not actually interacted with it, so it would be unfair for me to make a definitive judgement. On instinct, I dislike it - but then, I've never had a tabletop city or any form of permanent or semi-permanent display, I only own one old road plate, and my dislike is probably a reaction to it as symptomatic of the general decline in baseplates. I've read lots of pros and cons touted online, but most of them don't apply to me, so I don't really know where I stand. It definitely doesn't help that I've not been impressed by any of the sets that go with the new road plates, but that's a separate issue.

At first glance I didn't realise those instrument panels were stickers/prints, and I almost had palpitations imagining the amount of parts you'd need to make a cockpit at a scale large enough to do that level of detailing with bricks! I'd not come across your project previously. Aircraft aren't usually my bag, but I've had to give you my vote of support! The detailing is nice (if not quite as excessive in scale as I thought it was at first glance ) and the concept of having a highly detailed cockpit - rather than a full plane with a token amount of detail in the cockpit (ie a printed slope) - is not one I've seen before. All the best on your 2,000 - though I suspect you'll have no trouble getting there in well under 23 months!

I don't know if it's nostalgia talking, but this is 100% in line with my view too. Perhaps it's because I had my Dark Ages from about 2013 to 2019, and thus missed the gradual transition in what sets look like, but there have been very few recent sets I've been especially enamoured by. Since getting back into Lego in a big way about eighteen months ago, I've bought way too many sets - but only two City sets, both smaller sets (the Safari Off-roader and the Fire Chief Response Truck), both primarily for a certain part that was in the set (the parrot in the safari set, the dark red ponytail hair in the fire truck). Looking at the current line, there's very little that entices me. Most of the sets either feel like an inferior version of something we've had before or feel too sparse to be worth the money. A good example is the Family House 60291 - about 400 pieces, but it doesn't look like it, and on top of that it's an ugly-looking building imo. When compared with 2010's 8403 City House - with fewer minifigures but a similar piece count - the difference is stark. Oftentimes when I'm ordering a big set, I'll get a smaller set at the same time - something to build when I'm craving a big building session, while the big set is aired over several days. I always look at the City section on Lego.com first, but it's rare I find anything there I want to buy.

Look at it this way: every day that Gringotts isn't confirmed to not be one of the sets is a day it remains a possibility. There's 188 days until the end of August, so if Gringotts isn't directly confirmed to not be coming for the next 188 days then it follows that Gringotts must be coming.

One small point I would make in argument to this is that the usefulness of Harry Potter sets for providing castle parts diminishes when there's an active Castle theme around at the same time. The 2010/11 Kingdoms range was more bang-for-your-buck imo if you want castle parts than the 2010/11 Harry Potter range, even allowing for the fact that the latter had two Hogwarts sets in its limited run.

I could be wrong, but I'd argue that this is actually a point in favour of having an in-house sci-fi theme. A great big chunk of the customer base for the realistic stuff will also buy (or at least consider buying) a well-designed sci-fi theme, but such a theme would also suck in people who aren't interested in the real-world stuff. The potential market is actually larger, imo - and there's nothing stopping Lego from continuing to make real-world sets as well, to play both sides. I definitely see what you mean about Interstellar (I know nothing about The Martian, so won't comment on it) but while Interstellar was absolutely huge in the sort of circles that AFOL space fans are likely to move in, I'm not sure it's the space behemoth of the day for kids. Things like Star Wars and Star Trek have more sci-fi/space-fantasy elements and less real-world-aesthetic vessels and had huge films released around the same time as Interstellar, but are more marketed at kids - I doubt too many children are enamoured by the dust-bowl scenes from Interstellar, for example. That said, if Lego were to produce something like an O'Neill cylinder inspired by Interstellar aesthetics, I'd personally be satisfied with that.

Whether people take him seriously or not, there's only so many different ways to say "KA1 hasn't posted yet, I wonder if he'll come through or not". And unless and until he does, we've got no leaks to discuss.

Agreed. Truth be told, I used a Harry Potter set because I'm personally invested in Harry Potter and so I know what the sets are. I'd have a hard time giving a fair example for Monkie Kid, because I don't have that investment in the theme.

I know this isn't really the thread for it, but why do Lego persist with the figure if it's so expensive? Surely the original with a bit of printing and the newer battle droid arms would be sufficient

There is a difference though between a couple of the minifigures having names and the theme having a full-blown storyline to it. I think I've given this as an example before, but I have never bought any of Lego's Batman sets because it's not a license I'm familiar with, so I have no investment to the stories and thus little interest in the sets. I've bought exactly one Ninjago set for the same reason (and even that one was more for the parts than the set itself). If you're invested in a license, often most or all of its sets are great, but if you're not invested many of the sets are pointless. How many people have bought, say, "Aragog's Lair" without being interested in Harry Potter? When it comes to it, what's the difference functionally between a licensed theme and an in-house theme based on a TV show? Both rely on characters and settings from a medium other than plastic bricks, but in one case the IP belongs to Lego and in the other case it doesn't. And yes, you can use the bricks and minifigures for other purposes than recreating a specific scene, but it's not the same. You even get the same characters - the main characters - over and over. A quick look at Bricklink tells me that, excluding an item marked for deletion, there have been fifty variants released of a Ninjago character called "Cole". If you had an in-house Castle subtheme run for the same amount of time with a TV series, your main character (let's call him "Sir Brick") would probably appear just as often. Likely he'd have special armour that would distinguish him from a run-of-the-mill knight, and even though he wouldn't be in every set, there'd probably instead be another character (call her "Lady Mondegreen"). I bet there'd be no or very few sets without either, and a great many with both. So people buying the lot end up with more commander and lady minifigures than generic soldiers. If the theme didn't have named characters, each of those times Sir Brick or Lady Mondegreen appeared you could get a different figure instead. A more useful army-building knight, maybe, with a new face print. We're not in the 80s or 90s anymore, where one generic soldier with a smily face and perhaps some form of moustache was enough for every set in the range. A modern subtheme not tied to named characters with TV series could have a greater variety of minifigures. It would also be easier to have an adult-focused set or two every year. When the theme is tied to a cartoon, a lot of the audience for the theme is going to be the demographic that don't buy adult sets. I've done no market research, but I bet most people here would absolutely love a well-designed Castle theme with a big set like the Blacksmith every year and a load of smaller kid-focused sets to build armies/parts.

I can't remember where it was, but I'm certain I read somewhere on EB that red is used all the time for tests/prototypes, because red shows stress marks better than other colours. Why Lego would make the gamut of colours for a prototype is another matter, entirely.

Sure. I have never seen the image you linked before, I was referring to this picture: Found on a Google Image search for 'Hogwarts'. It may well be the lighting, but those roofs definitely look like a copppery green to me.

I'd argue that sand green can't really be over-used in medieval or castle-related builds - such as the Blacksmith, or parts of Hogwarts Castle. It's the best colour in the Lego palette for representing oxidised copper, commonly seen on roofs and while the blacksmith isn't based on a specific building, there are certainly elements of copper in the roof of Hogwarts Castle. Depending on the picture you look at, the amount varies from little tiny bits on some turrets to the entirety of the roof. It's also quite a pretty colour imo, so the more the merrier!

So it's the Troll Bogey Special Set this year?

It's a good colour. A pity most of the other sand shades (red, purple) didn't last the course, those muted accent colours would absolutely have a place in the Harry Potter line.

Or both. It could be a lucky guess.

Must have if it's a large-scale version of the 1x2 tile from the original Dobby's Release set, complete with grey rectangle. Absolute have if the rectangle is the old grey. Alternatively, I'd buy it if the sock is functional. That way I could have two and wear them out and about!

The thing is, dual molded legs are more versatile than printed legs. If you had a fully accurate print of, say, Boba Fett's legs, that makes Boba look fantastic but the legs are hard to use for something else. On the other hand things like the dual molded Sprout legs can be used in far more MOCs. For that reason, I imagine Lego will keep having more dual moulded than printed legs.

What would that look like, anyway? I'm picturing Tonks with her eyes closed, maybe Lavender with bite marks on her face...

If you think of them as extra figures that wouldn't otherwise have been included rather than a spot taken up in the set, it's a lot more bearable!

The problem with doing football stadiums is that the sport is incredibly tribal. Yes, Old Trafford will get sales from Man United fans, but I can't imagine many fans of other Premier League clubs wanting Old Trafford on their shelves. Something like Wimbledon is a safer bed, imo - nobody will avoid buying Wimbledon because they support Wimbledon'S rivals. That said, the blue blooded side of me desperately wants a Stamford Bridge with King Ossie as the GWP.

Is this a regional quirk or am I just incredibly unobservant? I have never noticed a second bag in CMFs, and I've certainly bought plenty in the last year or so!

Not quite the same thing, but I have way too many CDs and DVDs, to the point that I have a floor to ceiling shelvijg unit that doesn't even fit half of what I have. Unsorted CDs and unbuilt Lego are always competing for precious under-the-bed and back-of-the-wardrobe real estate

They can't confirm it's not Gringotts if it is Gringotts!

Is that $80 for you or for the population at large? I'd hold off until the summer sets are announced before making such a bold claim, mind. Even if the wave as a whole is disappointing, there might be one irresistibly juicy morsel to tempt you.