Mylenium

Not sure if that would be even that terribly useful, given how limited the OBJ format is in itself. It would be pretty messy and likely you'd spend a ton of time reorganising the model in your 3D program. 300 parts may not sound much in LDraw, but it already is quite cumbersome even on a simple model as my modified Technic Gyrocopter. You end up cleaning out redundant material tags, dissolving or creating groups, fixing botched normals from the low-res geometry. Not fun at all. Not to ruin your day, but that's why for the LEGO movies they rebuild the models in Houdini and Maya in the first place. An automated algorithm can only do so much. It already fails with any transparent part and you don't need to dream about complex Technic models with lots of open spaces. You can optimize that away based on view angles in a 3D rendering algorithm, but there's no general recipe to optimize a model from all sides and still visually retain its consistency and functional logic. And there's the rub: Until the LEGO CAD programs get smarter, there's nothing to rig automatically. When you don't even have persistent rotation pivots, how would you determine object hierarchies and kinetic chains? I know I sound like a party pooper, but this would require a fundamental change to how virtual brick models are even created. Mylenium

I think you're trying to see to much difference where there is none or very little at best. Again: LEGO can't escape the overall mechanics of markets. Companies break down for the weirdest reasons and fraudulent behavior by the people running a corporation is only one of many possible causes. A toy manufacturing/ retail company is in the end not much different from a bank, an insurance, a car manufacturer, a health service conglomerate or whatever special you are trying to see here. At a specific size the inherent and intrinsic requirements are pretty much the same on many levels in terms of overall corporate structures, process organisation and what have you. I honestly can't see how LEGO should be that much different here. Mylenium And that's good because...? Accepted "Hollywood economics" states that a film needs to make at least 2.5 times its budget to account for marketing and extra cost, so by that standard your example was barely even profitable. And if you apply that same measure to the current TLM2, it doesn't even work out at all because it made even less (so far). Most people in the film industry would likely call it a B.O. bomb. Sure, it's unlikely that a failed movie will drag LEGO down completely, but the repercussions are there, nonetheless, if only indirectly. It's really as trivial as how many tie-in sets LEGO actually sold vs. how many they could have possibly sold. Ninjago being in itself robust and enjoying good sales sure has helped, but I still think there could have been that much more. Same for TLM2... Well, whatever, we can dance around this all day. In the end it's all open to interpretation, so I'll stop here... Mylenium

Not really a good comparison, when you think of how e.g. Nokia, Nortel and others went down the drain. :D That's ultimately the point: Even a multi-billion behemoth can implode on itself within only a few years. You can even just look at what happened to Mattel - they were once king of the hill and then nobody bought Barbies anymore. Or look at Hasbro and their perpetual struggles to even turn a profit despite having a ton of products. Examples abound and in such a volatile industry it's probably safe to say LEGO aren't in the clear, either. Just being known and engrained in people's minds and popular culture doesn't necessarily mean anything business wise and won't safe your bacon. They've been there and they need to keep on working on it. You could even strip it down to a case-by-case basis once again with what sets are "good", which are "bad" and how it affects their public image and financial results, but it's perhaps best to not open that can of worms again. One also shouldn't put too much stock in hollow phrases like "privately held". It's not that the Kristiansen Holding would be "your mom's benevolent secret college fund". They are just as entangled in international business and financial operations as anyone else and thus exposed to all the same movements and threats. On a bad day, it could merely take a Thanos' snap or another failed LEGO Movie to make it all go to dust or start an inescapable downward spiral... Mylenium

Just saw the teaser video... The sets look promising (as much as one can discern them), but I honestly don't care for the AR stuff. Just strikes me as another attempt to cash in by selling tons of ancillary stuff like additional minifigures, collectible cards and mags with extra codes to unlock in-game content. Mylenium

I couldn't care in either direction. At this point LEGO's stance on such matters has become so hypocritical, it doesn't really matter and if their age denomination is any indication, they are pretty clueless about how children's minds and developmental stages work, anyway. My 2 cents. Mylenium

You should see the difference in a dusky room, but not expect miracles. By all means, the fluorescent components are just a minor part of the whole formula... Mylenium

The much-discussed Held der Steine from that other thread pointed this out in one of his videos. He has the large Porsche as a showcase model in his store window, apparently quite exposed to sun light, and after a year or so there's heavy discoloration on some parts while others are perfectly fine. I know I've watched it recently, I just can't seem to find which video exactly it was... :-\ Mylenium

Well, you will have to get into the LDraw-based tools like Stud.io, LDRaw itself, LeoCAD and LPub. Still a pain in the lower cheeks, though. None of the tools are really easy to use for making instructions and have tons of quirks and issues. Requires a ton of fiddling. Mylenium

Well, inherent limitations of print reproduction. Reproducing this particular color exactly would likely require an extra spot color or a complicated Hexachrome process or similar plus a specific super white stock to print on to even come close to capturing the specifics of that color. Also I find that colors on the boxes and in promotional photos are generally quite mistweaked a lot of times, anyway. LEGO seem to be unwilling or unable to settle on a specific color definition even for more mundane colors. You can have two images of different sets side by side and colors that should be identical look completely different, much less do some colors look anything like the actual plastic pieces. Mylenium

I disagree. It looks perfectly fine and fits a multitude of colors both as a harmonious and complimentary color, which I believe was the whole point. Of course in a world of limited colors you can always argue that things could be different, but I honestly don't see what LEGO could have/ should have done differently here. In fact I'm pretty sure it took them lots of experimentation to get there and find that middleground. The slightly fluorescent qualities are not surprising. I'm pretty sure it contains portions of Rhodamine pigments or similar just like the neon transparent colors. Mylenium

Lovely model! Mylenium

No offense, but isn't that typical corporate thinking - short term revenue maximization at the cost of perhaps a less sexy, but stable longterm income? I'm not going to argue that overall sales numbers aren't important, but I still think your argument fails in that LEGOs reporting really only covers what they deliver to retailers, but not what actually sells. If you allow me: It's perfectly possible that some clueless dufus at a toy store chain ordered truckloads of sets that just don't sell. For LEGO it may still look like a success, but in reality those sets may rot on the shelves and only sell with heavy discounts, accumulating losses for the retailer. I feel this distinction still has to be made and it's basically what's at the core of this discussion: What actually makes a "successful" product line? Massive sales? Adaptation and acceptance in the potential fan/ customer base? Both? A million other factors? We're not going to get to a definitive answer here, but personally I just feel there's more to the equation than just cold sales numbers, even more so considering that examples from the model train industry like Märklin and Roco seem to kinda disprove your point. More or less they were both saved by their loyal fanbase after their failed business expansions driving them into bankruptcy. So from where I stand, this is kinda important and LEGO are perhaps still doing something not so smart when killing off beloved themes and teeing off fans... Mylenium

Yes/ no/ perhaps. You just need to look at sets from some competitors for some ideas. To me it's really not about what subjects they cover, in my view there are genuine shortcomings e.g. with some parts not existing.... Just sayin'. Mylenium

Sure. We all have a personal preference one way or the other. And there's the rub - it's all down to how you measure "success" and I don't think the number of sets you sell is the best measure, least of all with LEGO these days often acting like an impatient child and pulling series from the market early when all they probably needed to be successfull is a little more time to mature... My 2 cents. Mylenium

Clearly depends on where you live. Once again here in Germany this is one of the series people simply don't seem to care for. Average toy shops don't even have it (including their online stores) or if at all only a few select sets. I tend to agree with the OP that it probably had its run and on a personal level I think it's the failed promise of what people often touted as a virtual form of LEGO translated back to the real world due to the impossibility to really capture the massive worlds in sets anyone can afford. On the contrary! Speed Champions have always been among the first to include new parts like the 45 degree angled slope/ wedge plus they still manage to surprise with original building techniques every now and then. Sure, it can be repetitive, but at the end of the day so are most specialized collectible themes. There's only so many ways to do things. That aside, what you propose would be like asking Hot Wheels, Matchbox, Siku and all those companies to stop making car models. In so many words - it would be utterly foolish and therefore is likely an absolute non-starter for LEGO. These things simply sell - to AFOLs, to car collectors, to kids, to occasional builders looking for a simple and cost-efficient set. Could be seen either way. My problem with Technic is that LEGO would need to invest in some specific new parts and better integration with the conventional brick-based products to make it attractive and ultimately I think that's why they have painted themselves in a corner, too. You can only do so much before things can get really ugly - in the literal sense how models can look with a limited number of panel types available and in terms of construction techniques eventually getting too complicated. That mess with Power Functions et al doesn't help, either. I'm just not sure if kinetic sculptures and such would do much to improve the situation, as the boost Technic could gain from that would be minor. To me it's really more that Technic perhaps shouldn't even be a separate product line, but more a generalized engineering foundation. Mylenium

I have it on my "optional, if there's a few pennies left" list. Might be a simple and easy way to get one of those dinos if one isn't able to afford the bigger sets they come in. I feel, though, that more focus should have been put on making the jeep look good next to a Rexplorer. It clearly feels like a step down from that. Mylenium

Lovely model. Still doesn't change my view on the series, though. I simply can't stand it. Mylenium

I wouldn't know because I haven't cared much for LEGO until three years ago. So I'd consider myself unbiased on that subject and only judge from what I see currently. That doesn't change that it's in my view still not great as it appears there are basically just five or six different LEGO ads on German TV at all and stylistically they are all over the place: a generic Star Wars one with some kids playing (wrong target demographic IMO) a BF ugly City CG ad for the new Air Police sets an ad for last year's City Arctic sets a Technic one for the Rough Terrain crane with kids (again wrong demographic; also funny enough often runs on DMAX, regardless) a Friends one advertising last year's racing sets (which already totally bombed on the German market, so it's completely pointless) the "this is not a brick" generalized ad they first debuted on Facebook (way too obviously targeted at and created for the American market) You see, in terms of what's actually running on TV around these parts there's not much that I think would motivate to even go to a toy store and look for LEGO sets, even more so given how weirdly and inconsistently the ads are placed in the TV schedule (as I already mentioned) so that some people may never even get to see a single one of them. Mylenium

Completely wrong. No such thing ever happened. He's a total LEGO loyalist and never has even reviewed a third-party set until know. Only now that LEGO are after his scalp things are going to change and you can think what you want about it - it's just the stupidest thing LEGO could have done to go after one, if not theeee most prominent LEGO advocate. Despite his dislike for the company itself (which, let's be honest, isn't much better than any big cong-glo-mo and shares the same problems and shortcomings of any big organization) he has done a lot to advertise sets, even if he disssed them for being rubbish. So again, this is grade A stupid and a major SNAFU. Mylenium Sure, in that LEGO's "fair use" is in no way legally binding and thus practically useless. Incidentally that is part of the problem - those policies are not compliant with a lot of legal regulations not just in Germany. Whether you make any money of it is ultimately not even the first consideration in legal terms, so with all respect, I would not assume that Eurobricks would be safe just because they're not making a penny. On a bad day LEGO could just change their mind and then what? Mylenium Far from it. You should watch the video. Apparently there's a bunch of secondary trademarks registered by LEGO (for apparel etc.) that can affect lookalike logo designs in that it may be illegal to represent any form of a brick e.g. on a T-shirt. which of course ironically brings us back to that argument about people being "safe" when they're not making money of such stuff. Wrong - a simple fan T-shirt could constitute a breach of the rules under those conditions. Weak argument that likely wouldn't hold up in court, especially since as per my previous comment the "fair use" rules wouldn't hold water. Even the dumbest expert would likely be able to discern that the similarities are not at all in any way a threat to LEGO's brand integrity. And in German legal terms you would first have to prove that actual damage has been done, which might prove difficult for a YouTube channel that is proactivile advertising for LEGO products, not against them. Mylenium

Sure, it all depends on individual tastes. I'm not saying anything else. Still, to me the LEGO TV ads look less than great for a million reasons. Mylenium

Well, you need to unpack a ZIP, don't you? Given the limitations due to the security mechanisms in mobile OSs preventing you from arbitrary file handling and picking custom storage locations even something that trivial can be a pain, so I'd definitely avoid it. Mylenium

Or you could just optimize the PDF files themselves? I mean the PDF format has built-in support for RLE/ ZIP compression and Acrobat et al will gladly optimize the heck out of your embedded images. Just saying. Also, why would you complicate file handling on mobile devices this way? I find the suggestion quite puzzling. Mylenium

Nope, I have to disagree. Point in case: LEGO's ads look quite rubbish next to those of their competitors. The difference is painfully obvious if you e.g. have a Playmobil ad next to a LEGO one. And then I can't help but feel that LEGO are playing it cheap. I've never seen LEGO ads on "big" channels (public TV or the top private TV channels) and even on the kids channels they appear to only be booking time when it's cheap, i.e. early in the morning, around noon or late in the evening - when most of their target demo are in school or in bed. In fact you can count yourself lucky if you get to see any LEGO ads and I like to think that I'm watching quite a bit of kids TV for specific reasons. So regardless of your other points, which are all good and valid, as far as I'm concerened LEGO are doing a crap job in that department, at least here in Germany. And of course as someone who has worked in the media industry I could still go on endlessly about the stylistic shortcomings, but that's beside the point. Overall my point remains - LEGO's TV advertising is probably not very effective and not doing much to get people in stores in the first place. Mylenium

Yes/ no/ perhaps. I guess it's once more a case of different markets, but I don't see TV ads for LEGO as something that would get people into stores here in Germany. The placement of the ads is way too inconsistent and many people probably never even get to see them... Mylenium

Should that even matter? LEGO's TV ads are a joke. I don't think anyone even takes them seriously, regardless which theme they are for. In-store POS marketing is no doubt much more important. Just saying... Mylenium