Laura Beinbrech

Well, said, Dark Dragon, well said indeed... I know I'm going to be getting a few of these sets, and I'll definitely get one of the Bunny House sets for my rabbit-raising girlfriend (she really likes bunnies, almost as much as she likes cats). EDIT: I'm also wondering if the Speed Boat will be using the hull that comes with the City Fishing Boat and Power Boat Transporter sets, but in pink... If that is the case, I might have to get it to make a fast-attack boat for my Kyoshi Warriors.

Very nice moc... Interestingly enough, almost this exact scene actually exists near my family's vacation camper in Northern Pennsylvania, but with the pickup in a more advanced state of deterioration... When I was a kid, though, this is pretty much what it looked like, but with most of the bed missing, and thorn-apples growing up through the frame.

Yes, now that I have had time to calm down a bit, I've been reciting the Great Internet F---wad Theory so that I don't fall into that trap again, but I wasn't in the best condition mentally or physically when I read that stuff and flew off the handle. The Great Internet F---wad Theory is thus: Normal Person + Relative Anonymity + Large Audience = Total F---wad This phenomenon has a fancy technical name that sociologists use in publications and papers, but many of them even use this term or its acronym (GIFT) among themselves.... EDIT: They just make you weep for humanity? On a GOOD day, they make me wish I had a giant kill-sat and the commentor's coordinates... So, to summarize, without dragging in any violations of Godwin's Law, this is my stance: - The fact that most Retailers will be adding this to the pink girly ghetto instead of the LEGO aisle = BOO! (-10 points) for LEGO, but with the provisio that this is probably the only way that they'll stand a chance against Barbie{sup]tm[/sup] Polly Pockettm or other girls' toy lines. Unfortunately I don't see this changing anytime soon. - The new, incompatible Polly Pockettm-style minifigs also = -1 for LEGO, but at least they're better than the Belleville and Scala figures. - The lack of any boys or men, aside from Olivia's father, = +/-0 for LEGO with the fact that what's been leaked thus far is only the first wave and that they might be adding more boys to the line and the other fact that this is one of the few themes that could pass the Blechdel Test. - The fact that the figures and sets are, more or less, at the standard minifig scale = +1 for LEGO: for the first time since Paradisia, you can combine sets from the girl theme with other themes. - Hair piece and other accessory compatibility with standard LEGO minifigs = +5 for LEGO, but mainly because I'm always on the lookout for more types of female hair and accessories. - The new animal molds = +2 for LEGO: I just can't wait to get the new ladybugs, cats, dogs, hedgehogs and butterflies for my collection. - The fact that the sets have the same level of detail and complexity as regular LEGO theme sets = +10 for LEGO, since building stuff out of plastic bricks is what it's all REALLY about, in the end. - New and more colors and interesting set designs = +1 for LEGO. ...So, as you can see, while I'm not 100% happy with this theme and some of its implications, I feel that it is a positive step in the right direction, overall, and that I hope it eventually leads to further integration of "boy" and "girl" elements in ALL themes to make LEGO more accessible to everyone.

Read the comments section, that is what I was referring to! ...And on that note, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, what with you twisting everything I say to suit your purposes , so all I have to say is that it's been real, and it's been fun, but it ain't been real fun, so I'm outta here!

I really like thise MOC! The detail is great, particularly the vintage camera! ...The bride looks like she might be a bit cold wearing that sleeveless dress, though.

Well, I already admitted that I got a bit too worked up and was doing just that and apologized for it: I was just trying to offer some insight into WHY I got so ticked-off, and if you'd have read further down, I did just that: agreed to drop it and apologized for getting bent out of shape... Can you at least please accept that admission and apology for what it is? EDIT: Def, again you misunderstood my point by picking on one single statement. Even if this won't amount to much in the SHORT run, it is at least a start, but I think that flooding LEGO's mailbox with complaints before the theme even hits the shelves is a bit, I don't know, churlish? ..and for that matter, I did not go out of my way to insult YOU, so I ask you to do the same, thank you very much! If you cannot, then I'm afraid I must add you to my ignore list until you can learn some manners.

Well, I linked the After Ellen article, but obviously you couldn't be bothered to even click on one link, so what good would my copying and pasting the contents of said link here do? Obviously, you've managed to somehow read what I wrote and COMPLETELY misinterpret it: I NEVER ONCE said I was particularly happy with them labeling stuff as for "boys" and "girls", but that with the way things are in the current toy (and pretty much everything else market as well as society in general), I'll take what I can get and not gripe about it too much. While I do not think the Friends line is the perfect answer for making LEGO more accessible to girls, I DO feel that it is the FIRST STEP in the right direction, and the people who are raising the big stink about it need to seriously re-evaluate what and whom the primary targets of their indignation should be. ...Although what you or they or I think about this issue is going to make about the same amount of difference as farting in a hurricane as far as LEGO, the retailers or other toy manufacturers are concerned, at least in the short run. Yes, that is a rather bitter, cynical outlook, but six years in the military, especially during wartime tends to turn most people into bitter, cynical SOBs. Is THAT clear enough for you?!

DUDE! That cafe looks almost exactly like a couple of family restaurants around where I live! I might just have to get it as well and mod it into the Mini-Freeze that's along the East Broad Top Railroad outside Orbisonia....

Well, here is where I'm coming from: I had a course on Propaganda and Persuasion at Penn State in the course of acquiring my Electronic Engineering degree, as well as Sociology (social problems), on top of serving in Afghanistan and Iraq when I was in the Navy from 1999-2005, and many of the comments I've seen are not too different than the kind of propaganda tactics used by the Nazis, Communists, terrorists, and I'm shamed to say, American propaganda (Senator McCarthy I'm looking at YOU!), namely heavily demonizing ones opposition without bothering to even do the SLIGHTEST bit of actual research into the whats, whys and hows of the thing they're demonizing, but in this case, with the insidious twist of hiding behind a shield of political correctness.... I try to be diplomatic, but when people are demonizing people or things because they don't fit into some nebulously-defined category, or for that matter, because they do (i.e. the root of this whole controversy), then I'll call them on the carpet for being the kind of extremist, oppressive pieces of crap that they are. And I'll admit that it's entirely too easy for me to go a bit too far myself... It is a constant struggle for me to fight against extremism and intolerance whenever and wherever they raise their ugly heads without becoming an extremist myself... So, out of respect to you and to keep from muddying up the issue any further, I'll drop any allusions to Nazis, Communists, Fascists, terrorists, the Creel Commission, Joseph McCarthy, the Spanish Inquisition (NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!), etc. In future posts, I'll just stick to the point of out how they're demonizing a kid's toy because it, *gasp* has the NERVE to be pink and girly! Does that work for you? That, from what I see, is at the heart, core and crux of my problem with this whole controversy, and that kind of thing really gets my blood boiling... As for the sets themselves: I'm somewhat disappointed in the fact that they don't have normal minifigs, or the fact that most RETAILERS (got that, Def, the RETAILERS, not LEGO) are putting them in with the Barbietm dolls and pretty pink princess frilly toys rather than the rest of the LEGO sets. I feel, however, that they more than made up for that, as far as I'm concerned, by making them close to the same scale as normal minifigs (as opposed to the Barbietm-scale Belleville and Scala sets) and the hair and other accessories compatible with the standard minifigs. Furthermore, the sets are really well-designed and definitely NOT "<insert that tiresome argument>", even if they are in pinks and pastels, and there are quite a few good designs that I'm just ITCHING to give re-colored makeovers of (i.e. making an "Emerald Night" colored version of Stephanie's Cool Convertible and a pirate version of Olivia's Treehouse, although I'll have to Brick Link a brown tub). In conclusion, Peppermint M, our lovely Queen of the Clone Brands, pretty much said exactly what I feel about this line in her post. Furthermore, I DO think that LEGO is trying to make their stuff less stereotypical than they used to: Back when I first played with LEGO (1988), they only had TWO, count 'em TWO female hair pieces and NO female minifig heads... Then in 1989 they added the Pirate Lady, Forest woman and Crusader princess, but, with the exception of the Pirate Lady (which you could get in the Pirate Minifig pack), they all came in sets that were way out of me and my brother's budget. NOW, on the other hand, we have female police officers, construction workers, and even a female Alien Defense Unit soldier! Granted, there's still not as many as I'd like, but at least they include female minifig heads on Pick A Brick (the fact that they seem to sell out a good bit should give some indication of how popular they are) and make them available in the Minifig bars at the LEGO stores, allowing you, as Lightning Tiger would say, "Brick On" and make your own female figs (I'm currently approaching gender parity in my LEGO collection). On the flip side, there is a comment about the lack of boy figs in Friends, (which is a valid concern) to which I reply: They DO have Peter (although he seems to be Olivia's dad, rather than in the same age group as the rest of the girls) and also to keep in mind that this is merely the first wave: I'm sure they'll be adding boys to the line before too much longer if it proves successful. So, that's basically all I have to say on this subject. I'm sorry if I got out of line and I do apologize for that.

Well, it was briefly touched on in the Business Week article, but HEAVILY referenced in the Yahoo video, the After Ellen link on the frontpage and in the comments section of all the above... Seriously, if you were to read the After Ellen article and most of the comments posted on all the linked articles, you'd think LEGO was one step away from forcing all women to give up their voting rights and work as sex slaves... THAT is mainly what I was addressing is that most of the complainers tend to be extremely vocal feminists, or at least the commentors do... Granted you have to take the whole G.I.F.T. (Great Internet F***wad Theory) into account when reading anything posted online, but still, the amount of hate I've seen directed against this toy line for being pink and frilly reaches almost Al-Qaeda like levels of fanaticism!

Aye, sir! I admit that I got too hot under the collar earlier and was insulting, and I do apologize. I'm with you 100% ...And now that I've calmed down a bit, I just want to say this: The real issue here, from what I've seen of the comments posted on the various links essentially boils down to three main things: First of all, the "adults" aren't giving children enough credit, namely the fact that they think that just because a girl wants to play with pink, girly stuff means that she'll grow up to be a submissive doormat who is dependent on men for her identity, despite the fact that just isn't so... Heck, it's even possible for "girly" women (as in very fashion conscious and have "feminine" hobbies and interests) to be independent and have gender-defying careers... One prime example is roller-derby queen "Luna Impact" who's a career astrophysicist working on her PhD. As mentioned earlier, if a girl is so impressionable that pink toys somehow DO make her into a submissive doormat, she's obviously got bigger problems. Secondly, there is the fact that the outrage against LEGO and other manufacuterers is more of attacking the symptoms rather than the disease: This is a free-market economy (except maybe China and Cuba, but both are moving that direction), meaning that manufacturers make what sells best, and pink, frilly stuff is what sells in the girls' market, particularly girls' toys. The ROOT of the cause, as I alluded to earlier, but hopefully shall make abundantly clear here and now is the fact that, despite all the lip-service payed to "tolerance" and "non-conformity", almost ZERO has actually been done on that front when it comes to gender roles: Where were all these people complaining about Friends (or insert brand x girl toys here) being too "girly" when I was getting the ever-loving megabloks kicked out of my on the playground because I actually DARED to show emotions besides lust and rage, or admitted that I liked Rainbow Brite? Again, where were these shining knights when my girlfriend was called a lesbian and worse because she likes blue and doesn't like wearing skirts and other "girly" stuff? Until THIS issue, i.e. bullying and violent peer pressure to conform, is addressed, gender-stereotyped toys are what are going to be bought by their target customers, and any complaining about such is going to make about as much difference as peeing in the ocean. (Vexorian, does that answer your question why this issue is a bit of a berserk button for me?) ...And of course, this leads to the third and final problem (WARNING: I'm about to go meta here!): Namely the fact that considering pink and frilly stuff to be "girly" and girls/women who like them to be weak and submissive is, in itself, a negative stereotype, and thus, for the TRUE anti-establisment types, something that needs to be done away with. Further along that line of reasoning is the fact that the mainstream feminist movement, by adhering to such stereotypes is, itself, limiting women to certain roles (albeit different ones), which itself, is against the ORIGINAL goals of feminism... A perfect example/parody of this type of feminist goals is the Dwarfs in Terry Prachett's Discworld series: The dwarfs have exactly ZERO gender role differences, and thus no gender stereotypes, and thus would THEORETICALLY, be the perfect society. The problem is that the female dwarfs are forced into the same exact occupations and roles that the male dwarfs are, and thus it becomes a major issue in dwarf society when one Cheery Littlebottom (of the Ankh-Morpork city watch) decides to start wearing (chainmail) skirts, a "contoured" breastplate, high-heeled greaves, start braiding pink ribbons into her beard and calling herself "Cherie"... Of course, this is what the postmodern feminist movement advocates as well: I.e. that women should not be limited to acting just like men to be respected, but doing what they like, whether it's traditionally "feminine" or not. On the flip side is the Masculist movement, which seeks to do away with stereotypes the other way (i.e. that pink is for girls and that if guys want to wear dresses, then they should be allowed to)... That is essentially the heart of the controversy, as I see it anyways. In the meantime, I'm just going to take advantage of the new parts and just hope that this theme DOES prove to be a gateway for girls to get into the rest of LEGO, or at least help erode gender stereotypes while paying nominal lip-service to them. However, barring some kind of oppressive government action or laws, you're still going to see manufacturers use the pink-product ploy to sell stuff to girls and women until and unless these three root issues are addressed.

:facepalm: Really? Wow, that is such a great reason to ignore any points someone is trying to make and/or completely misinterpret what they're trying to post... And you're right: This isn't extreme feminist bullcrap, it's FEMINAZI bullcrap. ..All kidding aside, though: you're only proving the point that I was trying to make: I.e. that these types automatically assume that anything pink or otherwise "feminine" is automatically "weak" or "dependent" and that girls should be religiously beat over the head with such viewpoints so that they can finally be exactly like the boys and thus truly equal. I think "Mad Max" on the John Boy and Billy Big Show said it best: Yes, I'm quite well aware of this overall controversy... That is why the Trope "Real Women Don't Wear Dresses" exists in the first place! Basically its the result of people, mostly feminazi groups who seem to think that anything "girly" (read: PINK) is automatically "setting the progress of women's equality back 500 years," rather than actually going after REAL problems, such as the GROSS inequalities in most Muslim countries... Seriously, in many of those countries, women can LITERALLY be flogged or worse for doing anything that is considered to not be appropriately "feminine." Seriously, if you want to target anyone for "forcing gender sterotypes on women" THERE is where you want to direct their windmill crusade at! ...And we get to the heart of the whole thing: I'm a guy and I like pink, but for years I wouldn't admit that because it was a great way to get the ever-loving crap kicked out of me by the other guys at school for being a "fag" (never mind the fact that I am not even remotely attracted to other guys), along with supressing my emotions for the same reasons... Now, having taken martial arts, been in the military for 6 years, I'm no longer afraid to let my "feminine" side show through: Knowing at least three ways to kill someone with your bare hands can go a long way towards not caring what other people think, it would seem. ...But I digress: The main point I was trying to make earlier is that NOBODY is holding a gun to anybody's head and saying, "You are a GIRL, und You MUST BUY ZE Friends sets OR I VILL SHOOT YOU!", or "Sorry, but boys have to stick to Star Wars... NO PINK FOR YOU!" I think TenorPenny said it best: ...Which is something I agree with whole-heartedly. EDIT: Yes, I was getting a bit too hot under the collar here, and I apologize.

That is one awesome fort! I just love everything about it, including the statues holding the flagpoles.

This announcement pretty much made my YEAR! Two things my brother and I were really into about the time we got seriously into LEGO were Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, and my custom Gandalf minifig was one of three that survived my first dark age, not to mention we had an entire campaign based on Lord of the Rings, but with our characters involved (lets just say that the Battle of Helm's Deep was much less desperate when you had two strategically placed cannons and several gatling guns on the walls)... I'm just itching for the chance to give General Gandalf, Master Sergent Gimli Gloinson, Corporal Ugluk, Senator Galadriel, and other such characters in my bizarre LEGO world an official makeover! ...Oh, and it looks like I'll have to keep my promise of giving my girlfriend one each of all the Hobbitses.

True, that! Based on my experiences in various forums across the internet, you could probably start a flame war, somewhere, just by stating that the sky is blue, largely thanks to the Great Internet Megablock-wad Theory (or GIFT for short), which at its simplest states the following: Normal person + large audience + relative anonymity (and therefore lack of consequences for one's actions) = Total Megablock-wad.... ...Of course I'm willing to bet there will be an even BIGGER stink raised when the Disney Princesses line comes out. EDIT: I actually decided to check the other two links posted on the front page, and the comments I read on those sites are some of the most EPIC cases of COMPLETELY missing the point I have ever seen: Apparently people these days have either completely forgotten that the main idea behind LEGO is to use your imagination and build your own world, or perhaps they're too stupid or lazy to think outside the box... When I was a kid, my brother and I only used the Official themes as a very loose guideline at most and completely ignored them more often than not. Granted, that ended up resulting in a bizarre massive-multiplayer crossover universe (where you had Gandalf duking it out with Darth Vader, among other things), but it was more fun (and IMO, totally AWESOME) that way!

Sorry about the bump, but I just recently got this set (probably from the same seller that Frogstudio got his), and I cannot recommend this set enough! Leaving aside the awesome boat hull, which made the set worthwhile by itself (more on that later), opening up the box was like opening a LEGO time capsule: Not only was the set packaged like the large LEGO sets during the 1980's and 1990's, but it also had several of the old-school 4x4 hinge plates! (Yes, they DO work with the old LEGO hinge plates: I checked). Furthermore, the grays were a PERFECT match for the old Gray and old Dark Gray colors... As a matter of fact, the one WIP pic I'll be posting further along has several old dark gray LEGO bricks and plates in it, but I'm betting you won't be able to tell them apart, and as all the Oxford review here have already said, the quality of the bricks is at least as good as LEGO's. As for the figs, here's what I discovered: Oxford legs will fit LEGO minifig bodies, but they look kind of funny, due to the "hip" section being much narrower than the LEGO one (because it fits inside the Oxford torso), and LEGO minifig legs will fit Oxford torsos, but there will be a gap in the hip area due to the same reason... I have a feeling that if I were to file the Oxford torso down until the hip area was perfectly flat, they would work perfectly with the LEGO legs. Otherwise, Oxford arms and LEGO minifig arms are 100% interchangeable (although the Oxford ones are slightly longer), as are the hands, but Oxford hands fit WAY loose in the LEGO minifig arms. Heads posed no problem at all, and most of the Oxford body wear and headgear worked with the minifigs (although the Oxford helmets were EXTREMELY tight and hard to get back off) Now for the hull: Comparison between my LEGO Battle Cruiser and the OXFORD Destroyer Hull by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr This is showing the complete Oxford ship hull, in all its glory, next to the CSS Baton Rouge, which is made using the same basic Hull scheme as the Black Pearl, but with two additional hull sections added... As you can see, this Oxford ship is a BEAST! It almost makes the Baton Rouge look puny! FNS Gettysburg WIP1 by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr This picture is a WIP MOC that I'm building using this wonderful, wonderful hull... You can see the awesome old-school type hinge plates that I used to make the VLS (vertical missile launcher) in the forward section of the ship, and I've already incorporated some of my old dark gray bricks and plates into it (I triple dog-dare you to pick out where I used the LEGO elements as opposed to the Oxford ones). I ended up paying ALMOST as much for shipping as I did for the set itself, which brought the price up to about $80US, but as you can see it was well worth it (the Pearl, which is nowhere near as big costs $100US, and the Queen Anne's Revenge, which might match the overall size due to its height, is $120US), so I reccomend this set to anyone interested in making enormous warship MOCs.

Obviously you missed this bit in my post: ...I never said it was an ideal solution, but at least its a start (compared to "I hate math" Barbie). Then again, you can actually get pink microscopes and tool sets (seriously, do a Google search sometime), so yeah. Still, despite all the BS talk about "tolerance" and "non-conformity" getting thrown around these days, the fact of the matter is that kids are under HUGE pressure to maintain gender-conformity, and AFAIK, it's worse for boys than girls: After all, a girl can play sports, wear pants, etc and nobody (except certain ultra-right wing fanatics) will call them on it. Now a boy, on the other hand, who doesn't act "manly" enough (read: act like a hormone-crazed fool around anything that looks vaguely feminine, obsess over over-powered cars, road-hogging pickup trucks and care about nothing other than football, baseball and basketball), let alone even shows any "feminine" traits, will be the target of all kinds of homophobic slurs and bullying... I know this from sad, painful personal experience.... Unfortunately that's the way it is, and Friends looks like it might be a handy "gateway series" to introduce more girls to LEGO... In the meantime, I'm taking full advantage of the new hair pieces (and more importantly the new, cute accessories for said hair pieces), the new animal molds (loving the ladybug and butterflies) and other stuff (I want to see if I can mod Stephanie's convertable so that it is all-pink and use the hair piece from the series 6 Mechanic plus some white duds and Jake Raine's head to make an "Elvis in his Pink Cadillac" MOC ), so overall, I say it's a good thing.

*Headdesk* Boy, there are relatively few times when I've seen such a clear case of did not do the freaking research combined with the feminist extremist attitude that real women don't wear dresses! Oh, really promoting stereotypical "feminine" roles and behavior? I guess they didn't bother looking at Olivia's Treehouse or Olivia's Inventor's Workshop, both of which, are, you know, more sterotypically BOYS activities (if you want to be sexist about things).... Granted Olivia seems to be the tomboy of the group, but still she's got a FREAKING ROBOT that she BUILT HERSELF and a chalkboard COVERED WITH PHYSICS EQUATIONS! As an electronics engineer, I'm all for ANYTHING that encourages girls to get into engineering, even if it IS pink and lavender! ...Not to mention that I like the new hair pieces and animals they're introducing with these sets (I'm definitely getting Olivia's Treehouse and Stephanie's Cool Convertable for those exact reasons). Sheesh! People should at least do some research before whining about stuff! Of course, you do have to keep the whole G.I.F.T. factor in mind when looking at anything dealing with internet opinion polls...... EDIT: I forgot to add the standard disclaimer: Several of my links go to Tv Tropes, and TV Tropes WILL ruin your life, so click at your own peril.

This just made my year! Two of the earliest things my brother and I made with our LEGO back when we were kids were Star Wars vehicles (including a custom Darth Vader using a Blacktron I torso, a black Castle helmet and an index card mask) and Lord of the Rings stuff... I know for a fact that I'd have been willing to chew off my left arm for some official LoTR sets from LEGO: My custom Gandalf the White fig was one of three minifigs that survived my first dark age (not counting ones that my friend gave back when he didn't want to play with LEGO anymore and I happened to be coming out of my dark age at the time), and I still have him... It would be nice to finally be able to give Gen. Gandalf, Msgt Gimli Gloinson, Cpl Ugluk, Senator Galadriel and other such characters an official makeover when I can get the sets. ...Looks like I'll be getting multiples of Weathertop (so I can give my girlfriend the hobbits, like she wants), at least one Gandalf Arrives, Mines of Moria (never can have too many dwarves) and a couple Uruk-hai battle packs (need MOAR orcs)...

I'm not familiar with the game, but I definitely like this mech, and the pilot's pretty awesome as well. BTW, where is that torso from?

Thanks! The reason I remember such details is the fact that I was in the US Navy for 6 years, four and a half of which I spent of surface ships (3 on a Spruance-Class Destroyer and 1.5 on a Tarawa-class Amphibious Assault ship), and I was a weapons system technician (I spent many, many, many long hours standing watch in the Combat Information Center). I also was assigned, on numerous occasions to "tiger teams" that helped with overhauling the main engine room and re-furbishing the crew berthing while the ship was in drydock, not to mention got qualified to stand engineering watches, so I got pretty familiar with the Destroyer I was on from top to bottom.... Thans! I tried to put as much detail as I could, but without making it too crowded (well, more crowded than shipboard conditions usually are, anyways ). The doors and hatches are based on real-life water-tight doors and hatches used in real-world navies (their purpose is to be able to divide the ship into watertight compartments, so that if a hole gets blown through the side, the flooding can be limited to one or two spaces (rooms) instead of filling up the whole ship). And now for some background info, as promised (excerpt from Jayne's Fighting Ships, 2111 edition, Republic of New Jersey press):

Ok, I finally got my PAB order and was able to finally finish this monstrosity (although it is still rather light on crew): Baton Rouge Starboard side view by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr Baton Rouge Port side view by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr These are pics of the entire ship from port and starboard views. Baton Rouge 02 Level by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr Pic of the uppermost deck, showing the two 20mm automated anti-air point-defense cannons (BrickArms miniguns) and the two lookouts manning their heavy machineguns. Baton Rouge Bridge by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr Completed view of the bridge and radio room... Not much change here from the previous pics. Baton Rouge Main Deck by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr Pic of the main deck interior, showing the Captain's cabin and Combat Information Center. Baton Rouge belowdecks, Fwd by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr Forward view of the belowdecks area, showing the Storage/Anchor Windlass room... The crates and chests are packed with food and other supplies. Baton Rouge Belowdecks Aft by Hikaro Takayama, on Flickr Finally, the aft view of the belowdecks area, showing the Engine Room and Crew Berthing in all their glory. I'll try to post more background information tomorrow, but I hope you enjoy what you see.

I was debating about whether or not to get any of these sets or not (I was particularly interested in the lavender sports car... I might just have enough pieces to do a version of it in dark green and black), but this sold me: while I'm not a fan of the "Polly Pocket" figures, the fact that the hair is removable and works with regular minifigs sold this for me... I'm probably going to at least get the sports car and Olivia's Treehouse (Olivia's hair piece is a better match for my girlfriend's sig-fig than the current one I'm using, and that larger, gray cat is perfect for "Nimitz", Honor Harrington's tree-cat)...

Well, I'm hoping for more pirates or Pirates of the Caribbean stuff to come out, but in the meantime, I'm taking advantage of the fact that the blue pirate torso (this one) is available via PaB... I definitely would like to see some VOC/East India Company soldiers and such as well...

I mix fleshy and standard minifigs all the time, and have no sense of "awkwardness"... Oh, and my girlfriend told me that if this theme is, in fact, for real, she wants at least one each of every hobbit and Gandalf and probably Legolas (or should I say LEGOlas ). Regardless of if they use fleshies or not, I'm buying enough sets to get all the main characters... it would be nice to have official versions for once (I already have a Gandalf custom fig that I made using Majisto's beard back in 1993, as well as Legolas, Galadriel, etc).