salty tbone

Well, does anyone really know if the licensing contract says Lego HAS to make sets through 2011, or simply that they have the right to. You said yourself that Lego's Harry Potter license isn't finished yet, but Lego obviously isn't making any sets.

I can't wait. These Rorschach test speculations are making my head hurt from all the squinting.

Well, we still haven't seen a link yet to any of these sets. Not saying the list is wrong, but I'm still waiting on more proof before I get depressed. "Stupid" because this list doesn't appeal to you or "stupid" because it won't appeal to kids? This list doesn't mean these are the only five city sets we're getting in 2010 (assuming the 31## sets are Duplo). And I understand why AFOLs wouldn't want more emergency sets, but let's face it. They're not going away. The current ones are a couple years old, and Lego has always recycled the theme to keep it fresh for kids.

It's possible, but so far we have a list of set numbers and names with no link or pictures. Saying two of the sets are KK2-style large figures based on the set name is a leap of faith at this point (unless you're referencing something else). Plus, if these are the official set names, Lego has lost some creative juice. "Green Toy Soldiers" sounds awfully generic to me.

Maybe we should wait to see more than just a thumbnail of one set before we condemn a line we knew nothing about 24 hours ago. I realize that's not how some AFOLs are wired, but still.

I can see your point. Although, I had the original action figure, and even I would have a tough time defining what DID define Ripcord's character other than someone who did high-altitude parachute jumps. Don't really remember him much in the comics. The movie pretty much has its own story line so they could pretty much do whatever they wanted. Which is why many fans are saying it was a good action movie but didn't feel like G.I. Joe. That disappoints me. I was hoping for a movie that really excited my nerd side.

Cool. Do you have actual links, though. Searches come up with nothing.

Any chance you could provide links to the sets? Your other topic just had a link to amazon.de. Doing a search doesn't find anything. I know there won't be pictures, but maybe price? Or at least confirmation of number of sets.

Well she never really was much of a looker. Back in my day, minifig gender was determined solely by wig, so I think using that head would look OK to me.

I can't really say it bothers me they changed his race, but really why? There's plenty of black GI Joe characters they could have used without having to be so revisionist. I guess since Rip Cord is such a secondary character, they figured who cares.

According to Lugnet and Peeron, the only Legend set released in 2004 and had the new gray was the 10151 Hot Rod. Am I overlooking something? That one set couldn't have killed the line, could it?

So why didn't it keep going? Did DC not want to extend the agreement? Because it doesn't make sense for Lego to just drop a successful line. Yeah, I know. That's when I buy most of my Lego. And I admit it's just an unscientific observation, but I saw A LOT of Batman on clearance, much more than I've seen of Star Wars since the glory days of 2003. I'm talking stacks of the Batcave, Batwing and Batmobile at 50% off. And not just the big box stores, but places like Tuesday Morning had plenty of Batman. Now the second-year sets vanished a month before Christmas. I think Lego maybe didn't make as many of the second wave, not factoring in demand caused by the video game. Again, all speculation.

I guess it's not a matter of if they make money, but rather do they make enough money to justify extending the license. But unless Lego opens its books and spells out just how profitable each line is, all we can do is speculate. Which is the point of the Internet, I guess. Personally, I don't want to see Indy go.

I agree completely and I'll drop it. ... ... ... (Although I still say I'm right about the fighter plane).

I think you're onto something. All Lego needs to do is add some technic pins to the Jungle Cutter and you got yourself a tank AND not break the policy.

Sorry for suggesting it's "your policy." It's just that oftentimes people here who are not part of Lego often state policy as if they have a seat at the boardroom table. Now that I know you talk to Steve Witt and other Lego employees, I'll yield to you. My only point was that anything is possible (see the Toy Story soldiers). Nobody was suggesting a military theme, just a tank from a current license. And a WWI tank at that. And call me unrealistic, but there are plenty of veterans who would disagree with you that a WWII fighter plane is not a modern warfare vehicle.

I don't own the set, but pictures show the tow truck has a steering wheel. http://www.bricklink.com/TL/2160.jpg?1 And as others pointed out in this thread three months ago, I'll take "lego these days" over Lego 10 years ago. I'm still not going to buy this set, mind you.

Please explain how the fighter plane in "Fighter Plane Attack" fits into your Lego policy of no modern military vehicles. These proclamations are constantly posted here that "Lego will never ... " as if they're carved in stone, but I honestly don't get it. I figure if Eurobricks existing 30 years ago, this would be the progression of the slippery slope that Lego's been on. Circa 1977: "Lego is nonviolent. They'll never make violent themes." Then Castle line is introduced with the first minifig weapons. Circa 1988: "Well castle is fantasy and not overtly violent. And Lego will never make minifig guns." Then Pirates are released. Circa 1995: "Ok. Well they've done historical weapons, but Lego will never release modern weapons." Then Western line is released with revolvers and rifles. Circa 1998: "Please, Lego will never make sets about war." Then Star Wars is released. Circa 2004: "Oh c'mon, that's sci-fi. And look, they don't even have guns. Just megaphones flipped around. Lego will never make actual blasters. It's just too violent." Then Star Wars blasters are released. Circa 2005: "Stop it. Everyone knows Lego's nonviolence policy. All of that is fantasy and sci-fi. Lego will never make modern military sets." Then Indiana Jones sets are released featuring uniformed, modern soldiers with guns and vehicles. ... I know this debate is endless, and I really don't want Lego to make modern military sets. But I don't understand how a WWI era tank doesn't fit into Lego's so-called nonviolence policy but a fighter plane with guns a-blazin' does.

I'm glad you still liked it even though there were three things you listed as positive and eight negative. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm hoping I'll at least be entertained while I cringe as one of my favorite childhood toys gets milked. BTW, it's "Marlon Wayans."

I would've agreed with you until Lego released the Fighter Plane Attack and Flying Wing sets. Now, honestly, I don't know how anyone can say "never." I'm not saying Lego is going to release a "NATO vs. The Taliban: It's On!" line, but several of the Indiana Jones have military tones because of the movie settings. Asking for one more doesn't seem so far-fetched just because it would feature a WWI-era tank.

I'm not exactly sure why we're still analyzing the pictures when Svelte actually owns the set and says they're identical. That's all the proof I need.

Wow. That just blew my mind.

My 5 would be Republic Attack Gunship AT-TE Walker Armored Assault Tank Separatist Spider Droid Hailfire Droid and Spider Droid Those five will give you a great mix of clone commanders and droids (plus all but the AAT are older and therefore closer to being OOP).

I agree, Endor is the next set I'm looking to get. I also think it's a much better value than four Echo Bases (unless you're a really big fan of Hoth and/or Tauntauns).

Prices do tend to go up, but these extreme increases are not typical. Spider Man sets, for example, fetch a higher price, but not 4x higher price.