Mister Phes

Why? Pirates of the Caribbean, Lord of the Rings/Hobbit, Kingdoms and Pharaohs Quest not enough for you?

That's just your assumption. At present there is no evidence to suggest the LEGO Group is more likely to release a Spanish Galleon as part of a theme opposed to releasing one as an exclusive. Anything could happen.

Until the LEGO Group officially announces a set there is no legitimate proof, however there is no reason the LEGO Group would not release a Spanish Galleon set at some point in the future.

Why would you write something as misguided as that?

NOOOOO!!! There are plenty of large pirate ships. It's time for a Spanish Galleon to transport the mighty Imperial Armada to the New World!

It was announced on the official Disney Facebook Page on January 10, although the exact date wasn't given but other news sources state July 10 2015.

TalconCard, you are AMAZING! It would be awesome to fully illustrate this as well, but it must have taken hours to research and compile the information. How long did it take?

It's about time there was a Fabuland month!

First lets see what TalconCard thinks, this is his thread and he may wish to take it in a different direction. If so, I'll separate our subsequent posts.

So we have a media limit huh? I might know of a workaround but it'll be a few days before I can implement it.

Brickington, you've done a pretty good job! Although, I'd make a couple of changes. Give the link a more unique title to more easily identify the commercial. Make the link more title like. In the example below I've made the text bold and font size 18. Embed the YouTube video beneath.

Maybe we could build a video index. I.e. have all the YouTube videos embedded into the first post of this thread. Then we'd have a one-stop resource for these things.

That's the point I was getting at - if grammar is determined through usage then a governing body can dictate how it is used. I.e. the Eurobricks Staff recognises "LEGO" as the grammatically correct plural on this forum irrespective of what may be considered grammatically correct elsewhere. This is exactly why the LEGO Group wants to avoid dissolution of their trademark; so illegal counterfeit brands don't gain equal weight to the authentic product. Respect or not, using "LEGO" in the intended manner assists to maintain brand integrity and distinguishes LEGO products from the inferior quality knockoffs.

Here is the Xenomorph Tyrannosaurus by *nebezial. And now here is the LEGO version by retinence.

It's LEGO... You get to chose whether it's historically accurate (to the point LEGO allows), or you can decides its completely fantastical to the point of surrealism. OK, Fortune Teller, suggested by Brig. Brick and has received one vote from Durins Bane.

Yeah it kind of looks like its been done before. It doesn't look identical, but the other over structure doesn't seem very unique.

Nonetheless, both red coats and blue coats wore shakos in the Pirate Theme... So Grenadier Guard was requested by Brig. Brick and has received one vote from Brickington.

I concur! Provide a photo yer lazy bilge rats! That includes you too Brig. Brick.

I think we implement the 5 vote system! I.e. Someone suggest a minifigs... Then, if 5 other people vote for it by posting a comment* it gets added to the first post of this thread - you did check the first post? The Aztec Warrior, Musketeer, Mermaid, Judge, Ocean King (Neptune) and Conquistador are already there. * The comment must state why the minifigure is a good choice and how it can be used in the pirate theme for the vote to be valid.

Also referred to as "Colonial Judge" in another Eurobrick's thread. How about we call him "Old Bill" in the Pirate Forum just to be different.

At this point there is no official information available and the only sources are websites like Brickipedia. So make of it what you will.

Yes, that was my mistake. It was 6 in the morning when I responded and I interpreted those questions as rhetorical, but upon further review I see they're actual questions. Yes, that is what I was saying. I don't identify Jar Jar Binks with black stereotypes, rather he represents outlandish characters from any race, particularly slapstick comedians. For example: Charlie Chaplin. But I think it starts when the portrayal is deliberately nasty or insulting, as though the filmmakers want to defame a particular race or culture, and make it unmistakable the character is from that culture. With Jar Jar I didn't make the connection, but if they'd given him brown skin and curly black hair and named him "Bubba Binks", then things might be different. Perhaps I should have wrote "white minority group" of which albinos can be one such example. But do you have an opinion? Is vilifying an albino any different to vilifying someone from a coloured race?

Silly me! And here I was thinking Jim Carrey or Adam Sandler...

Please elaborate! When a proprietary word is created, who determines the correct grammatical usage, if not the entity who created it?