Tyrant

I don't want to speak for him, but I don't think he meant that he wanted to see tridents and wrist claws in this line. I believe he meant that those are examples of LEGO coming up with new weapons and that he wishes they would've come up with some new weapons for this line. I think.

So, now we've seen some decent picks of this year's sets. Any new ideas floating around about what we would like to see down the road? I have a couple of ideas based on what we have seen so far, and assuming these are the factions we will see next year. Large Castle for the Dragon Knights -This one's kind of obvious. With the Lion guys having a large castle the other side needs one as well. I assume the Prison Tower is an indication of the general style any other structure for the Dragon Knights will follow. I imagine it will be more along the lines of the Troll Fortress. The walls closer together and being generally smaller in ground coverage, but having taller towers. I imagine it will be primarily black with brown accents to presumably represent wood. This set would serve to supply a number of Dragon Knights, possibly a king (and who knows, maybe a queen as well), and maybe some barding. A Seaside Port/Fortress-This would be similar to the one with the Skeleton Ship. It could be more like a seaside port and focus on a couple of small buildings, a peer, and some smaller boats. Or, it could be more of a seaside fortress with a small dock. This one would have an opening for smaller boats instead of the typical front gate and feature mounted siege weapons to fight off enemy ships. If it were a larger set, it could feature a ship about the size of the Skeleton ship or a larger version of the older Sea Serpent. The other set of options are if the ships are friends or foes. If they're friends then the ships will be cargo ships and if they are foes the ships will be attack ships. On the smaller end: The obvious would be to make a Wizard and Jester for the opposite factions to help even things out. Beyond that, some smaller sets where the Dragon Knights outnumber the Lions would be good for evening out the two sides.

The ones in Shaun of the Dead were real zombies (I feel silly using that expression) because they did die then reanimated. Honestly, I know it's splitting hairs with my example but I believe the undead component seperates zombies from creatures that are still living but have zombie like behavior. Even in my example there are other reasons to not call them zombies. For instance, I don't believe they actually eat their victims. I'm pretty sure they just try to infect them or kill them. That's why they all die out at the end. I still say it's a zombie movie because it has all the features of the typical zombie movie, even if the creatures aren't quite zombies. The upcoming remake of The Crazies looks like it could be in a similar situation based on the previews. I never saw the original so I can't base my opinion on that. Then again the original was made by George Romero so the similarites may be intentional. Of course I've also seen arguments that zombies can't actually be dead because they are up and walking around. My personal favorite zombie argument is "but they can't run, they're dead". As far as I am oncerned, if they are already violating the known laws of the universe by moving around at all, then why can't they run?

I somewhat agree with what you are saying. However, if you change something enough then it isn't really whatever you are trying to call it anymore. I'm not saying that is the case with Twilight. I never read the book or saw the movie and I have my doubts I will anytime soon. They drink blood, they're immortal, then they're probably vampires. The rest changes from one version to another. Some are super strong, some can be killed by stabbing them enough times to cause them to bleed out, some can walk in sunlight with no trouble, etc. It's the same thing with zombies. As long as they are dead creatures that eat the living (but not vampires) then they're probably zombies.* Some can run, some are smart, etc. If you mess with the core though, then they aren't what they are trying to be names anymore. Like a vampire that doesn't drink blood (or have some alternative like draining someone's lifeforce or something). That isn't a vampire anymore and the person claiming it is is trying to cash in on the connection to other (likely better) vampire stories. For some folks though, the list of core characteristics is a little bigger and has no room for sparkling vampires. I hate the concept personally (I'm fine with vampires being unaffected by the sun, but unless sparkling is a precursor to combustion then I think it's a stupid idea), but they are vampires from everything else I know of the story. So I guess what I am trying to say is that while there is room for change, there is a point where there is too much change to still call it whatever the creator is trying to call it. *A prime example of this is 28 Days/Weeks Later. The movie is a zombie movie for all intents and purposes given the situation and the nature of the creatures, however the creatures are not zombies. Zombie-like in behavior, sure (hence my calling it a zombie movie), but they aren't zombies. Hopefully that makes sense.

Oh I like Armageddon. It's an entertaining movie. I meant I understood not labeling a classic of the scifi genre. Though it probably is close to one in the action genre. That and a lot of people write it off as a very dumb movie, so I could understand not calling it anything positive to keep up appearances. I had just never really heard many complaints about Fifth Element and I thought it was a decent movie. I wouldn't call it a masterpiece but I would put it on the better end of the sci fi spectrum. That aside, I watched The Lightning Thief today. I walked in as they were entering the museum so I might have missed the first few minutes. I didn't feel like I missed anything so if I did it must not have mattered much. I thought it was an entertaining movie. I'm not well versed in Greek Mythology but most of the bits I know seemed right. Although one part was right out of Clash of the Titans (which for all I know copied it from mythology) so much so that I fully expected . The only major change I noted (again, based on my limited knowledge of the topic) had to do with the Hydra. There were a couple of things that kind of stood out as odd (especially in a PG movie). Unless I misunderstood, the kid was supposed to be in high school. And again, I walked in late so maybe I missed that his class wasn't a high school class. So at one point they have to go to Las Vegas. On the way the discussion drifts towards gambling. To my knowledge, you have to be 21 to gamble in a casino in Vegas. The underworld was interesting and very Hell-like. Hades was kind of odd. There was also more than one innuendo about the gods favorite extra carricular activity. In case anyone doesn't know what that is, let me just say there are a lot of demi gods for a reason. It didn't detract from the movie in any way and I'm not complaining about it. It just seemed a little odd in what I thought was more or less a kids movie. Overall I liked it and I will probably watch the sequels.

I can live with the lack of interior (and back for that matter) on the tower. I was planning on getting more than one so if I actually keep it in one piece I will use parts from a second one (or my own parts, I think I have them in the correct color scheme) to enclose or enlarge the back and possibly add something to the interior. The princess figure is great. The real bonus for me is confirming the prices on the smaller sets. With the Knight's Showdown* being $7 and the Prison Carriage Rescue being $10, it should be relatively easy to amass a number of figures for both sides. The carriages will have a horse along with the 3 figures. The Outpost Attack being $20 also makes it cheap enough to buy in numbers to help build an army and amass bley and dark bley bricks as well. And catapults if that's your thing. If we do actually get the rumored battle packs, people will have a variety of ways to build their armies. The Prince of Persia sets also look like they have lots to offer Castle fans between the new torsos (a number of which have no exposed flesh tone so they work with regular yellow figures), the new animals, the new weapons (what look to be claws and a wrist mounted dagger I believe) , and the overall middle eastern theme (crusades, perhaps?). Honestly, I really like the printed horse in the $11 set and I'm likely going to get a few of them. Harry Potter seems to have a variety of new figures/hair pieces that could be of use to Castle (and other lines) and the castle could be of use to some folks. Overall, I think 2010 has a lot to offer Castle fans. Also, yay August release (as opposed to later). *I am wondering why the box shows a soldier from each side yet the display has two lion soldiers? Between the box and the set name, I assume it is supposed to be one of each. Here's hoping.

Wow. $2? I figured $3 and I was more or less ready to go all out at that price. As for the bow, my assumption (purely assumption, to be clear) is that it is primarily the torsos that will be unique. Or I suppose it could be the accessories that are unique and the accessories get used elsewhere.

Armageddon I understand, but what's wrong with The 5th Element?

I'm not going to defend LXG. It is a bad movie. However, I think this is just being nitpicky. For instance, the complaint about being like a movie that came out 3 weeks prior? Really? There is no way at that point they could have changed that. It is unlikely they could've changed it by the time they saw anything like it in a Hulk preview. More importantly, the only similarity is "small guy becomes big guy". The similarity to Spider Man? Again, really? Spider Man didn't invent that technique and it definately applies to Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde. I'm relatively certain they predate Spider Man. For that matter, it predates the Hulk who is in some ways a modern retelling of Jekyll/Hyde so the imitation was all Marvel. And again, by the time Spider Man was released I am sure LXG was already in production. Near Dark came out a few months after The Lost Boys. Both are about vampires. I don't believe Near Dark is copying The Lost Boys no matter how close they were released to one another. LXG is a bad movie. There's plenty of complaints that can be leveled at it. You could put just about any Uwe Boll movie on this list. I say just about because his Vietnam movie wasn't as god awful as his others. It was only bad. Personally I think his worst is either Bloodrayne (guest starring Billy Zane even) or Alone in the Dark. As for Dungeon Siege, I am relatively certain Ray Liotta killed Farmer's family. Reynold's was his dad. Now that I would've paid to see.

Yeah a larger, more detailed remake of that could make for a great set. If it were an exclusive along the same lines as the MMV then I would go with up to 4 different sets of heraldry. They could either be past favorites (Black Falcons, the Lions we are getting this year, the Dragons we are getting this year, and maybe either the crossed axe symbol or pick one of the KK symbols like the Unicorn), or all new ones, or some combination of the two. Each group would get printed barding for their horse, a squire with their symbol on his torso, and at least one shield with their symbol. If they want to go all out, the knight for each group could have a printed euroarmor as well. Aside from them, we would need a crowd. A few peasants and one or two members of the nobility. Some stands. A vendor too perhaps. An assortment of weapons for each combatant. Something like that would go over well I would think.

Well hopefully we can breath a collective sigh of relief with this news.

You completely ignored my quite relevant example. Do you allow kids to buy other things, such as R rated movies and M rated video games, that they don't fully comprehend what they are buying? Why should this be any different? As for the bad parents, how is that your or my problem again? Bad parents will do stupid things no matter what anyone else does. You can't idiot proof the world and you only bring down the rest of civilization when you take it to stupid extremes. As for pleasing children, the world seemed to get by just fine since roughly the dawn of human civilization to a few decades ago without absolutely spoiling children. I think it can get by just fine now without giving in to their every desire and we will in fact be far better off in the long run if people would teach their kids that they can't always get what they want. As opposed to their normal goal of getting you to buy a lot of their products? Their goal has never changed, only the means. And again, the normal sets are still there. I know I've commented on this before. It could (possibly) have to do with differences in production costs. The Mexican figure is a prime example. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that sombrero costs more than just about any other hat. And he has the poncho and his maracas. Overall, he costs more to make than say, the vampire. Now, that cost difference is likely not huge, but once you figure in how many are going to be made, it raises the overall production cost of the line to make an equal number of those. Now, I know you're going to say something about how none of that matters despite the fact it most certainly does matter. So, try this line of reasoning. The focus groups determined which ones will be more rare. They are going with the ones that were less popular as the rare figures making the common figures the ones that were popular in teh focus groups. The focus groups are kids. Do kids want zombies and cheerleaders or do they want cowboys and ninjas? It's a toy for kids right? For whatever it is worth, Hasbro (makers of star wars and GIJoe among many others) has determined through focus groups that names characters are more popular with kids so lines like GIJoe feature remake after remake of Duke, Snake Eyes, and Cobra Commander. Guess which three figures sit around collecting dust? Do you know why? Because despite evidence to the contrary Wal Mart refuses to accept that the GIJoe line (and likely the Star Wars line) are in large part driven by adult collectors. Hasbro gets this, but Hasbro isn't the only one who has a say in what sits on the shelves at Wal Mart. I can't imagine the relationship with TLG being a whole lot different. Because the goal is to sell them all. The goal is not to use Wal Mart as their own personal field trial and Wal Mart is smart enough to know when that is happening. As with the action figures, Wal Mart has input into what gets made to be sold on it's shelves. The company that made the Lord of the Rings figures planned on producing a huge Balrog figure. Guess which major retailer had no interest in a giant fiery demon sitting on their shelves and their disinterest helped kill the idea completely? Again, these decisions aren't made in a void and aren't completely in TLG's hands. It could very well be that major retailers were unwilling to carry the line. It's not an absolute and I freely admit that this could all just be the evil cash grab you keep trying to get us all to believe it is. Or maybe it isn't. That's been my point. You are dead set in your way of thinking and assume everyone else is wrong, naive, and a total fanboy. That is not a reasonable position to take, especially given how easily you blow off the results of decades of attempted action figure sales like it's all bs. I'm glad to see civility is alive and well. As for the compliment, it isn't. I neither meant it as one nor do my feeling fit your idea of what you apparently believe them to be. I can quite easily and truthfully state that I in no way consider you my superior. I really don't know what to say about the idea of elitist being a compliment other than the fact that clearly humility isn't a factor in that way of thinking. As for the rest, I don't care anymore. If you want to insult the others on here, go ahead. I'll let you drag someone else down with you. And to clarify for any interested parties, I would prefer to have them in visible packages. However, I understand that that isn't always an option for various reasons and I accept that that may be the case here. If the options were get the figures but they are random, or not get them at all, I will choose random every time. I know from the miniatures I buy that random allows for things non random does not such as variety.

It's so easy a caveman could do it.

Then perhaps their parents should, you know, parent. If a child can't understand what is written on the package they shouldn't be in a position to buy it. I honestly believe that to be common sense. You don't let kids buy M rated games or R rated movies, right? The idea of random is actually pretty easy to understand. Clearly, their master plan is to make you buy crap figures. They clearly have some huge benefit from that course of action. Or it could be that market research says all of those will be popular. I mean, this is the same market reasearch that says LEGO City should appear to be a police state made up entirely of construction vehicles, fire departments, airports, and police so who knows. There is no good reason for them to make figures they know won't be popular. That is just plain stupid. Some may be less popular than others, but then again I defy anyone to make a set of 16 equally liked figures that have teh same level of appeal to everyone. It can't be done, so when something like this happens it really isn't the folks on top trying to get you to buy figures they know are crap. So, just to be clear, a line of random figures that cost $3 that in absolutely no way alters the rest of their offerings is a sign that they want profit at any cost? Really? And I believe just like with Star Wars most people don't enjoy being called a fanboy because 99% of the time it's meant as an insult. You're continued comments illustrate that was your intended use as well. Likewise, people don't enjoy being called naive. The one saying that typically comes off as an elitist or know it all. I believe I, and others, have illustrated that we completely understand the system LEGO is about to employ here so naive isn't even an accurate term. We understand and accept it. No one is forcing you to buy anything. There is every chance that they couldn't. Again, they have to deal with retailers. This sounds like something that will be part of an endcap. What you are wanting would require shelf space. When I look down most LEGO sections at places like Wal Mart I don't see a whole lot of that to spare. Especially not on something with a low value and unproven sales potential. On top of that, they would have to choose if they will arrive in mixed cases (for argument's sake, let's say one of each is in a case) or in individual cases (16 copies of one figure, meaning different SKUs). If you think the second of those options is going to happen, there's no point in me trying to further explain so just stop reading my post. So, they would arrive in mixed cases. Then the popular ones would sell and the others would sit there (and again, some will be more popular than others and there is nothing that can be done about that). With action figures, this leads to a store not ordering anymore because they have excess inventory just sitting around and they have no desire to buy more stuff that in their mind won't sell. It happens all the time with action figures that feature the exact same distribution system you want. This leads to certain regions never even seeing whole waves of figures, which usually leads to later sets having figures that go for absurd amounts on the secondary market. Stores have a tendency to order the hell out of the first set, and then it sits there after the fans have bought all they want and you are lucky if you even see the next wave. Despite the fact this happens again and again and again, the stores keep doing it. There is absolutely nothing saying this isn't exactly what will happen with these too if they are sold how you want them to be sold. Unless you want them only sold online/at LEGO stores. But then isn't that just another way of limiting and the vibe I get is that that is considered evil. Again I have to comment. They stand to gain absolutely nothing by selling items they know to be crap. That does not help them in any way, shape, or form. I'll say this again because it apparently is worth repeating. I grew up in the 80s. I didn't get everything I wanted and what I wanted was sold in individual packages that were available for an entire year and cost roughly $4 (GIJoe figures for anyone curious). The same also applied to LEGO. I was grateful for what I had, for the most part. In fact, I still have a lot of it because I took care of what I had and respected it. If I asked for something and it couldn't be found, then it couldn't be found. My parents didn't go to the ends of the earth sparing no expense to aquire it, and no parent should do that. You can't always get what you want. That is a very important lesson for kids to learn. Here's a way to teach them that since we are apparently quite concerned about the children.

I buy similar things and I don't have any regrets. It's easy not to when you actually use them, like I do. Like I assume anyone buying LEGO figures would. Then again I actually think before I buy things and try to stick with things I can afford and use. Also, I recall various LEGO items being distributed via Happy Meals at McDonalds as far back as 1989 and LEGO didn't collapse or sully their reputation on that one. I keep coming back to if you are so against then don't buy it because no one is forcing you to buy it. You also seem very, very worried about the LEGO reputation. I would dare say that the company you are defending no longer exists as is (and probably hasn't for a while in fact) and this is simply another sign of that as opposed to a sign of the imminent implosion of TLG and their reputation.

The packaging is not deceitful. It says that the contents are random. That is true. It may or may not have a statement elaborating on odds (I wuld personally doubt it myself). By the same logic that mass produced =/= limited edition, then nothing LEGO makes that is labeled Limited Edition is in fact, limited edition. First of all, limited is a relative term. Second, these are (supposedly) going to have a limited run which should make them more limited than the average LEGO set. I believe that would qualify them for the descriptor, Limited Edition. Especially if these really don't ever show up in other sets. Cheap trick and dishonorable have no meaning to a corporation. Second, it isn't either of those things. It isn't a cheap trick because you know exactly what is going on. This isn't a suprise you discover after buying something that has deceptive packaging. You know these are random. There is no trick here. I also fail to see how it is dishonorable. They aren't breaking their word or some prior commitment here. They aren't promising you one thing and giving you another. They are saying that by purchasing one of these you are buying a random figure. That is not dishonorable. They plainly state what the product is and it is up to you to choose to buy it or not. I fail to see the source of outrage here. Always end on an insult apparently. I do not view this tactic as disrespectful. Would I prefer to be able to buy exactly the ones I want, of course I would. However, I accept the reality that they may not have made half of these figures had they gone that route. They can only have so many themes in rotation at any one point. A line like this allows them to make cavemen, zombies, robots, etc that simply don't fit other themes. So, as may be the case, if the options are a line like this or less than half of these figures ever being made, the choice is pretty easy. Of course, no one is forcing you to buy any of them so I am again wondering what the real problem is.

Then that's not really the same thing now is it? A 1 in 2 chance (which could still lead you to buying several before you got the one you wanted, random is random) is not even close to the 1 in 16 (and that is before factoring in varying rarity) that the figures have. You're changing your example to try to make it work and it simply won't. There's simply too big of a gap between $3 and $30 to make that come close to working. Especially if there are anywhere near the same number of both and we assume in both cases you are only after one or a very small number (say 4) of them. As for taking possibility of success into account, if I do that I could just assume (rightly so) that I could the exact figure I want on the very first try. It's unlikely but not anywhere near impossible. I've learned a very valuable lesson from my time buying random cards and miniatures. If you truly only want one, or even say 25% or less of the set, buying them blind is a very foolish move that will likely cost you as much or more than it would have to just buy them from someone selling them on the secondary market. You buy the random sets if you are okay with 50% or more of the set and if you are okay with trying to sell or trade extras (or keeping extras). Aside from maybe the Diver and the Indian (and even then I can use a few Divers probably) , I can use every figure in the first set. I can use most of them in multiples. If not, I have the patience to sit on them until it's worthwhile to trade or sell them. People that don't (and that is in no way a bad thing, different people have different preferrences) should just buy the ones they want on the secondary market or hope that something similar to the figure they want makes it's way into a real set.

There is still a difference between lots of small purchases that may or may not amount to something and a blind $30 buy. $30 a shot vs $3 a shot is very different. Yes, it may take me buying ten of the figues to get the one I want (thus spending $30), but if I don't get the set I want on the first try I may have to spend another $30 and another $30. One adds up a whole lot faster than the other. One is ridiculous and one is an accepted way of doing things. They aren't even close. While you may rack up $30 in expenses on the minifigures, at some point you are going to say enough is enough and just buy the one you want. In fact, if you only want one, you shouldn't buy the random ones to begin with. With your hypothetical $30 sets, 2 chances has already set you back $60. Any set you want is likely going to cost more than $30, so if you stop at 2 tries you'll end up being +$90 in the hole after you break down and buy the one you are after. I don't believe it will negatively impact kids. It may suck that they don't get the one they want. Guess what, I didn't get everything I wanted when I was a kid in the 80s and those toys were there for whoever wanted them for an entire year. Who knows, it may help some kids appreciate what they have and find creative uses for them. Me personally, I enjoy the occasional gamble (to the point that I make a trip to the casino now and then, though I do actually enjoy some of the games like Blackjack). I buy random miniatures. I bought into a few card games throughout the years. For the most part, I don't regret it. It has almost etirely been my own money from my jobs that fund my hobbies. Along with the figures and cards, I had fun with them playing the game. I've met like minded people because of my hobbies. In some cases I have turned a profit when I sell my extras or sell out everything when I stop playing a game. Aside from a few cases of buying more than I should have (which was my own fault, I don't blame the system) I really don't regret any of it. I had fun and to me that is a worthwhile way to spend my money. With these I will apply the lessons I have learned along the way and try to buy them in the most economically efficient way (which I believe will be by the case). Depending on how that pans out, I may buy the occasional random ones in the store. As for the possibility of there not being cases for sale, I would bet there will be. It may not be in the stores though. In both action figures and collectibles it is possible to buy cases online, usually for less than retail. With action figures this has come about because of the rise of chase figures and a base of adult collectors who are willing to buy the case instead of driving all over the place to get the chase figures. These same stores will likely attempt to get their hands on cases of these to resell. It will all depend on how LEGO distributes them and who (retail wise) ends up selling them. LEGO themselves may sell them. I see no reason why they wouldn't, honestly. They would be full retail (most likely) through LEGO, but I am sure I am not the only one who would likely be willing to pay that.

I watched From Paris With Love over the weekend. It was an entertaining action movie. This is not a movie you should go into expecting a deep plot. It is an excuse for Travolta to run around shooting people and cracking the occasional joke. In that respect, I believe it was a success. It never really felt dull. The action and language are pretty firmly in the R rated column. I also watched Silverado on AMC. I was never a huge Western fan but they are starting to grow on me. I thought this one was pretty with good with quite a cast including Scott Glenn, Kevin Costner, Kevin Kline, Danny Glover, Jeff Goldblum, Brian Dennehy, and John Cleese. Actually, if you've watched a lot of movies, particularly some from the 80s, you would probably recognise just about everyone who has a speaking part in this movie. It literally starts with a bang. I also watched Saw 6. If you liked 1-5, you'll like this one. If you're squeemish, well if you are you probably didn't watch the other 5.

I don't have a huge problem with the blind packaging. Like someone else mentioned, I also buy miniatures in random packs. If possible, I will just do what I do with that game and buy by the case. If the distribution is set up right (which is an if at this point) and you can get an entire set out of a case it will be the easy way to go. For D&D minis, for instance, you can get all of the commons and uncommons, and half of the rares in one case of figures so it really is the easy way to go if you want most of the set. Here I assume there will only be common and rare with no idea what the ratio between the two will be. If a full case gets you multiples of the rare figures, it will definately be the way to go. Then, I just sell off the multiples I don't want like I do with D&D. It will be a potentially expensive proposition either way, but one way avoids frustration (again, if the distribution is set up right). At this point though, we don't have enough to work with to know if that will be a smart move or not. There are 16 individual figures, but we don't know how many are "rare" and what exactly that rarity means. It could be that 8 of them are rare and that rarity means there are half as many of them. In other words, in 24 boxes there will be one of each rare and two of each of the others. It could mean that 4 of them are rare and there are one fourth as many of them. Or any other possible combination. In my opinion, this is the critical information we need before we start gathering the torches and talking about corrupting the youth. If it's less than half of the figures being rare and a low ratio I will be even more likely to buy a case because I will have more of the rare figures to resell to help cover the cost because I want most of the figures for myself so they would need to be multiples to sell. Edit to add: To again use an example from D&D minis, they tried packaging where you could see one of the figures. It didn't work. People would buy up all the good/useful ones and now most stores have tons of packages with Unicorns (the not so useful figure from the first such set) sitting on the shelf with retailers not buying any more until those move. The next set had the same problem with 4 of the 8 visible figures flying off the shelves and the other 4 kind of sitting there. The third set has been better but the overall experiment has been a failure and they are returning to totally blind packaging in the next set. Totally blind, at least with D&D minis, allowed them to make a lot more figures for a cheaper price to the consumer than they ever would have been able to selling them individually in visible packaging. I won't claim to totally understand TLG's business model but that may be the case here. Some of those parts are bound to cost more than others so by producing fewer of them over the life of the line they are able to produce a broader range for a reduced price, but you don't get to see what you are buying. Otherwise, it may be a case where you are paying $5 a figure (or more) and there are only half as many figures. With all the figures in the same exact type of package, the consumer can't pick and choose which is what leads to peg warmers (a term the action figure collectors out there will recognise) which stores hate and consumers ultimately pay the price for when stores don't restock or pick up the next series. It is entirely possible that TLG has to bend to pressure from retailers on this one as well. They may not think they can recover their costs selling them exclusively through their own venues and they have to compromise to get stores to carry their product. It's a big reason why D&D minis are in blind packaging as well.

I really like the look of these with the new pictures and I can't wait to see some of the other details from the NY Toyfair. The large castle looks nice and I really like the midsized Dragon castle. The torsos all look nice from what I can see. The small set should be cheap enough that people can build armies of the two factions cheaply. I'm curious to see if the army builder pack rumor pans out. That would be really nice too. The only thing I don't like (and this stretches across most of the lines) is the use of stickers. I just don't like them. I might them more if I could buy more in case I ever have to replace them. As for the difference in the 2 castle wall pieces, I'm indifferent about it. I see advantages to both, honestly. The old ones are set up that when you use them they interlock things together and you set the ceiling at the same level as the top of the piece due to the inner bit being sunk in. The new ones are evenly sized which has advantages and if you don't like it they don't have that sunk in piece attached to them.

For me it's a few things. My main interest is Castle and it's various incarnations with Star Wars and City being secondary (Pirates gets honorable mention). So, I've bought just about every Castle set since I got back in (which I think was late 2007) with the exception so far being the chariot in the last series and I may still end up getting one at some point. Now, the Castle sets I get in multiples depends on a combination of figure selection, price per part ratio (and of course if those parts are useful), and if I can find them on a sale I will buy even more of them. Once I get into multiples it's rarely about the design of the set because I probably will only build one unless I really like the set. So as an example, the Tower Raid was a set which I bought in multiples. I also got multiple Battle Wheels but the constant "sale" price had a lot to do with that along with the fact it had 6 figures in it. I also buy sets of some of the other themes for figures. I've recently bought Atlantis, Power Miners, and Space Police 3. Between the sea folk, the rock monsters, and the aliens I have all kinds of figures to further expand the Fantasy esque Castle kingdoms. Thankfully all three of those lines have had impluse style sets that had some of the "odd" figures. I just wish I would have bought more of the cyclops esque alien impulse set (though they aren't exactly burning up Bricklink so I suppose I could get more on the cheap) so I could attempt to make a Cyclops kingdom. For these types of figures I generally don't buy sets that are more than $10 unless I actually want the set (like the Crystal King). For City I look for the sets and the figures, then the price. For Star Wars I usually start with the figures and go from there. They seem to remake the iconic sets with relative frequency so I only get excited about them if they have figures I want. When it's a set that I know won't be remade that I want (like the new Tie Defender) then I decide based on price usually. With Star Wars the parts ratio is usually not what it is with the other series so I don't look at it as much. As long as I don't feel like I am getting ripped off I will buy it. With Star Wars sales aren't as much of an option.

I know you weren't bashing. That was more of a summary of my thought than anything adressing you personally. Also, I agree there are fun moments. I also tried to stick with 1 and 2 when I was mentioning serious vs fun because things took a hit with part 3 on that front. That's not to say there's anything wrong with having fun with the movie (I think they are very entertaining, personally), just that it was meant to be more than a scifi action fest (no matter what it has drifted towards). If I may ask, what part do you disagree with? I know this was directed at someone else, but I would like to throw out my opinion on the topic. Personally, I'm split on it. Even though I generally don't mind subtitles, they add nothing to the movie for me. For me, it means I have to read the script instead of hear it in a language I can understand (and again, I don't mind reading it). The way I look at it, there's no need for it except when you are trying to show that some characters are speaking a different language than the other folks in the movie. Otherwise, I believe it is generally understood that characters are speaking their proper languages and we are hearing it in a way we can understand. I get the novelty of it, but I feel it is mostly unnecessary. From a more practical standpoint, it can be bad for business. I hate to say this, but most people don't go to the movies to read. In the US at least. That's important because these are primarily American movies made with the US audience primarily in mind. It just doesn't make sense from Hollywood's perspective to make movies that way (most of the time). For instance, is anyone really going to be critical of Gladiator because it was in English? The Hunt for Red October or Valkyrie even though they go the extra step of illustrating that the characters are understood to not actually be speaking English? The occasional venture like Apocalypto or The Passion (both made by the same man, it should be noted) notwithstanding, American movies simply aren't made in their original languages. Again, I've got nothing against it but it really isn't overly practical. Now, the situation I mentioned above where there are multiple languages in a film and this needs to be illustrated, they break out the subtitles for that quite a bit and it works. Or they could do like Hostel and have several languages and no subtitles at all. I'm fine with subtitles, but most complaints will be against them and it's an understandable complaint given that the vast majority of American movies are in English so movies that go a different route are going against the grain. As for the actual topic and not potential derailment, I can't think of many movies I regret watching. I've watched some truly terrible movies so to be honest when I see lists like this I find out that other people seem to have much higher thresholds for what they call bad movies. I used to regularly watch the movies on USA's Up All Night and Joe Bob Briggs on TNT (and TMC before that) before those two stations decided to try to become respectable. Along with that, HBO used to run bad sci fi and horror movies at night (they may still, our cable company restructured about a year ago and keeping HBO wasn't a viable option given the new set up so I have no clue what their programming schedule is like anymore). Between those, I saw such classics as Hell Comes to Frog Town, Motel Hell, Chopper Chicks in Zombietown, and Troll 2. Most (not all, but most) more recent movies really can't come close to that level of bad. Battlefield Earth gives it a pretty good attempt though. So, I guess there aren't many movies (and none come immediately to mind) movies I regret watching. There are plenty I am in no rush to watch again but I usually don't feel like I wasted my time watching a movie because I really like watching movies. Edit to add: I never saw the movies but I wish I could unsee the previews for Meet the Spartans, Dance Flick and Disaster Movie. The previews are enough to remind those movies were actually made.

I don't intend to sound mean, but it really doesn't take much to make it work and it won't distract from the story. The theory I threw out a few posts back is one way. The other that I know of goes like this: The future can be changed. Anything or anyone that gets sent back in time exists seperate from the timeline so any changes in the past won't instantly destroy it. In this way, a person could travel back in time and change things. The future he came from would cease to be but he would not. This would avoid the paradox. The only real hang up I see with this idea is that if the change is instant, then only the T800 would have made it back in T1 because the instant he arrived he in the past the world would change. Really, even if it starts small, the world would change the moment anything came back in time because it's something or someone who wasn't there originally (unless you have a time loop in which case they were always meant to go there). I guess my point is that the movies can work if you put just a little thought into it. If these movies are that terrible, then people shouldn't have to invent reasons to be critical about them. The overall script, acting, etc I understand. The time travel, however, has a viable theory* that can make it work. Also to be clear again, just because I find no problems with the time travel theory doesn't make the movie any better. I just hate it when people bash a movie that is believed to be unpopular and they just start making up problems with the movie. If it's that bad, it shouldn't be necessary to make up problems should it? *obviously by "viable theory" I mean something that sounds logical and at least works by the laws of movie science because in this case we are talking about something that to our knowledge is purely fiction. As for this, I believe given the general serious tone and the R rating of T1 are big clues it's not supposed to be a "fun" movie. The series on the whole (obviously Arnold's attempts at comedy in part 3 not withstanding) has a serious tone, not a playful tone. The second goes to great lengths to discuss mankinds self destructive behaviors and our increasing reliance on technology that most of people don't understand. The movies weren't meant to be fun. On the scifi scale, T1 and 2 should fall closer to (but not quite with) movies like Blade Runner and District 9, not Star Wars or some of the cheesier episodes of Star Trek (that's some episodes are cheesy, not the series as a whole). By the way, I'm not trying to single you out Clone O'Patra. It's just that I have seen a similar argument before and I honestly do not believe the Terminator series is meant to a fun set of movies. Entertaining, sure. But fun in the way I am taking it (as in, not putting much thought into it and basically watching it for the action) isn't a word I would ever use for it.

In this case it wouldn't be dubbed. It would just be filmed in English from the start since it was an American movie. Personally, I am fine with any of the three methods (sub, dub, just film it in English) when it comes to movies. I saw Hero subtitled and I was fine with it. IB was fine as is. I also liked Valkyrie and it was almost entirely in English, though it used the same story telling device that was used in the Hunt for Red October to indicate to the audience that the characters are assumed to be speaking German (in Valkyrie, it would be Russian for Red October) and we can magically understand them in English.