MAB

They took it down while they were updating the VIP area, probably due to the number of complaints they were getting about missing points.

Whether it is a successful change really depends on what the free gifts are. If there are some interesting ones, then great. If it is just past promotional items that they were unable to shift first or second time around, then not so great. It then just becomes a slightly less convenient way of getting a discount on the exclusive sets (as I rarely buy non-exclusives at lego).

The limited batpod is already out of stock !

Going off bricklink prices, it has about doubled in price since retiring.

The rate appears to be 100 old points is 800 new points.

I imagine a substantial portion of it is down to the casting compared to the original. The change to an all female lead cast inspires both interest from some and hate (or just lack of interest) from others. But then I don't think I would have seen it with four new male leads either. I saw the trailer and decided against seeing it. I thought it was quite cynical, a remake for the sake of a remake trying to cash in on the original name. The problem for me was the cast, in that it wasn't Bill Murray in a lead role, who really made the original GB what it is. I'm sure the female leads could have made a decent *original* comedy movie and it would have been fine. There are more and more female led movies that don't seem to have the intention of alienating men through the marketing, which is great. The recent Wine Country with/by Amy Poehler, Trainwreck, Bridesmaids, Juno, Pitch Perfect, Easy A, Legally Blonde, Clueless, etc. They are all good comedies, which have a lead female(s). It is the story that is most important, not the gender of the leads. If so much is made of the genders, the story is lost and forgotten about. Also the indirect social media marketing seemed a bit strange. Some of it seemed to want to somehow annoy men in an attempt to get women to see the movie, it just seemed weird. Men can watch female led comedies - they are likely to be a substantial part of the audience.

It will be very hard to monitor what sells well like that. I would imagine experiments with small bags of pre-defined parts, like the xtras bags, would be a better experiment as they can easily track sales.

I don't think licensed themes entirely are to blame, since similar printing exists throughout non-licensed themes, whether City, Ninjago, CMF, etc. But also I am not against them, I am just not for them for the majority of figures. Like you, avoid them where it is not necessary, but have them where it is. I don't want to see a lack of dresses or bikinis, or muscled torsos. There it makes sense that they are highly gender specific. But for a T-shirt or whatever, the more generic the better. Same with yellow / flesh print on torsos. Where it is a bare chest, a bikini top or a summer dress, then skin will show. But where there is a tiny amount of flesh showing, just leave it off. That way, licensed torsos can be used with non-licensed and vice versa.

Make sure it is LEGO. Make sure you know what it is you have. Even then, a lot of people on bricklink won't trust or buy you, as you are from a region where there are many fakes produced. Plus postage will be expensive to most BL buyers, which again cuts down on sales unless you have something not available elsewhere.

I guess they will go off sales of previous GB sets to decide if it is worthwhile them doing it. They have enough sales data to know whether the franchise sells. I don't know how well the sets for the newer Ghostbusters movie did, but if not great then hopefully they will ignore those if they are returning to the original cast and storyline.

Things were so much easier when there were just generic smileys and simple torsos. To show the point, look at these two torsos: Would you use the first one for male only, female only, or both? Would you use the second for male only, female only, or both?

Yes it is possible. But then people that build with mainly system parts will more naturally use things like the Mixels ball joints compared to the larger Bionicle style ones because they are smaller (so similar in scale to other system parts) and more importantly, connect via studs. The latter is important. If a buy a Mixels set (or similar) I can use just about 100% of the parts. If I buy a Bionicle / Hero Factory / SW buildable figure, I can use probably less than 5% in a MOC. That is why I wouldn't bother looking at Bionicle or similar sets in a catalogue. I'm not interested in the theme or the parts. I would (and have) bought some of the SW large buildable figures. But that was to build what they are - I was interested in the model rather than the parts. However, I (and I am sure most similar minded people) do not hate Constraction. I just don't like them, I have no use for them so I don't buy them. I feel no need to say that the theme should be ended as I don't like them. I don't think I have ever used Constraction parts in a traditional system build, aside from parts that were originally Bionicle but have been since used by LEGO in technic or system sets, such as wings and so on. No doubt there are many more parts that system builders do use regularly without knowing they were originally Constraction.

An alternative outfit means a completely new minifigure (at least legs and torso), so that will increase the cost by one minifigure. They might as well just include more complete (specified) minifigures rather than label them as alternative parts that can be swapped in. In house type sets, I agree with you there is under representation of gay couples in official sets. But then, I would imagine that if they made three house sets, all equivalent, but one with two dads, one with two mums, and one with a mum and a dad, that the latter would outsell the first two by a long way. And unfortunate as it is, it is probably still easier for a gay parent to substitute in other minifigures into a straight couple set than it is for a straight parent to buy a gay set and do the reverse for no other reason than gay people know they are and are used to being under-represented in media, books and toys. This is not limited to just sexuality though. The same is true for divorced people or widows/widowers. The house type sets tend to have two parents and do not come with just a dad or just a mum, even though this is relatively common across many of the core sales countries - the number of one parent families is probably higher or similar to the number of gay households. Of course, the same argument about switching out could apply, just remove the unwanted parent from the house. But if the intent is educational and inclusiveness, then for every house type set, that is already man+woman, man+man, woman+woman, man only, woman only. That is without considering other scenarios such as kids that live with grandparents, so older looking minifigures are also necessary and so on. It is also interesting that LEGO still sticks strongly to the no ethnicity line - https://www.lego.com/en-MY/service/help-topics/fun-for-fans/behind-the-scenes/brick-facts/why-are-minifigures-yellow. They say that "fans can assign their own individual roles to LEGO minifigures" so if this is the case presumably this extends to sexuality as well, then they would be going against it if they had sets with two dads or two mums. They would be outing those figures. Although of course, they already do it for heterosexual couples, roles and hence sexuality are implicitly identified. Much as job titles are identified. As minifigures have become more detailed they have lost the "this figure can be anything/anyone line". Remember in LEGO's world just about all women (adults rather than young girls) wear lipstick, wear curved eyelashes and many have highly curved figures. LEGO is a very stereotypical world. I would be interested in how you would depict a transgender person in minifigure form. I have long wanted to see official minifigures of women without make-up, and women without the curved hips. I would prefer that torsos are gender neutral. As it is, male torsos can be used for female characters but not vice versa. LEGO indicating that not all women have curves in their torsos would help here. For example, for these two torsos: The first could have been made without the narrow waist - these are fairly baggy scrubs. Including the female head would still indicate the (official) character was a woman, but make the torso more neutral. Then similar torsos could be used in house type sets and multiple heads could be supplied so the figure could be either gender, where this makes sense depending on the torso supplied. However, for the second torso, it is clearly a dress and is fine as it is. This was has been done for these figures, for example: Same torso, and it looks fine. In this case, there is nothing that makes the torso male, and it looks fine for a woman. There are other examples, tending to be police / fire / etc rather than civilians. I'm not sure either the firewoman or policewoman really would have done her lipstick and curved her eyelashes for the job, but that is LEGO for you. Yet do these look any less female because they lack the curves? Personally, I think they look fine and if LEGO could come up with more neutral 'home' type designs - T-shirts, sweaters, etc - they could include multiple hair/heads without needing to include multiple minifigure torsos. This is not to say they should not do 'manly' men and 'girly' women torsos when required, just not all the time. Of course, it cannot help with a gay wedding set if both men dress as grooms or both women dress as brides. Of course, the box will always need to depict something, and I imagine LEGO will nearly always go with the heterosexual couple, rather than a gay or lesbian couple, or indeed a single mum or dad, on the box. It would be interesting if LEGO did an obviously gay stereotype minifigure, or even just a two dads set. Although they would have to release a two mums set at the same time, so as not to appear pro-gay but anti-lesbian. There would be a lot of social media debate about it, both for and against. You only need to look at the social media debate about LGBT sandwiches in the UK: https://inews.co.uk/news/consumer/lgbt-sandwich-m-and-s-pride-2019-reaction/ I think LEGO's educational values are unimportant for them compared to their financial ones. They will make what sells first and foremost. If LEGO really wanted to be accurate concerning history, geography, gender, sexuality and so on then they should also consider race - get rid of the bright yellow skin, and have 75-80% of minifigures with caucasian skin, which would cater for most of the Western markets. Would they? I doubt it somehow, as they open up a whole racist / racism debate, even if they accurately reflect society around them.

This is simply not true. Most people that are not into Bionicle / Constraction are just ambivalent towards it. They don't care about it, but they don't hate it. They don't buy sets, as they don't fit in with their building styles, to them it is not real LEGO as it doesn't fit with the majority of system parts. Just like Galidor and Clikits are not "real LEGO" as they don't tend to fit with system building (although both can be used in MOCs if the builder thinks creatively). If it is not the LEGO you are used to building with, it is not "real LEGO". If you cannot use the pieces in your style of building, why research it? Money earned at the box office speaks much louder than critics' reviews, especially for linked toy sales. People wanting to see the movies is what is important, not what adults writing reviews about the movies think about them. But if you think LEGO should only make sets from critically acclaimed movies, what would you have them do? Wait until the Oscars? Miss the original release dates by 6-12 months to wait to see if critics enjoy the movies and have sets out once the hype has died down? Take a look at the fastest grossing movies, such as here (fastest to $1 billion): https://www.businessinsider.com/fastest-movies-to-make-one-billion-box-office-black-panther-2018-3?r=US&IR=T Note LEGO has made sets for all except two of the franchises - Avatar and the Fast & Furious franchise, the latter for obvious reasons. LEGO knows exactly what it is doing here. SW sells. Marvel sells. HP sells. LEGO knows there is a huge fanbase for Harry Potter and it would not surprise me if that is the reason they brought it back. Yet "I have no interest in it either, and that too was only brought back for the cause of a bad movie. I would too like to see it discontinued." Yes, I think that is pretty disrespectful. Similar with your views on Minecraft."I would discontinue Minecraft. It had it's run, the game itself is no longer very popular, and the sets have started to get repetitive." At the time you said that, it was apparently still one of the biggest games in the world (https://www.businessinsider.com/minecraft-has-74-million-monthly-players-2018-1?r=US&IR=T). The playing figures since then have also gone up (https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2019/06/19/dont-look-now-but-minecraft-is-reclaiming-its-crown-from-fortnite/#504a458d14c9). Are the sets repetitive? Sure. But then most themes are. Bionicle included.

That is exactly what you have done concerning Jurassic World and Harry Potter / Fantastic Beasts (and a number of other themes). You personally don't like them and you have disrespected the movies and the franchises. With Constraction people don't like them for a number of reasons, and they disrespect them. Why is saying "Constraction is not real LEGO" any different to saying "it's just annoying when LEGO just uses a bad/mediocre movie that comes out to reboot their licenced themes"? Both are factually incorrect, and said as a way to justify the disrespect of something that someone doesn't like. If you don't like Harry Potter or Fantastic Beasts or Brickheadz or Jurassic World or Star Wars or licensed themes in general why go on about why you hate them so much? You are doing exactly what you claim others are doing, disrespecting something you don't like because you don't like it.

It is all about supply and demand now, not how well it sold when it was a retail set. High prices mean higher demand than supply. If something doesn't sell very well, then people tend not to invest in it. If they were selling well at retail, then resellers would have bought many sets to put away for future sale, meaning reasonable stock would be available now and that means not too high prices as multiple sellers would have them. That would have given resellers reliable returns, but they woldn't be great returns as many people would be selling them. Whereas if they don't sell well at retail and go on clearance, then people will buy them when they are cheap but not for the sets, but instead to part out to get a reasonably fast return from the parts rather than the sets (as few people wanted the sets). So presumably there are not many complete new sets saved, hence they are expensive now. The second wave of The Hobbit sets were apparently not selling well in the UK, so much that many stores reduced the final wave to 50% off within weeks of release. I bought a number of Lonely Mountain sets for £50 a piece. These were not selling at RRP (£100) at the time but it was easy to make money quickly by parting out Smaug and the minifigures for quick sales (those got you your money back and a little profit) and then slower sales for the remaining parts. The quick initial return meant it was good to part out if you wanted fast cashflow but also meant many of these sets were bought and opened. Whereas now, the set can sell for 4-5 times what I paid for them, simply because there are not many sealed ones left.

You start of complaining that people hate something you like with no valid reason. Then you go on to say that Constraction MOCs easily surpass System when it comes to intricate and creative use of parts. But you don't give a reason for this. There are loads of genius creative parts use in both system, I cannot see how using Constraction pieces in creative ways surpass those of using System pieces in creative ways. So in your behaviour, you have indicated the reason some people say they don't like Constraction. People like what they like and don't like what they don't like. They tend to talk up what they like and for the most part ignore what they don't like and in some cases go on to hate on things they don't like. Personally I don't like Constraction much, and I'd flick over the pages for it in a catalogue because I wouldn't buy it. I rarely look in the Constraction forum here for the same reason. But then I would also skip past Angry Birds, most Disney and Superheroes girls' themes, and so on. Not because I don't respect them but simply because I don't like them and would not consider buying them. I'd prefer to look at what I like rather than what I don't like. Would you skip pages in a catalogue that have Star Wars, Brickheadz, Jurassic World and Minecraft sets, themes that you have stated you would like to end and have also disrespected in other ways? For example, here you have disrespected Jurassic World: This movie was the first to generate half a billion dollars in the opening weekend and it is the sixth highest grossing film of all time yet you dismiss it as "movie which didn't perform well critically" and "it's just annoying when LEGO just uses a bad/mediocre movie that comes out to reboot their licenced themes". And in the same post "As far as Harry Potter, I can agree with that too. I have no interest in it either, and that too was only brought back for the cause of a bad movie. I would too like to see it discontinued. " Harry Potter has a massive following, and the new sets appear to be incredibly popular. And there is the massive reason it was brought back. I cannot see how that is any different to someone saying they don't like Constraction. I think it is not as much versatility, but knowledge. I bought a load of constraction parts for my kid a while back. But we rarely use them. We don't really know how to use them. I can pick up most system LEGO parts and I know how to use them without needing to think too much. But as I don't have much knowledge about constraction, anything we build tends to look like crap. Not necessarily because the parts are bad, but due to insufficient knowledge about how to put them together in a decent way. Now I'm not stupid, I can see this part clicks into that part and so on, it is the extra dimension of building a decent MOC and knowing which part would look good where, and so on. If you are used to building with System parts, building with new System parts is easy. I imagine the same is true with any other building system - if you are used to it, then the individual parts make sense. If you are not, then it is much more difficult to understand the way to use the parts.

The number is not that big, as a number of the stores have little to no stock, although that is true across most countries' statistics on BL. But why NL? Because: (1) relatively wealthy county, across much of the population and (2) relatively technical mindset country, the Dutch are often over-represented (in terms of population) in science and engineering.

It depends what you mean. There are fake minifigures, copied from the LEGO ones although you can spot these if you look at the neck for the LEGO logo. The fakes do not have the logos. I have never seen fake bricks in the sense of copying the part exactly, including the LEGO logo, but then how would you tell? If they get the shape and colour right, and copy the LEGO logo, then it would not be distinguishable from the real thing.

You mean the anti-redhead lesbian wedding set? :-) Someone will always feel left out of sets like these. The problem with sets with two men or two women is that sales will naturally be significantly smaller than for a man plus a woman set, just due to demographics. So they have product spaces taken up with two sets that are never going to perform as well as a similar one. Worse still, if the heterosexual one sells out, then they have gay wedding ones on the shelves but are seen not to be catering for hetero couples. Because taking up a product space with lower relative sales is not good financially, should they increase the price for the gay wedding ones? What about when one woman wants to wear a typically male style suit? Should they include multiple female heads just in case? Then the problem of hair colours. Keeping everyone happy is not always easy. Making one set inclusive for everyone is next to impossible. In more general sets, they already cater for homosexuality. There are loads of gay and lesbian minifigures. They are what you want them to be. I cannot tell just by looking whether someone is gay or straight, same with minifigures. And isn't the point of LEGO that it is modular, including minifigures? So if you want transgender figures, swap heads and body parts around and you're done.

No, I've been able to check out fine. Is this with one seller or many different sellers?

That has 20 large panels and a raised baseplate. Four horses and 12 minifigures. Those large parts take the place of many smaller parts of today. Take a look at any 450-550 part set of today and they look way smaller than that 30 year old set.

That makes sense. I have a roller cupboard (tambour doors) where I keep my tubs like that, so easy enough to pull down the door to prevent any long term dust.

Sets of 30 years are not really comparable to today's in terms of parts count, due to the different size of parts. Which ship was it? I couldn't see any that cost about $100 with only 500 parts. For example 6285 / 6286 was $110 $126.50 but had over 900 parts, 6271 was $50 with 317 parts. Some of those early pirate sets had very large molded baseplates which are not seen today.

This looks great. While looking very Fabuland in colour/parts, it also has a similar absurdity look to it as the top heavy TLM Sea Cow.