MAB

I still don't get this argument at all. How is building this set from 1981 or this from 1988 or this from 2000 or this from 2009 any more creative than building this, from 2018? In each case the set comes disassembled and instructions are followed to construct it. None are pre-built and ready to play. In each case, the set has to be put together. Why is the creative process or the feeling of "I made this" any different, when in all cases, the instructions have been followed? There is no more creative process when building the old sets compared to the new. The only difference is that one is licensed and the others are not. Of course, you can argue that the classic sets can be rebuilt into other things using imagination. Well, so can the licensed sets. You can also argue that being based on a license means the storyline is imposed and it has to be played with only to act out certain scenes, although that is false too. A child (or adult) can use their imagination to make up other stories about what is going on in the HP world (look at how much fan fiction there is), just as they can make up stories based on knights or trolls. Moreover, when anyone plays with an old castle set, they are also playing based on a traditional / cultural storyline anyway. How many people get, for example, a forest men set and play with it based on stories like Robin Hood compared to how many treat the forest men as evil thugs terrorising travellers going through the forest? Why is using imagination based on stories of Robin Hood or King Arthur any more creative than using imagination based on Harry Potter stories? If people (especially kids) do not have any knowledge of the source material, often it is uninteresting to them as they don't know how to play with it.

No they didn't, they were designing LEGO sets for kids, with play features. They were not imposing junior-ization on anyone. The reason you couldn't find out much information on it is because it is not a real thing. Today, AFOLs still complain about sets being junior-ized, which is why EB censor the word <insert that tiresome argument>. It means different things to different people as they look at sets from a different perspective. You may think being able to open the side of a train to place minifigures inside too junior, whereas many kids like to quickly be able to put their figures inside so they can play with it. The same happens today - trains often have a completely unrealistic feature such as a lift-off roof to be able to insert minifigures into the train. As minifigures cannot actually walk, this is necessary to ensure that a child can put figures inside the train. Some people even complain that Juniors sets are too junior-ized. They are just aimed at a young age group.

There is one such project: https://ideas.lego.com/projects/06036999-0dcb-4fff-a8d4-de7cdf2e2faa There are no women in it though. Plus I have to admit, I had only heard of the Wright Brothers, despite one of the others coming from a town less than 100 miles from where I live. So I guess it is unlikely to succeed. I would also hope for some non-American representation. Amy Johnson from UK, for example.

What is girl-themed about Unikitty? Isn't it aimed at all younger kids? Have you tried classic or creator sets? There are huge numbers of sets released every year that (i) are not licensed and (ii) are not likely to increase in value on retirement.

LEGO aims different sets at different age groups. Ones aimed at younger kids tend to have simpler building techniques and play features, with more advanced features and techniques for sets aimed at higher age groups.

There aren't holes in the sides, they are windows. Actually, a little water will get in. Atmospheric pressure corresponds to a column of water about 10m high. So if the volume of air inside was originally at atmospheric pressure and you took the base (or bottle) to 10m below the surface, half of it would fill with water (the volume of air would half, as the pressure has been doubled). That is why the air pressure inside the base needs to be increased, to keep the water out. Obviously in a sink you can only go to quite shallow depths so the extra pressure due to the water will not be very high, but the principle is the same, a little water will be getting into the bottle.

Due to the size of a minifig head, just about every character has a head that is too big - more so if they have headgear. There have been similar complaints in the past about characters such as Iron Man, Mouth of Sauron, etc. Plus if you make them much smaller (as molded / modified heads), then they either lose detail or do not look lego-like.

Something else that is off-putting is that the descriptions feel very out of date. For example LEGO Action and Adventure Themes gets the tagline "Adventurers, Agents, Alpha Team, Aquazone, Atlantis, Dino 2010 / Dino Attack, Elves, Ninjago, Pharaoh's Quest, Power Miners, Rock Raiders, Time Cruisers". There is no mention of some recent or current themes such as Chima or Nexo Knights. They appear to be very out of date, especially for anyone new visiting. If a new user sees Aquazone, from 20 or 10 years ago, they may assume EB has not been updated for many years, like some other LEGO sites that have just become dormant. Similarly, in Action Figures, Ben 10 and Slizers are mentioned and these haven't been around for almost 10 and 20 years respectively and both themes only had a handful of sets when they were active. Same with history - Wild West, Ninjas, Vikings. Even LOTR and Castle (although these are the most up-to-date!) I wonder if generic descriptions rather than actual theme names would make the taglines appear a little more up-to-date. If there are to be more competitions, I'd like to see a single thread or separate area / folder for the entries for each one [a bit like the Xmas raffle thread]. For example, in action and adventure, loads of the current threads on the first page(s) are [Lester]. It would be much easier to find the entries if they were in one thread or in a sub-folder, so people didn't have to look through all thread titles. Similarly, if you have no interest in the competition, you wouldn't miss other stuff disappearing in amongst the large number of competition entries.

I don't use either but it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if you used Twitter and/or Facebook more to highlight content on Eurobricks. However, only if it highlights content on EB, and is not used for novel content that is not available here. Loads of (LEGO) sites use FB and twitter to advertise, but if I had to go there to see content, I'd just read it elsewhere and that would mean less visits here. I don't like having to visit one place for some content, then somewhere else for other content. It is not like there are no other LEGO fan sites that carry news. And that is probably another major factor, there are so many sites these days, all copying news / rumours from one another. When I read some news, I like it to be news.

What I find interesting here though is that the set is not based on the historical Amelia Earhart but the caricature of her in a book for kids. I also think it would be a real shame to have a set like this to "support aviation" but then not to have something similar for the Wright Brothers, for example. But then, the same can be said for Women of NASA.

I hope Amelia Earhart doesn't get made. There is already a current set that is essentially the same thing, a bi-plane and a pilot, just without a license attached.

Did Mixels actually die. Or just come to the end of the natural product cycle? I think the Unikitty bags will end at some stage. I guess how long they last partly depends on the success of the TV show.

Do they have to be square bricks? You could use round bricks and put the numbers in the right place to make it look like it is twisted.

It is sad if people don't comment on MOCs (both positively and negatively). But it is even sadder if people stop building MOCs just because they don't feel they get recognition. Surely the primary point of MOC building is for the fun of the building, not for the recognition the builder feels they deserve.

Yeah, there are now loads of these. They rarely come back or show the data. I think it is just kids doing a uni project choosing lego for the subject as it is popular. They sign up to multiple forums, adverse and never return.

Yeah, I also don't see it as a CMF series. It may be sold in a similar way - as pocket money toys - but I don't think they need to test the waters for more CMF series. If they want to do 4 series, they will do 4 series. They already have (limited area) sales data for four series when they did Team GB and DFB. Of course, it could be said that they were special one off series and not real CMF, but that is just like Unikitty - not a real CMF series.

All Scooby Doo sets were easy to get in the UK, and went to clearance in supermarkets.

If you look about 10 posts down there is this existing topic: And this is useful for paint:

I think that is a nice idea, but if it is to attract new people, then the rules are going to have to be understandable to anyone new to the game. I've looked a couple of times at some of the role playing areas and just backed out. If you have to invest hours or days of reading to try to understand what is going on, then it won't attract new members. A similar thing here. I'm sure any new members would be better members having followed that. But if you have to follow an education program before you are allowed to join, then I doubt many people would join.

Do you mean the build falls apart, or that the bricks are falling apart?

LUG displays are really quite different to what kids are going to buy though. Plus parents are not going to want to spend what AFOLs spend on their displays. Exhibitions are more like going to a museum than going to s store. Nice to see, but doesn't mean that kids want (or their parents will pay for) the type of things they see at the exhibition. And also LOTR is just another license like Batman or Star Wars.

1) Contests - don't really interest me and the voting appears rather cliquey at times. 2) Tags - I ignore them, fairly pointless. I also turn off all signatures too. 3) Reference material - occasionally but not much. 4) Games - only the first (unofficial) favourite CMF one. 5) No, never used the facebook or flickr pages for Eurobricks. 6) Yes, mainly flickr these days. But I don't post them here. 7) Multiple specialised threads are easier to follow details, but they all tend towards the same topics anyway which means duplication or triplication or worse of everything said before. For example: This was a thread about set 21314 Tron Legacy, started at the time of approval and the set number being announced. I happened to have started this one, but it happens quite often, I just remember this one and can find it quickly. Then another thread on the same set gets started by a mod about four months later at the time of the press release, so everything gets said again in that thread. Even though the other thread was very active at the time (it was at the top of the list in licensed). The information is then spread over multiple threads and the same thing gets discussed again and again. Having multiple generic threads on one set seems pointless to me and quite annoying if you are looking for something already posted and realise it must be on the other thread on exactly the same subject. 8) I normally go to the front page, then click through from there. Some other thoughts: EB has quite a bad reputation on other forums. EB is used as a bit of a joke when it comes to moderation, forum police, etc for over-active moderation and banning people. This does put people off joining. It used to be that constructive criticism was allowed. These days I think the EB culture has all but wiped this out. If you criticise something, you get railed on by either the OP or by other users, which now means less criticism is given, if any. I think this is why there are posts with generic positive comments, or for some MOCs, no comments at all. I think it can be a shame that someone uploads a MOC and gets nothing back, but that is presumably because people don't think it is good but won't say that and won't offer suggestions for improvements. LEGO IDEAS. I find it really annoying when someone joins EB, uploads a MOC, has their IDEAS link right at the top, and doesn't come back or post again. I'd like to see IDEAS links banned completely or maybe shifted to signatures only (which of course can be turned off). They are meant to be discreet, but often it is clear that the only point of the "look at my MOC" post is to get IDEAS votes. Reviews. For the most part, I like the reviews here but I find the forum structure an odd way to present them. That said, I tend to prefer video reviews now, to see the parts and the set. I don't like reviews with 100s or 1000s of words when a couple of decent pictures or a short video would do. I also don't like reviews where lots of photos include parts from other sets - this is a big problem I have with the CMF reviews. I tend to read (well, look at) CMF reviews elsewhere. When I look at a CMF review, I prefer to see the figures and the parts for the new set, whereas the ones here have significantly more pictures of the character interacting with or parts being swapped with older ones all mixed up with the pictures within the review itself. I would prefer to see a concise review with the figures and their constituent parts at the top, then any other fun pictures mixing them up could go later after the main review. But I guess I am in a very small minorty not liking this style based on the voting. Which is why I tend to read / look at the reviews elsewhere and just take a look at the distribution photo here (if I have not already got it), skipping over everything else in the review.

For me, no. I like studs on plates :-) . When doing winding paths with wedge plates, it annoys me a bit when there are missing studs where the wedge plates join.

There is this brickset tag that can be helpful for brick built ones. https://brickset.com/sets/tag-Brick-Built-Animals Whatever you do, it will be difficult. One piece molds are a given. But what about the LOTR eagles? They need to be assembled so are built, although they are all non-brick parts. If they are included, what about Smaug as he is just a combination of more (mainly specific molded) parts with a few system parts. Then what about the Elves style dragons, they are a molded head but somewhat regular part built bodies. And Chima beasts, they are similar without molded heads. Each step gets slightly more brick-built. Even the horses and wargs need a brick and or tiles or plates to make them complete.

The LOTR eagles should really have their wings rather than just the body to be an animal. There are also trolls in LOTR and HP that could be classed as animals. Jabba the Hut might be too. All of the Angry Birds animals are missing. You've included some brick built animals, mainly dragons but there are loads of other brick built animals such as this: A problem with moving away from molded piece animals to brick-built is that the list will be very large and the cut-off is going to be arbitrary. For example, including the Elves' fire dragon but not Chima's legend beast style animals: Also I don't think I saw Rex from Toy Story.