BrickG

Yeah I think Marvel would rather Lego not do anything with the properties they currently don't have movie control over. And Lego probably doesn't want to piss them off as they're the better choice.

when they do more detailed faces it's more obvious that they have no foreheads. The eyes should be roughly in the center :P.

The vast majority of these rumors I see ever new Lego season are always wrong. I guess if you keep guessing something every time it'll eventually be right. That minifigure scale Falcon rumor is literally here every time.

I don't like how the series really focuses so much on singular planets and events. This is a whole galaxy and from the looks of it barely anything matters outside of the episodes. One finance point? Freakin' a whole galaxy that seems ridiculous. A whole planet under siege? Lets fight within a small tiny area in a few blocks of a city. Beat them. Whole planet is saved (wat). Star Wars has a way of making the whole galaxy seem small and insignificant. At least in the original trilogy it kind of made sense since there was only ONE Death Star and Empire Strikes back was largely just about a small event in a larger galaxy. The Prequels are... ridiculous. Did you know Naboo has a human population of over a billion? Over 4 billion when including Gungans. Are we to believe it took a handful of people to retake the whole planet? That droid force was pathetic in size. Why didn't the other freakin' billion people just wipe out the droids? Are we to believe a few tanks and a couple hundred droids with the crappiest fighting abilities ever can take over 4.5 billion humans and gungans? The Prequels completely LOSE the aspect of size. Everything is small. The TV series does the exact same thing. Planet of billions? Lets sum up this plot within two city blocks and a couple dozen soldiers and droids. It's bad.

Why does it say "the Spaceship" 3 times? Why not SPACESHIP 3 times? Honestly kinda ruins it for me :P.

Oh dear god... My dream figure. The Death of Superman and Reign of the Supermen are some of my favorite comics. That said this figure is 10x too detailed which means there's no freakin' way we'll get him... I'd freakin' buy that set in a second.... :(

I do not like the idea of gender neutral parts for the most part. Life isn't often gender neutral. It's usually recognizable by gender. Even the manliest woman often looks like a woman. The girliest man like a man. Within a certain range of course :P as there are people who could be described as gender neutral. But really for the most part, again, things just aren't. And I think making too many parts that are gender neutral is akin to "colorblindness" or not seeing race. It's not good to be colorblind which is something Lego does with the Yellow, until they have to make a minifigure that is black ;p. I'm looking at you Lando and Virtuvious! In the same way we can't make the common differences between genders go away by simply ignoring them. Yes, the hourglass shape kind of gives that "size zero" culture expectation a bit. Yeah, not all women have boobs that big. You're right, not all women have lipstick and makeup on. Right, women often have the "girl hair" in Lego. But for an art style so simple it would be hard to convey gender in other ways. The most obvious identifiers are boobs IMO. Not all women have boobs and you can't stick those behemoths on children without feeling weird. So you cannot simply rely on that. A lot of women wear makeup. Just use makeup if it makes sense for the character. You don't have to all the time but really, at this point at least around me the majority of women wear makeup. Hair is often different too. I cannot really fault using any of these as gender identifiers. As long as it's in character it's fine to me (easy with franchises). As long as they don't make ALL women have all of these features it's fine (I couldn't quote the ratio of women minifigures without makeup or boobs or generalized female hair). I think the only one that is iffy is the hourglass. It's based on a kind of stereotype and cultural expectation that usually ISN'T true. And even if it isn't that doesn't mean anything negative (as we often hear of some people calling perfectly skinny, but non-size 0 people fat, which is ridiculous). I don't think much harm would be done if they got rid of the hourglass ;p. But at the same time when it comes to characterization of franchise characters it can often be argued as accurate. Idunno this is the only one I think is kind of controversial in my eyes.

I was heavily considering becoming a Lego investor. Invested a bit. However the amount of work involved in parting out was pretty daunting. Sets I bought that I didn't part out just sat there. In order to make it financially viable it took time and a whole lot of effort. In order to make enough to say, live off of, it becomes basically a real job. Well since then my non-Lego career has taken off and it's a decent job I don't hate going to (I don't ever have the Mondays, hang out with coworkers and voluntarily stay and work extra time all the time). And my like of Lego didn't extend to shipping them and spending all day sorting them... so I stopped doing it. Now I just have enough money to support the hobby so I just buy them. And honestly I think if I had to do that stuff all the time I'd like Lego a lot less since I'd have to deal with it ALL THE TIME. Sorting sucks. I never got over that period of time that you kind of have to wait on your investment. Unless you are pro at buying the retiring sets and see them explode in price quickly after retirement (which usually doesn't happen) you'll be waiting around for like two years before you can stabilize your investment.

montyofmusic, hold me. We'll wipe each other's tears away.

Well it IS a Micheal Bay movie. I'm sad that it didn't fail. We do not need a second one.

Why a large amount of people probably don't care I'd wager just about the only people who care to write lego to KEEP doing it are people who have the option of going to these places and getting these things available. Certainly the amount of people passionate enough about this subject to write Lego to KEEP doing this who also can't keep these figures is... probably like 1 or 2 :P. "Oh please Lego keep on doing this! I implore you! Though I cannot get these items myself I enjoy watching other people get them so much I'll write you to continue the tradition!"

The next Spiderman sets will be composed of nothing but the same Spiderman minifigure. No variant. Just the same one over and over.

That makes no sense that Cyborg would be a big-fig. First off in his only Lego appearance so far he's a normal figure. And they also don't do new molds for those Lego Shop minifigures which you'd need to do his headpiece. If he comes it'll be as a normal figure that looks like the pictures of him.

I've kind of given up on collecting this franchise. I barely started and bought several sets but since Lego seems to be abandoning it can't really get myself to buy anymore.

ALL OF THE SETS!!!! :o

The writer can write in a different fashion that isn't necessarily made for the screen all that much. The screenplay writer takes that and writes it up in a way that is appropriate for a screen. I think... ;p don't actually know. Too lazy to Google.

The Curiosity Rover WHY is it retired already? It lasted like 2 months. XP At least the lego page says "retired".

Irrelevant. LEGO is a proper noun. Proper nouns can be pluralized all you from a language perspective. Think Machintosh Computers - Macs, BMWs, and other brands like that. This is just a rule of English. English has rules for things that are "made up". Blablabla there is more to it that I won't get into but basically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun#Brand_names_versus_proper_names Now The LEGO Group might have a leg to stand on if you're referring to stuff like "The LEGO Group" or "LEGO System" and stuff with more than one word. But that is also irrelevant as companies can have official uses of terms for their marketting and communication but their policies don't magically make something grammatically incorrect. The fact is "Legos" is a grammatically correct term, even if it sounds awkward to people. And yes, even in places like the UK where much fewer people use it. The misinformation is just staggering. LEGO has successfully ran a campaign to distort the English language. Compaies cannot grammatically determine language.

It's more than a few dozen lol. I'd say hundreds. Maybe more. But that's hundreds out of like millions. And everyone saying people who want these are entitled... geeze I'm sick of that argument. You can literally say that about anything and it's never helpful. Using the "entitled" argument adds nothing to a discussion and I'd compare it to stuff like "you mad bro?" in it's level of meaninglessness. Not because there aren't entitled but because the argument for when people are is so vague, so incredibly un-universally agreed upon at times that it makes it useless. And the fact that it's largely defined based on values so everyone has a different line of where "entitled" ends and begins.... it's just a useless thing to say most of the time.

I don't see how it's any of anyone's business to feel the need to concern themselves with Lego's trademark issues. Honestly the way they literally bully people to make them believe they control the English language is disturbing. It's whatever you want. Lego is fine. No English teach can knock you for that. Legos is too. Again, no English teacher can knock you. :P It's amazing how much people believe Lego's propaganda. They do not control any aspect of the language and are wrong about basically everything when it comes to their name. They just try to get people to believe them because their trademark is in danger and IMO in ways that are inappropriate and educate with lies. Then they ask for respect to help them keep their trademark but tell me I'm wrong (literally straight from the mouth of a Lego rep). There is literally nothing incorrect from a language perspective even outside of the US by saying "Legos", not capitalizing and all that other stuff. This is where you're completely, 100%, incorrect. Like so many others. Lego has literally been spreading lies to protect their trademark. It's frustrating as heck because so many people now are completely wrong about how language works. There is no rule that says you can't pluralize brand names. None. There is no grammatical rule that says anything like that. Think of Grandmas. My Grandma calls all my video games "Nintendos" and they were all Nintendo when I was a kid, just kind of awkward usage of the name. Guess what. That's not a grammatically incorrect way to use the word "Nintendo". No English teacher can give you a bad mark for that. Pluralizing brand names can be done any time you want. There is zero English rules against it in the US or UK or any other English country. The worst you end up with is a potentially awkward sounding word like "Kleenexes" and stuff. But again, strictly from a LANGUAGE perspective it's not wrong. The simple fact of the matter is that "Legos" is not incorrect English. It might SOUND wrong in places like the UK but even there isn't NOT wrong. Awkward maybe but still not wrong in a way that can get you a red mark in an English class. The problem with "Legos" is that it's a threat to LEGO. If it gets too widely used they could lose the brand. So rightly so they're a bit fearful of that. This is where my beef begins. In my opinion Lego has approached it the wrong way. Instead of simply asking us to refer to their stuff as "LEGO Bricks" and asking not to pluralize their brand name... they're literally telling us we're WRONG. It's simply not factually true. A company has zero power over language and there is no rule existing in the English language that says we cannot pluralize brand names. In fact with other brand names we CAN and we DO. And again, strictly from a language perspective there's nothing wrong about that. It again, can be awkward sounding like "Nintendos" but again, still not WRONG. I've spoken to a Lego rep in person and we had this discussion for a bit. And honestly I felt insulted and I feel like Lego is just spreading misinformation. The dude just told me I was wrong. No critical thinking or looking at the evidence. "Wrong wrong wrong". I love Lego but every time I think about how they disrespect the English language by spreading misinformation I just get incredibly annoyed. And every time one of their reps tells me I'm wrong (well, it's their job maybe some don't actually believe it) I get insulted. I know many of you won't believe me but look it up in the English rule books ;p. This "rule" that you can't pluralize brand names isn't real. Even if it's awkward to your mouth to say and ears to hear it's still not technically incorrect English. I'd respect LEGO's wishes and call it the way they wanted if they didn't spread misinformation and treated ME with respect on the matter (instead I've gotten in trouble with them for simply suggesting this stuff). But they don't. So here I am living in the UK now and still saying "Legos". If I have kids I will pass "Legos" onto them. I'm just truly sick of this misinformed argument.

I'd consider it but the reindeer are disappointing and inconsistent. They need unique molds like most other animals at this point. :/

I, at a very limited degree, think that franchise sets do indeed often have less imagination involved. I would guess that less kids try to build another X-Wing when they already own one and probably keep those sets together more often (at least the good builds). It's harder to take apart an iconic thing like an X-Wing than just a random city set. And it's harder to think up something good for something like Star Wars when they sell most of what you can think of already :P. I'm not saying kids don't try to build another X-Wing and stuff. Just that the non-franchise sets are potentially just a bit more creative friendly. You won't feel as much pressure to stay in the universe I don't think. That said this article is bleh. And I love my franchise sets the most!

Women don't really have fuller lips they just more often make them stand out. My man lips are full and luscious as ever. Naturally red too. Sometimes when I look in the mirror I get the sudden urge to kiss myself.

Breeding itself in Pokemon is terrible. Since IVs are set and unchangeable it just makes you get rid of all of your old Pokemon. It's odd that a game that is about the bond you're supposedly supposed to have with your Pokemon encourages you to ditch them for a genetically superior specimen. I don't usually condone cheating but I cheat for my Pokemon :P. Max out the IVs. EVs are at least much more editable now though. They really need a way to train your IVs so Pokemon stops being a Eugenics War. Now shiny I can live with. They make no different in battle.

Ant-Man mini will be a printed trophy or something. Ant-Man IMO is basically 100% coming as long as this movie actually comes out. Buuut I'd say the Punisher wouldn't have a good chance. It's possible but if someone relatively "popular" and known were NOT coming it would probably be him. A "good guy" that murders a lot. It's not like the villains don't but it just seems worse when a good guy does it. He has been in the video game though. But I don't want to pick an obvious choice of someone who will NEVER be a minifigure (Mr and Mrs Fantastic's kids ;p). It's more fun to gamble and pick someone who -probably- won't be but very well could be. I'd say a 10% chance. :P