blueandwhite

Muse - Sing for Absolution

Toast is the King of breakfast foods!!!

I'm not big on either. As brands both DC and Marvel are fantastic but I'm not keen on either as a licence. While both present great sources for minifigs the sets themselves are essentially throw-away. Batman is a bit different if only because he is one of the few characters who focuses heavily on both vehicles and locations making for a great theme. The Batmobile, Arkham, and the Batcave are every bit as iconic as Batman himself. I simply don't have alot of interest in dull playsets designed to push figures. The Spider-Man theme certainly is an example of a line that was utterly lackluster save for the figures themselves.

Yes. Disney acquired Miramax in 1993. Under the Miramax label Disney released films like Clerks, the English Patient, Trainspotting and Kill Bill etc. Touchstone has always been a Disney brand. In the past Disney used it to release films that were less child-friendly. Let's not forget that Disney also holds ABC and ESPN as well. Despite popular opinion, the house of Mouse is not limited to Mickey Mouse and Hanna Montana. The best part of this buyout is that it frees up licencing issues which should make it easier to adapt various Marvel properties to TV or film. In the past, studios would need to acquire the rights from Marvel to make a film. This of course could leave a film in licencing limbo for years as several parties try to negotiate who owns the rights to what. With Disney becoming the parent company (much like WB is to DC); licencing issues become considerably less complex.

Let's not forget that Disney has a wide range of companies under its corporate umbrella including Hollywood Pictures, Touchstone and Miramax. This is the company that released Pulp Fiction, Clerks, Gangs of New York, The Rock, The Sixth Sense and others under its other brands. Heck; you'd have a hard time convincing me that the cinematic versions of Spiderman, X-Men or Iron Man are any more violent than Disney's own Pirates of the Carribean.

Honestly, I think that people are overreacting. While Disney is probably one of the most disliked companies out there, they certainly know a good thing when they see it. I very much doubt that they purchased the brand in order to bury it. When Disney purchased Pixar, the same sort of whinning started to run rampant. Despite concerns, Pixar still runs fairly independently and has continued to produce high quality products. I expect the same will hold true of Marvel. Do I think that Disney will attempt to tone down Marvel comics? I don't think so. Disney (while possibly the most evil corporation on the planet) has a history of smart marketing. Even apparent disasters like Euro Disney turned out in their favour. That being said; I do expect that Disney will attempt to expand Marvel's market share in some way. The idea that Marvel comics are not for children is utterly ridiculous. In fact, it's probably part of the reason that Marvel seems to have lost touch with many young readers in the first place. Just as with LEGO, there is a far larger child/teen demographic for comics. It's unfortunate that the comic industry has been so obsessed with pseudo maturity that it seems to have lost its connection with the young readers who helped catapult them to success in the first place. As a child/teenager I remember having a range of discussions with friends about Marvel & DC comics. As an adult these conversations are now few and far between as the majority of my peers could care less about the heroes they read about as children. In fact, beyond today's popular films most of these people would never mention Spider-Man, Iron Man or the Fantastic Four in everyday chat. Making comics relevant to younger readers isn't an insult to the spirit of Marvel comics. If anything, it's simply getting in touch with an audience that has been ignored and abandoned by the powers-that-be over at Marvel. If Disney can regain a younger audience without disregarding Marvel's existing fans then kudos to them.

Brilliant! This is LEGO at its best.

Sort of. It's exclusive to LEGO User's Groups that qualify (i.e. clubs that have 10 or more members and do 2+ shows a year). The benefit of course is that it should provide those clubs the opportunity to get bricks that are hard to come by for the general public. What bricks are going to be made available seems to be the topic of some debate. What exactly constitutes an "active element" is a bit unclear but discussion seems to suggest that it includes any non-licenced brick currently in production. Whether that is limited to colours that the element is currently produced in seems to be a bit unclear. It would also seem that pricing is considerably better than what is made available to non-LUG members. The program seems to reward LUGs for actively promoting the hobby on a local level. Unlike Bricklink or PaB, this is not an open market. This will only be available to LUG members.

I suspect that a lot of the frustration comes from the fact that many people find themselves excluded from this potentially amazing program. It's very much akin to LEGO outright stating that some fans are better than others. What many people are reluctant to admit is that the preceding statement is probably somewhat true. AFOLs who are active in LUGs do more for the LEGO community than most independent fans could ever hope to. Their works are viewed by the general public and bring a greater awareness of the hobby to the public. Just as the ambassadors are selected from some of the most active AFOLs, this program specifically targets groups that do the most to promote the hobby. Great MOCs posted on brickshelf or shown on these and other forums are generally not seen by non-fans. Public displays go a long way in making the hobby visible to the greater public. For the record; I'm not active in any LUG yet I support this project wholeheartedly. As an AFOL, I appreciate that Lego User Groups have done a lot to make this hobby what it is today. If offering a two-tiered purchasing system (better brick selection and prices for LUGs) serves to promote the hobby then I'm all for a system like the one LEGO is offering. Here's hoping that the program delivers a wonderful set of MOCs from those LUGs that participate. Not every region has a great network of LUGs. This shouldn't deter LEGO from rewarding those communities that do.

The dull plastic sword is probably less common. The harder ABS swords appeared through the 80s and early 90s in the lion's share of classic castle sets. The softer version is a mid-90s change. For a complete list of which sets contained each sword look at peeron. As a person who owns far more early ABS swords than the softer ones, I can say with certainty that the old ones (including the original grey ones) are in no way brittle. In fact, they are quite durable.

I always find these debates fascinating. If you ran a poll asking who was a purist and who feels that mixed-media LEGO is okay you'd probably end up with virtually identical results. At the end of the day, why does it matter what others think? If you're a purist then the answer is obvious; don't use clay. If you're not then do whatever suits your fancy. The only question you need to ask yourself is whether you consider yourself a purist or not, however given your poll I'd say that it seems pretty likely that you are not a LEGO purist. If the previous statement is true, perhaps you need to ask other non-purists (we purists are probably a bit too biased on this one) whether the plasticine effects look good or not.

I was thinking along the lines of a gentlemen's agreement. LEGO can't restrict your rights per se, but they could easily ask LUGs not to sell elements on the aftermarket. By enforcement, I'm thinking that LEGO might monitor Bricklink activities to discern if the elements that local LUGs recieve are being used or simply being turned over to garner a large profit. I think that LEGO's idea is sound, but it may be open to some abuse which could cause a bit of a stir in the AFOL community.

I've noticed that licenced themes are considerably favourable for North American consumers. This may have more to do with the licence than the LEGO brand itself. In general, Canadians pay a bit more for LEGO than say Australians, however when it comes to the licenced lines we pay far less than most territories. This seems to be a fairly consistent rule of thumb as most licenced sets seem far more expensive outside of North America (beyond the standard pricing varriations).

So what constitutes an "active" element as opposed to a restricted or licenced one? Does the element need to be produced in an existing colour to be considered active? For example; in 2001 LEGO sold bulk bags of sand red 1x2 bricks (I bought several). These bricks now go for an absurd amount on bricklink. Would this be considered an active element or does the fact that it is not currently being used in a set make it inactive? In other words; does colour play a roll here or is it possible to request an element that is currently in production in a different colour? (It appears that my question has been answered just as I asked it).

I'm more impressed by the new hollow round plates! What exciting possibilities !

I find this interesting but I hope it isn't abused. I certainly don't want to see people using their LUGs as a means of collecting and then reselling hard-to-find bricks on bricklink for a profit. The two-tiered nature of this system really makes me suspect that this could be abused. I'm sure that the LUG will be asked to agree not to resell the elements purchased but how would something like that be enforced? On the other hand, it will be a wonderful thing for LUGs that use it properly. It's too bad that people who are unable to join a LUG will not be able to participate in this opportunity. Still, I like the efforts made by LEGO to reach out to those who would generally be considered the most active AFOLs. ***(edit)*** Perhaps the price limit of 200 DKK per member is to prevent the aforementioned abuses with the first orders. LEGO could monitor to see if many of these elements make it into the LEGO aftermarket shortly after purchase.

The difference being that the pitchfork's usefulness extends beyond mere bragging rights . The black sword is a nice accessory, but it's just a sword. The pitchfork while far more common is also pretty useful. I lost the my black sword when I was but a lad. I got over it. I broke one of my pitchforks about 15 years ago and I'm still trying to recover .

Good stuff. You might want to change the colour of the top floor from stone (bley) to white. A tudor or wattle & daub second floor would look really good. Another option is to switch the stone second floor with the tudored first floor. Given the weight of stone, a wood first floor seems a bit strange. Most tudor buildings if they used stone at all would have stone foundations with the cheaper tudoring on the second or third floors. It's a very nice shop. With a few enhancements it could really stand out. If you switched the wood and stone this could probably double as a soldier's watch tower. It has a very pirate feel to it.

Honestly, I like the castle Queen the way she is. Even better is the fact that she has no crownie logo on her making the fig very useful for any castle faction. I'm not sure how I'd feel about cloth skirts given that LEGO has a long tradition of uisng 2x2x2 slopes for skirts. They may not be perfect, but they work quite well. Also, "strong" is a very subjective term. While the Queen fig certainly isn't a warrior, her demeanor and facial expression certainly convey a certain degree of authority. One of the challenges with a medieval theme is that we don't traditionally associate females with prominent roles in that time period (of course, there are exceptions such as Joan of Arc). While I wouldn't mind another female knight to go with KKI's Princess Storm (horrible name), I don't see it happening in the near future. I'm just pleased that we received so many (6) female figs from the Castle theme.

Sand red is one of my favourite LEGO colours so it's nice seeing it used in this Modulex MOC. It's too bad that sand red bricks seem to be so exceedingly rare (even LEGO 1x2 sand-red bricks are unusually expensive on bricklink). Good stuff!

A quick check shows that most of the castle line remained relatively consistent for eight years. The post-yellow castle classic line ran from 1984 until 1992 with the Falcon and Lion knights. It wasn't until 1988 that the Forestmen and Black Knights came onto the scene and it took another four years for the three Wolfpack sets to appear. Classic castle was very consistent for almost a decade. It wasn't until the 90s that LEGO started throwing in a new faction (while tossing out an old one) each year. In fact, I suspect that the constant faction changes and lackluster sets of the 90s contributed largely to the demise of the original castle line. Variety goes beyond figure selection. This has always been a problem with figure-driven sets. The fantasy line has become tired not because of a lack of minifigs, but due to dull set designs. Throwing Elves into the mix doesn't negate that issue. Dwarves and Trolls certainly didn't bring about an improvement in basic set design with the fantasy line. Heck, the 2007 sets are still probably the best of the lot. I find that the castle theme draws in two very different camps of LEGO fan. On the one hand you've got the figure driven fan who sees the minifig as being the key element to a good set. For this fan, a new faction is a must to keep the line fresh. On the other side of the table is the set fan. For this fan, set design is paramount. Yes; most people want both to some degree, however this is a question of priority. Those who feel that the future of the castle line is dependant on Elves are most certainly focused on figures. They want these figures to complete their Tolkienesque worlds. For me, I'd much rather see a line that puts greater care and emphasis on set design. This is where the city line has always excelled. The firefighters, policemen and paramedics of the city theme are pretty generic. It's the range of structures and vehicles that makes the line interesting.

This is something I agree with wholeheartedly. I'm not opposed to studless MOCs per se, but I do find that there has been an increasing effort to make everything studless. Studless water, studless walkways; studless surfaces of all kinds. I use tiles where it suits my fancy, but I'm not going to go out of my way to make a studless MOC. Five years ago studless was something unique. Now it's pretty much expected in most high-level builds. Well regardless, my castle moats will always have studs.

Lion Knights 6080 King's Castle & 6081 King's Mountain Fortress (they also had the lion's share of the modular wall sections) Black Falcons 6073 Knight's Castle, 6074 Black Falcon's Fortress Black Knights 6085 Black Monarch's Castle & 6086 Black Knight's Castle Moreover, most of the 80s to mid-90s factions also benefited from a wide assortment of modular sections that could be used to enhance previous sets. There were 4 major modular sections for the Lion Knights; 6040, 6041, 6061 and 6067, one for the Black Falcons; 6062 and two for the Black Knights 6059 and 6034. Also let's not forget that the Forestmen had nothing but small small outposts and fortresses. Between the forestmen and their dark bretheren we had no less than 6 decent-sized outposts; 6046, 6054, 6066, 6071, 6077, and 6079. The big difference is that the older castle sets placed a greater emphasis on solid (if not compact) structures. The sets were integrated well and most factions had several buidlings and structures to go along with them. The fantasy line most certainly places its emphasis on figures. It's not a bad line (in fact it's an excellent one), but the fact that so many folks are bemoaning the lack of elves as marking the end of castle speaks volumes about how figure-driven this line truly is.

That's a bit unfair. I'm certainly a purist when it comes to my MOCs and to LEGO in general but I have the utmost respect for any builder who chooses to enjoy the hobby in their own way. Let's not forget, that LEGO is an adult's toy too. For the most part I'm a purist. I only use LEGO brand products and I don't modify or cut anything. I do buy prototype elements from time-to-time off of bricklink, and I'm not adverse to switching minifig arms/legs from different torsos/hips. For me, it's all about challenge. The biggest appeal of LEGO for me is that you're forced to work within the confines of a very defined system. If LEGO doesn't provide an element that meets your needs, you've got to engineer a solution using the bricks that are available. In many ways, this is what makes LEGO so exciting. That being said; I'm not opposed to burps/lurps or new colours (though I prefer the old ones). LEGO is all about having fun. For me, part of the fun is sticking to the confines of LEGO brand elements. I still have the fullest of respect for those who choose a different path. It's their way of enjoying the hobby; not mine. Dr. Robert Carney whom I respect greatly as a builder (his MOCs were part of what pulled me out of my dark ages) is certainly anything but a purist. He has modified bricks, used non-LEGO roofing from time-to-time and uses his own stickers. That being said, his castles continue to be some of my all-time favourites. Being a purist doesn't automatically mean that you're simply being fussy.

Is this a theme kid would want, or is it a theme that you want? I ask because I just can't see LEGO going full-on historical for a theme like this. Even the original castle lines were hardly what one would call 'historical'. I appreciate your passion for all things Roman, but I suspect that a Roman line (if one should ever be produced) would be more like the Viking or Fantasy line with a non-human adversary.