blueandwhite

That kind of depends on where you're from. For most people $2.80 would be considered an absolute bargain. Still, one can't quiblle about price when there is a Jester and peasant woman to be had!

I find this last comment quite interesting. For me, Johnny Thunder and the Adventures line stands out as being very distinct from LEGO's earlier lines with a clearly defined set of characters and a distinct plot. The characters had names and personalities attached to them, unlike the nameless denizens of earlier LEGO worlds. These characters are fleshed out far more than the generic forestmen, Blacktron astronauts, or police officers of Castle, Space and City. For me, Johnny Thunder and crew actually share more in common with the later licences than they do with the older themes. What is the difference in a child acting out the further adventures of Batman or Indiana Jones as opposed to the continued tales of Johnny Thunder? I remember playing with a number of licenced toylines as a child. I didn't simply regurgitate the same story I had seen on TV. Conversely, when I see adventurer MOCs, I notice a strong emphasis on Johnny and co. The characters are just as defined as their licenced counterparts. I don't see how Johnny Thunder encourages creative play any more than a licenced theme does. As I see it, the Adventurers line seems to fall mid way between a licenced theme and the completely open play of classic sets.

Wonderful sculpture. It actually captures Harrison Ford's likeness quite well. I only wish I could my hands on some dark brown bricks. The colour is fantastic! Too bad that LEGO buyers only have the dwarf beard, a carrot and Indy's torso to choose from. That colour should be the new brown. It is infinitely better than reddish brown and probably the best new colour since tan.

Honestly, I feel that LEGO's QC has slipped significantly in the past few years. I have had two sets with missing pieces in the past year. Prior to that, I've never experienced it before. Given the number of complaints you here online, I really wonder whether LEGO isn't slipping a bit. I got my first part replaced, but I've been waiting on a reply for the second one (which came from the Falcon). I got so fed up that I just ordered one off of bricklink. Hopefully LEGO cleans up their act in the future.

Old thread *skull* . Honestly, I think that this question is somewhat circumstantial. I mean, it would depend on the size of your collection, your building needs and you preference as a collector. Some builders have extremely large collections already. As such, a MISB set is probably more valuable to them for nostalgic value than it would be opened up. Conversely, a builder who has a very small collection would be eating away at themselves if they had that crown jewel of a set they simply couldn't bring themselves to touch. Allthough i can't really speak about the Pirate line (I only got the 1989 sets), I can say with some certainty that I would rather have most of the older castle sets MISB at this point. I simply have a large enough collection of castle LEGO. Opening a MISB 6067 or 6074 isn't going to provide me with anything I don't already have in large quantities anyhow. That being said, the untouched box would conjure up some fond memories. Right now, I would probably leave most older sets (including Pirates) MISB unless it was something truly special that I simply couldn't pass up. I guess I just have too much LEGO X-D .

Indiana Jones certainly pulls from the aforementioned series, however I'm inclined to believe that Johnny Thunder draws more from the success of Indiana Jones than it does from anything else. As far as LEGO is concerned, Johnny Thunder was the first line to bring a strong narrative into the theme. Previous themes like Pirates, Castle or Space were generally pretty ambivalent when it comes to plot, giving only a few vague details. I'm pretty sure that the popularity of Indiana Jones didn't go unnoticed when the line was being developed. Personally, I suspect it played a major role in the establishment and design of Johnny Thunder. Just as EXO Force borrows heavily on the modern successes of Japanese animation, I believe that Johnny Thunder was designed with the success of Indiana Jones in mind. LEGO is first and foremost a company looking to make a profit. Basing a line around material that hasn't been popular in fifty years is a fairly risky move. The fact that Indiana Jones had already established that it was viable marketing strategy can't have gone unnoticed. If the Indiana Jones licence isn't viable outside of the established film universe, then why is Johnny Thunder? I simply don't believe that 'the average TLC consumer' would reject an Indiana Jones set that isn't directly tied to one of the movies. The Indiana Jones brand is incredibly recognisable with characters that are well respected (both in and outside of the LEGO community). The fact that Indiana Jones hasn't had the broad media success that Star Wars has is kind of moot. What franchise has? The fact remains, Indiana Jones is a solid brand that is incredibly familiar, and looks to go even further with a new movie. LEGO has changed considerably since the mid 90s. Licences are certainly a big part of LEGO's current identity. Much like a high-paid actor, they bring a certain celebrity to the LEGO brand and give it a definite push. I could see casual consumers viewing Johnny Thunder as being rather dull after a year or two of the Indiana Jones licence. Again, I don't see this as being a quality unique to Johnny Thunder. There is no reason to say that Indiana Jones must be limited to his on-screen adventures. Why is it so inconceivable that Indiana Jones travels to Tibet, India or Australia? Why are you so certain that Indy would fail in any setting that isn't directly ripped from the film? This is the crux of the matter; isn't it? Personally, I was never a fan of Johnny Thunder so I can't say I feel much love for the line. Thunder came out at a point in LEGO's history where I felt set design was going down hill. Personally I disliked the colour-coded building schemes often featured in sets during that era, and I wasn't too fond of the Adventurers line. Don't take me the wrong way; I appreciate that the introduction of Indiana Jones was a real stab in the heart for alot of Johnny fans. Heck, the same thing happened to spacers with the dominance of Star Wars, and for a time Castle fans with the popularity of Harry Potter. I'm simply of the opinion that Johnny doesn't really offer alot for many casual fans when juxtaposed against the more far more familiar Indiana Jones. I'm thrilled that LEGO picked up the Indiana Jones licence. Then again, I have no soft spot for good ol' Johnny.

Several new torso prints just for this advent calender? does anybody else get the feeling that there is another Castle set yet to be revealed? The Witch, Jester and peasant girl scream new set. I can't imagine LEGO producing 3 new figure prints solely for a calender. I'm very excited about this. The Jester and the peasant girl already stand out as being better than anything in the Castle line to date!

It is a nice little castle. I quite enjoy seeing castles set in a winter landscape as it adds for a bit of variety. The exterior shape is quite fetching, however I find the mixture of bley/grey to be a bit distracting. A few specialized elements here and there doesn't bother me, but the heavy mixture of the two bothers me. The design itself is very good, and there are alot of rooms on the interior despite limited space. A very nice MOC *y* .

This poll is missing my favorite fig from 2007 (the Princess), so I really can't say much. Heck, the Indy figs aren't technically 2007 figures to begin with. I'm also surprised that Gold C3P0 didn't make the poll for best and worst fig. I just can't vote in such a biased poll.

I've always seen Johnny Thunder as the poor man's Indiana Jones. Now that LEGO has actually put up some cash and picked up the Indy licence, I simply don't see a place for LEGO's knockoff hero. The way I see it is, Indy can easly be placed in other adventures that go beyond the four movies, much like some of the newer Star Wars sets that draw on the expanded universe. There simply isn't a place for Johnny Thunder right now.

Well, I hope there's some improvement between now and the final release date. These just do not impress me. LEGO should simply type in Tumbler on Brickshelf. Their bound to get better results

I really like the majority of your Sweeny Todd figures with the notable exception of the good Mr. Todd himself. He simply looks far too young , particularly when standing next to Mrs. Lovett. Heck, Sweeny looks younger than both Toby and Anthony. Everything else is fantastic though. I love where you're going with this. A completely original idea. I can't wait to see what you come up with next. Looking forward to seeing 'the place where the worst pies in London' are made. Good stuff *y* .

With the recent release of the Indiana Jones line and the popularity of WWII MOCs amongst some builders, I think there might be a pretty positive response.

Everyone loves a good war :-D . Versatility is a pretty broad term. If you're interested in US fronteer history, the Wild West line would undoubtedly be very versatile. In terms of actual building potential, the Wild West provides a plethora of building opportunities; from trains, to saloons, to forts and trading posts. The Western theme may not span a large time frame or geographical area, but I don't think that alone speaks to the versatility of the line. To objectively say that one period of history is better than another is simply impossible. The question is purely subjective. Again, this probably doesn't mean anything if you're not as interested in those time periods. Moreover, it's a pretty big stretch to use Armada figures as 14th or 15th century soldiers. Plate armour was still developing during that period, and would continue to be used for another two centuries. The Armada figs are clearly out of place for anything short of the 16th century. The Comb Morions that those minifigs wear are clearly late 16th century. If using a Western minifig as an Australian is a stretch, throwing an Armada figure into the 14th century doesn't work either. Using that logic, I suggest you bow down to Castle instead X-D. Forum-shmorum: We have an entire website :-P .

I'm a vulture. After building a set, I will inevitably start picking off the best parts for my own MOCs until there isn't much left. Of course, there are some sets that I simply won't dismantle. For the most part though, a set is a parts source for me.

Which is better? *knight* Castle X-D . In all seriousness, I would start by looking at price. Typically Pirates are in greater demand and shorter supply than the Western figs. This makes building Pirate stuff exceedingly expensive. Western also has the added benefit of not requiring as many specialized parts (boat hulls, masts, sails, canons, rigging etc.) meaning that it is easier to MOC at a reasonable price. If you don't already have a good foundation of Pirates minifigs, you would probably want to go Western as building up a strong Pirate collection may cost you a small fortune. Both themes are good, but the Western line is probably cheaper.

The best new theme was Castle. A nice improvement on KKII with some decent sets and excellent minifigs. The best overall theme was Star Wars. Now, this was based solely on the wonder that was the MF. To see such a set produced was a dream come true. The Falcon was a set unlike anything I could imagine, far more detailed than previous USC sets, and the biggest set ever! For pure building fun, this set still blows my mind! If the MF didn't exist both Town and Castle would have been higher on my list *vader* .

I'm not suggesting that nobody feels the way you do. What I am suggesting is that a great many persons see this the way The Clone Walker does. The subtler nuances of the British political landscape simply don't mean much to most people. To expect others to understand or appreciate that history is probably asking a bit much. Heck, the distinction between the United Kingdom and Great Britian is still giving me a headache. Funny, that about sums up the classic attitude of English Canadians in regards to Quebecers. Of course, if that were the case many of us Canucks might not have migrated here to begin with. North America is predominantly inhabited by immigrants afterall. For most of us, being a Canadian means first and foremost stepping away from your ancestoral homeland. Heck, if you guys didn't bother to show up in Canada that would have put me in a bit of a spot as my family tree is predominantly English with a spot of Scottish for good measure. So when you say 'us' you are actually referring to my ancestors. Ironically, I would love to speak french.

Well, that is only partially true. Juniorization isn't simply a question of one or two specialized bricks. The trend towards juniorization (particularly in the late 90s/early 2000s) was disconcerting to fans simply because there was a growing trend towards specialized single purpose bricks. Even if you can find a few more uses for such bricks, it doesn't change the fact that the uses for such bricks are very limited. This is even more distressing when you consider that young fans in that period simply weren't able to collect a sufficient collection of basic bricks to adequately MOC. Specialized elements are definitely a part of LEGO. They have been around since the dawn of the minifig. that being said, it is important to maintain a healthy balance between ordinary bricks and highly specialized (single use) bricks to foster creative play. A pretty good space ship or train may utilize some very specific bricks, but they also rely on the basic bricks we have come to know and love. There are countless toys available for people who don't MOC. Heck, if you take juniorization to its natural conclusion you end up with... Playmobile :-D . If you strip LEGO of its versatility you essentially remove the one quality that has defined this brand for decades. The trend away from juniorization in recent years also suggests that that particular trend wasn't favourable to begin with. The majority of today's sets are as complex as anything we've seen from LEGO. Isolated juniorization like the airliner is fine. It's when the entire line starts to simplify things to such levels that fans many grow frustrated. The size of a model has nothing to do with juniorization. Simplified building and design on the other hand do. Heck, alot of sets in the late 90s were actually colour-coded to ensure kids didn't confuse a 1x3, 1x4 or any other similarly sized bricks. Do you remember the 90s city sets where cars and trucks had no doors? Juniorization isn't simply a matter of being 'stuck in old ways'.

That truck is huge!! This looks an aweful like Dino Attack and some of LEGO's other dud lines. I thought they had moved past things like this. The fact that the truck looks almost as big as the red Creator one doesn't exactly stand out as a good thing IMO. Maybe kids will like it :-D .

I'm sorry to say it; but most people simply don't care. Just as you aren't necessarily sensitive to the diverse political and social histories of other nations, others don't know a thing about Great Britian or the United Kingdom. As a Canadian, the distinction between the UK and Great Britian simply isn't that important to me just as Canada's disputes with our native peoples, Quebec or Newfoundland are undoubtedly irrelevant to you. For most of us foreigners, this just doesn't stand out as being important. My family moved to Canada over 150 years ago, and we haven't looked back.

Meh. It's ok, but it isn't really anything special. In fact, I found alot of the Idea Books to be pretty lackluster with models that simply felt second-rate when compared to alot of sets. For me the first Idea book is still the best. The newer Idea books rarely inspired me. I don't see anything in particular that stands out about this design. 3.

Of course, I find the pro-everything review equally annoying. Have you not noticed taht some reviewers are inclined to rgive every set an excellent review, irrespective of any shortcomings the set may have. Unfortunately, this is typical of most fan communities. There are often a very vocal group of fans who are negative about everything and an equally vocal group who take issue with anybody who criticizes the smallest thing. Unfortunately, it is the fan in the middle who takes the most trash from both sides. At least LEGO fans aren't alone on this.

Larger MOCs like castles are pretty easy to break down. Simply put, when I need the bricks; the castle is toast. Smaller MOCs I tend to leave together. Heck, alot of MOCs like my Batmobiles will probably never be completely destroyed. I tinker with them from time to time, but there aren't enough essential bricks in either one for me to destroy them for parts. Brickmoor is still in the process of being converted into a larger castle which has been taking me over a year to finish (constant part shortages in certain areas).