blueandwhite

I've often wondered this myself. I think part of it has to do with LEGO wanting purchasers to buy entire sets, rather than just minifigs. Think about it. Alot of lines are driven by the minifigs themselves. If you sold "army builders" for KKII for example, how many kids would really want the actual playsets. Still, LEGO is missing a real opportunity here. I don't think they realize how popular the minifig actually is. I can only hope one of our ambassadors brings this point to the forefront at some point. It seems like this would be a cheap way to make money without investing in new molds. I've been waiting for years for an adequate castle-minifig pack. It still hasn't come. Later.

I'd rather complain before things get that bad (I certainly won't be buying LEGO if they do). The juniorization of LEGO has nothing to do with Mega Bloks and their vastly inferior product. Fortunately, there are alot of sets on the market right now that aren't suffering from any serious form of juniorization at the moment (compared to say, the late 1990s). Later.

I voted American, though it was only by a slim margin. I simply love the bull-dog look common to American engines. They look mean, yet somehow loveable. European passenger trains tend to look nicer, but I have never been particularly fond of them. I prefer the workhorse quality of a freight train. I do like LEGO's swing towards Euripean engines as it brings variety, and the American look is beginning to wear thin. Also... I find that alot of people are quite snobbish about this sort of thing though, often equating differences in engineering to some form of cultural sophistication. Just as Europeans constantly knock American cars, television and culture, it seems that many Europeans also scoff at American locomotives simply because they are American. It has been my experience that people judge Americans too harshly, presuming them and anything associated with them to be inferior. The problem of course is, I don't judge any one thing by its national origin. I don't like all American trains, just as I don't like all European trains. And it may surprise you, but not all American cars are rubbish, while some European vehicles aren't worth their weight in recycled metal. The world doesn't deal in absolutes. Later.

Is this a big deal? Sets are frequently released in one market first. The Exo Force line seems more in tune with the American market than it does with the European one. Many sets are released in Europe before reaching North America, and some sets never actually come to this side of the pond. It works both ways, and I don't see it changing anytime soon. The Airport and the KKII maxifigs still aren't available through Shop@home for US or Canadian customers. The fact is, Europe and North America are very different places, with different consumers. The fact that you may not get a certain store-exclusive Exo Force set is hardly surprising. Not every set makes it to both sides of the pond. This is nothing new. Later.

As an adult, I would love a theme that was attentive to history. Unfortunately, such a line would never happen. It would; a) have to be huge, as each time period would require 2-3 sets to convey a sense of what that period was about, b) require a great number of unique bricks/elements to be produced (ie authentic Viking helmets, Basinets, Sallets and so forth) to properly depict the period in question, c) need to be sold through classrooms like Dacta, as most kids would probably pass this line up for Star Wars, and d) probably cost LEGO a fortune. Still, I do think that LEGO and history are a great combination. I would love to see a series of textbooks for children featuring various historical pieces constructed out of LEGO. Imagine a text on Knights, featuring LEGO models constructed by various master-builders. Detailed castles, cathedrals, and pyramids. From the Egyptians to Feudal Japan, a line of books that teaches kids history with LEGO. Various scenes (ie constructing a pyramid) could be reproduced with LEGO minifigs, while other areas could be covered with more detailed models. Such books would provide a great source of inspiration for children to a) learn, and b) love the brick! (Of course, I'm still waiting for a new, bonnafide Idea Book). Later.

"Benchmark" is a matter of opinion. For me, Time Twisters and Fright Knights were probably two of LEGO's all-time worst lines. (Of course, I'm not sure if your being sarcastic with your comments as the laugh icon is somewhat ambiguous) Personally, I love many of the current set designs we are getting. Its just too bad that these designs don't spill over to some of LEGO's original properties like KKII. Comparing Star Wars to KKII is utterly depressing. Later.

I think LUGNET fills a much-needed void in the LEGO community, and it would be an utter shame if it should fail. For years, LUGNET was the premier site for builders. It was a sight that one could go to, looking for building tips, and good advice from some of the best AFOL builders in the world. Now, it looks as if most European experts have abandoned LUGNET alltogether (opting for alternatives such as 1000steine), and those who are left constantly flame each other. Newer members asking for advice or criticism are outright ignored. The problem is, no other site offers a viable alternative to the avid builder. Sites like Classic-Castle, Eurobricks, and FBTB cater to different crowds. These sites are certainly essential to the AFOL community, but they don't offer the same support to builders looking to improve their work. This was LUGNET's biggest selling point. Moreover, theme-specific sites seem to have a splintering effect, driving a wedge between different types of builders. LUGNET used to be something of a central hub where any fan could discuss anything LEGO related. Don't get me wrong, I love Eurobricks. The thing is, there just isn't the same focus on MOCing here. Most of the heavyweights of the MOCing world don't frequent this site. Eurobricks is oriented towards the set collector more than the LEGO MOCing crowd. Yes, there are some excellent MOCers who visit these boards, however many of the best do not. This, more than anything is what I will miss if LUGNET dies. Later.

You don't read LUGNET, do you? Unfortunately. LUGNET has really become an unfriendly place. There are far too many elitists there for my tastes. Long-time members of the LEGO community who seem to believe that they are better than everyone else are far more common over there. Still, I think people tend to focus on a select few negative comments, overlooking what usually is an overwhelmingly positive response. Not everyone is going to be nice, or have kind words for you, no matter how good you are at building. I've seen AFOLs tear into some of the best builders out there. Its not like such behavior is the norm. Of course, LUGNET isn't the only unfriendly LEGO site. Look at some of the reviews over at MOCpages. Some phenomenal builders have recieved horrible reviews, while some average builders manage amazing scores. Funny thing is, most people who see fit to leave a poor review, seldom give reasons or their name. Some people are simply too harsh when reviewing the work of others. As someone who leans towards the latter position you mentioned (the so-called "model designer"), I feel a need to defend myself here. It certainly is true, that as your skills improve, you do tend to set your standards a bit higher. And yes, for some, it does become somewhat competitive. I fully admit that my focus as an AFOL will always be on MOCing (and I do take great joy out of seeing a wonderfully constructed MOC). For me, advanced building techniques are wonderful to look at. What this doesn't mean is that I will treat other less-experienced builders with distain. My perspective as a builder may have changed, but my personality certainly hasn't. In my experience, there are jerks of all ages and abilities. There are just as many poor builders who act cruelly, treating others with distain while overrating themselves. They are just as rude as their more talented counterparts; willing to throw a few punches, but reluctant to take them. You don't have to be talented to be a jerk. Yes, I think it hurts more when somebody with more talent than you throws a jab at your work, but I don't think it means that the 'building elite' are the only persons who take these cheap shots. Personally, I will never openly put down a builder or their MOC, simply because I know that my work is just as susceptible to insult. This isn't a question of talent or ability, but one of character. I am an intermediate builder, but that doesn't give me the right to insult somebody who is less-skilled than I am, just as it doesn't give an advanced builder the right to insult me. Being a jerk has nothing to do with talent. One other thing. I think some people tend to confuse constructive criticism with insult. Not every critical comment is an insult. Sometimes, an experienced builder will make suggestions that he or she feels might help out an intermediate or beginning builder. These comments are often taken as a slight, when they were intended to assist the MOCer. Alot of people ask for constructive criticism, yet they get upset when somebody actually gives them some. I think everybody is looking for some form of validation, but criticism can be incredibly helpful so long as it's positive. Later.

I don't think that adding the occasional female minifig to a larger set is going to kill sales. For example, the grossly undermanned airport wouldn't have suffered if it included an extra female. Similarly, a castle with a lone female queen/princess isn't going to deter boys from buying what is tried and true. Sure, makeing a smaller set that only comes with a female fig might deter some, but where there are multiple figs, making a few of them female isn't going to kill anyone. Of course, a line focused towards girls is an entirely different can of worms. Later.

Too true. Our little banter is certainly off topic. Still, I think that the GTA is probably the biggest market in Canada, and it has been my experience that most GTAers simply won't leave the city. Ottawa is big, but nowhere near Toronto in size.

No. At no point in any thread did I make such a statement. I am simply of the opinion that SNOT is a great tool, frequently utilized by the best AFOLs. This doesn't mean that SNOT is always used, or must be used for a MOC to be great. It simply means that it is a great technique, readily used by the community's best builders. And yes, in my experience, many of the best builders do make extensive use of SNOT. This is not the same as exclusive use (the position you assert I have taken). Simply put, a builder who knows how to effectively use SNOT has a greater arsenal of techniques at his or her disposal. THis doesn't mean that SNOT is necessary, but in circumstances where it is appropriate, the expert builder will undoubtedly employ it to better his or her MOC. (I voted for No. 2, in case you were interested) Later.

Honestly, Vaughn Mills would be a perfect location. Being the biggest outlet mall in Ontario, it only makes sense that if LEGO were to bring a LEGO outlet into Canada, it would start there. And more to the point, it would be the first genuine LEGO store in a major community centre (the three Bricks & Blocks stores are too remote for most Toronto shoppers). Still, Bricks & Blocks is better than nothing. Later.

I think it is a rare ocassion when somebody says anything this blunt or hurtful to a fellow AFOL. Nor do I think that this statement is particularly true. Sure, a MOC may benefit from some form of SNOT-work, but even then, this isn't always the case. I don't always imploy SNOT in my MOCs, but I certainly acknowledge its benefits. Agreed. Of course, there are situations where SNOT is an appropriate solution. Nice work there. Again, I agree with most of what you said. As a fan and a builder, I find that the AFOL community is overwhelmingly positive. Yes, there may be the odd jerk who belittles or insults the work of their fellow fans, but the majority of us are friendly, and share only kind words and helpful criticisms. Later.

Too right *vader* ! Its become an unfortunate reality, but licencing is an essential element of the LEGO brand. If you really want Adventures, you are simply going to do what Athos has done, and MOC your own ideas. Honestly, the older lines suffer from a noticeable lack of mass-market appeal. Simply put, kids gravitate to familiar themes and characters. A parody on Indiana Jones is quite dated, and when given the choice, kids will undoubtedly choose themes that are tied to the pop-culture of their generation. The fact is, most themes of the 1990s simply lack the broad appeal to go head-to-head with the likes of Star Wars, Harry Potter or even Batman. I suggest taking a look around Brickshelf. How many Adventures, Rock Raiders, Aqua Zone, or Time Cruisers MOCs do you see? Heck, even Pirate MOCs are something of a rarity. These lines simply can't compete with a popular IP such as Star Wars. Today's themes are defined by what appeals to kids. Anime, big-budget movies, and comic books, with a smattering of conventional themes which don't fall into any particular niche. I don't expect this to change any time soon. I see lines like KKII prevailing over a traditional castle line, Exo-Force dominating where classic-space used to be the norm, and movie licences filling in the rest of the gaps. Those of you expecting a return to the "good old days" are going to be waiting a loooonng time! Later.

In a recent thread, Starwars4J and I were having an interesting conversation on the utility of SNOT. For those of you who don't know what SNOT is, it refers to Studs Not On Top. Essentially, any building technique which places the studs of a brick in a non-upright position is referred to by most AFOLS as SNOT. Common bricks for SNOT work include, but are not limited to bricks such as, , and . Essentiall, any brick which changes the natural upward position of the LEGO studs may be used to create SNOT. There are also less-conventional ways to achieve such a result. What I wonder is, how important is SNOT to you when your building a MOC? And more importantly, when used properly by someone you consider to be an expert builder, do you think SNOT can improve the look of a MOC, or do you simply think its a waste of time, and that a similar effect could be achieved through conventional means? Personally, I feel that SNOT is not (nice rhyme) in any way, shape or form overrated. I don't feel that it is essential in all circumstances, however in many cases, SNOT is the only reasonable solution to an otherwise insolvable building dilema. So, what do you guys think?

No boundries? There are no boundries with any line of LEGO product. Just because the box says Star Wars, Exo Force, Harry Potter or Knight's Kingdom doesn't mean you are limited by what you can build. As Sting observed, Star Wars provides tons of bricks that are useful in MOCing a Spaceship/station of your own design. There are hundreds of original non-Star Wars torsos and heads out there which can easily be used to make a colourful crew of astronauts. I guess I can understand that some people feel some nostalgia for the lines they grew up with, but to suggest that a licence actually hampers what you build is beyond comprehension. Bricks are just bricks. Many can be used for any MOC in any theme. The one thing Star Wars does give spacers more than any other line is a steady flow of bricks that can easily be incorporated into an awsome array of Space MOCs. And that's a good thing, isn't it? Later.

I never said that great builders use SNOT exclusively, or that SNOT was absolutely essential. And where in my post did I ever state that SNOT was the be-all and end-all to MOCing? I simply stated that it is an invaluable tool utilized by most good builders to add additional detailing to their work. What makes a MOC great is how well the builder utilizes his or her otherwise ordinary bricks to make something that is extraordinary! You can call SNOT overrated if you like, but it doesn't make it any less valuable. Later.

I'm not sure. Afterall, other than the beancounters who work for LEGO, who knows what theme was the biggest failure. Jack Stone is certainly up there though. Trying to introduce maco-figs in the place of the existing (and extremely successful) minifig just doesn't work. If a child who is 5 yrs old is mature enough for minifigs, then why create a larger version. There isn't a big demographic between DUPLO and LEGO. As to the Basketball line. Allthough I think it was a terrible idea, LEGO must have thought it did well enough to pick up the NHL licence (though that may have already been in the pipeline). My personal opinion is that there are too many failed lines to count. With no continuity of themes, children lose interest and LEGO suffers. Afterall, how many one-year lines with oddly coloured bricks can one child endure? It killed castle, it killed space, and it killed the pirate lines. What's worse is that the new lines were usually one-shot deals, gathering only the smallest of followings. So, as I said earlier, I think LEGO has had so many failures that it would be inappropriate to single out one. Later.

I aim to please :-D ! Seriously, I know that this is a big issue for some classic-spacers (much like the classic-castle fans who demand the return of a traditional castle line). I'm simply pointing out the virtues of other lines which have kept a steady stream of sci-fi related LEGO elements coming our way. Again, I never suggested that Star Wars was classic-space, or that the two lines were essentially the same. I was simply observing that Star Wars provides spacers with as many, if not more space-related elements than classic-space did. And yes, I have a degree in fine arts, so I am familiar with art. I see things a bit differently. For me, the bricks themselves are your medium. What you do with them is your choice. If you prefer the fantastical retro-designs of the 1980s, nothing prohibits you from making a MOC that reflects your preference. That's the problem. LEGO will never throw as much support behind its own brands (an unfortunate truth) because they are untested. Star Wars likely sells more sets to Star Wars fans than it does to LEGO fans. Accordingly, LEGO is more than willing to throw a plethora of money into the line. Classic Space on the other hand has a smaller following of older fans who yearn for days past. These AFOLs may lust for a true successor to classic-space, but there is no evidence to suggest that younger fans feel the same way. Like the Pirate, and Castle lines, there is nothing to suggest that classic-space will succeed now when LEGO was struggling with it so much in the 1990s. This means that LEGO is going to be far more skeptical when launching a new Space line. If such a line were to be developed, it would likely be akin to KKII; a line made up largely of *I wanted to say that this set contains a lot of big pieces but didn't want to take the time to write it all, so I used the word "<insert that tiresome argument>" instead* and existing elements, with a few new bricks to keep people interested. Where did this come from? I never suggested that the classic space designs were lacking. I simply noted that Star Wars and Exo Force are giving fans alot of space-related LEGO, such that MOCing space articles should be relatively easy. I just wondered why fans continue to find these classic lines so appealing in light of newer lines which provide an incredible wealth of new bricks. I'm a huge classic-castle fan (and I hate KKII), but I don't really see the appeal of returning to the past and reinventing the wheel as it were. Just my opinion mind you, Later.

SNOT is simply another tool in the average LEGO builder's arsenal. Where appropriate, it may allow for greater detailing, making your MOCs more striking. I have rarely, if ever seen a truly great builder who doesn't use SNOT extensively. Its use may not be obvious, but that is only a testament to the quality of the MOC. Using SNOT is not about creating a specific asthetic; its about enhancing detail where appropriate. In short, SNOT is NOT overrated. Later.

Cartoonish? No more so than any other MOC I've seen. LEGO has a certain 'simple' asthetic to it. Its unavoidable. And lets be honest, this MOC puts the majority of MOCs out there to utter shame. Martin Jaspers is easily one of the best Castle builders around. His attention to detail, and his ability to use bricks in new and innovative ways is rarely surpassed. It's probably safe to say that nobody posting in this thread (myself included of course) comes close to Martin in terms of building talent. Later.

I've never understood why some fans are so eager to see the return of classic-space. Its not as if there aren't enough space-themed sets in the pipeline with Star Wars and Exo Force. These sets provide a plethora of great space-related bricks which can easily be used to MOC original spaceships. So I guess my question is: What is the appeal of classic space? Later.

People are reading far too much into this. What you see in your local shops isn't necessarily a reflection of LEGO's financial situation. Afterall, LEGO was actually in the black in 2005, yet I don't remember stock being any better. Simply having huge amounts of shelf space dedicated to LEGO doesn't gaurantee sales, nor does it speak to LEGO's fiscal state. I would suspect that online sales have had a major impact on retailers like Toys R Us and Walmart. Its far easier for a parent to simply go online and make a purchase for little Timmy, rather then going from store to store simply to find out that the set he's looking for is sold out. Online shopping may be a bit more expensive (shipping and such), but that is easily offset by the time and money one spends searching for a desired set. Heck, LEGO product is usually available online before its readily distributed through retail stores! Finally, alot of people seem to be moaning about the supposed sub-standard quality of the sets. As far as I'm concerned, set design is probably at an all-time high. Sure, there are a few lines that I can't stand (KKII, Exo-Force), but for every stinker there are two or three fantastic lines. These newer sets frequently use building techniques that would never have been offered to casual builders five or ten years ago. Juniorization is far less rampant than it was a decade earlier (again, excluding the usual suspects), and piece counts seem to be up. Sure, LEGO is living off licences and franchising, but in this day and age is anyone really surprised? And honestly, most of LEGO's licenced products are pure gold. The Batman, Star Wars and Ferarri sets are far and away some of the best designs we've seen out of LEGO. I can only hope we will see more of this quality in non-licenced themes in years to come (The City line is already reeping such a benefit). Later.

Agreed. Of course, its not like we are objective observers on this matter. It would stand to reason that a group of adult LEGO fans might take greater issue with this ad campaign. Afterall, who is a greater advocate for the brick than an over-zealous fan; easily offended by anything that puts the LEGO brand in a poor light? Truth be told, this advertisement will likely have no impact on LEGO's reputation. To expect a casual observer to draw the same conclusion that we AFOLs have in this thread is simply absurd. Most people are utterly unphased by an oversaturation of print-ads. I don't see this being an exception. The real question is: Why do these idiot ad executives pull in six figure sallaries when people such as myself are hard pressed to find work whatsoever? It is a sad world. Later.

Of course, Denmark's involvement in the Middle East has absolutely nothing to do with LEGO. Heck, the UN is making an example out of a company that has held a decidedly anti-violence stance for years (if the presumed political slight was intentional). Of course I'm not entirely convinced that the ad agency was actually trying to make such a statement. Later.