blueandwhite

No problem. Yes, 386 is a fantastic looking set. Asthetically, its about as good as it gets. I'm not that impressed by 691 as its design is a tad too clunky for my tastes. It wasn't my intention to challenge the quality of either of these sets. I was merely defending my position that 7903 is a decent set. Perhaps its me, but I felt your use of quotation marks implied a hint of sarcasm. If I'm incorrect in this assumption, I do appologize. Still, I maintain that 7903 is a good set. As to my personal tastes, I have a preference for sets released between 1977 (first year of the modern minifig) and 1993. Still, I appreciate some of today's sets for their wider assortment of unique bricks, so long as they serve multiple purposes. I feel that this set incorporates many of the play features that originally attracted me to LEGO as a child. I suppose I'll leave it at that. Later.

To each his own I suppose. I still feel that 7903 has a decent assortment of bricks, and as a builder that's what really matters to me. Later.

The article says five states, not stores. Afterall, at $99.99 a piece, you would need to steal 1,500 Millennium Falcons worth of LEGO. No store caries that kind of inventory! Still, it boggles the mind when you think about it. This guy stole over 1000 sets! There's no way that you would be able to track down and recover all of his goods. It would be too cost prohibitive. Later.

A decent set. Still, after last year's amazing fire truck, it seems a bit bland. It does look to have a nice slection of bricks though. I do like the yelllow colouring, as it gives this engine a fresh feel. Red firetrucks have become a tad monotonous. Later.

Nice design. A brick-built helecopter. In the day of <insert that tiresome argument> dump-trucks and aeroplanes, its nice to see sets can still be made with bricks. I quite like the shape of this helecopter (though its use as a rescue vehicle seems questionable). And as others have stated, the rotor looks fantastic. We need more sets like this! If LEGO is looking to hold the attention of children for more than a few minutes, its good to throw in a rich variety of useful bricks. This set does it in spades! Later.

Thank goodness! Am I correct in surmising that all of the markings are produced via sticker? If that's the case, then a few of these sets might be ok as parts-packs. Not my cup of tea, but I suspect that the younger crowd will love these. Later.

Great improvements! Setting the wheels back, and adding runners for the passengers to step on when exiting the coach make this an even better MOC. I feel your MOC is 'cleaner' than the 2 six-wide coaches you've shown. If you decide to build a wider coach, I would suggest going five-wide. I feel that minifig vehicles look really good at that width. six-wide can be a tad too fat, and four-wide is just a bit too slim. Still, your improvements are fantastic. A worthy coach if there ever was one. Later.

Nice work. If your looking to improve it though, you might want to consider lowering it a bit. As it currently stands, it looks as if your coach is riding a bit too high. You could also try moving the rear wheels back a tad. Still, its a pretty solid design. Later.

I never said that. I never insulted your abilities as a builder. Now, I'm not a fan of Bionicle, so I can't speak to the parts ratios in most Bionicle sets. From what I've seen, Bionicle isn't as brick-intensive as some themes (look at some of the more elaborate Town and Train layouts for example). For fans of those themes, Bricklink is a godsend. If you think that most of these builders can amass such a large collection of unique elements without resorting to the secondary market, your kidding yourself. Later.

I have always thought that expert builders would be able to use every part in a set. ;) Hence the reason they are experts. Bricklink has it's uses. I use it to get parts I missed out on or didn't get enough of. I recently started selling there also as a way to pay for my current house repair needs. Experts probably don't have alot of uses for 40+ Spiral staircases, or Harry Potters. Simply put, the parts-ratios of most sets simply isn't consistent with the needs of most builders. Later.

I'm sorry you feel that way. Bricklink remains an invaluable resourse for expert builders. A person with a modest amount of income simply can't buy sets for pieces. Its TOO EXPENSIVE :o! Often, a $60 set will contain only a few pieces the expert builder actually wants. Bricklink allows for the distribution of pieces according to market demand. A builder who has 14 Harry Potters probably doesn't want another one. He or she can instead order only the pieces he or she needs. Yes, the prices may be inflated due to demand, however that cost is offset by avoiding useless or unnecessary bricks contained in most sets. More to the point, how can a LEGO enthusiast get the parts they want if they are no longer in production? Heck, several colours were discontinued in 2004. Should those builders be content only with what has been brought to market? I should hope not. Perhaps set collectors can find satisfaction in only buying the latest sets, but they too will be missing out on many discontinued jems. Bricklink also provides LEGO users a means to dispose of unwanted bricks. If you don't want those 14 Harry Potters, or 17 Luke Skywalkers, you can sell them to others who may have an interest in the minifigs, but not necessarily the sets. Bricklink is an open market that makes many of the incredible fan-made MOCs we see possible. With all of that out of the way, I feel it must be said LONG LIVE BRICKLINK!!! Wasn't Bill 40? Dang middle-aged men :D ! Later.

I'm actually quite surpised that you got such a definitive response. Still, its nice to hear an official resonse on the subject. Later.

Well, ok. Anyway, its getting late. I just placed a Bricklink order for 95 LURPS and BURPS. I suppose I should be going. Take care now :) . Later.

Anyway, congratulations are in order... ??? Not sure why your congratulating yourself, but whatever. Umm Congrats?

To appreciate that a toyline is actually a relaunch, or reboot of an earlier line, the child must first be exposed to the earlier line. Even then, it requires the child to have an understanding of just what it means to 'relaunch' a product. When I was a child, I had no idea that GI Joe was in fact a relaunch of a toyline from the 1960s. I had never seen a 12" GI Joe. The notion of relaunching a product in order to reach a new demographic is certainly not on the minds of most children. Still, this is getting rather pointless isn't it? It doesn't matter how I respond. You will undoubtedly respond with another sharp question. If you don't consider KKII to be a relaunch, that's fine. Nothing I say is going to convince you otherwise. I obviously disagree with you. If you won't respect that, that's ok as well. I still see KKII as a relaunch. IMO, it is NOT a continuation, and nothing you have said has given me reason to think otherwise. Perhaps its best we leave it at that. Later.

Actually, that doesn't make alot of sense. LEGO isn't targeting this line at old-timers who have a fondess for days long ago. This line is being produced for young children. LEGO has no reason to officially state anything one way or the other. The only thing such a statement would do is offend potential purchasers. For LEGO, this is just another new product line. It simply lacks any real connection to earlier castle lines. In fact, it lacks any connection with KKI, despite sharing the same name (remember, KKII is a name developed by fans). To expect LEGO to make an official statement (was there even an official statement that Batman begins was a reboot rather than a prequel?) is asking too much. Later.

You keep bring up realism. Yet both Norro and I have already admitted that the original Castle lines were not even close to being realistic. For nineteen years, LEGO castle evolved, building off earlier lines. This ended in 1997. The original KK tried to re-capture that market, but failed. KKII was not a continuation of the Castle theme. It was a reinvention of LEGO Castle. A completely new line, as different from Classic Castle as LoM was from Classic Space! Time to bring out the BAT-SIGNAL!!! IN 1989, Tim Burton's Batman opened to audience, achieving mass success. The movie was so popular, it spawned a sequel in 1992: Batman Returns. Again, the movie proved successful with audiences. A third sequel was ordered. This time around, changes were made to freshen up the franchise. Ultimately, the movie fared quite well and Batman was another go. Batman & Robin ultimately proved less succesful. Allthough the movie still had roots in the Burton Bat Universe, the franchise had lost alot of steam with fans. After two directors, three different actors playing Batman, and four movies, the Burton Batman was finally put to rest. (Burton acted as producer on the last two Batman movies). Marching forward to 2005. Batman Begins is released after much fan anticipation. Still, this Batman was a new animal. He was a re-vitalized and re-imaged Batman, borrowing more from the comics than the Burton Batman did. Yes, Chris Nolan's Batman is Batman. No, Chris Nolan's Batman is not the same as the Burton Batman. His origins are different. His character and the city he lives in are undeniably different when compared to the over-the-top style that characterized the Burtonverse. This Batman is not a sequel. He is the reinvention of a franchise. Like Batman Begins, KKII is the reinvention of a franchise. Yes, it is a Castle theme. No, it does not tie in with the earlier lines. The lifecycle of the Burton Batman films is not that different from the lifecycle of the original Castle theme. Initially successful, the theme was often updated to recapture fans. Eventually however, the franchise became so damaged that it was impossible to continue. Ultimately, the powers that be decided that the franchise should be put to rest. This is what happened to LEGO Castle, Space and Pirates. The core elements that allowed those themes to work for so many years simply fell out of favour. Classic Castle died, and KKII was reborn. This is how I (and many others) see it. Looking forward to it. I always like to hear what others have to say. Later.

That's an interesting conclusion, however many fans seem to include several lines they don't like within the scope of themes that they do. I mean, I hate the Fright Knights more than any other castle line (including than KKII), yet I still consider them to be a branch of the original Castle theme. In fact, I don't like where LEGO took Classic Castle post-1992. Despite my feelings towards these sets, I still consider them part of the original Castle line. When I read your conclusion, I suspect that you haven't really considered my position, or the position of others such as Norro. I'm not saying I hate KKII, or that it isn't a castle theme. I am saying it isn't a continuation of the original Castle theme. This has nothing to do with personal tastes, and everything to do with design. I think Norro made some excellent points. They are definitely worth a re-read. Later.

It seems to me that most Spacers feel that the Space theme ended in 1999, just before Star Wars was introduced. Still, "Space" as a theme is probably even more vague than "Castle". Still, many fans consider Life on Mars to be its own theme. Personally, I feel Life on Mars is its own theme rather than a continuation of the Space theme. Still, the line does take place in space, and it does include astronauts. From what some people are suggesting about KKII, this should be enough to call LoM a continuation of classic space. I was wondering your take on it, as we seem to disagree about the whole KKII thing so greatly. Later.

mister_phes, I was wondering, do you feel that Life on Mars is a continuation of the Space theme? SuvieD has indicated that he does not. What is your take on LoM? And if Life on Mars is its own theme, can you explain to me why you still feel that KKII is a continuation of the Castle theme? Thanks.

Really, unless you have bley and grey side-by-side, the difference isn't going to be terribly significant. It looks just dandy if you don't mix it with classic-grey. The colour change is terrible, but as I stated earlier, it shouldn't matter if you don't mix your bley and grey together :-D . That photo of a bley wall by Nathan Wells is a great example. Later.

This has certainly been an interesting discussion. As I stated to mister_phes, this is a subject we will just have to 'agree to disagree' on. Still, I suppose its only reasonable to touch on a few of your observations. Nobody is suggesting that LEGO castles between 1978 and 1997 are even remotely realistic. In fact, you have already brought this up a few pages back. No LEGO set will ever be accused of that. LEGO castle has never portrayed the middle ages accurately, just as Pirates and Ninja do not portray their respective periods properly. I don't think that anyone expects 'realism' from their LEGO sets. As to your remark concerning dyes. Yes, they were expensive. But to say that brightly coloured dyes were not available is untrue. Nobles, merchants and other persons of wealth certainly wore vibrant colours as evidenced by many illuminated manuscripts coming out of the 13th and 14th centuries. Rich reds, greens and blues were not uncommon. The inclusion of a Wizard character constitutes a storyline? Perhaps you could elaborate on this a bit. I don't remember a clear storyline being given to the DM line. In fact, you yourself state that Bionicle was responsible for the indroduction of a story to the world of KK. Either way, the fact remains that this line evolved from the same cliches as its predecessors. Like earlier castle sets, this set borrows from a portrayal of the middle ages popularized between the 1930s and 1950s. Certainly the fantasy aspect was new, however the design asthetic remained fairly consistant. A DM Knight doesn't look out of place when standing next to a BF, a Lion Knight or even a Fright Knight. It is an asthetic we see frequently in Warner Brothers cartoons, and classic film. The KKII line simply lacks any asthetic connection with its predecessors (yes, even KKI). Again, nobody said that earlier castle lines were 'realistic'. I'm not sure why your harping on this one point, as it has nothing to do with the counter-argument. Instead of addressing some of the arguments others have made, you continue to go on about how unrealistic the classic line was. Nobody was ever disputing that! KK didn't play down the fantasy elements any more than the BFs, Forestmen, Black Knights, Lion Knights etc. In fact, it continued with many popularized cliches. We are given a female knight, who is an obvious play on Joan of Arc. The colours aren't really that different from the FK, BF, or Wolfpack lines. The torso-prints were definitely nice, but we've had alot of great torso prints in the past. As for storylines. Are children too slow to make up their own? Sure, the comics have proved popular, but to say that they foster creativity is downright silly. A child who makes his or her own stories, characters and scenarios is being more creative than a child who needs a comic to give his or her characters an identity. Yes, LEGO has found that stories sell product in today's marketplace. That isn't to say that this was always the case. In the past, storylines were non-existent, and comics weren't printed in the back of instructions. Heck, the characters' names weren't even consistent. In the US, Robinhood's name was never mentioned. Merlin's name in North America is Majisto. Simply put, there was no readily available storyline for kids to follow. There was simply a promotional paragraph in each year's catolog. What irritates many adultcollectors (including myself) is that this NEW asthetic is so far removed from the Castle line, it becomes difficult or impossible to incorporate the KKII knights in with their previous figures. The KKII knights are too-far removed from the underlying asthetic that defined much of the Castle theme for almost twenty years. Hard, geometric shapes, and unsightly coloured armour make this line extremely different. The helmets are characterized by the same sharp lines that define the Bionicle line. Essentially, LEGO has abandoned one visual scheme for another one that is so uncompromisingly different, it is almost futile to directly link this line with the castle lines of yesteryear. It is not an evolution of castle. It is a revolution. It is a line for kids who didn't like the Castle asthetic. This line is thuroughly modern. It draws visually from the 90s rather than the 40s or 50s. Commercially, this makes perfect sense, and KKII (from what I understand) has been a huge success. That being said, it is a new toyline. It is its own species. To call it a continuation of the Castle line just doesn't make sense. Again this isn't about realism. Yes, for many people the colour is a huge issue. It certainly isn't the only issue. Futuristic swords, space helmets and coloured armour simply don't fit with the castle asthetic. This line may not be inspired directly by the Power Rangers, but are definitely several similarities. These little guys look like they would be quite comfortable on a spaceship. Heck, classic space had red, black, blue, white and yellow space-men. Perhaps its time to consider whether KKII is a continuation of classic-space. From the beginning, this has never been a fantasy vs. reality issue! It is simply a question of design. This line was designed to replace a line that LEGO felt it could no longer promote in today's market. When a company decides to reinvent a line. To start new, and take it in an entirely different direction, it cannot reasonably be called a continuation of the now defunct line. KKII exists because the original castle line doesn't sit well with today's kids!! You say that people will debate the Space/LoM because LoM is a foggy theme, yet thus far, the vote has been split pretty evenly on the Castle/KKII discussion. Your reasons for separating LoM from Space seem no more valid to me than the reasons others have expressed for distinguishing between the now-defunct Castle line and the KKII line. To say that this debate is far more one-sided than the LoM debate merely suggests that you have no credence to the opinions of fans like myself who disagree with you. And if they make a new Pirate theme with flourescent swords, bionicle-like headgear and sawblade launchers in the place of cannons, I won't consider that to be a continuation of the Pirate line. For the record, I don't consider the Ninja, Viking or Castle themes to be related, just like I don't feel that Life on Mars fits in with classic space. Each of these lines is asthetically and thematically unique. For the same reasons, I don't believe that KKII is a continuation of the previous Castle theme. I'm not going to call KKII Castle, if I'm told that Life on Mars isn't space. Later.

Bley looks fine... so long as it isn't mixed with grey. The flip-side of that is that grey also looks fine, so long as it isn't mixed with bley. The results are far less-noticeable with light-grey/bley, as these two colours aren't as potent as dark-grey/bley. Mixing dark-grey/bley successfully is simply NOT POSSIBLE! I think people are still missing the point. Most of us with large collections of classic-grey (particularly dark-grey) aren't too fond of new-grey(bley). We aren't going to contaminate our collection with new grey. Those of you who own only a small amount of classic grey would be wise to move on. Old grey isn't coming back. It isn't going to get cheaper, and it certainly isn't going to become easier to find. Many old-school fans dismiss anything built from new-grey, but it doesn't change the fact that it is the only grey LEGO plans on producing from this point on. The fact that the last of the classic-grey service packs sold slowly in Europe, and are still available in North America doesn't help things for us old-timers either. Changing grey to bley was perhaps the biggest blunder LEGO could have made. Still, its done. Newer collectors can either adapt, or acquire old-grey at an inflated price. Its that simple!!! Later.