davee123

So, my guess would be that you probably have similar feelings regarding other similar themes like Ninjago and Chima? That is, I think a lot of people tend to have a negative reaction to the building style and thematic elements (being character-based for younger kids). Personally, I don't see what's objectionable about a tank/castle or a robotic horse (per se). They're interesting ideas that we don't usually see, so it's cool. But my suspicion would be that your reaction was more about the silliness and "kid-ish-ness" of the themes. Would you have similar distaste for, say, the 70804 Ice Cream Machine from the LEGO Movie (which was similarly ridiculous)? Anyway, just curious. DaveE

I'm not really sure what his particular problem is with these castles, although the fact that he referred to all the castles that had that same baseplate, but not the other raised baseplate castles makes me think he's referring to the baseplate itself. All the castles that use that baseplate are open-backed castles, which people were annoyed with back in 2000. The 2004 version people might have been annoyed with as well, but they were so up in arms about the jelly-bean knights that they didn't really mention the open-backed issue very much. And when 2006 came around with "King's Castle", they had already accepted the fact that the large Ninja castle, Knight's Kingdom (1) castle, Knight's Kingdom (2) castle, and Vladek's Fortress had all been open-backed. Plus, the 2006 version didn't have the jelly-bean knights, so they were pretty happy. Generally, however, I don't think any of those were really candidates for "most hated". If I had to pick a jelly-bean set that was "most hated" it would probably have been The Grand Tournament: ... Although you could make a case for any of the "large figures", too: DaveE

It was new when I was still an AFOL. I remember seeing it for the first time. It wasn't quite a shock, thanks to some of the technic models that preceeded it-- namely Slizer/Throwbots and Robo-Riders. But since it didn't focus much at all on "technic", people didn't think it was fair to call them "technic models", and really didn't like the fact that they didn't have any studs (and had a LOT of specialized parts). This was still pretty close in time to the transition to studless-technic, mind you, which people mostly objected to at the time. Not quite. It didn't get discontinued in 2009, it got discontinued in 2010. The announcement of the end of the lineup came in late 2009: http://www.brothers-brick.com/2009/11/24/bionicle-discontinued-after-2010-news/ 2015 is correct for the reboot, though. Nope, Star Wars came out 2 years earlier in 1999. Not sure if they were on the shelves at the tail end of 1998, but definitely by early 1999. That's true for Bionicle, not so true for Star Wars. Bionicle was making LEGO gobs of money, it was great for them. Star Wars fluctuated. It made them money when there was a movie in the same year, but the rest of the time, it was up and down, because LEGO didn't realize how to market the sets yet. Plus, the greedy expectations for TPM were way overblown, and there were a lot of extra sets on the shelves that got slashed. AND they were paying too much in royalties (the re-negotiated deal they made later supposedly was a lot fairer to LEGO). Bionicle was hated because: 1) It didn't feature standard LEGO studs. Fans love studs. Bionicle used primarily technic or ball/socket connections. AFOLs were already panning the transition away from studded technic beams, and this was going even FURTHER in a direction that fans already didn't like. 2) It wasn't technic. Even though it was initially labelled as techinc, it wasn't. They weren't really about showcasing mechanical engineering, they were about a story. So it felt a bit like a lie-- using the "technic" moniker to give the product viability as an educational tool, when really, it wasn't. 3) It was a story that was for kids, NOT for adults. And it was very simplistic, conflict-based, and didn't make sense to adults. Adults just scratched their heads at it, even though a lot of kids loved it. 4) It featured a lot of single-purpose elements which were seen as having limited use. Fans wanted more basic elements, not crazy weapons, claws, and strange masks. Again, LEGO was slowly starting to go further in this direction with juniorization (rope bridge elements, big chassis elements, and non-9v-compatible electronics in Insectoids and Rock Raiders, etc). AFOLs hated that prospect. 5) People thought it was too risky, and would destroy LEGO financially. LEGO had its 1st loss in 1998, and a HUGE loss in 2000. Fans didn't really know what was going on inside the company at the time, but attributed the downturn to juniorization as well as exploration into wacky products like the clothing lines, video games, and ZNAP. Bionicle was seen as a dramatic departure from traditional LEGO, and it was feared that it would bankrupt the company more. It wasn't until later that fans began to realize how successful Bionicle was. DaveE

That was one of my favorite parts, actually-- coming up with "the exact opposite name" for each set. Once I got "Invader" -> "Acquiescent", I had to post it. ... And of course, that's what made me do a full catalog spread, which took a bunch of extra work! Yep! I've been playing around with displaying them at BrickFair, but I haven't figured out how to display them and convey "the in-joke" well. LEGO space fans would get it, but most people probably wouldn't-- certainly not the public. I was playing with the idea of having a big "wall" separating one universe from another, and having Blacktron on one side of the wall and Whitetron on the other. Having (say) Whitetron rescuing Unikitty in a tree on one side, and having Blacktron ... uh... do ... something ... to Unikitty on the other side. But I haven't thought of something "evil" that's easy to visually communicate for Blacktron to do. Preferably something mischievous but not downright evil. If anyone's got any ideas, lemme know! DaveE

Watching the discussions, you might think that was true. But some things people seem to unanimously like-- I don't remember too much flak over Alien Conquest or Adventurers. Or Space Police or the Pirates from 2009 (although those were sort of re-hashes). And people mostly went crazy-go-nuts for the Fantasy Era castle stuff when it started in with trolls and dwarves. Oh, and Mixels were pretty well received. And Monster Fighters! So, I dunno. I think there's often a resistance to newish stuff like Bionicle-- but what surprises me is that after getting "used to" Bionicle, and seeing a lot of advanced models made with the parts, people have gradually gotten more forgiving of it. Plus (of course), we have a lot of younger AFOLs and TFOLs who grew up with Bionicle, and remember it fondly. DaveE

As I recall, the cost of the oil component of ABS plastic (as a material cost) is negligible. As I recall, if oil prices were to DOUBLE, you'd see something like a 1% increase in the cost of the ABS in raw material cost. Oil prices affect LEGO prices far more due to transportation. Shipping overseas to different distribution facilities, etc. There's where you're likely to see a hit or savings in cost (if at all). But even that is only a portion of the overall cost (not sure how much). But most of the time, you don't see a price reduction or increase thanks to the fact that LEGO sets its retail prices according to what it perceives the market value is. Your average US citizen doesn't really think "Oh, gee, that $20 set is too expensive now-- it should be cheaper thanks to reduced oil costs!" To them, a $20 set is basically the same value, so the price will be set accordingly. DaveE

Wow! I had no idea. Now I have to wonder why in the world they chose to make white Blacktron figs in all those sets? DaveE

Wow, no, I didn't even know they made them! Mine were just stickers applied to plain white torsos. I basically took one of these images: http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/thelegofreak/Torsos/VariousOfficial/blactrontorso.jpg And then inverted the colors, and printed them out on transparent sticky paper. I had no idea anyone had ever made printed ones in white! DaveE

Yeah, it definitely wasn't as large at the time-- In 1993-1994, there were only a few hundred AFOLs online at all! By 2000, I'd guess it was more like 10,000 or so (not much good data to say for sure), and it's been getting consistently bigger. The first convention was essentially BrickFest in 2000, which had 60 people, then 150 in 2001, and 180 in 2002. So, more than 'a few guys', but small by any sort of convention standards! DaveE

Well... I guess if you're young, that's true. But AFOLs have been discussing LEGO online since 1993! I started in 1998, although I've read through a bunch of the history on RTL and ATL from earlier. And you can still view a lot of the history on Google Groups (where the messages are stored), or LUGNET (where the majority of the community was from 1998-2005ish). DaveE

Well, they DID like it when it came out in 2009. And for the next 5 years in a row, we kept getting new Winter Village sets, which was awesome! But then rather than give us a new set in 2015, they just recycled the one from 2009, so people were annoyed that they didn't get a new set. But the set itself is still pretty good! DaveE

I honestly never really think of them as "LEGO sets", as much as "LEGO products"-- kinda like ZNAP, or Scala. But LEGO also put out things like children's clothes, which, while it's made by LEGO, wasn't supposed to have anything to do with the plastic bricks. In that regard, what we typically think of as "LEGO sets" are LEGO System sets. Not Clikits, not Modulex, not the wooden toys from the 40s, not ZNAP or Galidor. We sort of tend to put those things off to the side without considering them. So, Galidor? I mean, as far as a product goes, yeah, it was kinda junk. But if you're compiling a list of poor LEGO sets, I sorta feel like it's ineligible. DaveE

Ye Olde LUGNETe database actually had some of the best information for ranking-- or, rather, the most amount of user input. Only problem is that it's really only most relevant for sets between 1998-2005, when LUGNET was king. People provide feedback for sets that they buy when they buy them. They rarely go back and rate stuff that they got a long time ago (particularly if it's forgettable). In that respect, whatever source you go after will probably put a lot heavier weight on the timeframe during which that site was popular. Here's LUGNET's list of "lowest ranked sets": http://guide.lugnet....ay&sort=Rating+ #1 4.23 110 / 26 19 17 0 0 0 0 8324 Euripides #2 5 100 / 20 18 16 0 0 0 0 8310 Nick #3 7.33 110 / 15 21 14 0 0 1 1 4621 Jack Stone Red Flash Station #4 9.09 100 / 11 17 16 0 0 3 3 4610 Res-Q Super Station #5 9.41 160 / 17 21 14 0 0 0 0 8314 Gorm Deluxe #6 11.33 170 / 15 36 29 0 0 1 1 4603 Res-Q Wrecker #7 11.82 130 / 11 14 11 0 0 1 1 8315 TDN Module #8 12 240 / 20 32 27 0 0 2 2 4608 Bank Breakout #9 12.38 260 / 21 15 13 0 0 0 0 8313 Nick Deluxe #10 12.4 310 / 25 28 23 0 0 1 1 4567 Surfer That's 5/10 Galidor sets, 4/10 Jack Stone, and 1/10 Racers. DaveE

Ok, so, a lot of more modern things here. I'll add some from back in the early days of the LEGO community (RTL): - People didn't like Time Cruisers at all. They hated Timmy with a passion. Seriously, HATED. They thought the theme was a ludicrous mashup of leftover parts, and really disliked the googly-eyed Timmy and Professor Cyber. - I don't recall a lot of discussion on Paradisa, but people generally didn't like the pink-tones of the theme (or Belville for that matter) - Fright Knights were viewed as pretty silly, and got a lot of negative reviews. The Bat Lord got a lot of flak for his "Bat-on-a-Stick" wand. - Both UFO and later Insectoids were seen as over-the-top junk. They probably weren't panned quite as badly as other things, but everyone more-or-less simply agreed that they didn't like the subthemes. - Juniorization starting in 1997 with "Town Jr" was also LOATHED. Train/Town collectors couldn't stand the "one-piece" cars and such. - Scala was widely disliked, although I don't recall it generating a ton of discussion. - Oddly enough, the 1998 Ninja line was widely viewed as being juniorized, although I never thought so personally. Rather mixed reaction by many-- and lots of people didn't like that Ninja seemed to be replacing European-style castle themed sets. - Remember Znap? Yeah, there's a reason. People didn't like it (even though it was partially compatible with System bricks), but ended up getting some great deals on the LEGO motors which were included in some of the heavily discounted sets. - Rock Raiders was initially regarded as a bizarre color theme, and disliked (though liked by some). I would put it on par with Nexo Knights initially. ... But when the sets started coming out, the high juniorization factor also was reviled by many, and it was more generally disliked once people built the sets. - Alpha Team got a bit of negative reaction, but mostly simply disliked without much comment, as I recall. DaveE

I lamented that as well-- at first I wanted to make them white and purple, but after desperately trying to find various things in purple to substitute in place, it just didn't look good. So I settled for blue. But funnily enough, after I built them, I realized that I could do an inverted color photo of the original Blacktron sets, and see how they looked. And ... amazingly enough, it was a lot closer to blue than purple! Of course, the cockpit colors should still be some sort of "faint light bluish-purple", but by that time, I was already resigned to keeping the color scheme. I really DID want them to be build-able in real-life, after all. Oh, I built everything (nothing's rendered)-- and for that spread, I based it on an actual LEGO catalog spread, which I have a hard copy of. I took pictures of each set, attempting to mimic the exact shots that were used in the catalog (mirrored, of course). Then, I scanned in the catalog (actually, it was 2 catalogs-- the Space Police spread is from a 1990 catalog, the Blacktron layout I was copying was from 1989). And the rest was all Photoshop magic (Gimp, actually). I added in the gradient backgrounds, adjusted the sizing, tried to mimic the font and colors, and attempted to make the contrast and such match the rest of the page so that it didn't QUITE look as "dropped in". If I were a true Photoshop genius with a better photo setup, I'll bet it could've been done to make it impossible to tell that it wasn't a real catalog! DaveE

Well, that part at least I've covered :) ] But the scenes I was putting them in are pretty wide open: So, I was curious what other types of crazy scenarios people might put them in. DaveE

After I made all the little "do-gooder" scenes, I kinda wondered if anyone would follow suit with some additional scenes :) I'd love to see some other people's takes on Whitetron guys helping out! DaveE

http://www.baseplate.com/davee123/whitetron/ A while back, I stumbled upon someone selling solid-white visors on BrickLink, and it immediately sparked my curiosity. "What would Blacktron figs look like if they were dressed in white? Well, I guess they'd be ... Whitetron!" DaveE

So, I tried using ROBOTC today-- which apparently needs its own special firmware (I guess this is a slightly more recent development, since Steve Hassenplug's site said ROBOTC works fine with the standard firmware). However, when I tried to update the firmware, it failed and I'm left with a clicking NXT. Research has told me that this means it's waiting for a firmware download that never happened, but none of the solutions online have worked for me. My "Devices and Printers" window shows the NXT as "Bossa Program Port", and lists the manufacturer as "Arduino Srl (www.arduino.org)". Seems very sad. All the information I've found, however, seems to be outdated. 2008, 2009, 2010. Almost all of it is 4+ years old, so I'm not sure if something's changed in the interim. Anyone have any ideas? DaveE

Depends on your definition of a "set", probably-- the LEGO Monthly Model build sets are probably similar. A few questions might be: (1) Is the LEGO logo on the instructions? (2) Did the LEGO set design team "approve" the instructions? (3) Does LEGO have a copy in The Vault? I would assume that anything done by Toys R Us is likely done on a broader scale (IE, at Toys R Us's nationally or something), so the set designs are PROBABLY discussed with LEGO, as well as sourcing for pieces. If this were hosted by a local mom-and-pop toy store, there would be a higher chance that the store owners simply designed the set themselves, and possibly sourced the elements themselves as well. But since it's TRU, it's less likely. My offhand guess is that yeah, you could call it a promotional "set", but you could probably go either way. DaveE

I would have to expect that LEGO fans probably have a higher degree of education, although I expect that's correlation, not causation. Generally speaking, AFOLs were fans of LEGO as children. And generally, LEGO is a popular toy in more affluent areas around the globe, like the USA, UK, Germany, etc. And even then, LEGO is viewed as an expensive toy, and is often purchased by families that have more money to spare. And (in turn) those families are more likely to encourage or even provide for a higher level of education. It would be sort of like suggesting that kids that were given brand new sports cars for their 16th birthdays are more educated-- it's PROBABLY true, by virtue of the fact that your parents are probably wealthy, and therefore, probably also paid for your college tuition. So I would expect that, yes, that's probably statistically accurate, although not necessarily something that means what you might THINK it means. DaveE

I don't know if there are any real issues with what you're planning, as long as it isn't something that might get confused with an official LEGO product (using a LEGO logo would be right out!). The best place to look as an example would probably be the Brick Testament.. I don't recall if the print version has nudity and violence, but the online version certainly does, and I expect the print version does as well. It's not something that LEGO would produce themselves, but I'm pretty sure LEGO hasn't tried to put legal pressure on Brendan for the publication-- his stuff's been selling for years, and LEGO's fully aware of what he's doing. Anyway, that sounds like a pretty close match to what you're describing. DaveE

It's way too difficult (for me anyway) to exclude things like that, since things on BrickLink aren't always consistently named and categorized. You'd have to be REALLY specific about EVERYTHING you want to include or exclude, and that's pretty involved! DaveE

According to Bricklink inventories (actually, a copy a few months old), the winner is black-- white may have the most number of different elements, but black is more numerous. Counting inventories of sets and gear, if you owned one of each, you'd have: Black - 364,280 White - 211,703 Red - 175,158 Light Bluish Gray - 132,060 Yellow - 131,961 Light Gray - 113,034 Blue - 111,454 Dark Bluish Gray - 100,453 DaveE

Oldest one I personally found was a set from 1992 (8826) in a store in 2006 (14 years old). DaveE