Blondie-Wan

Oh, for crying out loud... "Historic Themes?" Really? I mean, one might expect the Pirates forum folk to appropriate Pirates of the Caribbean, since looting and pillaging are just things pirates do, but this... Anyway... Don't forgot Alfred Molina also played Shiek Amar in Prince of Persia. What about John Ratzenberger, Mark Hamill, Warwick Davis and Pat Roach? I think Samuel L. Jackson also has an excellent shot at joining this club.

As a matter of fact they actually did, as a subtheme of Studios (so the sets had a "behind the scenes" perspective, with camera crews and such). There were two Jurassic Park III sets, and the flagship set for the whole Studios theme was the LEGO Studios LEGO & Steven Spielberg Moviemaker Set which clearly depicted the filming of a scene from the latter part of second movie (oddly, this set didn't use any of the official Jurassic Park names or logos, despite the fact that it did use Steven Spielberg's name and TLG did use an official Jurassic Park license on the other two sets, which came out the following year). (So this topic should probably go in the Licensed forum, actually...)

Well, there are going to be two new movies released a year apart, and the theme launches a few months before the first movie's release, so I think it's safe to say there'll be sets for well over a year, perhaps a couple years or more. At a bare minimum, there should be at least three waves - the launch wave with sets from the extant film trilogy, the wave accompanying the release of the first Hobbit movie, and the wave accompanying the second. I think it's reasonably likely there'll be an additional wave between the latter two, and possibly one or more after the second new movie wave. But we'll see...

Ermmm. what? On the contrary, it's totally vehicle-based; virtually every one of the several different Star Trek series is entirely centered around the voyages of a vessel and her crew, with the exception of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. It's profoundly heavily vehicle-based, even more so than Star Wars. The issue isn't a lack of vehicles, but rather that the major ones tend to be so huge - unless sets tended to mostly be specific parts of a ship (the bridge, the shuttle bay, sickbay, etc.), it'd be a theme comprised mostly of sets with three-digit prices in USD. Yeah, I'd totally love that theme, actually.

Yep, especially since even that huge, elaborate $500 Millennium Falcon still didn't have all the characters associated with it (though probably mainly because it didn't have a playable/displayable interior), and the Death Star could certainly have accommodated more stormtroopers and Imperial officers. TLG tends to be sparing with minifigures, alas. I'd dearly have loved for 7199 The Temple of Doom to have come with more than one "generic" Thuggee minion, for example - it's tough to build armies of figures included only in a single $90 set that has only one of them - but there you go.

I also wonder why this issue of fleshie vs. yellow tones keep popping out of the discussion. Is the "Rule: Yellow = non-licensed themes, Flesh = licensed themes" really that hard to understand? Really? Indeed. It's worth noting that the classic yellow minifigure is a hugely important trademark image for LEGO, one of the things people immediately associate with the brand. Perhaps if they'd never had minifigures before and were just starting out, they'd have gone right to fleshtones for absolutely all figures in all themes, but at this point yellow minifigures have over three decades of brand equity, nostalgia, consumer goodwill, etc. associated with them, and there's no way TLG would discard that. I think it's pretty much certain LEGO will continue to populate its (own) worlds with tiny yellow people for decades to come.

Well, it wasn't two years; the first LEGO Star Wars sets all came out in 1999,* the same year Star Wars - Episode I: The Phantom Menace was released. However, you're essentially correct - it was indeed a mix of "classic" scene sets (five sets based upon the original trilogy) and new stuff (eight sets based upon the new movie), and IIRC the OT ones did come out a few months earlier, during the anticipatory build-up to the new movie's release. Indiana Jones and Toy Story followed similarly - each was a classic franchise with multiple installments released years earlier by the time they became LEGO themes in time for long-awaited new installments, each began with a launch wave consisting of sets based upon the originals, and each then had a second wave of sets a few months later, based upon scenes from those long-awaited new movies, and timed to hit shelves shortly before the new movies hit screens. In the case of Indy, the theme then stuck around a bit longer, as Star Wars had, and got a second year with more sets based on all four movies (though of course unlike its sister Lucasfilm franchise, Indiana Jones didn't continue as a regular theme beyond its second year - possibly because it wasn't and still isn't clear whether more movies are forthcoming, unlike the essentially guaranteed Star Wars Episodes II & III). *"January wave" sets may actually have been available toward the very end of the year before, as happens sometimes even now, but of course they were officially considered 1999 sets.

Well... wow. I am colossally excited, while at the same time my bank account is screaming in agony. This is another licensed theme that could go on for years and years, though I doubt it will, if only because after the second Hobbit movie there probably won't be new movies and such every so often to sustain it, which TLG appears to want if they're to continue a license. Star Wars has run continuously since 1999, but it's had movies in '99, 2002, 2005 and 2008, with a new TV series picking up later that year, and scads of novels, comics and games in the years in between. Indiana Jones had a very respectable four waves, but the last sets were released a little over a year after the last movie came out, and the theme went dormant as there was relatively little "fresh" Indy material yet and no concrete news about a fifth movie or something (I'm hoping Indy returns to both the big screen and the toy store LEGO aisle!). But in terms of the wealth of material already existing, this could be a huge theme. Even if TLG restricts themselves to doing just sets based on the movies, there's no small amount of material there to work with - once the second Hobbit movie comes out, the total running time of the live-action Middle-earth series will probably exceed that of all the combined live-action Star Wars material. They could easily keep LotR/The Hobbit (I propose just referring to the overall collective theme as "LEGO Middle-earth," for succinctness' sake) going for several years, should they so choose. That's not to say I think they will. I do think we'll get at least a good, solid two years' worth of sets, though, and possibly more.

No, because non-humans are killing (/abducting & harming) humans, and the humans are simply fighting back, so that (along with what Aanchir said) makes it okay. Of course, it takes on a different cast in light of the fact that so many LEGO themes involve humans in physical conflict with non-humans, but that's another matter...

You sound pretty certain, and your info is pretty specific. I hope you don't mind if I ask how you came by it...

I'm afraid it's possible no one here knows. Have you tried contacting LU's tech support?

I personally intend to just treat the connection side (the bottom) as the "bad" side (it's not just scratched, it's totally gouged out! ).

Studios was almost a decade ago (before half or more of LEGO's core customers were even born) and featured them in only four sets (and there officially not even representing actual monsters, merely actors in costume), CM (if by that you mean "collectible minifigures) = available for a brief window per series and just minifigures (not full-blown sets with locales, vehicles, etc.), Games has heads - not full figures, just heads - of some classic monsters in a single now-discontinued set, and HP (if by which you mean "Harry Potter") doesn't really feature all that many such classic monsters beyond perhaps ghosts and skeletons. For example: Vampire - available once in a set nearly a decade ago, once in a Minifigures series for a brief period last year Frankenstein's monster - available once in a set nearly a decade ago, once in a Minifigures series for a brief period this year (possibly still available in some areas, but not all) ... and so on. So, no, not really overdone at all.

"Overdone?"

Holy cats, according to the review the set includes the new brick separator (!). Is it going to be routinely included in sets now?

Ooh, nice to see these are coming out already! I thought they weren't supposed to be out until around April of next year. Thanks for the review; it provides some information we didn't know already (well, that I didn't know already, anyway), like the fact the figures are assembled from four separate elements (torso, head, hips/legs, hair/headpiece), just like regular minifigures. It's also great to know the decorated elements are printed, at least in this set. Hmm... I see the Friends head and standard minifigure head aren't quite interchangeable because the Friends use a narrower neck post, but... Looking at those pictures, it seems as though the neck post on a Friends figure is actually the same diameter as a standard bar / rod (broom handle, lightsaber blade, antenna, etc.). Is this true? If this is the case, it should be possible to put a regular minifigure head on a Friends body by using a 1x1 round plate with hollow stud (the kind that debuted in LEGO Games) as an adapter of sorts.

Well, I don't know that next year will actually be any more license-heavy than most of the past several years have been; at any given time for most of the last decade there've been licensed themes, and some of them had quite a few running simultaneously - check out this list of release years of licensed themes for each year since 1999 that had sets released those years: 1999 - Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh 2000 - Mickey Mouse, Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh 2001 - Harry Potter, Jurassic Park, Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh 2002 - Galidor, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Star Wars 2003 - Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Star Wars 2004 - Dora the Explorer, Harry Potter, Spider-Man, Star Wars 2005 - Harry Potter, Star Wars, Thomas & Friends 2006 - Avatar the Last Airbender, Batman, Spongebob Squarepants, Star Wars, Thomas & Friends 2007 - Batman, Harry Potter, Spongebob Squarepants, Star Wars, Thomas & Friends 2008 - Batman, Indiana Jones, Speed Racer, Spongebob Squarepants, Star Wars, Thomas & Friends 2009 - Indiana Jones, Spongebob Squarepants, Star Wars, Thomas & Friends 2010 - Ben 10, Cars, Harry Potter, Prince of Persia, Star Wars, Toy Story 2011 - Cars, Harry Potter, Pirates of the Caribbean, Spongebob Squarepants, Star Wars, Winnie the Pooh Is 2012 really going to be any more license-heavy than most of the last five or six years before it? Also, Pirates isn't considered quite as much of an "evergreen" as Castle and Space - closer than other long-running / recurring LEGO themes such as Adventure, sure, but still just a wee bit removed from the holy trinity of Castle, City and Space. Anyway... I guess we'll see for certain what's up with Kingdoms in the not-too-distant future. LEGO has shown us in just the last week that it can still keep a few surprises, so...

It's known some people within TLG itself were somewhat averse to the military hardware and somewhat raw physical conflict of the Indiana Jones theme, and I half-suspect the series' connections to real-world, historical military conflict may have contributed to TLG abandoning the theme as early as it did. I love the theme (and the franchise on which it's based), myself, but though I'd be interested in more Indy sets, including ones depicting straight-up military engagements from WWI (if they were to do sets based on The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which I know would be a miracle), I personally wouldn't really be interested in non-Indy related military sets. To be honest, I don't think it really brings out the best even in MOC design - most real-world, 20th/21st century military-themed MOCs I see (particularly the more contemporary ones) just don't strike me as nearly as interesting or engaging as most other creations. I just don't find them appealing; they tend to lack charm, which I think is fairly essential to so many LEGO models, whether TLG's own official sets, or fan creations. Moreover, TLG itself seems quite reluctant to go this way. As noted, they do include a certain amount of conflict in some themes, particularly the ones licensed from (generally American) TV, movie and comics franchises, but that's more a concession to the realities of the toy market of today than something ingrained in the company, and even with licensed themes they're choosy about how far to go; I think Indiana Jones is the closest we're going to get to contemporary, realistic warfare-based sets, and that theme happened not because of that element but in spite of it - the focus is more on the adventure aspect that's essential to the character and franchise.

A little of my passion for the brick rubbed off on my girlfriend not long after we started hanging out, and I'm proud to say I've turned her into just a bit of a LEGO fan herself - not that she's likely to ever indulge in it to the extent I do, but she does enjoy it. She fell in love with the Winter Village sets, so I made sure she got them all - she had me order the first two for her last year, and I bought her the Post Office this year with the thought that it might be her Christmas gift, though when she announced her intention to just buy it anyway I let her know I'd already taken care of it (and in doing so also picked up the Holiday set 1 of 2 for her), but those are no longer "gifts" per se since she's paying me back for them. Alas, I've decided I can't spend quite as much as I originally thought I was going to, so whatever I get her won't be as much as the Post Office was, but I haven't decided much beyond that. I did decide to get her something non-LEGO, though, so it won't be as though I'm just forcing all my own loves and hobbies on her, even though she seems happy with LEGO. Aside from having picked up the Winter Village sets and this year's first of the two limited holiday sets, for various occasions in the past I've given her the Beach House, City Corner, various collectible Minifigures and so on, as well as going with her to LEGO Stores and the grand opening of LEGOLAND Florida, so I want to do something different (though I do have one of the LEGO Target gift cards with $10 on it for her as a stocking stuffer). Aside from my girlfriend, there aren't too many people I can get LEGO for, alas. I do have a lot of friends who are into various other sorts of wonderful geeky things, and many of them seem to me like the kinds of people who'd appreciate LEGO, but none of them are really into it. I also have a three-year-old niece for whom I've previously gotten some DUPLO sets and for whom I was planning on doing the same this year (I'd already gotten her one, actually), but her parents (my brother and his wife) have informed me that she's not really into the ones she has, alas, and perhaps something else would be better. Ah, little girl, you're breaking my heart. Oh, well. I'll keep the set I'd gotten her and get her a plush toy or two (her parents have told me she's actually getting interested in Star Wars, so I think I'll give her a plush doll of Artoo or Yoda; at least there's something else her uncle can share with her ).

Well... coolness, then. If TLG itself has no problem with it, I don't see how I can, either. I may have to see about getting some other parts I want, myself...

That's pretty much the track taken by not only Indiana Jones, but also Toy Story, Cars (first wave was DUPLO) and indeed Star Wars, IIRC.

Huh. Interesting, but, well... isn't the service supposed to be used for parts one has actually lost from sets one actually owns? Granted, if one's paying for the elements then it's not theft, but still, if the form says "lost" parts, it seems to be something of a... misrepresentation, at least. What does TLG itself think of people using the service this way?

Well, there you go - one learns something new every day. I was basing my statements on the novel description, and erroneously assumed it'd hold true for the movie as well, despite the other differences between the two of which I'm well aware. Mea culpa. Ehh, not to my eyes. Anyway, given the additional information on the movie monolith above, the "actual" monolith (at least the film version) is even more slender still, so perhaps a 1x4x9 one would actually represent a compressed, squat version in keeping with the minifigure aesthetic.

Heh. Just can't win, eh?

Nice idea (albeit one I've encountered before; I believe the superficial similarity of the carbon-frozen Han to the monoliths has occurred to many sci-fi fans over the years). Since you want C&C, I'll go ahead and note that the Space Odyssey monoliths' proportions are 1x4x9 - that is, four times as wide as thick, and nine times as tall. Thus, to get a monolith that adheres to a fallenangel-approved level of accuracy, you might try reducing it to 4 wide and 7 1/2 tall (22 1/2 plates - I'd probably round it to 23 or even 24, given that the bottom tends to be covered up by "sand" anyway). I'm not normally one to insist upon a rigid adherence to proportions of "real" sci-fi objects in LEGO recreations (very much the opposite, in fact), but in this one case I think it's important, since the proportions are the squares of 1, 2 and 3, which is supposed to have some Cosmic Significance and are among the defining characteristics (as well as some of the very few specific, visible ones) of these virtually featureless objects.