Blondie-Wan

Bill Murray is known to have been more interested in this than in reprising Venkman, and the first joke in the movie is a bit of dialogue from a tour guide about historical bigotry.

If you mean Man of Steel specifically, then yeah (well, even then not really, since there was that Jor-El polybag), but those are part of the larger DC Superheroes theme. Even within the realm of sets based specifically on that cinematic Superman, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice is part of the same line, so the sets based on that movie should count, too. Perhaps, but they would still mean relaunches of dormant LEGO themes. And they may include sets based on the earlier movies, just as each of those LEGO themes included sets based on the earlier movies the first time around and not just whatever then-current new installment made those themes happen. Anyway, regardless of whether the term "reboot" is precisely suited or not, I thought the important point would be the return of an erstwhile theme, for whatever reason.

Not even licensed themes like Indiana Jones, Toy Story, Cars, and Pirates of the Caribbean returning when the next cinematic installments of those franchises are released?

Stuck how? It's been accruing support, like any other project.

Oops - that really wasn't my intent! Of course, if someone loves my posts, that's great, but I hope it's not at the cost of me antagonizing other posters! Anyway, I can understand the LHC project not appealing to everyone, but at this point it seems pretty likely there's a healthy amount of overlap between science fans and LEGO Ideas users. Note that when this project hits 10,000 (as now appears certain), not only will it be at least the third project depicting a particle accelerator in general (or a part of one) to do so (one other is currently in review right now, remember), it'll also be the second one specifically portraying the LHC (or a part thereof - remember the ATLAS project from a while back?). Note also that not only is it currently the most supported project out of all the projects on Ideas that are currently Gathering Support, but three of the current top four are all science-related. And look at all the other science-related projects that have made it to review. Heck, look at all the ones that have become sets - Shinkai 6500, Hayabusa, Curiosity, the Research Institute, even the forthcoming Apollo 11 Saturn V. It's pretty much the single biggest recurring subject matter in Ideas sets after pop-culture licenses. The science projects have a following, one of which I consider myself a part. I can totally understand why someone else wouldn't get the appeal of that LHC project, but I love it, myself, and I'd buy it if it became a set. I think it would make for a great, yet affordable display piece. And so, evidently, do thousands of other people. For those who don't, all I can say is that different people like different things, and support different things. Different strokes, and all that. :)

I thought CM4Sci was the one who asked that, but never mind. When you guys ask "how", am I correct in assuming you really mean "why", as in, "why would someone vote for this"? Or do you mean something else? I will confess that I'm curious about why you'd vote for something "just to see what would happen" - what sort of thing did you think might happen, aside from its support count going up by one? Do strange things normally happen when you support projects on Ideas?

Well, see, whenever someone votes for a project on Ideas, its Support count goes up by one. Every x supports a project gets therefore increases its support by x, where x is an integer between 0 and 10,001.

Ooh, I called almost every one we now know about the set having, and every one I did call made it in! Do I win a prize?

I doubt they were specifically intended that way, but they certainly should work well enough for that purpose, and there's nothing to prevent you from interpreting them that way if you want to.

I just saw it, and it's really good! No, it's not as groundbreakingly inspired as the original (how can it be?), but it's genuinely funny, and even though I enjoy Ghostbusters 2 I have to say this is much better than that. It also deftly walks a line between paying respects to and referencing the original while still doing its own thing. And Jillian Holtzmann is awesome. Pfft. This is just plain factually wrong.

Middle-Earth generally (The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings together) deserves rebooting, but I doubt it's in the cards. Other erstwhile licensed themes, though, like Indiana Jones, Toy Story, Cars, and Pirates of the Caribbean, will likely live anew when those franchises return to cinema screens with new installments. I personally would like to see the return of a traditional Castle line, classic Space, and Adventurers.

I've gotten hardly anything from the theme in forever, but last week I finally picked up one apiece of three current / recent sets: 75133 Rebel Alliance Battle Pack 75131 Resistance Trooper Battle Pack 75099 Rey's Speeder

While your point stands, I just want to note the Disney Castle actually does in fact have some or even most of those things.

The show is remarkably deep and sophisticated, even while being outlandish and goofy. It's not for all tastes, of course, but nothing is. I think the brick-built approach serves these characters well. Honestly, most of them look more accurate this way than they would as minifigures, though the minifigures we've seen from the LEGO Dimensions packs do look good.

I don't think Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is an option as long as another company has the construction toy rights. For an IP to be available for this game, it needs to be available both for toys-to-life video games and for construction toys.

I'm guessing they're revealing it now because they intend to show it at SDCC.

Is there some subtle difference between this Donald and the Minifigures minifigure? That is the best designer video. Location shooting FTW!

It's interesting that they've revealed it so far in advance, and doubly so since they've revealed it before the Caterham Super 7 set, despite the latter being apparently due first (in the shared announcement video for them, they referred to the sets coming out late this year and early next year).

I think it looks great! While the LEGO Dimensions minifigures are fantastic as well, I do think the brick-built approach serves these characters and this franchise well. I get the complaints about the grey Mixel joints, but I was under the impression they intentionally produce those joints only in grey, for some particular reason (along the lines of how certain Technic elements are produced only in specific colors).

I'm delighted to note that beautiful project hit the 5000 mark earlier today, with under two days to spare, and earned its six-month extension. Hooray!

A new UCS Snowspeeder would be good, but I'd think that for the 40th anniversary they'd want to do something more iconic. A new UCS Millennium Falcon is the main (or really, only) thing I can think of to do justice to the occasion. But I guess we haven't heard anything about it, huh? What magazine is that Yoda's hut polybag coming with, and is there a way to get it in the U.S.?

My apologies. I started writing all the above before your post appeared. I'll be sure to keep my future posts in this thread relevant to LEGO Dimensions.

What critics? No critic is going to write positively about the movie because they're afraid people will think they're anti-feminist if they don't; they know that disliking a movie (even an overtly feminist movie) for being poor entertainment is not the same thing as disapproving of its message, and they expect their readers to be smart enough to make the same distinction. Good to know! But believe me, I am fully aware there are people who are genuinely dreading this movie because they just really do think it looks terrible, not because it has female leads. There are also plenty of people who do hate it because of female leads. The existence of one group doesn't preclude the existence of the other. I'm also aware there are plenty of people in one group who don't have anything to do with people in the other, or want anything to do with them. But just because you hate the movie for reasons other than it having women doesn't mean everybody who hates it does so for the same reasons as you do, especially since most other people haven't seen it yet (it's not open yet). And there really are lots of misogynists who hate the movie purely for having female leads. I've already explained how it works. How is it Rotten Tomatoes' fault what a bunch of outside critics think? And how are they biased - do you think every single professional critic who likes a movie you don't has a nephew who worked on it, or something? Yes, but most of the fan responses - no, not yours, I know, but most - are from people who haven't even seen it yet. This movie has been getting a maelstrom of hate since before they even began shooting it. Nope, I haven't seen the movie. And I actually agree the trailers have been underwhelming, but trailers for comedies in particular frequently are. Are you sure? Because a lot of people who've seen it actually do seem to really like it, to me. I'm sure that's an honest review, but here's the thing - two people can both be completely honest about a movie, even if they don't agree! Mind-blowing, I know, but there it is. If critics disagree about a movie, it doesn't mean one of them is lying; it just means they have different opinions of it. Different people see things differently.

I don't see anything wrong with the wings as they are.

The movie might very well flop, but so have some of my favorite movies. What Rotten Tomatoes "says" about a given movie isn't just what they themselves say; they're an aggregator. They look at all the reviews they can find by various online critics, to whom they link, and assess their reviews (not only whether they're positive or negative, but also how positive or negative they are). Thus, for example, when they say a given movie has a Tomatometer rating of 70%, that means 70% of critics gave it a positive rating, while 30% didn't, not that somebody at RT gave it a 70% score. I personally enjoy Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I acknowledge it's flawed, and it's the worst of the four Indy feature films as well as my least favorite, but I do find a number of redeeming features in it. I don't always agree with reviews, but I do find it fair to use them as a general guideline when assessing whether or not to bother with a movie, depending upon the level of interest I have in it to begin with. Sometimes I'm disappointed - for example, the 2009 Star Trek got great reviews, and I'm a huge fan of Star Trek in general, but I hate, loathe, despise, abhor, detest and deplore that movie as my least favorite Trek production ever - not just out of the twelve movies released so far, but also out of all 700+ episodes of the six different TV series. On the other hand, there are plenty of times I agree with critics, and when I haven't seen a movie and they have, it makes sense to use them as a guideline. Right now, it's early, and reviews are just starting to come in, so things could change, but so far the reviews for Ghostbusters are about three-quarters positive. (Also, BTW, feminism isn't about hating men. It just means wanting equality between women and men.)