fred67

I'll probably wait for years until the prices become something I won't balk at; if Sony doesn't screw it's users (like it did with PS3, locking out alternate OS's - and yes, I'm a linux user), I may buy a PS4. The problem with all the back and forth going on now is that you have to wait for a year or two after they're released - then you'll see Sony say "well, we have to start doing this or that because the content providers are demanding it!" Then you'll all unplug your PS4s from the net so that it won't automatically update, but you'll rent a blu-ray disc that will include a PS4 update on it, and install without even asking. Then you'll complain, and Sony will point out the fine print in the EULA that says they can screw you as much as they want. Tin foil hat? No, it'd be just like the PS3 all over again.

I don't like that gingerbread man - personally, I'd have liked it better with a normal minifigure head. It just looks weird, but I'm glad you all like it (sounds like it's what you were hoping for). The Yeti is OK; the icicle ice pop ruins it for me. I guess I'd rather have a mean one. I like the scientist and welder the most, so far. The robot and mech are decent collectibles and counter parts to earlier figures, so that's cool. I'm a bit underwhelmed. With the series passing 10, with the crap assortment in the boxes, and with cost of living rising far greater than my pay over the past five years, I may give up on CMFs. Probably not... but 10 is a nice, round number. EDIT: BTW, Wizard of Oz (the book) is in the public domain. But, then again, so is little red cap (little red riding hood), and they couldn't bring themselves to call that figure what it was... still, they made it.

I like to display. The only difference is that I like trains, and sometimes will set up track and "play" with the trains, and hope to have a large, permanent layout some day (I simply don't have space right now). I buy sets for various reasons; I like the display value - when it comes to modulars, for example, the way they will ultimately fit into my train layout makes them a great buy; for now I have a few built and displayed on shelves. I'm a fan of OT Star Wars, so I wanted at least one version of each ship and a few extras for display. I'm a fan of HP and LOTR, so I have a lot of those sets, too. I am trying to wean myself away from too many licenses, though. I figured I'd eventually get every LOTR set, but there are already some polybags and minor sets (like the give-away Elrond) that I don't have because I wasn't willing to buy the game and people snatched up the polybags before I even had a chance. I am not particularly happy about the play-value of the LOTR sets, either. I build Moria, and first off built up a base for it to keep it all as one piece; I will probably work out the play features to make it more suitable for display at some point. The way I see it, when I do build a train layout, I clear up a bunch of shelf space where the modulars (and other city related sets) are now displayed, then I can concentrate on making a better display for licenses. I also collect CMFs for various reasons - first of all, I'm a bit obsessive like that and need completeness, so if I was going to get any, I had to get them all. I display complete sets of CMFs; with 160, now, CMF displays (not just mine) are becoming very impressive. But they will work in the city and various MOCs, too, so I needed more than just for display, and since they are "collectible," I like having a sealed one of each... so that IS obsessive.... a sealed one, an open one for display, and more for whatever MOCs and also for my kids. My kids are not into LEGO the way I am. They both have a small collection of CMFs that they liked, but they just display them. My son used to collect Star Wars and Bionicle, but he's in his dark ages now (although he was never really that into them). I have witnessed, and when I was little was just like that, where we'd build sets - space ships, pretend to have battles... and the losers would end up "crashing." Meaning... hundreds of parts scattered about. Which was good, because building was the fun part, so you'd get to rebuild a new one.

I've always found this discussion to be fascinating; I hope we're allowed to discuss more as long as we're civil about it. The question I ask is if TLG should be pushing an agenda, or trying to represent reality. If they're representing reality, then it's no wonder why there's so few female minifigures. Think about the ratios of men to women in construction, the police department, and the fire department... there should still be more, I think, but the ratio of men to women in the fields represented by many LEGO sets is quite high. That's why I wholeheartedly supported these sets on Cuusoo - they represent women doing a lot of the kinds of jobs that women do. I know I'm being U.S. centric, but there are now more women in college than men in the U.S., they are graduating at higher rates, and they are gaining more of the science and expanding into the technology jobs, as well as being more likely to become managers and executives - what sets can TLG release to represent this that would appeal to the target audience? If they want to fit it into the types of sets they've done in the past, they need to create conflict - science experiments gone awry, for example. If we can have more conflict free sets, like this series, I'm all for that, too, but it appeals to a different audience than TLG's target. I love the dinosaur... maybe there should be a whole museum. I see a use for the caveman/woman CMFs. Edit: to address just2good's comments/question, since there is no license (is that a first for cuusoo?) and nothing about these that is even remotely controversial (IMO), I can't imagine the excuse TLG would come up with to not make them. Not only would girl LEGO fans want these, but mature men and women LEGO fans would want them, too, I think. As for being racially diverse, the neutral yellow has always been fine with me. If TLG started making non-licensed "fleshie" sets, they would compound the lack-of-female-figures complaint 100-fold, because suddenly people will complain about the lack of black, Asian, white, Latino, south-pacific, Indian, etc., figures. Then it would be "there's not enough <insert race> females" complaints. You're only asking for problems. If they leave fleshies to licensed themes, they are safe because they are representing what was in the movie/show - complaints directed at the movie, not the LEGO.

Stereotypes aren't necessarily negative; the stereo-typical Scottish Bagpiper is not insensitive; neither is "Maraca Man," which I believe was the official name for the "Mexican." He came with maracas, not a bottle of whisky. Nothing wrong with "Geisha," either. I actually have a problem with companies like TLG sometimes being too politically correct. If you're going to use historical figures, then use them the right way, don't pretend they're something they're not. TLG has been pretty good - Leiderhosen guy, Geisha, Bag-Piper, Leprechaun, Disco guy... all perfectly fine representatives of what they are, no less than the Roman figures or the Imperial Guard, or any of them. I won't hazard a guess about what the gingerbread man will look like. I'd like to see a lighter brown, I'd like to see an interesting head (although I doubt we'll get that flat round head - I think it won't be solid enough for a minifigure neck post); however, if we got ones like the dark ones posted above, they look perfectly find to me. Ultimately, it's not worth "arguing" about until we see some pictures.

+1 vriverajr3

You're right, of course. The point being that few people escape taxes since LEGO has a presence that covers most of the population. I say it that way because, of course, many states don't have LEGO stores - but they have smaller populations, too. Actually, I don't know anymore - I haven't kept up with new store openings. Bottom line, though, is most Americans pay tax when the order it online.

At this point, the majority of the population in the U.S. is covered by a LEGO Store. What I mean is, the vast majority of us have a LEGO presence in our states, which means we certainly have been paying taxes all this time. So a New Yorker pays the same whether they buy it online or at a physical store. I live in GA, and I pay the same whether I buy online or in the store. The only difference between buying online or at the store is shipping.

Excellent technique, thanks for sharing.

I need to repeat this - I'm not going to comment about higher prices in Europe or the rest of the world outside the U.S., but nobody is subsidizing anybody - TLG makes a profit in the U.S., if they didn't, they wouldn't sell here. It's just that simple. That they may make a higher profit margin elsewhere doesn't mean those countries are "subsidizing" the U.S.. Nobody is happy about LEGO prices, but don't blame Americans for buying more than anyone else. It says so, right in the note in the first post. I realize there was a LEGO rep who used the term "subsidize" when referring to European prices over U.S., but he used the term incorrectly. If LEGO had to pick a single country to sell LEGO in, which do you think it would be? If you say anything other than the one they sell the most in, you're delusional.

+1 jFox

I know it's not popular, but I have to add that TLG is a commercial enterprise operating in a capitalist society... there is nothing wrong with that, but they will simply charge what they feel gives them the optimal profit. They are not 100% accurate, of course, but they do a lot of research into what they can get away with charging. I'd also like to point out that, since the time they were teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, their increase in sales pales in comparison to their increase in profits (both have increased dramatically, though). What that means is they are increasing their profit margins - i.e. charging more for the sake of profit, not just to cover increasing costs. Again, as a free market capitalist, I have no problem with that - you're free to buy building blocks from another brand if you don't like it. If you want the premium product then, like Apple, you have to pay the premium price. It's true that they indulge in a lot of community projects, but companies generally do that as an investment (and they see a return on that investment - good will and good press go a long way). Don't forget that in most places they can write off these community projects on their taxes, too. So what we have is a capitalist company working in a capitalist market maximizing it's profits... that's OK with me, but it certainly makes it harder to keep up with all the new, cool, sets, and I've had to cut back dramatically, even if I get the "cheap" U.S. prices. As far as making up their profits in volume, it doesn't work as well. Increased volume means increased production and shipping costs - it's far easier to make $100 selling one product than to make $100 selling 10, and there's less risk of saturating the market. Again, they know what they are doing.

I think it looks great; I get disappointed that the components in things like this (mindstorms, for example) are proprietary. I'm more interested in being able to program my own software using FOSS (like Linux) to automate a city/train layout. Still, this looks quite cool... obviously I want to do things that aren't intended, and I'll be better off building my own - I'm just not much of an electrical engineer, so pre-made things like these little controllable motors and actuators would be cool.

As a fellow Georgian, I welcome you to EB! While I had LEGO as a child, I didn't really appreciate it until I was a bit older, too, although I'm not quite retired yet. If you are interested, look up DixieLUG, the area's LEGO user group, and if you like trains, NGLTC (North Georgia LEGO Train Club).

Yes... I understand what opinions are like; and I agree with some of your assessments there - I love the Sea Captain, the Medusa, the Librarian... all ones we only go two of.

+1 dj2005

Closed.

It depends where you are - LEGO is apparently very big around here, you can drive place to place and they're actually sold out. Trying to get some of the exclusive polybags (like they sometimes have at TRU) is a nightmare... It's why I just buy a box online now. It isn't impossible to get complete sets, but it can be VERY difficult.

To jump back on the bandwagon, the fact is, if they're really going to require a distribution that works out the same for two boxes of 30 as it does for one of sixty, the fact is that for six figures they gave us only two; and for four figures they gave us six. You could still keep an even distribution while reducing those sixes to fours and bumping up four of the twos to four. A lot of numbers there, but I hope it makes sense. IOW, even with the excuse that they can't give us three full sets, the distribution still sucks.

Updated wants and haves for series 10; added a lot and hope to do a lot of trading. Please see the link in my signature, and note that I'm willing to trade for my wants with some of the sets I have on sale in my general sales thread (link also in signature). Edit: also a request that people set their country in their profile... it helps us look; I'll trade internationally, but generally like to stick to domestic when possible.

Sure, I can see that! I agree - but the complimentary characters I liked were not really like that - except the Bavarian Lady, who I like to do a Beer-fest with the guy; It's the good/bad ones (the mechs), the ones that help round out a story (grandma and little red riding hood), and, like you said, the mermaid and sea king. I'll admit the skateboarders, skiers, surfers - don't really do a whole lot for me. But like you said, for some people, those are the characters that round out the story or MOC idea in their heads.

Well, I just got mine today - no Mr. Gold, of course, but since I wasn't expecting one, I wasn't disappointed. I have to say, I gave this series a low rating. I don't get how so many rated this as the best series yet, actually beating out all others, in the review thread. I have to admit, after seeing them up close, in my own hands, able to see the details, it's actually really well done, but I still find the figures themselves to not be a great selection. That's all personal opinion, of course. I'm really disappointed at the distribution, though. I know most of us seem to feel the same way... I saw Aanchir's post about why, but it still sucks, and even if they really needed to create a distribution they could evenly divide by two, have six of some and two of others is pretty crappy.

Yes, me too... discussion below Aanchir's post. I have been collecting some superhero figures, but not really paying that much attention; this doesn't really concern me, but I think it's a great question, especially with all the hyper-sensitivity to having more female minifigures. I'm not satisfied with that answer. I know you're just going by what LEGO does, I'm here to argue with you, but that reason is not good enough. Why don't they just do boxes with 32 and 64? Who came up with boxes of 60 for a series of 16 figures, anyway? That's ALWAYS been annoying, and they started screwing us (*) with the very first series - by having 5 of some and only 3 of others in the boxes - how do they explain that? At the same time, it seems (as I've gathered in other threads), that the 120 boxes have a pretty much completely RANDOM distribution, not exactly double the 60... so the argument that the 30 needs to be exactly half of the 60 makes little sense from my standpoint. (*) Yes, it's not really "screwing" us, I know - it's not like we need to buy them at all. But really, you'd think they'd WANT us to be enthusiastic about buying. EDIT: since I'm here, I'll throw in a little bit... I noticed that, at present, duplo trains are actually getting a lot of track accessories that regular LEGO is not. Now, you can argue that there are more duplo trains being sold - but I really don't think you can argue that there is more demand for switches and crossovers for duplo that there is for regular trains - I cannot picture a 3 year old complaining that they need more track variety.

Guess I'm not going to be the first one to jump in and say this... I found series 10 to be incredibly disappointing, so am really happy about this list (if accurate). At the same time, I really wish TLG would go back to having at least three complete series in each box. I think the reason they need to resort to garbage like "Mr. Gold" is because series 10 was so weak and, at the same time, the scarcity of some figures has made some customers annoyed. Onto the list - I love complementary characters, so the evil mech, grandma, bavarian lady, and others are great - they make those previous "one-offs" that may have limited use on their own become a lot more interesting. Scarecrow, tiki warrior, and yeti all sound really neat - I can't wait to see the designs. I hope, unlike the fairy, they are actually good. The Alexandre Boudon concepts have been, so far, a lot better than anything we got. They are wonderful designs - I wish LEGO would stop being so "proud" and just work a deal to use those designs. I'm still drifting in and out of "darkness" (not quite dark ages); CMFs are the only "must" thing I'm getting, and I wish there were more of what I consider "must haves." I know we all want different things, but I always get a complete series and I'm a lot more excited about it when I actually like the majority of the designs.

I think I'll open the one I got - I think so many people must have gotten one that it'll never be "valuable."