fred67

I must have missed this thread a long time ago... That's a really hard choice for me. Frankly, I "discovered" a love for LEGO Castle during Fantasy Era, and was sorely disappointed we didn't get an elf "faction" before it ended (now we know why, I think). When they switched to the latest Kingdoms, I just wasn't really that enamored with the sets. I finally figured it out - the only reason I liked it was because of the fantasy aspect. So I can't really choose the "classic" themes, because out of all of them the Fantasy Era is the only one I really liked. I am a huge LOTR fan, but wouldn't want them to do LOTR forever, either. Frankly, I would have been just as happy if they'd continued Fantasy or, in the future, did Fantasy II (with elves). I don't think I'd like Western or any ancient themes... I like the architecture, but I wouldn't get into those kinds of sets.

Just for the record, I ordered $100 worth of stuff just after midnight; only $50 was SW, and got both the poster and the figure; the order is marked as shipped. To add my two cents to some of the other discussions in this thread, keep in mind this is a promo designed to get you to spend money - not a reward for being a loyal customer. How many of you spent $75+ today when you wouldn't have otherwise? I rest my case. Wouldn't it be nice if TLG used your VIP rewards history to see that you were a big LEGO SW fan and just sent a figure to the top "X" number of fans? Yeah... but then you wouldn't have spent $75+ today, and then people would gripe that "the rich get richer" because they're big fans, they just couldn't afford it. You really can't win here... we should just be happy they do stuff like this occasionally at all.

My post is updated. The list of "haves" is dwindling; I still have figures in series 2 - 6 to trade, plus some extras. It's a long list, including minotaurs, highlanders, and royal guards... I even have 2 complete, unopened, sets of series 4. Open to trading almost worldwide if multiple figures are involved, preferred U.S. for single figures.

Same thing you'd do if they were sitting in a shelf for display... canned air, I'd presume. I think a feather duster (or something equally light) could work, too. Back on topic... I'm not enamored with the idea of hanging, personally. I think hanging upside down looks awkward, and right side up you can't see anything. Something like Slave 1 might look OK.

I like it, too; the next time I'm on Cuusoo I'll vote for it for sure (I go like once a week and look at all the new additions in chronological order until I get to ones I've seen before, so I don't miss anything). I'm not so sure I like the crayon box part; something more like the minifigure case they've already released - or something smaller, perhaps, since they don't have hair or accessories that take up space. It's also been suggested that LEGO do better at selling parts. PAB has such a limited selection; BAM at the stores is OK, but given the wide variety of parts it still seems rather limited, and you just sometimes get lucky stumbling on some pieces you want. I know people have discussed an online BAM with more options here before... perhaps in the "what minifigures are we missing" thread. I don't want to go off topic in this thread, though, but I would add that, as a collector and not really a "play-er," I mostly display my LEGO(*), and think a monochrome set would be quite cool... I'd even display a set at work. (*) Except trains.

$333 (rounded) for all of them? Exactly half way to the number of the beast divorce. Surely no coincidence. I really need to slow down. I bought way too much last month, and I've got TWO week long vacations coming up. While I'm a huge Tolkien fan and have been wanting this for years, I'll probably leave it for my wife to get me for Christmas... maybe I can get one for Father's Day to tide me over.

Oh, wow. I hadn't seen this thread in my earlier perusing. Now I have to get home to check... the couple of sets I bought remain unopened on my shelf. I also just made a deal for a trade for a couple of new superhero figures. Thanks guys! How am I supposed to concentrate on work for the rest of the day knowing I might have a cracked minifigure languishing in it's box at home? And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

It does - it would certainly stand out in a city of modulars, but it gives me a sort-of Mr. Magarium's Wonder Emporium feel, and I like that... it's nice to have things stand out in a city. It's nice to have things that remind me of Natalie Portman, too. As for Cuusoo... I'm sorry, but I was one of the whiners about too many Cuusoo posts, but I stand by that. I visit once ever week or so and go through every single new entry to try to find ones to support, and when I do that I will definitely vote for this one. I love all the little details. It would probably cost a fortune as a LEGO set... but it would probably cost more to buy the pieces. I'm sure TLG would butcher it down to a $200 or below price range, but I'm willing to bet I'd still like it.

I don't agree, but humbly respect your (and other's) position on it. It simply seems more likely to be a simple business decision (which they are entitled to make, of course). I think my last edit of my last post is the most likely reason - it reached 10k because of Conan, not because of people who would shell out the cost of such a set (I would guess in the neighborhood of $200).

You were wrong, but in legal-speak, they don't mention the word "films" or "movies" when they mention LOTR, they only mention it when referring to the Hobbit movies. "Trilogy" doesn't necessarily mean movies; the books were sold as a set of three (even though Tolkien never considered it that way) and is usually referred to as a "trilogy." Yet they go out of their way to refer to the Hobbit movies as the "two films based on the Hobbit." It's interesting to consider they didn't say "the three films based on the LOTR." But I will tell you that, from what I understand, while George Lucus controls pretty much everything Star Wars and can do whatever he wants, the Tolkien estate retains control over the book material. Yes, they licensed it to Newline for the purposes of making a movie, and they were granted the rights to license other property based on the movies. The Tolkien estate is actually downright nasty when it comes to copyrights, trademarks, and any IP they can sue you for. I don't doubt they'd be on WB like stink on a pig if WB permitted a licensee to make something out of the books that wasn't in the movies, or if anyone made anything "new" that didn't resemble how it was done in the movie.

So I just wanted to add my two cents. Yes, I know in the U.S. Shaun of the Dead was rated "R," but I'm really not sure how it's more violent than LOTR or some of the other movies. I guess the truth is I've only seen it edited on TV, but when I think of some of the specific gruesome scenes in LOTR (including heads rolling after being chopped off, and heads being volleyed into Minas Tirith by Orcs) and Indiana Jones (they actually have a set for the scene where the mechanic gets chopped up by the blades of the plane) and Star Wars (Darth Vader's transformation... you know, where legless, armless, burned to a crisp Anakin is "resurrected"). Now some of you say that we shouldn't be surprised... in light if TLG's initial response to the project, I'd say we should all be surprised - their initial reply was 100% correct; it's a horror movie, but done in a comedic and whimsical way. Killing zombies IS fantasy violence. Once again, a corporation goes against the wishes of it's customers (it's their right to do so, of course) and comes up with a bogus excuse. Why? They don't want it to compete with the zombie set they are releasing? They don't want it to compete with the modular line? They're already giving up a precious 1% to the creator, and can't stomach giving up more for a license? I don't know, but all of those reasons sound a lot more realistic than that the movie was too violent, IMO. (added after edit) Maybe they realized the set was too big and too many people who actually would never be willing to spend that kind of money voted for the project.... seems like most of the people weren't even LEGO fans, but Conan fans. Sorry, Yatkuu... you had a good run and got boned by corporate politics. Such is life. You can be happy (if not satisfied) that we all support you and think you did a wonderful job. EDIT: the worst part, I think, is they talk about their "core" audience while completely ignoring the fact that Cuusoo has very few "kids" sets on it. The submarine and satellite are hardly things kids would be pushing their parents to buy; minecraft I think it definitely for an audience well over 11 on the whole - it's more kitsch than a "building" set. I'm really disappointed.

The Admiral ( congratulations) is correct, but from what I've read it's for ten US openings as opposed to some unique set for each one, so that might mitigate the price a bit.

That's really incredible... good for you! I need to move from my current house to a larger house. My current house is a good size, but with kids and dogs and everything, I have no decent place to dedicate to LEGO. Good luck finding the 7750.

Those sets are only being released for the first "x" customers at the new LEGO Stores opening in the U.S.. It took me a minute, too, but I'm guessing he's not near a new LEGO Store and wants to know if it'll be cheap. The answer is that nobody knows what the supply and demand will be. Most of those exclusives end up being quite expensive, but then again most of the exclusives are exclusive to ONE store, not ten. You'll have to wait and see.

There's definitely a split in the market for kids and adults; while many of us like both kinds of sets, some of us prefer one over the other. I'd point out that many of us do have kids, and if I didn't have kids I'd never have gotten back into LEGO. It's a long story, but not uncommon, I think. I'd also point out that those complete sets - the cargo and passenger trains, sets like those routinely sell out at Christmas, so while a lot of LEGO train fans are AFOLs, I'm certain more sets are sold to or for kids. I'd also suggest (as others have) that a $100 set is untenable based on the pieces alone. A decent starter set in any other scale is going to cost well over $100... the fact that there are ones that are below $100 is besides the point - there's no such thing as a low-quality LEGO train set, whether the design is "childish" or not. The passenger train set is about as simple as it gets... a single loop of track, with the only possible "extraneous" parts being flex track and a brick built platform that is probably not more than a couple bucks in parts. What would you have them take out to reduce the price to $100? MRSP at $130US is already quite low, all things considered.

Scales in LEGO are hard to nail down; I would certainly agree that 2 wide is definitely microscale, but I wouldn't argue that 4 wide isn't. The figures in LEGO games are often called "microfigures," and are perfect scale for 4 wide trains, IMO. Brick built microfigures (before the advent of LEGO's "official" microfigures) are about the same size. (microfigures outside the castle) inspired by this thread ("tinyfigs" by tanotrooper) and the "micro castle building techniques" guide on Class Castle's How-To page.

It's like any kind of investing... in this case, the value of a LEGO set almost always goes up unless the set was a complete failure, so you've already got that over practically any other kind of investing, but it's still unknown for any particular set until it's been retired. The difference between what you suggest and keeping sets whole is this: you're doing a job and making a profit, you're not really investing - your providing a service. If I had nothing else to do, it might be worth it, but it's work - not investment. Secondly, you can often beat 120% profit in a year. If you've a feeling a set's life is limited, and it was popular, you can gain 100% profit sometimes within a month or two.... look at 1974's post about the Imperial Flagship... 2.5 times the price (150% profit) in just a few months... and no work, just investing. The same thing happened to me with Cafe Corner. I bought it and Green Grocer as my first two modular sets only weeks before Cafe Corner was gone off the shelves. Imagine my surprise when only a month later is was selling for double what I paid. When I finally built it, it was selling for well over 5 times what I paid for it. I'm heartened by the fact that the current price used is at that level now. Overall, though, LEGO is good for some money for the hobby, but it's obviously not like investing in stocks/bonds/funds/real estate... there's practical limitations, after all; there's no way I could store enough LEGO in my house to pay for my child's college education. It's good for a few extra bucks to soften the blow of being part of an expensive hobby, although I normally buy to build, and I only ever buy sets I personally enjoy. I have a huge collection of unopened sets only because I don't have the room to display them, but I don't want to miss out (or end up paying extra), so I buy and stick in a closet. Then I realize the sets I finally build are worth many times what I paid. Sometimes it's a hard pill to swallow.

There are also thousands of adults railfans who "play" with toy trains. Trains like the EN and Maersk should be advertised to them. I know I came to LEGO from being a train hobbyist, and finally sold most of my old N-Scale trains to go just with LEGO. Of course, I like a lot of other LEGO, too, but I suspect many other train fans (even if not some huge majority) might also be interested. All my years as an N-Scale hobbyist, and I didn't even know anything about "real" LEGO trains... whatever was around when I was a kid wasn't even motorized, AFAIR. I've discussed LEGO trains with model railroad enthusiasts; at first they think LEGO trains are a joke, but if you can show them the EN and talk about modeling the same things they do - track side structures, trees, etc., then it becomes more interesting. The ones that want absolute realism wouldn't buy, but the ones who like running the trains and building and "playing" become interested. EDIT: Oh... on topic, I've found the PF and R/C "sets" (since the demise of 9V) to be completely uninspiring, but I bought several ENs and Maersks... at first it didn't matter to me, but now I need some realism or some other hook. For example, I have a couple of versions of the Harry Potter train (terrible, but I like HP), and I got the Toy Story train and motorized it (because I like the "toy" look of it... the characters are still in their bags).

My Settings (from the little box in the upper right corner). Click on the "Profile" tab, you can change your avatar there. You can also upload your picture that people will see when they look at your profile.

That methodology is a mixed blessing. If I make changes to my CMF trade list, it doesn't bump it to the top when people view new posts. If no one else posts, the thread languishes in oblivion until someone else comes along with an actual new post. The problem is mitigated by the secondary thread where people can post that they've made changes or additions and then link to their post in the CMF thread. Perhaps a secondary thread for comments and bumps for changes would work for this. I wouldn't mind one project per post, but I think members should be able to make a new post for a new project.

IMO, most "groups" like that are worthless, attention seeking jackasses. I understand friends is doing quite well... what do they trying to prove? They want power? Donations? Just to get notoriety for their organization any way possible? It's one of those groups with stated lofty and admirable goals... and because of that many well meaning people join on. Then they sink into idiocy trying to make a name for themselves. Honestly, have any of you heard of "Spark" before this?

I figured as much; the prices are excellent for what they are, although I admit to not having bought any because I experiment with electronics myself. But shipping overseas could be burdensome... especially if you miss ordering something useful in the one batch (like lights with 12 inch cords instead of the 6 inch ones they come with). You could try rolling your own, too. It's not particularly difficult... searching online will let you know what resistors and so forth you'll need. You'd have to spend money up front if you didn't have a soldering iron and other bits and pieces, but I would think overall, if you wanted to light many things, it'd be cheaper in the long run. I also don't like how large the lifelites wires are. But I know that's not everyone's bag to do stuff like that.

Since it's not news, I figured the website & forums would have been better, but no matter - thank you so much. I know EB takes pride in having such a relatively high signal to noise ratio compared to other online forums, and we all appreciate it.

I love Cuusoo - I have an account and try to go at least once a week; I view the newest projects until I start seeing projects I've already seen so that I don't miss anything. I also think many of the sets EB members put on there are simply awesome... but it's becoming tedious to see "support my project" posts all the time. Could we have a forum or dedicated thread for it? Edit: of course I stupidly put this whine in the wrong forum. Apologies.

I thought TLG was discontinuing (or drastically cutting back) on technic bricks ("studded beams") in favor of using studless. Back on the topic, I often wish the bricks were cubic (1x1). Of course, a 2x4 is still rectangular and would make just as strong a build as the current 2x4 brick. Advanced building would seem to be a lot easier. I know a great deal of effort was put into the dimensions of LEGO, and am constantly amazed at both the original designs and the updates (like when they added tubes). But they did not seem to consider anything more in height than to make plates add up to an even brick height. I don't think it's necessarily too late, now... cubic based bricks could be gradually introduced. Obviously Modulex was an admission - not of failure, necessarily, but that "serious" builders needed something they could scale better with. I think if LEGO was originally cube based, they would never have made Modulex and I'd be willing to bet that with so many more components (windows and doors and roofing tiles/slopes) that it would be a tool that architects and other professions that involve modeling would use. Of course, I'm not expecting (or even hoping) that they'll do it... it's just that it makes sense.