Aanchir

I was working on a Speedor on LDD for my second entry, using Hero Factory and Technic, but sadly I doubt I'll finish it by the deadline. I'm not very skilled at Technic building at this kind of scale, and all my creative energy lately is being pumped toward my "Before and After Brain Attack" entry. Ah, well. Maybe one day it'll be in a state where I can present it. It was a nifty lion Speedor too. I had the muzzle and teeth completed, but the back part is completely unfinished. It's a real shame because otherwise I've just managed to make the one weapon submission. Probably a place where better time management would have helped greatly, but hindsight is always 20/20 I suppose.

But Sylvanian Families is not a building toy. The whole point of LEGO Friends is to create a building toy that girls will enjoy. I hardly think LEGO Friends or any modern LEGO theme is at risk of turning into something like Playmobil, just because it's fundamentally a different type of toy. Sets are much, much less specialized today than they were in the late 90s and early 2000s, with lots of brick-built detailing. LEGO Friends is no exception. Some sets use wall panels to make building a bit easier for kids who aren't experienced LEGO builders, but that's been going on since Fabuland in preschool themes and since 1984 in mainstream System themes (1984 is when LEGO Castle introduced wall panels, and it's depended on them ever since). These days, the percentage of a set's piece count consisting of large wall panels is often much smaller than it would have been in those early LEGO castles.

I've seen a lot of nostalgia for "Fantasy Era" (2007-2009) Castle since these sets came out. It's kind of funny because I can remember when "Fantasy Era" was somewhat controversial... when Kingdoms came around, I think people were pretty much evenly-divided over whether they preferred fantasy-heavy Castle sets or more traditional Castle sets with human factions, minimal fantasy elements, and less over-the-top architecture. Personally, I'm OK with either (and don't really collect Castle anyway), but I feel like there's something really special about more traditional, iconic castle designs, and I can see why LEGO took that route with this newest iteration of the Castle theme. It's really the baseline for LEGO Castle in a sense. It sets the standard for medieval building the same way LEGO City sets the standard for modern-day building. I imagine there are many LEGO Space fans who would love to see a "baseline" LEGO Space theme without the very situational premises that have characterized so many recent Space themes.

Tell me again how girls and boys played with LEGO in equal numbers before this whole shift occurred. Obviously that was what The LEGO Group wanted to happen with their gender-neutral marketing in the 70s and 80s. But I don't think I've seen any indication that it worked. Truly, even back then, there were sets (like the "Homemaker" series) that were predominantly aimed at girls, presumably because LEGO simply wasn't reaching that audience effectively with their other toys. LEGO is by nature a building toy, like Erector, Meccano, and other brands that came before it, and as such the LEGO Group was hardly the originator of the notion that construction is a boys' pastime. They inherited that notion and have made multiple attempts, whether those be through gendered marketing or gender-neutral marketing, to eliminate them. Friends is the first time that they have successfully gained any measurable ground in eliminating that stigma. They have proven that girls ARE a viable audience for building toys themselves, not just a periphery demographic existing on the fringes of a more reliable male audience. So in that regard, it achieves a goal that decades of previous attempts could not. I don't see how LEGO Friends having a different figure is any different than, say, Technic having different figures back in the day, or BIONICLE having an entirely different figure design. LEGO was trying to target a demographic that wasn't nearly as interested in their traditional figures as they were in more naturalistic dolls, so they created a more naturalistic figure. Should they have just decided that girls who prefer more lifelike dolls to blocky minifigures are unworthy or incapable of enjoying building toys? It hardly means that they are blind to the possibility that girls might take interest in their other themes, and they do capitalize on female interest in some of their other themes. For instance, LEGO Legends of Chima has set itself apart from previous "action themes" in that it includes four female minifigures rather than a single token girl. It's a small step, but I have no doubt that it was inspired by the unanticipated female audience that responded positively to character-driven action storytelling in LEGO Ninjago, despite that theme being heavily marketed towards boys. The collectible minifigures have also had an increase in the number of female characters per series, with nearly 30% of the figures in each recent series being female, though the ratios of female minifigures in a box of 60 are still woefully slim. Bear in mind that sometimes one of the best justifications for grabbing a high-profile license is to prevent competitors from profiting off of it. And it can usually be justified as long as the license isn't a liability as far as PR is concerned (truly, this is why LEGO has avoided pursuing a first-person shooter license to compete with Mega Bloks's Halo line, and probably part of why they never sought out the Halo license for themselves in the first place).

If Hero Factory were going to corrupt one of the heroes we know currently, they'd have to give a very good explanation. I feel like in fan fiction and even in some original stories, the "corrupted hero" concept is used purely for its novelty, with a very tenuous story being written to explain why the character fell from grace. And this often ends up feeling somewhat unnatural for the characters in question. I prefer when those sorts of things are written with a slower and more natural sort of explanation. Nidhiki was sort of forced into the villainous role. After it was clear he wanted to be a part of the Dark Hunters and was willing to sacrifice the lives of others to do so, he was transformed into a form where he felt like he would never be able to be accepted in any other position, in order to ensure his loyalty. So yes, he turned to "the dark side" on his own decision, but at the same time, he was a fickle, self-interested individual and might have switched sides again as it suited his fancy if the Dark Hunters hadn't taken steps to prevent that. Vakama's fall from grace (as portrayed in the books, not the movie) was an example of how I feel this sort of corruption can be handled most effectively. Greg Farshtey has stated that in his personal opinion, Matau would have been a more likely candidate to turn evil during the Hordika saga than Vakama, so I'm always in awe over just how natural Greg made Vakama's corruption feel despite his own feeling that it was not a natural development for the character as he was written in the 2004 books and movie. It wasn't just a matter of Vakama deciding he didn't like his friends anymore or had more to gain by being evil. It was an extension of his anxiety from the 2004 books and movie, coupled with angst over Lhikan's death and carefully-planted clues which led him to believe he and his friends were NOT destined to become Toa and Lhikan had chosen them in error. The Hordika instinct surely helped, but it was not simply a matter of a poison weakening his better judgment (as we see handled quite ineffectively in the Chima TV show and marginally more effectively in the Ninjago TV show). Now, I don't think a Hero Factory TV episode really has what it takes to pull this off. This isn't to say I think the Hero Factory TV episodes don't have the potential for good storytelling. A chapter book could tell this kind of story, or it could be carried out through multiple TV episodes, though that would demand a level of continuity that they generally aim to avoid. But for a story of this kind I think you'd need at least 88 minutes of running time unless the characters were established as fickle or impressionable beforehand. Or we could just stick Furno in the Kek Powerizer and go for a "power corrupts" message. But I'd still prefer something more profound than that.

Well, yes, and that's one of the reasons I'm so baffled at the lack of LEGO music from the actual fan community. Writing something poetic about the LEGO experience, even if it's just using LEGO as a metaphor for other things, shouldn't inherently be any harder or less intuitive than writing music about any other activity or experience. Or should it be? Is there something about the LEGO building experience that makes builders unlikely to think of it in a poetic or lyrical terms? Yes, it's a form of creative exp<b></b>ression in and of itself. But that hasn't stopped LEGO fans from expressing themselves in other ways. A search for BIONICLE on DeviantART turns up over sixty thousand results, and less than a seventh of those are in the sculpture category where you find MOCs. A search for Ninjago brings up 18,851 results, and less than seventy of those are in the sculpture category. Some MOCs might be categorized as photography as well, and of course people generally join DeviantART to post art rather than MOCs specifically, so it's not a representative sample. But still, it seems to indicate thousands of people expressing their love for the theme in ways other than MOCing. Why, then, hasn't music been a part of these fandoms even when they were at their strongest? Besides, if country artists can write a billion different songs about things as mundane as drinking, fishing, and driving tractors, I find it hard to believe that the dearth of LEGO songs out there truly represents all that can be written about the hobby. EDIT: There's that bizarre word filter again. Someone ought to fix that...

Even temperatures below the melting point of ABS can be bad for bricks, because the bricks will soften. If parts are connected (and thus, under small amounts of stress) this is guaranteed to weaken clutch power, but in any case it's a risky situation to leave bricks in very hot conditions for lengthy periods of time.

I'd say something along the lines of "revival era", but that sort of name could just as easily apply to pretty much ANY castle theme. Kingdoms was a revival of a sort, as was Fantasy Era, as was Knights' Kingdom II. Plus, you'd run the risk of people becoming confused that the name referred to the architecture of the castles, not the theme. It's possible a more intuitive name might present itself as more marketing materials emerge, but with the website up and not providing the most insight I'm not sure how much more we can expect.

I definitely think you have some very interesting insights. Certainly the public misconception that basic bricks are the be-all and end-all of "traditional LEGO" is wide-spread, and I've seen it used in criticism of themes like Ninjago and BIONICLE as well as LEGO Friends. Some people seem to be unaware not only of how widespread "themed" LEGO is today, but of how long there have been "themed" sets with pieces specialized for those particular themes. I also agree that the AFOL community sometimes does more harm than good by dismissing non-AFOL concerns outright instead of trying to be more diplomatic. We saw this with the Jabba's Palace controversy as well: sure, most of us can agree that LEGO was not in the wrong on that one, but very few people were putting forth an effort to empathize with the people who felt offended by the contents of that set. For a culture that is used to misrepresentation by western society, and that does not have an inherent familiarity with the Star Wars franchise, seeing elements of middle-eastern culture being used in this way could quite rightly be shocking, particularly when your first exposure to this is in the form of a beloved children's toy. Part of why I like LEGO Friends is that currently, the AFOL community is extremely male-dominated. There are women in the community, but they are a minority, and as such sometimes traditions and jokes that are considered acceptable in the AFOL community may be a part of what alienates women who don't share that LEGO-loving background. LEGO Friends may be a key step to changing this by getting girls passionate about the LEGO brand at an early age and potentially leading them to be a part of the AFOL community. But it's not a guaranteed thing, particularly if the AFOL community continues to be perceived as a "boys' club" where women are expected to just play along with the the culture their primarily male predecessors have established. Thankfully many of the women here on Eurobricks have not been afraid to express their opinions even when those do conflict with the mainstream AFOL culture, including Pandora who has written many excellent reviews of sets her male colleagues might have had a hard time taking 100% seriously.

I think the fancy presentation of the Architecture sets is related to their high costs. The fancy boxes and instruction manuals surely cost more money to design, write, translate, and produce than an average set's box and instruction manual. But on another note, the Architecture sets' prices aren't universally excessive. The Robie House has a very reasonable price-per-piece by AFOL standards, even if like all Architecture sets a lot of its parts are small and basic. Same goes for Big Ben, the White House, and the Brandenburg Gate. The earliest, skyscraper-based Architecture sets tended to have the most egregious price-per-piece; since then, prices have been more forgiving, if not consistently on par with non-Architecture sets. And of course there's the matter of perceived value. The Architecture sets are not marketed as playsets or parts packs, but rather as collectors' items, gifts, and display pieces. Even if there isn't a substantial premium on the sets for this reason, this is the very reason why the sets have so much money put into their presentation. The exception is the Architecture Studio set, which seems to have more of an emphasis on creative design and play, but it still seems like it might be presented as a luxury gift (if only by its classy-looking box and the fact that it's being sold at Barnes & Noble, a store whose non-book items tend toward that kind of pricing and appeal).

About a year and a half ago I joined the brony community, but it wasn't until this spring when I attended a brony convention that I really discovered how amazing the brony music scene is. Previously, I had been more or less avoiding it. Music isn't quite like art or comics that you can glance at, form an opinion on, and go on to look at other things. Particularly when you're someplace where you don't want to play music and distract others around you. But after experiencing a brony concert and hearing bronies singing some of the more well-known songs, I realized this was too important and too impressive a part of the community to ignore. A few months later and I have nearly six hours of brony music on my iPhone. Moving on to my main point, this got me wondering why music isn't a bigger part of the AFOL community. I've been to Brickfair several times, and I find music is conspicuously absent from most of the event. The folks from BZPower at the BIONICLE table occasionally bring a stereo to play music, but there is never any live music or community-generated music. This year, some BZPower members who have their own band are hoping to possibly hold a concert at a BZPower picnic one evening during the convention weekend, but their music generally isn't LEGO-inspired. The best explanation I can come up with for this dearth of AFOL music is that LEGO, as a hobby, is already a form of creative expression in and of itself. When it comes to creative expression among LEGO fans, MOCs far outnumber fan art, fan fiction, fan animations (even those generally are using the LEGO products as their medium), fan comics and fan music. But even in the BIONICLE and Ninjago fan communities, which have had a wealth of other forms of creative expression (and which have had well-promoted official promotional songs), music seems to be conspicuously absent (the closest we got in the BIONICLE community tended to be fan-made music videos of the official songs). Besides, it's not like other creative hobbies don't have their own musical expression — my mom is a quilter and has at least a couple albums of quilting-inspired music. Are there any musicians here on Eurobricks who can offer some insight into why this might be? Perhaps you have other passions you prefer to write music about, or perhaps you find the LEGO building experience hard to express in music and lyrics, or perhaps you just don't think AFOLs are interested in listening to music by other AFOLs? Do you think that the kind of creativity that the LEGO hobby inspires simply doesn't overlap much with the kind of creativity it takes to write good music? Do you think there's something more that the LEGO Group could or should be doing to encourage its fans to explore their musical talent? Do you think fandom-inspired music is a silly concept to begin with? I'd like to hear some other people's thoughts! EDIT: Also, on an unrelated note, does anyone know why when I went to edit my post I found HTML bold tags in the middle of every instance of the word "expression"?

Anne Hofmann posted some new Ninjago concept art from the latest season of the show here earlier this month. MOCists might find these images very inspiring! Niels Bach also posted some Ninjago concept art here spanning from the pilot to the most recent season, including good images of the two not-available-as-sets Stone Army vehicles. According to the filenames they are called the Hover Glider and Tusk Invader. I've asked Nabii if these might have been based on actual sketch models that didn't become sets: their use of actual LEGO parts and "play features" goes above and beyond pretty much anything else we've seen in the show that wasn't based on a set.

Yeah, the "live-action" in the topic typo was apparently just a small blunder. Presumably what CM4S meant was "feature-length" or something to that effect. None of the news articles on this have said anything about it being live-action. It'd be great if a staff member could edit the title so it isn't so misleading.

Really? The third, fourth, and sixth ones were easily some of my favorites (don't ask me to choose a single favorite, because choosing favorites has never been one of my strong suits). Naturally the first one had a very unique flavor, in that it played with the concept of morality to the extent that there was no clear protagonist. Throughout the book you were rooting in equal measures for the LEP and for Artemis. But I really liked how later books started exploring character relationships to a greater extent.

No, not really. Not sure if I was unclear, but the only part that changes is the thickness of the "O" that occurs between the two studs. The square section of the piece is the same size regardless. Also, it's generally not an illegal connection unless parts are in compression, even if your model ends up with really weird and hard-to-work-with geometries. There are plenty of other parts that give you somewhat odd geometries — for instance, this piece has a Technic half-beam centered on a 2x2 surface. What that means is that there's a .75 module (approximately 6mm) horizontal gap between the edge of the Technic half beam and the edge of the plate underneath. And these might sound like friendly numbers, but then you realize that very few things work in quarter-modules, and that .75 modules is the same as 1.875 System plates! Needless to say, this kind of piece would be somewhat awkward if you wanted to use it for SNOT building. But on the other hand, if you DID need something that would give you that exact spacing, it would be invaluable, because there are very few other parts that will be able to offer you those kind of geometries. Speaking of which, that piece I just linked is itself the replacement for an earlier, discontinued part. The previous version of the part had the center section just a plate thick, not a Technic half-beam thick (in other words, .4 modules instead of .5 modules, and 3.2mm instead of 8mm).

Yes, it is. That set's been out for a while now, and there are reviews up on various sites. In general I don't think any of the "planet" sets use stickers.

I loved the Artemis Fowl series; that was how I was first exposed to Eoin Colfer. I wrote a short review of the final book for my local newspaper, and I've even got a bit of Artemis Fowl fanart on my deviantART (this is easily the best drawing I've done based on that series). I also read And Another Thing..., which he authored as the sixth installment in Douglas Adams's "Hitchhiker's Trilogy". Just finished The Supernaturalist, and WOW was it exciting. Very good edge-of-your-seat cyberpunk adventure story. The only thing I was unprepared for was the ending. Has anyone read the graphic novel of that book? I've seen it in stores but never picked it up. I enjoyed the Artemis Fowl graphic novels (not entirely faithful to the character descriptions from the original books, but a quality graphic novel regardless).

I like bright colors on castles, myself. They make them feel a bit less boring, not to mention more "LEGO-ish". Even castles built with earth tones would look really bland without a splash of color. I feel Helm's Deep is very much improved by the Sand Green elements scattered throughout its build, and the Battle at the Black Gate is improved by its reddish-brown accents. Monochrome MOCs can be cool, of course, but factors like lighting and viewing angle will play a much bigger factor in how cool a monochrome MOC looks than it might with a more colorful design. With some brighter-colored accents, the MOC's shape and details really "pop" even in less-than-ideal lighting conditions.

Skinnet's name is spelled that way in the books as well, so it's possible that this spelling was a preliminary name that didn't end up getting used on the product. Or maybe it's just a typo that Greg Farshtey (who both writes the books and is the editor-in-chief of the magazine) made. Or perhaps the name on the box art is the one that's misspelled. Hard to say.

I think the photography here is a little less optimal than the photography for some of your earlier MOCs. On my screen at least, it is difficult to differentiate between Black and Earth Blue elements. The lack of contrast makes the MOC appear to lose detail. This may be the fault of the color scheme as well, though — Earth Blue is, by nature, a very dark color, so its contrast with black is limited to begin with. The weapons, and how they are attached to the back and hips, is very nice. I feel like the lower arms are perhaps a bit too plain and blocky. The upper arms are less plain but the blockiness is even more apparent on them because they are bulkier. The chest is nice and streamlined; the upper back less so. The curved System slopes go well with the mask and armor in terms of shape, slightly less so in terms of surface finish. The fact that they are so much shinier than the mask and armor makes them feel less harmonious at first glance. I love the foot design, and the yellow accents in general. Perhaps some more accents on the back of the legs would have helped them. As it is, the black elements all flow together, which would work if the legs were less streamlined, but not so much with their current bumpy, blocky Technic design. It's as though one big, somewhat irregularly-shaped shadow has gobbled up the back of the legs. So overall, this is a decent MOC, but not your best. I don't mind the amount of Technic in the design, but coupled with a very dark color scheme and a lack of streamlining, the MOC ends up feeling less refined than many MOCs that incorporate this much customization.

One reason white cheese may be more likely to crack than other colors could have something to do with the fact that white cheese slopes were originally molded in polycarbonate, the same as transparent cheese slopes. Nowadays opaque cheese slopes are molded in ABS, but I have no doubt PC white cheese slopes were still showing up for quite some time after ABS ones were introduced, and may still be showing up. As for cheese slopes in general, there's no doubt that the geometry of the cheese slope is a factor. There's no other reason that cheese slopes (and for that matter, any part with a 1x1 anti-stud that surrounds a stud on all sides) would be so much more likely to crack than other parts. From a layman's perspective, this makes some degree of sense. The walls of 1x1 elements often grip studs more tightly than the walls of other elements, and there are more contact points with the stud relative to the size of the piece than with larger elements, where amount of space occurring between contact points might relieve some of the stress. Someone with more of a physics or engineering background (Front?) could probably chime in and either confirm that notion or tell me that's a totally off-base assumption. A production quality factor is likely as well, given that 80s and 90s parts didn't have this issue to nearly the same extent. But it's not necessarily a case of cost-cutting — it's not entirely unknown for some novel innovation to be introduced to solve one problem, which then inadvertently causes another. As an example, the thinner walls of 2x4 bricks today are in part intended to improve clutch power, but as a result of this combined with other production changes, modern 2x4 bricks are more translucent than older ones. But environmental factors, either during production, during packing, or after purchase, could perhaps have some influence on why the problem affects some people more than others. During 2007, lime green BIONICLE ball cups were much more likely to crack than other colors, and the reason given by the LEGO Group was that there was a batch of these parts that had not cooled properly. Of course, the very next year the ball cups were replaced by a new style with different geometries, and while this was presumably an attempt to correct this issue, the new ones would break often no matter WHAT their color. We didn't get perfectly resilient ball cups again until the 2011 Hero Factory sets. So again, sometimes problems emerge as a result of an intended solution, and geometry has a big impact.

This is very true. I've found that Ninjago spinners (the spinners themselves, not the complete sets) often sell for surprisingly little on Bricklink. Being complex, pre-assembled, printed parts with a metal weight ring inside, I have no doubt that the spinners themselves make up a significant part of the cost of a $10 spinner set. But on Bricklink, what matters is AFOL demand, and what most AFOLs value most in the spinner sets are the minifigures and possibly the accessories. The spinners are just "leftovers" that not as many buyers want without the matching minifigure, and many end up selling for $1–2. As far as the sets you purchased are concerned, the "beach scene" includes minifigures that would have cost you about $8.00 total when they were new; $9.00 if they were all priced according to collectible minifigure prices at the time of the beach scene's release. It's got 46 additional pieces, which even by a conservative estimate would likely add $4.00 to the cost. And unlike an average set, which would come in a relatively inexpensive cardboard box, this set comes in a clear plastic box with a specialized blister-pack insert to display the minifigures. This adds even more to the price. So that set's price may be a little excessive (LEGO prices, like Bricklink prices, often factor in perceived value), but not as excessive as the price-per-piece might suggest at a glance. The summer scene, likewise, is not priced too unfairly. The minifigure, despite using relatively common parts, is presumably more expensive than any other four parts you might choose by virtue of using both pre-assembled parts and printed parts. But because he's not that unique, let's estimate his cost at $1.50 rather than the $3.00 that is closer to the price minifigures tend to carry in dedicated minifigure packs (such as the CMFs or Build-A-Mini stations). That still leaves 36 parts in the set, which at the AFOL ideal of 10 cents per piece still accounts for the other $3.50. Here's something that you might not consider about LEGO as much as about other consumer products: it pays to buy in bulk. In LEGO, the reasoning can be a bit different than with other products, though. If you're interested in acquiring minifigures, buying larger sets can end up being more economical because those minifigures' cost is "padded out" by the substantial brick content of the sets (unless, of course, the remainder of the sets' parts consists of several large elements which carry a hefty price on their own). Thus, if you're buying smaller sets to get minifigures, you're usually getting less for your money than if you were buying larger sets. This doesn't apply so much to these two purchases, since there aren't really any other sets with these minifigure parts that are currently on store shelves. But I found it quite baffling how many Ninjago fans were using the spinner sets as a "cheap" way to collect Ninjago minifigures. Yes, you're probably paying less than you might to get playsets containing the same minifigures, but unless you actually value the spinners themselves (whether for play value, building potential, or as collector's items), you're probably not getting your money's worth. Ninjago spinner sets have blister packaging (albeit not as specialized as the blister packaging of minifig packs, since the same style of package was generally uniform across the entire wave of spinner sets), a high ratio of minifigures per piece, and printed, pre-assembled spinners with costly metal weight rings. Throw on top of that the possibility of a premium due to perceived value and it should be perfectly clear why the price-per-piece of these sets is so poor, and why a person who doesn't intend to use or collect the spinners themselves might be better off saving up for the more expensive playsets. In 2011, by the way, there was even less justification for getting the spinner sets, since unless you were very particular about which spinners you wanted, many of the retailer-exclusive playsets had them. This is how my twin brother and I obtained most of our spinners that year. In 2012 we bought more actual spinner sets, but only a handful: Samurai X, who my twin brother got to experiment with the newer and more versatile style of spinner, and the four sets containing the NRG Ninja, which had great, exclusive minifigure designs, great accessories, and spinners which were genuinely very classy-looking. We had plenty of fun playing with the spinners, and I used one in my winning Ultimate Battle contest entry, so I feel like we got our money's worth. But on the whole we tried to buy playsets to get that year's minifigures whenever possible, because all things considered, you only need so many spinners, and more bricks generally equates to more value in my book.

I recently read Douglas Adams' Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency and its sequel, The Long, Dark Tea-Time of the Soul. Very amusing books with a decent helping of science-fiction, fantasy, and satire boiled into them. I also went to a Neil Gaiman signing last Friday and got his new book, The Ocean at the End of the Lane. On the way to and from the signing I re-read an earlier book of his, American Gods. He's probably the author I'd most likely recommend to others, though there's some very explicit stuff (often unnervingly so) in some of his adult fare. If you want a book that's a little more wholesome but still has a taste of his dark and thrilling storytelling, I'd recommend Coraline (either the book or the movie; both are excellent). Also, I've picked up a copy of Eoin Colfer's The Supernaturalist from my local library. Haven't read it yet, but I will be reading it in the next few days. I've been meaning to read it for some time and after a very strong recommendation from a BZPower colleague I decided to stop putting it off. In terms of non-storybooks, I picked up My Little Pony Friendship is Magic: The Elements of Harmony, a nice hardcover guidebook to the series, a couple weeks ago. Behind its classy-looking cover, it's got some great behind-the-scenes information from the creators of the show, including an interview with Lauren Faust and lots of pre-production concept art. Plus it has the full lyrics to all the songs in the series and summaries of every episode from Seasons 1–3. Great book for any fans of the series.

Not entirely made by different people. The Hageman brothers, who wrote the Ninjago TV series, both worked on the script for The LEGO Movie. And furthermore, I've known several people online who became Ninjago fans without previously being LEGO fans. A lot of girls (including several teenage or older) on deviantART put together some amazing Ninjago fanart. It's true that most of them first became exposed to Ninjago through younger siblings or relatives, but the bottom line is a lot of people really do manage to enjoy LEGO Ninjago for reasons other than brand loyalty or childish and indiscriminate tastes. Just like how there were plenty of BIONICLE fans who weren't kids or AFOLs I find it somewhat insulting to the many kids who like Ninjago that you don't think any adult who isn't a LEGO fan would enjoy it — believe it or not, kids don't just gobble up whatever garbage broadcasters and toy companies shovel at them, and there are other cartoons for them to watch if they don't like a particular one. If kids were that easy to please, then LEGO Hero Factory, LEGO Friends, and LEGO Atlantis all might have gotten their own full TV series, since they started more or less the same way Ninjago did: with a single TV special. I'll admit there are some shows kids watch that I find pretty awful, but that doesn't mean I'm going to dismiss the possibility that any adult without a commitment to the people making it would watch them. It's possible people with different tastes or a different sense of humor might enjoy them just fine, the same as with any of the adult-oriented shows I don't happen to like. Personally, I think Ninjago is an amazing series. It's one of the three shows I follow devotedly, the others being My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and The Legend of Korra. I wouldn't go so far as to call it high art (as I might with other cartoons, such as Avatar: The Last Airbender), but it has definite charm, compelling characters, and a decent dose of humor and lightheartedness so I know I don't have to take it too seriously. Plus it has amazing music and fits into that fantasy martial arts genre I really liked as a kid watching Saturday morning cartoons.

The bio seems to use male pronouns (then again, sometimes the people writing these bios don't do the research) and the figure's torso has none of the hallmarks of female minifigures like a curvy waist. Also, the name Dom sounds male to me. I'm thinking he's a guy, albeit a really flamboyant guy. I don't know what the likelihood is of him being a real fig. If he is, then it would seem that he uses a Raven headpiece on top of a new minifigure head with an extended neck, or on top of a new minifigure head on top of a separate neck piece (neither is entirely unlikely, considering they could be reused for Kaminoans in LEGO Star Wars, but still somewhat surprising). I doubt it's a one-piece specialized head because the head is simply too big to be one solid injection-molded piece, and a pre-assembled minifigure head piece that almost perfectly resembles an existing headgear element just seems wasteful. One thing makes me doubt this will be a real fig at all, though, and that is the impossibility of the feathered crest and tail. Both look far too thin to be actual pieces. So chances are that he is just a character who will feature in the show, and the use of a raven headgear element is simply a shortcut taken by the character designers (or, if you prefer, a stylistic decision to ensure he is visually compatible with the other animal characters). It wouldn't be entirely unlikely considering the number of characters in Ninjago who were presumably never intended to appear in sets, or the already established existence of characters like Plovar who could not, under any circumstances, appear in LEGO. (Just too small!)