Aanchir

I think it's a fair thing to apologize over. I agree, the sticker sheet and its captions are not a huge deal, but they're a part of a bigger problem. And while perhaps it didn't demand the amount of press it's gotten in and of itself, it's good that it was brought to TLG's attention so they don't make the same mistake in the future and can continue to build a more progressive reputation. In general, LEGO City is meant, like many toys, to be a miniaturized version of the world kids see around them. With that said, the designers and marketers take care to ensure that it also shows an idealized version of that world. There is crime, but gun violence is a non-issue, criminals are quickly returned to jail, and justice always prevails. There are fires, but never substantial injury, death, or property damage as a result (the building on fire in this year's Fire Emergency set is already boarded up and possibly condemned). And as we see here, there is an attempt to maintain a progressive stance on gender issues. And the designers and marketers have to be on their toes to ensure that they don't end up falling behind social change and presenting outdated or offensive stereotypes that were once deemed innocent or humorous.

The Creeper itself stands out to me as the weakest model of the summer Galaxy Squad lineup, but I love love love Chuck Stonebreaker's little ship. It brings up many fond memories of the Hovertron, one of the prominent Space sets of my childhood, but its design is so much nicer in so many ways.

It's in several new sets this summer. Some of the more basic colors it comes in include Medium Stone Grey (Light Bluish Gray) in Star Wars and White in Friends.

The theme doesn't have to be based directly on Classic Space to include a classic space reference or shout-out. I think there are definitely comparisons to be made between the two themes as well, even though the meanings of the colored suits in Galaxy Squad (individual squads with different tactics) are very different than the meanings of the Classic Space uniform colors (roles like scientist, warrior, explorer, etc). But I agree the number in the Eradicator Mech's name doesn't seem to make sense as a Classic Space reference, unless there's some detail we're missing. I'm thinking there's a strong likelihood Nabii was involved in this set's design (he is TLG's go-to mech designer these days, it seems), and if not I'm sure he at least knows the designer, so perhaps he'll be able to shed some light on the meaning of the name once the sets have been out for a month and he no longer has to keep quiet about them.

Yes indeed! I believe this was noticed at Toy Fair. I for one welcome the change. Busted or missing rubber bands are much easier to replace than busted or missing springs.

I definitely agree about Dragon Mountain. Don't get me wrong; it's a beautiful design. I love the impression of the evil wizard's lair being built on the ruins of an older castle, and the asymmetry of the design as a whole. The multicolored stairs are a great detail as well. But at the same time, it's a piss-poor place to raise an army against the much more substantial King's Castle. Even in a theme like LEGO Castle where a castle rarely has an armory, a barracks, or any living quarters, there should at least be a stronghold substantial enough to imagine there's more inside it than the physical contents, and the Dragon Mountain doesn't do a particularly good job of suggesting it. I hope future waves will give us a considerably more substantial headquarters for the dragon knights, and perhaps a king or military leader of some kind (rather than just having the evil wizard lead the dragon knights). It gives me some hope at least that the Dragon Mountain resembles more of an outpost than a full castle, and if we're lucky the release of the sets and the appearance of marketing materials for the theme will bring us hints at what else we might expect from the theme in the future. If there is a new evil castle in the future, I wonder if it will use the same modular wall system as 7946, 70402, and 70404. Even though most AFOLs probably won't join 7946 with either of the new sets without swapping the heraldry and red/blue bricks for ones that match, I think it's brilliant that they maintained this modular wall system for the benefit of fans who already have 7946. I'm fond of this theme's siege engines myself. The Gatehouse Raid's catapult is definitely one of the weakest designs, though, along with the awful ballista in Gold Getaway. At least it has some nice parts so if for whatever reason you want to buy multiples of 70402, the siege engines won't go completely to waste.

Since those aren't parts that are intended to be taken apart, I think it'd be more effective to treat them as one part in the parts tray, but have two separately movable components much like the various electrical cables. Perhaps also include some condition to ensure that the two components are always connected to one another. Speaking of which, while I was looking at electrical cables I realized that one of them (58118) does not have this functionality-- the two ends always move in tandem. This makes it useless for a lot of applications.

I think the issue of legal/illegal connections is pretty much irrelevant to most MOC contests unless the theme of the contest is to create something that could be a hypothetical set. As much as I admire a MOC that solves a design problem using only legal connections, it's nobody's business but the person entering if they want to subject their bricks to stress. Even I have created MOCs where parts are held in by friction-- which in most cases means there's an illegal connection. There's also the question of how much stress is within brick tolerances. Some BIONICLE and Hero Factory sphere launchers, for instance, will always be bent slightly when a sphere is loaded into them. But this is inherent to the design and functionality of the part. Again, this gets into the sort of info which neither the contest participant nor the contest judge can be expected to know. Is plugging a Modulex brick onto the back of a firefighter's breathing mask legal, or illegal? There are probably plenty of questions like that which not even official LEGO designers could answer. Ideally, LDD should make illegal connections impossible. In reality, it only does so to a certain extent. The boundaries of parts are not always perfectly defined, and while parts are typically not allowed to be in compression, the software does frequently allow parts to be floating or not firmly attached to studs. There is no consideration in the software forcing click hinges to flex at increments of 22.5 degrees or 15 degrees, nor is there a consideration for which parts are polycarbonate and which are ABS or rubber. Technic parts on LDD can easily be built into constructions that would be impossible in real life to disassemble, or in some cases, to assemble in the first place. Not to mention that there are probably dozens of unintended connections which LDD does not allow but which are not, technically speaking, illegal. With this many uncertainties regarding both styles of building, it's easy to assume that in the end they balance out somehow, but in reality that's never guaranteed, and if a winning contest entry using one building style utilizes a "loophole" not present in the other, there are going to be unhappy participants. Back to the topic of rendering "imperfections" into a digital model to make it photorealistic, there's no doubt it is possible. I mentioned imperfections like "battle damage" on some BIONICLE product shots, and truly some of the BIONICLE animations have featured similar imperfections. VFX companies that produce CGI models for live-action films naturally have to be able to render minute details like these, because you can't just add dust and fingerprints to an animated object one frame at a time using Photoshop. But again, it becomes a question of processing power, software proficiency, and time commitment.

I'm fond of the heraldry myself, particularly the lion heraldry. The fact that it's more geometric than lion heraldry of the past is nice because it feels more or less like what an actual LEGO lion might look like. The dragon heraldry is less geometric, but I still feel it looks nice as a slightly stylized depiction of the current LEGO dragon design. On the subject of LEGO dragons, what are people's thoughts on the design of the LEGO dragon? Personally, I like the angular design of its arms, legs, and body, the tubular design of its neck and tail, and the fact that it has printed eyes. I also like how much articulation it has. But one thing that I'm sometimes a bit iffy about is its eyes. Normally I prefer for LEGO animals to have "black dot with white sparkle" eyes like minifigures, or some variation on that (like how fantasy-era Castle and Ninjago skeletons had red dots with white sparkles, or how the Ninjago dragons have the black or red dot narrowed to a sort of an angry wedge). I think it's a bit of a shame that even with a new print for the dragon, we've still got yellow eyes with black pupils. At the same time, maybe this was a conscious decision so that people with fantasy-era dragons didn't feel like this one was inconsistent with theirs. Another thing I'm iffy about is how the flame now sticks into the dragon's chin. It just doesn't work for me. It would have been much nicer if, say, it had some teeth in the front that formed a clip. I was kind of disappointed to see that the wings still use click hinges instead of the clip-and-handle hinges which have become popular lately, but I realize in retrospect that click hinges are probably essential to support the wings' weight, as clip-and-handle hinges would sag over time. A ball joint like the Vikings dragons used would be nice, but the connection point would end up looking blocky and awkward.

That's the star for the top of the tree.

They locked your awards thread because it was spam. They altered the title of this thread so that people browsing the forums had a better idea what it was about (they do this frequently for topics with confusing titles). It's not censorship; it's just the moderators doing their job. You really need to get over your persecution complex and accept that nobody's got it out for you-- the moderators are treating you just like how they'd treat any other member of the community, and working to promote a healthy community with constructive discussion. Everyone has opinions, and everyone is welcome to share them. Not everyone's opinions deserve topics of their own when there are other topics better-suited to that kind of discussion. Your "awards" thread was nothing more than spam, but this topic was a jumping-point for a lively discussion-- it just needed a title change so people understood what it was actually about. If you're fed up with having to deal with any kind of authority, then don't join any sites that have moderators on them whatsoever. Because the point of having moderators is having someone who can exercise authority. But you're not getting any sympathy by "leaving indefinitely" then changing your mind and coming back and expecting to be somehow exempt from the rules, traditions, and authority of the site. You just end up looking selfish and fickle.

Hey, I've got a question about this. Where do I find my custom palettes on a Mac? This post described how to create a userpalettes folder on a Mac, and several months ago I did just that. Now there no longer exists a "LEGO Company" folder in my Application Data folder, but the custom palette I created back then still exists in the program. It is simply proving impossible to find just where it is saved. The best I can figure is that there was at some point an LDD update that changed the program's file structure in the Mac version. But it is immensely frustrating not being able to create new user palettes or even find where I put my original custom palette (which is near-useless and which I might as well delete).

I think the reason for the rule against digital and non-digital entries competing in the same contest is that it takes a certain amount of experience with both types of model to really judge them against each other fairly. Some sites, for instance, prefer contest entries be "purist" (no modified or non-production parts), which can be difficult to enforce with a digital entry unless the contest requirements also require a parts list, and even that may require the contest judges or organizers to have an impeccable understanding of the LEGO color palette, parts palette, etc. There's also the fact that with a less-than-perfect render, there can easily be distortions of color or appearance that make a model look better or worse than it would in physical form. If digital entries were allowed in a lot of contests, would there be a definite set of standards for using photorealistic renders? And of course one other big issue is stability/physics. Other than hiding some tape or sticky tack up inside a MOC, there are few ways to make a model defy physics in a photograph. In a digital model, however, unless there is a physics engine present in the software, there's no way to ensure it follows the same rules of stability as a physical model. As a point of example, I could build a giant floating island on a 1x1 footprint with LEGO Digital Designer, but there'd be no way short of building it physically to ensure it will balance correctly on that footprint. Certainly, some physical models can use illegal connections that put parts under tremendous amounts of stress, or can be tremendously flimsy, but the point is that with sufficient time and effort, it is a model that can be physically constructed and displayed. If renders do get to the point where a perfectly photorealistic render is possible for MOCists to achieve, I don't think it will be enough to change the frequency of "physical-bricks-only" contests. It will simply become a matter of good faith rather than something judges can enforce. Alternatively, it's possible that judges may include a rule about providing evidence your model exists in physical bricks. For instance, they may ask you to provide a video of you holding your model. Even if photorealistic images can be created from a digital model, it would be many years more before a builder could make a photorealistic animation of a digital model in-hand without an implausible amount of time and processing power at their disposal. And if there's still deemed to be a risk of "cheating" by entering a digital model, then the contest organizers or judges can set up live video chat sessions with contest finalists, where they will give the finalists instructions like "hold your model in front of the camera and turn it around" or "flip your model upside-down" that thoroughly eliminate any opportunity to prepare fabricated video evidence in advance. Overall, there are simply too many differences between physical and digital models for them to be judged against one another fairly in all contests. SOME contests can be held with digital and physical models treated as equivalent, but it's up to the discretion of contest hosts whether they want to be accountable for the added complexity this entails. It will take colossal improvements not in rendering or editing software, but rather in the actual digital building software itself, before that has any hope of changing.

Yes, but Las Vegas is a key location for a retail store of any kind, not just a LEGO store. And because of that, it is probably very, very expensive to open a store there, at least in a suitably business-friendly location. That makes it a little risky. You've definitely got a point, though, and I have no doubt that if TLG continues to open stores in the U.S., Las Vegas is an area they will want to keep in mind.

Actually, you're right that it's a new piece, but it's not just used on the gorillas. Laval, Razar, LaGravis, and Cragger all use it in the Lion CHI Temple set, Razcal uses it in Eglor's Twin Bike, and Eris uses it in Worriz's Combat Lair. It definitely comes in at least two more colors than the default Chima armor piece from the theme's debut wave.

Perhaps. Depends how much TLG would be willing to change it to adapt to what they've learned about their sets and their audience in the past decade. There's only so much you could change Throwbots/Slizer before it becomes something else entirely. And some of its core features like its canisters and gear-driven transforming functions are somewhat obsolete in this day and age, so they'd have to be heavily reimagined.

I'd say not too many, just because at this point BIONICLE ended nearly three years ago and typically younger kids are the primary audience for sets rather than TFOLs and AFOLs. So I'd say a substantial percentage of Hero Factory buyers may never have had the chance to experience BIONICLE for themselves. Granted, there are a large number of BIONICLE fans and MOCists who have gone on to buy Hero Factory sets, but I imagine that number is dwarfed by the number of fans who first got into LEGO action figure themes after BIONICLE ended, especially since the size of the BIONICLE fan community (or at least, the portion that was still buying sets) had dwindled significantly by the time that theme ended. Overall, I don't mind Hero Factory's simpler, less serious story. The only thing that especially bothers me is when the dialogue breaks character, like Stringer's "cattle wrangling" comment in Savage Planet. Otherwise, I'm not all that bothered by any of the series' silliness. Meanwhile, for those who want to experience a more serious storyline, Greg Farshtey's Hero Factory Secret Mission chapter books definitely look at the story through a somewhat more serious lens.

No, they do not. The first would form a sort of an oval shape, because it is a perfect semicircle plus one extra plate height. The second is not a perfect circular curve in any way. It would form a different, more elliptical sort of oval shape. These sorts of questions are the kind that are easily answered by opening LEGO Digital Designer or another digital building application. They're great material for checking this kind of question regarding part geometries for parts you don't own.

That's because the king's torso, legs, and cape are Earth Blue (Bricklink's Dark Blue; the same color used so prominently for the Crownies in the 2007-2009 line). His sleeves are Medium Blue. The rest of the blue parts in the set appear to be Bright Blue (classic blue). If they're not, then they're a brand-new color, because the only other blue colors on the current palette are Sand Blue, Light Royal Blue (Bricklink's Bright Light Blue), and the Dark and Medium Azure colors from LEGO Friends, and it's definitely not any of those.

By fans? Probably not. I'm sure it could be done with the resources TLG has devoted to some of their renders they use in product ads and official product shots. Just consider some BIONICLE posters which have the sets rendered with imperfections that don't even appear in the physical product, such as scratches and other battle damage. But they have no incentive to do so. Why replicate real-life imperfections when you're striving for ideal presentation? The case is similar with fans. In this case, fans might have more of an incentive to aim for hyperrealism, but not often enough of an incentive to override the complexity of the task.

It's not that strange. A real-life stone sculpture would often try to be as lifelike as possible, after all.

The majority of people commenting in this thread have not expressed a huge desire for these sets. With that said, I'd hardly take that as a sign of how successful it will be. The same was true of Ninjago before its release, with tons of people lamenting the ludicrousness of technicolor ninjas fighting Nazi biker skeletons. Once the theme was released, it became much more popular, even if the crowd that had hoped for a more authentically historic ninja theme never quite warmed up to it. That's just the photography. It's still classic blue (23 Bright Blue), the same as the Black Falcons used. Some of my bright blue parts from long ago do appear darker because they have become discolored over the years, but it's the same color. Knights' Kingdom II, on the other hand, did use a lighter color, 195 Royal Blue, which has since been discontinued. I wonder how many other people are mistakenly confusing Bright Blue in these pictures with Royal Blue? It'd sure explain all the unfounded KKII comparisons. Just like the King's Castle from Kingdoms, in other words... Again, licensed themes demand more detail in most cases just by virtue of having to authentically replicate another designer's work. Also note that Helm's Deep is indeed targeted at a slightly older age range. That doesn't, however, mean that it's designed specifically for AFOLs, just that there's inherently going to be more overlap with that market. Care to check your math? That's a difference of three years, tops. That is the case with almost all LEGO exclusives, particularly enormous ones like Orthanc. The 2009 LEGO Pirates theme was also for ages 5-12 (6-12 for the larger sets), but the Imperial Flagship was for ages 14+. On a side note, the largest LEGO Pirates set from 2009, Brickbeard's Bounty, was for ages 6-12. The largest LEGO Castle set from 2013 was for ages 7-12. Hmmm... Fair point. Now, see, here you get at what I was trying to say. Besides a small number of sets and themes, most sets are aimed at kids, because LEGO is at its core a kids' toy. Except for a handful of exceptions, AFOLs (making up a small overall percentage of total LEGO sales) are a secondary consideration. But I disagree that AFOLs were not at all considered in the design of these castle sets, speaking as an AFOL myself. I find plenty of things that AFOLs can appreciate in this theme. The Gatehouse Raid set, for instance, is a very nice design with lots of detail for its size, largely comparable in detail to the Council of Elrond set from The Lord of the Rings which occupies the same price point. The Gold Getaway set is also a very nice set with lots of detail for its size. Even Dragon Mountain, which naturally has the giant dragon as its focal point, has a detailed foundation and a quite nice catapult. And the castle is more or less comparable to its counterpart from Kingdoms, and arguably better in some respects (though admittedly worse in others). Overall I think we'll see the same trend with this theme as with many other themes in the past: AFOLs start out extremely critical, in part due to bitterness over its failure to exactly replicate a predecessor they have a lot of nostalgia for. Once sets become available AFOLs give them a more serious look and try to judge them for what they are rather than what they feel they should be. Reviews pop up and reveal previously hidden details. Marketing material for the theme helps AFOLs and kids alike to relate to the premise and characters/factions on a deeper level. And eventually the theme develops a similar following to its predecessor.

Well, for starters, I think viewership is a factor. Remember that Ninjago, like Friends and Atlantis, started out with just a two-episode pilot before it was approved for a full season. That let the LEGO Group, Cartoon Network, and networks that aired the pilot in other countries assess viewership numbers and gauge interest. The same happened with Hero Factory with its "Rise of the Rookies" miniseries, and perhaps TLG and Nickelodeon just didn't see the viewership numbers they wanted. Additionally, sales is a factor. Hero Factory has been selling well, but its first-year sales were not nearly as groundbreaking as Ninjago's. And to be honest, given how BIONICLE was struggling in its later years, TLG would have been right to simply anticipate lower returns for Hero Factory than for its minifigure-based themes, which had been showing strong signs of success for many years. And finally, Ninjago and Chima simply have much larger product lines than Hero Factory, spanning a much wider range of price points. That's probably a big factor in and of itself. This means that there are more vehicles, collectible trinkets, and character designs for Ninjago and Chima to draw from, but additionally it means that there's more marketing benefit in devoting more minutes of animation to those themes. Why devote over nearly three hours of airtime over the course of several weeks to advertising the same 15-22 sets when you can devote the same airtime to advertising over 30 sets? The interest in a Hero Factory theatrical release is an entirely separate matter than whether it is seen as a suitable subject for a TV series. Plenty of things become movies based on premises that might not be suitable for an ongoing series. In fact, it's not uncommon for movies to be released to gauge and possibly generate interest for a TV series later on down the line. It's the same principle as releasing a couple of pilot episodes as a TV special to gauge interest, but with a substantially larger upfront investment. If a TV series were a safer bet, then logically things would work the other way around.

I heard a lot of anger online about the TV series even when it was still airing new episodes. There are still people who complain about Zutara not happening, or who feel like the series finale was rubbish. There are probably people who feel the series jumped the shark even earlier. A lot of A:TLA fans take their headcanon very seriously and thus there's a large segment of the fanbase that is more or less unpleasable. Overall, this is why I only really check A:TLA fansites for news related to the series. That way I can do my best to enjoy each new development for what it is instead of having to frame it in the context of somebody else's personal grievances. I framed that hallucination as just that — a hallucination. It was Zuko's subconscious speaking to him, and his subconscious at that time wouldn't have been aware of his lineage. As for why Iroh told him about his kinship with the Avatar, it was to demonstrate to him that being true to himself didn't just mean following in his father's footsteps, and that there were more parts to his legacy than he had been raised to believe. Also remember specifically that Iroh didn't just ask him to read about his great-grandfather's (Avatar Roku's) life — he was told he needed to know how Avatar Roku had died. Roku's death was a grave inequity, and as Iroh said afterward, "What happened generations ago can be resolved now, by you. Because of your legacy, you alone can cleanse the sins of our family and the Fire Nation." In other words, the goal was to impart Zuko with a sense of duty to himself and the dual sides of his legacy rather than just to his father. And on a side note, gosh I have to watch A:TLA again sometime. Reminiscing like this is filling me with so many feels.

I agree with this. Far too often I see people claim themes that AFOLs happen to like are targeted at them and themes they don't happen to like are targeted at kids. In reality, a key reason the LotR theme has more AFOL appeal than this Castle theme is simply that it's based on a body of work (in this case, the Lord of the Rings films) that are targeted more toward adults than kids. Hence, lots of earth tones, epic medieval-fantasy architecture, and minifigures with high-detail designs. But the sets are still aimed at kids to a great extent; they simply may not sell as effectively to younger kids as more brightly-colored, less franchise-specific castle designs. These castle sets don't have a license tying them down, and thus they can be designed with more simple, iconic castle traits in mind. A portcullis and drawbridge. A rectangular walled area with towers arranged around it. An evil, black-and-red tower. Now, there is a difference in target age range, but not a huge one. Kids are still the core audience for both themes; AFOLs are a secondary but not insignificant consideration for both themes. Now, personally, I anxiously await more pictures of the King's Castle, and of course a thorough review. I don't know what kind of interior details to expect, but I really think some people might be surprised to see that it's not just a bunch of prefab wall segments. I find the gatehouse of 70404 is quite stunning in its detail and imposing geometry, easily measuring up to its counterpart in Kingdoms. The basic walls, too, have a comparable level of complexity. The only part of the new castle that I find substantially weaker than its Kingdoms counterpart is the merlons atop the octagonal towers. Four merlons are hardly sufficient for a tower of that size, and I feel the six smaller merlons atop the Kingdoms castle were more effective. Now, the four merlons work more effectively on the new castle atop the tower that includes the throne room and treasure chamber, since they use slope elements rather than simple 1x2 bricks. I wish this motif were repeated on the other octagonal towers. On a side note, looking at the high-resolution picture of the new King's Castle once again, has anyone noticed there appears to be a somewhat unusual function connected to the catapult on the front corner tower of the castle? Instead of using a simple lever mechanism like most catapults, where you press down on one side of the catapult to launch things from the other side, this has a mechanism built into the tower itself. I'm curious how effective it will be. It is certainly not how I would contemplate building a LEGO catapult.