Aanchir

The old (printed) ones from the 90s didn't, but LEGO began introducing co-injected/marbled ones in 2009, and began introducing additional color combinations in 2017 when they introduced the updated version of the mold (which also has a more curved beak). It's a cool technique, especially since it colors the front of the bird and not just the sides, but sometimes the colors can look a bit "muddy" where they run together. I'd be interested to see LEGO come up with a further update of the parrot mold that uses the same multi-shot molding technique that LEGO has been using for a lot of recent animal and minifig components. This technique is less "random" than co-injection, and allows specific plastic colors to be used for specific parts of the animal. A good example of a bird mold already using this technique is Pepper the parakeet from LEGO Friends. Pepper is molded in two colors of plastic: Flame Yellowish Orange for her beak, feet, and wingtips; and Bright Reddish Violet for the rest of her feathers. Pepper's mold has also been used with different color combinations and printing for many other birds in the Friends, Elves, and Disney themes, and even the LEGO Ideas Steamboat Willie set! Of course, if LEGO did update the parrot mold, I'd also like them to include printed eyes on the new version, as is increasingly the norm with other LEGO animals (including other birds like ducks, songbirds, and eagles). Compared to other modern LEGO animals, the parrot's recessed eyes make it feel almost more like a statue than a living creature.

Tiger cubs (and other big cat cubs) feel like a very real possibility now that LEGO has introduced a lion cub mold!

I'm not really surprised by that, to be honest — unlike actual minifigs, it's normal for animals in non-licensed themes to resemble the actual skin or fur color of their real-life counterparts. "Fleshie" colors are also used for the furless/featherless portions of the LEGO ostrich (24689pb01c01), LEGO chimpanzee (95327pb01/95327pb02), LEGO mouse (35757c01pb01), and older versions of the LEGO pig (87621pb01/87621pb02/87621pb03). Also, since it hasn't been mentioned yet in this thread, there are actually TWO colors/patterns for the new monkey. The version pictured at the top of this thread (Sand Yellow/Dark Tan one with a Light Nougat face), which appears in 30570, 60300, and 60302, is the more common of the two. But there's also a Brick Yellow/Tan version with a Dark Stone Grey/Dark Bluish Gray face in 60304 — which, needless to say, doesn't match "human" skin tones in either licensed OR non-licensed themes!

I think the minifig monkeys are more fitting for Flower Fruit Mountain since they are somewhat anthropomorphized (narratively speaking). They are Sun Wukong's siblings/peers, and treat him as a monkey just like them in spite of his supernatural origins and more human-like gait, posture, and behaviors. Needless to say, it would be odd if the Sun Wukong minifigure looked entirely unlike the other monkeys from his origin story! So I think it was a good choice to give the other monkeys shorter legs, but still the same general "body plan". As awesome as that sort of thing would be, I imagine that creating a series with portrayals of this many real-world people would be quite an ordeal, even compared to some of the licensed CMF series (which typically include figures licensed from a single parent company). While the likenesses of figures from the 19th century and earlier would likely be "fair game", the same would certainly not be true of living people like David Attenborough. And even creating figures based on 20th/21st century conservationists would likely require seeking permission and/or a licensing agreement from their surviving family members. Legal matters aside, it would be in poor taste not to seek permission for or provide any sort of compensation for the use of those people's likenesses!

I certainly have a lot of nostalgia for the old monkey, but the new one is a much better scale relative to minifigures and other animals (such as cats, dogs, pigs, parrots, etc). Other than being on all fours, the old monkey was close to the size of a full-grown minifig! While the lack of articulation is certainly a bummer, it seems to be pretty much an unavoidable side effect of how much the size has been reduced. I am also generally a big fan of printed animal faces in LEGO, since it helps them feel more "alive" like minifigs (or other modern LEGO animals), and less like dead-eyed statues. And I think the designers made a good call by using an anti-stud instead of a clip for the feet (so it can be secured to a flat surface without needing some extra part to clip it to). From a set design standpoint, the new monkey's smaller size and simpler single-piece design seem to make it a lot more affordable, which enables the designers to include multiple monkeys even in very small sets like 60300 — something we never saw with the old design. Given that there were no monkeys in either the 2015 Pirates range or the Pirates of Barracuda Bay set, I feel like anything that boosts the likelihood of seeing monkeys in future pirate-related sets is a Good Thing. For MOC purposes, the new monkey is better scaled to "hitch a ride" atop a minifig or another mid-size animal, although just as with LEGO parrots, you'd likely need to rig up some kind of neck bracket or backpack assembly to get them to perch on a pirate's shoulder the way they often would in movies. Likewise, just think of how much easier it will be to build a "cage" that an exotic animal merchant could use to hold the new monkey before the pirates arrive to heroically liberate it (and "liberate" some of that merchant's wealth in the process)!

I understand this point, but I'm not sure if it's the best comparison. It's entirely possible to discuss/acknowledge LGBTQ+ identities without the topic of sex ever coming up… particularly since that umbrella encompasses stuff like gender identity and romantic attraction that are largely independent of a person's sexual orientation or behavior. For instance, there are plenty of trans and nonbinary folks who are asexual or demisexual, and also plenty of asexual and demisexual folks who identify as gay, lesbian, bi, etc. on the basis of romantic (rather than sexual) attraction. I definitely understand your point about staff positions being a thankless task a lot of the time, though. I greatly respect and appreciate a lot of the work that I know you personally have been doing to keep flagrantly homophobic and transphobic comments in check. And I don't envy that responsibility one bit. It's stressful enough reading hateful or intolerant comments. I doubt I could handle the pressure of having to figure out the best way to deal with them that won't inflame matters further, and knowing that the worst offenders you crack down on will likely blame YOU for whatever repercussions they brought upon themselves. I do share the frustration that @Lira_Bricks expressed about threads like the "Everyone is Awesome" topic and review getting locked in response to a persistent flood of hateful or antagonistic comments. Because unfortunately, this approach sends a message to homophobes and transphobes that they can effectively silence the LGBTQ+ related discussions that make them so uncomfortable just by posting intolerant "flamebait", and then treating the ensuing "flame wars" as an inevitable outcome of mentioning/discussing those topics in the first place. But I also realize it's not an easy problem to solve. For comparison, Huw and his moderation team from Brickset have been made well aware of this issue in the past, and have worked to improve their moderation strategies so that LGBTQ+ voices aren't silenced. But even they had to close commenting on their news articles for the "Everyone is Awesome" announcement and review due to the Sisyphean burden of playing whack-a-mole with a never-ending onslaught of intolerant comments. I can't imagine things are much easier here on Eurobricks. I guess what I'm saying is, thank you for the hard work you do, and please continue to do your best, even if you can't always achieve the outcomes that other members expect of you. Eurobricks has definitely become a much safer and more accepting place to discuss these sorts of topics than it was a decade or so ago, and I'm sure it will improve further as we all continue to move towards a better understanding of diverse perspectives of LGBTQ+ users like myself (and the aspects of this site and the AFOL community more broadly that can be alienating to some of us). It is probably not going to be an easy or immediate process, but I promise that even the little things we do to make the community more welcoming (whether as ordinary members like me or moderators like y'all) make a genuine difference. I feel like that's more of a marketing decision than anything else — static home/office display pieces with a monotonous building process are naturally expected to appeal more to adults than to kids (even the "Everyone is Awesome" set designer originally intended it as a decoration for his own workspace), and LEGO has found the 18+ branding very effective at grabbing the attention of those sorts of adult buyers. You can sort of compare this to the way that a lot of the earliest LEGO Architecture skyscrapers like 21000 Sears Tower, 21001 John Hancock Center, and 21002 Empire State Building had a 10+ target age in spite of their low piece counts and utterly simplistic studs-up builds. It's less about the complexity of the build or appropriateness of the subject matter than about communicating that "this is not a playset". I agree, though, that it ended up having some unfortunate connotations in the context of this set, and that it might be better for future Pride-related sets to opt for an 8+, 10+, or 12+ target age like a lot of the Chinese Festival sets, Brick Sketches, or LEGO Architecture skylines. I mean, I think it goes without saying that the opinions people bring up in a topic for "unpopular opinions about LEGO" are likely to be divisive. If they weren't, then this probably wouldn't be the right topic for them in the first place! Moreover, avoiding topics because they're "politically loaded" can be a bit of a slippery slope. I've seen loads of people complain that sets or themes featuring female knights/warriors, firefighters, construction workers, or scientists are pandering to a "political agenda", but that doesn't mean that discussions of the roles we'd like to see female LEGO characters in should be off the table entirely. It also goes without saying that military conflicts and policing tend to be extremely "politically loaded" topic, especially among people who have had extremely negative experiences related to those topics in real life. But that shouldn't prevent AFOLs from discussing that sort of stuff when it happens to overlap with the sorts of LEGO sets or MOCs that interest them. Even the ongoing Covid-19 pandemic has been HEAVILY politicized in the media and in various segments of society. But it would be extremely frustrating not to be able to talk about it, given the ways that it's impacted stuff like our LEGO shopping habits, ability to plan in-person conventions/meetings with fellow LEGO fans, and even the availability of certain sets or themes. As such, I think there has to be a certain amount of room for these sorts of discussions on an adult-targeted forum like this, even if they sometimes make us uncomfortable or lead to disagreements. And that's ESPECIALLY true of a topic like this that's meant as a place to discuss topics we've disagreed with other LEGO fans about in the past. On that note: I still feel strongly that there's a lot more room for LGBTQ+ representation in LEGO than what we've seen, even if a lot of AFOLs tend to object to that sort of thing on various grounds any time I bring it up. Recently, the Disney Channel TV series "The Owl House" has provided some great examples of the sorts of kid-friendly LGBTQ+ representation that would be fairly easy to implement in "play themes" like City, Friends, Ninjago, etc. For starters, the show features a 14-year-old bisexual main character (Luz Noceda) with a same-sex romantic interest. Another major recurring character, Willow Park, has two dads. And in the latest episode, the show introduced a nonbinary supporting character (Raine Whispers) who uses they/them pronouns and is played by a nonbinary voice actor. None of these aspects of the characters are presented as any more "shocking" or "subversive" than the more normative portrayals of characters' identities, romantic interests, or their families in shows like the LEGO Ninjago or LEGO Friends animated series. So I don't think adding more of this sort of diversity would be any more "confusing" or "creatively stifling" than the more normative sorts of character traits that already tend to be the status quo in those themes. And certainly, it might be off-putting to parents who have homophobic or transphobic prejudices of their own… but if a company as profit-driven (and with as much aversion to "stirring the pot") as Disney is willing to take that chance, I can't imagine why it'd be beyond the bounds of reason for LEGO to do the same.

I mean, they do still use just one set of molds for alligators and crocodiles, and also one set of molds for all "big cat" species (with unique head sculpts only for the "male" lion and the sabretooth). For that matter, they are arguably taking great creative liberties by using the current deer mold as a "reindeer" in the Winter Village Collection, since its long neck and pointed muzzle more closely resemble that of a Eurasian red deer or American white-tailed deer than a reindeer. Real-life reindeer/caribou have short necks and flat/rounded muzzles — more like Sven from Frozen than a typical greeting-card portrayal of "Santa's reindeer". And even mini-doll themes (which tend to get considerably more species- or breed-specific with some of their molds) share molds between vastly different breeds and species pretty frequently: Namaarii's "Serlot" (a large fictional wildcat inspired by species like the serval, ocelot, and caracal) from Raya and the Last Dragon shares a mold that has been used in the Friends and Elves themes for both foxes and huskies. Bruno the bloodhound from Cinderella and Max the Old English sheepdog from The Little Mermaid share a mold with numerous dogs from LEGO Friends, including Cookie the dalmatian, Dash the terrier, and several other dogs of various unspecified breeds. Diablo the raven from Sleeping Beauty uses the same mold as Pepper the parakeet from LEGO Friends, which is in turn simply a dual-molded version of the one used for Elvis the eagle, Java the macaw, Violet the songbird, and Goldie the yellow warbler before the theme's 2018 reboot. I'm sure LEGO wouldn't be willing to use the same mold for ALL long-legged wading birds (such as storks, ibises, herons, spoonbills and egrets). But that's mostly just common sense — after all, imagine how ludicrous it would be if they used the flamingo mold from Minifigures Series 19 for all those different species, just because it happened to fall within that same general category! That said, I do think they'd probably be okay with having one shared mold for long-legged wading birds with long, straight bills (like herons, egrets, storks, and cranes), and only introduce separate molds for those like ibises and spoonbills that have more specific bill shapes. And even some of those other "specific molds" you mention could potentially be used for more varied species in the future as well. For example, it would not be a HUGE stretch to imagine the skunk mold being repurposed for other musteloid species with long, bushy tails (like raccoons, red pandas, wolverines martens and minks), or even for squirrels (especially large species like the Malabar Giant Squirrel). Some of those possibilities wouldn't be ideal, maybe… but neither was reusing the German Shepherd mold for dalmatians in past City sets! And that's something I'd be thrilled to see future LEGO City fire sets remedy, especially now that the Labrador Retriever mold exists. That's still not a perfect shape for a Dalmatian, but certainly closer than any other dog breed the City theme has had previously!

For my part, I don't have much preference between sets with one property or multiple properties per "lot". I think which is suitable for a given set depends mostly on whether the contents of a particular type of property take up enough space to justify devoting the entire baseplate to it. And in fact, when one property IS able to justify an entire 32-stud-wide lot on its own, it's often because it's a property that is implicitly multi-purpose. For example, the Fire Brigade set, like a real firehouse, includes both the living quarters for the firefighters AND the garage where their truck and other work equipment are kept. Likewise, the Grand Emporium is a department store, so it effectively functions as a clothing store, jeweler, toy store, and housewares store all in one! The Palace Cinema dedicates one floor to the movie theater itself, and another to smaller areas where business is conducted like the ticket window and concession stand. And of course, the Town Hall includes multiple offices, an auditorium, and a conference room. There are certainly several possibilities we haven't seen as Modular Building sets yet that would genuinely be large enough, magnificent enough, and varied enough on their own to justify dedicating an entire 32-stud-wide lot to them — for example, a museum/library (though the latter might feel a bit repetitive so soon after the Bookshop), hospital, school, train station, opera house, embassy, or luxury hotel (as opposed to the smaller hotel in the Cafe Corner set). In fact, I'd go so far as to say it'd be hard to depict these sorts of subjects at a Modular Building standard of quality if they DIDN'T occupy a 32-stud-wide lot on their own. At the same time, there are also loads of unexplored possibilities that would likely be more fitting as part of a shared lot with other properties (or as a subsection of another, larger property) — for instance, a hardware store, sporting goods store, record store, bike shop, antique shop, pawn shop, arcade, bowling alley, Chinese restaurant, Italian restaurant, ice cream parlor, deli, daycare center, post office, art gallery, or pharmacy. I feel like a lot of these options would end up feeling monotonous or repetitive compared to other Modular Building sets if they occupied two or three stories of an entire 32-stud-wide lot all on their own. And honestly? I think I'd be pretty happy with future Modular Building sets that explore options from either of these categories, as long as they portray the subject matter in question with the level of cleverness, intricacy, and artfulness that we've come to expect. On another note: I know some people's preference for "single-purpose" or "multi-purpose" Modular Building sets is more about aesthetics (for example, disliking structures with a narrow facade like the donut shop and police annex from this year's Police Station set) than about what actually goes on inside them. But I think it's important to recognize that as a separate distinction. After all, the Cafe Corner, Green Grocer, Corner Garage, and Parisian Restaurant are all multi-purpose buildings, but the properties are stacked on top of each other rather than arranged side-by-side, so the same design language appears across the entire width of their respective lots. Likewise, even though the Brick Bank's neo-classical style is interrupted on the right side by the narrower building that includes the laundromat and bank manager's office, that still gives the main bank building about as much "frontage" as a building like the Fire Brigade that isn't built on a street corner. So I think there are a lot of ways for designers to give a Modular Building an imposing and visually consistent facade even if the lot in question IS divided into multiple properties. And likewise, there are plenty of ways for them to horizontally break up a single property's facade, such as the Police Station's annex, or the bay windows on the right side of the Green Grocer's upstairs apartments. Yeah, I think a corner building is probably a pretty safe bet. Even if we can't be sure that LEGO will always continue to follow a strict pattern with these releases, I don't think they'd want to risk creating a greater sense of repetition by making corner buildings LESS frequent. I also don't think that the Spring Lantern Festival set or Daily Bugle set are any more likely to end up changing the plans for the main Modular Buildings Collection than the Ninjago City sets — which feature the same connections between buildings and between floors of each building, but also their own independent set of standards for the placement of sidewalks, elevated walkways, and canals. That said, I don't think it'd be unlikely at all to continue seeing more Modular Building style sets from other themes like Super Heroes or the Chinese Festival sets in future years, especially now that LEGO has shown that they're willing to do so and not worried about those sets cannibalizing sales of the main collection. Even Ideas projects in a Modular Building style (whether based on a pop-culture property, based on a real place, or wholly original) might have a better shot at approval these days than in the past… at least as long as they clearly stand out enough from the main collection to clearly be "their own thing" that happens to be compatible, rather than just a fan-made addition to the main collection like many of the Modular Building proposals that have been turned down in the past.

Finished! I don't know how useful my answers will actually be, but I definitely felt like they asked a lot of genuinely good questions. Hopefully this can give them some useful insights about how many different ways AFOLs enjoy LEGO or enjoy being part of a community of LEGO fans, and how to better cater to those varied perspectives and varied roles that LEGO plays in our lives.

For my part, I have a lot less affection for the plain smiley faces even on nostalgic grounds, since I've worn glasses since the second grade, and the plain smiley faces don't allow for even features as basic and race-neutral/gender-neutral as that! Also, I like the more varied mix-and-match opportunities that having different facial details allows for, especially when designing sigfigs or minifigure representations of friends and family (something I've greatly enjoyed doing since my childhood). I agree with this to an extent, and that's as a builder with a preference for non-licensed themes. I do think your comment about the quality of the sets themselves is a bit harsh since I don't think it's fair to attribute some of the weaknesses of older sets (like the lack of interior details in a lot of older Castle sets, or the wildly inconsistent facial graphics in the Wild West sets) to the themes themselves, when has more to do with the design standards of the time they were released. For comparison, the LEGO Star Wars theme first came out when I was a kid, and I was an avid collector of it for those first few years. And in hindsight, a lot of the sets back then like 7134 A-Wing Fighter, 7144 Slave I, and 7190 Millennium Falcon were pretty terrible compared to their newer counterparts! But that says less about the LEGO Star Wars theme's own merits than the limitations of the parts palette and design philosophy of sets from the late 90s and early 2000s. That said, I do think that a lot of fans of play themes from the late 80s and early 90s (like Town, Pirates, Castle, and Pirates) not only revere them as staples of the LEGO brand for their time, but also as timeless "staple themes" that no other theme could hope to match in significance, importance, or creative potential. Part of why this bothers me is that it seems like a disservice to later "play themes" like LEGO Friends and LEGO Ninjago that have not only gone on to achieved similar levels of success and longevity, but have done so by appealing to tastes/interests that were already popular among kids of the 80s and 90s, but weren't as effectively represented in the sets of that time. But that perspective is sometimes coupled with disdain/disregard for any sets or themes that AREN'T focused on minifig-scale playsets, such as Technic, Bionicle, Mindstorms, Boost, Architecture, Classic, BrickHeadz, Dots, Art, Super Mario, or "sculptural" models like the 18+ landmark, classic car, and botanical series! I can't tell you how many times I've seen the announcement/reveal of these sorts of sets met with social media comments like "Nobody wants this garbage — bring back Castle/Space/Pirates!", "C'mon, LEGO, give us actual minifigs!", or "Ugh, this doesn't even look like LEGO" — as if minifigs and minifig-scale playsets are the be-all and end-all of the LEGO brand, and the only sort of LEGO characters or sets anybody could ever want, need, or enjoy. And that feels particularly narrow-minded when you consider that the LEGO brick predates the LEGO minifigure by around 40 years!

TBH, I hardly ever see anybody claim that the cost of new molds makes bringing back a particular individual mold "virtually impossible". Perhaps that's what you feel is implied when people argue against bringing back a retired mold for cost reasons, but I don't think anybody believes new molds cost more than LEGO can afford — just that it's a high enough price for LEGO to be a little picky about which sets and/or parts can justify that sort of investment.

They're sometimes also just Easter eggs or shout-outs to unrelated stuff that a particular set's graphic designer happens to be interested in, like the Bionicle mask as a constellation on the star chart sticker in set 76389. Regardless of the intent, I don't see any reason to think a graphic design choice in the Harry Potter theme would be meant as a "hint" about unrelated future sets or themes. Yeah, I think the performance of the Medieval Blacksmith set alone seems to have shown enough demand for more AFOL-targeted medieval sets in the future. Even if LEGO is reluctant to do that sort of thing as an annual series like the Modular Building, Winter Village, or classic car sets, it wouldn't surprise me if they started dabbling in more sporadic releases like they have with the Fairground Collection sets. In interviews about the Medieval Blacksmith set, the designer Wes Talbott has certainly seemed enthusiastic about and open to the possibility that it could pave the way for future medieval buildings in a similar format! Granted, even actual LEGO designers are not immune to wishful thinking about possibilities that might never actually come to fruition (such as licensing agreements that they don't necessarily have any say in), but I don't think this particular possibility would be very far-fetched at all. Certainly even if "Castle" as a theme has not really been active lately, castles and medieval inspired buildings more broadly have demonstrated lasting appeal, including "generic" ones like the Medieval Blacksmith and Castle in the Forest that aren't tied to a licensed or in-house IP. LEGO's current strategy with their "Adults Welcome" initiative also shows a lot more openness to pushing that category in new directions (like the Botanical Collection, the Adidas sneaker, LEGO Art mosaics, the "Everyone is Awesome" set, the Nintendo Entertainment System, etc) than what we'd seen under the earlier "Creator Expert" branding. If LEGO is more willing to take chances on "stand-alone" adult products now (even outside the Ideas theme), that could also potentially apply to historical, fantasy, or sci-fi exclusives, which LEGO previously seemed reluctant to release except as tie-ins with other current or recent themes aimed at a younger audience. I think new minifigures would be pretty much inevitable for those sorts of sets as long as they're actually minifigure scale. Adult-targeted exclusives might sometimes have a limited budget for new molds, but new printed elements tend to quite common in minifig-scale exclusives these days (even ones that include sticker sheets as well). I think printed flags/banners would be pretty likely as well, unless the set in question has a whole lot of OTHER new printed elements eating up its budget. As for new factions? That's a little more uncertain, since there are any number of "old-school" factions that the designers might prefer to focus on for nostalgia reasons, much like they did with the Black Falcons in the Medieval Blacksmith set. But I do think that compared to the CMFs, larger adult-targeted exclusives would have more incentive to "flesh out" whatever factions they happen to focus on by portraying multiple figures and/or accessories tied to that faction, especially reusing the same printed torsos, shields, flags, etc. several times within the same set (or multiple sets) offers a better return on investment than keeping faction-specific prints or recolors limited to one figure each for novelty's sake.

I mean, even if LEGO can afford a lot of new molds, they still certainly aren't cheap, particularly when compared to a lot of the other production costs they deal with, such as new recolors or printed elements. So one way or another, which sets or themes LEGO is willing to invest in new molds for typically comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. Take your Trolls example, for instance. LEGO did make a lot of new molds for that theme, but many of them were used across several sets within that theme. And because of those sets' low-to-medium price points and widespread retail availability, they were produced and sold in large quantities. Also, incidentally, there's no reason to assume that those Trolls molds are all gone for good — Trolls World Tour was quite successful, and if Dreamworks decides to develop a sequel, it's entirely possible that LEGO might make sets to tie in with that film as well, just as they did for Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom. Adult-targeted exclusives like Modular Buildings or larger Ideas sets tend to be produced and sold in much smaller quantities, on account of their more limited availability, higher target age, and far higher prices than any of the Trolls World Tour sets. They do "sell well" in their own right, but the actual number of units produced and sold is far less than that of more KFOL-targeted themes like City, Friends, or Ninjago. Also, even when LEGO can afford new molds, they have to be selective about WHICH new molds they introduce. Case in point: one animal mold a lot of people have been pleading for LEGO to reintroduce is the goat. And it's true that LEGO could potentially do so for a future wave of sets, since it wouldn't really cost any more than a lot of the other new animal molds they've introduced lately, such as sheep, bulldogs, sea turtles, stingrays, angler fish, etc. But any money spent on recreating the goat mold is money that CAN'T be spent on other potential new molds. So the goat mold is really only likely to come back if a design team that has the budget for new molds (like, say, the Collectable Minifigures, City, Ninjago, or Jurassic World design team) happens to see goats as the best possible use of that portion of their budget. This also applies to other discussions of bringing back retired molds that have been largely "replaced" in modern sets, like the 1x4x5 doors in the Cafe Corner and Market Street set., There are already alternative 1x4x6 door pieces that can serve largely the same purpose in other sets and themes — so bringing back those specific molds would really ONLY be useful for the fleetingly scarce sets (mostly re-releases of long-retired sets like those two) where there's no workarounds that would allow for a taller door frame to be used in their place What's more, new versions of those molds would sometimes be even less useful than they were back when they were originally introduced, because back then, each of those doors had a mirror image equivalent (since they were not reversible like the ones that fit in the current door frames) — and some of those beloved retired sets that AFOLs often plead for LEGO to bring back did not use both versions of those particular molds. For example, the left-hand version of the Cafe Corner's front door only appeared in one set back in the 80s! Now, I will say that the cost of new molds tends to be MOST relevant to discussions about the prospect of bringing back stuff like monorails, which would involve bringing back molds for an entire system of complex functional elements (including costly electrical components that have to be tested extensively for safety and reliability). That sort of thing carries a much heftier price tag than introducing new molds on a more individual basis. By contrast, the possibility of a new goat mold is much more likely in the long run, whether it uses the same design as the old goat or a brand-new, revised design. It would simply require circumstances where the designers feel like a goat would be better for the set or theme that they happen to be assigned to than other potential new animals that they could introduce in its place — such as maybe a new City subtheme with a mountainous rural setting, an Alpine Goatherd CMF, or a new movie license that features goats in a prominent recurring role. But I guess the main idea I'm trying to get across is that "LEGO can afford to make new molds, but the ones that are the biggest priority for them aren't necessarily the ones that are the biggest priority for us". LEGO could have made a new goat mold for the Mickey Mouse sets this year, but chose to make a sheep mold instead. And there are still numerous OTHER farm animal possibilities that they could potentially introduce in the future like a donkey/mule, turkey, calf, piglet, chick, sheepdog, llama/alpaca, updated foal, etc. Similarly, even if LEGO decided that the modular buildings are now selling well enough to justify new door or window molds, it's still likely that they'd focus on ones that would open up new possibilities for the future (like, say, a set of French doors for the 1x6x6 frame, or a taller and/or wider version of the new bay window frame, or a taller and/or wider version of the latticed window pane), not on recreating molds that were retired many years ago and have largely been replaced by more versatile counterparts. Counterpoint: look at how many CMF molds there are that HAVE shown up more widely in subsequent sets and themes: the afro, mohawk, "beehive" hairdo, mullet, hair with bun, "cavegirl" hair, short beard, beret, stocking cap, football helmet, bowler hat, hot dog suit, tutu, "space marine" armor, cat tail, horse tail, Santa hat, swaddled baby, teddy bear, chihuahua, seagull, cat, rabbit, boombox, maracas, microphone, electric and acoustic guitars, saxophone, rescue buoy, surfboard, snowboard, skis/ski pole, roller skates, ice skates, mountain bike, baseball bat, tennis racket, fan, paint palette, paint roller, Erlenmeyer flask, genie lamp, "nanofig" and cup-style trophies, wind-up key, toolbox, syringe, pot/cauldron, ray gun, round shield, rapier, short sword/gladius, dual-molded spear, etc. In cases where particular CMF parts haven't shown up more widely, it's often just because designers haven't encountered situations where they needed them. Sometimes that's because they haven't yet fit any other sets and themes in development, like is often the case with certain "costume" figures' headgear. Other times it's because designers of other sets and themes had other, more readily available options that could be used in place of CMF molds. And in some cases it's even just because the CMFs in question are so recent that their parts weren't yet available to set designers from other design teams when they were working on other current or recent sets. Keep in mind that different themes are often developed on differing schedules, so even if a mold has already begun appearing in sets, it might not have been finalized when other current or future sets were in development! All in all, there's no reason to think that an accessory being exclusive to the CMFs for now means it will remain that way, especially now that the CMFs are being produced in the same factories and on the same machinery as parts for "ordinary" sets, rather than contracted out to a separate manufacturer like they were for the first several series.

I took the train to pick up some prescriptions yesterday, and it turns out they DO have those mini crossing gates along the sidewalk! I suppose in that case it's at least partly because the pedestrian footpath doubles as a bike trail, which would make a footbridge ABOVE the tracks a considerable inconvenience for cyclists. And yes, the road crossing gates at that station DO only go across half the road, so I guess I don't have a great visual memory for that sort of thing.

Just from glancing at the characters list on the wiki (since I've seen very little of the series itself), I see that the recurring minor character Nate is in 60294 — he previously appeared as a minifigure in 60234 People Pack - Fun Fair. Perhaps some of the others may be characters from episodes that haven't aired yet?

Honestly, my mental image of how much of the road crossing gates cover is probably skewed by the fact that I don't actually drive (which is a big part of why I love to take the train places any time that it's an option). So when I encounter them, it's usually as a pedestrian.

Aw, dang! I'm not that interested in The Lord of the Rings, so can't say that aspect of the build appeals to me… but this approach (with two hinged buildings connected by a central arch) is honestly a brilliantly creative building design! The half-timbering is also quite lovely, and I'm impressed that the whole model is both playable and display-worthy.

Well, hearing all these accounts of crossing gates in North America being designed this way, maybe my mental image of what the crossing gates I've seen IRL are like is just totally inaccurate! Next time I go to the train station I'll have to pay extra close attention so I know just how embarrassed to be about how I remember those crossing gates looking.

As an American, I think there's a pretty good chance you're correct. Even though Americans are probably more familiar with the New York City Subway (which was North America's first subway system when it opened in 1904, and today is the world's largest rapid transit system by number of stations), the London Underground long predated it, and served as a template for subsequent subway systems. Needless too say, the iconic London Underground map by Harry Beck and the London Underground roundel have similarly gone on to influence subway maps and branding all over the world (including in fiction and in LEGO sets, such as in the LEGO Ninjago set 70640). Moreover, even in places where people have more familiarity, nostalgia, and affection for their local lines than they do for London's, I'm not sure the trains themselves are regarded as distinctive and iconic as London's flashy red tube cars! Honestly, LEGO City has had a few street-level trams along those lines, specifically in sets 8404, 60097, and 60271. It's just that so far, they haven't included track elements with them, same as how they generally haven't included roads for cars/trucks/buses. Now that roads are being included in more City sets (including these sorts of "Town Square/City Square/City Centre" sets) instead of just a separate supplementary product, I'm definitely hopeful that tramways might start appearing in future sets as well. Granted, streets with integrated at-grade tramways might require new road elements, since there aren't really any curved tile pieces that would neatly fill in the inside of the various curved rail/track pieces that currently exist. But I do think we're likely to see working tramways in sets long before subways. Right now, I see working subway systems as more of a challenge for MOCists to experiment with (including novices like me), or a more distant hypothetical possibility for sets, not a likely reality in the immediate future. If they did one as an adult-targeted exclusive like the Emerald Night, Horizon Express, or Crocodile Locomotive, they wouldn't even need a station or full loop of track! And going back to @Vilhelm22's point, that'd be a great avenue to release a licensed London tube train if they so desired, especially considering the popularity of other sets based on iconic London sights and landmarks (Tower Bridge, Big Ben, the London Bus, Trafalgar Square, Buckingham Palace, etc).

I guess I wasn't clear, but I was suggesting the possibility of using inclined terrain so that you don't have to elevate the entire layout, just the roads and structures that have tunnels, basements, or sewers underneath them. Make no mistake — designing that sort of stuff and mantaining street-level access would be a challenging undertaking any way you slice it! Even more so if you're a set designer aiming to maintain compatibility with other City sets, as well as a consumer-friendly price point. I do not think we're likely to see a set like that any time soon, especially when there are so many simpler/more straightforward uses of this road system that LEGO has yet to explore in sets (bridges, level crossings, tramways, parking lots/parking decks, etc). But it seems to me like this sort of thing would be at least a little more feasible using the new road plates than it did with traditional road baseplates, since their connection points are a little friendlier for attaching them to an underlying structure. And I'm eager to experiment with this sort of stuff in my own MOCs, or to see MOCs from other people that explore similar possibilities. I don't know if you meant your comment to sound dismissive/condescending, but it kind of came across that way. Rest assured, I recognize that you don't like the new road system, and I have no intent on trying to change your mind about that. But most of the time, when I mention creative possibilities I've been thinking about for that system in a thread like this one, it's because those possibilities are exciting or inspiring to me — not because I'm trying to "convert" anyone. The last thing I want is for this topic to turn into yet another debate of the pros or cons of the new roads. It's way more fun to collaboratively brainstorm new or exciting layout possibilities than to argue back and forth about what LEGO should or shouldn't do in the future!

A subway could be AWESOME to see, and it's one of several possibilities that I think could be a lot more feasible thanks to the new road baseplates with connection points on their underside. Same with sewers, for that matter. That said, for a subway station to be viable in a set and not just in MOCs, it'd likely have to be big enough to include a hill/incline, so that extensive modifications aren't needed to connect the roads or sidewalks above the subway station to other sets with roads or sidewalks that AREN'T elevated. That said, I do think that this could theoretically work, since a lot of light rail/metro systems include tracks both above and below ground level.

I suspect my next comment will probably be at least as unpopular as yours (and full disclosure: I'm copying and pasting most of this from a comment I made on the Brickset forums in response to a similar discussion). But I feel like minidolls aren't really that much more limited in functionality than traditional minifigs… particularly considering how many mini-dolls portray characters with features that tend to limit traditional minifigs' range of movement, like long hair, skirts, dresses/gowns, and mermaid tails. For example, if you compare the minifigure and mini-doll versions of Anna from Frozen, the minifigure version is entirely unable to turn its head or move its legs. So although the minidoll version lacks wrist articulation and has some slight inaccuracies (most notably Anna's pigtails hanging down behind her shoulders instead of draped in front of them), its improved range of movement for the head and legs adds a lot to the figure's playability and range of poses in the sets that it appears in. There are also a few other areas where mini-dolls tend to have functional advantages over classic minifigs: Traditional minifigs sitting next to each other need at least one stud worth of space between them to keep their shoulders from colliding, whereas mini-dolls can sit directly side-by-side. As such, a typical LEGO sofa, bed, bench, or row of seats in a vehicle can fit more mini-dolls side-by-side than minifigs. Any chair more than 2.5 plates tall will make a traditional minifig taller when seated than they would be standing. The same chair would have to be more than four and half plates tall to cause the same issue for a mini-doll. And that difference is very liberating when trying to design "dollhouse furniture" with a lot of detail and variety! The height that traditional minifigs can raise their arms is generally limited by whatever hair or headgear they happen to have. This is much less of an issue for mini-dolls, since their shoulders' axis of rotation is horizontal instead of at an angle. Because mini-dolls' armspan is the same no matter what angle their arms are at, they can much more easily reach around another mini-doll (or animal friend) for a hug than traditional minifigures can. D'awwww! Of course, there are also plenty of genuine advantages minifigs have over mini-dolls (particularly due to mini-dolls' lack of individually hinged legs or wrists), which I'm sure we're all well aware of! So it's not as though there are no valid reasons for preferring minifigs over mini-dolls, or for being more frustrated with the drawbacks of the latter than the former. But I think a lot of people tend to assume that the differences between the two figures can all be summed up as mini-dolls prioritizing aesthetics over functionality, whereas I think it's often just as much about prioritizing functionality in specific areas where minifigures would have considerably greater limitations. I certainly understand where you're coming from, but personally I don't feel like this is as much of a deal-breaker as people make it out to be. Certainly during my childhood in the 90s and 2000s, I had no problem enjoying all sorts of LEGO figures — from traditional minifigures, to the taller and more posable Technic figures, to the full-size action figures in themes like Bionicle and Knights' Kingdom 2 — even if they belonged to entirely separate "ecosystems". After all, even if I stuck to playing with them and designing MOCs within those particular "ecosystems", there was still plenty of crossover appeal thanks to the intercompatibility of the actual building elements from those various themes. And frankly, even if traditional minifigures and mini-dolls don't match one another aesthetically, it's much easier to use them together in the same play scenario than it was with those differently-scaled figures from my own childhood, because the scale of minifigures and mini-dolls is similar enough that the buildings, vehicles, and scenery that accompany them tend to be about the same size. Adapting a LEGO Friends building or vehicle to accommodate LEGO City minifigures (or vice-versa) is usually as simple as making some changes to the seating inside to account for the functional differences I mentioned above. And I've certainly heard plenty of accounts from parents whose kids have no problem enjoying play scenarios that use both tradtional minifigures and mini-dolls in spite of their varying design languages. I don't really agree with this, for reasons that I think are best expressed by flipping the argument around: "You can't solve this second problem; one just has to accept it or reject traditional minifigures as a premise". That sounds pretty extreme, doesn't it? But your statement is predicated on the assumption that traditional minifigures are the preferable default/standard, and mini-dolls are a deviation from that default/standard. To people who have previously felt alienated by or disinterested in the minifigure (especially younger kids who have ALWAYS had both styles of figure available to them, and ended up preferring the mini-doll anyhow), the opposite could easily be true. And in that case, their frustration would be with sets/themes that opt for traditional minifigures, not ones that opt for mini-dolls. And while some people assume this problem wouldn't exist if LEGO hadn't introduced the mini-doll as an "alternative" in the first place, the reality is that even when the traditional minifigure was still more of a universal default, there were still a lot of kids (especially girls) who didn't care for it. It was never as "gender-neutral" in practice as it was ostensibly intended to be, especially with the ways I mentioned above that certain feminine-coded clothing styles and hairstyles restrict its functionality. So even if, hypothetically, there COULD be one default LEGO figure design that would satisfy everyone, the traditional minifigure itself falls far short of that target. And given its well established popularity among kids and adults OTHER than those that the mini-doll was created to appeal to, I feel like replacing the minifigure entirely with a brand-new design, even one that boys and girls seemed to enjoy equally, would have made a lot more people unhappy than introducing the mini-doll as an alternative that exists alongside the minifigure. If anything, I think the ideal way to make the mini-doll's "ecosystem" feel less like a "ghetto" (as you put it) would be to EXPAND the number of themes that use it. LEGO seemed to be moving towards that goal for a while. But now that the Super Hero Girls, Elves, and LEGO Movie 2 themes have been discontinued, we're back to about where we were in 2014, with the mini-doll appearing only in Friends and Disney sets, as opposed to the MANY themes that still use the traditional minifigure. And even as a fan of both the minifigure and the mini-doll, I'm definitely bothered by that discrepancy. I hope it isn't long before LEGO introduces more new mini-doll focused themes (ideally including one like LEGO Elves that targets a higher age range than Friends or Disney sets typically do) to balance things out a little more. But I am definitely grateful that both figure designs remain in use, and that LEGO continues to roll out new innovations (like the "baby" minifigure and "micro-doll") which show a continued commitment to both of those design standards.

I mean, the same was true of tree houses, and that doesn't seem to have hurt the popularity of the LEGO Ideas Tree House one bit! If anything, the fact that there was so much support for the tree house and motorized lighthouse projects (in SPITE of the number of smaller or simpler tree house and lighthouse sets there have been) is a testament to how exciting the idea of sets like those with a "premium" level of realism, detail, and functionality are for a lot of LEGO fans. I suppose it's not unlike the enthusiasm that a lot of AFOLs have for new Modular Buildings, even when they focus on subjects like fire or police stations that already tend to be fairly common in more KFOL-targeted themes.

Oh, that actually makes a lot of sense now that you mention it! I hadn't even thought about designing for that possibility. Guess that's why I'm not a civil engineer, lol.

Nicely done! Although, shouldn't the gates go all the way across the road? I feel like most of the ones I see in real life are designed that way to discourage drivers from thinking they can pull off some crazy stunt driving to get across the tracks before the gates close completely. This may be a regional thing, though… here in North America, rail travel is a lot less widespread than in Europe, and I wouldn't be surprised if that leads to fewer drivers having a healthy understanding of railroad crossing safety. It's also possible that reckless driving of that sort might just be a bigger problem in America than it is in Germany, particularly considering how many Americans drive huge pickup trucks or SUVs with four-wheel drive, which can lead drivers to feel way more "invincible" than they actually are. Also, are you planning to add any traffic lights or signs to your layout? It seems like the intersection in this photo could use some to ensure that drivers going straight on that main road and ones turning towards the tracks don't get in a collision!