Aanchir

I guess I was a little vague about this in my post, but I was honestly referring to future 3-in-1 possibilities in general, not just in the immediate future. So that would include possibilities for after that particular wave of Ninjago sets has retired. Even if LEGO created a full Islander-inspired wave of Pirates sets, I'm not sure they'd be interested in bringing back the classic mask design used for King Kahuka/Chief Quextil — particularly since the feather component used to "complete" his mask is also long-retired. They might be just as likely to opt for an entirely new mask mold, or for reusing the one from the Island Warrior. King Kahuka was certainly one of my childhood favorite LEGO figures (and I even dressed up as him for Halloween back when I was 4 years old or so), but aside from the nostalgic appeal for 90s kids like me, there'd be little incentive for LEGO to bring back that specific mold. By comparison, other "historic" headgear molds form the 90s that we've seen brought back from retirement for the CMFs or other sets (like the morion helmet, nemes headdress, ninja mask, samurai helmet, Native American war bonnet, and bycocket hat) resemble their real-world and/or pop culture equivalents closely enough that even a complete newbie to LEGO can immediately recognize what they're based on or inspired by. In any case, if LEGO were to try and make new "Islanders" style sets in a historical or historical fantasy setting, I would hope that they'd try to come up with more culturally and historically authentic figure and set designs than the ones back in the 90s. A good comparison is the degree of research and consulation with experts from indigenous Polynesian communities that went into developing the movie Moana, particularly compared to 90s Disney films like Aladdin and Pocahontas that were rife with Eurocentric stereotypes of the cultures they were based on.

They're really pushing hard for you to build that third model! Since this is a speculation topic and all, I'm curious… if LEGO were to make another Pirates-inspired 3-in-1 set, what sort of models do you think would be a cool or fitting choice? Obviously, if they decided to do another ship, they wouldn't be limited to the same size/price point as the current 3-in-1 Pirate Ship. Brick-built hull and sail techniques like the ones in that set could just as easily work for a smaller ship with, say, a 12-stud-wide hull, which is something we haven't seen in the Pirates theme since the 90s. Some potential alternate builds for another ship like that would be a "shipwreck hideout" like the Forbidden Island/Pirate Island set from 1989, or a Swiss Family Robinson style tree fort for a pirate castaway. A 3-in-1 set with models like that could also function as a kid-friendly, low-budget alternative to the LEGO Ideas Barracuda Bay and Tree House sets, sort of like this year's 3-in-1 Space Shuttle Adventure set is to some of the big NASA-based exclusives that are currently on the market. That said, it's possible that "castaway tree fort" and "shipwreck hideout" might be too conceptually similar to stand out from one another as alternate builds of a single set. If so, there are probably plenty of other possibilities you could come up with using these sorts of parts, like a shipyard with a masting sheer, or a coastal/inland merchant boat that reuses the main model's sail components as a tent-like roof/shelter. A set focusing on an Imperial/naval faction would be another way to help it stand out from the existing 3-in-1 Pirate Ship, although I think it'd still likely need a fair amount of emphasis on the Pirates themselves, since they are the "hook" (no pun intended) that gets a lot of younger kids interested in the "Age of Sail" to begin with. The 3-in-1 Pirate Roller Coaster set is a pretty good sign that a 3-in-1 set with colonial fort aesthetics can work as long as there's enough context to communicate to kids that the model is pirate-themed. So I suspect they could just as easily manage something like that in a set with an actual historic setting rather than a theme park setting. There are a number of different alternate models a 3-in-1 colonial fort set could have. One obvious one that comes to mind would be a lighthouse, since those are popular subject matter in Creator 3-in-1 that would also be very appropriate to a 17th/18th century time period, and could easily be designed from the same sort of parts and colors as the main model. In fact, if it helped the set sell, a lighthouse could even be presented as the MAIN model, with a colonial fort/outpost as one of the alternate builds. Another possibility would be a less militarized harbour/trading post/"Free Port", like the Lagoon Lock-Up/Soldiers' Tavern set, or a smaller version of the Imperial Trading Post/Port Royal set. In fact, thinking about it again… a model with these three builds (fort, lighthouse, and civilian trading post) is beginning to sound like a Pirates equivalent of the 3-in-1 Medieval Castle. And that, in turn, gets me thinking that you could even potentially design these sets so that they could link together, either in a similar "walled city" layout to the Medieval Castle, or via interconnected piers like the 2015 Soldiers Outpost and Soldiers Fort. Also, as a fan of some of the creature-focused 3-in-1 sets we've seen, I also think it'd be cool to see one sort of like the various dragon/mythical creature sets the theme has had, but focusing on "sea monsters"… like, say, a kraken, a sea serpent, and… I dunno, a giant crab maybe? Certainly the 3-in-1 Deep Sea Creatures set shows that this theme is capable of some outstandingly lifelike shaping and articulation using curved slopes and Mixel joints. So I can easily picture a "sea monster" focused 3-in-1 set at a somewhat higher price point being even MORE impressive!

I could definitely imagine plenty of uses. Using it without any window panes at all could be great as a new way of constructing railings (for example, on a crow's nest, where the 4x4 curved fence pieces would generally be too large for most LEGO pirate ships). It could also be used with solid-colored windowpanes as a new, more decorative way of creating a curved wall than just using curved bricks. And with transparent window panes, it would naturally be a great fit for lighthouses! I'm definitely a big fan of the new monkey. Not posable like the old one, of course, but I think the face printing and more realistic size (closer to the size of LEGO dogs and cats than adult minifigures) more than justify that sacrifice. The "classic" recolor of the current crocodile molds in 60302 also bring back a lot of old-school LEGO Pirates and Islanders nostalgia for me! Thinking about other stuff that hasn't been mentioned in this thread, it's just occurred to me that a lot of the curved glow-in-the-dark elements from the Monkie Kid Bone Demon set are just BEGGING to be used as the timbers of a literal "ghost ship"! The hair and skull-patterned headdress of the Lady Bone Demon minifigure in that set also feel like they could be great for some sort of fantasy pirate character, whether genuinely undead or just with a taste for spooky aesthetics. That hair/headdress would also pair beautifully with the skull-patterned sword hilt or skull-patterned serrated cutlass from the Ninjago sky pirate sets. I've been thinking for quite a while now about the potential some of those skull-patterned Ninjago parts would have for reuse as fantasy pirate stuff… especially the hilt piece, since its lack of a blade and useful connection points open it up to all kinds of decorative uses, not just as part of a weapon.

I could definitely picture a 3-in-1 train being a possibility. I've seen some people claim that it's unlikely since trains require specialized pieces for stuff like their wheels and tracks, but the same can be said for roller coasters, and that didn't prevent LEGO from releasing the 3-in-1 Pirate Roller Coaster set. I'm honestly still surprised there haven't been any 4+ train sets, especially since the new train wheels and wheel bearings were introduced. I feel like some 4+ push-powered trains would be great for kids on the tail end of the age range that enjoys stuff like Brio trains or Thomas the Tank Engine, and would also provide an entry point to help those kids start enjoying System train building and layout design even before they're ready for bigger City train sets with electric motors. Perhaps we'll finally see a set like that released alongside the next wave of City trains.

This is super cute! You did a wonderful job with her proportions, and I love how pretty her dress and shoes are! The wings from the Ant-Man set are a perfect fit for a fairy character at this scale. I'm also pleased with how much articulation she has and the adorable pose you put her in. The tree/sapling built with constraction parts is also very clever, although I kind of feel like it might be a little better if it had more flower blossoms on it (and perhaps even some larger ones or more varied designs) to help the fairy feel a little more "in her element". But that's a minor gripe, all things considered.

There was a brief period in the late 90s when Tr. Green windows and windscreens had a bit of a renaissance in Hydronauts, Insectoids, and Town Police sets. But its use abruptly declined around the time that Tr. Brown (Trans-Black on BrickLink) was introduced as a more realistic option for tinted glass in "real-world" or "near-future" settings. The last time I remember seeing a cool new windscreen mold in Tr. Green was 75973 from the Overwatch theme. It probably doesn't help that from 2010 onward there have been two other transparent green colors for designers to choose from (both of which are a little easier to see through by virtue of being lighter), or that the various sets we've seen featuring throwbacks to the Classic Space theme tend to use the AFOL-preferred blue/grey/yellow color scheme instead of the grey/green color scheme from sets like the Solar Power Transporter. Aw dang, good call! I hadn't even thought about that possibility, but that projectile would be great as a heavy laser cannon. Or for that matter, even as flamethrowers or fireballs in more of a fantasy context. I wouldn't be surprised if LEGO even created it with some of those sorts of potential future uses in mind, seeing as they opted not to give it a specific "watery" shape or texture.

Nice analysis! Even though I haven't made a whole lot of Space MOCs lately, I definitely still get excited any time a brightly colored windscreen shows up in sets like the 2019 Quinjet or the 2020 Mobile Bat Base. In my case, I'm not so picky about wanting sharp angles for Space windscreens, since I generally prefer trying to "re-imagine" traditional Space factions like Blacktron or Ice Planet in a more modern style (sort of like Space Police 3 and some of the Collectable Minifigures have done) rather than trying to approximate their original design language. After all, I feel like even some of the designers of those 80s and 90s Space sets might have used more curved parts if they'd been available back then. Sort of like how Aquazone submarines used very angular dome windows, but later sci-fi/fantasy submarines in themes like Alpha Team, Atlantis, Ninjago, etc. (and for that matter, even the Creator 3-in-1 Underwater Robot) have opted for more curved dome windows. Of course, I also like curved parts just because smoothing out the corners of a model s a fun challenge for me, regardless of theme. I've spent a couple years now exploring Castle and Forestmen MOC ideas using some of the recent cylindrical panel pieces in place of the angular corner panels that were so ubiquitous in Castle sets of my childhood. That said, finishing these MOCs is trickier than starting them, since the BrickLink prices for newer parts like these (especially in colors that have only appeared in a few sets) can become very steep very quickly! And I prefer even my digital MOCs to be stuff that I could hypothetically build in real life once I'm happy with their designs.

Nice changes! I love that the end result maintains the spirit of the original set and a lot of its aesthetic strengths, while introducing some modest practical improvements like slightly taller battlements. I was less fond of Zander’s modifications on Brickset, since while the blue banners are nice, changing the yellow infill between the timbers to tan weakens the visual contrast a lot, in my opinion.

True! Also for marble statues in other contexts like churches, or even for ghosts, maybe. I also think a combination of white helmets or armor with other colors (including more neutral ones like grey or silver) could be very effective. While they were very low-detail by modern standards (no metallic colors or leg/hip/torso details like belts, chainmail, boots, etc), I think the four mounted knights in the original Yellow Castle still feel fairly believable as authentic medieval knights, at least in terms of their color schemes. I'm not sure if there are any authentic historical examples of medieval or helmets that were entirely painted white. Most examples of medieval painted helmets and armor that I've seen (such as in illustrations dating back to medieval times, or in museum collections) feature more detailed patterns, often to match the heraldry of their wearers. And the same goes for real-world-inspired modern recreations like the sort you might see reenactors wearing at a "Renaissance faire" or other medieval-inspired events and attractions. That said, I'm pretty sure LEGO has never actually had printed medieval helmets/visors (unless you count the more fantastical designs from the Lord of the Rings theme). So solid-colored helmets like these (or for that matter, some of the Castle helmet recolors worn by the Squirebots or Royal Guards/Soldiers in the Nexo Knights theme) are currently the closest "purist" approximation of these sorts of painted medieval helmets — at least in brighter colors like white or red.

Some other cool recolors in that set that could be useful in a Pirates context (or other historic contexts, for that matter) are lanterns and vine/filigree pieces in Medium Stone Grey, and 2x2x2 barrels, 8x8x2/3 rounded plates, and 8x4x2/3 rounded plates in Medium Nougat. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up being one of the most popular Super Mario sets as a "parts pack" for AFOLs, since it has so many useful or interesting parts in subdued "earth tones" compared to more brightly colored parts or character/brand specific prints/molds. Certainly I'm excited for some of these recolors myself, especially since the 8x4x2/3 rounded plate currently only comes in Medium Lilac (Dark Purple) and Bright Green, which are somewhat trickier to build a color scheme around (especially due to the relatively limited availability of other large plates in those colors).

Okay, but your previous complaint was about sets being too similar to one another/not standing out. That's a different matter entirely than whether or not you happen to be interested in them. There are a LOT of categories of sets that I have no particular interest in, such as 4+, Classic, Minecraft, Vidiyo, Harry Potter, Speed Champions, BrickHeadz, or Botanical Collection sets, but it's still obvious to me that they are very different types of product that will likely appeal to very different audiences. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the reasons you feel drawn to so few sets and themes compared to whatever you consider the peak years for LEGO is that LEGO has been making their portfolio MORE varied (and reaching buyers with more varied tastes and interests), instead of tailoring it as much to the types of themes, subject matter, and building styles that interest you specifically. It's probably safe to say that there are a lot of AFOLs with no interest in themes like Friends, Elves, or Dots, whether it's for being "too girly", "too childish", "too colorful" or as you put it, not having "proper minifigures". But a lot of the people who do enjoy those themes are drawn to them by the very attributes that set them apart from playsets that use traditional minifigures. Likewise, many AFOLs dislike sets or themes like Hidden Side, Super Mario, Vidiyo, or Technic "Powered Up" sets with play features that involve a mobile app. But app integration actually helps those themes appeal to buyers in ways that other themes couldn't, since they offer play features or play experiences that wouldn't be possible without some type of digital integration. And of course, a lot of European and American LEGO fans would not be any more drawn to the Chinese Festival sets or Monkie Kid theme than to comparable sets inspired by European or American cultural traditions. But in China and other Asian countries where those festival traditions are more widely known and celebrated, or Monkey King stories are more widely enjoyed, those sets would appeal to those interests in a way that more European or American inspired themes would not. So certainly, there are plenty of adults and kids alike who would probably prefer new Castle, Pirates, and Space themes over some of these current sets or themes. But there are also plenty of LEGO fans (and potential LEGO fans) who would probably have just as little interest in those themes as a lot of us have in other more current/recent themes.

I mean, it goes without saying that kids' building ability (including visual-spatial reasoning skills, manual dexterity, ability to follow a sequential list of instructions, etc) develops at a different pace from person to person. But regardless of what age a child is ready, to graduate from Duplo building to System building, jumping straight to sets marked for ages 5+ or higher would be quite an abrupt leap! Duplo sets almost exclusively around stacking parts vertically from bottom to top, and even the largest sets only tend to have 120 or so parts. Also, the stud to anti-stud connections are tight enough to stand up to a toddler's occasional fumbling during or after assembly. System sets with a 5+ or higher age marking tend to feature more extensive use of SNOT techniques, hinges, Technic connections, mechanical functions, sub-assemblies, and building steps that require viewing the entire assembly from a different angle. And System parts are not only smaller and more precise, but their studs have a much lower tolerance for clumsiness or carelessness, making it much easier for System assemblies to break just from holding or applying pressure to them in the wrong place. That's the reason 4+ sets exist — to help provide kids with a smoother transition between Duplo and System building, regardless of what age they are when they're ready to do so. The reason that they specify a minimum target age of 4 years is that toy safety regulations legally prohibit marketing toys with small parts to kids under 3, due to the implicit choking hazard they'd present. If parents feel that their kids are proficient enough to be ready for that transition at a younger age, they are entirely free to make that decision, but LEGO's age labeling has to adhere to much stricter standards in this particular instance. In previous decades, themes like Fabuland, Jack Stone, 4 Juniors, 3+ Basic sets, and 2001–2002 Creator sets were meant to serve a similar "transitional" function between Duplo and System sets. But unlike today's 4+ sets, most of those sets did not include small detail parts or standard minifigure parts. Also, their branding, design language, and scale were farther removed from sets and themes aimed at older kids, resulting in a bumpier transition from these preschool-level sets to grade-school-level ones. A 4+ City police car or fire truck might look a bit simplistic among 5+ or 6+ City sets, but not nearly as out-of-place as a Fabuland, Jack Stone, 4 Juniors, or 3+ Basic vehicle would look among 5+ or 6+ Town sets! This isn't to say that we should expect to like or enjoy 4+ sets as much as more advanced ones, but they serve a very important purpose, and one that LEGO has been aware of for many decades. So I don't really think we should treat their existence like a new, pointless, or harmful trend. "Transitional" sets like these have pretty much always existed in some form or another — the current style just happens to focus on themes, figures, and parts that older builders like us are more likely to take interest in (and that kids are more likely to maintain an interest in after they've moved on to more advanced sets). I also don't think it makes sense to blame 4+ sets or other small sets with limited piece counts for smaller Pirates and Castle sets not selling well. For starters, there have hardly been any 4+ Pirates or Castle sets in the first place — just a couple, back when 4+ sets were branded as subthemes of a collective "Juniors" theme instead of a part of the themes related to their specific subject matter. And I don't see any reason to think they would have impacted the development of the 2013 Castle sets or 2015 Pirates sets in any way, since they were shelved separately and (at least early on) developed by an entirely different team of designers. But perhaps more importantly, low-priced sets in the peak years of the Castle and Pirates themes have generally had even lower piece counts, simpler builds, and greater reliance on specialized parts than sets of similar size and (inflation-adjusted) price from the 2010s. Compare Shipwreck Defense from 2015 to Broadside's Brig from 1991 and Smuggler's Shanty from 1992, or Forest Ambush from 2013 to earlier minifigure packs/"battle packs" that Castle fans often wax nostalgic for like 6102, 6103, and 852271. Although these more recent examples have slightly fewer minifigs than their precursors, they have considerably more small, basic building/landscaping elements, with very few large, specialized elements like wall panels or column bricks. And in fact, one of the most striking things for me about the 2015 Pirates wave in particular was that it DID opt for brick-built solutions using small, versatile elements in places that earlier waves had typically been reliant on larger, more specialized parts — particularly the Soldiers Outpost and Soldiers Fort sets, which included none of the large wall panels that had been a staple of the theme's previous colonial forts and outposts. That said, those mid-2010s Castle and Pirates waves did vary from previous waves in OTHER ways that might have potentially weakened their performance. For instance, they did not include any polybag-sized impulse sets, and there was a stark difference in price between their respective "flagship sets" (King's Castle and The Brick Bounty) and their next largest sets (Dragon Mountain and Treasure Island/Soldiers' Fort). Pirates fans have definitely called a lot of attention to the latter, since the price points of that wave jump abruptly from $30 to $100. In earlier Pirates waves, there would have been at least one set at more of an intermediate price point — often a larger fort set or smaller ship set for whatever faction the pirates were up against in that particular wave, and usually costing around half the price of the flagship set, if not higher. In Castle's case, the price difference between the most and second most expensive sets in 2013 was not nearly as out of the ordinary — in fact, the launch waves of "Fantasy Era" Castle and Kingdoms followed about the same pattern with the main strongholds of their two primary factions, as did the 1984 Castle range (which had been the first to feature two distinct factions in the first place). But the lack of $3 to $5 sets in 2013 stands out as more of an anomaly, since sets like that WERE included in the 2007 and 2010 LEGO Castle waves, as well as in other themes that launched in 2013 like Legends of Chima, Galaxy Squad, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, and The Lone Ranger. Mind you, I'm not sure whether the presence or lack of polybag sets (or similar sized sets) would have that much of an impact on the performance or longevity of a theme… after all, a lot of retailers don't reliably carry tiny "impulse sets" like that in the first place, and it doesn't seem like Galaxy Squad's polybag sets did anything to help keep it going any longer than it would have lasted without them. But it's certainly a more quantifiable difference between the 2013 Castle sets and earlier Castle/Kingdoms launch waves than how much or how little creative building potential the sets offered. On a side note, I also feel like the number of 4+ sets has not really been pretty stable over the past 3 or 4 years… in fact, the difference between the number of 4+ sets this year and the number last year seems to be at least partly due to the Minions movie and most of the tie-in sets getting delayed. I don't think we have to worry about the number of 4+ sets expanding out of control any time soon.

I wouldn't be surprised if some of the sets (like many Space and sci-fi sets before them) were influenced by Star Wars. But I don't think Nexo Knights in general was meant as an in-house version of Star Wars, besides on the very general level of being a story- and character-driven IP that uses various media tie-ins to foster passionate fan engagement. And that description applies to pretty much all "big bang" themes — and even more so to Bionicle, which served as sort of a template for the sort of fan engagement a theme can hope to achieve using that sort of approach. In fact, Bionicle was created with this sort of multimedia "expanded universe" style storytelling approach in the first place as a direct response to the LEGO Star Wars theme's then-recent success. I can think of quite a few other starfighter or jet fighter sets that have transforming wing functions similar to Clay's Falcon Fighter Blaster, especially in other recent "big bang" themes: Eris's Fire Eagle Flyer from Legends of Chima (2014). Jay's Storm Fighter from Ninjago (the original version from 2012, the Legacy version from 2019, and the 4+ version from 2020). The Kai Fighter from Ninjago (both the original version in 2014 and the Legacy version from 2020). Even the name of this one is Star Wars inspired! Jay's Velocity Racer from Ninjago (2020). And while the robot co-pilots/gunners are certainly reminiscent of the support role that droids play on a lot of Star Wars starfighters, I feel like that's mostly a side effect of their primary intended function as a futuristic, high-tech analogue of a medieval squire. Collectively, the ones that are designed to accompany the knights themselves are even referred to as Squirebots. Clay's characterization is also somewhat reminiscent of Luke Skywalker, especially after he begins training in wizardry in later story arcs, and learned that his mother was one of the villains working in league with Jestro. But the same can be said for Lloyd Garmadon in LEGO Ninjago — the writers have even compared his relationship to his villainous father Lord Garmadon to Luke and Vader's strained father-son relationship in Star Wars, and acknowledged that as an influence. So all in all, I think a lot of the similarities you're observing have less to do with the Nexo Knights theme in particular than with the more general impact that Star Wars has had on sci-fi design trends and on popular action-adventure storytelling. It's sort of like what Terry Pratchett said about the lasting influence of J.R.R. Tolkien's Middle-Earth stories on the fantasy genre: “J.R.R. Tolkien has become a sort of mountain, appearing in all subsequent fantasy in the way that Mt. Fuji appears so often in Japanese prints. Sometimes it’s big and up close. Sometimes it’s a shape on the horizon. Sometimes it’s not there at all, which means that the artist either has made a deliberate decision against the mountain, which is interesting in itself, or is in fact standing on Mt. Fuji.” And that actually brings this back around to LEGO Castle pretty nicely, since as we've seen, that is one of the first things LEGO would need to think about when developing a new Castle theme, and something even we fans have discussed extensively about what the next new Castle theme should be like: How much should it draw on real medieval history, compared to Tolkien-influenced high fantasy storytelling? No matter what route a particular designer or builder opts for, they are making a specific decision influenced by how they happen to feel about that type of design and storytelling. And even if they don't base their medieval fantasy creations on Tolkien's work specifically, chances are that whatever influences they DO turn to will bear at least some of the fingerprints of Tolkien's work, in part because it's shaped so many of the general expectations writers and their audiences have for what sort of beings a medieval fantasy world should be populated with.

I disagree with your assumption that Nexo Knights was introduced because LEGO thought that it would be more "kid-friendly" than Castle. For one thing, Nexo Knights sets in general (much like Ninjago, Legends of Chima, and Monkie Kid sets) had a higher target age range than Castle/Kingdoms sets of the previous decade. If anything, Nexo Knights was intended to appeal to an older "tween" audience. Additionally, you seem to be suggesting that Nexo Knights theme was created as a "replacement" for LEGO Castle — but based on when it came out, what age range it was aimed at, and its "big bang" style media and design strategies, it's more realistic to say that it was created as a "replacement" for LEGO Legends of Chima, which had concluded the previous year. And perhaps most importantly, LEGO doesn't base high-profile themes like this on stuff that they don't think kids actually like. It's not like Ninjago, Legends of Chima, or Monkie Kid were created for kids with no interest in ninjas, jungle animals, or Sun Wukong. If LEGO truly believed that kids no longer cared about medieval knights and castles, they wouldn't have chosen to make a futuristic "big bang" theme inspired by medieval knights and castles in the first place — they'd have opted for a mashup of concepts that DID still seem to be popular or trendy among kids. All in all, I don't think there's any doubt that castles remain popular among kids, and I'm pretty sure LEGO recognizes this. Even in lieu of a "proper" or "traditional" LEGO Castle theme, castles themselves have remained a mainstay in the LEGO product portfolio, across a varied range of themes including Classic, Creator, Elves, Hidden Side, Nexo Knights, Ninjago, Disney, Harry Potter, Minecraft, and Super Mario. That said, I also suspect that a lot of these castle-loving kids are not as particular as AFOLs about only wanting castles, knights, dragons, etc. in a context that meets all of our benchmarks for a "traditional" Castle theme. I mean, speaking from my own experience, I was ENAMORED with the concept of robots in my early childhood, and probably would have loved themes like Exo-Force and Ninjago with an emphasis on anime-inspired humanoid mechs, or themes like Bionicle and Hero Factory with an emphasis on mechanical heroes, villains, and creatures. But since themes like those didn't exist yet in the 90s, those interests instead drew me towards whatever themes managed to push a lot of the same buttons: the giant robots in Space themes like Spyrius, Roboforce, and Life on Mars; the animal-shaped vehicles in themes like Aquasharks, Stingrays, and Insectoids; and the competitive "battle machines" in the Cyber-Slam theme. So I suspect some kids today who are into castles, dragons/fantasy creatures, magic, swordfighting, fairy tales, heroic legends, etc. would currently gravitate towards themes like Ninjago, Harry Potter, or Disney — whichever happens to resonate most strongly with them, even if a theme that's not presently on shelves like Castle or Elves might be closer to what they'd consider "ideal". After all, even many of us AFOLs are quite used to buying sets or themes that aren't a perfect reflection of our personal preferences, and then modifying them or creating MOCs from their pieces in order to bring them closer to whatever those tastes happen to be.

I don't think it would be too unlikely for a future Castle wave to take that approach. After all, the 2013 Castle wave did that to a certain extent, with the Gatehouse Raid set that could connect to the main King's Castle. That particular wave just didn't really have room for further expansions beyond that, since the other three sets portrayed either non-castle vehicles and scenery or an "enemy" castle/tower with an entirely different color scheme. That said, one exciting feature that the Creator 3-in-1 Medieval Castle has that the 2010/2013 King's Castle sets (and even many of the recent Harry Potter sets) lack is that it includes not only separate modular segments, but hinges. This greatly expands a castle set's customization options — first and foremost, by allowing not only for customizable layouts, but also ones that break away from a strict rectangular grid. Furthermore, hinges makes it much easier to create a wide variety of layouts with a fully-enclosed curtain wall, whereas more rigid segments are hard to form an enclosed loop from unless the modules are arranged in a way that the modules on opposite sides from each other (left+right, front+back) add up to the same overall length. And of course, a modular segment with a hinge at any point along its length isn't strictly limited to use as a "straight segment" or a "corner segment" — it can effectively be used as either. Yeah, as much as I love the amount of "livable" detail that is included in some castles from themes like Nexo Knights or Elves, and would love to see generic medieval castle sets that include this level of detail, I'm fairly satisfied with the amount of interior detail in 31120. After all, a lot of the sorts "missing" interior details that I would be most excited to see, (like a banquet hall, kitchen, royal bedchamber, or stable) would be difficult to fit into spaces as small as the roughly 4x5 stud floor space in 31120's vacant rooms. The only things I can think of that would easily fit in these spaces would be: A "barracks" with storage for weapons/armor, and maybe a single bed A pantry/larder/buttery for storage of food and drinks A study or wizard/astrologer's workshop, with a reading/writing desk, and maybe some bookshelves or research equipment. That said, possibilities 1 and 2 would feel somewhat redundant in the A- and C- models, since the shops in those models already include ways of storing/displaying armor, weapons, food, and beverage casks, built using about the same techniques you'd likely need to effectively fit them in these smaller rooms. And possibility 3 is already included in the B-model. In any case, though, Creator 3-in-1 sets tend to be some of the EASIEST to customize, especially ones like this that are specifically designed using a format that makes them so easy to expand upon. And I suppose that makes it a little easier for me to be "forgiving" of some of this set's omissions than with some Castle sets of the past, including ones from my own childhood. I've already started playing around on Stud.io with possible "alternate models" for this set focusing on stuff that'd be especially important to me, like a banquet hall or a keep with a fancy bedroom. If I end up finishing any of these models to my satisfaction, I'll definitely share them on Eurobricks for anybody else who wants to try recreating them, or even modifying them to suit their own tastes! But I'm also enthusiastic to see other Eurobricks members' attempts at creating additional modular segments that can be combined with the official ones!

Hmm, well, that's good to know! In any case, if I wanted to use them for this purpose, I could always just place the set over top of one of the more basic metal bookends we already own (similar to these ones). I haven't yet had any issues with those sliding around, and since they're pretty much a flat metal sheet bent at a 90 degree angle, this set would probably sit pretty neatly on top of them. I'll try this out when my copy of the set arrives, and if it seems useful enough to be worthwhile, I'll think about getting a second copy.

Thank you! I actually just revisited this topic specifically to ask if anybody had seen photos/videos of the castle segments combined with one another. I wish this builder raised the camera up to show what it looks like from a slightly higher angle, but I'm sure the longer this set is on shelves, the more people there will be who combine the different builds and record them to share online. I'm not sure this particular arrangement of the segments is the one I would prefer, as the B-model's tower ends up overshadowing the A-model's living quarters in a way that leaves that corner feeling a little cramped. But after building the main structures of each model on on stud.io, I'm not sure whether there's any arrangement using just one of each build that would really give all the structures more room to "breathe". Unless, of course, you also add custom segments of your own to create a little more space between the "official" builds. For reference: The A-model's "gatehouse" segment and B-model's "watchtower" segment terminate in a vertical structure on both sides. The A-model's "smithy and living quarters" segment and C model's "town/market" segment terminate in a horizontal wall on the right side and a vertical structure on the left side. The A-model's "watchtower and dungeon" segment is the only one that terminates in a horizontal wall on both sides. I suspect that the "drain" is meant to be a watergate (an entrance/exit for "friendly" boaters carrying supplies and trade goods to or from the castle), so for it to retain that function as an entrance/exit, any bars over the entrance would have to be able to open and close. But that probably wouldn't be too difficult to manage. It's a bit of a shame the set didn't include TWO copies of the barred door piece used for the A-model's dungeon, since those would have been about the right size to attach to the watergate using a couple of clips on either side. That would not only be an improvement from a security standpoint, but also a somewhat less repetitive way to reuse the barred door piece in the C-model than simply having yet another dungeon/jail at the base of the tower.

My order of this set shipped today, but before it arrives, I wanted to ask a question to anybody who has already obtained the set… is the vertical portion of the model strong enough to use this set as a bookend? That recently occurred to me as a potential practical use for this se., and if it's feasible I might want to think about getting a second copy at some point in the future. But I realize the "backdrop" might not be sturdy enough to support a row of books unless you add some SNOT brackets or Technic beams to help lock it together more securely.

Reading this comment, I couldn't help getting the image in my head of book covers like these ones, but with time-lapse illustrations on the spine of LEGO structures being slowly taken apart. It's funny how this particular train of thought is making stops at so many different "stations" as it passes between us!

I feel like honestly City theme has done an okay job lately at maintaining for more complex aircraft building techniques in addition to simpler ones. After all, aside from 4+ sets, single-person planes, helicopters, and ultralights like in 60183 or 60289) still usually have around the same level of complexity as their equivalents from 80s or 90s. And there are many larger City aircraft that use a mix of specialized parts and brick-built solutions, like 60281 (which uses large curved elements for the nose but a brick-built tail), or even occasional ones that employ a more brick-built approach for the entire build, like in 60209. The more specialized nose pieces have mostly been reserved for aircraft with 8-wide or 6-wide fuselages, and I can't say I'm all that bothered by that, considering that before their introduction, believable aircraft sets that size seemingly weren't even viable at a Town/City age range. When I was growing up in the 90s, jet aircraft sets with seating for a pilot AND co-pilot (or even with realistic aisles and doors for passengers) were unheard of outside "advanced" themes like Technic and Model Team! I don't think it'd be unlikely to see sets like that again in the future — after all, the main reason we haven't seen houses that size in recent years is just that over the past few years is that a house that size would need a relatively high price point, and lately LEGO has been using those price points for different types of sets like the Medieval Castle, Ferris Wheel, Pirate Ship, Caravan Family Holiday, Townhouse Pet Shop & Cafe, etc. The last time there was a suburban-style house at a price point that high was the Modular Family Villa in 2017, which was comparable in size to those earlier houses, but controversial among a lot of folks due to its open-backed design. Even so, I doubt LEGO has any real opposition to releasing suburban-style homes at that sort of price point on occasion in the future — it's just that the focus on more varied subject matter in recent years has given them less frequent opportunities for Creator houses that size than in the past.

I was a big fan of that set as a kid myself, and it definitely disappointed me that LEGO never did much more with those road pieces in the following years. They did have some limitations, such as the outer edges being two plates higher than the road itself, but even so it felt like something that COULD have had more potential than the limited uses that we saw in sets. That is also part of why I'm pleased to see this new road system being used more extensively from the start — it gives me confidence that LEGO has a stronger commitment using these roads in varied ways and/or expanding their potential with new parts, and not just using them in one or two sets before forgetting about them. For every use of the new roads that we've seen so far, I can easily think of several more uses that could be possible in future sets. Some of those uses include ones that have previously been achieved using road baseplates (albeit often with different prints or molds than you'd see for standard "roads"): service stations, racetracks and pit lanes, garages, driveways, airport runways, waterways, and seaports. But there are also quite a few potential uses that traditional road baseplates would have been less-than-ideal for: bridges/overpasses, train station/freight depot platforms, parking decks, retail drive-thru lanes for banks and restaurants, multi-lane highways, roads with hills/inclines, basketball/tennis courts, and raised roads with sewer or subway access.

One other possible snag is that the set description (and I think also the designer video) for Barracuda Bay specifically state that the Black Seas Barracuda, and Redbeard with it, were lost at sea "over 30 years ago". While this is obviously a cheeky reference to the release dates of the original Black Seas Barracuda (1989) and Barracuda Bay (2020), it is still presented as an actual part of the Barracuda Bay set's backstory. Which leaves two possibilities for Robin Loot's backstory as the gunner of the Cross Bone Clipper: Either… Robin is old enough to have sailed as the Cross Bone Clipper's gunner prior to Redbeard's disappearance, (and her father is older still) or… The Cross Bone Clipper continued sailing under a different captain following Redbeard's diappearance, and it was under that second captain that Robin served as the ship's gunner, some time prior to joining the ship's previous captain at Barracuda Bay. And mind you, neither of these possibilities rules out @Jack Sassy interpretation of her as classic green-vested pirate figure's daughter, who later inherited his vest and hat! They're just details that would need to be factored into that interpretation. And if we decide to go with option 1 — that she DID sail under Redbeard before his disappearance — we can even interpret the Lady Anne look-alike from the Cross Bone Clipper set as Robin in her teenage years, sailing alongside her father! Which honestly adds up to a pretty charming fan theory in its own right.

This feels like sort of an ironic example, considering that I actually DO have a twin brother. And while we do think alike in a lot of ways, you're right that there are differences between us — for instance, I am trans and he is not. At the same time, though, you're not telling us anything LGBTQ+ people like us don't already know. Many of us have needed to endure a long and difficult struggle just to change our thinking enough to accept OURSELVES for who we are. Growing up in a society where prejudices and stigma against LGBTQ+ people remains widespread means that we don't often get a choice in whether we learn or internalize these prejudices as we grow up. And so many of us get caught in the trap of suppressing some of the very traits that make us ourselves, mistaking them for flaws or obstacles to our growth and happiness, and hurting ourselves in the process. And sometimes the process of overcoming these sorts of ingrained beliefs does involve people judging us or calling us out for saying things that are hurtful to them, whether or not we meant them to be or understood why they were hurtful at the time. I realize that being called bigoted or intolerant probably feels unfair or hurtful, but you need to remind yourself that people who say that sort of thing likely don't have any sort of personal grudge against you. Rather, most of us have had to endure considerable and persistent disrespect and mistreatment from people who share the way of thinking that your posts reflect, and have been conditioned to react defensively. It also doesn't help that a lot of the time, people who have no intention of learning and only intend to harm us adopt a strategy of "just asking questions" and pressing us further on any answer we give them — knowing from the beginning that no answer we give them will ever be enough to change their minds about us. And believe me, having to explain ourselves over and over to people who have no intent of listening DOES tend to hurt and exhaust us. Maybe some of us have misjudged your comments or mistaken them for this sort of bad-faith interrogation, and I apologize if I have done so at any point. In general, one of the weaknesses of a public discussion thread like this is that we cannot control how our comments might be understood or interpreted by all the different people who might end up reading them. And especially in a topic like this that's primarily about a particular set, I think it's easy for long lists of LGBTQ+ related questions or critiques of other users' tone or attitude to feel like an attempt at derailing the conversation or invalidating other people's enthusiasm. If it helps, I encourage you to message me privately with any questions you have about LGBTQ+ identities, terminology, etc (including transgender-specific questions)! It might be easier to have that sort of discussion on a one-on-one basis instead of having to worry about your comments being taken the wrong way (as can easily happen in a public forum like this. Trust me when I say that I wouldn't understand NEARLY as much about LGBTQ+ issues, or even have as much understanding and acceptance of my own identity as I do, if it weren't for the friends I could reach out to about that stuff, and who were willing to listen patiently and not judge me for not having all the answers. I can't promise I'll be able to answer all your questions without getting tired or frustrated, but I am willing to keep any details of our discussion between us, and to answer as many of your questions as I'm able to without getting burnt out. If you do say or ask anything that feels impolite or intrusive to me, I'll try to be polite about letting you know and explaining why comments or questions of that sort might be met with that sort of reaction. I realize I'm taking a risk by trusting that you have a genuine willingness to learn about this stuff, and to unlearn any prejudices, half-truths, or falsehoods that have made it harder to participate constructively in the discussion of this set and the ideas behind it. And if I end up feeling that extending this offer was a mistake, we can hopefully agree end our discussion there. But I think it's likely a better outcome for all of us if we take the time to discuss this stuff in private messages instead of talking in circles over here in a snarky back-and-forth that could end up hurting or alienating people. Give it some thought, and feel free to message me if you decide you want to take me up on that offer.

Haha, I will never forget my own childhood excitement of getting the Halloween Bucket, and the promise on its front label of "New ORANGE Bricks!" I was lucky enough to have pink parts even earlier in my childhood (via both the Paradisa theme and the Large Pink Bucket), albeit not much useful variety. Honestly, one of the things I'm most thankful about regarding the current palette isn't just how many different colors there are (since there are actually a lot fewer than in the early to mid 2000s, believe it or not), but rather that for the most part, they all tend to be used pretty widely! By contrast, during my childhood, there were a number of colors in themes like Belville, Scala, Bionicle, and Clikits that were almost completely unheard of in more traditional System themes. Which, unfortunately, also meant that useful, non-theme-specific parts in those colors were often way too scarce to be genuinely useful. Nowadays, even if you're one of those fans who completely ignores themes like Friends, Elves, and Dots for being "too girly' or not having traditional minifigures, you've probably still seen pretty much every pink, purple, pastel, or floral color from the current color palette in various sets from themes like Ninjago, Hidden Side, Monkie Kid, Minifigures, or Vidiyo — especially for minifigure parts and accessories in those themes. And for that matter, Bright Bluish Green (Dark Turquoise/Teal) parts have become much, much more common since 2018 (when the color was brought back from retirement) than they had been at any point back in the late 90s and early 2000s (before it got retired in the first place)!

It's true, they don't. And if anything, I think that makes deliberate misgendering all the more pathetic and shameful. We as trans folks have no power to force anybody to think about us a certain way or to refer to us a certain way. All we can do is ask nicely for people to show us respect when talking to or about us. And yet so many people continue to act as if we're somehow oppressing them by even making such a simple, harmless request, or by judging them if they continue to disrespect us purely out of disregard for our feelings. Having a RIGHT to be flagrantly and persistently disrespectful towards us doesn't justify it in the slightest. I have the right to call all sorts of people all sorts of hurtful things, and a lot of those things might even be true. However, particularly when interacting with fellow Eurobricks members, I try to show enough etiquette/propriety to refrain from doing so. That said, sometimes I do get fed up and resort to insults or sharp retorts. This is because, like other trans folks, dealing with these same degrading conversations and debates about our own identities and lived experiences over and over again (in general, not just on sites/groups like Eurobricks that I typically visit for the fun and comfort of discussing my favorite hobby) can be tiresome and hurtful, and can wear me down to the breaking point if I'm not careful. Every one of us has a limit to our patience, and some of us have endure a lot more pressure that inches us towards that limit. When you decide you're done posting in this thread for the day, there's no pressure for you to continue debating these same topics on other sites or in other parts of your life. Trans people like me don't necessarily HAVE that luxury, because far too many people consider our existence (and our perfectly ordinary desire for respect and acceptance) an open invitation for debate. Please quit acting like you're only concerned with what's best for us. If your primary concern in this thread is speaking up for those who can't set aside their prejudices and preconceptions of us even long enough to refer to us the way we ask — which costs nothing and harms nobody — you're in no place to act like you have our best interests at heart. You act like people who get fed up with you are failing to "stand up to logic", but the reality is that posts which show a greater dedication to "logic" than "kindness" do not earn you any credibility. The multiple indignant replies that you've received from other users (even as I was typing up this one) are a testament to that. If you believe I am misjudging you — that you do, in fact, care, and harbor no ill will towards us — this is your opportunity to show it. Show that you care about our feelings and well-being as individuals and fellow members of your community, not just about the potential we show as a "movement". Instead of nitpicking our pleas for respect and acceptance based on their tone, wording, logic, or rhetorical effectiveness… try making a greater effort to show empathy for our experiences, and for the vulnerability and effort it takes to discuss them in a public setting of this sort. If you truly "don't want to hurt feelings", then make a greater effort to understand WHY people's feelings are hurt by the comments you've been making, instead of accusing US of having "ulterior motives" because we're often too overwhelmed to respond to intolerance and disrespect in a calm and strategic manner. I promise we have no "ulterior motive" here besides wanting to be respected, accepted, and — in a best case scenario — understood. Even if you decide you want nothing more to do with this thread (even in my own experience, it sometimes IS better to bow out of a particularly overwhelming discussion than to try and push through that frustration and potentially risk making things worse), please take some time to think over these things, re-read some of our comments and your own, and work on understanding why trans folks would feel hurt by a lot of the things that have been said about us, even to the point of lashing out. Because as frustrating as a lot of your comments have been, I can tell you have a powerful intellect and a strong capacity for learning, and I'm confident that you have what it takes to understand where we're coming from if you're willing to set your mind to it.