Aanchir

Peeron's color chart used to be the one I always recommended, but I've encountered a lot of unexpected problems with it lately. Isodomos.com is far less up-to-date (it lacks information on most colors from 2006 or later, and also on some of the more obscure colors from the late 90s and early 2000s), but it tends to be correct many of these places where Peeron has erred. I recommend using it if you want a web-based color chart. For occasional color reference, I recommend the replacement parts service on Service.LEGO.com. It may lack images for parts from as long ago as Paradisa, and it only lists parts it has pictures of under any particular set number, but it tends to be 100% reliable, with the exception of sets that appeared during a transition from an older color to a newer color, where it will only list one or the other. Perhaps the best part is that you can enter any Element ID (the six- or seven-digit number that can be found in post-2006 sets' inventories in the back of the instruction manuals) into the URL of a page like this one and it will tell you the design ID, color name, and even the part name whether or not there is an image. There are occasional errors in the database, and it's nearly useless for blended parts unless you can identify the colors based on the image provided (the color will just be called MULTICOMBINATION), but it is an invaluable source for color-checking when you're particularly uncertain about the color of a part in a recent set. What I recommend more highly, if your computer can run it, is Superkalle's LDD Manager. I have collaborated with Superkalle to ensure that it's accurate, and while it may have occasional errors (I am far from infallible), it should be trustworthy in most cases.

The problem is that while transparent minifigure heads are very sturdy, this is because they have no parts to attach to along high-friction connections. Transparent parts are made of polycarbonate, a different type of plastic than most solid-colored parts (which are ABS). PC parts have great friction against other PC parts, so for instance a transparent 1x1 cone will be hard to remove from a 4M lightsaber blade, and the lightsaber blade could end up with some nasty scratches as a consequence (don't try this at home). Some connections between transparent parts, like stud-to-stud connections, cause no real problems since they are fairly easy to take apart and put together. But other connections like the one mentioned above can cause real damage. Minifigures have lots of high-friction, tiny, and fragile connection points. The connection between minifigure legs and hips can be damaged just by taking them apart and putting them together. Likewise for the connection between hands and arms, or between arms and torsos. Making these connections PC-against-PC could make it possible for the parts to become damaged just from regular use. Since transparent minifigures like Jedi ghosts or the Invisible Man were fairly popular suggestions in the "What Minifigures Are We Missing?" topic in EB's Embassy subforum, I made a point of asking about whether these were possible when a minifigure designer was present at the TLG Q&A session at last August's Brickfair convention in Chantilly, Virginia. Sure enough, TLG has attempted to create transparent minifigures in the past, but none have cleared quality control, hence the reason they don't appear in LEGO sets. Of course, the designer present also reinforced that it's a continuing process, and that it's possible someday a transparent minifigure will be possible. However, I don't think that this will be any time within the foreseeable future. Not unless TLG discovers some new plastic with the same clutch power and level of transparency as PC without this major drawback.

True, but it's still not entirely clear how far-reaching these differences are, especially in cognitive areas like play and imagination. TLG has put forth an effort to study this, and I really respect that, but even so it's obvious looking at the Friends theme that even if some design aspects are based firmly on the differences between male and female play patterns as observed, others concede to stereotypes within the market for girl-oriented toys. Furthermore, the issue of how different males and females are is muddied by the fact that individuals within each gender have very strong differences. So it's almost impossible to be sure which gender differences are genetically ingrained in girls and which are just paths they happen to have followed based on societal and cultural stimuli. I do think the argument that girls and boys should just play with the same toys is a bit far-fetched, because there are things girls like that boys won't necessarily touch. There's nothing inherently wrong with purple packaging, but boys aren't that likely to buy a set with a purple box. This I think accounts for some of the seeming "stereotypes" in LEGO Friends-- TLG is taking advantage of the "freedom" that comes with designing a theme for girls, in that they can essentially ignore the preteen male demographic that is the core audience for most of their other themes. Real equality would involve balanced gender ratios, appealing pastel colors, and gender-neutral product designs in all themes, but in doing that TLG would be gambling away a lot of the success they've consistently seen with young boys in the hopes that girls would take the plunge and start buying their existing themes. It's a much safer decision to create a theme that targets a new demographic while ignoring the demographic that they've already secured through their existing product lines. Additionally, this allows them to more easily tell if the theme is actually selling to the demographic it is designed for, since it has a sharper focus on this demographic rather than a broad unisex appeal. And, of course, there's the image aspect I mentioned before-- a girl-oriented theme reinforces the notion that "it's OK for girls to play with building toys" with a much more direct message than a gender-neutral theme would send, since it specifically grabs the attention of those who harbor preconceived notions about what toys are acceptable for girls. Create a gender-neutral theme and place it on the same shelves as all the other LEGO toys, and parents of girls could easily just walk right by it on their way to the "girls" aisle without a second glance. A message of gender equality doesn't do any good if the message doesn't get to its intended recipients.

For the most part, you're correct. However, the colors of certain parts were clarified by the videos and pictures we've seen. Before, Stringer's torso armor color had been totally up in the air, now it seems fairly likely that it will be some type of transparent blue. Additionally, the video from the London ToyFair suggests that Stormer XL will have a sword with a translucent blue blade rather than just a silver one like the Batman set has. Additionally, we've seen the Nex set a lot more clearly now, leading many people to form more informed opinions regarding how well or poorly his helmet and torso design work, and people have begun to warm up to Voltix, most of whose seemingly out-of-place colors turned out to be detail pieces like colored wires and lightning bolts on what's otherwise a pretty consistent three-color color scheme. I agree though that the pics we've seen aren't enough to really judge some of the sets all that well. That's part of why I haven't formed an opinion of XT4, who for me will be hard to judge until I can see exactly how he's built, and why I'm not ga-ga over Core Hunter, who we haven't been able to see in too great detail. Core Hunter's main assets, so far, are his bulky design, spiky details, and villainous-looking color scheme, but again he could put all these aspects together well or miss the mark entirely depending on how things turn out.

The pink parts in these Paradisa sets should be colored 9 Light Reddish Violet. 223 Light Pink is, as its number suggests, a far more recent color. To be perfectly honest I have never seen it in actual bricks and so don't know if it has a Bricklink counterpart, but I have seen it on LEGO licensed shoes and other products along with more familiar LEGO colors like Bright Reddish Violet (Bricklink's Magenta), Light Purple (Bricklink's Bright Pink), and Bright Purple (Bricklink's Dark Pink in post-2004 sets). The dark pink seats in "Carriage Ride" should also be colored 22 Medium Reddish Violet rather than 221 Bright Purple. In general the cutoff point between these two colors, like so many color changes that elicited greater controversy, was 2004. The ponytails in the first set are also incorrect, being the one from the Minifigures Series 1 nurse (87990) rather than the "classic" ponytail (6093).

And misspell Toth's name each time? I agree, though, I prefer the set's, even if the inconsistency with Dracula himself is a but unfortunate. I could chalk this up to her being one of Dracula's vampire slaves rather than a full-fledged vampire herself. It would not be the first work I've seen to make that distinction, giving Dracula special status among the vampires he has created.

Great review! However, you mention how the transparent light blue parts look like a new color in the box image, and how this is why you hate rendered box art. Transparent Light Blue has always looked greenish to me in real life, and this set's box art looks almost exactly like the parts would look in real life, except perhaps a little darker. And as far as I can tell, the LEGO parts in this set's box art are not rendered-- TLG's renders haven't progressed quite this far yet, as rendered images on, say, the LEGO Shop pages for Ninjago spinner sets are still fairly obvious compared to the box art for larger sets like these. The high-res image shows clear imperfections like parts not pressed down all the way, irregular printing on Emma's foot, and molding lines on the 3x1 curved slopes above the door. Unless there's some insidious plot by TLG to make only certain renders like Ninjago spinner images obvious so that their other box art will seem like real photographs, then this image is just a well-taken photograph. On a side note, looking at that high-res image, I couldn't help but notice that it is not in fact the actual photo without a digitally-added background, but rather the completed box art image with the background removed! Looking at the windows, you can see the "reflections" of painted bushes and walls that are no longer there! Anyway, back to your review. It was a very good review IMO, even though I think it would have been better if you had applied at least the basic mirror stickers. The set is probably the one that appeals least to me out of the larger Friends sets, but it still looks like a high-quality build with some clever building techniques like the "mannequin head". That's not to mention all the useful parts and accessories! By the way, the six new "Friends" colors I've seen advertised are for the most part not that new. Friends is their first major appearance though. The three not-so-new colors are 321 Dark Azur (which technically came out last year in Alien Conquest and Spongebob Squarepants), 323 Aqua (Bricklink's Light Aqua, which technically came out last year in Cars), and 325 Lavender (which appeared in Minifigures Series 5 as the Fitness Instructor's boombox). The new new colors for the theme are 322 Medium Azur, 324 Medium Lavender (appearing in plastic bricks for the first time in this theme, although it was featured as printing on last year's Sebulba figure, and in plastic on a minifigure clock and watch that came out towards the end of last year), and 326 Spring Yellowish Green (which, most oddly of the supposed new Friends colors, has yet to appear in any set). All six colors have been known about for quite a while since they have appeared on LEGO Digital Designer for over a year. Here is a lineup of all six in digital form, and here are the "newest" four including the elusive Spring Yellowish Green.

Nice review! I especially like his torso design. It's nice and thin, which I think goes well with his relatively thin arms and bulky armor plates. The lower leg armor is very impressive. I wouldn't have expected that ankle guard piece to work well with the 2.0 building system, but looking at the geometry of the pieces I guess it works just fine! I wonder if we'll ever see that part again in actual sets, because aesthetically it fits Hero Factory just about as well as it fit BIONICLE.

Or he could mean that XT4 is one of those sets you want two of so that you have the parts for one better-looking revamp. But I think he's probably referring more to the usefulness of the parts. I can't tell if XT4 has a standard torso design. If he doesn't, then he probably has excellent and useful joint pieces like Thornraxx does.

I've had some break, but only from carelessness, never from just taking them apart and reattaching them. Unlike parts like LEGO minifigure arms, TLG lists the two components of this hinge as separate parts, and thus implies that it is OK to take them apart and put them back together.

Hmmm. For starters, I always prefer LEGO animals to be stylistically compatible with minifigures. Granted, this allows for a range of styles since some parts like minifigure legs are extremely blocky while others like minifigure arms have smooth, organic shapes. In the case of the dog, I prefer the new one hands-down. I almost invariably prefer LEGO animals to have printed eyes, just like "human" minifigures. Other than the head, the new LEGO dog is almost identical to the old one, with the mix of flat surfaces and smooth curves that I think works extremely well. The LEGO pig is a similar situation. The LEGO Cow is another success story IMO. Stylistically, it's very similar to the classic LEGO horse, all but the face which is rounded like the face of a human minifigure. The horse was an early success by TLG, but is nowadays becoming kind of outdated. However, TLG has taken steps to ensure its success with the introduction of a new version with posable legs in the Lord of the Rings theme. I think this measure should be enough to ensure the LEGO horse's place among even the most modern LEGO animals for years to come. A slightly re-molded face would perhaps be a useful change (the recent Kingdoms horse with blinders shows how awkward it can be to have only side-printed eyes on a LEGO animal), but I think the LEGO horse's status as a classic LEGO animal and its strong value to collectors and army-builders means that this is a decision that should not be taken lightly, and it might be decades before the pressure to change outweighs this pressure to keep it close to how it has always been. I prefer the new sharks to the old ones as well. The old ones had appeal, but the new ones have printed eyes, more connection points, and a size that allows for more play value. On a side note, I noticed one LEGO animal you failed to point out: the LEGO owl. The classic LEGO owl from the 2001 Harry Potter sets was extremely realistic, and suffered for it. More recently, TLG has released a new owl, which is in fact more stylized than the original and more in line with the traditional LEGO animal styles-- all while adding details such as printing that make it fit in more with the LEGO minifigure! I think it's strong evidence that TLG has no intention of going down a slippery slope towards excessive realism in their animal designs. In fact, I think that the LEGO video games and TV specials, whose minifigures are a key component of their charm, provide a strong incentive for TLG to work on keeping their figure and animal designs consistent with the much-loved stylized minifigure aesthetic. Plus, this poll ignores the animals in the LEGO Friends theme. The cat in that theme is much more stylized and less realistic than the Belville kitten that for year has been a System mainstay, but most AFOLs prefer the Belville kitten (personally, I'd prefer the new cat's more stylized look by far if its printed eyes were more along the lines of the style typical of LEGO minfigures, with a single dot with a single sparkle for each eye). I voted that I tend to prefer the new style, although I feel none of the options sum up my strong feelings about LEGO animal designs. The assumption that "new" designs are inherently less stylized, rather than just stylized differently, is at odds with how I perceive some excellent recent designs like the police dog. It also neglects things like the owl that have become significantly more stylized, and thus, better, by virtue of their recent redesign.

The roof to Jabba's Palace looks epic; much better than the last version. The flick-fire missile launcher is hardly obtrusive, and the parts sticking out are just some Technic parts that could easily be removed at no cost at all. Can't wait to see the rest of Jabba's Palace, as it's one of the sets I'm most looking forward to. Even if I don't tend to buy Star Wars sets, I had the old Jabba's Palace and it will be wonderful seeing how TLG can improve on the concept so many years later.

Darnit, the link was missing the http:// again. It seems like I'll have to take more care to add that from now on because my browser doesn't automatically include it when I copy and paste a URL anymore. I'm referring to the color of Stormer 1.0's head. It could be regular Transparent Blue (Bricklink's Trans-Dark Blue), but the video from the London Toy Fair makes me think it's more likely to be Transparent Fluorescent Blue (Bricklink's Trans-Medium Blue). It might just look darker by virtue of having a black torso beam behind it. Of course, my eyes could also be deceiving me. Transparent colors, metallic colors, and blended colors can be some of the most difficult to identify from photos or video alone. Regardless, I have one thing to say about the new Bulk and Stringer sets:

D'oh! Forgot the http:// . It's there now. With post-2003 color names, you can rarely count on them to make that much sense! A lot of older color names had a lot more internal consistency, as seen here (all of the colors there besides Light Brick Yellow were released before 2004 to my knowledge), but of course even many classic colors had extremely odd names like "Light Orange Brown" (the color Bricklink calls Earth Orange). I'm pretty sure it'll be Transparent Fluorescent Blue, the same color as his head. The recent video's angle makes it a bit unclear but it still seems that way to me when I look close.

That may be true, but still some of the things like dump trucks have been done before in the Construction subtheme. None of the mining vehicles measure up to the 2009 construction sets IMO. Still, you have a good point. For some stuff this subtheme is a definite first. Even if TLG always has one "old favorite" like fire or police, and this year two, they have shown that they're still willing to either do brand new subthemes or revisit old ones that haven't been seen in several years, such as the Space and Harbor sets last year or the "rescue" sets like this year's hospital and ambulance.

Understandable. I don't usually feel too pressured to get all the figs for a theme, and I'm not all that pressured to get all the figs for this year's Ninjago. But I have realized that if I don't have a buying plan in place then I tend to just buy sets haphazardly (i.e. whenever I get a LEGO craving), and not wait for major discounts, and so I end up spending a lot more on sets that might give me more duplicates than I need and leave major gaps in my collection.

I'm having a hard time making out this MOC's details. My first recommendation would be to try and take clearer pictures. The photos here are very grainy and the colors tend to blend together. My second recommendation would be to use colors that contrast better, rather than two extremely similar colors like Bright Red and Transparent Fluorescent Reddish Orange, which you seem to have used here. Colors like these two can work together well, but a MOC begins to look like an indeterminate mass of color if they're some of the only colors visible on the model. Of course, monochrome MOCs can still be good, and so can models with this sort of color scheme, but it's hard to tell how well the color scheme actually works without clearer pictures. One thing that could help is if your model could be lit better. As it is, the lighting looks like a warm household light, whereas I think a brighter white light could help considerably. Whenever my pictures have turned out like this it's been because of bad lighting, so if that doesn't help then I can't really offer much in the way of suggestions. I like what I can see of this guy's build. It's simple, but imaginative. The back armor seems to work very well with those shoulders.

I don't know. They very well might eventually, at least for attaching tubing or something. The thing about the "belt" is something I noticed as well, which is why I was disappointed to see that in the episode they wear the belt over that armor detail. >.< I'm fairly certain BZP will be at the New York ToyFair, as always. The name of the shade is actually Medium Lilac, which is irritating because it's out-of-sync with most LEGO color names. In most cases, "Medium" refers to the shade between Light and Bright. But Medium Lilac, on LDD at least, is almost exactly as Bright Lilac, and far darker than Lilac (basic colors like reds or violets usually don't have a version without any shade-related qualifier in the official names, but more complex colors like nougats and lilacs are usually an exception). A similar problem exists with the more recent color Medium Nougat (Bricklink's Medium Dark Flesh), but in that case there doesn't exist a Bright Nougat to muddy the issue further. Here's an illustration of the "Lilac" colors (not counting offshoots like "Bright Reddish Lilac"). Of these colors, Medium Lilac is the only one still on the palette. Apologies for tl;dr. I know most people besides LDD users won't care too much about the confusing official names when they can just call it something like Dark Purple and be instantly understood. Anyway, that video certainly makes Bulk, Voltix, and Stringer look good. Core Hunter is still hard to see and thus hard to judge. Nex looks decent and they cut to the Ninjago display before you can get a good look at XT-4, the most unusual build of the new villains and thus the one who's been quite hard to judge.

I don't think we have any reason to worry about the fate of LEGO City. It's consistently been one of the most successful LEGO themes for several years. Also, last year there were also only six summer City sets (the Red Cargo Train and five Harbor sets), except in the United States and some other countries where the Space sets got delayed until the summer.

Not sure if this is exactly the same setup that the set uses, although I wouldn't be surprised if it is. The torso armor would probably have more "wobble" in the set, allowing the 3M beam parts to attach to the shoulders at a higher angle. There are a number of modifications in this model anyway. After all, I don't know exactly how tall the real set is, but since he's a mid-size set he's probably closer in height to Rocka, Breez, and Furno than how I currently have him built. I'm kind of surprised how many people are interested in the LXF, but I guess it's understandable. It did require quite a bit of fiddling about to get the parts at a decent angle. Download LXF File

The Green Ninja comes in the Epic Dragon Battle. He's also available in a spinner set. Overall, I've found that to get all the figures in as few spinner sets as possible, with as few duplicates as possible, you'd want to get all four summer playsets. You have to get at least the Epic Dragon Battle and Ultra Sonic Raider if you want to get all the generals, unless they also come in exclusive sets we don't know about. Unfortunately, even if you do get all four summer playsets, there's two snakes-- Mezmo and Lizaru-- who only seem to appear in booster packs. The NRG Ninja are also only in booster packs and spinner sets. But overall, if you buy Mezmo, Lizaru, Lloyd Garmadon, and the four sets containing the NRG Ninja, plus all four Summer playsets, the Destiny's Bounty, the Fangpyre Mech, the Fangpyre Truck Ambush, Kai's Blade Cycle, and Jay's Storm Fighter, that plan gets you every fig, with no more than two of any one fig except Jay ZX-- you'd get four of him, but since one comes without shoulder armor at least some of those duplicates will be worthwhile. I made this buying plan in advance so that when Brickfair comes around and there are staggered discounts at the LEGO store (or if there's another major discount this year), I'll be able to know which sets are highest priority for me to get at those discounted prices. Unlike a lot of people, I'm actually more impressed with the Ultra Sonic Raider after seeing the video. It's definitely every bit as stylish as any vehicles from Exo-Force, but it somehow feels more suited to Ninjago than those with its heavily streamlined design. And its function is mighty impressive, just like most of the summer sets' functions seem to be.

I love these! Although I wonder... would the Lightning Dragon and Ice Dragon's blue details have been more likely to be Medium Blue (like the sets) than Light Royal Blue? The picture seems lighter than how LDD renders Medium Blue, but I don't think it's quite as light as how LDD renders Light Royal Blue. Also, the Lightning Dragon's back in the picture looks like it is Earth Blue, its lower jaw (the 1x2 plate with handle) and belly (1x1 plate with clip) look like Dark Stone Grey, and its toes look like either Dark Stone Grey or Black. These changes would make it look a lot more like the set, which had lots of Dark Stone Grey and Earth Blue. Overall, though, you managed to get these guys built almost exactly just from that one picture, at least as far as I can see. And that takes skill! Great work.

Someone on FBTB's Flickr pointed out there might be hinged flaps on the top of the Malevolance that a person setting up the models could have simply failed to fold down correctly. Given how badly Hero Factory sets are sometimes posed at the various Toy Fairs, I wouldn't be surprised by such an oversight. Not sure how much that would improve the ship since honestly I know very little about the Malevolence and have only ever seen side views. But there is still that slight chance that people may be judging it too quickly, so I figured I'd mention the possibility. If I'm wrong, don't hesitate to shove it in my face.

How is he not bulky? His head is practically encased in huge pieces of metal armor. Kind of like this (though I know I've made color errors): I think that suits his type of "bulk" way more than an absurdly-huge chest would.

Something I noticed that I like about these pictures is that each of the hero-villain pairs is on top of a stand with the "background pattern" of the environment those two sets will be in. I think that's pretty cool, even if it's a pretty small and insignificant detail.