Aanchir

Yeah, I also definitely prefer the new road plates over the old ones. For starters, there loads of possibilities with the newer ones that would have been much more difficult and/or expensive with older ones: inclined and elevated roads, bridges, divided highways, multi-lane highways, driveways or curbside parking that are flush with the road surface, and any sorts of layouts that deviate from a 32x32 grid. And I disagree about "not getting the same amount" from the new road plate packs as you did from earlier road baseplate packs, since the actual length of road you get is equal to or greater than what was included in previous road baseplate packs. The main difference is that the old road baseplates included wide margins on either side of the road. And personally, I see these predefined margins as more of a drawback than a strength, since these margins often up feeling redundant or wasteful when used in conjunction with modular buildings and other models that already include sidewalks/pavement. Moreover, when comparing prices, it feels misleading not to account for the signs, traffic lights, streetlamps, and other contents of the new road plate pack, since these were sold separately from the old road baseplates, but are still largely necessary for a believable layout (especially at intersections). If LEGO were to release a road plate pack without all those accessories, I imagine the price discrepancy between the new and old road systems would diminish considerably. I understand that for people who already have a layout based on road baseplates, it would be needlessly expensive to switch over entirely to the new road system. But at the same time, I don't see any reason why people who already have layouts using earlier road systems would NEED to switch over. After all, the ramps included with the new road baseplates make it easy to use the new road system TOGETHER with previous road baseplate styles, especially for features like bridges, driveways, parking lots, etc. that branch off from the main grid of streets. And while the aftermarket price of traditional road baseplates is likely to increase now that they're retired (making it a little more difficult with people with layouts in that standard to continue expanding their grid of streets), I don't see how that's any different from any of the OTHER times that LEGO has adopted a new road baseplate standard with different lane widths, road markings, and/or road surface coloration from their previous standards. All in all, I have no doubt that many AFOLs' frustrations with the new road system are accurate to your own experience. But I think there are also plenty of builders (kids and adults alike) who will benefit greatly from this system, especially if LEGO continues to expand on it in the years to come. And one way or another, claiming the new roads make it "impossible" to build a City is a serious overstatement.

For my part, I think the more personalized designs that started to appear in the 90s have a lot of advantages besides their appeal to collectors. I mean, even if you prefer to imagine minifigures as being gender-neutral, racially-neutral, etc… that still wouldn't explain why there aren't any LEGO people with glasses, when it's otherwise normal to see them with real-world clothes or accessories! Plus, from a creative perspective, more varied faces mean more unique ways to mix-and-match the parts to create new characters or archetypes (as I ended up doing with my sigfig). Certainly back in the 90s when I was a kid, that customization potential was a big part of what made LEGO minifigs so much fun compared to, say, Duplo or Playmobil figures. And when figures have varied enough features to set them apart as individuals (as opposed to, say, all firefighters being indistinguishable from one another when in uniform), it's much easier to assign personalities to them when creating your own original stories. Would you really prefer if LEGO had prevented all those creative possibilities from coming to fruition, just to keep "collectors" from enjoying minifigures in a way you don't understand/agree with? And anyhow, there are also other types of collecting like "army building" that don't even require the minifigures to have any individualized features (just look at the people back in the early days of the Minifigures blind bags who bought obscene numbers of Zombies, Spartan Warriors, and Elf Warriors, inflating their aftermarket value many times the blind bags' original price). Likewise, different colors of Classic Space astronaut minifigs are just as "collectable" as different colors of Ninjago ninja minifigs, Bionicle villagers, or Hero Factory heroes. I definitely agree with this last point. I think a lot of the time, we get so caught up in our own ways of enjoying LEGO that we forget just how many different ways other people (kids and adults alike) enjoy it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people insist that LEGO themes with established characters and storylines "stifle creativity". But at the same time, examples abound of themes like Bionicle, Ninjago, and Elves inspiring their fans to create copious amounts of fan art, fan fiction, fan videos, cosplay, etc. Not to mention the countless original characters (or original redesigns of existing characters) that fans create to expand on established fictional universes. And anyhow, it's not as though a "written script" really prevents people from creating their own concepts and stories within that particular universe. After all, that's the only way that long-running brands like Star Wars or Batman or the Avengers have been able to stay relevant so long in the first place! Basically every writer or artist for a new Star Wars, Batman, or Avengers comic or movie is tasked with the challenge of creating and portraying new scenarios based on an established universe and cast of characters, or creating new characters to expand on that established universe. Likewise, kids playing "Superhero" or "Star Wars" on the playground (or with LEGO figures) are rarely interested in re-enacting existing stories line-for-line and shot-for-shot. Rather, the universes and characters they grow up enjoying become "building blocks" for creating their own stories — stuff like "what would happen if Captain America fought Batman?" or "If Boba Fett stole the Millennium Falcon, how would Han and his friends get it back?" or "What would happen if Thor and Loki's powers got switched?" After all, play scenarios with completely predetermined outcomes and no room for twists or improvisation don't tend to be very fun!

Again, I totally understand and agree that LEGO's imaginative potential enables fans like me to create our own models, storylines, and interpretations that make up for the shortcomings of official sets and media. At the same time, I don't think that somehow makes it pointless to have our own hopes and expectations for official sets and media as well. Acting like there's no point in hoping for more diverse characters (of any sort) in official sets and themes since you can just re-imagine the existing characters however you like is sort of like telling LEGO Castle, Pirates, and Space fans there's no need to hope for new versions of those themes in the future, because they can just MOC their own. Even if it's technically true, it still feels dismissive and slightly patronizing, since most of us are already doing whatever we can with what we have to make up for the stuff we feel LEGO's own products are lacking. It's one thing to feel like LEGO is unlikely to fulfill certain wishes or meet certain expectations anytime soon, but it's frustrating when those wishes are treated like some naive, impossible fantasy that will never be fulfilled. Trust me, I'm well aware of all of these factors. I certainly don't expect LEGO to immediately start putting LGBTQ+ characters in all of their themes. But as you say, LGBTQ+ representation in media is expanding slowly but surely, and I'm hopeful that it won't be TOO long before we start to see more signs of it in LEGO-related media. After all, LEGO's made some positive strides in representation in some of their other forms of marketing. Consider this recent "Rebuild the World" video featuring openly gay actor Billy Porter (who is well-known for his glamorous, gender nonconforming fashion sense): Although the video doesn't explicitly refer to sexuality, gender identity, or gender norms, it sends a pretty clear and affirming message, such as with its concluding statement: "One must actively choose to love themselves. One must actively choose to block out the haters. And choose yourself." Needless to say, there are risks of releasing a marketing video like this, which inevitably would (and did) create controversy among parents with very rigid opinions about sexuality and gender expression! But clearly, LEGO decided that those risks were worth taking. So I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that LEGO might soon be willing to take similar risks with other forms of LGBTQ+ representation in their sets and media. And contrary to another concern I often see raised, this doesn't have to involve any sort of negative stereotypes. Even small, inconspicuous details — like, say, a minifigure with a trans pride flag pin on their jacket, or a family portrait in a Friends or City set that happens to include two moms or two dads, or a nonbinary Ninjago supporting character who uses "they/them" pronouns — can have a positive and meaningful impact without "shoving it in people's faces" (as some critics might put it). Certainly, if LEGO were to do this, some stores might choose not to carry certain sets that conflict with their "values", and apps or TV episodes might need slight dialogue changes in certain countries. But those sorts of things are already not unheard of. For example, The Entertainer", a major UK toy store chain, doesn't carry any sets or themes that they consider "occult", (including themes like Monster Fighters or Hidden Side). And likewise, it's common practice for companies to edit movies, TV shows, software, and printemedia to account for jokes, figures of speech, and cultural references that don't translate neatly from one language to another. Oh, definitely not. I fully recognize (and in fact, mentioned in my earlier post) that this particular opinion of mine is not really popular here on Eurobricks. And as you mention, sharing unpopular opinions is the whole point of this topic! At the same time, I originally only brought up this issue as an example of how much the community's level of criticism towards LEGO can vary depending on who you're talking to and what issues they're discussing. So I found it interesting/noteworthy that so many people responded with the exact sort of responses I already mentioned receiving in previous discussions of that issue, whereas other highly unpopular opinions mentioned in this topic (like "The classic Castle theme should never return" or "I love it when a set has large numbers of stickers") have gotten far fewer responses.

Are you joking right now? I recognize we live in something of a "golden age" of LGBTQ-inclusive media, but even so, the vast majority of pop culture stories and brands (for kids and adults alike) remain focused on straight and cisgender characters and narratives. When's the last time you saw a Disney, Marvel, DC Comics, Star Wars, or Dreamworks movie with an openly LGBTQ+ main character? How about the last time before that? Perhaps you think LGBTQ+ characters in Netflix shows are "shoehorned in", but in reality, we're a normal part of the world you live in, and it'd honestly feel weird and unnatural for people like us NOT to be part of the fictional worlds you enjoy as well. Unfortunately, more often than not, people like us either don't exist in these fictional worlds, or never seem to play any sort of important roles in them. If anything, I'd argue that straight and cisgender people are the ones with "more than enough" representation in both LEGO themes AND other media. Trust me, I understand if you're used to LGBTQ+ characters being sidelined, because that's been the norm for most of my lifetime. But that's no reason to act like it's "a little too much" to want more than just a handful of shows that grant the same emphasis and dignity to LGBTQ+ characters as they always have to others. As for "family friendly brand image", I recognize there are still a lot of ignorant people who think that diversity is not "family friendly" and should be hidden away from children. But LGBTQ+ people have families too. And it makes a world of difference for kids to grow up knowing that those families are just as legitimate and deserving of respect as any other. Do you really think it'd be a bad thing for LEGO to show LGBTQ+ families that their experiences are valued? References to romance and marriage have been present in LEGO themes for decades, though, even outside of licensed themes. After all, are we expected to imagine that the numerous mother and father figures in themes like Duplo, Homemaker, Friends, and City do not actually love one each other? What about the king and queen figures from themes like Castle and Belville? For that matter, sets depicting a bride and groom go back as far as the People Set from 1978. Certainly, ALL sets and figures are open to re-interpretation (even licensed ones). But that doesn't somehow negate the intent behind their designs. And anyway, how would a rule against LEGO sets portraying romance actually improve anything for anyone? Part of what makes LEGO great is that it can be used to create so many different types of models and stories, and that includes ones with a romantic component. Getting rid of "bride" and "groom" figures or models entirely doesn't do anybody any favors, regardless of their sexuality. Also, it's odd you should mention the bride and groom BrickHeadz as a "mistake", because those ARE honestly one of the rare examples of an instance where LEGO specifically made a choice to be LGBTQ-inclusive. The design lead of the BrickHeadz theme, Marcos Bessa, is openly gay, and he pushed for the bride and groom BrickHeadz to be sold separately (rather than together, as had been the case in the various minifigure-scale wedding favor sets) so that it was just as easy and affordable to purchase a pair of brides or a pair of grooms as it would be to purchase one of each. I don't have enough patience right now to reply to everybody who's responded to me, especially when some of these responses feel mocking in tone. I should mention that I appreciate those of you who are making an effort to understand and respect my perspective, even if it's far removed from your own. And let me clarify: I understand that a lot of y'all feel like LEGO characters in general should ideally be as generic as possible, without specific identities besides those the individual builder assigns to them. But the reality is that they're not. Even outside of licensed themes, there are decades' worth of sets and themes featuring characters with specific names, personalities, genders, ethnicities, lifestyles, relationships, romantic interests, etc. And believe it or not, I already DO use my imagination to interpret or re-interpreted certain characters as LGBTQ+ when I so choose. Jet Jack and Heavy Metal from LEGO Ninjago are definitely a lesbian couple, in my eyes, even if they haven't actually had any overtly romantic interactions in the official storyline. Azari from LEGO Elves is transgender, and she and Emily Jones have a crush on one another (I have even dabbled in writing Elves "fan fiction" that includes some of those details, even if all I have so far are rough drafts that may not ever be completed to my liking). Just for a second, let's flip the "imagination" argument around: if you really don't think LGBTQ+ characters in LEGO themes are a good idea, couldn't you just "pretend" they're all straight and cisgender? That those two dads in a hypothetical future City set are just a dad and his younger brother? That the two girls going to the school dance together in a hypothetical future Friends set are just BFFs enjoying a fun, non-romantic outing together? That the "Nellie" character in a hypothetical future Ninjago set who resembles a female version of Lil' Nelson is just a twin sibling who was never mentioned before? Needless to say, I don't understand how the present lack of openly LGBTQ+ characters can be both so insignificant that it's not worth caring about, but also so significant that the current status quo must be preserved at all costs. Believe me, I'm painfully aware of the reasons LEGO and other large companies have been so hesitant about creating openly LGBTQ+ characters in the past. That doesn't mean I have to be happy about it, nor that I should assume better things just aren't possible. Because there are already plenty of signs that that the world we live in is changing. And truth be told, I don't know if I'd have ever felt comfortable enough to "come out" if it wasn't. Regardless, it seems we've effectively proven the point I was making in the first place pretty nicely: regardless of the reputation I often seem to have for being too defensive or uncritical about LEGO's decision making, all it took was mentioning one significant change I'd like to see from LEGO in the future (in a topic specifically for sharing our unpopular opinions) to generate several different replies explaining why the issue I brought up doesn't actually matter, and LEGO would be better off keeping things as they are.

It's all a matter of perspective, I think. Like, I've had folks get on my case for being too defensive of LEGO's choices or decisions (such as design changes between successful Ideas projects and the sets based on them), but a lot of that is just me stating my personal opinion about choices or decisions I genuinely happen to like. And usually I try to frame those opinions that way so that nobody thinks I'm trying to "shut down" perspectives that I happen to disagree with. But conversely, when I mention stuff that I actually do feel disappointed or uncomfortable about (such as the lack of overt LGBTQ+ representation in official LEGO sets and media), a lot of the responses tend to treat those desires like some unattainable, pie-in-the-sky fantasy, and suggest there's no reason for LEGO to change anything they're doing in that regard. As a trans lesbian with a passion for the sort of inclusive storytelling that my own childhood lacked, that sort of response can be… disheartening, to say the least. I guess my point is that whether the community seems to be hyper-critical or hypo-critical towards LEGO typically depends a lot on how critical your own feelings about LEGO happen to be. After all, negative opinions about LEGO likely won't sound as harsh to someone who shares those same negative opinions, just as positive opinions about LEGO won't feel as obsequious to someone who shares those same positive opinions. It's all a matter of what amount of criticism or praise seems "normal" to you.

Phenomenal! I love the timber framing and the window construction, not to mention the interior furnishings! The sheepskin rug is especially clever and charming. You did a great job taking inspiration from a lot of the design language and building techniques from the Medieval Blacksmith set while still innovating enough on them to ensure this model feels original rather than derivative. I do wonder, would garderobe-style toilets typically be used in a smaller building like this? I always figured they were more of a thing in larger castles, and a home or business like this would opt instead for a chamberpot which could be emptied a little further from the building. Having the garderobe empty out directly against the house (especially with a window right below) feels a little gross even by medieval standards! But then, there's also a certain level of humor to it that perhaps adds to the model's charm. Even the exterior decor like the chopping block and the washtub really help to set the scene and help it feel "lived in". The attic details like the clothesline and laundry baskets likewise are a great testament to the more mundane aspects of everyday medieval life. I'd be wary about leaving that oil lamp burning that close to the straw bed, though, no matter HOW cold and dark the attic might get at night! I'd hate for it to tip over and set fire to that nice roof! Great work on this model overall, and I hope you continue to expand on your medieval town going forward!

Oh my gosh! The pink and purple accents here are SO lovely, especially in contrast with the warm earth tones of the tower! When I saw the first picture on the front page, at first I thought you used Aqua/Light Aqua for the stone walls. I suspect this might be an issue with the white balance in your photo, but to be honest it would look just as nice that way (albeit a bit more fantastical) as it does in the actual Medium Stone Grey that you chose. I also really like the choice to use Dark Stone Grey for the natural, weathered rock foundation and Medium Stone Grey for the stones that have been built into a wall by hand. It really boosts the model's visual clarity even from a distance. The way you designed the water is lovely as well, although I kind of wonder if it might work better if you used 1x2 tiles for the upper surface of the water like in the Ninjago City sets instead of 1x1 tiles. Because 1x2 tiles can be arranged in a more uneven layout, they work nicely for implying wavy or fluid movement, whereas 1x1 tiles result in a vaguely "pixelated" look that feels almost more like ice cubes than liquid water. The unconventional window construction is also quite brilliant, and feels believably like individual window panes, although I do think extensive use of glass windows like this would be unusual in a historic context like this — in real life, that sort of thing typically wasn't possible until the sort of modern architectural techniques used in skyscrapers were developed. Perhaps if you changed some of the transparent panels to another contrasting color like tan or medium nougat to represent infill for a timber-framed structure, it would feel more convincing as a load-bearing historic building. But of course, if you had more of a fantasy setting in mind, then it's perfectly fine to keep the design as-is without worrying about historical accuracy or realism. After all, it's a lovely design one way or another! Finally, I'd be remiss if I didn't mention how fantastic a job you did on the roof tiles! They feel extremely believable, and the subtle curvature of the eaves adds a lot to the design. Great work in general!

You’d be surprised. For one thing, I’m not sure if you’ve watched any of the current LEGO Friends TV series “Girls on a Mission”, but the visual quality is easily up there with shows like Miraculous — you can check out some of the episodes in this playlist for examples. The Ninjago TV series has also had pretty high quality in recent seasons, much more so than in the pilot and early seasons, in which trees were typically portrayed as simple geometric shapes, and most character designs were almost perfectly smooth, rather than having bump maps to define varying materials like fabric, leather, or metal. For that matter, both the current Ninjago and Friends series occasionally include flashbacks or “imagine spots” in entirely different animation styles than the rest of the series, meaning they can’t just use their typical character animation rigs for them. In fact, some Ninjago episodes such as “The Absolute Worst” and “The Last of the Formlings” are PRIMARILY in a 2D, hand-drawn animation style. Moreover, $100,000 per episode (which is honestly an extremely conservative estimate for a TV-quality CGI animated series) is still a lot when you consider that in recent years, Ninjago has gotten around 30 new episodes per year! Needless to say, LEGO would not be likely to invest that heavily in new seasons of a TV series like Ninjago if they genuinely felt they weren’t generating considerably more sales from them than they would from traditional, 90-second TV commercials. My point isn’t that series like Ninjago is somehow the pinnacle of kids’ animated TV, but rather that the cost of ANY animated series of that kind is too great for a company like LEGO to invest in year-after-year for over a decade if they weren’t seeing a meaningful return on their investment. In the very least, it would be scaled down to a shorter miniseries if they believed its impact on sales was really as minimal as you seem to imagine.

The scheduling here in the United States can be kind of restrictive as well, although it wasn't always that way — I suspect the availability of streaming and on-demand cable TV services may have something to do with that (just as it led to the end physical home media releases of new Ninjago seasons here in the US). That said, I'd disagree about the Ninjago TV series being "just cheap filler programming" — in the United States, it's generally had fairly healthy viewership ratings, and in its early years it even surpassed a lot of Cartoon Network's original programming. And while I can't speak to how much it contributes to sales, animated series are EXTREMELY expensive to produce. So I find it unlikely that LEGO would continue to invest in so many new Ninjago TV episodes year after year if they felt that it played a negligible role in the marketing of the sets themselves. After all, it's not as they've ever been averse to downsizing a theme's media/marketing presence as the years go on, particularly if they have reason to believe that a particular type of media is not "earning its keep". Truth be told, even that sort of thing can be useful to a theme's sales. An ongoing storyline and engaging characters can do a lot to reinforce a kid's interest in a particular toyline, even if they were aware of or interested in the toys before they became aware of or interested in the storyline. I certainly suspect there are a lot of people (myself included) who remained interested in themes like Ninjago or Bionicle for 10+ years, and might not have found those themes nearly as engaging in the long term if there weren't a storyline to give the characters and sets additional meaning, present new mysteries to speculate about, inspire fan art/fan fiction and original characters, and provide new topics to discuss with fellow fans.

Not really — they had no qualms about publishing tie-in comic books and picture books in the mid- to late 80s, or video games in the mid- to late 90s. Not to mention the Fabuland theme, which was heavily media-driven from the very beginning, as mentioned by @1974 in the first reply to this topic! And in fact, even in the 80s they had ambitions for the "Jim Spaceborn" character from their LEGO Space comics to star in his own computer game, animated movie, and animated series. Besides what others like @Mylenium have brought up, I think some of LEGO's reluctance to create TV tie-in properties can be chalked up to LEGO's awareness of their own limited experience, and the risks that came with it. As @Lyichir mentions, the failure of the Galidor TV show in the early 2000s (which, contrary to popular belief, originated as a LEGO IP, and was brought to screens via a partnership with the Tom Lynch Company) ended up serving as a powerful example of just how much LEGO had to lose if they invested in developing a TV-based property without the patience and know-how to ensure its success. And that was a live-action series, which within the animation industry are notorious for being much less expensive to produce than cartoons, even if they include CGI visual effects. After the failure of Galidor, LEGO dialed back back those sorts of ambitions considerably. For several years, the direct-to-DVD Bionicle movies were their most ambitious animated endeavors. However, they also began to dabble in "mini-movies" for some of their other themes like Star Wars, Exo-Force, and Power Miners, which were both released online and broadcast on TV as interstitial content during commercial breaks (albeit on a very limited basis). In 2010, they took a step further by partnering with the studio behind the final Bionicle movie for three additional animated ventures: A direct-to-DVD LEGO movie (LEGO: The Adventures of Clutch Powers), a 22-minute LEGO Atlantis TV special, and a four-episode LEGO Hero Factory miniseries. From that point, it was not a huge leap for them to release a 44-minute TV special to tie in with the launch of LEGO Ninjago in 2011, or a 22-minute TV special to tie in with the launch of LEGO Friends in 2012. However, even at that point, note that LEGO was still reluctant to develop (and TV networks were still reluctant to broadcast) a full TV series for brand-new, unproven LEGO themes like these. It was only the massive success of of both the Ninjago TV special and the sets themselves that finally gave both LEGO and broadcast networks like Cartoon Network and SuperRTL the confidence to greenlight a full TV series to tie in with the following year's sets. Likewise, it took the continued success of the LEGO Ninjago TV series to earn LEGO the trust and confidence to develop and broadcast full TV series for themes like Legends of Chima or Nexo Knights in their debut year. All in all, even if LEGO had been WILLING to jump right into TV development in the 80s or 90s, it's doubtful that they'd have had any sort of lasting success with it. The company's history is rife with examples of positive outcomes from gradual, iterative sorts of innovations, and negative outcomes from abrupt or "disruptive" innovations.

Here's the best resource on them that I know! It includes scans of the two Jim Spaceborn comic books that were released, as well as the the unreleased picture book "Trapped in Space" (which predates the Jim Spaceborn comics and had a lot of influence on them), the manuscript and layouts for the unpublished third comic book, and a couple magazine interviews with the author and illustrator Frank Madsen.

Yep! Not to mention the Fabuland theme, which had named characters, storybook-style instructions, and even a stop-motion animated series on videocassette! Honestly, I get the impression that the lack of tie-in media or storylines for a lot of early LEGO themes was largely due to LEGO's lack of experience/proficiency with media tie-ins, rather than any sort of fundamental opposition to story-driven toys. After all, the Jim Spaceborn brand provides a clear indication that LEGO's ambitions for media content back in the 80s far exceeded their actual output. Before they shuttered their in-house publishing wing in 1987, bringing the Jim Spaceborn comics to a premature end, LEGO and their partners at the Advance advertising agency (which has been involved with their marketing and branding decisions since 1976) planned for the character to star not only in comics, but also in an animated movie, animated series, and computer game! Ultimately, it would be many more years before LEGO was able to successfully break into categories like computer games and animated movies. But stuff like the Pirates comics and storybooks in the late 80s and early 90s demonstrate pretty clearly that their embrace of story-driven media tie-ins didn't die with the closure of the LEGO Publishing division. And in the grand scheme of things, shifting towards partnerships with established publishers (rather than trying to manage everything in-house) might very well be what actually made it possible for them to achieve greater success with later media tie-ins than with the Jim Spaceborn comics and other publications of that era.

You raise some good points. It's certainly not hard to include unnamed "army builder" characters even in a theme that also include named characters. I mean, even themes like Ninjago have a lot of "army builder" characters along those lines, albeit usually only on the "enemy" side. For instance, the "Secrets of the Forbidden Spinjitzu" sets introduced two enemy factions: the Pyro Vipers and Blizzard Samurai. And while there were a couple of "unique" characters representing the leader and second-in-command for each of these factions, there were also plenty of nameless soldiers identified only by their rank/armament (Pyro Whippers, Pyro Slayers, Pyro Destroyers, Blizzard Warriors, Blizzard Sword Masters, and Blizzard Archers). For that matter, even a lot of Ninjago enemy minifigures that ARE named in the sets themselves appear only as generic footsoldiers/"crowd filler" in the television series and other story media. To its credit, Nexo Knights also had quite a few unnamed "army builder" figures on BOTH sides — Royal Soldiers, Royal Guards, and Squirebots on the side of the heroes, and Ash Attackers, Crust Smashers, Flame Throwers, Gargoyles, Stone Stompers, etc. on the side of the villains. So I think that's a good indication that LEGO sees the value of this sort of approach for Castle themes — even wildly non-traditional ones!

I dunno — I think they make plenty of sense as a minifig-scale representation of a swivel gun or falconet. Certainly they were FAR less ridiculous/implausible than putting full-size cannons on a small rowboat like in older Pirates sets such as 6201 or 6245. Many nautical-leaning Ninjago sets like 70594, 70603, 70623, 70732, and 71705 have likewise made effective use of stud shooters as small cannons or deck guns. This is a big part of why I still love stud shooters — they're a great way to add working projectile launcher functions to sets where larger launcher or cannon pieces would be too obtrusive or unwieldy. Moreover, even if you dislike stud shooters, they add very little to the cost of a set and are usually easy to remove or ignore. So all in all, I feel like the benefits of stud shooters far outweigh the drawbacks.

What "advanced building techniques" are you referring to? Because honestly, none of the building techniques there seem any more advanced to me than in the 3-in-1 Pirate Ship or Space Rover Explorer. The castle is primarily a studs-up construction, with just a few simple SNOT techniques used for the stonework. And the only visible part of the build that is hinged in any manner is the drawbridge. By contrast, both the Pirate Ship and Space Rover Explorer sets made much more extensive use of hinges and SNOT techniques in every one of their builds. I also don't think it'd be that unusual for the 4x5 castle wall panels to show up in a 3-in-1 set, especially if used this sparingly. For one, your claim that the mold in question has been out of use for almost a decade is entirely incorrect. In fact, it's been used in more than 20 sets in just the the past five years, including two sets released just this month! So I can assure you with absolute certainty that it hasn't been discontinued. Moreover, plenty of 3-in-1 sets (including recent ones) have included even larger or more specialized molds: for example, 1x6x5 wall panels, 3x3x6 corner wall panels, 5x4x2 half-cylinder panels, 4x4x6 quarter-cylinder panels, 1x4x6 door/window frames, 1x4x6 tripartite window frames, 4x4x6 corner door/window frames, 7x7 siege engine wheels, and 3x8x7 mountain bricks. So why would a couple of castle wall panels be any more of a deal-breaker than any of those? Yeah, that part is definitely discontinued, but as you say, it doesn't show up anywhere in the build I was referring to from that LEGO Ideas video. So that's pretty much a moot point.

Ultra Agents had quite a lot of cyberpunk vibes, IMO, even beyond Terabyte's design. For instance, the Ultra Agents' vehicles all have very Tron-like color schemes — black with brightly-glowing neon accents. Agent Solomon Blaze's car from 70162 in particular closely resembles the design of the spinners from the movie Blade Runner. And the Ultra Agents minifigures have all kinds of cyberpunk-looking wearable tech like cybernetic leg braces or helmets or visors with a digital overlay. I've also seen a lot of people point out that the Ninjago City sets seem to be heavily cyberpunk-influenced, particularly due to their towering structure, densely-packed shops and apartments, gaudy signs/posters/billboards, and the implied economic, technological, and social divides between residents and business owners in the higher and lower levels of the city.

For my part, I still suspect that the Creator 3-in-1 castle will roughly resemble the one that's portrayed at around 53 seconds into the video in this LEGO Ideas blog entry (the part captioned "no drawbridges"). It's possible that modifications were made to it for use in this video, of course. But even so, that model seems to closely resemble a "Creator 3-in-1" style of build (for instance, most of the walls being built from smaller bricks rather than panels, and some brick-built landscaping in addition to the main structure). If we assume that the front of the castle structure from that video is roughly symmetrical, then it looks to be about 32 studs wide. So between these glimpses shown and the rumored price point and piece count (100 USD/EUR, and over 1500 pieces), I think we can arrive at a reasonable estimate of the castle's size: decidedly larger than the Fortrex, but with a smaller footprint/perimeter (and higher walls) than the 2010 or 2013 "King's Castle" sets. As a parts pack, it seems like it'd have a lot of potential, with large quantities of grey slopes, inverted slopes, arches, and masonry bricks. The low price-per-piece would also work in its favor in this regard. And hopefully it might also help to lower the BrickLink price of a lot of those sorts of useful and desirable pieces. Unfortunately, from what we can see so far, it seems somewhat lacking in more specialized sorts of Castle parts which tend to command a high price on BrickLink, like wall panel, window, and portcullis pieces.

In the past they've been willing to include stuff like gravestones with angel statues in licensed themes, so I don't think they'd be opposed to portraying bishops from a chess scene in a movie, either. Plus, movie screenshots and merchandise portray the bishops from that scene in full armor. They do wear a mitre, but it's over top of a helmet, which I think is a substantial enough difference from actual bishops' outfits that it wouldn't create any sort of controversy. In fact, it leads me to wonder whether the filmmakers designed the chess pieces specifically to avoid anything that might present this sort of issue for merchandise. I do wonder whether they'd make a new mitre+helmet mold for this figure, given it's a design so specific to this scene rather than to either knights OR clergy (and unlike more character-specific molds, it might be hard to find other uses for it even within the same licensed theme). That said, there are various knight helmet pieces they could approximate it with if they didn't mind it looking slightly inaccurate to its on-screen counterpart.

Fair point about boy-oriented themes often being more vehicle-focused, although Elves actually did have several vehicle sets: for instance, 41073, 41077, 41181, 41184, 41186, and 41195 (and that's not counting the various sets that include a small vehicle as a secondary build). Moreover, I feel like brick-built animal "steeds" like dragons perform a role more or less analogous to vehicle sets — not only in the Elves theme, but also in more boy-targeted themes like Ninjago or Bionicle. And the Elves theme had a LOT of those! It's not hard to imagine a mythology-oriented theme having a similar emphasis on brick-built fantasy creatures. EDIT: Just saw the clarification that you're using your own made-up definition of "vehicle", so I guess you can disregard this part of my comment. I can't really agree with this generalization at all. For one thing, the Ninjago theme includes WAY more categories of vehicles than those four you mention, among good guys and bad guys alike: for example, boats, submarines, helicopters, hovercrafts, mobile command centers, airships, and tanks. The types of Ninjago vehicles can also vary a lot more much between story arcs than you give them credit for. In the "Hunted" sets, for instance, the Ninja had hardly ANY vehicles, and the only enemy vehicles were a mobile command center and a helicopter. The bad guys exclusively used bikes in the "Sons of Garmadon" sets, flying vehicles in the "Skybound" sets, and boats in "The Island" sets. The bad guys in the "Secrets of the Forbidden Spinjitzu" sets had no vehicles at all. And in the theme's upcoming underwater story arc, the ninja vehicles are primarily submarines, plus an undersea mech and a car that transforms into a submarine. Themes like Nexo Knights and Legends of Chima also don't adhere anywhere near as neatly at all to this "car, bike, mech, jet" approach as you make it sound. It wasn't until the Nexo Knights theme's fourth wave that it got even a single set resembling a car (Aaron's Rock Climber). And a lot of the other main "good guy" vehicles over the theme's three-year run like the Fortrex, Clay's Rumble Blade, Axl's Tower Carrier, Axl's Rumble Maker, Lance's Hover Jouster, and Axl's Rolling Arsenal are a considerable departure ANY of those "Ninjago-style vehicle" categories that you've defined. A lot of the sorts of "Ninjago-style vehicles" you refer to in themes like Super Heroes don't really have any more in common with Ninjago vehicles than they do with ones from themes like Alpha Team, Agents, and World Racers (or for that matter, with the old-school LEGO Batman sets). Certainly nothing about them is a new trend, although the number of sets like those tends to fluctuate depending on the number of movie-based superhero sets in any given year. You may not have been around on Eurobricks back in the early 2010s, but I was, and I can assure you that many fans of "traditional non-vehicle based" themes criticized Atlantis, Ninjago, Dino, and Monster Fighters for each being the latest in a long line of action themes with an excessive emphasis on cartoonish, gimmicky, oversized, and "unnecessary" vehicles — and threatening the future of "traditional, non-vehicle based themes". Many folks here also disparagingly compared them to Time Cruisers, an even OLDER theme with a heavy emphasis on vehicles. Even though themes like Castle and Pirates were still active or recently active back then, there was still a widespread perception among AFOLs that LEGO's continued focus on horrible new "action themes" was threatening to displace theme. In this topic alone, there are numerous examples of Pirates fans talking disparagingly about themes like Agents, Power Miners, Atlantis, and Space Police 3 and acting like it was some kind of gross indignity for LEGO to keep investing in those sorts of themes instead of putting that investment towards themes like Pirates, and proof that LEGO had lost their way or abandoned their core values. All in all, I don't see any reason to act like there's any overwhelming difference between these recent "action themes" and the many vehicle-heavy "action themes" before them. Certainly they were every bit as controversial among fans of "traditional" themes as themes like Ninjago, Legends of Chima, Hidden Side, and Monkie Kid have been in the years since. Oh wow, I never actually considered how useful that sort of figure could be for chess sets!

Probably no more than it would've taken to put paper instructions in the set itself? You could even resize them and print like four pages per sheet if you're that concerned about conserving ink or paper. I certainly wouldn't go to this sort of effort most of the time… but then, I'm not the one acting like looking at pictures on a screen is the stuff of nightmares. I've been using digital instructions for years, whether for actual sets or for various alternate and combination models that could only be found online, and it's never been a problem.

I mean, not gonna lie, that sort of stuff sounds utterly brilliant to me, not "stupid" at all! Sort of gets me thinking about some of the "vehicles of the gods" from the game Kid Icarus: Uprising, which I was playing a lot of last month. That said, I also don't see any reason to assume that LEGO would inevitably employ the same approach with a Greek mythology inspired theme as they do with Monkie Kid. Who's to say they wouldn't take an approach more like LEGO Elves, with set that overwhelmingly focus on traditional fantasy builds (possibly with a modern-day protagonist thrown in for flavor)? Or like LEGO Atlantis and Monster Fighters, in which where the fantasy/mythology-based elements and modern/futuristic elements are kept distinctly separate? One way or another, a mythology-based theme would almost inevitably take considerable liberties from the real mythology it's based on, even if it were strictly based on a classical setting. For one thing, a lot of the original myths are not really "kid-appropriate". Zeus is one of the most iconic Greek gods among kids, but it's not as though LEGO would want to portray any of the many myths about him sleeping around with random mortal women (despite that being a key element of Heracles' "origin story", and the reason for the goddess Hera's disdain for him)! Also, more likely than not, a mythology-based theme would be heavily simplified so that kids can at least have a vague grasp on who's on any given "side" in a particular conflict. That wouldn't be an easy feat if staying true to actual Greek myths, which are rife with grudges, backstabbing, murder, trickery, power struggles, and cannibalism on every side. Regardless, I don't think deviations from the source material are necessarily a bad thing, and in fact, there are numerous ways to take inspiration from a particular subject without strictly retelling existing stories. It could easily be more like LEGO Vikings, portraying mythological monsters (or other mythological figures), but in the context of entirely new stories/scenarios, not the original myths and stories associated with them.

My point is that kids who are already Minecraft fans (and presumably, already own Minecraft) can experience more or less the entire game world as often as they like for no additional cost. Yet they still see an incentive to buy and play with the LEGO Minecraft sets. That alone should be proof that screen-based forms of entertainment don't prevent kids from continuing to enjoy physical toys. Sure, unless you print them out. But do you really believe that there's something inherently bad about using a device with a screen to view or download LEGO instructions? How is it any worse than reading an internet message board like you're doing right now? Sure, but that's a "slippery slope" argument — there's no actual reason to expect online or app-based instructions to become the norm any time soon. For the most part, the only themes that haven't come with paper instructions are the few that are specifically designed to be played with in conjunction with the same device you'd use to read the instructions, like LEGO Life of George, Fusion, Dimensions, Boost, and Super Mario. It's not as though sets that require an additional device for use are a fundamentally new thing, either. Most versions of LEGO Mindstorms have required a computer with a CD-ROM drive to fully enjoy them, as did the LEGO Technic CyberMaster and LEGO Studios Movie Maker Set. And a LOT more families have smartphones or tablets today than had home computers back in the late 90s. It's safe to say that LEGO is aware that not everybody has access to the same sorts of technology, which is why these sets that outright require additional devices have never been more than a small fraction of the LEGO product range. The vast majority of sets are constructed from physical bricks with no digital integration whatsoever. And I fully expect that to remain the case for the foreseeable future. However, this thread's original post makes it sound as if the existence of ANY theme that requires a screen or digital device is fundamentally a bad thing. And I don't really believe there's any credence to that sort of claim.

I can't in good conscience read a topic like this without linking to the Traumatic Events in the Life of a LEGO Fan post from the old-school Lugnet days — this topic would fit right in with the rest of those overwrought complaints and doomsday predictions. As it stands, predictions that video games would make "traditional" toys like LEGO obsolete go back decades, and there's no more truth to that sort of inane fearmongering today than there was back then. The reality is that even in a digital world, kids still enjoy toys that they can physically hold and feel and touch. So far, no video game or app offers any sort of tactile experience that can compete with physical playthings on that level. I mean, when the first LEGO Minecraft set was released, a lot of people expected it to be a disastrous flop, because kids who wanted a Minecraft-related play experience could just play the video game itself for free instead of paying money for a plastic recreation of the in-game experience. Yet that first set was not only a great success, but paved the way for an ongoing LEGO Minecraft product line which is now in its ninth year! This sort of thing doesn't apply only to LEGO, either. I mean, e-books have existed since the early 90s, but regular books haven't even come close to disappearing. Likewise, card games and board games continue to exist decades after the earliest home video games. So why would you expect LEGO sets with app-based building instructions or play features to threaten the existence of sets with traditional building instructions and play features, which far outnumber them? By the way, the Super Mario building instructions are all available to view or download as PDF files on the LEGO Customer Service website, same as with any other theme. So once again, you seem to be panicking over a non-issue.

Fair point! Certainly the most well-known Roman heroes, monsters, gods, and goddesses (for example, the ones we've named moons, stars, and planets for) tend to be the ones they borrowed from Greek mythology, usually with only enough changes to ensure they'd mesh neatly with the Romans' own founding myths, cultural values, and religious practices. That said, I feel like in America, younger kids tend to be much more interested in both these societies' myths and legends than the other aspects of their history and culture, like their lifestyles, governments, technology, or military exploits. Even in elementary school, my twin brother and I had our own copy of D'Aulaire's Book of Greek Myths that we loved to read through again and again. I certainly wouldn't be surprised if that's different in Europe, where the reach of the Roman Empire left widespread evidence of their art, architecture, society, and culture! I certainly learned a LOT about Roman history in my own teenage years, since I took five years of Latin classes in high school, and my grandmama took my twin brother and me on a trip to Rome for our 16th birthday. But since Latin class was only offered as an elective, many of my peers who chose to take different foreign language classes like French or Spanish never ended up learning as much about Roman society (nor developing as much of an interest in classical history in general). At most, those students might learn about Ancient Greek and Roman history for a week or two during our more general "World History" classes before moving on to other time periods and geographic areas. Likewise, a lot of the popular culture portrayals of Rome that you mention (including the Shakespeare plays) are stuff I had little to no awareness of before I became a teenager — although I definitely concur that I, Claudius and Life of Brian are both quite fantastic in their own right, and provide a remarkable glimpse into that time period!

I hesitate to predict how much longer themes like Ninjago might last… after all, it's sort of surprising that it's going strong after this many years to begin with! But like you, I'd certainly expect it to end at some point in the future. Moreover, I suspect that by the time it ends, its significance will have already diminished quite a bit compared to today, displaced by other themes that have emerged in the intervening time. Having enjoyed both Friends and Paradisa, I think one of the core differences between them (perhaps even more so than the style of figure they include) is that Paradisa was very specifically focused on vacation, leisure, and resort settings/scenarios. By contrast, Friends tends to have a broader focus which includes not only those sorts of settings/scenarios, but also "everyday" settings/scenarios (like family houses, schools, shopping malls, and parks) and "adventure" settings/scenarios (go-kart racing, jungle rescue, sea life rescue, adventure camp, etc). So while Paradisa was kind of like an offshoot or spin-off of Town with a narrower scope, Friends is designed to cover about as broad a scope as City does (albeit not exactly the same scope as the City theme covers). Friends has definitely expanded the audience for LEGO in a lasting way, and even if it were to end at some point, I expect that we will continue to see themes tailored to buyers with similarly feminine tastes/interests. As much as some people would prefer if all themes were "gender-neutral", I think themes like Friends and Elves have a lot of unique strengths that would be lost in a theme that needed to appeal equally to boys and girls (just as there are unique strengths of themes like Ninjago that would be lost under those same circumstances). The number of commenters in this thread and subforum who have expressed discomfort or disinterest in the sorts of castles that show up in themes like Disney or Elves (or other castles with pastel colors or a lack of conflict scenarios) is a testament to just how easily features that appeal to one subset of LEGO fans might alienate another. So I expect that LEGO will continue offering themes that skew more "girly" or "boyish", in addition to more "neutral" themes like Classic and Creator 3-in-1 that cater to fans whose interests include both those categories, or neither of them. I'm surprised! Even without knowing what sort of figs it might end up including, it strikes me as a really lovely castle with lots of great details inside and out. Not on par with the size of a "king's castle", maybe, but certainly comparable to the size of smaller tower and fortress sets like Wolfpack Tower or Forestmen's River Fortress (one of several Forestmen sets that it was evidently inspired by. That said, please don't read my surprise as any sort of judgment! I totally understand if you either aren't interested in the build or feel like you already have all the parts you'd need to build something comparable on your own. But all in all, as MOCs go, this definitely seems like one good enough to be worth adding to a Castle collection, or even getting as a stand-alone display piece. I can't see any reason to think it'd cost that much! I mean, the Löwenstein Castle set that was released in the previous round of the BrickLink Designer Program only cost $200. Thee Castle in the Forest has a somewhat lower piece count than that set did even if you were to add a couple of minifigures, and doesn't seem to be any larger than Löwenstein Castle, either. I mean, from what I'm seeing, this set has quite a few medieval accessories and useful medieval building elements that you'd rarely see in themes like Star Wars: flowers, leaves, branches, tree trunks, arched window panes/shutters, flags, treasure chests, candles, owls, horses etc). And if this set ends up costing around $200 like Löwenstein Castle did (which seems like a reasonably safe estimate, given its size and piece count), the value for money wouldn't even be that far off from official sets. You're right that ideally, you could recoup part of the cost of buying official sets as parts packs by selling unneeded parts and minifigures (especially in themes where the figures are highly sought after). But that's quite a bit of extra effort for fans who rarely meet up in person with other LEGO fans and don't have a BrickLink store (or comparable way of selling stuff online). I definitely understand why you might not think much of buying somebody else's MOC when you can make your own. I have never bought a MOC myself, though this one is certainly tempting. However, I don't think the potential audience for a model like this is as small you're making it out to be. Or Sinbad the Sailor, maybe. There's definitely a lot of folklore and literature from the Middle East that could serve as inspiration for future sets or themes, even if the Crusades are a pretty definite no-go. I could easily picture LEGO making a theme inspired by Greek and Roman mythology, with corresponding architectural styles, since that tends to be a lot more well-known and popular with kids than actual Greek and Roman history. And characters and creatures inspired by Greek and Roman mythology show up pretty often in kids' media, like the Percy Jackson books, the Disney movie Hercules, etc. Case in point, just yesterday I bought a couple more volumes of Lumberjanes (a graphic novel series that's been pretty popular among kids), and one of them included characters like Zeus, Artemis, and the Gorgons. Granted, I don't know if now would be the right time for a theme like that, or if it'd be better to wait until some new kids' series really brings those sorts of myths into the forefront of kids' attention again. But all in all, I think these sorts of myths are at least as plausible a subject to base a new theme on as stuff like classic movie monsters, mummies, Vikings, or the legend of Atlantis.