Aanchir

I'm not sure how you make that argument when LEGO hasn't gone even a year without at least one other "action theme" alongside Ninjago. They had Legends of Chima from 2013–2015, Ultra Agents and The LEGO Movie from 2014–2015, Elves from 2015–2018, Nexo Knights from 2016–2018, The LEGO Movie 2 in 2019, Hidden Side from 2019–2020, and Monkie Kid from 2020 onwards. Certainly they haven't been rolling out a new one every year like they had been in the years leading up to the Ninjago theme, but I hardly see that as a sign that they're doing something wrong. Moreover, I don't see why folks are treating this wave of sets as if it's somehow a massive departure from what the Ninjago theme is "supposed" to be. For my part, I remember contemplating the possibility of a Ninjago story arc with an underwater setting as early as 2014 (though my idea was for vaguely Lovecraftian octopus- and squid-themed baddies, not serpent- or eel-themed ones). To me, this felt a pretty natural extension of what we'd already seen in the previous years of sets: A creepy non-human enemy faction with distinctive colors and "creature" motifs that could be applied across any locations or vehicles associated with them. A new and mysterious setting beyond the sorts the ninja had already explored, but still with plenty of potential for mysterious ruins, lost treasures, ancient secrets, and world-threatening dangers. New types of ninja vehicles and ninja suits that could stand out prominently from ones that we'd seen in previous years. A plot that would present even an experienced team of heroic ninja with brand-new, high-stakes challenges. Ironically, much like this year, I was even envisioning this as part of a two-year story arc with the first half set at "surface level" in a tropical island environment, and the second moving below the waves — though I was also picturing a single enemy faction remaining in the spotlight for the entire year, since it wasn't until 2015 that Ninjago would begin focusing introducing a new enemy faction in each wave. Needless to say, I don't feel like an underwater ninja adventure is some kind of far-fetched idea that LEGO would only arrive at by scraping the bottom of the barrel— on the contrary, it would have felt like a huge missed opportunity to me if Ninjago ended WITHOUT an underwater story arc. After all, it's not as though this is any less plausible than any of the other adventures the ninja have been on. And if themes like Alpha Team and Bionicle could manage an underwater story arc, why not Ninjago? Anyhow, the sets we've seen for this wave aren't even far removed from the sort of builds we'd ordinarily expect to see in LEGO Ninjago. There's an ancient temple that serves as the bad guys' lair, a transforming ninja vehicle, a ninja combat mech, ferocious brick-built mythical creatures, and a Destiny's Bounty inspired mobile ninja base. The good guy vehicles have curvy contours decorated with Warm Gold blade pieces as accents, and the bad guy The only difference from what we're used to is that this stuff is tailored to an underwater environment, so the vehicles tend to have fins and turbines instead of wings or rocket boosters… and, I suppose, that there aren't any spinners or motorcycles.

Whoa, incredible design! The snake tail, humanoid torso, and four arms do a great job setting it apart from the set that its parts originate from. This feels like it could be an official alternate model of the set, or even a new form for the Overlord in the official story!

It was a little hard to understand your specific issue without pictures, but I think I've figured out the gist of your issue. In general, the MILS system (like the modular buildings themselves) is based around 16-stud or 32-stud increments. So the width of the road surface plus the width of sidewalk extensions on either side (beyond the edge of the modular baseplates) has to add up to an increment of 16 studs. Based on your description of your layout, I'm assuming your roads are around 16 studs wide with 4 stud sidewalk extensions on either side. That adds up to just 24 studs, so you're 8 studs short of MILS compliance (4 studs on each side of the road/each end of a city block). There are various ways you could potentially fix this: expand the width of your sidewalks by four studs more, expand the width of your roads by four studs on either side, add bike lanes to your roads, and/or remove the 4-stud sidewalk extensions entirely. Which option works best for you probably depends on the needs of your city (e.g. how much space you prefer to have for vehicles and/or pedestrians). All that matters is that everything adds up to multiples of 16.

Hydro Bounty's build seems to use a lot more large panels and curved wedges, while the Legacy Destiny's Bounty used a lot more tiny detail elements. Plus, in general, these new sets make heavier use of new molds and/or prints than we'd usually see in Legacy sets of similar size, both for their characters/creatures and for the builds themselves. Obviously, everybody can make their own decision about which is a better value once final prices are known for all countries. But from a cursory glance, it doesn't seem too surprising or confusing that the Hydro Bounty would have a higher price per piece than the Legacy Destiny's Bounty did.

Keep in mind that the actual minifigure is likely to be another color like Aqua or Tr. Light Blue rather than White (the hair piece definitely looks transparent light blue since the darker headband color is visible through her bangs). An illustration like this isn't necessarily a reliable way of determining the actual part color. All in all, this mostly just seems to be a "true potential"/elemental energy variant of Nya, not unlike like the NRG, Airjitzu, and Spinjitzu Burst variants that we've seen for several of the Ninja in past years. I also suspect the placeholder minifigure in the temple set with the Hidden Side "ghost trail" piece and backpack with Tr. Light Blue Elves vine pieces is a stand-in for this version of Nya! Most of those parts seem more representative of magical water powers than sea creature body parts like the other baddies (especially since the Hidden Side ghost trail attaches to a pair of minifig legs, rather than in place of one), and also this placeholder figure has a standard minifig head, unlike the sea creature baddies who seem to have specially molded heads. All in all, I'm pretty impressed with the look of this new wave so far! Definitely looking forward to seeing more finalized versions of all the nifty-looking baddies, vehicles, and creatures! Reusing some of the Pyro Viper molds for sea serpent baddies is honestly pretty clever IMO, as is reusing Hades' legs piece from the Disney minifigs for the villain in the Water Dragon set. I'll be interested to see if they tie this new faction together with earlier Ninjago creatures/lore as they've done from time to time in the past. Can't have a fantasy story underwater without plenty of sea monsters! The new mold that debuted in the Legacy Boulder Blaster also makes a lot more sense to me now that we've seen how extensively these sets will be using it. Of course, I fully expected to see it used more widely in future sets, but seeing it here it feels especially well-suited to an underwater setting. Ooh, tying these baddies together with the Electrocobrai could be genuinely clever, considering that Wohira's general "storm" theming ties together really well with the idea of sea snakes/serpents/eels with electrical powers. Also, it'd be neat to contrast thunder-themed baddies in this year's first wave with lightning-themed baddies in the second wave. Although there's some lightning theming for the Keepers of the Amulet — most notably Chief Mammatus's scepter design — which sort of undermine that dichotomy.

It's a good question, honestly — I'd ordinarily expect to see Season 5 inspired Legacy variants of some of the other ninja in the 4+ Legacy version of "Final Flight of Destiny's Bounty" (71747), but it'd be a bit unusual if a 4+ set turned out to introduce multiple minifigs that aren't in any other sets from that wave or previous ones. And there aren't any other rumored Legacy sets in that upcoming wave that would likely include Season 5 inspired suits. Then again, 71747 is rumored to have only 147 pieces — and even other Juniors/4+ sets with similar piece counts tend to cost only about $30 and include 3 minifigures. So I guess it's possible that LEGO could hit that threshold with just Legacy Deepstone Zane, Legacy Nya (with added gold armor to approximate her Season 5 ninja outfit), and a single Ghost Warrior — no new printed elements necessary.

As nice as that would be, I kind of doubt we'd see that many minifigs in a Creator 3-in-1 set (even a large one). I mean, for comparison, even some of the biggest and priciest 3-in-1 sets like the Pirate Ship from last year, Townhouse Pet Shop & Cafe from 2019, and Pirate Roller Coaster from 2018 had only three or four minifigures each. Then again, even that could be seen as an encouraging sign, since were NO Creator 3-in-1 sets with more than three minifigs until three years ago. So maybe this set will end up surprising me.

Yeah, it's not implausible to think LEGO could come up with a set around that size that more believably resembles a small sailing ship like a sloop, cutter, or ketch — especially if they gave it a brick-built hull or some customization-friendly new hull mold in place of the prefab 12-stud-wide hull pieces used for sets like Renegade Runner or Cross Bone Clipper. I mean, in fairness, that's still the only full-size LEGO pirate ship set to this day that's actually designed to float! And as you suggest, the more general simplicity of the build is because 4 Juniors was a preschool theme like Fabuland, intended to serve as an intermediate/transitional theme between Duplo (with a building level geared towards toddlers) and System play themes (with a building level geared towards school-aged kids). Today "4+" sets perform more or less that same role, but with figures, parts, and themes that more closely resemble the ones aimed at older kids — which presumably helps to create an even smoother transition into "regular" sets from those themes.

I mean, Castle and Pirates weren't well received last time either, but I doubt any Castle or Pirates fans would want LEGO to refrain from bringing back those themes because it's "risky". Especially when a lot of the complaints older Bionicle fans had about the 2015 reboot are the same complaints that older Castle and Pirates fans had about those themes' 2013 and 2015 reboots: They didn't have enough large or complex sets compared to smaller ones. Their small and mid-range sets were too expensive relative to their contents. Their premise, builds, aesthetics, and narrative tone were too simple and childish rather than serious and mature, and seemingly aimed at younger kids. Their choices of characters and subject matter felt too repetitive/derivative/unimaginative compared to earlier versions of the themes. They were not marketed as heavily or effectively as they should have been. They were discontinued too quickly, denying them the opportunity to develop and improve over time like earlier incarnations. Their designers/developers didn't understand or care enough about what made earlier versions of these themes so great to do them justice. TLG's corporate leadership clearly didn't value or respect the importance of these themes — if they did, they'd have invested just as heavily in their sets and marketing as they had with newer themes like Ninjago or Legends of Chima, which would have fixed ALL these problems. I'm not saying all of these criticisms are fair, mind you — while some of them may have had a grain of truth, a lot of the comparisons made between the newest versions of these themes and earlier versions carried a lot of nostalgic bias (especially with regard to their complexity, maturity/seriousness, and pricing). And needless to say, there were a lot of baseless and unflattering assumptions made about the intent or competence of the designers and other LEGO employees, up to and including conspiracy theories that LEGO purposely botched these themes' latest reboots as an excuse to "kill them off for good". But in the grand scheme of things, even a lot of the assumptions about how well/poorly these reboots actually sold amount to little more than conjecture, often based on anecdotal observations about what sets particular stores were putting on clearance or how quickly those sets ended up disappearing from shelves. Considering the number of times I'd seen people make similar claims about themes that are now known to have been successful (like Ninjago, Friends, Legends of Chima, and Nexo Knights), it's possible that LEGO may not think of these themes as "failures" at all, even if it seems that way from an outside perspective. I don't know if this is an accurate reading of what Bionicle fans want. There are certainly some Bionicle fans out there who are very particular about aspects of the theme's original run that a new incarnation MUST maintain. But how different is that from the many LEGO Space or Castle fans who dislike the direction those themes took in the 2000s and 2010s and want those themes to get back to their roots? None of those voices necessarily represent a majority viewpoint among adult fans of those themes, let alone a definite forecast of what sets or themes fans will actually turn out to like or dislike — just predictions about what sorts of sets those individual fans EXPECT to like or dislike. Moreover, keep in mind that this entire poll is heavily geared towards AFOLs' nostalgia for the themes of our childhoods. I mean, there's a reason that Knights' Kingdom, Vikings, Mars Mission, and Alien Conquest were not included as options! So I think it'd be a mistake to read any more into the number of Bionicle fans specifically hoping for a throwback to "old-school" Bionicle aesthetics (bright colors, greebly mechanical textures, etc) than the number of LEGO Space fans specifically hoping for a throwback to "old-school" Space aesthetics (e.g. "retro" logos and color schemes, angular wing/cockpit shapes, colorful windscreens, etc). After all, it's not as though any of the preferences expressed in this poll would have much bearing on what a full reboot of these themes would need to be like to achieve lasting success — more likely than not, the true outcome of that scenario would depend largely on how well the theme manages to appeal to the tastes and interests of a KFOL audience.

Depends how ginormous we're talking about! I mean, it's not hard to imagine a castle build at a $300+ price point, because technically there's already been one — the Disney Castle. And the number of big $200+ exclusive sets in general has gone up quite a bit in the years since sets like the MMV or Kingdoms Joust came out. Back then, even the idea of a theme like Ninjago getting a single $300 exclusive set (let alone TWO of them) would've been practically unthinkable! So although a $280 Assembly Square-sized castle or a $300 Ninjago City/Ninjago City Gardens sized castle would be a considerable step up from any non-licensed Castle set we've seen in the past, it doesn't seem like it'd be outside the realm of possibility. That said, you're right that a modular approach like Hogwarts could potentially allow for a larger build overall than one larger stand-alone set.

I think that your comment kind of explains why these projects might've stood out to LEGO as good choices — these sorts of sets will likely appeal to a different category of buyers/builders than more "ordinary" sets like minifig-scale buildings, vehicles, or TV and movie scenes. Thus, they present a strong chance of generating NEW sales and potentially bringing more people into the LEGO hobby, rather than appealing to dedicated AFOLs who often already spend as much money on LEGO as their household budgets allow for. You could make this same argument about a lot of sets, including other Ideas sets. Like, why not just buy a non-LEGO NES, bonsai tree, flower bouquet, Christmas village, ship-in-a-bottle, or Voltron action figure? Chances are, they'd be more or less the same size and offer as much functionality or more than their LEGO equivalents. The appeal comes from both the LEGO building experience itself and the sheer novelty of being able to display a brick-built recreation of a non-LEGO object — the sort of display piece that might catch a guest's attention simply on its merits as a visual statement, and then elicit an even more powerful "whoa, that's made of LEGO?" reaction as soon as they take a closer look.

I just checked through some idea book scans and pics of alternate builds from the boxes/instructions of Castle and Pirates sets that include these parts or similar ones (e.g. 6079, 6081, 6086, 6090, 6098, 6276, 6277, and 8781), but no luck yet. That said, I definitely think it's plausible you might've seen this somewhere — just not any of the places I can currently think of to check.

Nothing wrong with dreaming — after all, I guarantee you most Ninjago fans would not have expected a set Ninjago City's size prior to it being announced! And even if the LEGO ideas platform isn't really set up to handle sets that huge, if the Medieval Blacksmith Shop sells well, it will definitely give LEGO more incentive to consider making other 18+ exclusives with a medieval theme, including actual castles.

Ooh! While I was uncertain about some of the builds being set-based at first, the castle that appears around 0:53 givs off STRONG Creator 3-in-1 vibes. And the similar parts used for the parapets at 0:08 and the tower at 0:22 definitely lend credence to those being based on the same set. I certainly feel like if the castle weren't based on a set, it would have more likely used a traditional studs-up build for the battlements instead of SNOTted 2x3 tiles. That said, the choice to populate a lot of this video's scenes with CMFs (or slightly modified ones) leaves us in the dark about what minifigs the actual 3-in-1 castle will include. As @Lyichir mentioned, it'd be plausible for it to reuse the new Black Falcon torsos since they're already in production, would help LEGO to get more use out of that element, and would certainly be much appreciated by fans in a less expensive set like that (especially one that many AFOLs might end up buying several of as a "parts pack"). But it's also not implausible to think that there might be entirely new minifigure prints introduced for that set, much like how last year's 3-in-1 pirate ship introduced a new torso pattern for its pirate captain. Thanks so much for sharing this find!

Yeah, Fabuland was in fact very deliberately set up as a sort of "transitional theme" between Duplo and System, much like Jack Stone in the early 2000s or Juniors/4+ today. And in fact, many Fabuland and Jack Stone sets had a 3+ target age rather than 4+, which was probably the reason they exclusively used larger pre-assembled figures (even back then, many traditional minifigure parts would be considered a choking hazard for children three years old or younger). The transitional function of Fabuland sets is particularly apparent in the UK catalogs from 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, and 1985, each of which begins with a list or chart of current LEGO themes arranged by target age. And in fact, the first page of set 3665's "picture book" style manual begins with a "Dear parents" letter explaining that "FABULAND® is a delightful new play idea for your preschool child." I suspect the picture book format was chosen in part as a way to help make the process of following these instructions more enjoyable and less tedious for early builders — encouraging them to think of the building process as a story rather than a chore or assignment. Funnily enough, themes like Throwbots/Slizer, Roboriders, and Bionicle were intended at least in part to perform a similar sort of "transitional" function — but between System and Technic, rather than between Duplo and System. Initially, LEGO began developing these sorts of sets in order to keep kids from losing interest in LEGO entirely before they were ready for the sophisticated, "true to life" mechanical builds that traditional Technic sets tended to focus on. Fantasy robot figures like these were seen as a good way to introduce Technic-style three-dimensional building (in which the basic components can be connected together in any direction, rarely have a clearly-defined "top" and "bottom" like basic System elements) in a character-focused action-adventure context which appealed to kids' imaginations without tying them down with expectations of realism/authenticity, and was priced affordably enough to be "collectable" for buyers who might balk at paying a higher upfront price for larger sets. Of course, once development of the Bionicle theme in particular got underway, other development goals began to emerge: for instance, creating an competitive action toy with the potential to become a popular "craze" among schoolkids (much like the Ninjago spinners introduced ten years later), and creating an in-house, narrative-driven IP that could mimic the lasting appeal of an expansive, Star Wars-style universe/saga. But like its immediate predecessors, it began as sort of a "younger sibling" to LEGO Technic in the same way that Fabuland and Jack Stone were sort of a "younger sibling" to LEGO System play themes. Nowhere am I disputing how the sets are labeled. And in fact, on Brickset I've sometimes played a role in pushing for themes to be categorized in whatever way is most accurate to their labeling, like treating BrickHeadz as its own theme broken down into IP-specific subthemes, rather than giving a bunch of separate themes like Marvel Super Heroes, Star Wars, Disney, and Seasonal their own BrickHeadz subthemes. But how a set is labeled has little to do with how well it "fits in" with a particular theme or how accepted it is by fans of that theme. For example, the Modular Buildings have gone from having no theme labeling to "Creator Expert" labeling to "18+" labeling, and yet those sets all indisputably belong to a shared category, and are fully intended to accompany one another. Likewise, by this argument, the Collectible Minifigures have never included a LEGO Castle, LEGO Pirates, or LEGO Space minifigure — just LEGO Minifigures minifigures. Besides the absurdity of describing them that way, that sort of pedantic definition eliminates any useful way of describing what theme a blind-bag minifigure is actually based on. And needless to say, it's still utterly disingenuous to act as though the Blacksmith Shop is as far removed from the Castle and Pirates themes as Star Wars is from Classic Space or Mixels is from Bionicle, as you did here — particularly if you're going to pivot to basing that argument on what theme names the sets are labeled with, since that would suggest that Barracuda Bay is just as irreconcilably unlike the Pirates theme as any of those other comparisons you made. Perhaps what we really need is just clearer terminology. How do you feel to referring to sets like Black Seas Barracuda or Black Falcon's Fortress as "Pirates sets" or "Castle sets" and ones like Pirates of Barracuda Bay or Medieval Blacksmith as "Pirates-based sets" or "Castle-based sets"? After all, there's no way of knowing whether the anniversary set that comes out next year will end up using the branding of the theme it's based on. But it goes without saying that all the Castle, Pirates, Space, and Bionicle fans who voted in this poll cast those votes for themes that they would like this anniversary set to be based on, if not the brand name it would be released under. I 100% agree with this. The purpose of this poll is to choose an anniversary set, not to revive a discontinued theme or narrow down which theme is most "deserving" of a revival. Even if the Blacksmith shop DID have the same "LEGO Castle" branding as any other Castle set — or heck, even if there were a full wave of Castle sets currently on shelves — it wouldn't make votes for a Castle-inspired anniversary set any less legitimate.

The absence of Fabuland from the poll definitely seems slightly surprising, given that it was such a long-running theme (with a total lifespan on par with some of the finalists like Bionicle or Pirates) and has such a nostalgic reputation among AFOLs of a certain age. I guess it was probably just omitted because the contest organizers didn't expect any "preschool" themes (like Duplo, Jack Stone, etc) to be of interest to AFOLs or make sense as an 18+ set, and Fabuland happens to fall within that category. By this argument, if next year's 90th anniversary set turns out to be a castle at a similar scale and level of detail to the Blacksmith Shop, would the Blacksmith Shop abruptly and retroactively become a Castle set? That seems like it would be a little counter-intuitive. And that lack of "future-proofing" is a big part of my frustration with this sort of definition — it depends on the assumption that a set that is an outlier at the time of its release will always remain one. I also think you're underestimating how many past AFOL- and TFOL-oriented exclusive sets were, in fact, radically different in scale and level of detail from the rest of their respective themes. For example, even if Medieval Market Village seems to have a modest scale and level of detail in hindsight, the fact remains that its humble civilian homes/shops are more than twice the height of the curtain walls in prior and subsequent KFOL-oriented Castle sets like 7094, 7029, 7946, or 70404. Likewise, its level of interior and exterior detail surpass most of those sets despite not using any particularly complex building techniques. How could anybody realistically claim that peasant houses with bedrooms, dining tables, fireplaces, and horse stables are equivalent in detail to royal castles which include none of those features? And yet there's no denying that Medieval Market Village is a Castle set — after all, its box and instructions are plainly labeled as such. I am not in any way suggesting that the Blacksmith Shop should be enough to satisfy anything that Castle fans could want from that theme. But we have every reason to believe it is intended to belong to the world of LEGO Castle, from its shared medieval European setting to its coexistence with the Black Falcon faction of knights. And I see no reason to think that being designed at a higher standard of quality and detail than usual somehow renders it incompatible with that world — if anything, it just shows how much higher a standard of quality and detail can exist within the broader scope of the LEGO Castle theme than previous sets had shown us.

Honestly, while I get what you mean, I'm not sure that's really a big factor for the Keepers' Village set specifically, since most sets that included raised baseplates back in the day would cost much, much more when you adjust their prices for inflation. For example, even though 5978 Sphinx Secret Surprise and 6584 Extreme Team Challenge cost $50 USD back in 1998, that equates to around $80 at the U.S. dollar's current value. Whereas $50 set from this year would be comparable in value to a $30 set from 1998 like 5958 Mummy's Tomb or 6568 Drag Race Rally, which would not have been any larger or more imposing than the Keeper's Village itself. For that matter, most Castle, Pirates, or Space sets with raised baseplates cost considerably more than the Keepers' Village even BEFORE adjusting their prices for inflation. For example, 6983 Ice Station Odyssey cost $60 in 1993 (equivalent to $110.22 in 2021). 6082 Fire Breathing Fortress cost $64 that same year (equivalent to $117.57 in 2021). And 6273 Rock Island Refuge cost $66 in 1991 (equivalent to $128.60 in 2021)! Needless to say, with or without a raised foundation, a set like the Keeper's Village would probably need a higher price point like $60 or $70 if it were to be much larger than it already is. After all, even 70604 Tiger Widow Island from five years ago — another $50 Ninjago set which DOES have a raised foundation kind of like you're describing — only gains that extra height in exchange for making the main structure skinnier, and the horizontal pathway towards it even more so. This set seems to boast a very similar amount of "substance" overall, just spread out more evenly across its full width, rather than concentrated into one narrow tower-like structure.

Reminds me of some of the comparisons I saw a few years back between the LEGO Ninjago Movie Destiny's Bounty set and the Imperial Flagship set. It's astonishing how some recent sets have come to surpass even sets that 10–12 years ago seemed like the pinnacle of adult-level quality/complexity/detail (at least as far as set standards go… I know even back then, those sorts of exclusive sets still had to adhere to considerably stricter constraints than the most outstanding MOCs of their time). In the Blacksmith's Shop's case, there's an argument to be made that some of the improvements like its impressive size and detailed interiors are only possible due to the higher price point and 18+ age range. But the creativity of a lot of the building techniques and color choices (such as the mottled colors and detailed textures of the landscaping, the lower level stonework and the upper level wattle-and-daub infill, and the shingles) shouldn't be downplayed either!

I don't think this is an especially strong argument, given that "Castle sets" as a category already encompass many vastly different levels of complexity, detail, and authenticity. I mean, if 375 Castle, 6097 Night Lord's Castle, and 10223 Kingdoms Joust are all indisputably a part of the Castle theme, it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to act as though all Castle sets MUST fit in with one another aesthetically, or that anything that doesn't fit in with what came before it can't be considered a Castle set. Likewise, the Space theme encompasses loads of sets that wouldn't fit in neatly with Classic Space aesthetics, such as the Insectoids or Space Police 3 subthemes. So while I understand and respect LEGO Space fans not considering other sci-fi/space travel sets like Star Wars, Ultra Agents, or NASA sets a part of "LEGO Space", it'd be much harder to convincingly argue that 21109 Exo Suit is not a Space set. After all, even if its aesthetics are very different from traditional LEGO Space sets, the Exo-Suit and the Pete and Yve minifigures are undeniably intended to be part of the LEGO Space universe. To put it another way — would anybody ever deny that that the original Exo-Suit project was a LEGO Space MOC, or that the original Blacksmith Shop project was a LEGO Castle MOC, or that the original Pirate Bay project was a LEGO Pirates MOC? Needless to say, all of those projects were even further from traditional LEGO Space or Castle or Pirates aesthetics than the sets that those projects were developed into. But it's generally understood that these were stylistic choices by the creators of those MOCs, not a sign that the creators intended them to be part of a separate universe or setting from those themes. Of course, there's nothing wrong with Space or Castle or Pirates fans deciding that they don't like those sorts of sets because of their differing aesthetics, or that they'd rather just keep them separate from the rest of their sets from those themes. But none of those sorts of opinions change the nature of the set itself. And I find it frustrating how often the same arguments like "Bionicle G2 sets don't count as Bionicle sets" or "Galaxy Squad sets don't count as Space sets" or "Knights' Kingdom 2 sets don't count as Castle sets" get trotted out by fans of ALL these themes. I wish more people would recognize that it's OK to be a fan of a particular theme while still recognizing that there are certain parts of that theme or incarnations of that theme that you dislike or prefer not to collect. This is also something important that I think is getting lost amidst a lot of the bickering about what themes have been "absent" the longest. Even if all four of these themes were still active TODAY, they'd still all be totally legitimate options for an anniversary set like this. Personally, I don't think there's any reason to worry that a set based on any of these themes would be "wasteful" or "redundant" just because they've had other moments in the spotlight. It would not be hard at all to create a LEGO Space, Castle, Pirates, or Bionicle tribute set that clearly stands out from previous nostalgic tributes to those themes — particularly when we have no idea what size or price point this anniversary set might end up being! There's much more to the Pirates theme than twin-masted brigs like the Black Seas Barracuda, much more to the Castle theme than half-timbered houses/shops like the Medieval Blacksmith, and much more to the Space theme than large blue and yellow spaceships like Benny's. The comment field for describing what sort of set you'd like to see is also likely to help steer designers away from subject matter that would feel extremely repetitive, since the last thing fans of these themes would want is to squander this opportunity for something that truly stands out from other recent products! I've already mentioned several ways that a System-based, adult-targeted Bionicle tribute set could be created, and most of those would stand out well from previous Bionicle sets by their very nature. But there are just as many unique ways that LEGO could design these other themes: Some exciting possibilities for a Castle tribute set using modern parts and adult-level building techniques could include a Forestmen hideout like 6071 Forestmen's Crossing (Forestmen being an especially popular Castle subtheme in the first round of voting), or a shadowy "castle on a hill" like 6086 Black Knight's Castle, or a wizard's tower like 6048 Majisto's Magical Workshop. Similarly fresh ideas for a Classic Space tribute set include a moonbase like 6970 Beta I Command Base (which was actually also the first Space set to include a monorail!), a transport/launch vehicle like 6950 Mobile Rocket Transport, a mobile headquarters like 6951 Robot Command Center or 6989 Mega Core Magnetizer, or even something that never showed up in sets of that era like an orbital space station! And in the Pirates theme, some possible tribute sets that would stand out nicely from Barracuda Bay might include a colonial "free port" like 6277 Imperial Trading Post (where pirates, naval officers, and law-abiding merchant sailors alike could come to spend their earnings and repair or restock their vessels for the next voyage), a pirate sloop like 6268 Renegade Runner (perhaps even in a battle with a similar-sized Imperial naval vessel), or a non-shipwreck-based pirate fort/castle/lair like 6279 Skull Island. All in all, I think it's a little disingenuous to keep arguing about which groups of fans should or shouldn't be "satisfied" with what they've had (or what sets have or haven't been in line with their particular interests). Sure, some of us might not have voted for our particular childhood favorites if we'd gotten some utterly perfect throwback/tribute set in previous years. But many others still would have voted along the lines of the same personal preferences regardless of how many sets we had/hadn't gotten based on those themes, especially those who are only interested in a specific category of sets and themes. And there's really nothing wrong with voting according to your preferences like that, regardless of the circumstances. Wouldn't y'all agree?

Jay's Brick Blog has posted an interview with set designer Wes Talbott, graphic designer Austin Carlson, and Ideas design manager Samuel Johnson about the Medieval Blacksmith set! One particularly interesting tidbit is that some of Wes's decisions about the scale and the foundation design began by thinking about what would be most conducive to potential follow-up sets in this style, as well as MOCs created by fans to accompany this build. For example, he opted for a curvy "vignette style" base rather than a square or rectangular one because of the way that medieval towns don't tend to be planned in an orderly grid like more modern cities. Apparently, representatives of several other fansites got to ask questions of their own as part of this virtual roundtable discussion, although they haven't yet posted the answers on their respective sites. So that's something else for all of us to look forward to!

The smaller monkeys that appear in the Flower Fruit Mountain set are based on the group of regular wild monkeys in Journey to the West that declared the Monkey King their ruler early in his life. Their behavior is somewhat anthropomorphized (as is often the case with animals in various legends and folklore), but they're still just treated as ordinary monkeys without any special lineage or supernatural traits — just ones that the story's writers projected vaguely human thoughts and personality traits onto. By contrast, the Monkey King himself himself is implied to be sort of a demigod, albeit part-monkey, part divine instead of part-human, part divine. He was born from a magical egg, which in turn had burst from a life-giving stone imbued with yang from the heavens and yin from the Earth. The Monkey King is able to crawl and walk from birth, and later in his life he joins human society, wearing human clothes and walking with a human gait (though he is still unmistakably not a human). It's only later, by study, trickery, and other means, that he acquires the many supernatural abilities that he's known for. So to sum up — normal animals exist in this universe and in the stories that it's based don, but most of the ones that appear as characters are extraordinary or supernatural in some way (e.g. demigods, demons, etc). I'm PRETTY sure Mo is supposed to be a regular cat, though. EDIT: Also, with regard to some of the other "animal" characters: The Six-Eared Macaque (the black-haired Monkey King look-alike in the Flower Fruit Mountain set) is also a "spiritual monkey" with supernatural abilities largely equivalent to the Monkey King's own powers. Pigsy is NOT an actual pig of any sort, but rather a man who was banished from the heavens for offending the moon goddess and cursed with a monstrous half-man, half-pig appearance. Like Sandy (another heavenly general banished and reborn as a monster/demon), he is challenged to a fight with the Monkey King and defeated, after which he joins Monkey King and Tang Sanzang on their travels in order to atone for his misdeeds. The Demon Bull King is not an actual bull, but rather a bull-shaped demon who can shapeshift into a humanoid form. Same with the various Spider Demons.

Just logged into LEGO Ideas to support that lovely medieval harbor only to realize I already had! I don't log into the Ideas website that often, but it's a relief to know that past-me was just as impressed with that design as present-me (and that I'm not as out of touch with current projects that could use my support as I might've worried). It's interesting to see that it and some of Namirob's other MOCs on the site use a similar style of roofing as the set version of his Medieval Blacksmith project… makes me wonder if his use of that technique in later MOCs influenced the designers in the choice to use it for that set! It wouldn't be the first time that an Ideas set took inspiration from stuff the project creator had built besides the project proposal itself… similarly, the "turtle" robot in the Exo-Suit set was directly based on some of Pete Reid's other iconic Space MOCs. BrickHammer's King's Castle is a lovely build too, but I was very disappointed by how sparsely furnished the interior is, especially considering how spacious it is. I feel like in particular, the dungeon could have been made smaller, and some of that space and/or the space behind the armory could have been used for other important features like a stable, kitchen, and/or guards' quarters. Plus, compared to the lower level, the upper levels feel oddly cramped, considering that they're where the royal family and other higher-class castle denizens would presumably spend much of their time. It's a real shame, because as much as I love the project's brilliant architecture and landscaping, this is the sort of thing that's kept me from putting other "king's castle" sets (or Castle/Kingdoms sets in general) from Fantasy Era onward onto my wish list.

Hilarious! I love it! And you did a good job on the "intermediate" variants!

Oh, a wizard tower would be lovely! Dragon Masters was my first Castle theme, and it had a couple sets along those lines which I have a great deal of nostalgia for, like Majisto's Tower and Majisto's Magical Workshop.

I mean, to me the most obvious reason would be recognizing that Castle fans felt cheated by the way the poll was set up, and wanted to resolve that in a way that felt fair and respectful to the winners of the poll but also to Castle fans. After all, even knowing that there's no outcome to this poll that would make everybody perfectly happy, it's safe to say that they didn't intend for such a large subset of the fanbase to feel like they had been denied a fair chance, given that one of the benefits of the Ideas platform for TLG is that giving fans a chance to weigh in on what products get released in the future helps them earn more approval from those fans. Making fans feel like their voices don't matter is the antithesis of that. Plus, while they clearly ended up with regrets about breaking the Castle theme up by subtheme, it would be a truly inexplicable form of self-sabotage to put Castle at a disadvantage like that in the first phase of voting if they intended to rig the final outcome in its favor from the start.