Aanchir

I don't think it's glue, I think it's a single "2K" (two-component) element in which the second color is molded directly onto the first (same as many of the Simpsons minifig heads, two-colored minifig legs and arms, or two-colored Ninjago ninja masks). If I had to guess the reason for doing it this way instead of as a headgear piece, I suspect it's a matter of the part where the fire meets with the sides of the head coming to too sharp a point to meet quality standards if molded in polycarbonate (the plastic LEGO uses for transparent parts). In a lot of cases where parts are too pointy to work in ABS or polycarbonate without being extremely brittle, LEGO uses a softer and more rubbery material instead (e.g. Darth Maul's horns, Exo-Force hair, Yoda's ears, etc). but that wouldn't work to create a fiery appearance, since LEGO doesn't have any synthetic rubber materials that would really have a glassy transparent look like this as opposed to a cloudy or frosted appearance. For reference, the evil brains from LEGO Hero Factory are a good example of what transparent plastics look like when molded in this sort of rubber material. But by making the flaming head piece a single 2K element, the shape of the head supports the shape of the transparent flames molded onto them, keeping the thin edge where the flames meet the head from snapping off. You step on a piece like this, and your foot will probably hurt but the piece might not be damaged. Whereas if the flame were a separate piece in the same shape, it might be prone to similar sorts of breakage to the old thin strap Classic Space helmets, the peasant hoods from Classic Castle, or the original design of Qui-Gon Jinn's hair piece from the 1999 LEGO Star Wars sets. Now, could LEGO have just designed the mold in a different shape entirely so that the flames don't curve inwards towards the head at the bottom? Sure! But then it'd look less like flames bursting out of the head, and more like the head wearing a flame-shaped helmet — almost like if you added a fiery texture to the top of this piece but left the thick bottom edge unchanged.

I mean, keep in mind that unless leaks turn up revealing details that haven't been shared here, they may just be repeating rumors from this very thread.

Well, another perspective to look at this from is "why do mechanics and robotics have a larger male audience?" After all, it's not as though there would be any rationale for a taste for or skill with robotics being biologically intrinsic to any gender — robotics as a field isn't even old enough to have shaped human evolution to that kind of extent. What's more, in the grand scheme of human history, it wasn't all that long ago that coding and computer science were female-dominated professions. There are all kinds of reasons for this, but most were just as culturally informed back then as they are now — for example, for the first half of the 20th century, calculating and computing were perceived as tedious and low-prestige "women's work" not unlike the duties of a receptionist, and as such were not particularly enticing to men who had access to much better paying and more highly regarded careers. What's more, a lot of the actual skills required in early days of computing were not that unlike other skills thought of as "women's work", like weaving. This article (and many others like it) make a compelling case that as the field of computer science became more valued by society, men began flocking to it, and from there, more or less reshaping it in their image. Nowadays there is a very different "culture" within these fields (whether in schools, in the workplace, or among consumer products) that can often be alienating if not outright hostile to women. A lot of the work to make these fields enticing to girls during childhood is aimed at undoing these various forms of "gatekeeping" by promoting technical skills in less implicitly gendered terms, restoring greater visibility to women's achievements in computer science fields both historically and in the present day, and of course fighting back against exclusionary forces in the workplace that presently make many tech businesses a fraught career path even for those women who HAVE achieved the requisite skills and credentials to meet the job requirements as well as any of their male peers.

I had it and really enjoyed it! It's a really neat vehicle for Azari, and the proportions are nice — much better than the Fantasy Era Castle theme's King's Battle Chariot, which was a little ludicrously oversized to be pulled by one horse. Colors are also beautiful and I hope even with Elves wrapped up, we continue to see parts in that delightful blend of Tr. Medium Reddish Violet and Tr. Yellow! Sometimes I wonder whether it would be cool if Farran had a vehicle of some kind since he's the only character who hasn't had any. Trouble is it's hard to think of vehicles suited to a medieval fantasy setting. Some kind of cart or wagon seems like it might be the most "earthy", but it's tricky to think of what type of animal should pull it that wouldn't feel either redundant or too "real world", or what kind of "magical" features it should have that would suit the Earth element. Obviously, the fantasy aspect of the theme lets you branch out beyond vehicle types that would have actually existed in medieval or pre-medieval settings… after all, there were no airships in medieval times! But even so, it's tricky to make, say, a bicycle, tricycle, or quad fit a medieval fantasy aesthetic, unlike Aira's airship (which as far as shape is concerned is mostly just a boat with a balloon on top) Additionally, what type of vehicle might suit him might be contingent on the setting. An adventure in the as-yet-unexplored Desertlands would be a great opportunity for an Earth-themed vehicle, but what form it might take I'm not so sure.

I mean… And yeah, I'm with Lyi on this one. The tendency in AFOL communities to try and set strict limits on what is or isn't fair game for a "real" Space set or Castle set or Town/City set has always been tiresome. If you follow all the strict rules various people here on Eurobricks have set for what is or isn't a space theme, there haven't been any LEGO Space themes in over two decades! Life on Mars and Mars Mission don't count because they were in our solar system and not "deep space". Space Police 3 doesn't count because the bad guy vehicles are Earth-inspired and an Earth-like planet shows up in the background of some of the box art. Alien Conquest doesn't count because it featured a faction from deep space trying to conquer/colonize/invade the Earth, rather than the other way around. Galaxy Squad doesn't count because it was basically just an action theme in space, not a space theme (there's a difference… somehow). I'm sure if you dig back into the old pre-Eurobricks community sites like Lugnet you might even find equally nonsensical justifications for why U.F.O. and Insectoids aren't real space themes. It's been kind of hilarious this year to see comments these days full of nostalgia for 2009 based on the notion that it was the last time there'd been new waves of Pirates, Space, and Castle sets (as well as lots of other licensed and non-licensed themes AFOLs today miss like Bionicle, Indiana Jones, Power Miners, and Agents) all at the same time. Do you know what people here were actually saying about a lot of that kind of stuff in 2009? About Space: "If I don´t count Star Wars than there is no real space theme for some years now." About Fantasy era: "[It] is predominantly a minifig line for most people. The sets are pretty much throwaway afterthoughts." "…it seems like Lego's almost running out of ideas for the current Castle line [apart from the spectacular MMV], and I think it would be best for it to go on hiatus for a year or two, so that when it returns it can be as good as it was in 2007. Maybe, just maybe, the good guys for Castle 2.0 can have a color scheme that doesn't involve dark blue?" "This is sad, the Castle theme was much better when I was a kid, the current Castle sets are not very good - the structures are not very interesting, indeed it's all focused on the minifigs...." About Pirates: "In the old days they made sets worth the money, made historical uniforms and such. Nowheredays…. They just make some Lego sets and for some reason everyone buys it and Lego think they are making a really good set, so they produce more sets of the same poor quality and think they can get away with it. " …I swear, I didn't set out to share so many quotes hating on Fantasy Era, but it turns out that around 2009 the site was practically flooded with them. The reality is that LEGO can't really push their sets in successful and unexpected new directions like they have time and time again with many of their most successful themes like City, Friends, Ninjago, or Creator while also remaining beholden to AFOL communities' often downright unimaginative mandates for what should or shouldn't be included in any given theme. That would just lead to LEGO declining in relevance as new ideas are rejected in favor of the type of stuff that even back in the 80s was becoming overshadowed in kids' toys and media by brands like Voltron, He-Man, G.I. Joe, Transformers, etc. that synthesized concepts familiar to kids in new and unexpected ways.

Yep! The amusement park ride that features them definitely seems to draw on “Pirates of the Caribbean” type boat rides. On a similar note, the big LEGO Friends subtheme focuses on ocean animal rescues. A lot of the sets have great parts for coastal scenes, like: • Queen Watevra’s crown recolored in White as a broken eggshell • An accessory pack featuring a small octopus, starfish, tropical fish, seahorse, and three types of seashell in Vibrant Coral • A new coral piece in what appears to be Dark Azur • A baby dolphin that has minifig-style black bead eyes rather than minidoll-style anime eyes (same as other small animals in Friends sets like the baby bunny, hamster, and the bird from this year’s Disney range). As far as other themes are concerned, I forget if I brought up Nya’s new spinner from the Ninjago Spinjitzu sets in this thread previously. Could be a fun whirlpool or waterspout and has plenty of connection points. There will be even more color combinations of these tornado style spinners in the summer. Brilliant idea!

Apologies. I need to keep in mind that for a lot of people, just matter-of-factly saying "X sucks/is bad/is horrible" to describe their dislike of it is seen as just an ordinary way of stating a subjective opinion and not trying to make some blanket statement about its worth. I am generally not so comfortable doing so myself — maybe because growing up a picky eater, some of the things that were most outrageously nauseating to me (like, say, tacos) were foods that most people around me thought of as perfectly normal, and I had to be very careful about how I phrased my dislike of something to avoid insulting the people who prepared or served it. I also wrongly assumed your comments about the set's usefulness/value as a parts pack were speaking for that value on a larger scale, not just for your individual projects, and subsequently interpreted your follow-up comments in that frame of mind. It doesn't help that aversions to "girliness"are far from uncommon in AFOL circles, and as such I'm often a little on edge when a subjective opinion happens to align with those types of all-too-common biases. Far too many of the bad takes I've seen about The LEGO Movie 2 sets and the movie itself tend to generalize them as less sophisticated than those for the first movie, but then pin that almost exclusively on the more feminine motifs, characters, and story elements while treating the more masculine ones like Apocalypseburg or Rex's whole persona as isolated strong points. Never mind rabid misogynists like this guy who not only see fairly gender-neutral sets like the Disney Castle as inherently "girly", but also believe that negates the set's AFOL appeal, and launch into homophobic/transphobic rants when questioned about their bizarre insistence on those supposed truths. That said, I should definitely try and get in the habit of waiting for clarification about statements like that which confuse me before assuming the worst. Sorry again. :(

Could be — Mindstorms branding for EV3 at least is kinda over-the-top in its edgy, masculine-coded aesthetic. But being able to differentiate colors hardly negates the value of color-coding stuff in vibrant, high-contrast parts, particularly if it's being designed for use in schools and all kids (not just those gifted in the types of skills associated with LEGO building) are able to participate. User-friendly design that makes it easy to instantly identify parts has a lot of value compared to using samey neutral colors. My point about age and color identification was mostly just about how the colors I would most readily associate with "early childhood" toys (e.g. those aimed at kids YOUNGER than Spike Prime) tend to be not too much more varied than those you might find in a standard 8-pack of crayons: Red, Yellow, Blue, Green, Brown, Black, Orange, and Purple. Tertiary colors in between red and purple or blue and green can certainly show up in early childhood toys, but they're not the ones I associate with preschool or elementary school toys aimed at kids who are still in the process of learning a lot of basic color terms and may not yet know more complex color terms like fuschia, turquoise, chartreuse, etc. I suspect in many places there's probably even a socioeconomic factor in at what age kids learn the names of colors, depending on what marker and crayon varieties their parents can justify buying for them. That said, it may also vary in countries where the native language has different basic color terms? I know some languages don't differentiate between blue and green, orange and brown, or pink and red among the basic colors the way English does, while others treat azure as a separate basic category from blue instead of a sub-category. Among AFOLs, though, I often get the sense that a lot of stuff associated with a particular age range can be chalked up to other types of biases besides developmental or learning milestones. It will never cease to amaze me how often AFOLs treat themes like Ninjago and Legends of Chima as childish, even those who collect City sets aimed at a decidedly younger core audience. A lot of the time AFOLs often perceive sets using bright modern colors (like the Bright Yellowish Green and Flame Yellowish Orange in the City Volcano and Jungle sets) as garish or childish, but rarely raise similar concerns about sets using bright classic colors (like Bright Red fire trucks, Bright Yellow construction vehicles, or any set featuring Pastel Blue/Maersk Blue).

For what it's worth, I'm pretty sure all the components of WeDo 2.0, Boost, Powered Up, Spike Prime, and Technic Control+ are cross-compatible. They all use the same parts, and in fact we've already seen some parts used across different platforms — for example, the Boost Move Hub is sold as a Powered Up accessory with a claim that you can run it using the Powered Up app (something that is presumably being added in a future update), and the motor from the Powered Up Batmobile is the same one used in the Boost Creative Toolbox. All of these sets have been consistent about using the same type of plugs. The LEGO Education Twitter account even confirmed that Spike Prime is compatible with all other parts featuring PF2.0 plugs What does vary from one set to another is the software they use. But this is nothing new at all for LEGO. Back in the day, the motors and sensors from the LEGO Mindstorms Robotics Invention System and Robotics Discovery Set used the same 9V system as everything else, but not only did you need one of the Mindstorms intelligent bricks to make them run, but some even needed a certain TYPE of intelligent brick to run (for example, the RCX from the Robotics Invention System was compatible with the temperature sensor, but the Scout from the Robotics Discovery Set was not). What's more, it goes without saying that software designed for educational use (like WeDo) will have different features than software designed for casual play (like Boost or Powered Up). I haven't followed news all that closely, but it's entirely possible that backwards compatibility might still be coming in the form of some kind of Powered Up to Power Functions converter cable, similar to this converter cable between Mindstorms NXT and 9V elements. That said, it's not always realistic to expect backwards compatibility when toy safety standards have changed so much over the years, and some of those older systems might not meet newer standards. Similarly, a lot of other functions you might be hoping to see might still be forthcoming in the form of additional new parts. After all, the system has only been used in a handful of sets, with most aimed at mainstream consumers rather than educators only released in the past year. For comparison's sake, Power Functions had more than 20 different components over its 12-year lifespan, but several like train motors, AAA battery boxes sized for train sets, a speed controller remote, and a servo motor didn't come around until years after the system was launched to mainstream consumers in 2007. As for the variety of PF2.0 parts that currently exist, I certainly can already see some big improvements on the Power Functions system: Even if the battery box in the train sets remains the same size it was before, it now no longer requires a separate IR receiver element that takes up more than four 2x4 bricks' worth of space in a model. Bluetooth control means that trains and other models no longer need to be designed with a reliable line of sight between the control device and the model itself, nor will control be unreliable in direct sunlight. There may also be the possibility with some of the more advanced software and hubs to "daisy chain" them so they can follow the same commands. The PF2.0 cable leads only take up about half the space as the Power Functions ones. This system can already be used for programmable creations with sensor inputs thanks to Boost, which shares some elements with WeDo 2.0. I suspect there will be similar consumer products that share their parts with Spike Prime. Power Functions only had sensors and programmable functions in the WeDo education sets, which were not designed or marketed for mainstream consumers. Overall I think the system is not beating Power Functions by leaps and bounds just yet, but it's off to quite a good start!

Making CGI art look like the real piece would only make sense if the print were faded by design. After all, the CGI art is usually just the original graphic created for printing applied as a skin/texture to a 3D model. Unlike in real life, it doesn't have an issue with distorted colors depending on what color part it's applied to. So to create art that did have faded patterns would require having two different versions of each graphic: one for printing (distorted by the color of the underlying plastic) and one for CGI (with the distortion applied digitally to the graphic before applying it). In general, I think if enough people continue to contact LEGO Customer Service about this issue then LEGO will find a way to resolve it. After all, they invest a lot of money in their customer service department, and that money effectively goes to waste if they're not logging and making efforts to resolve customer complaints. A lot of people are probably quick to assume that when they find an issue that's known in the LEGO fan community, LEGO already knows about it. To some extent, maybe they do. But those complaints aren't often documented in a way that makes it any easier for LEGO to solve than it was for them to prevent it in the first place. For example, consider the issues with Reddish Brown parts being fragile — we all know it affects that color more than any others, and that it doesn't seem to be specific to any one part category or shape (unlike, say, the fragile Bright Yellowish Green Bionicle joints from 2007 — other Lime Green parts that year did not demonstrate any issues on that scale). But the issue with Reddish Brown seems to affect some people's parts a whole lot more than others (I've almost never experienced it, but I'd be a fool to think that makes it uncommon or unimportant), and there's no way for us as fans to tell whether that's just random chance, or whether it's an issue particular to dyes from a certain supplier, or to oversights manufacturing processes at a certain factory, or something else entirely. However, if LEGO gets enough customer service complaints, they can cross reference them with the records from their production line and figure out not only where and when the problem originated and how widespread it is, but what changes need to be made to keep it from happening again. In this case, we've seen that there ARE variations in when it does or doesn't occur — for example, the Lady Iron Dragon minifigure from the Ninjago Movie sets had a translucent face print that showed the black plastic underneath, while the Lady Iron Dragon minifigure from the keychain had much higher quality printing. So that makes me suspect that this is an issue with printing machines at particular factories, or possibly with the supplier they're getting their ink from.

Tbh, I would ordinarily think the opposite. Younger kids can usually recognize and name basic colors like red, yellow, blue, and green, but I remember in elementary school kids actually made fun of me because they thought I was just making up colors like "magenta" and "cyan" that they'd never heard of. Additionally, for an education setting, regardless of grade level, parts being color-coded according to shape, size, or function seems to make a lot more sense than stuff being in more uniform or unassuming colors like grey and black. And it's certainly more appealing/harmonious looking in this case than the mishmash of "classic" LEGO colors featured in the original WeDo set. or various older Dacta and eLab sets.

Wouldn't making sets of concept space vehicles before they become mainstream be the opposite — being a leader rather than a follower? I mean, I can't say it would be a testament to LEGO's "leadership" to make yet another Space Shuttle or Ares-esque rockets like past City sets (and any number of other companies' space toys) have already done.

I'm wracking my brain trying to figure out what possible reason a person could have to think that medim azure is "something horrible" and not just a normal color like any other? Is it just the same irrational Friends-phobia we saw with the Downtown Diner? If that is a concern for anyone here, then I advise them to clutch their precious "man card" tightly, because while it's hard for me to identify the blue at a glance,as far as I can tell the "tan" you're seeing might very well be Cool Yellow (Bright Light Yellow). Or, you know, you could just accept that there's no arcane reason why one type of blue or yellow would be "good" and another, ever-so-slightly different type of blue or yellow would be "bad". After all, colors like Medium Azur, Cool Yellow, Lavender, etc. that frequently show up on LEGO Friends buildings are certainly a whole lot more subdued and less ostentatious than the Bright Yellow from the LEGO Creator Beach House and Beach Hut, or the Bright Red from the Hillside House and Small Cottage. I don't think four main colors is an outrageous number to use across two buildings. I mean, Detective's Office had at least six: Light Royal Blue (Bright Light Blue), Medium Blue, Earth Blue, Medium Nougat (Medium Dark Flesh), Reddish Brown, and Brick Yellow (Tan). For that matter, Cafe Corner had different main colors for each individual floor! And even in the 3-in-1 category, Bike Shop & Cafe, Park Street Townhouse, Toy and Grocery Shop, and Corner Deli were far from restrained in their color choices! Note also that this set is substantially bigger than many of those were. The rumored price is €79.99 (twice that of Corner Deli or Toy and Grocery Shop). Also, each of the two buildings has an 8x12 footprint and each story is about 7 bricks tall. By comparison, Park Street Townhouse and Corner Deli both had 10x10 footprints when closed, and Toy and Grocery Shop had two buildings with 6x6 and 6x8 footprints. The Townhouse had three stories at around 5 or 6 bricks tall, and the others had two stories at around 7 bricks tall. IDK what this set's piece count will be, but I suspect it will be high enough that the sheer number of colors won't diminish its value as a parts pack. After all, designers aren't just choosing those colors for our sake, but also to ensure there's enough bricks in each color to create lots of variety for the B and C models.

These new part shapes are great and I LOVE the CMYK color palette! Some of my favorite colors to play around with, but rarely with much to offer as far as Technic parts are concerned. I hope it's not too long before these parts show up in sets that are easier to obtain!

I don't think the weaknesses of the Transformers movies stem from them being live-action. I'd say a lot more of them stem from Michael Bay's weaknesses as a storyteller, which resulted in increasingly incoherent narratives, fetishistic portrayals of the military, weak characterization, and cringeworthy sexualization and rude humor aimed at appealing to a very sleazy sense of what adult filmgoers wanted out of an action movie. I haven't yet seen the latest movie, Bumblebee, but it has a really good Rotten Tomatoes score, and my sense is that having a better director and a story with more "heart" did wonders for it. And in general, I don't feel like the quality of any type of adaptation from one medium to another can be judged strictly on "established canon and lore". Movies are a very different type of experience than books, video games, and TV shows, and even different TYPES of movie are different types of experience from one another (you wouldn't expect, say, a musical film to adapt a classic book or fairy tale the same way as a non-musical adaptation, nor a comedy to adapt a superhero comic the same way as a action/drama). As such, what works best for a movie often ISN'T the same as what worked best for that particular story in another medium. Plus, if the premises themselves are often weak in your eyes, that's all the more reason that an adaptation (live action film or otherwise) need not follow the source material blindly. Like, a lot of 80s cartoons were kind of garbage as far as storytelling was concerned, but lately we've seen some of them achieve great success even in the modern day via a new adaptation or reboot that re-imagines the parts that didn't work so well.

Good review! I think there's a lot of creativity and innovation on display in this set, from the unconventional interior and exterior wall angles, to the garage door mechanism that still allows "Hand of God" access to the interior from above, to the lift mechanism, to the construction of the bay windows, to the overall shape leaving room for a driveway with overhead canopy, to the creative uses of new-ish elements like 1x1 double slopes, 1x1 quarter circle tiles, and 1x2 plates with rounded ends to decorate the exterior. The truck is also a great design, among the best vehicles in any of the modular building sets so far (though I personally prefer the car from Downtown Diner due to how rare and impressive an achievement it is to make a LEGO car with side-by-side driver and passenger seating AND a back seat on a normal-size 6-stud-wide chassis). Vintage cars and trucks like this one really do a good job justifying their existence in Modular Buildings sets, since you'd hardly ever expect to see a vehicle in this vintage style in a City or Friends set, much less with such an advanced and innovative build. Plus, an auto service garage is the kind of building that would feel decidedly incomplete without a vehicle. I disagree on the idea that the inside of the garage would be better if fully tiled. Even before I heard the designer share this perspective, I really got the sense that a tiled pattern with neatly arranged seams (like we see for the pavement outside the Modular Buildings, or tiled floors in buildings like Downtown Diner and Green Grocer) would look too fancy, smooth, and clean for an auto service garage, particularly in a run-down, blue-collar part of town like this. Compare with Fire Brigade, which had tiles for the "parking space" but not off to the sides which presumably feature rough concrete floors, or the interiors of Palace Cinema and Grand Emporium, where the textured base suggests a carpeted floor. That said, I definitely think that it could have been improved if the baseplate were a different color (like Medium Stone Grey, Sand Yellow, or Dark Stone Grey), or if it was covered over with studded plates in one of those darker, dingier colors. Brick Yellow (tan) looks just a little too bright to be all that believable as a dirty concrete floor. But tiles? Nah. What makes tiled floors so interesting when they do appear is that they represent specific floor layouts, patterns and materials that are different than those a studded floor might resemble, not just some sense that "studless is better". It's interesting to me how a lot of the perspectives of this set when first announced were that it seemed too small for its price. As this review shows, it's far from small. Excluding the "premium" buildings like Town Hall and Assembly Square, it's the tallest building since Fire Brigade, the heaviest since Green Grocer, has the largest floor area since Pet Shop, and has the highest piece count of any of the non-premium buildings (if it even counts as one… to know for certain, we may have to wait and see whether $199.99 remains the default price next year or whether it goes back down). Good review overall! Great photos, and I particularly love the GIF that shows Corner Garage and Downtown Diner being built up floor by floor.

I'm a little out of touch with many of the toy/media trends among kids these days since it's been a while since I've watched TV on a channel that has a lot of ads for that type of stuff. And from what I've seen that's one of the things LEGO looks at when planning new themes. That doesn't mean that it has that much predictive value, but other than random guesswork we don't really have too much else to go by. I do know that the series Miraculous: Tales of Ladybug and Cat Noir (known as Miraculous Ladybug in many countries) is a pretty major global hit these days, but since the DC Super Hero Girls line didn't seem to make as big a splash as LEGO hoped, I'm not so confident they'd put any more faith in a girl-oriented superhero theme where they have to manage all the storytelling and marketing costs. If we did see another such theme, it'd probably be based on another license that they think shows promise — maybe Miraculous or Marvel Rising. Steven Universe is another popular and fairly feminine-coded animated series among kids, at least in the Americas, but I'm not sure how well that's translated to toy sales, nor whether it gives all that much insight into what more general genres/subjects are trending with kids. After all, Steven Universe blends genres like superheroes, "magical girls", sci-fi/space opera/planetary romance, mythic fantasy, and modern day slice-of-life in rather eclectic ways. Besides superheroes, which have been trendy for many years now (at least in the Americas), I'm not sure whether any of these genres are in the midst or on the verge of a significant boom right now. So while it definitely speaks to certain media trends that are on the upswing right now like gender-inclusive and LGBTQ-friendly media, none of that translates into anything that could become the core premise of a toy line. Depending on how the upcoming live action Dora the Explorer movie Dora and the Lost City of Gold does, it could bode well for an Adventurers-type globetrotting treasure hunter theme, and having a female protagonist might help give that genre a little better credibility with girls than previous more male-centric film franchises like The Mummy or Indiana Jones. The recent Carmen Sandiego reboot on Netflix can also be described as part of that genre and has a lot of major female cast members, though in its case it's blended with the "super spy" genre as represented by themes like Alpha Team, Agents, and Ultra Agents or non-LEGO media franchises like Spy Kids and James Bond. Again, though, I can't think of enough other examples for it to be obvious whether either of those genres or a fusion of the two is really a major trend with kids right now, or whether those brands' success or failure will depend on their indiviudal merits and not the strength of their genre/genres. There's an UglyDolls movie coming soon that I've seen quite a few ads for. I know that brand has been somewhat trendy in the past, particularly with girls. But it's not from a major/prestigious animation studio and I haven't heard much buzz about it besides what comes to me via ads, which doesn't bode so well for it influencing the larger media landscape. Later on, there's an Artemis Fowl movie coming out that I'm very much looking forward to. It was definitely a popular book series among kids when I was a kid, but the movie has been in development for a crazy amount of time, so chances are it'll have to work harder to build up hype for the brand than if the film had come out when the book series was still fairly new, like the Harry Potter movies. It has a lot of fangirls to this day, but those who I know are well outside their peak toy-buying years at this point. As far as genre is concerned, Artemis Fowl is pretty intense science-fantasy, with lots of fairy characters living in a futuristic, high-tech society but still using magical powers fairly extensively. Other kids' animated TV series with similarities in genre that have been really popular lately and caught my attention include Voltron: Legendary Defender and She-Ra and the Princesses of Power (both Netflix exclusives). The closest theme LEGO has really had to Artemis Fowl's genre would be Nexo Knights, due to its medieval futurist aesthetic and blend between European fantasy tropes and digital tech. But that was pulling more from Arthurian, Tolkien-inspired, and D&D fantasy tropes than fairy tale and classical mythology tropes like Artemis Fowl pulls from with its various elf, dwarf, sprite, pixie, goblin, troll and centaur characters (and which LEGO Elves previously drew on to a considerable extent without the high-tech twist). Frozen 2 is almost certainly going to be one of the big trendsetters this year, but as a sequel it's hard to tell how it might change the media landscape vs. how it might simply reinforce the already well established popularity of magic and princesses among kids in general and girls in particular. A not-yet-released kids' TV programs with a female protagonist and a strongly qualified showrunner is Disney Channel's Amphibia. It's an otherworldly fantasy series set in a very tiny world (kind of reminiscent of Don Bluth's Thumbelina or Ferngully: The Last Rainforest which came out early in my childhood, but without a totally obvious "fairy tale" element or obvious clues to whether full-size humans exist in this show's frog-centric world). I'm not sure if there's a specific term for this genre. Previously, the closest we've seen to this "tiny world" genre (no clue if there's an actual name for it) in LEGO has actually been in the Little Forest Friends subtheme of Duplo, as well as some Belville fairy garden sets back in the 90s. It is also a portal fantasy similar to LEGO Elves, since it involves a human girl from our world gets trapped in the world of Amphibia — so if that story element played well before LEGO might be willing to explore it again, or they might prefer a premise that stands out more obviously from something they already did so recently. Another female-directed cartoon with a female protagonist called The Owl House is in the works for next year, again on Disney Channel. Drawing on fantasy, horror, and comedy genres, it has a strong emphasis on demons and witches, and is likely to appeal strongly to kids who enjoyed previous Disney shows like Gravity Falls, on which the showrunner contributed as an animator. Again, it is also a portal fantasy. So that, at least, is beginning to stand out as a really promising genre these days. So… after all that, still rather stumped as to whether any of that gives us any clues what to expect in the future. None of it stands out as an obvious toy industry wide trend like alternative fantasy fashion dolls (such as Mattel's Monster High/Ever After High, Disney's Descendants, or Hasbro's Equestria Girls) were a few years back. Even on that note, what I hear the fantasy doll industry hasn't been doing that great in the grand scheme of things and has been eating a lot out of Mattel's bottom line, so as much as I'd love to see some kind of girl-targeted buildable figure theme, I can't say that it's looking like the optimal time for LEGO to try jumping on that train. Trends are a tricky thing to leverage because they can be either long-term or fleeting, and by the time you know which they are, it can be hard to really make the most of them. After a certain point, any new product or IP will invite comparisons to all those that came before it, for good or for ill. At the same time, retailers are really into stuff that cashes in on recent trends in some way, as those tend to be a pretty good indication of an existing, eager audience, and what kind of strategies will get that audience's attention.

That's inevitable with successful themes — otherwise people getting into the theme later (especially kids and parents who might not be aware of sites like BrickLink) will have effectively missed their chance to get their hands on some of the cool stuff from earlier in the theme's lifetime. At the same time, I think these sets do a fabulous stuff revisiting subjects we've seen before (like a lighthouse or an amusement park) in a very different way —or example, the lighthouse is a wildlife rescue center rather than a home and ice cream shop, and the amusement park is a Coney Island style park with entirely different rides than previous sets. Just noticed some delightful little details — Queen Watevra's crown recolored in White as a cracked eggshell, a new coral piece in the submarine set, and an aquatic version of Zobo in the rescue ship set!

Definitely really impressed by what I see so far! Cole's bike, the Katana 4x4, and the Shuricopter are all really excellent ninja vehicle designs that call to mind some of the older Ninjago concept art we've seen, but also stand out nicely from any previous ninja vehicle sets while still maintaining that unmistakable Ninjago design language. Katana 4x4 is my current favorite of those three due to its really unique monster truck look (very different from past ninja cars, even other off-roaders like Lloyd's Jungle Raider) but that may change if any of the others turn out to have cooler functions. The Land Bounty is a glorious design, and I feel like it makes for a way more distinctive rolling headquarters than the DB-X (which, in the show, was also framed as a wheeled successor to the Destiny's Bounty). I'm excited to see what kind of play features it might contain considering its big, beefy design. It does appear to have functional steering, which I think is a first for a Ninjago set. Lloyd's Titan Mech also looks truly extraordinary, and probably the most Gundam-ish mech design we've seen in any LEGO set or theme to date! Besides its extraordinary height and ornate detail, it also has very human-like and shapely proportions, and a really distinctive color scheme. The castle looks amazing for what (from the rumors I've seen) is a $100 set, particularly with a huge dragon that surely must eat up a lot of the budget. The overall structure is the closest thing we've seen in Ninjago so far to the type of Japanese castle previously depicted in Flying Ninja Fortress. Now, I recognize that the minifigures in many of these pics seem fairly preliminary, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the Nya-ish figure dressed in white and red in the castle pic is a human form of the kitsune character that shows up in the Lloyd's Journey set. While at first glance her hair piece can be mistaken for Nya's (which, if so, could easily be a placeholder like many of the figure parts in other pics), I almost wonder if it's instead a recolor of Barbara Gordon's curlier ponytail from The LEGO Batman Movie. The Spinjitzu Slam sets look fun, though I definitely hope that the new tornado piece they use is just preliminary, as it seems a little early to move on from the current one to one that's similar but with fewer connection points. I like that the slammer mechanism appears to be mostly brick built and doesn't seem to require any extraordinarily complex molds. It's also cool how the Kai vs. Samurai set has some spinning "course hazards" that appear to launch using the same mechanism — really demonstrating its versatility compared to the Airjitzu/Spinjitzu Masters/Dragon Masters launcher mechanisms. Having a hard time figuring out what the collectibles/plot coupons are this time around. There are a few weapons that seem like they're being set up as some kind of treasure but it's hard to tell what they have in common. Also, interestingly, the box art seems to suggest two separate settings, but the ninja aren't each consistently limited to the sets for one setting like they were in the Hunted sets. It makes me all the more curious what form the next story arc will take.

There are a couple that spring to mind, yeah: Jamie Berard made posted on the Brickset Forums several years ago to explain why reissuing the Cafe Corner was not likely to be feasible. Including some insights into the challenges that held back the LEGO Legends line from the early 2000s from achieving major success. Many issues of Hispabrick Magazine feature interesting or insightful designer interviews. It's never a bad idea to do an occasional Google search for "LEGO designer interview"! Those can often have interesting details that haven't been officially stated elsewhere. Agreed. I think one of the strengths of the roller coaster track is its versatility — so far we've seen it used as minecart rails, fairground rides, narrow-gauge trains, and as various structural or decorative elements. Also, the fact that the cars themselves are not motorized and the parts in general are small enough to appear in sets at various price points greatly reduces the costs that made the original monorail sets so insanely expensive both for LEGO and the consumer. Also, while it isn't an authentic monorail system in the sense of having a single rail instead of two, it does more closely resemble real-world monorails than the old system in that the cars wrap around the track, instead of merely sitting on top of it. I'm excited to see what other contexts it shows up in in the future! I'm not sure I'd agree about this being a particularly egregious example, since it does technically adhere to the LEGO Group's general rule about minifigure skin tones — using accurate skin tones for characters that are based on real people, actors, and specific licensed characters, but not for generic or non-licensed characters. Even though Shaq and the two basketball players behind him are all NBA-branded, Shaquille O'Neal is the only one based on a specific, real-world basketball player. The other two are not named in the film and in fact do not even wear team-specific jerseys like real NBA players would wear. Notably, the original NBA sets also adhered to this rule fairly strictly in their own right. Light-skinned real life athletes used Nougat (Flesh) as their skin tone, whereas Bright Yellow wa only used as the skin tone for generic players, even those with non-team-specific NBA jerseys. What's more, some of those yellow-skinned NBA minifigures like this one had seemingly African American coded hairstyles and facial features, suggesting that even at that time, LEGO was committed to the idea that authentic skin tones ought to be specific to likenesses of real-life people and pre-existing fictional characters). Some much more obvious examples of The LEGO Movie going against LEGO's usual policy for minifigure skin tones are Vitruvius, Abraham Lincoln, William Shakespeare, and Michelangelo (the artist, not the turtle), Vitruvius, in this case, has a Medium Nougat skin tone despite being a wholly original character like Emmet or Wyldstyle. Part of me wonders whether this was a matter of his voice actor, Morgan Freeman, requesting a skin tone closer to his own — particularly since a lot of the concept art for Vitruvius had standard Bright Yellow skin. Conversely, Lincoln and the other real-life historical figures have Bright Yellow skin, not skin tones accurate to their real-life appearance. On a similar note, some characters from the collectible minifigures like the Egyptian Queen, who had been effectively presented as generic character archetypes who happened to allude to historical figures in their original character names and bios, were identified in the movie by the names of the real-world people they were based on like Cleopatra, further muddying the waters. Overall, though, I think the more pressing concern about the "yellow is raceless" rule is not inconsistencies in previous sets and media, but rather about whether this intent is in line with actual buyers' perceptions. After all, one of the major reasons for having a rule of this kind is to make the product easier for customers to relate to. If darker-skinned kids and adults struggle to relate to the product the way lighter-skinned kids and adults do, then that intended strength has arguably become a liability.

Since nobody else seems to have brought it up, https://brickset.com/sets/76138-1/Batman-and-The-Joker-Escape (announced just today) has some delectable Sand Green and Earth Green recolors!!! I'm especially excited for the 1x4x5 castle wall panel and 2x4x2 half-cylinder panel recolors, as they both seem like they'll pair beautifully with the 2x2x5 quarter cylinder panels from Ninjago City! Also for the unprinted BB-8/BB-9E torsos used as cartoon bombs… so glad that piece isn't IP-locked! Also, the new Mr. Freeze figure in https://brickset.com/sets/76118-1/Mr-Freeze-Batcycle-Battle uses the same headgear as Mysterio, confirming that it is a headgear piece (rather than a specialized head piece) and is not IP-locked. I'm especially grateful for this part's existence after realizing that the old crystal ball element from Fright Knights has apparently been retired since 2016… so this will be the next best thing for wizards and fortune tellers and the like! Robin also has a new cape with a more zigzag shaped scalloped edge rather than the curvy type used for Batman. But on a less specifically historic note, https://brickset.com/sets/76122-1/Batcave-Clayface-Invasion has some craaaaazy new connectors in Silver Metallic, used as pipes and so forth. Two of them sort of resemble https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=32828, but one has two bar connections at a 90-degree angle from each other, another has three at 120-degree angles from each other. Another used higher up is too funky for me to even begin to describe. Because they and a bunch of the other accessories in the set are the same color (and some are sitting unused) I bet they'll come as a pre-packed assortment that is counted as a single new element. Again, hope it shows up more widely in the future! A lot of these parts will be great for either custom minifigure accessories or as a structural element! Finally, https://brickset.com/sets/76119-1/Batmobile-Pursuit-of-The-Joker has the bat/dragon wing piece from the Thestrals but without the transparent trailing edge, which might be of interest to some folks.

Both of these concerns seem to treat the thread's question as if it's asking for what you actually want LEGO to release INSTEAD OF their current media strategy. When I read it more as a hypothetical question of what would be a fun live-action movie to make or watch about a theme you enjoy. After all, the first post begins with the statement "if you were a movie director" which (for most of us) is purely hypothetical, so getting hung up on how it might negatively impact LEGO's current media strategy is kind of like getting hung up on the negative impacts becoming a movie director might have on your own current lifestyle and career goals. If the original question is too hard to answer without thinking about those types of practical concerns, maybe an easier question to think about in that manner is "what live-action movie based on a LEGO theme do you think you'd enjoy if it already existed and nothing else about the past, present, or future was any different?" And anyhow, you know what they say: "variety is the spice of life". If LEGO can have more than one type of set, why shouldn't they be able to have more than one type of media? I mean, I can't imagine anyone out there is concerned about whether other LEGO-related media like a LEGO Ninjago sticker book, a LEGO Bionicle video game, or a LEGO Mindstorms app "promotes the brand as a whole". This kind of sounds like The Emoji Movie but for architects. XD

I mean, the idea that there'd be no point to that only holds water if you think how much a movie has to do with the LEGO medium is the sole measure of its merit. I like The LEGO Movie franchise as much as the next person, but I also enjoy Marvel movies, Star Wars movies, etc. that aren't LEGO-based to begin with. So why would a film like the LEGO Movie that is inherently inspired by LEGO as a creative, play, and storytelling medium be the ONLY appropriate way to adapt a LEGO theme's story into a movie? To put it another way: do you think the Pokémon movies would be better if they were based on the actual experience of playing Pokémon on a Nintendo Game Boy, instead of on the fantasy world and characters within the games themselves? Certainly a movie about the experience of playing Game Boy games could be interesting if done right, but it's far from the only approach to creating a movie adaptation of a video game. Similarly, a movie about the expereince of playing with LEGO sets and parts is far from the only way to make a movie adaptation of a LEGO theme. All that said… I'm not really sure which LEGO themes would really be suited to live action specifically. For the most part they'd have to be chosen from some of the more character- and/or story-driven themes (e.g. LEGO Bionicle, LEGO Ninjago, LEGO Elves, etc), since when you take away the blockiness of many of the more archetypical themes like LEGO Castle and LEGO City, they mostly become generic and often strangely simplified/sanitized versions of the real-world subjects and fictional genres that inspired them. What's more, even among the story-driven themes, the appeal of many is driven partly by their bright colors and cartoonish visual design. Translating them into characters who look like real people might potentially lose that sense of authenticity to the source material, much like how the Super Mario Bros. movie felt like a radical departure from the tone and visual language people knew that franchise for. LEGO Bionicle translates fairly well to a medium where its origins as a plastic toy are not apparent. The first three direct-to-DVD Bionicle movies demonstrated this by heavily stylizing the characters to look more like they could be a genuine biomechanical alien species. And it's also one of the themes with the most story elements that could potentially be adapted, and with a premise that stands out from other science-fiction and fantasy franchises. At the same time, it has very little to gain from a live-action adaptation, since it exists in a wholly separate universe from any real-world species and settings. In fact, early in the theme's lifetime, many movie pitches were rejected on the grounds that the studios wanted them to revolve around human characters. So a live action Bionicle adaptation would probably end up being either be a really cringeworthy spectacle of actors in awkward, form-concealing costumes walking around on elaborately decorated sound stage, or a movie that's so heavily reliant on animated visual effects added in post-production that it loses any advantage it might get by having real film footage underneath. So overall I think the theme I'd most enjoy seeing in live-action is LEGO Elves. It has a really iconic visual language even when translated to a more lifelike art style, as a lot of the theme's promotional artwork and animations show. These sorts of portrayals of the characters, creatures, and settings feel believable by fantasy standards, but also are unmistakably recognizable as re-imaginings of the corresponding LEGO figures and models. Its characters can also be successfully represented by human actors in costume (many people have created fabulous LEGO Elves cosplay even on a DIY budget).

I think attributing people's dissatisfaction with certain attributes of classic LEGO to people "losing the skill of abstraction" is a bit narrow-minded. If the traditional minifigure were all kinds of random rainbow colors then yeah, I can agree that everybody could agree on it being "raceless". But it being a fairly light yellow color makes it much easier for people of lighter skin tones to relate to it than people of darker skin tones, whether or not they think of it as a specific race like "white" or "Asian". What's more, since not a lot of actual building goes into minifigures, a lot of the creative fun of getting new ones comes from the possibility of mixing and matching parts. And there's way more possibilities for that sort of mixing and matching when there are all kinds of faces, torsos, legs, and hair pieces with varying details to choose between than when all those features are purposely kept as generic as possible. When It also seems strange to act as though teens and adults having more difficulty with abstraction is a point against more varied and detailed figures rather than a point in their favor. After all, a lot of the gripes about minifigures becoming too specialized stem from the largely adult concern that the parts all need to believably "match" — and thus, that having parts designed to suggest a specific race, gender, or age makes parts that vary in one or more of those categories fundamentally incompatible. Not to mention a nostalgic sense that any details that create problems mean that today's high level of detail is a problem in and of itself, rather than just that those details ought to be chosen with greater care. Kids aren't necessarily as persnickety about all that stuff. Like, mini-doll parts have actual molded torso and head variants as well as varied skin colors by default, and yet I've seen kids make custom mini-dolls with female-coded faces and male-coded torsos (or vice-versa), dark skinned faces but light skinned arms and legs, etc. For that matter, even the official sets often use the "female" head mold for younger or less square-jawed male characters, or the "girl" torso mold for adult women who aren't intended to look as full-figured as those with the "woman" torso mold. I haven't really heard any "concerning signs" brought up here that aren't largely imaginary. The company's revenues and profits are strong, they're reaching enormous numbers of fans of all ages across the globe, and even the company's recent missteps have done little to weaken the brand's overall popularity. It says a lot that some AFOLs' benchmark for a "failed" product line includes highly successful themes like Legends of Chima or Nexo Knights, primarily because they didn't last longer than three years the way that mega-hits like Bionicle, City, Ninjago, or Friends have. And lately, I feel like LEGO listens to "their most loyal customers" (assuming you mean AFOLs) more than ever. Besides the number of AFOLs actually working at LEGO, there are also many different forms of community outreach these days such as putting out quarterly AFOL community surveys, letting builders contribute their own product suggestions on LEGO Ideas, inviting fansites to their headquarters for LEGO Fan Media Days, engaging with customers directly on social media, offering support programs for AFOL-organized LUGs/fan sites/conventions, inviting AFOLs to beta-test new digital initiatives like LEGO Worlds, inviting select fans to help make decisions and offer feedback about upcoming product lines long before they're announced, etc. That said, "listening" is different than "giving us everything we want", especially when a lot of the stuff AFOLs often ask for is completely preposterous like producing and selling any retired set on demand, bringing back coiossal failures like the old monorail system, or retiring product categories kids love (like LEGO City Police, LEGO Friends, or LEGO Ninjago) just because some adults find them uninteresting or repetitive.

Something else about parts is that after severely overspending on new parts, molds, and colors in the early 2000s that only showed up in a few sets, much greater control was given to a LEGO department called Design Lab that holds that type of stuff to much stricter standards according to how much it'll cost to introduce, how big a budget the particular sets that need them most have to cover those costs, how it can best be designed for manufacturability, how many sets/themes will be able to use them, how well the same outcome can be achieved with other pieces, and even some weird esoteric stuff we might not typically think about like whether it has enough free surfaces to mark it with the part number, LEGO word mark, and copyright date. So even if LEGO were able to grapple with all the obstacles ShaydDeGray stated above, it'd be pretty difficult for any casual fan without knowledge of all the specific factors Design Lab will take into account to get a new part design approved — even a fan with actual 3D modeling or manufacturing experience/expertise. Even many part designs actual LEGO designers wish to introduce for the types of sets they specialize in can take many years to be approved, if they ever see the light of day at all! Remember, part of the point of LEGO Ideas is to help LEGO fans feel like they have a way to make real contributions to a toy brand they love. A system like that for parts, in which the vast majority of parts could easily get rejected on obscure technicalities, might just as easily do the opposite, making fans feel powerless to actually make their dreams a reality no matter how hard they worked to achieve it.