Aanchir

I think this may be at least partly a matter of American marketing vs. European marketing — I've definitely seen the name Futuron much more on American boxes and in American catalogs than in their European counterpart. Honestly, American box art in genneral often put a lot more emphasis on specific branding for different themes and subthemes, such as by including "Town/Castle/Space System" on the LEGOLAND banner in the corner or including specific subtheme/faction logos on the front of the boxes. For example, compare the American box of set 6894 (above) with the European box (below): Maybe the American marketing department figured that the boxes needed flashier, more detailed labeling to stand out among the other popular toys they'd be competing with in American toy stores (especially since LEGO's foothold in the US and Canada was not yet as strong as it was in Europe). Or maybe it was just easier for them to include more specific labeling on North American boxes because North America is divided up into fewer countries and languages. After all, theme and subtheme names back then could vary a LOT between different European countries. For instance, early Danish, Italian, Spanish, and Belgian catalogue listings for Blacktron sets referred to that subtheme as «Black Star», while Space Police was originally called Galax-Police in Germany and Astro Politie in the Netherlands.

I mean, while big 8-wide vehicles can be tricky to use with road plates (especially for making turns at intersections), that also applies to several other vehicles from recent years like 60305, 60324 (which came with a road plate itself), 60357, and 60374. So this set's not too much of a departure from the norm in that regard, just one of several City sets that push the boundaries a bit in terms of scale.

If you include CMFs based on 2000s/2010s Space themes, the Series 8 Alien Villainess belongs to the invading faction from the Alien Conquest theme, and the Series 13 Galaxy Trooper is from Galaxy Squad. Also, in Space Police 3, Rench wore a modernized Blacktron flight suit and badge, and Craniac had an Insectoids insignia on his back, but both also wore skull-patterned belts or badges indicating that they were also affiliated with the Black Hole Gang (and there's no telling whether they had any actual affiliation with the older factions whose symbols they wore). I mean, you can be a "true fan" and still pick and choose what to spend your money on. I'm a Ninjago fan and still usually don't bother trying to get every Ninjago set. Truth be told, I don't like terms like "true fan" that somehow imply other fans are false or lesser somehow. The last thing the LEGO fan community needs is more gatekeeping of who does or doesn't count as a "true fan" of a particular theme. You can be a LEGO Space fan who buys EVERY Space set, a LEGO Spce fan who buys SOME Space sets, or even a LEGO Space fan who never buys ANY Space sets (i.e. engaging with the fan community in other ways, like with MOCs, fan art, custom minifig designs, etc). I don't think any of those approaches is any more earnest or legitimate than any other.

There is definitely a timelessness to some aspects of the Classic Space minifigure design — for example, teams of color-coded characters are a perennial hit with kids, whether in Classic Space, Galaxy Squad, Bionicle, Ninjago, or the new City Space range, and the Classic Space logo itself has proven iconic enough to show up across many different lines of sets, often with only small changes in colors or shading. But you're definitely correct that it's a lot more limiting in terms of details than other factions — a Classic Space minifigure (at least as preferred by AFOLs) lacks any unique facial features, color variations among "clothed" parts of the body, transparent OR printed visors, leg or arm printing, variations in helmet shape, or additional torso details besides the logo. Hence, plenty of AFOLs seem perfectly happy to include the Series 3 Space Villain, Series 11 Evil Mech, and Series 19 Galactic Bounty Hunter in their Blacktron fleets, but far fewer seem willing to include high-detail figures like the Series 1 Spaceman or Series 6 Intergalactic Girl as part of a Classic Space fleet (and even the Series 22 Space Creature's added black details on the arms and legs or lack of classic helmet, airtanks, or yellow smile are treated by many Spacers as drawbacks rather than welcome creative touches). Ordinarily, high-detail character designs are one of the signature strengths of the CMF series. But a "true" Classic Space figure by these strict standards leaves very little room for creative details other than changes to the base uniform color and accessories. And that also limits the figures' ability to clearly represent the sort of widely varied concepts/archetypes we've seen for other Space CMFs over the years (including this series).

I imagine the process of developing it as its own set would've started after the castle design was finalized, just to ensure that the scale and design language would be consistent with the finished castle. But it's definitely possible that it could include a lot of concepts, techniques, or sub-builds originally considered for the Lion Knights' Castle but ultimately omitted from the final design. This sort of recycling of unused ideas is common at LEGO — for example, as designer Niek van Slagmaat explained on Twitter, the small Wolf Mech in set 71808 from next year's Ninjago range takes some of its inspiration and concepts from an unused "Malware Wolf" sketch model created for the third year of Nexo Knights!

I dunno, I feel like it was probably intended as a food truck from the get-go, considering that like many small/low-priced City sets, it's part of the City "Great Vehicles" range. The ability to separate it into a flatbed truck and freestanding kiosk seems to me like something that would be included to help set it apart from past food truck sets, and to make up for the relative lack of play features compared to other sets its size. I definitely agree that it'd pair really nicely with the Downtown set, though! I doubt they'd sell a small burger kiosk like this as a stand-alone set, because as mentioned, it's pretty light on "play features" (whereas adding a vehicle at least gives kids something to zoom around). Even if it hadn't been done as a "food truck", it still probably would have had to be coupled with at least one additional vehicle build and possibly other building/scenery builds, like how Picnic in the Park and Beach Lifeguard Station each came with two small vehicles or the Chicken Henhouse came with an ATV. On a separate note, one bit of disappointment I have with this wave of City sets is that there's no sets featuring either the road system we've seen over the past few years or the customization-friendly modular building system we saw so much of this year. But I figure that's partly just because the January wave is so vehicle-heavy (and many of the permanent structures like the Prison Island and Crooks' Hideout are remote/isolated with no connections to the rest of town by land). Hopefully just like this year, there will be plenty of both systems in the summer wave!

I can't tell for certain, but to me it looks like both those torsos add some subtle detail such as contour lines/stitching along the abdomen, similar to the Space Police Guy's torso print. I imagine they may add back printing as well, like that figure did. I have no doubt there are still a lot of details that this pic doesn't show clearly that we will get a better sense of once we see clearer pics of these figures (as well as pics from different angles). On the whole, I quite like these sorts of modernized old-school graphics like we've previously seen on the Space Police Guy or Rench. I have no problem with figures like the Space Villain or Bounty Hunter that introduce totally new spacesuit designs (I often like to think of the former as a Blacktron officer and the latter as a special forces operative), but it's often extremely fun to see these more direct sorts of callbacks, especially since it gives a fun taste of what those classic designs might have looked like if designers back in the 80s were able to achieve the level of printed detail seen in modern sets. Truth be told, there is a part of me that wishes that the pilot minifig in the Blacktron Cruiser set were modernized more in this sort of way, instead of sticking to the minimalist white-on-black graphics of the original flight harness pattern. For Classic Space, I get the appeal of keeping the designs as simplistic as their classic counterparts, but for factions like Blacktron 1 that suggest a spacesuit with more varied components and materials, I kind of prefer the benefits that more varied print colors and line weights can provide. One aspect of this M:Tron torso print that I have some misgivings about is that it might have been neat for it to incorporate yellow, orange, and magenta into the monogram (like how it appears in the theme logo) instead of sticking with the simplified red and black striped monogram used for classic M:Tron printed parts. But I suppose perhaps they felt it made more sense to stick to the simpler version since it more closely matches the vehicle and uniform colors used for that faction.

I mean, Lion Knights' Castle was pretty huge even by Icons standards. I would not expect (or even WANT) every big Castle-related exclusive from here on out to be on par with it in terms of size. Castles are supposed to be big compared to ordinary medieval houses and shops! Also, I suspect one reason the buildings looked shallow is that they seem designed is that they're "dollhouse style" but designed to fold up back-to-back for an enclosed layout, like the buildings from Medieval Market Village or the two castle wings in the Lion Knights' Castle.

I don't think it's easy to really make a fair 1:1 comparison between them. Assembly Square is a plaza made up of several smaller buildings (each broken up into multiple businesses/properties, while the Natural History Museum is a single BIG, purpose-built property, but with a spacious interior and a variety of different contents. In that regard I think both of them have a strong "wow factor", but for very different reasons. I do think that because it is split up into so many varied points of interest (including places to live, eat, and work), with no one building or property particularly overshadowing any of the others, Assembly Square makes a particularly strong "starting point" for a Modular Buildings collection or street scene — a strength it shares with some smaller Modular Buildings sets like the Pet Shop and Bookshop. Even with just one of those sets, you're well on your way to creating a lively and colorful neighborhood for a community of minifigs. By contrast, I feel like the Natural History Museum has more in common with the Town Hall or Police Station. Its impressive size, stately neoclassical architectural motifs, and symmetry make it especially suitable as a focal point within a larger city block — but it is chiefly a place to go, not a place to live. So its main appeal is as an addition to an established collection/street scene, or as a type of building that particularly resonates with you, not as the "starting point" for a neighborhood.

That's not the impression I got from the Ice Planet figure at all! To me the outfit seems like heavy-duty climate protection gear, not any sort of combat gear. I'm reminded of the beefy shoulderpads of the Space Miner, which were previously used the much more aggressive Galaxy Patrol and Alien Avenger figures, but in the context of the Space Miner were clearly just futuristic workplace protective gear for doing difficult jobs in hazardous environments. I also love the penguin as a concept — it reminds me fondly of the penguin crews from some of Chris Perron's cheeky Ice Planet MOCs like the Ice Penguin Excursion or Deep Freeze Befriender. The biggest drawback of this figure IMO is the lack of skis. Honestly I have no problem with the M:Tron figure having an HUD-style printed visor like that of the Galaxy Patrol figure, particularly since Tr. Fluorescent Green is effectively retired and this appears to do a better job matching the classic color scheme than using a visor in a totally different color would. If the figure's face were just exposed to the vacuum of space or extraterrestrial atmosphere obviously I'd feel differently, but I don't feel like a molded visor would intrinsically be more interesting or appealing to me than this approach. I mean, I wouldn't say they're not catered to builders, or that they're just expected to sit unused on a shelf. After all, most CMF parts tend to be about as versatile as those from other themes — certainly some are more character-specific, theme-specific, or genre-specific than others, but that's true of minifig parts in general. But you're right that "cohesion with existing themes" has never seemed to be a universal goal for CMF series. Even from the very beginning there were lots of figures that didn't strictly "fit in" with established themes, like the Caveman, Zombie, Pharaoh, and Spartan Warrior. And some of these became really popular specifically because they opened the door to new genres and settings which had never gotten (and might never get) a full theme of their own!

I mean, they all seem pretty obviously space-related to me, regardless of whether they're based on existing LEGO Space factions. And regardless, there's nothing "woke" about the selection from what I can see. It's just a mix of references to earlier Space themes, references to earlier CMFs, and brand-new concepts. I'm as much of a sucker for nostalgia as anyone, but there was never any reason to think that a Space series would implicitly mean focusing strictly on established space factions. After all, look at all the space-related CMFs we've seen in previous series: there have been figs based on existing factions like the Space Villain and Space Police Guy, figs based on new sci-fi factions/concepts like the Classic Alien and Space Miner , figs based on real-world space exploration and rocket science like the Astronaut and Space Fan, and "costume" figs like the Rocket Boy. And when you look at the "Monsters" series (Series 14), a previous non-licensed "themed" series, it likewise had a mix of classic "gothic horror" type monsters who'd easily fit in with a theme like Monster Fighters, "sci-fi horror" monsters, "costume" figs, and wacky concepts like the Monster Rocker. The emphasis, just as now, was on creative variety and catering to a range of tastes, not on making sure all the figs in the series would fit together in the same setting or genre.

For what it's worth, I believe this one is a Galaxy Squad throwback. Same style carapace printing as the Olive Green and Dark Red Alien Buggoids from that theme, but in a third color and with traits of a different insect species (possibly a beetle or cockroach).

I can't imagine that a series like this would ever have included more than one Classic Space minifigure, regardless of selection. Most collectible minifigures series put a lot of emphasis on variety, and so including several figures that can all be described as "astronaut in [insert faction here] uniform", especially if you can fill in the blank on multiple minifigures with the same faction. As it is, while the figure selection does have several astronaut characters, they all portray different archetypes/concepts beyond just superficial differences in their uniforms. There's an astronaut in an EVA suit, a cold-weather astronaut, a mutant astronaut, a pulp sci-fi heroine, etc. They're the sort of designs that could feel interesting/distinctive even to somebody who has no familiarity whatsoever with classic LEGO space logos/colors/factions.

It looks to me like they have HUD-style face printing in place of a molded visor, like the heads of the Series 7 Galaxy Patrol and Series 13 Galaxy Trooper figures. I can't say I'd be too bothered by this, but I realize that not being able to swap in other heads with different facial features is a real bummer for "army building" or character customization. Truth be told, I wouldn't say that the sillier figs are any more "for children" than those representing old-school LEGO space factions — especially since some of those like the retro space girl and little green men are modeled on very "old-fashioned" sci-fi archetypes in their own right. My impression is more that the series is tailored to space/sci-fi fans in general, not just to fans of "LEGO Space" specifically. But even so, four or five figures out of a series of 12 that represent previous LEGO Space factions is not a bad ratio at all, by my reckoning. Honestly, Tr. Bright Orange would be fine by me — that's a pretty small change in the grand scheme of things, and certainly an easier change to adapt to than Blacktron going from Tr. Yellow to Tr. Fluorescent Green in the 90s. I've certainly seen plenty of clever Ice Planet MOCs over the years that use both colors to great effect. I'd assumed one big weapon, but hadn't even considered the possibility of using the double arm piece. That would certainly be a very neat choice for a figure like this one!

Really impressed with the creativity of both the "throwback" figs and those depicting brand-new concepts! The M:Tron astronaut is a bit trickier to evaluate from a single low-quality image, but their dual molded boots definitely help their outfit look more like a spacesuit and less like superhero comic style tights, and their chunky backpack seems suited to the sort of heavy-duty work they do in the sets. The accessory (which I can't quite identify from this angle) also has a great print that matches the M:Tron design language quite nicely. The Blacktron 2 mutant is a neat sci-fi archetype we haven't really seen in any past series, what with their reptilian right leg, arm, and eye. And like the M:Tron astronaut, the spacesuit also shows some great improvements (though I know some folks will likely be frustrated not to get a matching right leg for non-mutated Blacktron 2 spies). The Ice Planet explorer has a cool armored design that beautifully echoes the traditional Ice Planet 2002 aesthetic in a modernized way, and their penguin companion adds a touch of whimsy! The childcare android is a charming concept — very futuristic in design, but retro in concept. And I'm sure nobody will say no to a second color of space baby! The NASA-style astronaut's EVA suit is the sole "real world" space fig in this assortment, and I'm very eager to see how their backpack is built! It certainly looks quite a bit more realistic looking than LEGO City astronaut EVA suits have been in the past. The graphics look like they'll pair well with the series 15 Astronaut. The Galaxy Squad style insectoid alien is the only figure I see that references a 2000s/2010s Space theme. Their imposing head mold and digitigrade legs set them apart nicely from other figures in that theme, along with the molded elytra which I believe share a mold with the Series 21 Ladybug Girl. The alien tourist makes me chuckle — it's a very silly concept that calls to mind the sorts of knickknacks and bumper stickers they might sell in Roswell, New Mexico or other places famed for alien and UFO sightings. Their brightly-colored Hawaiian shirt, shorts, and bucket hat give them a great "summer vacation" vibe. The "ordinary passerby" styled mech piloted by little green men is an iconic sci-fi/comedy concept that's really cleverly realized here. Its clothing is probably the most useful in the series for everyday/slice-of-life figures (such as those people might use for their own sigfigs The headgear has a neat retro-futuristic look that would pair very nicely with Series 17's Retro Spaceman. The same can be said for the new retro spacegirl, whose colorful, campy outfit would be right at home on a pulp magazine cover! I'm eager to get a better look at her dog and see what printing it might have to set it apart from ordinary Earthling dogs. The space chef/chemist also has some retro-futurism vibes, but they're one of the more enigmatic figures who I'm having a hard time evaluating from this singular picture. Unusually, they don't seem to have individually articulated legs, so I'm very curious to see what other details their lower body has to set it apart from the norm. Orion is an extremely clever imaginative idea for a space-themed figure outside the realm of science fiction or the modern day! Very cool and sparkly! The UFO costume is very silly and pretty highly specialized, but a great concept for fans of these sorts of costumed character figs. Overall I'm really pleased with the variety here. Several familiar 90s factions are quite cleverly represented (although sadly, there is no sign of Spyrius, one of the factions I remember most fondly in hindsight, or Exploriens, which was probably my favorite Space subtheme back in my KFOL years). And there is also a nice balance between quirky, whimsical figure designs and more serious ones. It certainly delivers on many of the varied possibilities that a "space series" can offer!

I think sometimes stud.io incorrectly measures the size of parts to the edges of the bounding box rather than just to the edges of the part — which can cause it to measure a model's size incorrectly if it has non-rectangular parts at unusual angles (and often gets EXTRA weird if you include parts with "flex" functionality like hoses). Some of the parts you used that I know from experience can be prone to this issue include the skeleton arms and battle droid arms. Submodels can also result in screwy bounding boxes at times, since stud.io draws a new bounding box around these at an angle matching whichever piece is "first" in the submodel's part list. If you "select all" on stud.io to highlight the bounding boxes of every piece, you should be able to see which (if any) of the bounding boxes are protruding past the model's actual maximum width. But suffice to say, it definitely sounds like just a quirk of the software and not a problem with your build.

Speaking as somebody who's gotten free sets to review via New Elementary several years back, it never crossed my mind even ONCE what LEGO would think about what I wrote. Any sense of responsibility I felt was to readers (by providing high-quality photos and a thorough level of detail) and to the site itself (by ensuring I submitted my review text and photos promptly so I wouldn't keep them waiting). After all, LEGO has never stopped sending new sets to any LAN-affiliated site just because they reviewed a previous set negatively (at least, not that I've ever heard of)! It's not like a receiving a gift from a family member and having to be sensitive to the giver's feelings, whether or not it's something you wanted/needed. As long as you comply with the LAN's policies about leaks, embargoes, and use of LEGO logos and trademarks (which you can read/download here), they don't particularly care what you say or write about the products they send you. Moreover, I feel like there is an equal or greater source of bias in reviews of sets that a reviewer buys with their own money — like any LEGO buyer, reviewers are far less likely to buy sets in the first place unless they've already formed a positive opinion about the set. Maybe the calculus is different for influencers who create reviews for monetized, high-follower-count YouTube channels, or for writers who are paid to write reviews for print magazines. But for reviewers on traditional LEGO fansites like Brickset, Eurobricks, or The Brothers Brick, reviews are ultimately a form of unpaid labor with no profit motive. There's a reason I haven't written any reviews in a long time myself, even for sets I've already bought or received as personal gifts — taking and editing a full review's worth of photos and writing and editing a full review's worth of text is a lot of work! And usually, any ad revenue generated via "clicks" on these reviews goes towards the hosting costs of the site in question, rather than benefiting the writer in any way. How many people do you know who are keen on spending money they don't expect to earn back, and putting in labor they don't expect compensation for, on a toy they don't expect to enjoy? I can't imagine it's very many! So if any reviewer (whether LAN-affiliated or not) seems to be especially positive-minded in their reviews, I feel it's more likely because building and writing about LEGO sets is a "labor of love" for them than because of any sort of conflict of interest. Because if you're not enjoying some part of the building/reviewing process, there's not a tremendous amount of incentive to become a reviewer in the first place.

Yep, and even if LEGO made a non-licensed Technic set along those lines, I doubt it'd use pink tires (after all, Barbie's car usually has realistic black tires, as do most LEGO Friends vehicles). That said, I think a cute, sporty convertible could make a genuinely nice departure from the theme's usual emphasis on high-speed supercars/racing cars an rugged off-road vehicles. It could even have a dedicated function for the convertible roof, like 4993 did!

I love the flip-down panels that reveal the fuel/oxidizer pipes inside the rocket engines! A lot of time, I feel like Technic models of vehicles without internal combustion engines lose some of the appeal of seeing how the engines "real thing" is constructed. So while obviously these still aren't real, working rockets, having this sort of cross section view helps balance out the engines' lack of moving parts. As a 90s kid, I was a huge fan of some of the Technic sets back then that leaned more futuristic or fantastical than the conventional motor vehicles of the theme's roots: for example, stuff like the robotic battle vehicles from the Competition subtheme (or "Cyber-Slam" as it was called here in the states), mechanical creatures like the Bionicle Rahi Beast sets, and transforming vehicle sets like the Spy Runner. This Space range excites me a whole lot in that regard, but also manages to stay reasonably grounded in terms of the way these machines work and the sort of realistic space exploration tasks they are being used for. It's really awesome to see, and has me eager to see what other possibilities the Technic theme could explore as it moves forward.

See, I figured that the parts budget to include a second coach would have come primarily from the decision to downscale the entire train (locomotive, tender, and coaches alike). After all, while the overall length of the final train is similar to the one in the Ideas proposal, the overall height and width are substantially reduced to bring it closer to the scale of other LEGO trains. And the length of each car in the final set is cut from 70 studs (excluding the protruding buffers, which add an additional 4 studs) to just 46. I figure those changes would free up a lot of parts on their own! Furthermore, in both the original proposal and the final set, the combined length of the locomotive and tender is roughly the same as the length of a single coach, and the height of the locomotive cab is even with the height of the carriage roofs (excluding the hump in the center, which protruded higher on the original project due to the "skylights" of the 1930s CIWL dining cars it was modeled on). As such, I imagine one of the main reasons that the locomotive seems more noticeably "trimmed down" than the coaches is that the original coach had a relatively low-detail exterior in spite of its enormous size. Thus, each coach could be scaled down substantially in the final set with far less noticeable loss of detail than the locomotive. Moreover, I suspect the locomotive design itself was likely altered to match not only the color, but also the smooth curvy, and largely studless design language of the coaches. That would mean doing away with some of the greebly and angular details of the original locomotive, which were technically impressive but stylistically at odds with the desired "look". If the locomotive were truly an "afterthought", it might be expected to rely heavily on existing parts (thus minimizing its cost) or on familiar building techniques from previous train sets (like the many versions of the Hogwarts Express that this has been compared to). But instead, quite a bit of effort seems to have gone into even the more controversial of these changes. Brand-new recolors are used for the domes, whistle, smokestack, pilot, and front windows of the cab, while one of the two new molds in the set is used for the driving rods. And novel building techniques are used for the running boards, curved front corners of the cab, pilot truck, headstock, and the steam pipes immediately in front of the cab — to say nothing of the elaborate details of the cab interior. From my perspective (as somebody who appreciates innovative builds, but is admittedly not at all a train buff), these sorts of details read more as a labor of love than as an afterthought! I don't think it's accurate to just treat this as LEGO being stingy with SKUs. For most casual builders, a complete train (even with a relatively simple-looking locomotive) is a LOT more appealing than a set of carriages with the locomotive sold separately. Same as why LEGO sells modular buildings as a complete set rather than as individual floors, even if the latter would be way more economical for people wishing to expand their height. This is definitely a valid concern IMO, but I think this is just a consequence of having to conserve detail and thus choosing to focus on the "customer-facing" part of the Orient Express luxury experience rather than the "behind-the-scenes" parts. It's the same as how hardly any shops in sets (even in "premium", high-detail sets like the Modular Buildings) have a utility closet or stockroom. And of course a real train would have room for an open corridor alongside the sleeper car's private suites for the benefit of people moving along the length of the train — but this would not be remotely practical for an eight-wide train, at least not with beds sized to fit standard minifigure occupants! So one way or another, it is necessary to condense the details somewhat one way or another. For my part, I'm honestly impressed with the amount of detail the eight-wide cars DID allow! In past six-wide trains like the Horizon Express, train bathrooms and bar/cafe counters would be too wide to allow for a minifigure to pass by them even when shuffling sideways.

I mean, there was a movie of Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express" as recently as 2017. It's an extremely iconic mystery story, and practically every mystery story set on a train in any book, TV show, or video game ends up alluding to it in some way. I would not consider myself an "Orient Express fan" or anything like that, and I've never even read Agatha Christie's original novel, but it's had an ENORMOUS impact on the pop culture landscape. And that's just one of several pop culture properties in which the Orient Express features prominently. It's certainly far more well known outside of train enthusiast circles than the Super Chief, which LEGO made into a set over 20 years ago. Moreover, just about every LEGO Ideas set has gotten a lot of complaints about changes LEGO made to final design, and yet many have proven extremely popular in spite of that. One such example, the Ship in a Bottle, even sold well enough to be re-released over a year after it first retired, despite some intense criticism of LEGO's changes to both the bottle and the ship itself when it was first revealed. So I think it's a mistake to equate these sorts of inevitable complaints about design changes with a set's sales potential. But just about any time that fans get to see the original prototype or sketch model of a set, whether it's fan designed or developed in-house by LEGO designers, a segment of the fanbase will end up lamenting "what could have been", regardless of whether the prototype would have actually made a better or more appealing set in practice.

I suppose they could have a sunken pirate ship in an ocean exploration or sea life rescue set, but all in all I don't necessarily know whether LEGO would do any sort of cross-theme promotion this extensive for their other classic themes. I figure the space stuff for 2024 may be meant to capitalize on hype for the NASA Artemis program's first crewed mission.

I mean, this is only the third LEGO Friends set that's EVER cost upwards of 150 dollars, so that's hardly a sign that the City design team is working with more limited budgets! Overall I think the root of this difference you're noticing is more about the themes' differing focus and design philosophy than any sort of budget limitations. LEGO City has always had a heavy emphasis on action and vehicle play, whereas LEGO Friends has always had more emphasis on dollhouse play and other slice-of-life role-play. Thus, LEGO Friends tends to get at least one "family house" set nearly every year at a price of 70 dollars or higher, and often other houses those same years at varying price points. Meanwhile, LEGO City has only had four family house or apartment building sets in its entire history, three of which were just released within the past few years! Rather than houses, fire and police stations tend to be a staple product in each new year of City sets — and traditionally, these have been among the top-selling products for the theme every year, giving LEGO little incentive to deviate from that pattern. Conversely, the Friends theme has arguably had one fire station (the Friendship House was converted from an abandoned fire station, and some of its stickers and play features still allude to that original purpose), but has never had a police station set. I'm not bothered by this particular omission myself, but a lot of the kids who make up LEGO City's main audience surely would be! Many of the City theme's largest sets (with names like Town Square, City Square, Town Center, City Center, Downtown, etc) are often just as focused on creating "Town Plan" style cityscapes for vehicles to drive around as they are on the contents of the buildings which make up those cityscapes. Larger LEGO Friends sets might come with a single car or truck, but otherwise tend to be largely geared towards pedestrians, and much of their playability is focused on the buildings/structures themselves rather than on what goes on in the spaces between them. While these two themes have gotten much closer together over time as the designers learn from one another (for example, living spaces in City houses and boats have gotten much more detailed over the years), I expect some of these broader differences in design philosophy will still remain relatively strong in the years to come. That's not a mark against either theme, necessarily. They are just playing to different strengths.

No worries, I get that. BrickLink makes it even worse because they call it "Minifigure Backpack Open", which is not even close to how I'd think to describe it in a search! I have similar issues sometimes trying to find the LEGO coffee mug piece on BrickLink or Stud.io because my initial impulse is always to search for the word "mug", but the part name on BrickLink is "Minifigure, Utensil Cup".

I thought this conversation was spurred by disappointments with the licensor-driven design considerations of the Orient Express set? I feel like a KFOL-targeted steam train would probably be more of a downgrade in most of those areas than an upgrade. Plus, we just got two kid-targeted (and motorized) train sets in City last year and one in Harry Potter this year, so I figured a lot of the high hopes for this set were based on the expectations of greater complexity and detail than those sets have offered. I never meant to imply otherwise. But I think in this specific case, you've made it clear that you would prefer a non-licensed model over a licensed one (with all the design changes that licensing entailed). The point I was making is that a lot of people supported or showed interest in the Ideas set because it's the Orient Express, not just because it's a nice steam locomotive. Even the original project summary played up the Orient Express's outstanding reputation. So for LEGO to approve the project and then create a set that avoids any direct ties to the real life Orient Express would not be very faithful at all to that aspect of the project! I dunno, maybe I'm just more optimistic. But so far I've seen a lot of enthusiasm for this set even from people who don't otherwise tend to care much about LEGO trains (and who have barely even commented on the lack of motorization). And since several LEGO train fans are already coming up with their own motorization options, it would surprise me if the lack of "official" motorization instructions ends up being too huge a drawback within these dedicated LEGO train enthusiast circles.