Aanchir

I'm not sure what you mean by that… are you just upset because it has girly-looking stuff in it? I mean, you should realize by now that LEGO isn't just for boys… and as an adult you'd have to be pretty insecure in your masculinity for a handful of bright floral colors, streamlined shapes, and whimsical animal characters to bother you. Particularly when they're so heavily balanced out by both the bold, intense colors/aggressively angular shapes of Rex Dangervest's fleet and the muted earth tones/gritty Dieselpunk motifs of Apocalypseburg and most of its denizens.

I mean, it;'s not as though the Tin Woodsman, Cowardly Lion, or Scarecrow would have been yellow-skinned even in a non-licensed series unless they WERE designed as costumed characters (i.e. normal humans dressed as the Oz characters, rather than the characters themselves). So Dorothy is the only character in this series to vary from how she'd look in a non-licensed series as far as skin tone is concerned. Also, I think it's confusing to frame your concern as "regular yellow-skinned minifigures losing ground" when The LEGO Ninjago Movie series (September 2017), Minifigures Series 18 (May 2018), and The LEGO Movie 2 series (February 2019) all featured "regular yellow-skinned minifigures". For that matter, The LEGO Ninjago Movie series was 100% the original creations of LEGO designers. Series 18 was 100% the original creations of LEGO designers and 30% non-costume characters. And now The LEGO Movie 2 series is 75% the original creations of LEGO designers. What does it really matter whether or not they were designed as movie tie-ins? It's not like anybody has been complaining about the Classic Space minifigures from Benny's Space Squad not being real LEGO Space figures because they're from a licensed theme…

On some levels, we've already seen an attempt to return to the classic style "multicolored astronauts" vibe with Galaxy Squad. Considering how many other themes have used and continue to use characters with color-coded outfits/uniforms (e.g. Bionicle, Alpha Team, Knights' Kingdom II, Exo-Force, Ninjago, Elves, Nexo Knights, etc) I wouldn't be surprised to see Space revisit that trope in the future. Honestly, it's kind of amusing how much more receptive Spacers are to that trope than fans of other traditional LEGO themes, since it's not as though there's any more real-life basis for color-coded uniforms on a team of astronauts than a team of secret agents, knights, or ninja. In most countries' set names and advertisements, M:Tron was primarily associated with rescue and emergency response operations, not research or gathering. For one reason or another the US set names and advertisements relied more on cheesy rap videos and vaguely exciting buzzwords/technobabble than anything about what the M:Tron astronauts and ships were actually doing out there in space. Advertising for M:Tron also didn't exactly downplay their heated relationship with Blacktron… I always laugh a little when I remember this European catalog page that has a bunch of M:Tron astronauts surrounding and aggressively brandishing wrenches at a pair of Blacktron spies!

In the grand scheme of things, the Market Street, Town Hall, Assembly Square, and Corner Garage are the ONLY Modular Buildings that have had any major price changes from the buildings before and after them… everything else has largely been just periodic adjustments to account for inflation. When all the Modular Building prices are adjusted to their equivalents in 2007 dollars, there is only a minute difference in price for any of the "normal-sized" buildings. The mean price is $141.14, with a maximum of $146.85 (Brick Bank), a minimum of $133.50 (Palace Cinema), and a median of $140.42 (splitting the difference between the prices of Parisian Restaurant and Downtown Diner). While Corner Garage's price in 2007 dollars ($169.57) is the third highest, behind Assembly Square ($236.84) and Town Hall ($180.61), the same is true of its piece count (2569, 2766, and 4002, respectively). I cannot speak to its weight at this time, since I still can't find any sites credibly attesting to it, but I wouldn't be surprised if that is likewise somewhere towards the higher end of the weight range of past buildings. Corner Garage's price per piece in 2007 dollars (6.60 cents) is also the third highest, but that places it well below those of both Pet Shop (6.80 cents) and Cafe Corner (6.81 cents), and only slightly above those of Grand Emporium (6.54 cents), Town Hall (6.53 cents), and Fire Brigade (6.50 cents). In fact, the first seven buildings all have higher prices per piece in 2007 dollars than the latest seven buildings, with only two exceptions: Green Grocer (with the fifth lowest PPP of all 14 buildings) and Corner Garage (with the third highest PPP of all 14 buildings).

Not to mention, the narrower hips and arms of the mini-doll and battle droid are the very reason that they don't have independently articulated legs or wrists. Traditional minifigure hip and wrist joints are already pretty delicate even with the classic minifig's much chunkier leg and arm designs (something that has also impeded LEGO's attempts at designing a fully transparent minifigure). The practical strengths and weaknesses of the mini-doll design aren't independent of one another — their weaknesses are the cost of their strengths. What's really ironic is that on the whole, the mini-doll is one of the most minifigure-compatible alternate figure designs LEGO has introduced to date. Compared to Technic or Belville or Bionicle or Jack Stone or Fabuland figures, mini-dolls are designed for compatibility with far more of the same parts used with minifigures: headgear, weapons/utensils/accessories, doors, windows, bikes, motorbikes, skateboards, roller skates, ice skates, skis, etc. Yet as a result, people seem to have a harder time crediting them with unique appeal or value that a conventional minifigure lacks.

Frankly, even as somebody who generally prefers modern design standards over older ones, I feel like the late 90s and early 2000s were a definite low point for minifigure design. LEGO finally broke free of the "two dots and a smile" face template in the mid 90s, but were slow to adopt consistent new standards — thus, there was all kinds of weird stuff like Time Cruisers figures with a weird cartoon aesthetic not shared with any other themes, Wild West figures that looked like racist caricatures with exaggerated squinty eyes and bulging noses, UFO and Insectoids figures cluttered with needlessly chaotic detail, Queen Leonora from Knights' Kingdom with her preposterously exaggerated chest and hourglass waist, Adventurers Dino Island and Orient Expedition figures whose eyes had inconsistent shapes or placement, Alpha Team Mission Deep Sea figures who had weird eye colors that didn't contrast well with their yellow skin, and figures from themes like Racers and Sports that didn't seem to stick to any one consistent style at all. Not to mention that even with the number of elements expanding out of control and costing LEGO loads of money, the variety of minifigure hairstyles at that time remained astonishingly limited. Even in 2006 there had only been 20 minifigure hair pieces introduced to date, with 50% of those introduced for Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Batman characters. In general I think minifigure designs have greatly improved since the 2010 edition of the minifigure style guide, which standardized things somewhat while still leaving plenty of room for expressiveness and variety.

Just noticed that the upcoming mini Samurai Mech polybag (30533) is actually a two-in-one set that also can be rebuilt into a mini DB-X!

I'm sort of in the same boat, except that while I try to avoid terminology that might be construed as misleading, I hardly care at all about differentiating between different types of figure — in fact, a lot of the time I'll just say "fig", "figure", or "character" to describe LEGO people in general. From my experience, there are way too many edge cases (babies, skeletons, Life on Mars aliens, upscaled or downscaled characters like Ant-Man/Giant-Man, brick-built robots/droids, etc) for establishing a clear-cut definition of "minifigure" to even seem worth the effort. I mean, let's face it: no category that includes skeleton knights but not skeleton soldiers, or C-3PO but not R2-D2, really has any useful value in terms of keeping track of a collection or wanted list.

I think you're making a pretty big generalization there. A LOT of kids still take sets apart to build their own. I've seen plenty of MOCs by kids both online (e.g. proud parents sharing the goofy things their kids built on Facebook or Twitter) and in real life (e.g. at the Brattleboro Museum's annual LEGO building competition, in which kids make up the vast majority of the builders). I also don't see much sense in arguing that the use of brackets discourages kids from taking models apart — if anything, it greatly increases the number of original creations kids can make, both by giving them more options for sideways building and by teaching them locking techniques that they can use to keep their own creations from falling apart in minutes. Considering all the creations I remember making as a kid that were flimsy as heck and/or broke before I ever got a chance to photograph them, I'm sure I would have benefited greatly from the kinds of pieces and techniques that show up in today's sets! In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the factors in Bionicle taking over as my main theme of interest from 2001 to 2009 was that its Technic-based construction made it so much easier to create sturdy original creations than the limited locking techniques I'd acquired from System sets.

I enjoyed the Elves theme's goblins and bats (and carnivorous plants, dragons, spiders, etc) just as much as I enjoyed similar small, mischievous villains from minifigure-based themes: the Scurriers, Globlins, and Bricksets from Nexo Knights, the Rock Monsters and Lava Monsters from Power Miners, the alien clingers from Alien Conquest, the Skreemers from Ninjago, or Slimer and the other non-humanoid ghosts from Ghostbusters. Just using regular minifigures or mini-dolls in place of those baddies would have felt downright boring compared to the uniqueness brought by foes with less "human" looking designs. What's more, each of the final three years had a really brilliantly designed main villain leading their respective factions: Ragana Shadowflame in 2016, Cronan Darkroot in 2017, and Noctura the shapeshifting elf witch in 2018. The idea that mini-dolls are "just inferior versions of minifigures" is extremely narrow-minded. A person with different preferences could make just as strong an argument that the mini-doll is superior to the minifigure, based on some of the advantages like those I listed here. But overall, which is "better" is purely subjective and entirely dependent on which figure design's strengths and weaknesses you assign more or less value. Even some of the supposed advantages of the minifigure aren't nearly as consistent as people make them out to be — for example, most mini-dolls with floor-length gowns or mermaid tails have BETTER articulation below the waist than their minifigure equivalents. And many mini-dolls can turn their heads or reach their arms above their heads better than a minifigure with a similar hairstyle, whose chunky torso and angled shoulders tend to impede that sort of movement. Personally, I don't have any overall preference between these two figure styles, any more than between brick built figures or CCBS buildable figures. I think what type of figure is most suitable can vary according to the needs of a particular theme. Elves, with the gorgeous, lifelike character designs used in so much of its marketing, definitely felt like it gained much more from the use of the mini-doll than it lost, and I would even go so far as to say that themes like Exo-Force and Avatar: The Last Airbender with similarly anime-inspired character designs might have also been preferable with mini-dolls than with minifigures (which in both cases reflected neither the design standards of other themes at the time, nor the more lifelike character designs that inspired them).

With regard to the design of the mini-doll, I think some of its strengths compared to the minifigure are often ignored. Most obviously, it is more realistic in its shaping and proportions — it still has sort of the same oversized heads, feet, and hands as the classic minifigure, but the width of its legs, arms, and waist are nowhere near as exaggerated as those of the minifigure. A mini-doll's waist circumference is around half their height, so about equivalent to a 32-inch waist on an adult 64 inches tall. A typical minifigure's waist circumference is around 1.15 times their height, the equivalent of a 73 inch waist on an adult 64 inches tall! It bewilders me that people see this difference and assume the mini-doll is the one presenting an unhealthy or unrealistic body image. Also, some people seem to be bothered that the mini-doll has separate body molds for male and female characters, treating it as Barbie-like objectification. In fact, there are four mini-doll body types which can be loosely categorized as "boy" (narrow arms/shoulders, flat chest), "girl" (narrow arms/shoulders, slightly rounded bust), "man" (wide arms/shoulders, slight barrel chest), and "woman" (narrow arms/shoulders, more pronounced bust). But most adult characters actually use the "boy" and "girl" body types, with the "man" and "woman" body types reserved almost exclusively for parents and teachers. And overall, I feel like the the mini-doll body shapes allow for a lot more subtlety in differentiating male and female characters than printed minifigure decorations, which often require crisply defined contours and shading to communicate breasts, curvy waists/hips, or muscular abs/pecs. Comparing DC Super Hero Girls mini-dolls to their DC Super Heroes minifigure counterparts, even aside from their often more form-fitting or revealing costumes, the latter tend to seem much more idealized/objectified. There are also practical advantages of the mini-doll over the classic minifigure that aren't as often acknowledged as their disadvantages. Because of their narrower shoulders, it's much easier to fit two mini-dolls side by side in a six-stud-wide vehicle without any kind of jumper plate or studs-not-on-top shenanigans. The mini-doll can wear a lot more styles of dress/skirt/gown without impeding their ability to bend their legs a full 90 degrees forward. The larger shape of mini-dolls' feet also allows them to have somewhat more detailed shoes… for example, sneakers like Emily's from LEGO Elves would not be very practical with a traditional minifigure since there's not enough space on the top surface of the foot to add printed laces. And a mini-doll can generally reach her arms up over her head or behind their body without them colliding with the hair/headgear pieces as often as they would on a traditional minifigure, whose arm hinge is positioned at an angle.

I imagine the fact that Lasha appeared so recently was a big part of WHY they brought him back again. It's probably easier to keep that headgear mold in use than to bring back more than one of the older Venomari head molds that haven't appeared in years. Between his more recent appearances and his more frequent appearances in the original 2012 sets, he's also easily one of the Serpentine designs fans will be most familiar with. As lower-ranking Serpentine, Lasha and Spitta are also some of the most practical for older fans to get duplicates of since they make good army-building fodder. By comparison, the Serpentine warriors and generals tended to be a little more noteworthy as individual characters, so duplicates of them would look more out of place. Also, bringing back Acidicus could have made the hierarchy of the Serpentine characters in the Legacy sets more confusing to people who hadn't seen the show, since there'd be two different Serpentine characters with the height and long tails that single them out as leaders/generals. As far as the Stone Army faces go, I don't think it's ever been quite as strict as you make it out to be — even in 2013, the Samurai Accessory Set swapped the usual face colors of the Scout and Swordsman ranks, and the Day of the Departed sets used Dark Red patterned faces for the scouts, swordsmen, AND warriors. While clearly defined designs make things a little more consistent for marking figures off a checklist, I think a more mix-and-match approach where any rank (besides General) can have any color of face markings greatly multiplies the army building potential. With six non-rank-specific face designs to choose from besides Kozu's more unique red-on-white pattern, a person building their own Stone Army can create a much more diverse-looking infantry than if every rank were expected to be strictly defined by face color as well as by height and weapon/headgear/armor style.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there turn out to be more Oni related sets in the summer, just like how the Stone Army sets in 2013 and a handful of Skybound sets in summer 2016 came after the air date of their respective seasons. But overall this battle pack seems quite suitable for those who want to army build, allowing future sets to focus on more distinctive Oni characters who might not be as interchangeable in the story. I suspect the focus on the Venomari and Pythor is because they correspond to the main colors of the 2012 Serpentine sets (green and purple). That's especially important for reinforcing that connection here, since these sets don't have any Serpentine vehicles in them to communicate the colors that so heavily defined that year's sets. Although, I'm not so fond of the Venomari's makeover with their clearly defined yellow muscles instead of the more vertical scaly patterns of the originals (Pythor's lavender muscles don't bother me quite so much).

So the price was higher, and was reduced… in other words, the price you're describing is a discounted price. The original Norwegian RRP for Assembly Square was 2499.00 Kr, or the equivalent of $285.71 USD. The Norwegian RRP for Corner Garage is 1999.00 Kr, or the equivalent of $228.15 USD. So if the prices you've seen for the Assembly Square in your country are any indication, then two years from now you can probably expect similar markdowns on the Corner Garage!

People have been saying for years that licensed themes are taking over, and yet non-licensed themes like City, Friends, Ninjago, Creator, Classic, Technic, and Duplo continue to be some of LEGO's biggest hits, with only the Star Wars theme reliably measuring up in terms of overall sales and popularity. I don't think there's any chance that LEGO is going to give up on non-licensed products or even non "big bang" ones (especially since the definition of "big bang" themes pretty much limits them to only one per year, and so far only in years that don't have a LEGO Movie dominating the LEGO Group's marketing strategy). Plus, with regard to Castle in particular, every new incarnation of Castle since 2001 (except for Nexo Knights) has launched the same year as new "Castle-ish" movie licensed sets from themes like Harry Potter or The Hobbit. And in most cases, the non-licensed Castle themes in question lasted as long as or even outlasted the licensed themes they launched alongside. If none of those themes ruled out a new castle theme, I don't see why any current licenses would, particularly with both Elves and Nexo Knights retiring. The only reason I can imagine LEGO waiting until 2020 to launch the next version of Castle is if they don't want the marketing for it to be drowned out by LEGO Movie 2 hype. I will definitely miss Nexo Knights and Elves, but so far I'm not at all lacking in other sets to be excited for from themes like The LEGO Movie 2 and Ninjago. I've got about 20 different 2019 sets on my Brickset wish list already, with a lot more first half year sets I might add once we have a better idea what's still to come in the second half (since I don't tend to add stuff to my wanted list unless I consider it a "must-have", and second half year sets can have a big impact on what first half year sets qualify as that), Moreover, I feel like concerns about a new year's sets being underwhelming tend to pop up pretty regularly at the end of each year, simply by virtue of many of the biggest and most exciting new sets not being revealed or announced until later in the year, and also people being a lot less receptive to media-supported themes until the corresponding movies or TV shows themselves are released to more clearly contextualize them. Like, I've seen multiple comments about the LEGO Movie 2 sets seeming underwhelming compared to the original LEGO Movie sets… but back when the LEGO Movie sets were first being announced, several people were a LOT more cynical about them, with many people specifically deriding them as excessively childish, nonsensical, or chaotic (some examples: 1|2|3|4|5). Also, from what I've been hearing, LEGO has done a much better job controlling leaks this year than in the past. As the year goes on I'm sure there will be a LOT of surprises in store that will excite lots of people, even many who have been unimpressed with a lot of what's already been announced.

The mini-dolls were really one of the silver bullets that helped the LEGO Friends theme become more successful with girls than any other LEGO theme (besides perhaps Duplo) had ever been. The decision to launch a whole new style of minifigure was not made lightly, but LEGO's anthropological research of over 6,000 girls and their families and subsequent concept/product testing consistently reinforced the idea that the minifigure was one of the main factors alienating girls from enjoying traditional play themes as much as boys, even if they got just as much enjoyment out of the core building experience. Naturally, some girls did already like existing figures and themes, but they were a small minority among the boys who overwhelmingly embraced those themes. And contrary to the idea that the mini-doll keeps girls from incorporating these themes into larger LEGO collections, many girls who only became fans of LEGO because of themes like Friends and Elves have gone on to collect other LEGO themes like City, Creator, Ninjago, and Star Wars on the side. Likewise, many boys have indulged in Friends and Elves on occasion. From my personal experience, this is not surprising… I can't tell you how many sets from 2001 to 2009 I first took an interest in because they contained parts that would enhance my Bionicle collection, even if I never became as passionate about those sets and themes as I was about Bionicle. Themes don't by any means require compatible figures for kids to enjoy them on their own merits or find ways to incorporate the parts or sets together in their play. Even if LEGO Elves could have appealed to a wider audience by including minifigures, a bigger part that audience would have probably ended up consisting of 7–14 year old boys who were already enjoying other minifigure-based themes like Star Wars, Ninjago, Super Heroes, Legends of Chima, Ultra Agents, Nexo Knights, etc. Consequently, Elves would have needed to compete with all of those themes for kids' attention, and the overall number of kids enjoying LEGO would not have been able to grow nearly as much as it could by reaching out to kids who weren't already being targeted by numerous other theme, and being tailored to those kids' interests. Don't forget that us AFOLs are generally a small minority among MOST of LEGO's bigger themes, whether they're aimed at boys or girls. I suspect that with both Nexo Knights and Elves presumably on the brink of retirement, there will be a new "Castle" theme launched soon — possibly as soon as next summer. That said, I will miss Elves a lot, as it certainly appealed much more to me than any other Castle theme ever managed to. I hope a lot of the lessons Elves and Nexo Knights taught the designers carry over to whatever Castle theme comes next!

It's not as though classic literary characters are all that unusual for a minifigures series. Just look at all the past classic book/movie inspired figs like the Series 1 Forestman (Robin Hood), Series 2 Vampire (Dracula), Series 4 Musketeer (The Three Musketeers) and Monster (Frankenstein), Series 5 Detective (Sherlock Holmes), Series 7 Jungle Boy (Tarzan), Series 9 Mr. Good and Evil (Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde), and Series 11 Barbarian (Conan). And it's not like this series doesn't have plenty of figures who fit into categories we often see in non-licensed series. Besides its four classic literary figures (Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Woodsman, and Cowardly Lion), it's got three costume/mascot figures (Giraffe, Watermelon, and Crayon), four musician figures (Lucy and the unnamed singers and guitarist), a city/town figure (Emmet), a space figure (Benny), a sports figure (President Business), and a monster figure (Post-Apoc Swamp Monster). That's three fourths of the series! It's also got a nearly 50/50 gender ratio, which is extraordinarily rare for any minifigures series, even the non-licensed ones. I can definitely understand complaints about the LEGO Batman Movie series 1 and 2 figures being too genre or IP-specific, but I feel like the LEGO Movie, LEGO Movie 2, and LEGO Ninjago Movie series figures offer enough variety that they can offer plenty of relevance even beyond the context of their respective movie or brand. For its size, I'm not sure I'd agree that the price is bad. The Statue of Liberty uses lots of large wall/slope bricks, curved slopes/wedges, etc. to create its shape, so it's probably fairer to compare to a set like the Sea Cow ($250 for 2741 pieces, or 9.1 cents/piece) than a set made mostly of smaller pieces like Ninjago City ($300 for 4867 pieces, or 6.2 cents/piece) or Ninjago City Docks ($230 for 3553 pieces, or 6.5 cents/piece). And the overall size as listed on the box is 52.7 centimeters tall and 49.3 centimeters wide — compare with Ninjago City Docks (37cm tall/38cm wide), Ninjago City (63cm tall/31cm wide), or Metalbeard's Sea Cow (58cm high/61cm long, though a lot of that is simply due the masts, sails, and bowsprit).

…So which concepts were "cool" and which was "garbage or poorly implemented", pray tell?

I can't really imagine a City subtheme using Sand Blue as its main color, since City sets tend towards vibrant color schemes about as consistently as Space sets. In general I think the sci-fi elements of recent City subthemes have been somewhat overstated… if anything, they are sci-fi-ish existing technologies translated into forms that, while more realistic, are closer to what kids are likely to understand. For example, "jetpacks" have been developed in the past decade and pitched to police departments by venture capitalists — these "jetpacks" generally use turbines rather than rockets, but the jetpacks in the Sky Police sets could be understood as this concept translated into a form more like how kids expect a jetpack to look. Dubai firefighters have even started using water pressure powered "jetpacks" to fight skyscraper fires. Likewise, the "Arctic Ice Crawler" is pretty obviously inspired by real-life walking excavators, but simplified into a "walker" by giving it feet instead of wheels (some walking excavators do have at least two feet but I'm not aware of any that have four feet and no wheels). The Arctic Ice Glider also seems loosely based on such vehicles as the Czech SnowGlider or the Lotus Concept Ice Vehicle. Some of the other exotic-looking arctic vehicles in those sets are, if anything, older, largely defunct technologies rather than futuristic ones — like the Letourneau Overland Train, which was invented in the late 1950s! And the giant circular saw vehicles? Those are basically just rock saws that exist as an optional attachment for many run-of-the-mill excavators (though I haven't seen pictures of them being used for ice specifically). So sure, it's not surprising to see stuff like a moon colony that right now only exists conceptually, but I think that overall the new space sets will probably remain more or less based on the kinds of stuff that's currently being conceptualized for near-future use… which of course includes some of the tamer sorts of Classic Space-ish builds, but probably not ships with extravagant color schemes, spoilers, and oversized wing-mounted engines. Even so, the only things that are particularly lost from that "near future" approach are laser guns, aliens, and nostalgia fuel. Stuff like robots, moonbases, and space planes? Probably still fair game!

Interesting that Space is apparently serving as the main science/research/exploration subtheme for this summer, rather than secondary to it like the smaller Space wave in 2015 was to the larger Deep Sea Explorers wave that year. On my spreadsheet I had grouped previous Space waves in the broader Flight category together with Airport and Cargo because that was it seemed more analogous to in terms of number and style of sets (as well as them only appearing in years with no other Airport or Cargo themed sets).

Honestly, I don't mind this change. I'd almost go so far as to say I welcome it. I remember being extremely bewildered that the Hero Core accessories that came with the 2012 and 2013 Hero Factory sets were listed as part of the main inventory for the hero characters (who used them as part of the build) but as extras for the villain characters (who didn't) — even though those parts were listed in the inventories in the back of the instruction manuals, were a standard component of those sets, and were even advertised on the packaging! There are plenty of other examples of parts that remain "loose"/not built into a larger part of the model, but that nobody could reasonably consider an extra — for example, most single-piece animals, or soccer balls/basketballs in LEGO Sports sets. So I honestly think it was sort of a double standard that BrickLink inventories ever treated other purposeful parts of a set's inventory like extra shooter ammo, unused parts that as part of a larger pre-pack or sprue, single-piece accessories in buildable figure sets, etc. the same as run-of-the-mill spares.

I feel like fans of real-world cars often have borderline-unreasonably high standards in general, and Technic cars in particular can be alienating to people who are more used to the sort of imperfections inherent to System models than the sort inherent to Technic models.

I think you're underestimating how big a "point of interest and admiration" even more modern or "ordinary" buildings can be, whether in real life or in LEGO. In my hometown, one of our most beloved and famous landmarks that isn't a battlefield or monument is Carl's Ice Cream, a tiny, one-story building with no interior dining area founded in 1947. It's decidedly LESS impressive to look at than such sets as the Downtown Diner, but it speaks to a sense of comfort and nostalgia that people of all ages can relate to. And anyhow, even a lot of the earliest Modular Buildings were not only "ordinary" buildings, but also mixed-use ones: Cafe Corner featured a downstairs coffeeshop and upstairs hotel; Market Street featured an outdoor farmer's market, downstairs bakery, and upstairs apartment; and Green Grocer featured a downstairs grocery store and upstairs apartment complex. In fact, Fire Brigade, Grand Emporium, Town Hall, and Palace Cinema are really the ONLY Modular Buildings that could be considered "single-use": every other set has included between two and eight commercial and/or residential properties. So it seems strange to characterize "ordinary", mixed-use buildings as LEGO's "current design emphasis" as though it's not the philosophy that characterized the series from the beginning. But I agree that to maintain the overall sense of variety the series as a whole has always embraced, a more stately/ornate/majestic building would probably be a good follow-up to the more blue-collar Corner Garage. Your suggestions also seem like they could all have a lot of potential. As far as impressive scale goes, I don't see any need to worry about this if Corner Garage's price point turns out to be the new standard. After all, it's already got the second highest roof line and second largest floor plan of any of the sets since Town Hall.

Small parts frequently appear as extras/spares, and that is the case with the parts for the second harpoon, as stated in the review. The oar is probably above the weight threshold to appear as a spare in a set this small. As far as the utility of the set goes, I feel like it works fine for modern-day settings… the pirate-y stuff could easily be put in an undersea shipwreck, for example, or as antiques like in the scene you created around the Old Fishing Store. Overall, though, I think the beauty of the Xtra theme is in its lack of specificity to any one particular theme or subtheme. The design language of the animals in this one admittedly would look a bit out-of-place in a Friends or Elves display, but the other parts are just as suited to themes featuring minidolls, "fleshie" licensed minifigures, non-licensed minifigures, etc. i hope that future Xtra sets are designed with a similarly diverse range of applications in mind. Compared to the old Service Packs, which often featured printed elements or molds particular to a then-current theme or subtheme, these feel like they benefit more from their lack of theme-specific branding and could have more long-term relevance.

Granted, for some of that time, those sets were not branded as Creator — prior to 2006, multi-build sets like those were part of the Designer Set theme, which coexisted with the Creator, Technic, Mindstorms, X-Pod, and Inventor Set themes within the Make & Create theme family. The Creator theme at that time was also closer to what is today called LEGO Classic. In 2006, some of those theme names were changed or switched around: what was previously known as "Creator" became "Creative Building", the "Designer Sets" became "Creator", and "X-Pods" became a subtheme of "Creator" (the Inventor Sets had already been retired by that time). As cool as that would be, I know a lot of people are already getting fed up with the number of mechs appearing in other themes!