Aanchir

I feel like the similarities between the Season 9 dragons and the heads of the new Ultra Dragon head are rather tenuous besides some shared parts and techniques, which is probably to be expected when updating from samey head molds to more varied heads based on modern design standards. Like, the only similarities between the earth head and Slab that they have printed eyes and use the same rocky detail piece, which can be said for ALL of the new Ultra Dragon heads. Likewise, the similarities between Stormbringer and Just about every other distinguishing feature is different — Slab didn't have horns/antlers on the front of its face, and the new Ultra Dragon's earth head doesn't have the big pointed teeth on its lower jaw or blades on the side of its face.

It makes sense to see more Classic Space stuff in 2019 than 2018, since LEGO often seems to consider the launch year of Classic Space 1979 rather than 1978, judging from the 30 year anniversary statue in one of the 2009 Space Police III sets. And in fairness to them, 1979 IS when the LEGO Space sets really got a full launch on both sides of the Atlantic.

The reason that the old ones didn't break is because they didn't come to a sharp, narrow point — both the sides and the tip of the spear point were much thicker and more rounded. Compare with classic LEGO hair vs. Exo Force hair, or the tails of various LEGO snakes and dinosaurs vs. the snake tail piece from the Ninjago Serpentine generals and CMF Medusa, or the claw piece 16770 vs. 11089, or the slope pieces 3049 vs. 60416. Rubber is really the only option that's both sturdy enough and safe enough when parts come to a really thin, sharp point like that (although if the point's slightly thicker or more rounded off like many Ninjago weapons, then a soft plastic like is used for the classic LEGO bow and arrow will usually be sufficient). Also, if you've ever done much work with an X-acto knife, you should have a good sense of how easy it is for such a pointy tip to break off even when it's made of metal… now imagine it in plastic! There's a reason I sometimes stifle a laugh when people talk about Bionicle weapons as if they are the worst LEGO pieces to step on — not only are they usually a softer than usual material that will bend if you put it under enough pressure, but they're generally nowhere near as sharp and vicious as they're meant to look. But turn one of these babies upside down so the sloped front surfaces is flat on the ground and step on THAT in the middle of the night… YIKES! Even if it's thick enough not to be super fragile that's still got a good chance of leaving a mark!

I understand that a lot of people think vehicles in the Modular Buildings sets are a waste, even if I largely disagree, but I'm glad you recognize how a garage sort of changes the context! For a garage, a vehicle isn't just something that goes with the building, it's something that the set would feel incomplete without. It would be like if the Palace Cinema didn't have a movie screen, if the Pet Shop didn't have any animals, etc. The Fire Brigade is a similar case — imagine how downright boring the big, empty lower floor of that building would be if it didn't have a truck to help give that space some detail, visual interest, and purpose. That said, I am generally in favor of vehicles coming with modular buildings on occasion, because even if other themes have vehicles, they don't really have the level of realism, visual identity, or standard of detail that is associated with the modular buildings. While the limo in Palace Cinema fell short of my own expectations, the truck in Fire Brigade and ESPECIALLY the car in Downtown Diner both far surpassed the vehicles we see in City, due to having side by side driver and passenger seats in both cases, as well as a back seat and side doors in the latter case. These are the sorts of personal expectations I've tried to meet in my own MOCs of both real-life and fictional cars since I was a teenager. The car that comes with the Diner also employs many rather advanced and creative building techniques, such as a chassis construction that neither uses a specialized plate nor even a 2x12/2x14/2x16 plate as the base of the build. The wheel arches don't even leave any unsightly gaps in the corners as so many in themes like City or Friends tend to do, and the wheels are adequately scaled to the vehicle as a whole rather than sticking out from the sides of the wheel arches. The only other big things I could really wish for would be an opening trunk/boot and a slightly more angled windscreen. That'd be really neat to see, especially at a 16+ level of detail! And there's enough nice curved pieces nowadays that I wouldn't be surprised if LEGO could pull it off.

I see this argument a lot and I think it's kind of misleading, for three reasons: Smaller and more kid-appropriate Star Wars sets vastly outnumber the massive adult-targeted exclusives. If you add up all the price points of the 2018 Star Wars sets, the UCS Y-Wing and MBS Cloud City (both ages 14+, so adults aren't necessarily even just buying them for themselves or for other adults) cost about $550 USD total. The other sets (recommended for ages 9–14 at the highest and ages 6–12 at the lowest) cost about $1,755 USD — meaning that if the same quantity of every set is produced and purchased, LEGO makes over three times more money on the 2018 Star Wars sets intended for kids to enjoy than the ones that are specifically aimed at teens and adults. AND YET, it's well known that smaller, more affordable, and more kid-appropriate sets from any theme tend to be bought in MUCH larger quantities than adult-targeted exclusives. This one shouldn't be surprising, of course. Besides the fact that kids are a much bigger audience for toys in general and even for Star Wars toys in particular (no matter who does the buying) than adults (and have been since the first Star Wars toys were released), plenty of kid-targeted Star Wars sets also appeal to a secondary audience of adult Star Wars fans, particularly those who don't want to or can't afford to drop $200 or more on a single toy. Not all adults who buy or build LEGO sets (including LEGO Star Wars sets) for their own enjoyment think of themselves as AFOLs or are part of AFOL groups, fansites, and events/gatherings. In fact, not all of those adults even grew up playing with LEGO, let alone with classic LEGO Space sets from the 80s. This should be particularly obvious since at this point in time, there is a thirteen year gap between the year that the last new Classic Space sets were released and the year today's youngest AFOLs were born. And since the Star Wars franchise began earlier, continued later, and achieved much greater heights of global popularity than LEGO Classic Space ever did, it's unquestionable that for the vast majority of adults, Star Wars was much more likely to have been an important part of their childhood than classic LEGO Space was. The idea that "adults have more money to buy sets, and LEGO makes lots of expensive sets specifically for adults, therefore there should be plenty of sales potential for an entire theme/series catered specifically to a particular subset of nostalgic adults" falls to pieces when you account for these factors. There's a reason why even most existing older-skewing LEGO themes and subthemes like Creator Expert, Star Wars UCS/MBS, Ideas, Architecture, and Mindstorms invariably have so many fewer new products per year than typical kid-targeted themes.

In general, your initial post and responses to feedback make it obvious you're passionate about this. That said, it seems to me that asking LEGO to make this absurdly ambitious game to your tastes/specifications, which are way beyond anything that ANY existing game developers have achieved to date, feels pretty unreasonable. Realistically, if you really want this done the way YOU want it, you should work on learning the game development skills to work towards this goal yourself, and making connections with people and studios who both believe in your project and are willing to work with you and with LEGO to make it happen. Otherwise, it's kind of like going to Ford or Mercedes and asking them to make a flying car with a list of features you think it should have, without offering any kind of technical insights would offer any valuable assistance in moving towards that goal. Like, how do you know LEGO and their partners in game development haven't already attempted stuff like this, or even like a less ambitious version of this, and still run into technical obstacles they simply don't have the resources to overcome? You telling them that this is something you WANT doesn't really give them any useful perspectives on how to make it HAPPEN. It's similar to when people ask LEGO to do other sorts of stuff that's incredibly complicated in a practical sense, like "you should let people order any set you've ever made and produce it for them on-demand", or "you should let people order any part in any color they want", and then when challenged on it argue that because LEGO is a big company with a lot of resources they should be able to make it happen regardless of how costly or complicated it might be, or whether it's a service that any other company in human history has been able to offer on that scale. Now, would all of these sorts of ideas be cool? Undoubtedly. But one person suggesting the product/service of their dreams neither helps the LEGO Group make it happen, nor gives them a compelling reason to devote the kind of resources needed to making it happen. You mention the Wright Brothers, but they were just one pair of people working on realizing the dream of heavier-than-air flight. And many of the people working on it may have devoted even MORE thought or MORE effort or MORE time or MORE resources than they did and not achieved any worthwhile results. Likewise for LEGO, they could spend years putting their all into this idea of yours and it could still wind up being a huge waste that leads nowhere and never pays off, like some of the costly and ambitious projects LEGO undertook in the late 90s and early 2000s. So they need more than an idea SOUNDING cool to justify the kind of resources it would take to do something that no more experienced game developer has ever come close to achieving on their own. They would need some type of more practical assurance that they would see a return on investment. I don't mean to be a party pooper or tell you to give up on this dream of an ideal LEGO Technic racing game. Maybe one day it'll happen. Maybe you will help MAKE it happen. But reading this "open letter" and the replies I don't know if the way you're approaching this right now is the most effective way to channel that energy and enthusiasm.

Media is a big influence in what kids like, but I don’t think it’s fair to treat it as though it’s the only thing that drives trends in what kinds of toys or forms of play kids are most drawn to. For one thing, there’s peer influence to consider. Ninjago, and Bionixke before it, leveraged things like competitive play and collectible accessories to really encourage kids to engage with the products together and not just in isolation. For instance, you might bring duplicate Bionicle masks or Ninjago weapons with you to school to trade them with friends during recess for ones you don’t have in your collection. Or you might bring a Bionicle Toa set or a Ninjago spinner to a friend’s house to act out battles using their play features. It’s the same sort of collect/trade/battle principle that helped drive the Pokémon craze both in terms of the video games and trading card game. What’s more, some of the examples of older brands you’ve seen kids enjoy like Smurfs and Monchhichi (the latter of which I’d certainly never heard of!) were themselves heavily media driven at the height of their international popularity. As cynical as you are about kids being indoctrinated to like certain things by YouTube ads, online games, etc, they’re ultimately just an evolution of the things like TV shows and comics that played such a big role in making things like Smurfs and Monchhichis as well known as they were for previous generations to begin with. LEGO was much slower at getting into media-supported IPs than a lot of other popular toy brands, but in the grand scheme of things it’s not a new phenomenon, just one that evolves to utilize whichever forms of technology or media kids are already using at any given time. Even classic LEGO Space was advertised on TV, and LEGO even attempted later to craft a comic series, Jim Spaceborn, based on it during their short-lived attempt to launch their own in-house publishing imprint. Not to mention how the Fabuland theme that overlapped with Classic Space was promoted via storybooks and an animated series on videocassette. If LEGO had the resources, confidence, credibility, and know-how to create a TV series promoting Classic Space back in the 80s, there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t have done so. So I don’t think it’s fair to be so cynical about kids’ perceived preferences today being solely a result of negligent parents letting TV and online advertisers tell the kids what they should or shouldn’t want. And anyway, if creating something kids like were as simple as creating video ads or TV shows telling them they should like it, then we wouldn’t see such a huge contrast between LEGO’s major, long-lasting hits like Bionicle, City, Ninjago, and Friends and shorter-lived themes with less outstanding popularity like Monster Fighters, Galaxy Squad, Ultra Agents, or the 2013 and 2015 Castle and Pirates waves. The reality is that kids are often discerning customers in their own right, and not simply ciphers that mirror the interests introduced to them by parents and advertisers. And the competitive nature of the toy industry means that it’s not enough for companies to make stuff kids COULD enjoy — they have to make stuff that will appeal to and excite kids enough for them to prefer them over whatever competing brands they could be buying instead. Also, advertising and media support are not a silver bullet. We’ve seen with Galidor how pouring money into media support and promotion for a product that hasn’t had enough testing to adequately demonstrate that it has extensive, inherent kid appeal can result in a massively expensive failure right out of the gate. Whereas themes like LEGO Creator, LEGO Classic, and LEGO City manage to demonstrate success surpassing most TV-supported “Big Bang” themes even without anywhere near as extensive a media profile. The all too common assumption that Ninjago is only as successful as it is because of how much money and attention LEGO puts towards making and promoting it, and that themes like Space, Pirates, Castle, Adventurers, Bionicle, etc. would easily do just as well with that level of investment and care, ignores not only that Ninjago was LEGO’s most successful launch for a new product line to date even in its debut year when it had a far less extensive media presence, but also that even before its launch, the spinner sets had an insanely successful kid testing session, with the moderator remarking that she had “never seen such a strong response to a test.” Clearly, even without advertising as a confounding variable, there is a noticeable difference in how well kids respond to different sorts of concepts, designs, and play styles.

And again, as I keep saying, that’s almost entirely wrong. Lloyd knows his father is a villain from his very first appearance in the show (from all indications, it’s never been a secret from him). His childhood before the events of the show was spent attending a boarding school for aspiring villains, and his biggest dream is to become a feared villain like his father. In order to achieve that goal, he releases and attempts to recruit the Serpentine tribes that were sealed away long ago for attempting to conquer Ninjago. But Lloyd isn’t all that great at being a villain. The first two Serpentine tribes he unleashes, the Hypnobrai and Fangpyre tribes, abandon him after it becomes clear they can achieve bigger villainous goals than Lloyd’s petty and ineffective schemes. Then Pythor, the last surviving member of the Anacondrai tribe, recognizes Lloyd’s feelings of loneliness and exploits that vulnerability by pretending to befriend Lloyd, then stealing his map to the Serpentine dens and leaving him at the mercy of the ninja. It’s only at THAT point that Master Wu shows Lloyd forgiveness and welcomes him to live with the ninja team aboard the Destiny’s Bounty. Even after that point, though, Lloyd and his father don’t really have much tension between them until several episodes later when the ninja discover that Lloyd is destined to become the Green Ninja and confront the dark lord (the ninja assume this to mean Lord Garmadon, but spoilers: that’s not exactly true). None of this is to suggest Star Wars did not influence Ninjago. After all, the theme’s showrunner and co-creator Tommy Andreasen is such a huge fan of Star Wars that he named his own kids Luke and Leia. But using a few tenuous similarities to argue that Ninjago is crap or a Star Wars rip-off is extremely dubious, considering that Star Wars itself was NOTORIOUSLY derivative. Like, you compare Master Wu to Yoda, but the only major similarity between them is that they represent the same “mysterious old martial arts master” archetype that long predates either of those characters. The comparisons between Nya and Leia or Zane and C-3PO are even flimsier, because even if Nya very briefly played the “damsel in distress” role in the pilot and Zane is a very analytical robot character, Star Wars most certainly can’t take credit for originating either of those tropes! Perhaps! I remember in the early 2000s there was a Looney Tunes spin-off called “Duck Dodgers”, loosely inspired by a 1953 short parodying Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, but also taking various inspiration from other sci-fi series, including other early pulp sci-fi/space opera series like John Carter of Mars and Flash Gordon that kids in the early 2000s were unlikely to be especially familiar with. Of course, like The LEGO Movie and its spin-offs, the humor and action appeal of the show weren’t wholly dependent on familiarity with the various older and newer works it referenced or parodied. Honestly, on a lot of levels I think that’s the type of storytelling that would be well-suited to a Classic Space series, whether in the form of comics, cartoons, or a hypothetical “The LEGO Space Movie”.

Mixed feelings on that myself, but overall I think it's preferable to the original giant ball shooter in two of the mouths which impedes jaw articulation. I also like that the elemental breath attacks (represented by both the stud shooters and the transparent 2x2 skid plates/boat studs inside the mouths) are now color coded to the elements of each head rather than a uniform Transparent Bright Green. Besides giving the heads more distinctiveness and feeling more authentic to the Ultra Dragon's powers, it also means the dragon breath stands out better from the Transparent Bright Green ammo the Serpentine ballista is firing. I get the feeling that LEGO made a purposeful attempt not to include too many minifigures from any one faction on account of how many different enemy factions and characters would be appearing in this one wave: the Overlord, Lord Garmadon, three Stone Army baddies (Scout, Soldier, and Warrior), three Serpentine baddies (Lasha, Spitta, and Pythor), and three Skulkin baddies (Nuckal, Kruncha, and Wyplash). I also wouldn't be surprised if the choice of Pythor and two Venomari Serpentine is because they match the colors of the 2012 vehicles, which were not re-imagined for this wave but played a really defining role in the overall design language of the 2012 sets. This color coding would also perhaps at least partly explain why purple snake elements appear on the re-imagined Serpentine battlements and shrines even though most of the ones in the 2012 sets used only Warm Gold or Sand Yellow/Dark Tan snake motifs (the only one that DID use purple snake motifs ornamentally, was the Ninjago Character Card Shrine).

In general I still don't get the sense that you really get the gist of Lloyd and Lord Garmadon's relationship (in the TV show, at least), because again, there's no "I am your father" plot twist or anything remotely resembling one. If anything it's closer to the dynamic of Prince Zuko and Fire Lord Ozai in Avatar: The Last Airbender, in which the child of a villain, who grew up with dreams of following in their father's footsteps, joins the heroes and is forced to make a stand for what's right even if it means going against their family. Granted, in Ninjago it isn't remotely as much of a personal battle for Lloyd to join the heroes. Instead, he wasn't very good at being a serious villain in the first place, and is won over by Master Wu's willingness to take him in and forgive his actions after being abandoned, used, and/or betrayed by the first three Serpentine tribes he attempted to recruit as evil underlings. Also, in Lloyd's case, Garmadon is not framed as an abusive or controlling parent — he genuinely loves and wants the best for Lloyd, and doesn't begrudge him for siding with the ninja or try to recruit him back to the side of evil. The only way that it particularly resembles a Luke Skywalker/Darth Vader dynamic is that Lloyd doesn't really want to fight his father and would rather attempt to save him. And in any case, the conflict between Lloyd and his father only really describes about a couple seasons' worth of episodes: the first twelve episodes of Season 2, the last two episodes of Season 8, and all ten episodes of Season 9. In the pilot, which introduces Lord Garmadon as a villain, his son Lloyd does not appear. In the few Season 1 episodes that Lord Garmadon appears in, he is consistently an ally of the ninja, albeit a reluctant one with obvious goals of world domination. In Seasons 3 through 7, the conflicts are against different villains for different reasons, and Garmadon is an ally of the Ninja in every episode he appears in. To judge the entire series as a rip-off of Star Wars on those grounds seems rather shaky. And anyhow, back on the subject of movies? Toy Story 2 pulled off the "I am your father" twist in a blatant, cheesy Star Wars parody/reference, and judging from the Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores, it was nevertheless as well-loved or more based on both critic and audience ratings as The LEGO Movie. So I'm not really sold on the idea that a TV show would be beneath the dignity of LEGO Movie or Classic Space characters, even if it DID indulge in occasional cliches like that one. Although, to me, the retro style of Classic Space seems as though it would be more conducive to a different variation the "villain's child becomes a hero" twist: the Princess Aura type from Flash Gordon or the Talia Al'Ghul type from Batman, in which a major villain's child and presumed successor falls in love with the hero and so decides to help the hero's team instead of their parent's. A tendency I've observed is that many AFOLs may not hate media that's tied to sets or themes they like as much as they would with media tied to sets and themes they don't like or understand to begin with, but they'll often disregard it anyhow, because one way or the other it no longer fits with the type of more "grown-up" media they're drawn to. The exception is if that theme was already story-driven when they were introduced to it as kids. So, for instance, AFOLs who enjoyed Bionicle as kids are more likely pay attention to and form opinions on new Bionicle books, games, comics, and shows than AFOLs who enjoyed Town/City as kids are to pay attention to or form opinions on City related books, games, comics, and shows. And that's a bit of a shame, since while the LEGO City picture books are usually rather basic, the video game LEGO City Undercover and the LEGO City animated webisodes are often laugh-out-loud hilarious!

The idea of kids enjoying classic themes like Space or Castle or even the classic sets themselves is not really that surprising. Nobody here is trying to argue that all kids expect the same things from their toys, not even all kids within the same age range. That said, I don't know if I particularly agree that the "timelessness" of classic themes means that the classic themes meet the expectations of kids in general as well as more modern themes might. In the very least, LEGO has found time and time again that kids really enjoy seeing more detailed printing on minifigures, more varied colors in sets, etc. Also, I don't know if the "timelessness" of classic Castle is really comparable to classic Space, since a lot of the time, cultural perspectives on the past tend to be solidified over time as today's popular culture echoes the perspectives on the past that came before it. But cultural perspectives on the future are constantly changing according to changes in present-day technology and culture. It goes without saying that these days, kids' idea of what the distant future will look like is much different than the type of future anticipated by series like Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon! And it's not as though Classic Space is immune to this. By today's standards, the robots in sets like 1498, 6809, and 6750 with computer-screen faces and boxy bodies look primitive even compared to MODERN robots that people can buy in stores as toys, let alone the kind of cutting-edge technology that today's scientists are developing for space travel, or the kind of futuristic robots that kids tend to see in books, movies, shows, and comics. Also, classic space bases and outposts (at least from the AFOL-preferred era of bright blue and transparent yellow) were far from how even today's AFOLs tend to depict moonbases in their own MOCs. 493 looks like a trailer home with a carport (though granted, its big flat walls with transparent windows and a big decorated wall would be well suited to a Juniors/4+ style build today), and the bases/outposts in 483, 497, 6970, 6927, aren't much better in terms of looking like shipping containers raised up on stilts, filled with old computers, and topped with some rudimentary radar dishes. Even by the time I was growing up in the 90s, the typical vision of a moonbase or space colony included lots more dome and tube shapes, including some of the more futuristic/fantastical interpretations having large domed windows as depicted in so many Space and Aquazone sets of the 90s (or as more recently re-imagined in Space Police Central). Today's 5-year-olds' idea of what medieval castles, knights, and catapults should look like might not be that much different from 5-year-olds 10, 20, 30, or 40 years ago, besides possibly expecting a few additional details like a throne room and treasury. Same goes for a lot of other historical-inspired stuff like 15th and 16th century pirate ships and colonial forts/outposts, or even Old West towns, settlements, steam engines, and landscapes. But modern kids' general idea of what robots, spaceships, space travelers, and space colonies of the future ought to look like would almost certainly be far, far different than the futures their parents and grandparents envisioned. I think you're really misrepresenting a lot of LEGO's TV shows, considering that the only good character I can think of who discovered they had an evil parent was Clay Moorington in Nexo Knights. I suspect you were also thinking of Lloyd Garmadon, but his story is vastly different in that he knew his whole life that his father was a villain, was a villain himself when he entered the story, and only later joined the good guys and discovered that he was destined to fight his own father. What's more, I can't really think of any comparable examples in other original LEGO themes that have had TV series/specials, Netflix series, or made for TV/direct to home media movies of their own like Unikitty, Elves, Mixels, Legends of Chima, Hero Factory, Atlantis, Galidor, or Bionicle. So if that's really the strongest example you could think of for how LEGO shows are crap/derivative/samey, then it would seem that they're much more unique and varied than you're giving them credit for.

See, I don’t really think that makes sense at all. By this argument the elemental creatures are all “dragon-esque” purely by virtue of being big brick-built animals with molded heads. By that argument you could call most of the smaller, molded Friends and Elves animals “dragon-esque” because they have a similar structure and design language to the Elves theme’s molded baby dragons. What’s more, the theme continuing to include similar brick-built creature builds seems to me like less of an indication of the designers running out of ideas or working themselves into a corner than of the designers responding to the popularity of the posable dragon sets in 2016 and of the colorful fantasy creatures the theme has had a big focus on from the beginning. I’m not quite sure why so many people associate repeating or iterating on established concepts with themes doing poorly or running out of ideas, when for basically all of LEGO’s history, many of their most repetitive themes have also been their most long-lasting and successful… not to mention how people so often also describe the complete opposite (themes moving in a direction that’s noticeably different from or out of line with expectations, like City Sky Police and Volcano Explorers, Friends Go-Karting, etc) as signs designers are running out of ideas.

From what I've heard it's more about not having as many discrete sets/SKUs. If LEGO made four different road plate packs, there's no reason to think stores would necessarily be interested in stocking all four of them. I think the big challenge there is that the intense popularity of fire trucks with younger kids may make them seem "less cool" to older kids, because it gives them a reputation for being "little kid stuff" that they need to avoid so that their peers will respect their maturity. I've also heard about this happening with regard to trains, hence why LEGO has a hard time selling more than a few City trains every few years despite how reliably popular Thomas the Tank Engine is with preschoolers. Also, there's the issue of there being so many sets and themes aimed at 7+ or 8+ builders anyhow, so it can be tough to justify adding even more that are so very close to subject matter City already covers so thoroughly. Even within City there are already 7+ and 8+ targeted sets, they just tend to be some of the larger/more elaborate sets from existing subthemes, rather than a discrete category like Juniors. And anyhow, I think y'all are kind of missing the point with the assumption that little kids crave fantasy and older kids crave realism, considering that many of the sorts of more fantasy-heavy themes that people frequently complain about City becoming too much like (Agents, Power Miners, Ninjago, Super Heroes, etc) are themes that are generally aimed at older audiences than City to begin with. In fact, I think a stronger argument could be made that it tends to be younger kids who prefer to build familiar subjects they recognize from real life (which, at that age, is often still pretty new to them) and older kids who are more drawn to seeing those kinds of subjects combined or re-imagined in ways that feel like an entirely new, cutting-edge experience.

Kids will probably like them, but chances are they'll like them because they're spaceships and because they depict characters and subjects from The LEGO Movies, not because they're Classic Space. Same as how a kid who buys a Harry Potter set containing the Weasleys' enchanted Ford Anglia will like it because it depicts familiar movie characters and scenes, not because it's a Ford automobile. Or how a lot of kids who buy a Minecraft Farm sets may not care much about farming in a more general sense, just that it depicts a scenario and subjects they recognize from playing Minecraft.

I think the soft tip of the CMF spears is worthwhile in terms of allowing it to have a sharper point, which would not be practical with a harder plastic due to how easily such a narrow tip would break. A painted or co-injected version of the classic spear could certainly be interesting, though, and probably possible considering the new firefighting axe in LEGO City. I also think it's a little unfair to act as though Star Wars is getting undue attention in terms of new weapon molds. Not only is it a much bigger theme, but it's had a loooooong time to accumulate all its molds. Plus, it's not as though there have even been that many Star Wars blaster molds, at least at minifig scale. BrickLink only lists four besides the more generic ones like stud shooters that are shared extensively by other themes, and one of those four is retired. Most other Star Wars weapons are brick-built from more common and less Star Wars specific elements, including ones like lightsaber hilts and blades that even medieval and fantasy builds have benefited mightily from! Even in the Star Wars constraction sets, there's only been like one theme-specific blaster mold used for practically every type of blaster — by comparison, the Knights' Kingdom constraction sets introduced ten different medieval fantasy inspired shield molds and over a dozen medieval fantasy inspired weapon molds back when Star Wars blasters were pretty much all still repurposed video cameras and megaphones with transparent cones on the ends. Suffice to say, LEGO is a lot more cost-conscious across the board than they were back then! And honestly, there have been plenty of medieval and medieval fantasy suited weapons introduced in just the past eight years: the trident, ringmaster whip, and aforementioned dual-molded spear in 2010 the longbow, gladius/short sword, and Heroica weapon multipack in 2011 the greatsword, elven polearm, Uruk-Hai sword, and Sting in 2012 the cursed/fire sword in 2015 the mace head/morningstar and Nexo Knights straight sword blade in 2016 the machete in 2017 the Nexo Knights vampire shield, Ninjago weapon multipack, dragon motif hilt, and dragonbone blade just this year various more specific (snake patterned, etc) weapons for Ninjago and Nexo Knights that could still have plenty of utility in medieval fantasy contexts If it ever feels like new medieval weapon molds are scarce, that's probably less because LEGO doesn't care about those themes than because it's sometimes harder to justify new molds when you have decades of older ones that remain usable in those kinds of traditional fantasy contexts. In fact, part of how the LEGO Friends design team was able to make a case for having three or four different styles of backpack/handbag molds in that theme was by pointing out just how many different types of sword molds both old and new LEGO was still producing for their more boy-targeted themes, and how well kids responded to having different types of swords for different uses.

Lots to love in the new Friends wave! Mia's House is great and really suits her outdoorsy interests with its rustic, cabin-like style (not to mention seemingly being one of the first LEGO Friends houses not to include a TV set). I definitely think the colors work nicely. Did anybody else notice that Mia's also now using Bright Red as her hair color instead of Dark Red? It's a bit closer to how it is in the rebooted character artwork and animations, and I wonder if this will be a permanent change or if we might see an even more orangish color take its place. The Talent Show set is a great design — while there's been plenty of stages before, this one recontextualizes that nicely by having a more competitive angle. I like that it has stuff to play out multiple sorts of acts/performances, like a magic show, a drum set, and a microphone for singing. That said, the drum set would probably feel more fitting if there were some other figures and instruments either in this set or sold separately, since I don't think I often see people whose whole act in a talent competition consists of a drum solo. Andrea's skirt in this set interests me and I wonder if it's a textile part or a molded one. The horse show set is a nice variation from the previous riding camp, farm, and stable sets, but I do think that the actual stable structure feels very insubstantial with those tiny roof slopes. Even sets in other Friends and Elves sets that only have a facade to suggest their roofline don't tend to feel quite that paltry. I do really like the horseshoe motifs though! When I heard the name of Olivia's Cupcake Cafe, I wasn't sure what to think. For one thing, we'd had cupcake cafes before, and not even that long ago. For another, I didn't know how they would make a cupcake cafe fit with Olivia's tech-wiz personality. The answer, it turns out, is automation. I love the idea of a cupcake conveyor almost along the same lines as a sushi conveyor or the automated food service at one of the LEGO House's new restaurants, and having Zobo as the waiter makes it even more charming! The machine that makes the cupcakes also feels like the sort of thing that Olivia would certainly invent to make things easier… but perhaps with a few glitches along the way! Overall, the most delightful thing about this set is how it immediately fires up my imagination with all the kinds of story potential that comes with Olivia, hardly presented as a highly experienced baker, trying to compete in foodservice HER way! If I have any gripes about this set, it's that the delivery trike feels really insubstantial compared to previous ones. Emma's Art Studio is brilliant! As an aspiring artist, Emma is a character I've always related to quite a bit. Here we see a workplace very well suited to her, with some of her trademark colors, a lovely art nouveau cat mural, and really charming architecture. The water-activated "canvas" is a totally new gimmick but reminds me a lot of some of the more interesting gimmicks of the 90s like holographic, magnetic, or heat-sensitive stickers. The set I'm perhaps least fond of is Stephanie's Buggy & Trailer. It just feels a lot less solid and coherent than a lot of previous Friends vehicles, particularly with the huge gaps created by those rear wheel arches. And the trailer seems very low in detail for its size. The campsite is nice but not enough to make up for the weaknesses of the set's main subject. Mia's Forest Adventure, on the other hand, brings a lot of novelty to the table! We've never seen an off-road electric skateboard in a set, but it makes a lot of sense for Mia since she loves both extreme outdoor activities like skating and being eco-friendly. The scenery in this set is also really fun, with the observation deck, a somewhat precarious-looking bridge that reminds me somewhat of this classic Outback set, and a charming forest scene with a bear cave and beehive. The Hamster Playground is delightfully funny! Name aside, it almost feels more circus-like with all the crazy tricks Olivia is teaching the hamsters, from driving around an obstacle course in a toy car to jumping through hoops to driving a motorcycle in a hamster wheel or over a stunt ramp (which also seems like it'd work fine as a slide for a more relaxed playtime). Like the cupcake cafe, it speaks to Olivia's relentless creativity and love of building wacky contraptions. It'd be nice if the toy car could have working wheels, but overall it's a great low-priced playset. The Heart Boxes are sort of what I expected, but I also am slightly disappointed with them in a few respects. The boxes themselves are well constructed, though they are not too varied except in color. And the contents feel less extensive than I might have liked… just a mini-doll, a few small accessories, and sometimes (but not always) a pet. While these have a better parts value than the Pods from this year, I feel like those managed to vary their contents more. And in terms of uniqueness these really don't measure up to the Bedroom sets which occupied similar price points this year. The most surprising is the Friendship Heart Box, which includes two totally different sized boxes than the other sets, an unusual choice of characters (Vicky and Olivia), and a more role-play/dress-up oriented play pattern rather than accessories geared to the interests of particular characters. Overall it's nice, but feels almost more like the kind of play I'd expect to see in a LEGO Education set. So all in all, a bit of a mixed bag. Lots of stuff I really love, and some stuff that's mildly disappointing. Overall, though, it's nice to see that there are still so many new ideas that can be explored with this world and its characters! Curious what else might be in store for next year!

EDIT: oops, just replied to a comment from the first page thinking it was the latest. Disregard.

There were 41 Elves sets over four years (or 10.25 sets per year on average). That's nothing compared to enduring mega-hits like City, Friends, Star Wars, Ninjago, Duplo, or generation one Bionicle, and it's pretty low for "big bang" themes in general, but it's quite a lot compared to play themes as wide-ranging as Harry Potter, Fantasy Era Castle, Exo-Force, Batman, Mars Mission, Indiana Jones, Agents, or even Minecraft — few of which are assumed to have failed because they didn't get as many sets per year or didn't last as long. While I do not think that all men who like LEGO are interested in the same themes, I don't feel like the idea that a lot of the AFOL bias against themes like Friends and Elves correlates with gender is being unfair. Even if it's not a conscious bias of "I don't like this because it's too girly", it's likely that more female AFOLs grew up enjoying toys and cartoons that featured the same sort of colors, characters, and play features as in Friends or Elves sets than male AFOLs, since even if boys of the 80s and 90s did like those kinds of colorful toys and cartoons, they were often purposely steered away from them by their parents or peers. Also, at what point do you figure Elves "ran out of ideas and became a dragon zoo"? It had just one year that was extensively dragon focused, and even that year it featured plenty of other kinds of buildings, animals, and scenery besides dragons. In other years (including its debut year) it had between one and three dragons per year and, again, lots of other types of builds and subject matter. I definitely think a lot of presently boy-targeted lines would definitely benefit from some design cues people associate with girls' toys like bedrooms, kitchens, shops, swimming pools, etc, same as how Friends and Elves themselves appear to have benefited from some design cues people might ordinarily associate with boys' toys like robot labs, jungle adventures, catapults, dragons, etc. That said, a lot of people's idea of all themes being gender-neutral seems to revolve around things like equal numbers of male and female protagonists in every theme, all themes using the same style of figure, all themes using "girly"-looking colors sparingly, etc. Even if a one-size-fits-all approach that reaches boys and girls equally is possible, I'm not sure that would be the best strategy for all themes when it might be possible to reach a much broader spectrum of buyers with a mix of themes that skew more heavily towards things girls are more drawn to, themes that skew more towards things boys are more drawn to, and other themes focusing on that broad overlap of interests that lies between. Also, in communities like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Flickr, and the LEGO Life app that aren't so AFOL-specific, I've seen way more excitement about LEGO Elves among girls and parents of girls than boys and parents of boys. So I think even if it didn't make the same impression on its target audience that Friends did on a slightly younger age group, the Elves theme's appeal with its target audience probably still ought to be given most of the credit for whatever degree of success it had.

Seems to me like LEGO made Women of NASA because it was a massively successful Ideas project that accumulated supporters very quickly, was cheap and easy to make compared to some of the other sets that were in the pipeline, and seemed like it would have similar appeal to a previous Ideas project that had far exceeded projected demand (Research Institute). If we lived in a world where a Men of NASA project was wanted and needed to the extent that all those things could describe it, then LEGO would probably have done that as well, but we don't. Because in the world we live in, it's well understood that men outnumber women in most STEM careers and tend to be more widely recognized than women for their contributions to science — not the other way around. Chances are that a Men of NASA project on Ideas would not generate 10,000 supporters in the first place because it would be recognized as an attempt to prove some ridiculous point about feminism, and not because it promotes any kind of positive changes in how kids think about science and history. But it's not as though it would be rejected specifically for having male characters, any more than the Ghostbusters Ecto-1 project or Beatles Yellow Submarine projects were. It's just that "I selected these subjects because they represent an already well-recognized demographic within NASA history" does not serve a purpose that's as useful as "I selected these subjects because they represent an under-recognized demographic within NASA history". You want to propose an idea celebrating male accomplishments? Either choose men who are especially noteworthy because people don't ordinarily associate their accomplishments with men, or choose men like the Beatles mentioned above who are accomplished and noteworthy for reasons not specifically related to their gender. It's hard to think of a whole lot of the former since history usually has little trouble celebrating accomplished men, unless their accomplishments are in fields that aren't highly celebrated to begin with. But I'm sure there are examples out there.

Best theme: LEGO Elves Once again it's the only theme my brother and I have felt compelled to collect in its entirety. Even without a new season of the Netflix series "Secrets of Elvendale", it did a brilliant job selling the idea of a "final battle" wave by giving each of the elves their own armor, magical weapons, and elemental creatures and creating a remarkably fearsome new villain faction. It also introduced the ancient shapeshifting elves Noctura the Shadow Witch and Lumia the Guardian of Light, explained the source of Elvendale's magic, introduced the idea of an evolutionary connection between humans and elves, tied together and explored in greater detail some of the more mysterious elements of previous story arcs like the Shadow World and Shadow Fountain, and revealed new powers of Emily Jones and her amulet. The sets continued to meet the incredibly high standards of detail, complexity, and playability established in previous waves, culminating in the brilliant Elvenstar Tree. While it's regrettable that the theme seems to be coming to an end, it's had an incredible run and I hope to continue creating my own LEGO Elves MOCs and stories in the future! Best figure: Zia Rodriguez Cute Latina lesbian dino enthusiast in colorful, detailed clothes? Awesome! Mind you, my feelings about Jurassic World range from indifference to outright disdain, because I've heard way more bad stuff about it than good stuff (same with Fantastic Beasts). But for me it was mostly a tough choice between Zia, Noctura, and Princess Harumi, and there's something about Zia's design — maybe her clothes looking the most "real" or like something I might wear, despite not being plain or boring — that stands out most among those three. It's not too hard to pile all kinds of elaborate detail on a fantasy princess or witch costume, but it's a lot more impressive to do that on what still feels like a real, modern-day, casually-dressed person. Best set: 70653 Firstbourne I've been a sucker for dragons since some of my earliest years as a KFOL, and Firstbourne is a strong contender for best LEGO Ninjago dragon ever. Firstbourne herself, the "mother of all dragons", combines a lot of the best characteristics of all previous LEGO Ninjago dragons: a swooshable design, streamlined yet highly textured and detailed construction, foldable wings, realistic wing membranes, a flapping wing function, an energetic yet coherent color scheme, a brick-built face with posable jaw, detailed printed eyes, a massive size, a swinging tail, and posable claws, ankles, wrists, hips, and shoulders. The only major Ninjago dragon play feature she lacks is any kind of shooters to represent an elemental breath attack. She and Stormbringer (which I have yet to obtain) are also the first LEGO Ninjago dragons designed with fully detachable saddles. Additionally, the set contains one of the delightfully post-apoc styled Dragon Hunter vehicles (humorously carrying a roast turkey on a Vengestone chain as bait) and a nifty desert shrine that both helps set the scene and provides a staging area for the Dragon Helmet and Dragon Shield. As minifigures go, it's got two ninja in the clever new battle damaged versions of their colorful, elaborate Sons of Garmadon costumes, and a great selection of dragon hunters: mumbling footsoldier Muzzle, hilariously banged-up dragon keeper Chew Toy, and adorable wasteland lesbians Jet Jack and Heavy Metal. So much to love, and there's a reason that even within an outstanding wave of summer Ninjago sets this was my most anticipated by far! Worst theme/figure/set: Can't really single any out. While I am profoundly disinterested in and cynical about Jurassic World and Fantastic Beasts, it's not for any lack of quality among the LEGO sets, figures, or themes. Honestly, even with Harry Potter, my intense childhood passion for the books and movies has waned considerably due to becoming more aware of J.K. Rowling's flagrant transphobia and poor handling of diversity and other topics even in the original books. But the latest wave of LEGO Harry Potter sets make me feel more nostalgic for that series than anything else Harry Potter/Wizarding World related has in many years. Most anticipated theme of 2019: Ninjago With how outstanding The LEGO Movie 2 and its sets look in terms of earnestly bringing more girly elements and messages about maturity and gender roles into the LEGO cinematic universe, you'd expect Ninjago to have a hard time measuring up. And I'll admit, when I first heard the rumored set names, I was about as apprehensive as I was excited. How would they make new Spinjitzu spinner sets feel fresh again after just one year? How likely were they to make new versions of the Blade Cycle and Storm Fighter that measure up to the originals from 2012, when my enthusiasm for basically all ninja planes and bikes since then has been undercut by the sense that they're not as visually or functionally impressive as those early examples? But the pictures that eventually emerged laid pretty much all my fears to rest. Not only do the 2019 Ninjago: Legacy sets scratch my nostalgic itch for those early seasons and waves of sets that started it all, they arguably improve on previous set depictions of stuff like the Storm Fighter, Blade Fighter Snowmobile, and Monastery of Spinjitzu. The Samurai Mech and Golden Dragon are a bit less impressive due to their reduced size, but are still consistent with modern design standards and would stand out as great sets and great interpretations of their subject matter from the TV show if not compared directly with earlier sets at much higher price points. And this is all without having even seen the new Ultra Dragon set, a subject I've been hoping LEGO would revisit since they first demonstrated in 2015 and 2016 how well they could improve upon some of the standout 2012 sets like the Destiny's Bounty and Ultra Sonic Raider. As for the spinners? Not only do they return to the earlier emphasis on physical customization that had been sacrificed for the more outdoor stunt oriented designs of the Airjitzu/Spinjitzu Masters/Dragon Masters style of spinners and fliers, they also are the most show/story accurate interpretation of Spinjitzu, best described as a technique where the user moves fast enough to whip up a tornado of energy around them. And of course, indications so far are that the Ninjago story itself is also going to be stepping things up, with around six hours of animated content planned, including a four-episode special event/TV movie bringing the show to a 100 episode milestone. So much to look forward to! Most anticipated figure of 2019: General Sweet Mayhem She's pretty! She's sparkly! She kicks butt! She has mysterious motives! And she's the kind of girly sci-fi heroine I've been wanting to see in LEGO for some time. As is typical for LEGO movie characters, she will also have a varied range of facial expressions, and while it won't be reflected by the minifigures as they will surely be cataloged on BrickLink/Brickset, LEGO was thoughtful enough to make sure each set includes both her cool space helmet with heart-shaped visor and her cute, sparkly blue pigtails. I expect her role in The LEGO Movie 2 to be VERY interesting. Most anticipated set of 2019: 70828 Pop-Up Party Bus More gorgeous streamlined sci-fi that doesn't shy away from a feminine-coded sense of fun and beauty. This set introduces an exciting new color, Vibrant Coral, that helps alleviate the dearth of reddish-orange colors that exist in enough shapes to be genuinely useful. I hope to see much more of that in the future! It also introduces some excellent new gear-plates that make it easier to control a spinning turntable without working having to conceal a bulkier Technic mechanism underneath the floor. The model itself is a great value in terms of parts (including loads of recolors and a light brick), as well as a very advanced build that brilliantly and elegantly converts from enclosed bus/starship to dance floor, DJ booth, disco ball, and karaoke stage. The diverse, futuristic, expressive, brightly dressed new mini-doll characters, cartoony brick-built driver, and rounded star motifs have strong Steven Universe vibes, and it even includes a new Unikitty design in hilarious platform heels! Definitely a must-buy! I think it's pretty unfair to assume that the Elves theme's colors contributed to its demise, considering it lasted a solid four years (longer than most "Big bang" themes AND most castle themes). It seems more likely that it organically ran its course, as the majority of themes do by that point in their lifespans. For all we know, the Elves theme may have even surpassed its sales targets much like other themes that AFOLs assume failed like Legends of Chima and Nexo Knights, or been extended beyond its originally anticipated timeframe like Ninjago was. Would Elves have appealed more to AFOLs if it had more boring, muted colors? Probably, considering that the AFOL community is both extremely male-dominated and extremely insecure about liking things with a sense of kid-targeted fun and whimsy (or admitting to the presence of such in the stuff they do claim to like), regardless of their caliber of design and storytelling. Of course, I can just as easily imagine AFOLs ignoring the theme anyhow because it had mini-dolls. Would more subdued colors have made the Elves theme sell better or last longer, though? I see no reason to think that, not when so many supposedly better themes according to the AFOL community have performed decidedly worse than Elves did. Plus, it would almost certainly have undermined the theme's original purpose: expanding the variety of themes that appeal to girls ages 7 and up, who more traditional and masculine-coded themes had failed to reach anywhere near as reliably.

You say "has no balls", most people would say "has standards". And anyway, stuff like Research Institute and Women of NASA are only a touchy subject on the same level as war, police violence, and religion to the sorts of sexist numbskulls who complain about female construction workers, scientists, knights and firefighters in LEGO City or Castle sets being unrealistic political correctness/social engineering, about Star Wars being ruined because of a handful of movies starring female or non-white characters, about the She-Ra reboot on Netflix being bad because it has female characters who don't all have lipstick and identical pinup model physiques, etc. In other words, the types of people who frequently say stuff like "SJW" unironically. And with regard to religious buildings, again, they're avoided not only because acknowledging their existence could offend religions that disagree with them, but because turning holy places into commercial products could offend the very religions the sets are attempting to recognize. Lots of religions have VERY different ideas about what context religious subject matter should be portrayed in… for example, to some religions, pictures of gods, saints, and/or prophets are a not only normal but encouraged way to venerate those individuals, while to other religions (including several sects of Christianity) it is idolatry and a grievous sin. World religions are not monolithic, and even in Islam (which in the west is frequently stereotyped as adhering strictly to its most radical, orthodox, and theocratic forms), there are widely varying interpretations of how believers ought to dress, pray, and go about their lives, same as in Christianity, Judaism, or any number of other faiths. As such, for a company like LEGO that does business all over the world, there's not really a safe way to represent these religions in a way that would be recognized and accepted by even all of their own believers on a global level.

I wouldn’t say that… Gotham is separate from Bricksburg, so it’s not unreasonable to think that he could have returned home once the Duplo invaders had been driven off, rather than sticking around in the wasteland they left behind for the entire time between the LEGO Movie and its sequel. I also get the feeling that the Duplo invasion was only the beginning of Bricksburg’s decline since the first movie. And it’s implied that said battle/invasion takes place immediately after The LEGO Movie’s ending, so Batman in that scene wearing the same costume as in that closing shot from the first movie doesn’t tell us anything we couldn’t have assumed even before any LEGO Movie 2 trailers came out. Also, it’s more or less confirmed that the LEGO Movie and The LEGO Batman Movie exist in the same universe, since the TV news story about the abyss beneath Gotham during The LEGO Batman Movie’s first act shows footage of Emmet’s descent into the abyss from The LEGO Movie. If it’s the same abyss, it stands to reason that it’s the same universe with the same Batman. Not to mention the Wyldstyle reference on the box in the attic of the Joker Manor set, which seems to suggest a shared universe in the sets as well (in any theme without shared characters, it could be assumed to be just a shout-out/Easter egg, but since Batman was a character in The LEGO Movie in a relationship with Wyldstyle, that reference takes on a little more obvious significance than, say, an Exo-Force Easter egg in a Ninjago set or a Bionicle reference in Ninjago City).

Also sometimes they’ll be exclusive to different stores in different countries. IDK what UK retailers have had exclusives in the past though. Smyths maybe? I guess we’ll know more closer to release, but rest assured that unless a store exclusive set is specifically marked with a store’s branding like a lot of the Bricktober sets or the old Toys ‘R’ Us truck set, it being exclusive to a particular store will generally only apply to countries that have that store in the first place.

TBH I appreciate this sort of novelty. Sure beats all robberies/burglaries revolving around safes, money, jewels, and gold bars. Same reason that sets like the museum heist 5 years ago were so much fun. And as for Jet Patrol, it's a Juniors set at a very low price point, really not much to be done about its simplicity. I'm honestly just happy to see that the plane doesn't feel like a copy of any of last year's Juniors planes, despite using the same fuselage/wings piece.

Anyone noticed that one of the alternate builds of 31086 is a Vic Viper?