Aanchir

In the timeline, what does the Arctic figure from the year 2000 represent, I wonder? The other milestones are fairly understandable but this is neither the first female minifigure, nor the first Town minifigure, nor the first minifigure to use any particular part or color. Did this figure have some other new development for the time that isn't obvious from the picture, like back printing? I know that was something that first showed up around that time… I think Pixal as a choice of Ninjago minifigure makes a lot of sense. She is super recognizable even shrunk down (unlike, say, a typical ninja minifigure, which at this level of detail might be easily confused for a figure from another theme). Her color contrasts well with the other figures, she adds a bit more gender diversity to the set, and she's a character who's been woefully under-represented in sets despite her fairly consistent presence over the past six seasons of the show (so having a new version of the character is always nice!)

Mimicking the toys around them is not a new trend for LEGO by any means… after all, LEGO trains were basically a building toy version of toys like Lionel, LEGO Technic was basically a building toy version of Erector/Meccano, etc. Also, while this does seem to hold them back sometimes when it comes to tech toys (with that market segment being a little more volatile), the BrickHeadz which imitate collectible figurines like Funko Pops and Munnys seem to be pretty popular. And while Mindstorms is not particularly cutting-edge, I don't think it's a particularly unsuccessful theme, either. Back in 2015, the already two-year-old Mindstorms EV3 set was one of the year's top-selling products.

Perhaps just because Pixal’s purple color stands out more from the other figures than Nya’s typical reds, blacks, and greys? Or maybe because she’s more instantly recognizable when miniaturized. Or even just that Pixal is under-represented in sets compared to Nya (seeing as she’s been a fixture in the show for five seasons and only appeared in 3 or 4 sets)? There are a lot of possible reasons.

No, not a baby dragon, just a differently sized dragon from the others we've seen. Same as how Sapphire, Zonya, Ashwing, and Elandra are all different sizes. From a set design perspective it's probably smaller because the designers were trying to hit a particular price point and the set had to be split between the dragon and the music school. Also possibly so its overall size would feel similar to the other three elemental creatures.

The Super Star Destroyer set came out many years after the color change so it's going to be Light Bluish Grey (Medium Stone Grey) no matter what.

I like the Elves animals' patterns as they help them feel more magical, in my opinion. Though the Mike Tyson tattoo is a pretty good comparison, especially in relation to the darker and more jagged patterns on Ashwing (the Goblin King's dragon). I've heard a pencil eraser can be sufficient for removing prints from some parts, that might be a good way of removing the tattoo patterns while leaving the eye patterns intact. But to be honest, since dragons are magical creatures pretty much by default, I can't think of a lot of contexts in which magical swirl patterns would feel entirely out-of-place (unlike, say, Cory the water turtle, whose head could more easily be used for a non-magical creature).

Out of curiosity, what sort of "smaller scale" are you talking? Castle sets don't tend to be that big or expensive to begin with, aside from the flagship castles and D2C sets. I feel like if you made Castle sets much smaller than what we saw in 2010 or 2013 you'd wind up with something like the 2015 Pirates wave, which was affordably priced but largely lambasted by AFOLs for not being big enough. Certainly I understand that a wave of sets doesn't need its biggest castles to all hit the $100 price point to make a positive impression — after all, I quite liked last year's Goblin King's Fortress at the $70 price point and this year's Noctura's Tower at the $60 price point. But with the sort of price points that the most popular themes are hitting these days, I'm not too convinced overly large sets or high prices are what's been holding the Castle theme back from achieving lasting success. If anything, I actually find myself wondering how long LEGO can continue to cap the price of non-D2C Castle and Pirates sets at $100 like they have since Vladek's Dark Fortress in 2005.

I’d love to see a wave of space camp sets where the friends can get astronaut training and maybe, if we’re willing to suspend our disbelief a bit, go on a real space mission! Even if the Friends don’t go to space themselves they could certainly send Zobo and his family! Another fun series could be a Nancy Drew sort of mystery solving wave with abandoned old houses, sneaky crooks, and spooky animals like bats, crows, or black cats! It could use gloomy colors like blues and purples along with some earth tones for a nighttime look.

That analogy doesn't fit at all. Creating and running an NYCC booth is a HUGE investment, and the LEGO Group isn't going to waste that investment on a theme they don't want to succeed in the first place when they have plenty of themes they know could find an eager audience there. Furthermore, arguing that people who love comics, cartoons, and action figures wouldn't care about Bionicle seems rather disingenuous. Let's not forget, Bionicle G1 and Hero Factory made multiple appearances at SDCC over the years. So obviously LEGO thought that attendees at these sorts of events were receptive to these sorts of brands. LEGO has also been promoting brands like Ninjago at Comic Cons for years, even if it's never made up their entire presence at one of these events like Bionicle did. Heck, the year after Bionicle G2's NYCC debut, LEGO devoted their NYCC booth to LEGO Nexo Knights, a theme they were clearly heavily invested in and that had no established fanbase. So insisting that marketing efforts like these aren't sincere attempts to promote the themes in question amounts to willful ignorance.

Can't imagine it working well for something like Tiny Turbos unless the building process were simplified and standardized a great deal. One of the reasons the blind-bagged minifigs work is that they offer extremely similar builds — they don't even need individualized instruction manuals. Now, something impulse-priced but NOT randomized, like Mixels, the 2012 Ninjago booster packs, or the LEGO Friends animal packs, would be another story entirely. That I could see working out a little better.

The main thing from LEGO Racers that's missing from today's sets, as others have brought up, is a Hot Wheels analogous product like the Tiny Turbos. Closest we get are occasional mini sets in the Creator 3-in-1 line or polybags in themes like The LEGO Batman Movie. But then again, these days, I don't know if Hot Wheels itself is doing so hot.

Throwing controversial claims into the void without accepting any kind of commentary on them isn't really conducive to the whole idea of a discussion forum. I'm not trying to be a wet blanket or a party pooper, but if we can't talk about each other's posts (or can only talk about posts we already agree with) then what's the point in even putting those posts someplace other people can respond to them and not on, say, a personal blog or YouTube channel? I'm not objecting to the idea of you not liking current LEGO products or anything like that. But suggesting that it's in the LEGO Group's own best interest to do things more like they did in a year when they were plummeting towards financial ruin leaves me skeptical. And make no mistake, you are not the only person I've ever heard make such claims. I frequently hear it from Bionicle fans under the mistaken pretense that Bionicle will only "get the respect it deserves" if the LEGO Group's financial well-being hangs in the balance — never mind that Bionicle became the lifeline it was because it strategically targeted that specific generation of kids, not because the idea of magic tropical island robot action figures is some kind of miracle cure for economic calamity.

Didn't Bionicle already do that? In all seriousness, I wouldn't mind something like that, though I'm not sure LEGO would make a "Pirates" theme (even under another name) where the pirates aren't the main characters. Pirates are the iconic "hook" (no pun intended) for many kids around the world to even develop an interest in the whole genre of swashbuckling seafarers. You look at how few pirate-focused movies there are today than in the past — now, as much as I loved Moana, just think about how many fewer islander-focused movies there are.

This is the point that your argument descended into nonsensical raving. LEGO is in a FAR better place than they were back then. To quote Brick by Brick, "in early 2004, an internal survey of the company's entire product portfolio revealed that 94 percent of LEGO sets were unprofitable. Only Star Wars and Bionicle kits were making money. Not only had LEGO sustained the largest losses, on a percentage basis, among toy makers, but it was by far the industry's least profitable brand". Now, maybe they might have had more products that YOU liked back then, but if anything that indicates how little impact your individual perspective has to the overall health of the company and then community. Because even a product that everyone loves isn't going to make any money if it's being sold at a loss. Toys 'R' Us's collapse will be a big blow to most of the toy industry, but honestly LEGO is one of the BEST equipped companies to weather that storm. The "big three" toy companies (LEGO, Hasbro, and Mattel) have much more secure distribution channels beyond Toys 'R' Us than many smaller companies might and much more ability to sustain losses without going under. And as of last year, Toys 'R' Us's unfulfilled debts to Hasbro and Mattel (i.e. the amount of purchases already made that those companies might never see payment for at this rate) were MUCH higher than their unfulfilled debt to LEGO. The LEGO Group is certainly no longer in the cushy position they were in during their growth years from 2005 to 2016, but they're hardly in free-fall. I don't think this tendency to hop on board the latest craze is anything new, honestly, and LEGO designs most of their themes anticipating a considerable turnover rate. I mean, when I was a kid I got into Pokémon cards, Yu-Gi-Oh cards, Beyblades, MegaMan electronic toys, and God only knows how many cartoons and video games over the course of what, in hindsight, can't have been more than a few years. Kids, especially in the tween age range, tend to be pretty fickle in their interests. There's a reason why LEGO Ninjago was originally intended to last just two or three years, why LEGO City releases new police sets every year, and why the recommended age range for many LEGO sets is fairly narrow. They know many of their buyers aren't going to be in it for the long term and that they have to keep enticing new buyers to stay competitive.

This was my understanding of that statement as well. Not that modular buildings scratch the Castle itch specifically, just just that the audience for modular buildings encompasses a lot of the same audience that a Creator Expert castle would have. LEGO probably doesn't want to double-dip too much — after all, it's already been a widespread complaint among AFOLs that LEGO is releasing too many high-dollar exclusives. Release additional exclusives that appeal chiefly to a subset of the audience the existing exclusives have, and you risk that subset buying the new exclusives instead of (rather than in addition to) the exclusives they would have otherwise bought. After all, Creator Expert is not a particularly large product line, all things considered, nor does it have a particularly big audience compared to themes like Ninjago, City, or Friends that are more accessible to younger buyers. And as of late the LEGO Group is already testing the limits of their growth. They can't automatically assume that if they just throw another exclusive on top of their usual lineup the number of new buyers or net spending of existing buyers will grow accordingly.

I love that the new dragon wing is the same “style” as the ones from Vikings and Elves, just smaller and with a different connection point. It’s awesome to have similar parts with a range of different sizes to choose between. It could be wonderful for Elves sets or MOCs since it has the same type of connection as the pegasus wings! And if it got used in Elves sets that could be a great opportunity to see it in new colors. Good to see the reed piece is still in use, too, since we haven’t actually seen it in Elves sets lately.

https://brickset.com/sets/70402-1/The-Gatehouse-Raid could be combined with the larger https://brickset.com/sets/70404-1/King-s-Castle, and https://brickset.com/sets/70324-1/Merlok-s-Library-2-0 could be combined with https://brickset.com/sets/70317-1/The-Fortrex, so I wouldn’t say LEGO has abandoned this idea… in fact, given that a lot of the latest Pirates sets combined in a similar way, I’d say they’re quite likely to revisit it!

It's interesting to see how differently people respond to the idea of a Cartoon Network show versus a Netflix one between the Ninjago and Bionicle fandoms, and I wonder if that difference might be generational. Among Ninjago fans, I've seen a number of cries for LEGO to ditch Cartoon Network due to their unpredictable scheduling and limited reruns, and instead focus on releasing any new or previously-aired seasons straight to a streaming service like Netflix where people can watch them on demand without a cable subscription. Likewise I feel like LEGO Elves has gotten a LOT more attention via Netflix and YouTube than it ever did through the TV specials on Disney Channel.

I am so glad to hear from an AFOL who appreciates sets like this! I hear the “it’s just a wall/facade!” criticism leveled against so many modern sets, from https://brickset.com/sets/76088-1/Thor-vs-Hulk-Arena-Clash to https://brickset.com/sets/70591-1/Kryptarium-Prison-Breakout to https://brickset.com/sets/79007-1/Battle-at-the-Black-Gate. Not to mention the even broader attacks on any building that’s not fully enclosed. Sometimes a wall really is all you need to set the scene for a fun play scenarios, and even some classic sets can attest to that.

I don't think it's even fair to say Creator sets look Juniors-ish. What, because most of them have bright colors? So do plenty of adult-oriented sets like the Creator Expert Ferrari or London Bus! And there have been more than a few sets like https://brickset.com/sets/31065-1/Park-Street-Townhouse that primarily stick to earth tones (and have some fairly detailed building techniques to boot). When I read x105Black's post I interpreted his reluctance as less to do with color or building level and more to new minifigure accessory, headgear, and armor molds, extensive new minifigure prints, molded LEGO creatures instead of brick-built ones, etc. Themes like City and Castle frequently include these traits, whereas Creator 3-in-1 almost never does. The emphasis within the 3-in-1 line is on creative building, and I'm not sure there's any way that things like the Castle theme's molded dragons could fit into that equation. Even a dragon like the ones in LEGO Elves built with molded heads and wings but otherwise with non-specialized bricks arguably conflict with that design philosophy. With Creator as popular as it is I could certainly see LEGO expanding its scope to include more medieval subject matter, but only within the exisiting 3-in-1 design ethos.

Webisodes 1–3 are all on LEGO.com now! Webisode 3 throws a little more fuel in the engine of the S.S. Emzari, which I am all for honestly. :) The beginning with Emily and Sophie is also pretty funny!

If I had to guess, more situationally specific names may simply test better with the sort of kids who like action-adventure themes. After all, they do sound more like the types of names you'd associate with other action-adventure TV, book, movie, and video game series. More specific names can also be pretty search engine friendly. I wouldn't be surprised if that tends to boost sales.

It's a plausible scenario given the right circumstances, but also a fairly ridiculous one when applied to Bionicle G2. If LEGO were wanting to keep the general public in the dark about it, the LAST thing they'd do would be to dedicate their entire presence at New York Comic-Con that year to announcing it. It's not as though big events like that are where LEGO sends new themes to die. Moreover, they could have easily vetoed giving it its own Facebook page — after all, there are many much better-selling themes like LEGO City, Friends, and even Star Wars that don't have their own official social media channels. All in all, Bionicle G2 got a fair amount of promotion compared to many other themes — Bionicle fans just seem to have some misguided idea that it both needed and deserved Ninjago/Chima/Nexo Knights levels of promotion and that anything short of that amounts to either pure ineptitude or a deliberate attempt to kill it. On that note… considering that of Ninjago, Chima, and Nexo Knights, only Ninjago has lasted more than 3 years… I'm wondering why Bionicle fans are so confident that a Cartoon Network show or more books or more magazines or more webisodes or whatever else those themes got that Bionicle G2 didn't would have "saved" it. More media is not some kind of silver bullet. It is an expense, and that carries as much risk as it does potential reward. And if it turns out that it simply wasn't in the cards for Bionicle to make a big comeback at that time, then a bigger media investment could have brought it to a crashing halt just as abruptly.

I think you're being a bit unfair. The LEGO Batman Movie had a pretty huge launch wave (13 sets), but the second and third retail waves were just five sets each. Meanwhile, the Star Wars buildable figures never get more than six sets per wave, and most of those are at fairly low price points by LEGO standards — not as impulse priced as Ninjago spinners maybe, but hardly exorbitant. Also, the main Ninjago line has hardly "remained restrained" in its number of sets! In its first year it had over a dozen spinner sets at $10 and $20 price points, and over a dozen playsets on top of that. And then it went ahead and did the same thing in its second year! Its third and fourth years were a lot more modest… but in its fifth year, it ramped up again, with eleven playsets in the first half of the year and nine playsets and six Airjitzu launchers in the second. The fact that the 2016 and 2017 non-movie waves were more modest is hardly a sign of a significantly different market strategy than LEGO applies with their other themes, particularly since when it was Ninjago's turn for a movie LEGO gave it about the same treatment they've given their other original movie properties.

I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of kids think that way too. When I was growing up and learning colors I was always taught that red+white=pink. This might be why LEGO hasn't released any lighter reds lately — looking at parts in Light Salmon/Light Red and Salmon/Medium Red online, they still sort of feel like a really old, discolored, kind of gross pink parts. Sand Red is better, IMO… richer, I suppose? It doesn't give me that same feeling of a faded or sun-bleached old advertisement. I think the main reason LEGO didn't keep Sand Red around and hasn't brought it back might just be not having a lot of sets or themes that need it. Even when Sand Red was around, it wasn't used nearly as widely as Sand Blue or Sand Green were. Even Teal was used in over a dozen sets in some years prior to its retirement — whereas aside from the bulk brick and roof slope packs, Sand Red never appeared in more than five sets a year, and hardly ever in quantity or as the main color in a set.