Aanchir

I understand your concept. However, the post of yours I responded to claimed the parts of characters like Clay Moorington from in-house themes could not be seen as anybody else. I explained why I felt that was wrong. And then you started listing characters and parts from licensed themes, which were never a part of the point that I was making. I agree that licensed parts tend to be way more character-specific than in-house parts. It's part of why I greatly prefer the helmet-less Star Wars buildable figures over the helmeted ones. It's much easier to reuse a head that happens to resemble Ewan McGregor or John Boyega (each of whom has played plenty of characters outside of Star Wars) for an entirely original character than an iconic helmet tied to a highly specific IP and not designed with use in any other IPs in mind. That last bit is where your argument and mine seem to differ. You seem to be arguing that there is absolutely nothing separating character-based parts from an in-house IP like Nexo Knights and character parts from a licensed one like Star Wars. But I feel like there is a great difference in design philosophy between parts for in-house and licensed IPs. When LEGO designers are creating parts from scratch, they are usually trying to maximize their versatility, because they never know when or where they might want to use them again. They might one day wish to use a ninja mask or knight sword or space blaster in a Super Heroes set or a Collectible Minifigure, for example, so they'd be doing themselves a disservice by not leaving that option open for themselves. By contrast, a lot of new parts like you describe that are designed specifically for a theme like Star Wars or Super Heroes are IP-locked, meaning LEGO is not permitted to use them for other IPs in the first place. And even if they were, they may not be able to modify the designs for additional versatility without deviating from the source material. So you wind up with parts like the Stormtrooper helmet which is, as you say, going to take extra effort to use in ways that suggest it's something other than a stormtrooper helmet. I have always greatly preferred in-house LEGO themes to licensed themes, and this is one of the reasons. That said, at the same time, I don't think licensed themes are fundamentally bad, because I don't think every LEGO theme has to have all the same types of creative potential to be valid. Nor do I agree with the assessment that licensed themes are somehow taking over everything. As recently as last year, Jorgen Vig Knudstorp was asked about this in an interview and pointed out that in 2016 licensed themes made up no more than a third of the LEGO Group's business, and that such had been the case for over a decade. That ratio may have be shaken up a bit later that year depending on whether you consider The LEGO Ninjago Movie a licensed theme (LEGO, for the most part, does not seem to, as I don't believe any of the molds or prints were IP-locked and Warner Bros was already licensing the Ninjago FROM the LEGO Group rather than the other way around). But my feeling is that the ratio is likely to stabilize again fairly quickly — it would be irresponsible to interpret a one or two year deviation from the norm as the beginning of a lasting trend. We may have a better sense of how Ninjago's doing after the annual report for last year is released, but I don't get the sense that it's winding down. Even an underwhelming performance for a theatrical movie can command a lot more global attention than a strong performance for a TV show. Also, as recently as 2016 it was one of the five best-selling themes (higher than DC, Marvel, Disney, Elves, Creator, or Technic), which gives it a long way to fall before it's unsuccessful. We'll see when the 2017 annual report comes out how well it did in 2017 but my feeling based on occasional cursory glances at what was out of stock on the LEGO Shop website is that the movie sets tended to be very strong sellers and may have brought a lot more kids into the fandom regardless of how critics felt about the movie. We'll also see how the theme handles the complexity of the story going forward, but in general there are some elements of the newest season that feel akin to a refresh or soft reboot, and I also feel like it's had some strong advantages over Bionicle by continuing to focus on the same central characters and telling its main story in one highly accessible media format, instead of forcing fans to hunt down new story developments across disparate media. Ninjago got off to a better start in 2011 than Bionicle did in 2001 (though some of that momentum may have been undermined by its brush with cancellation in 2013), and I get the sense that it was still performing much better in 2016 than Bionicle had been in 2006. Certainly Google search traffic for Ninjago has managed to stay higher than for Bionicle at any point post-2004, though some of that may be attributed to the online habits of its target audience. I don't know what to expect of the next Castle theme, to be honest, but I do not expect it to be aimed at an older audience than Nexo Knights, primarily because Nexo Knights was already aimed at an older audience than most past Castle themes, and few major LEGO themes are aimed higher overall than the 7–14 age range that most Nexo Knights fell into. The only ones I can think of are Ideas, Architecture, Technic, Mindstorms, and Creator Expert. The next Castle theme is certainly unlikely to be a futuristic mashup like Nexo Knights, though, because the primary incentive of giving a theme a wacky twist like that is novelty, and there's no novelty in using the same wacky twist twice in a row. A lot of Castle fans talk about Nexo Knights' futuristic aspects as if they're an indication LEGO no longer believed a Castle theme could survive without them (like Hive's last post suggests). I don't subscribe to that notion. LEGO's been developing the Nexo Knights concept for years, and in the intervening time they've had a number of more traditional themes — if developing Nexo Knights meant they'd given up hope in historic themes then surely they wouldn't keep releasing "hopeless" historic themes in the interim, let alone make their first big girl-targeted IP after Friends a Castle theme in all but name. The fact that LEGO decided to make Nexo Knights their Castle theme this go-round simply means that they thought the time was right for it. It's easy to see why — not only was there no other Castle theme at the time, but both Legends of Chima and Ultra Agents had just ended, freeing up room for a new "big bang" theme both within LEGO's audience and among their media development partners. Elves and Disney had both recently been launched as an outlet for more conventional fantasy castle builds, and a Castle-Space mashup offered a way to keep making sets with LEGO Space design language without it stepping on the toes of (or having its own toes stepped on by) the sets for the new Star Wars movies. Whether you like Nexo Knights or not, you have to admit its timing was pretty on-point in this regard. Possibly! Or possibly just that European audiences have a different idea of what is archetypical. In the United States, for instance, we're quite used to superhero stories that mash up historical, fantasy, and sci-fi elements. One day Thor might be fighting aliens from another planet, the next day he might be fighting robots, and the next he might be fighting ancient gods like himself. In Japan, there are many different shows just as wacky as Ninjago, which in some cases can even be traced to inspiration by American superhero stories (The Japanese Spider-Man TV show paved the way for other action shows featuring monsters, masked heroes, and giant robots). Meanwhile in Europe, I can certainly believe a lot of the types of history explored by Playmobil are more relevant to kids than they are here. I'm a big fan of the Asterix comics which tell stories of Gaul during the Roman conquest, and I could see when visiting bookstores in London during my study abroad trip earlier this month that they're fairly popular with kids there, but I doubt they could ever become as popular in the United States as they are in Europe, because whether by fault of our schooling (which I have to admit, isn't great) or our preoccupation with United States history, pre-1600s European history is nowhere near as familiar to us.

Castle gets re-imagined basically every three years without fail (2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016), sometimes without even much of a hiatus between the different incarnations. It's just that the latest re-imagining (Nexo Knights) is a lot more "out there" than a lot of AFOLs are willing to tolerate. I think it's highly probable that this will be Nexo Knights' last year and that next year we'll be due for another refresh. Space was until recently on an even more frequent two-year refresh cycle, with new Space themes in 2007, 2009, 2011, and 2013. What seems to have interrupted that cycle was the return of new Star Wars movies, much like how the prequel trilogy seemed to be a factor in the Space theme's previous hiatus. Pirates is the one classic theme that hasn't had an especially predictable release schedule. Granted, even outside of LEGO, the pirate genre these days is largely held up by the Pirates of the Caribbean films, with few other major blockbuster movies in that genre. It could be that the popularity of pirates just isn't what it was in the 80s and 90s. Being a smaller company means that Playmobil doesn't have to think as globally. Believe it or not, Playmobil's popularity in the United States seems to be a lot less than it is in Europe. You can find Playmobil at specialty toy stores (whether independent ones or chains like Toys 'R' Us), but usually not at stores like Target or Walmart, at least not to anywhere near the same extent as LEGO. And as you and others have said, this narrower geographic focus doesn't seem to imperil them, so they can afford to keep doing things the "safe" way they have traditionally done, with just a few forays into IP development and licensing. And anyway, you're contradicting yourself a bit there, since LEGO has not in any way been failing to experiment. A recurring complaint in this thread is that they've been focusing TOO much on experimental stuff (licensing partnerships, genre-blending IPs like Ninjago and Nexo Knights, and non-minifigure-based properties like Friends, Elves, Mixels, and BrickHeadz) and not enough on the "old standards" that served them well in the past. By your own argument, LEGO has more incentive and more leeway for this kind of experimentation than Playmobil does.

The "City" theme includes modern-day stuff outside of cities, the same way the Town theme included modern-day stuff outside of towns (like the 90s Arctic, Divers, Outback, and Extreme Team sets), or the same way the Castle theme includes medieval stuff outside of castles. Even these two sets seemed to take place in the wilderness, but I don't think I've ever seen anybody argue they don't qualify as Town. City, Town, Castle, and the like are basically brand names, not definitions. And anyway, there are LOADS of cities in or near jungles, mountains, and swamps in real life, certainly way more than there are cities that have their own space centers.

I have doubts about that, because the larger dragon wing from Vikings never comes as an extra, and it’s both the same thickness and same material as the newer, smaller wing. That’s why I figure it’s more likely weight-related.

Great issue. Love the reviews, the minifigure vs minidoll article, and ESPECIALLY the interview with Ricardo and Fenella!

I feel like this is a disservice to the designers of licensed sets for lots of reasons. For one, the brief you describe is EXTREMELY oversimplified. LEGO designers are still trying to make anything they design the best building and play experience they can, and meet specific price points — not just the lowest price points possible. If it were just about making the models as cost effective as possible with the least number of bricks, then Star Wars sets would probably have stayed as small and simple as they were back in the early 2000s, whereas instead over time we've seen many of them get much bigger, more complex, and consequently, more expensive. Just compare any recent TIE Fighter or X-Wing set with their late 90s/early 2000s counterparts and this should be obvious. For another, there are a lot of licensed themes where even with a license, designers are exercising a LOT of creative freedom. Take The LEGO Batman Movie, for example. The designers helped brainstorm entirely new designs for models like the Batmobile and the Batwing that were used in the movie. Same with the designers of many of the LEGO Batman Movie minifigures. They weren't just copying designs handed to them by DC comics, they were radically reinterpreting some of those characters. We see the same thing with a lot of the non-movie-based Super Heroes sets or Star Wars sets from spin-off series like The Yoda Chronicles and The Freemaker Adventures, which may have totally different designs from anything that's been in TV shows, cartoons, or comics. In the DC Super Hero Girls line, the Kryptomite characters were actually developed for the main (non-LEGO) series based on creative input from LEGO designers, who though the theme needed some cute, mischievous villains that kids would enjoy building and collecting. Finally, in the grand scheme of things, the idea that designers are having to copy things from real life is hardly any different in a licensed theme than in some non-licensed themes! Again, all Architecture sets and landmark series Creator Expert sets are copied from specific real-world landmarks. Likewise with a theme like City, Creator, or Technic, a designer making a real life inspired vehicle like a fire truck or police car doesn't really have much more creative freedom than a Super Heroes designer making a Batmobile. It still has to, on some level, meet kids' expectations for what that subject is supposed to look like. This applies even in themes like Castle and Pirates. Why do you think every LEGO pirate ship has a skull flag, and nearly every LEGO pirate captain has an eyepatch and peg-leg? Why do you think that castles in the LEGO Castle theme often include (and omit) a lot of the same characteristics? Design as a profession is NEVER purely about freeform creativity — it's about communicating to your audience and finding solutions to problems. A lot of times, you WILL be given a brief, and it's up to you to find the best way to fulfill that brief. There's nothing inherently uncreative about that kind of problem-solving.

You tend to get large extra pieces when those pieces are loose in the box or in one of those stretchier, non-numbered bags. Presumably those contents don't undergo a weight check as precise as the parts contained in the regular crinkly bags, so an extra is included to ensure they don't get left out I think the biggest parts I've seen come as extras like this are the medium sized dragon wings introduced in LEGO Elves.

A hat is not a hat, it's Johnny Thunder's hat. A mask is not a mask, it's King Kahuka's mask. A wand is not a wand, it's Majisto's wand. Do you see how ridiculous it sounds to pretend this is something unique to themes with TV shows and movies, let alone an meaningful obstacle to creativity? LEGO sets frequently reuse parts for different purposes even if they were originally intended for one particular character in one particular theme. How long did LEGO keep using the Holy Grail/crescent valley map from Indiana Jones whenever they needed a map? Even in Bionicle, one of the LEGO Group's most story-driven themes, the same masks and tools — easily a Bionicle character's most recognizable features — were frequently reused for totally different characters and sometimes even assigned totally different powers (or sometimes not even used as masks/tools, like how in the Mask of Light story arc Makuta used two silver Mask of Light pieces as claws). It doesn't take any "extra work", all it takes is using your imagination. If you demand that all sets, parts, and characters lack any specific significance to a theme or character for you to use them in different contexts, you're basically saying that you refuse to use your imagination without the LEGO Group's express permission. The obvious way to make a knight using Clay Moorington's parts not look like Clay Moorington? Well duh — it's LEGO! Just mix and match the parts, same way you would to create a new character in literally any theme. Clay's visor on Aaron's helmet with Macy's face? Bing, bang, boom, you have a brand-new character.

Well, honestly, if you painted a set like the Fortrex or King's Mech colors like brown and gold and removed the hologram and computer decals, it would be pretty easy for somebody to mistake for steampunk. There are some people who are super strict about steampunk having to have things like actual steam engines, but a lot of other people's idea of what defines steampunk is much more superficial than that. We also have no idea how much the person who originally shared those rumors knew — for all we know, they could have only had basic ideas like "rolling castle on treads" or "horse-shaped mech that changes into a motorbike" described to them, without knowing much about the theme's more cosmetic aspects. "In-house licenses" is an oxymoron, IMO. A theme having a defined story doesn't make it licensed — even back in the day, themes like Pirates, Time Cruisers, and Adventurers dabbled in storytelling, just in less elaborate and sophisticated forms. I don't see how the media being more developed makes a theme inherently "licensed" or "predetermined", especially when it's the LEGO designers themselves creating the content of that media with the express goal of jump-starting kids' imaginations. Look at the amazing stories, artwork, and MOCS created by Bionicle fans and it should be obvious that an elaborate storyline is no limit whatsoever on fans' creativity (arguably, I'd say Bionicle and Ninjago fans are in many ways much more creatively open-minded than what I see among fans of other themes, since they express their creativity and love of the world and characters in more ways than just LEGO building). So much storytelling AFOLs do, like the storytelling in many of the traditional themes, tends to be fairly shallow. For instance, a MOC of a pirate raid on an imperial fort doesn’t need a whole lot of explanation. Why, then, is there this idea that your creative potential is more limited with Ninjago, in which you could just as easily build a completely original Serpentine raid on a rural town or sky pirate raid on Ninjago City? I’ve seen kids — actual KIDS — craft much more detailed stories for their Bionicle and Ninjago MOCs than AFOLs (including myself) ordinarily do, inspired by but not in any way constrained by the events of those series. On some levels I’d even say that themes with more detailed stories can make kids MORE creative than themes with paper-thin stories. Basically all AFOLs know that you can learn new building techniques by looking at the complexity of other people’s set and MOC designs. We learn storytelling skills and techniques the same way — by experiencing the intricacies of other people’s stories. The idea that kids are a fountain of raw creativity has some merit, but being able to express that creativity isn’t something you’re born with. It’s something you learn by experiencing new ideas and ways of doing things. When you see elements of the stories a kid experiences come out in their play, that is creativity happening right in front of you. They have learned tools and techniques and they are experimenting with what new things those tools and techniques enable them to do. And that creativity can continue to develop provides you don’t try to convince them that there’s something wrong about playing in other people’s narrative worlds.

Star Wars sets have always been expensive. In 2009, the Home One set cost equivalent of $128 today for less than 800 pieces, while Darth Vader's TIE Fighter cost what would be $35 today for around 250 parts. Not much different from some of the prices on today's sets, and arguably worse than some of them. If anything's changed, it's that the theme has expanded to include more bigger sets, which naturally have a price to match. Well, one reason is that kids don't especially "get" steampunk/clockpunk/DaVincipunk because they don't know much about the technological periods it's based on, whereas they are intimately familiar with modern stuff like race cars and jet aircraft. For another thing, a lot of Ninjago's appeal comes from the sheer novelty and silliness of it mashing up ideas that normally DON'T "belong" together. You can compare it on some levels with stuff like the webcomic "The Adventures of Dr. McNinja", which had a modern-day Irish-American ninja who is also a doctor and fights enemies like vampires, pirates, and Paul Bunyans (plural) with the help of his Mexican velociraptor-riding gunslinger sidekick. If it generally made sense it wouldn't be as funny, audaciously over-the-top, and unlike stuff kids are used to seeing.

I don't know if K'nex's Nintendo license is all-inclusive. I haven't seen much from them outside the Mario family of games/characters. Just as LEGO's Disney license doesn't extend to every single Disney property ever, I doubt that K'nex's Nintendo license would include the likes of, say, Splatoon or Metroid or Zelda. Overall I still think the likelihood of a new Castle or Castle-ish theme to replace Nexo Knights in 2019 is very high, provided it doesn't overlap too much with whatever is planned for The LEGO Movie Sequel. I wouldn't be so sure. If Friends can coexist with City and DC Super Hero Girls can coexist with the regular DC Comics Super Heroes line, then I think the difference in demographics is enough that LEGO would probably be willing to have boy- and girl-targeted properties within the same genre. There's also quite a lot of room for variety in the scope of "high fantasy". Fantasy Era Castle was arguably "high fantasy" despite not having any elves or goblins in it. And LEGO clearly has no problem with subject matter like dragons appearing across multiple themes, since they already do. (I'm hoping Elves continues for some time, because I've enjoyed it a lot more than any "proper" Castle theme.)

Many of those similarities you name just seem to be a natural extension of trying to develop the more nebulous aspects of other Castle themes into a character-driven IP. Giving each hero a different color scheme and/or symbol, for instance, is a common technique to make it easier to tell characters apart — even in non-visual media, like the original book of The Hobbit, which often identified the dwarves by their hat colors. Named kingdoms are likewise common in story-driven media — after all, it's difficult to refer to those kingdoms in the story without some kind of name! Villains having names and non-villainous origins are a common trope to make villain characters less one-dimensional. Black and red are traditional signifiers for evil, but in Nexo Knights even that didn't remain a constant fixture, with later waves opting for purple and grey or black and green. Overall, you could draw a lot of these same sorts of comparisons between either theme and non-LEGO series like My Little Pony or Voltron.

The leaked images of the Dragon Master sets seem to be very preliminary. Note that they also show the same real-life kid demoing all six, when the Spinjitzu Masters box art has a different kid demoing each.

I have to question something about this, though: especially at these price points, how much does "licensed vs. non-licensed" actually tell us about the design philosophy of these sets? Let's look at some examples of each. Big Ben and Taj Mahal are some iconic $200+ sets. They are non-licensed, but at the same time, they are directly and entirely based on pre-existing, non-LEGO material, the same way most Ultimate Collectors' Series Star Wars sets are. They are no more unique or original than a licensed set, and their appeal depends just as heavily on buyers' familiarity with their non-LEGO subjects. Most $200+ sets for over a decade have been these kinds of sets based directly on non-LEGO subject matter, that's not in any way a new or recent trend. Nor a surprising one — people who buy in at these price points will usually do so on the basis of some kind of pre-existing familiarity. Contrast this with Joker Manor and Ninjago City. While these sets are technically tied to a Warner Bros license, LEGO designers and concept artists played a foundational role not only in designing the sets but also in designing the movie scenes the sets are based on! This is a fundamentally different design philosophy than a UCS Star Wars set or a Creator Expert landmark series set. Treating these sets as if they are less original than Big Ben or the Taj Mahal feels misleading if not actively deceptive. On a wider scale, this can apply to almost the entire LEGO Ninjago Movie line (characters included). Kids don't desire these sets or minifigures because they recognize them from some non-LEGO origins, the way they might with a Spider-Man or Batman set. LEGO created the characters, the sets, and the world. I almost would consider themes like Ninjago and Nexo Knights MORE original in this respect than themes like City, Pirates, or Castle that are based on widely-recognized, iconic, and archetypical non-LEGO imagery, and rarely change or develop those ideas in ways that would greatly defy the expectations people have of their real-life counterparts. It's not that kids can't enjoy castles that don't have tank treads, but they've probably seen tanks without tank treads a billion times in a billion different (LEGO and non-LEGO) contexts. A castle that does something they've never seen a castle do before can be enjoyed in a way they've never enjoyed a castle before. It's new. It's different. It is, by definition, original. And by creating sets that explore possibilities kids have never seen explored, LEGO opens kids' minds to those possibilities in a way "normal" sets might not. If a ninja can drive a motorcycle and fight snake monsters, why can't a pirate fly a spaceship and fight aliens? If a castle tower can transform into a spaceship, why can't a windmill transform into a helicopter? Etc.

OK, I’ll bite… how is “Castle plus technology” or “ninjas plus superheroes” any less original than “astronauts plus police”? Excluding Ninjago and Nexo Knights from what you consider “original themes” seems completely arbitrary if you’re willing to count any incarnation of Space Police as “original”. Also, what about Elves? That’s just as “original” a fantasy theme as classic stories like The Chronicles of Narnia or Peter Pan. Also worth noting that some reasons Playmobil can sustain more themes like you describe is that it’s a) a much, MUCH smaller player in the toy industry than LEGO and b) primarily aimed at younger children who don’t demand as much novelty/uniqueness as themes like Ninjago deliver. It’s more comparable to Duplo than LEGO System. And even then, Playmobil DOES have a growing number of licensed or mashup themes. I was in Hamley’s the other day and saw a theme that was some sort of space theme, but with a fire and ice dynamic? Like, ice-powered aliens and stuff. Almost gave me Chima or Mega Bloks Dragons vibes. EDIT: I also think it’s weird how everyone expects LEGO to have a western theme as if it was ever a big part of who they are. They’ve almost NEVER had non-licensed Western sets.

Almost certainly. While critics and adults may not have enjoyed it so much, kids are usually easier to please. If they weren't, then the Emoji Movie (which has a much lower Rotten Tomatoes score) wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful as it was. Also, bear in mind that ANY major new piece of Ninjago media is probably many kids' introduction to Ninjago. I've seen nothing to indicate Titanium Zane is going away. After all, he's the only one of the ninja in the Sons of Garmadon sets who LEGO created an entirely new face for (rather than simply reusing his movie face across all sets). And we can definitely see he's still using the titanium version of his face on one of the new LEGO Life "That's Ninja" stickers that show the ninja's summer 2018 outfits. I do hope that in a future wave we get Zane's new hair piece in Silver Metallic to go with the new face!

LEGO has a playlist on YouTube, but I’m not sure if it’s for all countries? Worth a shot though.

Just an FYI for people who are concerned about Lady Iron Dragon’s quality: I was at the LEGO store yesterday and the Lady Iron Dragon keychains have REALLY good quality face printing. This seems to continue the established trend of Chinese-made minifigures being much better about printing on black than those made elsewhere (check out The Brothers Brick’s Quake Mech review where they compare her with other figs with yellow-on-black printing — basically every CMF has better color quality whereas non-Chinese prints like Batman’s emblem are just as bad as Lady Iron Dragon’s face) Anywho, this means the keychain is an option for a better face print for people who don’t mind modding those.

I think the last two hospitals having helicopters and ambulances makes sense, since they each included a garage and a helipad. A set with a helicopter/ambulance and no helipad/garage is fine and dandy, but a set with a helipad/garage and no helicopter/ambulance is patently ridiculous — it’s basically dedicating a substantial number of pieces to play features kids can’t enjoy at all without buying a second set. Also, compared to things like fire stations which can have a pole or a fire to put out, or police stations which can have prisons for inmates to bust out of, hospitals are light on action play potential besides vehicles. I’m assuming it’ll be more in the sense of the “great outdoors”, i.e. the wilderness. If so, it’d probably pair well with the mountain police sets.

I wouldn't say that those LEGO Ideas rejections indicate LEGO doesn't believe in the viability of medieval projects in general. Much of what gets selected (or doesn't get selected) on LEGO Ideas boils down to the pros and cons of the individual projects. For instance, a project that gets to 10,000 supporters in a matter of weeks might be more enticing than one that takes a year and a half, a project that uses legal building techniques might have an advantage over one that's especially fiddly, etc. Goodness knows plenty of projects based on modern-day subject matter have been rejected, even though the City, Friends, and Creator Expert themes show LEGO has no doubts in the viability of sets based on the modern day. I definitely think that people should keep submitting medieval-based projects. That said, I also think that the projects being medieval-based shouldn't be their only hook. Could the project have an uplifting or educational message for young people the way so many of the various STEM-based projects do? Could the project depict some type of medieval subject matter that LEGO fans have never seen in sets before? Could the project try and work in popular, exciting stuff like dragons, monsters, or extraordinary heroics, rather than trying to be an average snapshot of medieval life? Things like that can elevate a project above "cool looking MOC" and into something that even people who aren't super into medieval building can become passionate about.

Hmm! If the rumors about the elevated train set are true, it is possible that it would still be styled to look like a monorail (which is to say, wrapping around the width of the track). And in that case, it could very easily still be a six-wide vehicle despite sitting atop 4-wide rails.

Maybe not in this specific music video, but a lot of the other LEGO Friends videos uploaded today (in the same style) feature stylized versions of sets like the Friendship House, Art Cafe, Art Stand, etc.

Now, I wouldn't get your hopes up too high (no guarantees this will lead to anything)… but the latest LEGO Friends music video opens with a conspicuous shot of Heartlake City's monorail…

Now, I wouldn't get your hopes up too high (no guarantees this will lead to anything)… but the latest LEGO Friends music video opens with a conspicuous shot of Heartlake City's monorail…

Yeah, my big takeaway from the designer video was that it wasn't what I expected, but I learned a lot more than I did in a usual designer video. Mike went into a lot of detail about his design background and design process, whereas usually we might only get snippets of those kinds of details in between a bunch of details about the set that would already be obvious from reviews or even from official pictures. And maybe that's a smart move! LEGO already knows that there will inevitably be loads of in-depth reviews for their most popular sets. What's the point in trying to compete with those to deliver the same information instead of delving into the sort of behind-the-scenes details that we can only get from the designers themselves?