Hive

Great stuff, and a good job making the scene feel alive!

Simply brilliant, such a fresh take on a LEGO ship vignette. Very well-executed!

Absolutely stunning creation. Bravo!

The Shadow Knights were great, one of the best "evil" factions LEGO has ever produced. But other than that, KKII didn't really have much going for it. I'd be happy with something like either Kingdoms or Fantasy Castle and overjoyed if we see a return of some classic factions/shields like Forestmen, Black Falcons or the original Lion Knights.

Crazy. I can't imagine how they managed to pull this off for so long, stealing so many sets, before being discovered... wow. And I wonder what happens to these sets now. Many of the sets are from themes that has since been discontinued, so they obviously can't just go back to be sold in the stores they were taken from - at least not at anywhere near the full price. So then what?

I too get a comfort in knowing that I have some new, interesting sets waiting to be built in the future. I keep them near me in my office, so I frequently look at them for a warm and fuzzy feeling of what is yet to come. I prefer having a variety of sets of different sizes "in stock", and don't feel quite as pleased when I don't. It's a nice security knowing that even if LEGO pulls a bad year with nothing that interests me, I'll still have *something* new to build. Same here, everything gets built at least once - even sets bought solely because of some interesting bricks.

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=86266

Funny you should mention it. You know who introduced corsets? Women did. Because women wanted to look that way. Either way, LEGO also depicts and, in a way, glorifies piracy, theft, violence and murder from the same time period. Yet what you, and others, single out as being dangerous and immoral is... depicting the female fashion of the day. I find that remark incredibly offensive and likewise absurdly ignorant. I know plenty of women who wear them, and none of them are (to be best of my knowledge) neither pornstars nor cosplayers. My girlfriend being one of them. And perhaps you could practice just writing one single post without needlessly offending anyone.

Ever heard of corsets? They were widely used in the time period and gave even "larger" women that hourglass figure.

Well, I don't want to repeat what others have already said many times... so I'll just say: pictures, all the way!

While sharing the critique voices by Klaus-Dieter, I'll be getting this set - as my girlfriend and I have decided to begin collect these sets as a part of a new annual tradition, using them as our special Christmas garnish instead of all the usual stuff. But I am dissapointed that it's not as good as the ones from previous years, and I hope that I can get a few of those still at reasonable prices.

I would love to see the Europa theme, personally. I collect both Castle and Pirates and would welcome a theme that sort of mixes them both. I've drooled over those old pictures many times...

I assume you mean "Too bad not all their fans are as over-zealous about trivial issues as myself." So emphasized eyelashes are okay, because "all women have them", while outlined breasts, lipstick and hourlgass figures are not - because not everyone has those? Well not every woman wears mascara, either, or wear long eyelashes. I think you got something wrong here: LEGO didn't make those extremely cutesy animals because they have some weird idea of what young girls like; they made those animals after extensive testing, because the testing showed them that it was what girls like.

Wow, absolutely fantastic build. Very inspiring.

If you honestly believe that LEGO is "selling sex", then yes, I think you have a problem. Sorry, pal. It's not me who can't look at a woman's body without thinking it's sexualized. Oh of course I can see a difference. It's variety, just like you appreciate in male minifigs. Right? Should the same variety that allows both bearded and non-bearded, muscular and non-muscular, hairy and bald (and so on) male minifigs apply to female minifigs, allowing both figures with featured breasts and figures without particularly featured breasts? Why can't both types be allowed to exist? What is your big issue with breasts, anyway? They're a natural part of the female body, in all shapes and sizes. And I'd like to repeat: most of the minifigs you complain about represent a time where women did not dress in jeans and oversized shirts. Are LEGO exaggerating the looks of these figures? Perhaps, yes. Just like they exaggerate the looks of male pirates, for instance: it's a quite normal way to make them recognizable for what they represent. Whether or not it's a historically accurate replication is not really the point; as long as people *think* it is, it makes sense to do. My little anecdote was to show that female features on minifigures are actually appreciated by some females. I'm sorry that the opinion of non-feminist females does not interest you. I don't see how it's particularly biased just because it's an opinion that disagrees with yours, though. Exactly, couldn't agree more.

Yeah I meant yours, I was too lazy to type out your name in its' entirety. Sorry. :p Well, it looks stellar for sure! And those shields... lovely!

Is it mostly for you or mostly for the kids? If mostly for you, I'd say Mos Eisley Cantina. It's such an iconic scene, and the dewback (I think?) looks amazing. If mostly for your kids, I imagine the Milano Spaceship Rescue (if they have seen the movie) or Hurricane Heist (if they have not seen GoTG) would offer most playability.

Breasts and an hourglass figure signifies sex, you say? That's like saying the entire female body signifies sex. You want to solve the "problem" by outright banning female minifigs? If you cannot look at something entirely normal and an integral part of a female body without seeing sex, then your problem is obviously much deeper than LEGO minifigures. A little anecdote: I have managed to get my girlfriend to (to a degree) share my interest in LEGO, building sets with me, helping decide what to buy, looking for good offers, etc. A big part of what helped get and retain her interest lies in exactly what you so despise: female minifigs with fascinating dresses, corset torsos and feminine hair. As a woman, she identifies with those things and sees appeal in them. Without them, she'd likely still share the builds with me - but she wouldn't care for minifigs.

Vintage, did you get the set new? It looks pristine. *drools*

I'm fairly sure that noone has been doing that. I didn't get the memo that said this thread was about some kind of suggested set with 3 female minifigs, in fact I don't know what you're talking about.

Are you seriously comparing depicting modern warfare, where tons of people, soldiers, terrorists and innocents alike, lose their lives every year... to showing that females have breasts? For real? See, this is something I find absurdly odd in society today. If you in a youtube video show an exposed breast, no matter how tasteful, artistic and relevant it may be, the video you will taken down instantly. However, just yesterday, I discovered that youtube is filled with real videos taken by the US military and/or individual soldiers, showing them taking lives through various ways. But hey, at least we protect the children against realizing that women have breasts! So that's something... though I'd argue that women having breasts is in actuality one of the first things a child ever realizes, but eh... I agree there aren't enough variety in female minifig heads, and I too would wish that not ALL of them had lipstick. But I'll still argue that showing females with lipstick is no different than showing males with beards, and showing females with hour glass torsos is no different than showing males with a ripped torso. We could stop with all of that, of course, but then there'd be a lot less variety. I disagree. Sometimes, feminism is a crusade. I don't mind women wanting fairness, naturally, but there are reasonable fights to have - and there are unreasonable, exaggerated ones. And this attack against perceived "sexism" by LEGO falls under the latter category, in my opinion. I see it as feminists trying to make a problem out of nothing. And that bothers me, especially when directed at something I appreciate as much as LEGO.

Technically, the Taj Mahal is bigger... that aside, I was curious and looked up the set on Brickipedia to see what all the fuss was about (and I must admit, it does look nice) - and found this little gem:

Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm not into decals. :) Agreed. I wish they would make showing flesh on torsos limited to when it's *really* necessary. As for the Pirates vs. Castle discussion, I love both so I'm sort of happy as long as I get one of them... but that said, I don't see why both can't run at the same time. They're both among LEGO's evergreen themes and they have both co-existed in the past. And remember that the Hobbit/LOTR line will likely end now, leaving a "Castle-ish" gap. When is the last time LEGO didn't have some form of Castle-related theme?

But this is a strictly theoretical example. How many times does this happen? Who here has encountered such a situation? Most often, the heavily discounted "last one in stock" sets are so heavily discounted because the shop can't sell it anymore and just want to get rid of it so they can stock new sets that kids aren't tired of/haven't gotten already yet. I do the same thing, and I'd wager most here does: buy sets that we eventually have a strong desire to build, but doesn't yet have time and/or space to do. Why we do it? Well, because we want it and don't want to miss out. Besides, I actually enjoy even my unopened boxes. I look at them on my shelf, enjoying the feeling of having the building experience of a potentially exciting set yet-to-come. It brings joy to me that I know I have one or more good LEGO experiences waiting for me sometime in the future. I don't think anyone disagrees with you on the statement that LEGO is intended as a product to be played with. We just disagree with you on the importance of it's intended use.

I cannot really understand the line of thought that because something is marketed to be sold to Person A, then Person B has less of a right to buy and enjoy it than Person A. So what if it's primarily marketed towards children? If adults enjoy it all the same, they have as much right to the product as children. That is, if you can even speak about "rights" in this fashion. It is, after all, a product on a free market we're discussing here.