Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

71040 Cinderella's Castle

1234689

Comments

  • BuriedinBricksBuriedinBricks USAMember Posts: 1,367
    @JooTog I thought private browsing was only for other types of "research"
    JooToggmonkey76LuLego77ncaachamps
  • catwranglercatwrangler Northern IrelandMember Posts: 1,854
    JooTog said:
    @WhiteDove You might know this already, but just in case: If you use private browsing in your browser for these type of "research", there should not be anything for the ad tracking feed from.
    Seconding this - I know in Opera it's under File > New Private Window, and I think most browsers will give you a private window/tab option these days! Very, very handy for Christmas shopping on a shared laptop!
    JooTog
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,078
    edited August 2016
    He bought 2 ovens, 2 doors, and must have been buy 2 get one free on the lights.  Think he only buys stuff in 2's
    I see three lights.



    Alright, maybe the fourth is off-camera...
  • tallblocktootallblocktoo CanadaMember Posts: 497
    Looks awesome!  Saw it in store today.  However they sold out the first shipment for VIP members in two days so will have to wait now for September 1st if I want to purchase locally. Think this might be it.  Been holding off on the big set purchases to decide which I might get.  
  • JooTogJooTog Southern CaliforniaMember Posts: 942
    edited August 2016
    @JooTog I thought private browsing was only for other types of "research"
    You are absolutely right! It's just that in recent years a focus group has been exploring other applications besides the feature's original intent. I read that some of the early experiments involved using YouTube to listen to Justin Bieber without affecting your 'most recent' list. I believe the latest effort involves browsing the Mega Bloks website without being caught.
    MooreFXkiki180703BuriedinBricksLEGO_Dad77Dontcopythatfloppy
  • PadraigPadraig IrelandMember Posts: 5
    CM4S said:
    dthomp408 said:

    Both of mine just arrived!

    But why though.. 
    He may be trying to do a complete castle.  I'm going to do the same thing eventually, just need to work out exactly what I need.  The castle is asymmetrical so it's not just a case of building a mirror side for the rear, I'm guessing you'd need a least three sets plus spares to do a decent job.  
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    Padraig said:
    CM4S said:
    dthomp408 said:

    Both of mine just arrived!

    But why though.. 
    He may be trying to do a complete castle.  I'm going to do the same thing eventually, just need to work out exactly what I need.  The castle is asymmetrical so it's not just a case of building a mirror side for the rear, I'm guessing you'd need a least three sets plus spares to do a decent job.  
    Yeah, this is what I'm figuring on as well. 3 sets should get all the outer walls done, maybe needing to supplement here and there. Of course you will have all the extra interior elements, and a good chunk of leftover inner tan tower pieces as well
  • catwranglercatwrangler Northern IrelandMember Posts: 1,854
    Watching the JangBricks video about the castle now, and I had to laugh at the 'fireworks' - they even managed to get stud shooters into this model!

    I don't mind them as much as some of you do (I haven't suffered from overexposure to them yet; got my first ones this year in Nexo Knights sets), but I know that they're of the helicopter/lighthouse school of "things TLG really like to put in sets" so it was pretty funny...
  • flordflord CanadaMember Posts: 724
    ^ There was never any doubt.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    this is actually a *good* use of the stud shooter IMHO.  they work reasonably well as a firework launcher, much better than they do as a replacement for a more realistic looking blaster.
  • tallblocktootallblocktoo CanadaMember Posts: 497
    Kind of lame for fireworks really.
  • SamJSamJ West Yorkshire, UK Member Posts: 118
    Just saw this stop motion video of the castle being built on YouTube and thought I'd share it. Didn't know watching blocks magically build themselves could be so therapeutic! 

    mustang69tallblocktookiki180703catwranglerSalamalexsweetness34josekalelDontcopythatfloppy
  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    MattsWhat said:

    I can't work out how this is done.  That is a a piece (or two) with studs on 5 sides (or 4 sides next to each other).  Is it new snot?
    Maybe one of these with studs on the ends as well?


    Or am I just being really dim this morning?
    Any advance on how this is done now some people have it?  It is two bricks, with studs on 4 sides in the video above, but looks like they are cut away (not full size bricks)?
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    MattsWhat
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,874
    dougts said:
    this is actually a *good* use of the stud shooter IMHO.  they work reasonably well as a firework launcher, much better than they do as a replacement for a more realistic looking blaster.
    Generally Star Wars is the only theme where stud shooters have stood in the way of realism, since most other themes that use stud shooters didn't have any previous realistic standard for them to take the place of. In themes like Bionicle and Hero Factory, they served as a much more compact and versatile alternative to previous bulky, Technic-based blasters. And most other themes that have used them either never had any greater standard of realism to aspire to (Ultra Agents, Ninjago, Chima) or didn't use them as handguns or rifles (Pirates, City, Friends, Elves).

    Even Star Wars has only really used stud shooters in place of more film-accurate handguns and rifles in battle packs — otherwise they've been used for vehicle-mounted laser cannons or emplacement weapons.
    catwrangler
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited August 2016
    Star Wars only?  What about every superhero set these days?
    spepperDontcopythatfloppy
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,288
    ^ Most Super Heroes sets are not based directly on something seen in a film, unlike the Star Wars range.

    I am not fundamentally opposed to stud shooters. As an adult I favour the more 'realistic' blasters introduced in 2007 but I often imagined blasters actually firing projectiles when I was younger and I think I would have enjoyed playing with stud shooters as a result.
    Aanchirkiki180703bobabricksstluxgmonkey76Dontcopythatfloppy
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,874
    edited August 2016
    Star Wars only?  What about every superhero set these days?
    On the DC side of things, stud shooters have only been used on their own by two characters: Cyborg and BvS Batman. Neither of them has any business holding a realistic gun (for real accuracy, Cyborg's gun should be integrated with his arm). Deadshot and a BvS Lexcorp henchman also wield stud shooters as bazookas, but there has never been a realistic bazooka mold to use as an alternative. Every other stud shooter in the DC Super Heroes sets is mounted to a vehicle. A couple characters who are expected to carry handguns use tommy guns or submachine guns, but usually they default to space guns — the Kryptonians in the Man of Steel sets are the only ones who got a new, source-accurate gun mold.

    Marvel uses stud shooters as personal firearms even more sparingly. The Ultron Sentries in #76029 are the ONLY characters to carry stud shooters in-hand (the more "realistic" thing for them would not be more realistic gun molds, but rather no guns at all). Yellowjacket in #76039 and War Machine in #76051 have stud-shooters mounted to their suits. Other than those three characters, every stud-shooter is mounted to a building or vehicle. Characters who are supposed to have handguns generally default to the space gun, though a few have used the submachine gun since it was reintroduced two years ago. Star-Lord and the Sakaarans are the only characters who've been given a new, source-accurate gun mold.

    I'm not saying stud shooters aren't all over the place, including in Super Heroes. But Star Wars is really the only place where an argument could be made that they're being used in place of realistic/source-accurate gun molds, because it's the only theme with stud shooters that otherwise defaults to realistic guns.

    It's possible that more realistic gun molds are consciously avoided in Super Heroes to keep all gunfights as "sci-fi" as possible, and thus not run afoul of the anti-warfare policy. But I don't see how stud shooters can be blamed for the Super Heroes theme's lack of realistic guns. If anything, guns in the Super Heroes theme have gotten MORE realistic since the stud shooter was first introduced, because both the introduction of the stud shooter and the re-introduction of the submachine gun happened in 2014.
    catwranglerMattsWhat
  • A.BrickovskyA.Brickovsky PolandMember Posts: 56
    Is the recent shortage of news on Brickset forecast to a review coming over the weekend?
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,288
    @A.Brickovsky - I am currently awaiting delivery of the set in readiness for a review. The reason for a lack of news on the homepage is an absence of news altogether at the moment.
    A.BrickovskySumoLegostluxgmonkey76
  • FireheartFireheart Suffolk, UKMember Posts: 608
    @CapnRex101 Can I ask (out of curiosity) what happens to the sets after review, does the Brickset crew have to fight to have it.., does the reviewer get to "home" the set on behalf of Brickset? 
    Or are they sent back to the sender?
    As I assume you haven't got the set as yet as it's a FOC set for review..
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,288
    @Fireheart - The reviewer gets to keep the set.
    Fireheartkiki180703SumoLegoCM4Sgmonkey76Dontcopythatfloppy
  • FireheartFireheart Suffolk, UKMember Posts: 608
    @Fireheart - The reviewer gets to keep the set.
    I wonder who is going to get to do the new Death Star!
  • stluxstlux LuxembourgMember Posts: 2,330
    Fireheart said:
    @Fireheart - The reviewer gets to keep the set.
    I wonder who is going to get to do the new Death Star!
    As a punishment? 
    bobabricksCM4S77ncaachampskiki180703BumblepantsDontcopythatfloppy
  • JooTogJooTog Southern CaliforniaMember Posts: 942
    stlux said:
    Fireheart said:
    @Fireheart - The reviewer gets to keep the set.
    I wonder who is going to get to do the new Death Star!
    As a punishment? 
    I don't see it as a punishment: post a link to the #10188 review and get a ton of extra parts :-)
    SamJbobabricksmustang69kiki180703BumblepantsDontcopythatfloppy
  • bobabricksbobabricks Vancouver, BC, CanadaMember Posts: 1,840
    JooTog said:
    stlux said:
    Fireheart said:
    @Fireheart - The reviewer gets to keep the set.
    I wonder who is going to get to do the new Death Star!
    As a punishment? 
    I don't see it as a punishment: post a link to the #10188 review and get a ton of extra parts :-)
    @CapnRex101 Ha ha! You should just copy and paste the writing from the 10188 review and stick in the pictures from 75159.
    Dontcopythatfloppy
  • Patrik78Patrik78 Member Posts: 142
    To be fair there should be a review from two points of view - owner of 10188 and not an owner of 10188 :)
    ricecakedatsunrobbiekiki180703
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,288
    edited August 2016
    If Brickset is offered #75159 Death Star then I will be happy to review it. I own #10188 but hope I will be able to give a balanced review which takes all factors into account.
    gmonkey76
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited August 2016
    To be really fair, reviews of non-manufacturer-supplied items are really the only way to go.  You guys do well here with what you have (though I do feel you toe the Lego company line too closely), but the concept of "I received this product in return for an unbiased review" has mostly ruined Amazon reviews.  Thank goodness for fakespot.com.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    I find that the fact that a large portion of the regular forum membership seems to be blindly loyal TLG apologists a much more glaring issue than the Brickset staff's potential for bias. I think on the whole, the staff does a pretty decent job of setting aside any potential conflicts of interest
    josekalelDontcopythatfloppy
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    @TheLoneTensor - I don't think it is fair to suggest that our reviews are biased based on the fact that LEGO sometimes sends the sets to us. We all have an understanding of the value represented by a set and we are certainly not sent everything that is reviewed.

    I would also question your comment on toeing the LEGO company line. We are sometimes critical as the situation dictates. For instance, I doubt LEGO would have been pleased to read my review of #75098 Assault on Hoth when it was published in April.
    I did state "You guys do well here with what you have," and I honestly believe that, and your Hoth review is a perfect example.  I can't, however, ever take a Lego review as fully unbiased if the set was mailed out by Lego, for free.

    I'm not suggesting that anything should be changed, just giving my opinion on the status quo.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,874
    edited August 2016
    @TheLoneTensor - I don't think it is fair to suggest that our reviews are biased based on the fact that LEGO sometimes sends the sets to us. We all have an understanding of the value represented by a set and we are certainly not sent everything that is reviewed.

    I would also question your comment on toeing the LEGO company line. We are sometimes critical as the situation dictates. For instance, I doubt LEGO would have been pleased to read my review of #75098 Assault on Hoth when it was published in April.
    I did state "You guys do well here with what you have," and I honestly believe that, and your Hoth review is a perfect example.  I can't, however, ever take a Lego review as fully unbiased if the set was mailed out by Lego, for free.

    I'm not suggesting that anything should be changed, just giving my opinion on the status quo.
    Would a LEGO review really be any less biased if the people had to buy the sets themselves? I imagine they might be actually be more biased in that case, because reviewers would be much less likely to cover sets that they didn't like enough to pay for out of pocket in the first place. If you think the reviews paint too sunny a picture now, how do you think they'd be if the Brickset staff only bothered reviewing their personal favorite sets from each year?

    That's not to say reviewers shouldn't be mindful of potential conflicts of interests. But I'm not entirely convinced there is such a thing as a "fully unbiased" review.
    LyichirA.BrickovskycatwranglerpreussDontcopythatfloppybobabrickswardm
  • TheLoneTensorTheLoneTensor MericaMember Posts: 3,950
    edited August 2016
    Aanchir said:

    Would a LEGO review really be any less biased if the people had to buy the sets themselves?
    In general, I believe so, yes.
    josekalel
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 13,078
    edited August 2016
    @TheLoneTensor - I think you are being cynical.  And are assuming a quid pro quo.  

    I haven't seen anything that indicates a systemic pandering to Lego.
    Aanchirkiki180703ericbDontcopythatfloppyMynatt
  • A.BrickovskyA.Brickovsky PolandMember Posts: 56
    edited August 2016
    Reviewers get stuff for free. It's part of their job. Just imagine a music journalist that pays with his own cash for each CD and each concert. It would be absurd. 

    It's exactly like Aanchir said - when you pay for it, you are more biased... unless you've just got your first free set to review. That kind of virgin ecstasy is long gone for a seasoned reviewer though. It's not a deciding factor. 
    Aanchirkiki180703
  • sklambsklamb speaker of American EnglishMember Posts: 496

    What I appreciate about Brickset reviews is their detail, clear writing, and excellent photography--and that, in general, I've found their opinions closely match mine. I haven't noticed any bias due to the reviewers not buying the sets themselves, other than the fact that themes the reviewers don't find interesting usually don't get reviewed unless Lego sends Brickset a set--and that means I'm in favor of having Lego send out the sets!

    AanchircatwranglerbluedragonA.BrickovskyDontcopythatfloppy
  • josekaleljosekalel Rio Grande Valley, TexasMember Posts: 681
    Reviewers get stuff for free. It's part of their job. Just imagine a music journalist that pays with his own cash for each CD and each concert. It would be absurd. 

    It's exactly like Aanchir said - when you pay for it, you are more biased... unless you've just got your first free set to review. That kind of virgin ecstasy is long gone for a seasoned reviewer though. It's not a deciding factor. 
    To consume a service or product is not absurd. To think that one can be unbiased when reviewing an item that was free, IS absurd. I know we all try to be as unbiased as we can (except like @dougts says, with TLG apologists, which there are many), but when we get something for free we (most of the time, not all) won't be as harsh as if we had paid for it. 

    "Ah, it's free...it's not such a bad deal...except had I paid money for this..." Then, yes, it is a bad deal. Simple. Not absurd. 
  • A.BrickovskyA.Brickovsky PolandMember Posts: 56
    Oh. Then you shouldn't be reading any reviews at all, because that's how it works. I've written a few hundred of those for a polish magazine and believe me, after a few years it's not that exiting to get something for free, at least not enough to write a biased review because of it.
    catwranglerAanchirDontcopythatfloppy
  • PadraigPadraig IrelandMember Posts: 5

    Out of curiosity, why is Brickset's review of the Cinderella Castle so late?  I remember Huw saying that they hadn't received a copy when the likes of Jangbricks/Brickshow and few others were publishing their reviews.  Isn't it also correct that Brickset didn't receive pictures after the official reveal.  Was this punishment for the Assault on Hoth review?  Is there consequences for not fawning over a set?  Or is just one of those things.

    I really do think sites such as Brickset should have an ethics policy in regard to how they handle review units - or at the very least a line stating if a product was provided for review.   Ultimately it’s all about perception, and a written statement that’s clear and upfront about how they operate negates any charge in relation to transparency.  I personally have no fear in regard to Brickset.  My point is why would you give people the opportunity to snipe.

    It’s interesting that I'm writing this here because Lego and Disney (Parks specifically) are two of my major interests and I find parallels between how they engage with fandom and a warning within. Disney now has a veritable army of paid bloggers: an army that can be counted on to be on message and sow the good news.  Most of these “lifestylers” began as people with fan pages.  Who started with good intentions and got noticed by Disney.  Who received access and freebees and ultimately got hooked on the Pixie Dust.  Now they cannot fault an operation such as Walt Disney World even though it’s in terrible shape.  There are still some great WDW sites out there that haven’t sold out.  You’ll also notice that these are the ones that state when they receive something gratis (rarely) or when they pay

    josekalel
  • LostInTranslationLostInTranslation UKMember Posts: 5,568
    Re "I really do think sites such as Brickset should have an ethics policy in regard to how they handle review units - or at the very least a line stating if a product was provided for review" 

    If a set was provided to us free of charge for review purposes, our review on the home page will always say as such. If the line isn't there, we didn't get sent it. 
    stluxAanchirdougtspharmjodDontcopythatfloppygmonkey76LittleLorijosekalel
  • catwranglercatwrangler Northern IrelandMember Posts: 1,854
    edited August 2016
    Padraig said:[snip] My point is why would you give people the opportunity to snipe.

    [snip]

    I think this question gets to the heart of it: as someone who used to do a lot of arts reviews [paid - mostly fairly low rates, but the free tickets made it viable], my experience is that people will snipe regardless of opportunity, because people are inherently skeptical. Maybe that's only sensible when they're thinking about how to spend their money, but it can be frustrating for the writer.

    My big learning experience came on reviewing a major touring Shakespeare production: it was a positive review, but people complained about it being overly critical. My impression was that this was due to the lack of hyperbolic language (either to laud or damn the production) - sometimes if you don't give people the paean or roast they're expecting, they feel you're overly biased towards the opposing view, regardless of what you've actually said. 

    Is it possible for a Lego review to be completely objective? Maybe, but who on earth would we find to do it? The most useful question for me is, "Does the reviewer value the same things I do about a set?" because it helps me to contextualise their response. For instance, someone might find the Fortrex clunky in appearance, but I might consider that part of its charm. If I'm buying that set for children (or, frankly, for me) I'm going to be interested in how good/varied the play features are, but some reviewers might not go into that side of it deeply. At that point, it's time to look at some other reviews, and the matter of whether the set came from TLG or was bought by the reviewer might not matter so much. 
    thedingman5PeteMkiki180703AanchirLyichirpharmjodDontcopythatfloppy
  • MattsWhatMattsWhat Studley, UKMember Posts: 1,643
    edited August 2016
    It is unreasonable to assume that a review of free set from LEGO will be ever without (some) bias.  But it is also wrong to think that a set purchased would be any better - no one buys a set without at least some consideration so they will always confirm this in their review (meaning it cannot be objective).

    To make it fair the set should be free (and come without box), but then also be taken from the person.  Then they can answer whether they would buy it for themselves honestly (as they don't already have it).  It means all sets can get reviewed (no bias from the purchase) but you're not really getting it for free (no free stuff bias).  To facilitate this, I am more than happy to be sent the unboxed, used once, review sets.  It is in the name of fairness after all.
    catwranglerAanchirricecakejosekalel
  • PeteMPeteM Gallifrey (near Bristol)Member Posts: 421
    edited August 2016
    Padraig said:[snip] My point is why would you give people the opportunity to snipe.

    [snip]

    [snip]

     The most useful question for me is, "Does the reviewer value the same things I do about a set?" because it helps me to contextualise their response. For instance, someone might find the Fortrex clunky in appearance, but I might consider that part of its charm. If I'm buying that set for children (or, frankly, for me) I'm going to be interested in how good/varied the play features are, but some reviewers might not go into that side of it deeply. At that point, it's time to look at some other reviews, and the matter of whether the set came from TLG or was bought by the reviewer might not matter so much. 

    Exactly - and I always try to bear that in mind when writing a user review on the main site, explaining exactly why I do or don't like something but in a way that gives enough information for someone to assess whether that would affect their enjoyment. The best (IMO) of the 'official' reviews do this too which is why, though I have no interest in the Friends or Elves themes for example, I'll always read the article to see what's new (and confirm that I still have no interest!).

    The other thing is that we're all fans of Lego and, as such, can often find something to appreciate in even the worst set - whether it is enough to overcome the negative points differs from person to person and, while the set might worthless in the eyes of the reviewer, it may still be a great play set / display set / parts pack for someone else. The provenance of a set makes no difference if the review is well written, and I've usually found that the Brickset ones are.
    catwranglerstlux
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,874

    Is it possible for a Lego review to be completely objective?
    I'd argue no, it is not possible for ANY review to be completely objective. A review is, at its core, an opinion piece. Subjectivity and bias are inherent.

    Wanting to be nice to the company that gave you the set is just one potential source of bias. Others include wanting to make the review palatable to viewers, wanting to present one's favorite sets or themes in a positive light, or only wanting to review sets you enjoy in the first place. Not to mention other subjective criteria like the usefulness of the parts or the set's play value which depend entirely on what the reviewer's perspective.

    If getting the set for free means a review will automatically be biased, wouldn't the same be true of buying the set in the United States, where LEGO tends to be much cheaper than the rest of the world? Or buying the set at a reduced price in any country? By contrast, wouldn't people be biased in a different way if they bought a set in a country where LEGO is more expensive than usual? Or buying a set at an inflated price in any country? The answer, of course, is yes to all.

    Looking for complete objectivity in a review is a fool's errand. At best, a reviewer can acknowledge whatever biases come into play in a particular review, and perhaps make a guess at how a person with a different set of biases (like a person who collects different themes, or values different kinds of play features, or is on a tighter budget) would see things differently. But eliminating bias from a review is never an option. Any claims that a review is "objective" or "unbiased" should be read with extreme skepticism.
    catwranglerBumblepantstomahawkerstluxA.BrickovskyDontcopythatfloppyLittleLoriLyichir
  • bandit778bandit778 Docking Bay 94. Member Posts: 2,129
    SumoLego said:
    Any chance next year's CMF exclusive is Disney-Themed?  
     I have been wondering what will be next from the Disney theme. TLG have gone from the smallest (CMF's) to the largest in one big swoop. I think most collectors expect another wave of the minifigures, but I think the Castle is going be a difficult set to top.
    TwoToneBricks
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.