Unpopular LEGO Opinions

Istokg

Talk about unpopular...

Few things were as unpopular as Sweden on the 3rd of September 1967, early Sunday morning when everyone had to pull over to the opposite side of the road for 10 minutes... and then after 10 minutes were up Sweden joined the rest of continental Europe and switched from driving on the left side of the road to driving on the right side of the road... 😲



It makes things like LED lighting and roundabouts seem like chicken sh*t... 😳

Brickchap

@Istokg Well at least they had tow trucks ready haha.

If it was the Australian government they would keep changing their minds, make sure as many Australians as possible got booked, as in fined, for driving on the wrong side despite the lack of clarity, and after changing the road signs and stuffing up all the roads they would decide it was a silly idea and change it all back and anyone who complained would be sidelined.

The Australian government (regardless of the party or what side of politics they are on), has a very unique worldview in making sure that no matter what, Australia and its people are always in the worst possible situation for Australians.

Everything from deliberately killing the Australian film industry in the 1930s, leaving our armed forces with outdated weapons and reliant on the UK and US (which continues to this day), a defense plan that was based around the idea of abandoning half the country to the Japanese, sending all our troops over to fight in Europe/the desert theatres when they were needed to defend Australia, or in more recent times, defying all common sense in choosing coal over natural resources, killing off any Australian industry including but not limited to the automobile manufacturing industry, making sure all important goods come solely from China, having only 7 days of oil for the whole of Australia including both civilian and defence related purposes with any other oil supplies being stored in America, not giving any support for local businesses who converted to covid related production, not supporting local research into a vaccine, sending all our PPE equipment to China, not getting any vaccines, keeping Australians locked out and foreign nationals locked in (Australia is the only democratic country not to let it's people leave for any reason during the pandemic), buying U.S helicopters that can't use a machine gun and open the door at the same time, fighter jets that disintegrate during flight, especially when the guns are used, ferries that can't fit under bridges, trains that can't fit in tunnels, trams that disintegrate, (all of those examples are foreign built) making sure Australia has no submarines for the next 40 years, while in the process completely destroying our relationship with France beyond repair (don't forget France is the only country capable of assisting in the Pacific, and is far more likely to help us than America, especially due to the French territory of New Caledonia), which has subsequently destroyed our relationship with the entire E.U and any hopes of an E.U trade deal since France is now the new unofficial leader of the E.U (previously it was Germany), and the French were also going to build our submarines here in Australia and teach Australians how to maintain our submarines, defunding anti corruption bodies, making sure universities and the entire Arts sector get no government funding whatsoever, bumping up the prices of a number of subjects for local students (which just so happen to be the sort of uni subjects people that could threaten the government take, like politics, international relations, law, journalism/media related courses, any arts courses where the government could be criticised through music, visual arts, theatre etc.), destroying TAFE (not sure what you guys have overseas but TAFE is a sort of university for things like trades, secretarial studies, various short courses, marine biology etc. etc.), making sure the education system is vastly inferior to other Western (and even non Western), countries and don't forget making sure we have worse internet than many Pacific island nations through the introduction of a hybrid NBN network that combines new tech with old copper wires from the interwar years. The list goes on and on.

Sorry for the rant but thought I'd better explain my claim about the Australian government's worldview. People can disagree if they want but everything listed above is true, I guess the only point of disagreement is whether these things were done deliberately or simply because our politicians are plain backward.

Redbullgivesuwind

^Yeah but now you have a trade deal with the UK. 

My understanding of turn signals/indicators is that are a optional extra on all BMW's.

Brickchap

@Redbullgivesuwind Fair point except that 1. As a former British colony we should have had a trade deal in 1901.... 2. What use is a trade deal with the U.K? You guys are an awful long way away, have no interest in helping us in a conflict and can barely cope yourselves since leaving the E.U *cough* fuel crisis due to lack of drivers *cough*

Please also understand the whole Australia UK trade deal, as well as the Australia-UK-US alliance is nothing but a political facade to supposedly win votes here. They mean nothing. The only thing the Anglosphere will bring Australia is war. (I'm not attacking you Poms as a people, my problem is with the government)

BooTheMightyHamster

Unpopular opinions, yes.
Lego, not so much...

;o)

Redbullgivesuwind

Brickchap said:

@Redbullgivesuwind Fair point except that 1. As a former British colony we should have had a trade deal in 1901.... 2. What use is a trade deal with the U.K? You guys are an awful long way away, have no interest in helping us in a conflict and can barely cope yourselves since leaving the E.U *cough* fuel crisis due to lack of drivers *cough*

I had my tongue firmly planted in my cheek on that one. It is entirely useless unless we can ship some sweet sovereignty to you.  

Redbullgivesuwind

My unpopular opinion is that I really hate the fact that they have carried on the Harry Potter build a castle sets with the sand green roofs and that are entirely incompatible with the previous sets. I had hoped that it would just be a one off to celebrate the 20th year and then it would go back. 

CapnRex101

Redbullgivesuwind said:

My unpopular opinion is that I really hate the fact that they have carried on the Harry Potter build a castle sets with the sand green roofs and that are entirely incompatible with the previous sets. I had hoped that it would just be a one off to celebrate the 20th year and then it would go back. 

My unpopular opinion is the opposite, sort of! I do prefer the previous designs from between 2018 and 2020, but I am unsure what more they could have included after those five sets. After all, they already contain all of the following:

• Great Hall
• Marble Staircase Tower
• Astronomy Tower
• Clock Tower
• Greenhouses
• Dumbledore's Office
• Slughorn's Office
• Snape's Office
• Owlery
• Defence Against the Dark Arts Classroom
• Potions Classroom(s)
• Gryffindor Dormitory
• Ravenclaw Dormitory
• Hospital Wing
• Prefect's Bathroom
  
• Room of Requirement

Two dormitories, the Chamber of Secrets, various offices and classrooms are missing, but how would LEGO design the exterior for those sections? Each model needs to be recognisable from the outside, portraying a famous part of the castle, but not many such areas were left. The negative reaction to nondescript buildings like #76387 Hogwarts Fluffy Encounter is probably telling.

Also, how would the underground Chamber of Secrets link with earlier sections, which are above ground? I expect those problems preceded the change of direction for 2021 and seemingly beyond.

What they should do is list all of the major external and internal features of Hogwarts and decide how to divide them up in advance, perhaps over the course of around five years. Maybe that is what they have done this time.

Redbullgivesuwind

CapnRex101 said:

Also, how would the underground Chamber of Secrets link with earlier sections, which are above ground? I expect those problems preceded the change of direction for 2021 and seemingly beyond.

What they should do is list all of the major external and internal features of Hogwarts and decide how to divide them up in advance, perhaps over the course of around five years. Maybe that is what they have done this time.

I am not sure building it up would have been that much of a challenge. It certainly wouldn't have looked anymore out of place than the current chamber looks with the tiny great hall on top. 

I do agree they needed to list everywhere they wanted build and then work out how to divide it. Which to be fair they have clearly done this time. 

pxchris

560Heliport said:

Or turn signals...

You have triggered my biggest pet peeve in life. The improper (or more often, non-existent) use of turn signals throws me into a tizzy more than just about anything else.

560Heliport

pxchris said:

560Heliport said:

Or turn signals...

You have triggered my biggest pet peeve in life. The improper (or more often, non-existent) use of turn signals throws me into a tizzy more than just about anything else.

Yeah, wouldn't it be nice if there was a way to... indicate... or signal... which direction you intend to move several thousand pounds of metal? Oh, wait...

Aanchir

Brickchap said:

@Speedman29 Well if you English are going to lecture Americans, or anyone else, on what you think is correct (but isn't), then I don't see the problem with adding an Australian perspective.

Nobody was lecturing (let alone "cancelling") anybody, though? @MaffyD simply offered an extremely gentle comment informing @WesterBricks about the word "spastic" having different, and potentially more negative, connotations in some English-speaking countries. And that's a good thing for ANYBODY to be aware of on an international site like this where comments can be so easily misconstrued.

It's no different from if an American user like me made a comment referring to a character's bottom as their "fanny", and a British user offered the helpful tip that "hey, don't take this the wrong way, but that means something very different over here". Nobody in that sort of situation is attacking or talking down to anybody, just trying their best to be helpful.

I agree with you that we should generally give each other the benefit of the doubt whe one of us uses a potentially loaded term without realizing it. Shouldn't we extend the same grace when a person offers a tidbit of advice about the connotations those words can have in other countries?

After all, Westerbricks made it quite clear that he appreciated MaffyD's comment, so it doesn't seem at all necessary for multiple people to get offended by it on his behalf.

Brickchap said:

Btw, is the ban on 'spastic' and 'retarded' something people with disabilities have said they wanted changed, or was it just some woke Englishman/woman at Oxford who thought they know best?

For my part, I've lived most of my life in the United States (up until I moved to Canada last year to live with my wife), and have only ever visited England for a three-week study abroad back in 2018. And the word "retarded" has been extremely upsetting to me since childhood, especially since autistic and learning disabled folks like me are often bullied with it. It's definitely not a thing that only academics, pundits, or activists care about.

Brickchap said:

On another topic, will we ever get curved road plates? I know American streets are all square but everywhere else in the world roads vary, and even if you are, for example, American, you still may wish to have curved roads in your city. I know I had to because of these confounded 45 degree walls I had to put up with.

I 100% agree that this is one of the next steps I want to see with the new road system. Besides being useful for some road layouts, they'd also be practically ESSENTIAL for racetracks, which are a natural use for any sort of LEGO road system.

Ideally, I'd love if they made plates that allow for "partial" curves, sort of like the LEGO train tracks, instead of only full right angle turns. But I realize from my own attempts to mock that sort of thing up on Stud.io's part designer that this is easier said than done.

Sadly, I think any sort of curved road plate would likely be much more limited than the straight ones in terms of being able customize the sides of the roads with features like bike lanes. Unless, of course, some designer at LEGO is way more resourceful than I could ever dream of being when it comes to solving those sorts of geometry puzzles.

In the meantime, one thing I'd love to see in a future City set, which LEGO could potentially even do with just the existing road plates, would be bridges/overpasses, sort of like a modernized and customization-friendly version of the ones in #6600-2.

Aanchir

Whoops, I just noticed I was like… a page behind on discussion when I left that comment. Apologies if it seems like I was trying to turn up the heat on a disagreement/controversy that had already cooled off to everybody’s satisfaction. It definitely wasn’t my intent.

Roundabouts are another idea I’ve already explored with the new road plates on stud.io — even without any specialized curve pieces you can make a pretty decent single-lane roundabout using standard road plates and wedge plates/tiles, though ideally you’d want some unique printed parts for the road markings. I will see if I can share some pics of my stud.io mock-ups once I’m back on my computer!

MaffyD

I like roundabouts. Mainly because I can utilise other drivers inability to work out when they have priority to make sure I get through it regardless of the rules.

Joke, mainly 

Istokg

Probably the most interesting road plate of all time was the very first one... the 078 of 1970-71, which was only available in the USA as a Samsonite LEGO item.  These are very highly sought after today, and command premium prices.  Unfortunately they are 50x50 studs... so unlike later 48x48 plates, are not really compatible with any road system thru the ages.  Only 1 per package back in 1970 (although the pack shows 4).

datsunrobbie

#7591 Construct-a-Zurg is a really cool set.

Brickchap

@Aanchir I agree about the road plates, for starters a direct 90 degree turn like the old plates would be good and then also release some different curved angles as you suggested. Racetracks are another good point as to why we need curved roads.

I would wonder though if Lego would consider Speed Champions and road plates compatible so to speak because SC cars are now 8 wide. (you can extend the new plates of course but realistically you would probably need to have at least two full 16x16 plates side by side to make a proper racetrack for 8 wide cars). I agree with you about it, but perhaps Lego wouldn't consider racetracks as much, I don't know. Speaking of racetracks though, given the prevalence of various types of racing cars in City, I'm surprised we haven't had a proper racetrack set or even sets to allow someone to build a racetrack like some transporter trucks and most importantly different coloured cars of the same type (eg red F1 car, blue F1 car).

Personally I'm not into racing (unless Lego did a 1930s or 1950s racetrack with the racing cars of that era, old cameras etc. that would be super cool), but I do think a proper racetrack set, rather like some of the original SC 'big sets' could be very popular.

Bridges and overpasses are a great idea! A few people on facebook have made bridges using the new plates. If I find they don't work in my city that's probably what I will do, along with piers/docks etc. A multi storey carpark is another idea that could work. Maybe each floor could be 2 16x16 plates plus two 8x16 plates respectively on a 32x32 base. I know there are a ton of wooden and plastic multi story car parks/garages out there so I'm sure it would be popular with kids, especially if it had a lift of some sort and plenty of vehicles. (AFOLs would probably like it as well). But bridges, definitely.

I'd love an official bridge set, maybe they could do another 'City civilian big set' type thing (eg City Square, Capital City, Main Square etc.), except the setting would be near a river or harbour so the main attraction of the set would be a big (well sort of) bridge maybe with some traditional architecture, then maybe a canal boat, some people having picnics in the park (and a customary police chase with a police jet ski and crook in a crate or something because you can't have a City set without a police officer and criminal in it...). A one lane bridge would probably be enough, especially if they added a couple of extra studs worth of space on the side of an 8x16 road plate to give plenty of room for 6 wide vehicles. The outer wall or barrier would only need to be 1 stud so maybe a 10 stud wide bridge? (I'm thinking of overall cost and amount of pieces here).

In short, a City road based version of the Spiderman Venice Canal Rinaldo bridge set (I forget the name).

Gibbo1959

datsunrobbie said:

#7591 Construct-a-Zurg is a really cool set.

Sorry, this is the unpopular Lego opinions thread, you appear to be in the wrong place. 

Also, I have 2 of #7591 bought on deep discount (and 5 of #7592 Construct-a-Buzz). Is there a separate Lego confessions thread?

SumoLego

I too, own many Construct-a-Zurg and Construct-a-Buzz sets.

Whew!

Aanchir

datsunrobbie said:

#7591 Construct-a-Zurg is a really cool set.

It was definitely pretty exciting back when it was on shelves — both due to the deep, deep discounts at the many stores that massively overstocked it, and the sheer quantity of Medium Lilac parts it offered (at a time when that color was considerably rarer than it is now).

I didn't end up getting it then, though, and don't really have any regrets. If I bought every set that stood out to me as a neat set and/or a good value instead of narrowing down my wish list to specific preferred sets or themes, this hobby would utterly eviscerate any attempt to be mindful in my spending habits.

Brickchap said:

@Aanchir I agree about the road plates, for starters a direct 90 degree turn like the old plates would be good and then also release some different curved angles as you suggested. Racetracks are another good point as to why we need curved roads.

I would wonder though if Lego would consider Speed Champions and road plates compatible so to speak because SC cars are now 8 wide. (you can extend the new plates of course but realistically you would probably need to have at least two full 16x16 plates side by side to make a proper racetrack for 8 wide cars). I agree with you about it, but perhaps Lego wouldn't consider racetracks as much, I don't know.

I was thinking more about racetracks in the context of the City theme. Between this year's "Stuntz" sets and last year's "Turbo Wheels" sets (like #60255, #60256, and #60258), motorsports-related sets are seemingly becoming a lot more common in the City theme than in years past. It may not be coincidental that we started seeing more sets of that sort in the City theme around the same time that Speed Champions shifted to 8-wide.

I'm not all that into racing myself (though my dad's a big racing fan). My thoughts on this are more based on the sorts of sets I remember owning and/or enjoying as a kid, and the enduring popularity of race cars among kids. During my early KFOL years in the 90s, there were a LOT of racing-focused sets in the Town theme. So it's not too hard for me to imagine a modern equivalent of a set like #6337 being a good fit for the City theme.

After all, if City has room for race cars and race car transporter trucks in City, it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to think there could be a bigger playset that accompanies them. Though naturally, you'd probably still be required to get separate road plate packs to make a full racing circuit.

Brickchap said:

Bridges and overpasses are a great idea! A few people on facebook have made bridges using the new plates. If I find they don't work in my city that's probably what I will do, along with piers/docks etc. A multi storey carpark is another idea that could work. Maybe each floor could be 2 16x16 plates plus two 8x16 plates respectively on a 32x32 base. I know there are a ton of wooden and plastic multi story car parks/garages out there so I'm sure it would be popular with kids, especially if it had a lift of some sort and plenty of vehicles. (AFOLs would probably like it as well). But bridges, definitely.

Yeah, I could definitely imagine City introducing another parking garage set like #4207 but using the new road plates, especially now that it's been a decade since that set was released. I was a big fan of that one when it first came out even though I wasn't much of a City collector at that time. And the new road system would make it much easier to connect to other sets as part of a bigger layout.

Also, while we're on the subject of bridges, it still surprises me that there has never been an official LEGO System train set with a train bridge or tunnel, even back when trains were still popular enough to get an entire theme of their own! For me, train bridges and tunnels are often the highlight of any fan-created train layouts, whether LEGO or non-LEGO.

pxchris

SumoLego said:

I too, own many Construct-a-Zurg and Construct-a-Buzz sets.

Whew!

I'll keep that in mind the next time we have a trade to work out... I've actually thought about picking up those two sets.

Brickchap

@Aanchir Yes I did have those old Town racetrack sets in mind. Now that we have road plates, perhaps we could bring back the old town type sets with baseplates (but roadplates for the road section and regular plates for any buildings or side builds instead). I'd be open to a proper racetrack set, even better a whole 'Racing' subtheme of City, with sets for the different teams car transporters, cars, tow trucks, pace cars, a news crew and van (with or without helicopter) would be super cool. Maybe even some food trucks and that sort of thing.

A cool new minifig piece could be a shoulder held tray like they have in America for baseball and other sports events, similar to the baby carrier piece but with say a 1x3 plate or 2x2 plate's worth of space on a tray.

Good point about the lack of train bridges/tunnels! And I cannot agree more! Model railway layouts with bridges and/or tunnels tend to be the most popular. I don't see why lego couldn't just use some BURP, LURP etc. pieces and make a short tunnel.

The main problem with road/rail bridges is the approaches. Ramps in Lego have always been troublesome, and the ramps they included for the old construction bridge sets you mentioned were ridiculously steep. If they ever did a road bridge, I would probably argue for an 8x8 'ramp' piece that could be added to to create a 16x8 ramp etc etc. That way people could customise how long or short they want their ramp to be (and how high the bridge itself would be). As for railways, flex track was good for very short inclines (although there wasn't many places on the bottom to attach studs), but larger ramps I don't know how that could be achieved.

All the toy trains I had as a child and have seen in general rely on 'slippery dip' type approaches that are fun for a kid but very unrealistic and also limit the type of trains that can use them (eg Thomas the Tank Engine, Percy and other small trains could go over my bridges, but Gordon and Henrietta tended to get stuck a bit). For this reason I highly doubt that kind of approach could work for Lego since most Lego locomotives tend to be relatively long.

Speaking of that, I don't know why in the last 20 years or so Lego has never really made small locomotives like the 40 Year Anniversary one, like a shunter train for example. These would make a lot of sense for the cargo based sets (they tend to be based around a yard), and significantly reduce the cost of the set, or allow for the inclusion of more rolling stock instead.

As I have always argued, I believe Lego trains (whether as a standalone theme or as apart of a large City theme) would work provided that Lego sold smaller, cheaper individual locomotives (i.e unofficial Thomas or Percy for example), that kids could afford themselves (or be a lot more likely to convince their parents/grandparents to buy for them). Make a set called Railway Siding or something with a switchtrack and a couple of wagons of various types and for a much cheaper price kids can have their very own train. (The lack of motors has never stopped the popularity of Thomas & Friends sets, or other wooden/plastic train toys). This would also allow fans (of any age) to increase the size of their trains and populate their cargo yards and stations.

Many times there have been debates around the return of Trains as a standalone theme and I can see the arguments of those who believe that would never work. However, I don't see a problem in Lego making a real effort in its 4 yearly (is it 4 years??) trains theme it does for City (which given it keeps doing these train sets must sell). The current strategy of some boxes of track, one expensive passenger train on a round loop, and one very expensive cargo train set with a whole bunch of sidebuilds is not effective for any Lego theme in my opinion. I know from personal experience the amount of times both as a child and AFOL I have liked and wanted the new cargo train set, or passenger train but couldn't afford or justify $150+, and $250+ respectively, on a Lego train (especially since I already have the Maersk train and Horizon Express).

The recent Hidden Side set (I got it for $70 AU I think it was), clearly proves that Lego is capable of releasing cheaper train sets, they just need to change their marketing strategy.

The same goes for Airport themes where they have decreased over the years to almost simply one 'Airport' set, the vast majority of which is just this massive aircraft (that looks the same every year but with different colours more or less), that only holds 6 minifigures at most. Once again in my own experience, I wish I had bought the 2011 Airport set (it is the best so far in my opinion regarding the terminal and overall value), but couldn't justify it since 1. It was very expensive and 2. I already had the large passenger plane from 2006/8 whenever it was and could never fit that in my City anyway.

I like what Lego is doing with police and fire now where they are releasing smaller police and fire stations and instead devoting the 'big' sets to playsets centered around the key action like a bank robbery or warehouse fire. This makes a lot more sense, 1. it's more fun for kids and somewhat more affordable and 2. As I soon found, once you've got a police/fire station, you don't need another one, let alone 2 or 3 (as many parents would wisely argue). Furthermore, instead of having a big station (that is pretty much the same as last year) with a silly little helicopter that barely does anything, kids can instead have a smaller building and garage for example, and then buy the larger helicopter (usually around $30 AU) which can 'do' a lot more.

It's just a shame that strategy hasn't yet been tried with trains, airport, racing, even historical themes (like making smaller pirate ships that kids can actually afford and giving them the ability to actually fight something other then a rowboat)

SumoLego

pxchris said:

I'll keep that in mind the next time we have a trade to work out... I've actually thought about picking up those two sets.

Cannot part with the precious....

Istokg

Speaking again of unpopular lighting for LEGO...

Sometimes the Latin alphabet can be a challenge for Chinese factories... but I'm not sure I want to speculate how these lights work in conjunction with LEGO??  😮

lowlead

=oD

Alexa, play some Barry White

CCC

Istokg said:

Speaking again of unpopular lighting for LEGO...

Sometimes the Latin alphabet can be a challenge for Chinese factories... 

Or they know some westerners will buy any old crap if you put unintentional looking swears on the box.

Aanchir

Brickchap said:

@Aanchir Yes I did have those old Town racetrack sets in mind. Now that we have road plates, perhaps we could bring back the old town type sets with baseplates (but roadplates for the road section and regular plates for any buildings or side builds instead).

Honestly, that's sort of what LEGO appears to be doing with a lot of next year's City sets. This catalog page recently shared by Promobricks shows just how many "cityscape" type sets focusing on buildings, roads, and scenery the 2022 City range includes in its first wave alone, and how neatly they can fit together into a larger layout!

And it's not hard to see similarities between, say, #60329 and #379, in terms of the role the road plates play in the overall design and play experience. So it's not hard to imagine these road plates being used in other ways that classic Town sets often used road baseplates, such as airport runways, service stations, cargo hubs, parking garages, and driveways.

Brickchap said:

The main problem with road/rail bridges is the approaches. Ramps in Lego have always been troublesome, and the ramps they included for the old construction bridge sets you mentioned were ridiculously steep. If they ever did a road bridge, I would probably argue for an 8x8 'ramp' piece that could be added to to create a 16x8 ramp etc etc. That way people could customise how long or short they want their ramp to be (and how high the bridge itself would be). As for railways, flex track was good for very short inclines (although there wasn't many places on the bottom to attach studs), but larger ramps I don't know how that could be achieved.

All the toy trains I had as a child and have seen in general rely on 'slippery dip' type approaches that are fun for a kid but very unrealistic and also limit the type of trains that can use them (eg Thomas the Tank Engine, Percy and other small trains could go over my bridges, but Gordon and Henrietta tended to get stuck a bit). For this reason I highly doubt that kind of approach could work for Lego since most Lego locomotives tend to be relatively long.

Agreed — although it's good to keep in mind that LEGO tends to do a lot more creative stuff with hinges these days than they did back in the 80s or 90s. Using hinges to create ramps would likely be difficult with trains due to the way the tracks connect together and the need to avoid any large gaps in the rails themselves, but a hinge-based ramps could certainly be a viable option for road bridges or overpasses.

Also, there are some types of bridges like this one that LEGO could probably get away with having close to level with the main roads or railway tracks of a layout (raised maybe just a brick or two above the "floor level" to indicate the support pylons and give builders space to build onto those pylons to fit layouts with more varied elevations), eliminating any need for an extremely steep grade.

May continue commenting later, gotta go out for a quick errand with my wife!

Gibbo1959

SumoLego said:

I too, own many Construct-a-Zurg and Construct-a-Buzz sets.

Whew!

Gives me an excuse to roll this photo out again.

Also, anyone else feel like this thread is like a party with everyone is mostly talking random crap while @Aanchir and @Brickchap try to have a serious conversation over in the corner?

Brickchap

@Gibbo1959 LOL very true XD. Most Brickset forums are like that (not saying its just myself and Aanchir who have serious conversations) but in general for example people will be making a whole bunch of leek jokes or references to sit coms and so forth while a minority actually discuss a new leak etc. (which is fine by the way, reminds me of when Just2Good was doing a live video in 2016 and he read the comment section which was Trump, Trump, Trump, Hillary, Bacon, Trump LOL)

Brickchap

@Aanchir Very true about the 2022 City releases. Also a good point about hinges although, as you mentioned it can be problematic with tracks (and I would also argue roads). I suppose it comes down to how much of a gap you're willing to accept.

I also thought of an idea like yours regarding the bridge. That could be done quite easily. Personally though I'd prefer them to do a proper bridge rather then just raise a plate or two.

I would really like to hear your further thoughts and we should continue this discussion. I will post a different topic after this but I'm not trying to end this discussion.

Brickchap

A little while ago there was a rumour/leak of a possible Creator 3 in 1 Viking Ship coming in 2022. I believe there was a set number if someone has a link?

With this in mind, what is the possibility that there will be a Creator Expert D2C Viking Village set in 2022?

I'm guessing there is a possibility due to 1. Previously we have had the Creator Castle and Creator Pirate ship to correspond with the larger, more expensive Ideas POBB and Blacksmith sets.

2. If Lego does make a viking ship, there is a very decent chance they will introduce some new viking warrior prints (and hopefully bring back the realistic viking helmet piece from the most recent CMF Viking). If they go to the trouble of making new prints, it is probable they would want to use these in other sets.

3. We have had a number of viking ship and village related sets on lego Ideas including some that have reached 10,000 supporters.

Personally I think a large viking village as a standalone set would be very popular (I'm not asking for, or prophesying a whole new viking theme although that would be even better of course).

Vikings in general have become very popular whether it be interest in actual viking history, Norse mythology (not just Thor though), the TV show Vikings, the How to Train Your Dragon movies and TV series etc. etc.

There is even quite a lot of interest in vikings here in Australia despite being about as far away from Scandinavia as one can get, and there aren't many people here of Scandinavian ancestry either (compared to say Anglo-Irish, Italian, Greek, German, Chinese etc.)

Lego could surprise us fans with a large, detailed viking village set, as well as a Creator longboat for the cheaper option which would be popular with those like me who like historical themes, medieval fans, kids and even non-Lego fans who are interested in the vikings. What do people think?

Aanchir

@Brickchap Back from errands! Here's some more thoughts I had in response to your last comment:

Duplo has for many years had a train ramp piece along the lines of the “slippery dip” type approaches you’re describing, but you’re right that it would not work as well for System trains, both because of their longer carriages with lower ground clearance, and because powered Duplo trains have gear teeth integrated with the wheels of the powered carriages, similar to a cog railway. System trains lack cog wheels, and have to rely on friction bands to prevent slippage.

Another type of bridge we've seen in Duplo sets (albeit the ones with "Brick Runner" tracks rather than normal Duplo train tracks) that could potentially work for System train or road bridges even at close to a display's "ground level" would be a lift bridge/drawbridge over a ri. A set with a lift bridge of that sort would be a nice "companion piece" to a larger harbour set (which we haven't seen in System sets in several years) or even a ship-to-rail freight depot set (which we've NEVER seen in a System set).

You could even design a lift bridge set with road plates that can easily be removed and swapped out for train tracks. That way, it could offer the full play value of a lift bridge (raising for boats/ships and lowering for wheeled vehicles) and be train-compatible without having to include the cost of an actual train.

I suspect that the scarcity of train tunnels — or ANY sort of tunnels — in System sets is that they offer relatively little stand-alone play value for their size/price compared to similar-sized structures. But one way I think this could be addressed would be to release it not as a train set, but as a tunnel construction set with a tunnel-boring machine and break-away walls/obstacles on the inside.

The cost could also be reduced by designing it as a "half-tunnel" with only one opening (sort of like the mine entrance from #4204), which be converted into a full, finished tunnel by combining two copies of the set and clearing out the aforementioned obstructions. Naturally, this would be a heavily simplified version of the complex, multi-stage process of constructing real train or highway tunnels. But that sort of simplification is pretty typical for construction-related sets in City or any other theme.

Also, high five from a fellow AFOL who enjoyed Thomas the Tank Engine toys as a kid! It's a shame LEGO is unlikely to ever get the Thomas & Friends license again for Duplo sets again, now that Mattel owns the full rights to it… unless Mattel ends up having to sell off their HIT Entertainment subsidiary to a media company outside the toy industry.

Brickchap said:

Speaking of that, I don't know why in the last 20 years or so Lego has never really made small locomotives like the 40 Year Anniversary one, like a shunter train for example. These would make a lot of sense for the cargo based sets (they tend to be based around a yard), and significantly reduce the cost of the set, or allow for the inclusion of more rolling stock instead.

As I have always argued, I believe Lego trains (whether as a standalone theme or as apart of a large City theme) would work provided that Lego sold smaller, cheaper individual locomotives (i.e unofficial Thomas or Percy for example), that kids could afford themselves (or be a lot more likely to convince their parents/grandparents to buy for them). Make a set called Railway Siding or something with a switchtrack and a couple of wagons of various types and for a much cheaper price kids can have their very own train. (The lack of motors has never stopped the popularity of Thomas & Friends sets, or other wooden/plastic train toys). This would also allow fans (of any age) to increase the size of their trains and populate their cargo yards and stations.

I agree that smaller locomotives and non-motorized "push trains" would be good to see in System again — especially now that the "4+" category exists as a sort of bridge between Duplo-aged kids and the grade-school-aged kids that powered System trains are targeted at.

Honestly, it surprises me that there haven't been any 4+ train sets yet, especially now that LEGO has moved away from the removable metal axles (which might've presented a puncture hazard for younger builders similar to the infamously recalled set #3509). After all, City trains already tend to use a lot of large, "kid-friendly" parts that'd be a good starting point for train sets aimed at younger builders.

A System push train set wouldn't even strictly need to include a full circuit of track anymore thanks to the 8x12 "off ramp" introduced in 2019. With a few standard track pieces and one or two of those ramps, kids would have the freedom to push a train across rails and carpets alike, without having to interrupt that journey to lift the train onto or off of the rails.

Perhaps we might finally see a 4+ train set as part of the next batch of City train sets, which I expect will be coming out next summer in accordance with the usual four-year cycle for City trains. If we do, I'll be interested to see what approach the official set designers end up taking.

Brickchap said:

The same goes for Airport themes where they have decreased over the years to almost simply one 'Airport' set, the vast majority of which is just this massive aircraft (that looks the same every year but with different colours more or less), that only holds 6 minifigures at most. Once again in my own experience, I wish I had bought the 2011 Airport set (it is the best so far in my opinion regarding the terminal and overall value), but couldn't justify it since 1. It was very expensive and 2. I already had the large passenger plane from 2006/8 whenever it was and could never fit that in my City anyway.

For my part I'm not too bothered by the direction that recent City airport sets have taken, since the passenger airliners in particular have gotten way better at including the sorts of familiar features that I would've liked to see in sets as a kid: an aisle for moving around the passenger cabin, snack carts, bathrooms, cargo holds, and seating for both a pilot and a co-pilot. #41429 Heartlake City Airplane even had overhead luggage compartments and its custom wings, both of which could be awesome features for future City airliners.

I definitely understand what you mean about the 8-wide plane designs feeling repetitive, though — and I'm hoping that can begin to improve now that the 2020 Friends and City passenger planes introduced new 8-wide nose and tail pieces that more closely match "standard" curved and wedge pieces. The new 8-wide tail pieces in particular should allow for more engine and stabilizer arrangements as well as more efficient use of the interior space.

As far as air terminals are concerned, I was very happy with the way the ones from #60104 and #60262 recreated the curved rooflines and other modernist architectural features of airports I've been to in real life, like Dulles International Airport, London Heathrow Airport, and of course LEGO's hometown airport in Billund.

That said, 60262's terminal was sadly too small to include real-world features like a waiting area for passengers or a security gate with a baggage X-ray. I hope the next air terminal is big enough to bring back those features, and maybe even others like a gift shop and snack bar.

In any case, I don't think the shrinking size of waves in the Airport subtheme has much to do with the size of the airliners themselves. Certainly, it's annoyingly redundant when you have an airliner packaged with the air terminal AND another sold on its own, like in the 2006 and 2010 City Airport waves. But even in the Town theme, there were hardly ever more than two or three "Flight" sets released per year.

If anything, the number of airport-related sets in the City theme isn't so bad when you consider that for the past decade or so, Cargo has been split off into its own independent subtheme (which remains pretty airport-focused), and airport fire trucks or small, non-emergency aircraft like #60144, #60177, #60250, and #60323 are typically released as part of the perennial Great Vehicles subtheme instead of as part of a larger Airport wave.

Plus, even if it remains the norm to have every air terminal set comes with packaged with an airliner (which probably limits how much detail/how many features can be realistically expected from either)… at least they're no longer expected to include one or two helicopters like all the airport terminals from the 80s and 90s!

560Heliport

@Aanchir Hey! Don't be ripping on #6597 Century Skyway! It's a great set, partly because it had two helicopters! :)

560Heliport

So... Castle fans got the Ideas Blacksmith Shop and Creator Medieval Castle, Pirates fans got POBB and Pirate Ship... I want a return of Rock Raiders! We have teal parts again, they could use the new-in-2022 Vibrant Yellow... Who's with me? ...(crickets)

lowlead

I want Space Vikings.

Brickchap

@560Heliport Two helicopters, but no lighthouse. That's a no from me. Bad set. XD

lowlead

...Norsestronauts. 

Astrobricks

560Heliport said:

@Aanchir Hey! Don't be ripping on #6597 Century Skyway! It's a great set, partly because it had two helicopters! :)

With ridiculously small rotors I see 🤔. 

Brickchap

@Aanchir A drawbridge/lifting bridge would be really cool, and very simple to build too! It would never happen but I can still dream of an official Lego Grafton bridge. (there's a lovely town in N.S.W Australia called Grafton with a bridge like you describe built in 1932).

That's a great idea combining harbour and trains/a bridge! I'll never understand why Lego stopped doing dedicated construction and harbour themes. We do get individual dump trucks, speed boats, yachts etc. but in both cases we haven't had a proper theme since the 2000s. (the last harbour theme was possibly 2010/2011 I don't remember). Boats that float is something kids (especially younger ones which Lego likes to target) love. And cargo transfer between trucks, trains and ships (or even aircraft) is something that would be immensely popular and create great playsets, but as you point out, Lego has never really explored that much.

Cargo Terminal I think it was called was released a little while ago, 2018 it might have been, with a great playset of a semi trailer truck, forklift, telehandler, storage area and a quite detailed entry booth/boomgate. A fun, unique set that works with harbours, rail yards, even airports. Jangbricks has often commented on the need to standardise the Lego cargo system, with a certain size for containers and connection arrangements for truck trailers, allowing kids to use different trailers with different rigs, and use cargo from one set with another. This makes a lot of sense and in real life its called containers LOL. Lego makes container type cargo but sets are often designed as separate to each other, rather than as apart of a whole Lego City Cargo system. Maybe with the new road plates we will see more interconnectedness. Harbour is another theme I'd love to see return, especially a classic freighter/cargo ship and crane and truck set like we've had in prior years. Including train track and road sections (maybe even a bridge), as you suggest would be a great way to encourage kids to combine all their sets for a large, fun layout.

I'd love to see a tunnel construction set, especially like you suggest. In fact they could pretty much just do a rerelease of sorts of the Gold Mine set you mentioned (which I own btw), even down to the boreing vehicle (but add some railway wheels as well). They could include details about real life tunnel construction (like they've done with the Space sets), and encourage expansion of one's tunnel.

Haha lot's of people thankfully grew up on Thomas & Friends toys. Thomas would be a great Lego system theme, since it would give us a full blown train theme that both kids and adults would love. All Lego would need to do is include an unprinted dish piece (or whatever other pieces are needed), to remove the faces on the trains/vehicles and AFOLs could put the trains straight into their layouts.

Yes a 4+ train series would make sense, especially if Lego is worried trains tend to be for younger builders. As you said, Lego trains tend to be based around prefabricated pieces anyway. That's a great point about the off ramp piece. 4+ trains could be a great idea or an abomination depending how Lego does it (if they do). It would definitely be great if Lego invested in small sets like a Thomas locomotive and a couple of Troublesome Trucks (which would hardly demand a large piece count or lots of detail), say 4 pieces of straight track and an off ramp.) That would be a lot more affordable and I would argue useful to children than the same couple of massive expensive sets every 4 years. Whatever they do, I just hope Lego gives us at least a couple more train sets, especially a decent station. Another track repair vehicle would be great!

You are very right about the new 8 wide planes. They do have more and more detail, which is great and all they really need is to get rid of that massive prefabricated wing piece and use plates instead like with the Friends jumbo jet. I do prefer the new cockpit and tail pieces.

You are also right about the terminals. Recent terminals have captured the architecture (which is great), but my pet peeve is the complete lack of interior detail. The most recent one was basically just a desk. There are so many cool things that happen inside an airport, even simply with luggage check in alone.

My solution to the problem would be similar to what I mentioned regarding police and fire. Instead of a 'big set' based around a massive airliner and tiny terminal, instead I would make the big airport set with a decent sized, detailed terminal (combine the 2011 and 2006/8 terminals for example), a control tower (this could be apart of the terminal itself), a luggage cart/tug and a medium to small aircraft instead, like the 2010 6 wide passenger plane. Personally I'd love to see a Douglas DC 3 type aircraft (old fashioned but I can still wish).

Here in Australia we have REX which is an airline specifically devoted to regional flights and using small/medium sized propeller aircraft that carry around 20 people, I forget how many it is but I'm sure you know what I mean. QANTAS has similar aircraft. Lego should make one of these (kids love propellers dont they?) so that the airport set has a plane, but can devote most of the pieces to a proper detailed airport terminal that would also be lots of fun for kids.

Then, they could sell the larger jumbo jet type aircraft as a separate set, maybe with some different ground crew vehicles such as a food truck or scissor lift for example (neither of which we have ever seen from Lego).

Another idea for a separate set, like VIP plane in 2017, is a flying boat! I've always loved flying boats, even they are again rather old fashioned. They are still used though and it would be cool representing different locations for airports. Plus a flying boat could be used for harbours. Imagine if Lego made a flying boat that actually floated!

There are so many cool vehicles and aircraft that could be done for an airport theme. I sure wouldn't mind another hangar. They could even do a specific airport fire station set (since Lego loves including emergency services in every single City set now...). We've never had an airport shuttle bus from memory (the ones that drive passengers out to the aircraft).

Finally, instead of another bunch of random stunt planes, some old fashioned aircraft would be cool like a tourist experience trimotor aircraft, unofficial Spitfire, Sioux and/or Huey helicopter etc. etc. As you can probably tell I loved airports as a kid...and continue to haha.

CCC

Brickchap said:

A little while ago there was a rumour/leak of a possible Creator 3 in 1 Viking Ship coming in 2022. I believe there was a set number if someone has a link?

With this in mind, what is the possibility that there will be a Creator Expert D2C Viking Village set in 2022?

I'm guessing there is a possibility due to 1. Previously we have had the Creator Castle and Creator Pirate ship to correspond with the larger, more expensive Ideas POBB and Blacksmith sets.

2. If Lego does make a viking ship, there is a very decent chance they will introduce some new viking warrior prints (and hopefully bring back the realistic viking helmet piece from the most recent CMF Viking). If they go to the trouble of making new prints, it is probable they would want to use these in other sets.

3. We have had a number of viking ship and village related sets on lego Ideas including some that have reached 10,000 supporters.

Personally I think a large viking village as a standalone set would be very popular (I'm not asking for, or prophesying a whole new viking theme although that would be even better of course).

Vikings in general have become very popular whether it be interest in actual viking history, Norse mythology (not just Thor though), the TV show Vikings, the How to Train Your Dragon movies and TV series etc. etc.

There is even quite a lot of interest in vikings here in Australia despite being about as far away from Scandinavia as one can get, and there aren't many people here of Scandinavian ancestry either (compared to say Anglo-Irish, Italian, Greek, German, Chinese etc.)

Lego could surprise us fans with a large, detailed viking village set, as well as a Creator longboat for the cheaper option which would be popular with those like me who like historical themes, medieval fans, kids and even non-Lego fans who are interested in the vikings. What do people think?

The Creator sets are very different to the IDEAS sets, in style and composition of the sets, apart from the minifigs parts. They have also rejected the Viking IDEAS stuff, so the correlation with previous pirate and medieval  IDEAS sets is weakened.

Of course they will make what they want to make, but just because they did a pirates IDEAS set then a pirates Creator, then a medieval IDEAS set followed by a Creator one,  I don't think they will necessarily do a large Vikings set if they do a Creator one.

To me, the Creator pirates and castle sets have more in common with each other than they do with the IDEAS sets.

Bumblepants

Some of y'all just need to start adding a TL:DR to the end of your posts. Fell asleep trying to catch up on this thread. 

lowlead

^^  They're both kindred authors - it's amazing to witness! =oD  I don't think I have that many thoughts in an entire day....

pxchris

^^ Yeah, I'll admit I do a lot of skimming/skipping when I see a post that's more than a paragraph or so long.

560Heliport

^ How else should I spend my break time at work- talking to coworkers? (shudder)

Aanchir

560Heliport said:

@Aanchir Hey! Don't be ripping on #6597 Century Skyway! It's a great set, partly because it had two helicopters! :)

Not saying that’s not a good set, just that we’re probably better off with that sort of thing NOT remaining the norm (especially since at this point I doubt many City collectors really need more helicopters).

Trust me, there are a LOT of sets from my own childhood (like #6195 and #6769) that were fantastic fun for me as a kid, but that today I’d definitely prefer in at least a slightly trimmed-down form, especially considering how steep their prices were!

Astrobricks

maybe we need a section called Debate Salon :)

lowlead

^^...make it a saloon and I'm there!

Gibbo1959

Astrobricks said:

maybe we need a section called Debate Salon :)

I think the Greeks (or maybe it was the Romans) used to do all their debating in the Forum ... so here we all are!

Brickchap

@Gibbo1959 hahaha very true. I believe it was the Romans.

Sorry for the essays (just ask my teachers, university lecturers/tutors etc. etc., I do not do concise! XD Want a 1500 word essay? I write 6000 words then have to cut it down and pray there's a 10% leeway LOL)

Personally I like to try and explain and/or argue a point rather than just dump one line opinions like "This is bad." -Should Lego make this?- 'Nope'.

I hate it on facebook and so forth when someone (I'm not just referring to me here) will ask a perfectly reasonable question or make a reasonable suggestion (for example, "How about they add this vehicle to the game?") and a whole bunch of people just spam the chat with "No" "Nope" "This should never happen" etc.

There's nothing wrong with having a positive or negative opinion on something, and it's great if you can be concise, but if you're going to disagree (or agree) with someone then at least say why (especially if you're saying something like "that's a terrible idea", then why is it a terrible idea?)

I'm not referring to any of you guys and I'm not at all mad on people laughing at my very long responses btw though.

Speaking of Greeks and Romans, Greek or Roman theme anyone? Greek mythology is very popular, and the Classical period is not something Lego or many other toys have done before.

There's various ways a new historical theme based around Rome/Greece could be taken, educate children about ancient times, a fantasy/mythology based theme, a Castle type theme in a different location and time period (eg Roman forts, ballistas, centurions instead of knights etc.).

It would be a unique and cool idea, especially if such a theme gave us some new pieces for Classical architecture (which would be great for modular buildings and other building MOCs)

Gibbo1959

@Brickchap There’s some top notch historical MOCs and display pieces out there on the interweb. Usually populated by the now extremely expensive historical CMFs that possibly inspired them.

Maybe more of such on Ideas and fewer pseudo Modulars or other repeats of existing IPs might give LEGO a nudge in that direction.