Unpopular LEGO Opinions

sipuss

One thing's certain though - Forest Hideout and Blacktron Cruiser would sell like hot cakes (and not just to AFOLs, it's not hard to imagine parents picking "the cheaper" thematic counterpart after their kids looked with awe at Lion Knights' Castle or Galaxy Explorer at the store).

560Heliport

No, I think that's not at all certain. They might sell very well, or maybe most potential buyers would say, "What is that? It doesn't fit with anything else." 
I can imagine someone saying, "Blacktron? Is that a comic book, or a movie, or video game? ...No? Then what is it?"

Brickchap

@sipuss I agree, and I'm glad you mentioned that parents wanting a cheaper castle or space set for their kids would like those too.

@560Heliport, thank you for your unpopular opinion. It's a good discussion. I really don't see why buyers would say "What is that?" and therefore not buy it. Robin Hood is pretty recognisable, while it's also a nice little nature type scene which we don't get very often. (I think the otter habitat part of that Otter Habitat city set would look really nice next to the Forestmen Hideout).

As for Blacktron particularly, kids and their parents aren't going to worry about what Blacktron means. They will see a cool space ship for $20 and buy it. (kids love spaceships).

Overall in response to your argument I'd say it depends on what the GWP is. I'd have bought as many Vintage Taxis as possible, and I believe other people making cities (regardless of the era) would have done so as well.

I do think GWPs like castle, space, Bionicle etc. would sell perfectly fine based on nostalgic fans and other fans who are interested or even just want the pieces. Indeed, how do we define "sell well"? Lego has lots of sets that appeal to specific areas of the market and aren't necessarily going to be bought by every person that walks in the store. Often these sets are very expensive too (like Lion Knights Castle, the Artwork sets, or Landmark series).

So I really don't see the problem with having some cheap and affordable sets for specific areas of the market like Classic themes or nostalgic AFOLs generally. There will always be other people who will buy these as well, especially if a cheaper price point makes them accessible to a broader audience. I'm very sure heaps of kids would love to own Lion Knights Castle or Pirates of Barracuda Bay, it's just those sets are way out of their price range.

CCC

560Heliport said:

No, I think that's not at all certain. They might sell very well, or maybe most potential buyers would say, "What is that? It doesn't fit with anything else." 
I can imagine someone saying, "Blacktron? Is that a comic book, or a movie, or video game? ...No? Then what is it?"

Same here. I don't think the Blacktron or Hideout sets would sell very well if they were retail sets. As one off sets, they don't really go with anything else. If done as part of a theme, and there were multiple castle sets or multiple Blacktron sets, then I imagine there would be more interest in them. But as a one off set, less so.

Phoenixio

560Heliport said:

No, I think that's not at all certain. They might sell very well, or maybe most potential buyers would say, "What is that? It doesn't fit with anything else." 
I can imagine someone saying, "Blacktron? Is that a comic book, or a movie, or video game? ...No? Then what is it?"

I agree with you.  In our community of mostly adults, there's such a strong bias of preferences (which is not necessarily bad at all), but it has to be recognized.  We represent a very small subset of the people buying Lego.  I think it's overly optimistic to say that nostalgia alone will sell a set well: for sure there are some people who will buy it under that pretense, but what are the actual numbers?

As GWP, they tend to have such a low offer of the product that completionists, collectors and nostalgic people will speak out in fear of missing the chance.  So we see this through higher number of messages in our community and we get the impression that the demand is high.  But those are completely different conditions to having it on a shelf and seeing how much it sells.  If kids don't care for a set, and if it's not one of the niche high-price high-profit sets for adults, I'd be really surprised if it did well.  Take the Bionicle GWP for example: kids don't know what Bionicle was, and as a mech, it's really subpar compared to the very popular Marvel mechs of which there is a wide selection to match your favorite well known characters.  The nostalgia, because you were there at the time, won't change this current situation.

Marshallmario

    Sorry...still an unpopular opinion with me. Lego has tried lots of different things that may or may not have worked out. We never really know do we? Examples maybe are Dots, Vidiyo, Typewriter that didn't work. Why not do a larger run and make them available until gone only at their website. If they were not free maybe they could have a few more pieces or printed pieces (see Blacktron) making them even more attractive. Only Lego would know if they make more money by "free if you spend $200.00 with us right now" or "if you spend $29 with us some time in the next 6 months"

iwybs

Personally, I couldn’t wait to spend $200 and get the Blacktron GWP along with two other big sets that were on my must-buy list, but I couldn’t talk myself into spending another $200 for a group of less eagerly desired sets to get another copy of it. I hope any leftover Blacktron Cruisers get put up as VIP rewards.

Lyichir

Marshallmario said:

    Sorry...still an unpopular opinion with me. Lego has tried lots of different things that may or may not have worked out. We never really know do we? Examples maybe are Dots, Vidiyo, Typewriter that didn't work. Why not do a larger run and make them available until gone only at their website. If they were not free maybe they could have a few more pieces or printed pieces (see Blacktron) making them even more attractive. Only Lego would know if they make more money by "free if you spend $200.00 with us right now" or "if you spend $29 with us some time in the next 6 months"

I don't know where you're getting the impression that Dots didn't work? Yes, it's ending, but after a respectable three-year run—not an uncommon lifespan for a non-"evergreen" theme.

Marshallmario

   Just an impression from comments in the Dots thread and what I see on shelves around here. Lego never publishes anything on sales so we never really know what is successful or profitable for them. It was just an example of things that may not have worked for Lego.

Brickchap

^I agree with Marshallmario, I can't comment for overseas but here in Australia I see Dots on shelves all the time clearly not being bought.

Brickchap

@Marshallmario I also very much agree with this and I have argued it before. Lots of Lego set ideas or theme ideas have failed miserably, or done an 'okay' but not 'great' run. There is also the case of the various 3 year run themes which are specifically designed to only run for 3 years, and that's okay.

So when it comes to historical themes or even original themes in general, I never understand the argument of "waaa kids won't buy it waaa you're just a biased nostalgic AFOL". And just to focus on AFOL interests for the moment, once a year we get sets for AFOLs such as a modular building, Fairground collection set, Winter Village set, Ninjago City set etc. Now not many kids or families would necessarily go and buy these sets, the main audience is AFOLs. So why then can't every now and then we get sets like an AFOL Classic Space monorail set? Or an AFOL Imperial Fortress? Or an AFOL Wolfpack Lair??

As for themes more generally, such as a new Vikings theme or maybe a new take on Atlantis or Power Miners for example, again the haters will whinge "waaa kids won't buy it waaa you're just a biased nostalgic AFOL". But as you say, How do we know that kids won't like these themes? The Lego Creator Pirate Ship for example sold very well, and the only reason I would argue kids don't buy many pirate sets is because there aren't any on shelves to buy. The 2015 Pirates line was a disgrace, dumped on shelves with no interesting characters, backstory or even thought to the sets (which were mostly just direct repeats of 2009 sets). No wonder it didn't sell. But that doesn't mean any pirate-related Lego won't sell. And to return to some of the former points, new Lego themes, whether they be new ideas like a space theme (similar to Galaxy Squad, Alien Conquest, Space Police etc.), something historical (Vikings, Greek mythology, a fantasy Castle theme whatever), or something completely different, why can't Lego just try these as 3 year run themes? Sure, a Lego Castle theme may no longer work as an evergreen theme. Sure, a Lego Pirates theme isn't going to be as popular as Star Wars. But that doesn't mean such themes shouldn't exist, or be tried. Nexo Knights was a good attempt at a new Castle theme in a creative way that last 3 years. Let's do that again, maybe a Victorian/steampunk theme, maybe an alien invasion theme set in the 1950s, whatever it may be.

The_Rancor

I am fully committed to the Avatar theme and love pretty much all the sets. Sure some of the pricing is off but as a Star Wars fan I think I’ve been numbed to that to a certain extent. The designs and colour are what it’s about and I love how the scenery doubles as display stands. I think the longer torsos and legs are necessary for the Na’Vi minifigs but the pointy ear heads less so - it does mean they’re slightly bigger to match the body though.

Istokg

Since I'm older than ABS... and never been a fan of minifigs... I did come across this (IMHO) absurd rarity...

A 6 1/2 button minifig in the 106 Canadian UNICEF set, without a box or instructions. A bit presumptuous to assume it is unique, and never mind that that minifig printed torso was found in 54 sets!! 🙄  Last listed item down...

https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?S=106-1#T=S&O={"iconly":0}

Granted the UNICEF panels are rare...  but and I've mentioned this in another post before... there were more than just the 300 UNICEF sets for the LEGO Club of Canada winners... this 106 set was also sold at TRU of Canada.  A lot more of these highly sought after 106 sets were made by Samsonite of Canada than most people realize.  

CCC

Lyichir said:

Marshallmario said:

    Sorry...still an unpopular opinion with me. Lego has tried lots of different things that may or may not have worked out. We never really know do we? Examples maybe are Dots, Vidiyo, Typewriter that didn't work. Why not do a larger run and make them available until gone only at their website. If they were not free maybe they could have a few more pieces or printed pieces (see Blacktron) making them even more attractive. Only Lego would know if they make more money by "free if you spend $200.00 with us right now" or "if you spend $29 with us some time in the next 6 months"

I don't know where you're getting the impression that Dots didn't work? Yes, it's ending, but after a respectable three-year run—not an uncommon lifespan for a non-"evergreen" theme.

Yes, and I don't think that the large discounts they have been doing on them in some places is necessarily an indicator of failure for the theme, but rather failure for their pricing structure.

As to website only - especially for the small bracelet sets - I think that would have been a failure. Pocket money toys like that really need to be in front of kids to sell in volume.

CCC

Brickchap said:

The 2015 Pirates line was a disgrace, dumped on shelves with no interesting characters, backstory or even thought to the sets (which were mostly just direct repeats of 2009 sets). No wonder it didn't sell. But that doesn't mean any pirate-related Lego won't sell. And to return to some of the former points, new Lego themes, whether they be new ideas like a space theme (similar to Galaxy Squad, Alien Conquest, Space Police etc.), something historical (Vikings, Greek mythology, a fantasy Castle theme whatever), or something completely different, why can't Lego just try these as 3 year run themes? Sure, a Lego Castle theme may no longer work as an evergreen theme.

10 years ago we used to get one or two year themes on rotation. Back in the days of Atlantis, Pharaoh's Quest, Alien Conquest, Galaxy Squad, Monster Fighters at the same time as a bit of Castle plus Ninjago as a bigger action theme. Ultra Agents were in there too. I found those quite refreshing, they'd do a short theme and if you weren't into it it didn't matter as a new one would be along a year later. Plus as the theme was short lived, all the best ideas were put into it and not saved for later, and there were rarely dud sets. Yet there was a fair bit of negativity about them, as they were not as good as past sets when wearing a pair of nostalgia glasses, none of the space sets were Classic Space, when castle was redone in 2013 it was "lazy". Plus they have to do new advertising every year to hype the new range as nobody knows what it is. I think they have learnt from those themes and just stick to an evergreen Ninjago, then do the odd new theme centred around a different play style (Hidden Side, Vidiyo).

Now we have adult sets, it wouldn't surprise me if LEGO cared even less about longer term collectors (less than the not very much they used to) when it comes to children's sets. Like they do in City, so what if they did a similar set three years before. Kids that had that old one have new interests and kids today want something similar. That could well mean less variation in core products aimed at kids as a function of time, since they know what works well. That is what they did with castle in 2013. Kids that want a castle want a traditional castle at the time they get into it, yet AFOLs complained that the blue castle was too similar to the red one they bought three years before.

I can understand both one year themes and evergreen themes, although of course advertising and getting people to buy one year themes is hard. For me as an adult, in-house themes getting into their third year start to drag a bit. The best ideas have been used up and/or what was once new and fresh isn't any more. There is also the issue that if the theme is not popular, that is three years blacked out.

For kids, with a continual theme such as Ninjago, it doesn't matter when they get into it as it will be ongoing. Whereas three year themes are bad in the sense of if they mature enough to get into LEGO at the wrong point of the theme cycle. Do they get into a theme in Year 3 just for it to be replaced by a new theme next year.

Phoenixio

Brickchap said:

So when it comes to historical themes or even original themes in general, I never understand the argument of "waaa kids won't buy it waaa you're just a biased nostalgic AFOL". And just to focus on AFOL interests for the moment, once a year we get sets for AFOLs such as a modular building, Fairground collection set, Winter Village set, Ninjago City set etc. Now not many kids or families would necessarily go and buy these sets, the main audience is AFOLs. So why then can't every now and then we get sets like an AFOL Classic Space monorail set? Or an AFOL Imperial Fortress? Or an AFOL Wolfpack Lair??

Because that's not the whole argument.  It's not about the theme only or just the nostalgia.

Nostalgic AFOLs take for granted that the one theme they like would sell well in any format.  That's the problem.  Classic space and classic castle would not sell well to kids, so why would Lego bother to make a set that can't even interest, by default, their main audience, and make it in a format not aimed at AFOLs?  That one guy on a forum saying he'd buy 3 is worth starting a whole production chain?  It's a super risky endeavor, when they could instead make City/Friends sets that sell well at all times.

And yet here they are, testing the waters with a lot of different sets.  They did do a classic space set that proved popular with AFOLs.  If the demand is really there, and I mean really, in the number of sales, not in the comments on a biased forum community, then we'll see more.  But in the meantime there's no point complaining that they're not doing enough.  We're in a golden age of sets for adults, the modular line is a huge success and Ideas is spawning its own spinoffs.  But we all have to remember that as adults, we're a tiny minority compared to the main audience: kids.

I've generalized for the sake of the argument, we all have our unique tastes, but you all know what I mean as well.

Venunder

I do not like that:
All lego is overpriced deliberately......

I do not like oversized boxes, used just to make the set seem like "better value for your money"  £10 of air, is not good value in a £20 set, etc.

I do not like more than 4 sets each year for every theme. Too much choice is bad.....

GWP's are not required, if you actually sell lego at a reasonably low price.

If TLG want to make a set, a set that could be a GWP, they can just sell it for £5 and the people who actually want it will buy it...

.


 

Oldfan

Venunder said:

I do not like oversized boxes, used just to make the set seem like "better value for your money"  £10 of air, is not good value in a £20 set, etc.

Don't forget: the main purpose of oversized boxes is to take up room on the shelves that then can't be used to house competitors' products.  The reason I don't like them is that those bigger boxes take up more room in my storage space...

560Heliport

The main purpose of oversized boxes is to let the robots pack the boxes quickly.

WesterBricks

^ In some cases, the boxes are also designed to hold the completed model without much/any disassembly.

Phoenixio

In other fields, like Board Games, box size is meant to catch the eye of the customer in a shop.  It's also meant to impress upon the customer the value of included content, which can be expensive due to development time, art and whatnot.  It's something we take for granted for Lego, but it wouldn't be surprising that bigger sets require more development times (and therefore costs).

Lyichir

Oldfan said:

Venunder said:

I do not like oversized boxes, used just to make the set seem like "better value for your money"  £10 of air, is not good value in a £20 set, etc.

Don't forget: the main purpose of oversized boxes is to take up room on the shelves that then can't be used to house competitors' products.  The reason I don't like them is that those bigger boxes take up more room in my storage space...

Speaking as somebody who has worked in the toy industry... the main purpose of "oversized" boxes is generally to have the assembled product appear at close to "actual size" on the front. That's it, nothing more nefarious than that. Otherwise, making boxes bigger than they need to be is simply inefficient since if a box is smaller, more copies of them can be packed and shipped at a time, reducing logistical costs significantly. That's a part of why the size of Lego boxes relative to their contents has generally gone down over the years (even as the size of the largest sets has increased).

iwybs

I noticed that the box for #40580 was much smaller than the box for a typical City or Star Wars set of the $30 USD, 300p range. That makes sense with @Lyichir's explanation above, since there's no need to have a GWP like that take up shelf space with a picture on the front that looks "close to actual size." 

Blockwork_Orange

^ The same holds true for some of the airline promo sets that used to be able to be purchased on some flights.  Nice compact packages so they take up less space on the airplane,

legobod

I might have mentioned some of these before but this will probably break the forum.
Not interested in classic space.
Not interested in modulars.
Not interested in ...forgot what they're called haha the warrior figure things with the masks.
Not interested in Harry Potter.
The less studs showing the better, plus with big sculpture like models they should smooth them out, if it makes sense to with slopes, tiles, curved parts etc. Like a life size tiger made from 2x4s is impressive but tigers are sleek not boxy.
I generally prefer smaller sets, I'd rather have a star destroyer 10 studs long than 100 studs.

Brickchap

^Well, we did ask for unpopular opinions haha.

You don't like modulars? "You are hereby charged with heresy by the Holy Church" XD

The_Rancor

I can appreciate the design of Modulars, but haven’t actually bought any. Seems very unusual in the AFOL community at large.

I’d also like more smaller sets in the Star Wars range but I think that’s really more of an actual popular opinion.

Bumblepants

The_Rancor said:

I’d also like more smaller sets in the Star Wars range but I think that’s really more of an actual popular opinion.

You will pay $129.99 and you will be grateful for the opportunity!

Fauch

wonder if modulars will drop in popularity with the price hike. moreover we get great buildings from ideas or even Marvel now too

Brickchap

@Fauch Agreed. While I think modulars will remain popular, it is quite probable they will no longer be as popular as before, as we see an ever increasing price hike combined with a steadily decreasing 'WOW' factor to make people want to go out and buy the modular.

PJ76uk

Fauch said:

wonder if modulars will drop in popularity with the price hike. moreover we get great buildings from ideas or even Marvel now too

According to brickset there are 18 modular buildings of which I own 12, I'm not sure if I will buy the latest one, Jazz Club, or any future modular but not due to the price but rather, as you said, there are better (in my opinion!) modular type buildings in other themes which "scratch my itch" much better!

FollowsClosely

Modulars are not dropping in popularity. There has always been the vocal few who whine about the current modular.

The only shift I see is that now we have so many, there are very few completists entering the picture.

MaffyD

Never collected modulars. I don't have a 'city' so they seem superfluous for the price.

What I think will become a more and more unpopular opinion I have (and I'm fine with that, I know I'm biased) is that Star Wars sets should stick to the Original Trilogy, because those environments and ships are the best ones. All the rest are 'tweaked copies'.

Yes, I know that on here at the moment that's not quite such an 'out there' opinion, but as more kids who grew up with the PT are coming out of their dark ages, we'll see them enter the AFOL community and champion these sets. Also, new Disney shows are running the whole gamut of timelines and characters - we'll see PT era shows before long (I don't think we've got them already?), and those will drag in kids to like sets from that era.

And no, the Mandalorian's new ship isn't a PT ship. It's clearly being used in a new context as an OT ship. "La, la la, la la, I can't hear you!"

Oldfan

Instead of OT vs PT, it should be Legends canon vs new canon. Lucasfilm changes the details of the SW universe with every new show...

Lyichir

Oldfan said:

Instead of OT vs PT, it should be Legends canon vs new canon. Lucasfilm changes the details of the SW universe with every new show...

There's ultimately very few Lego sets based on parts of the "Legends canon" that didn't make it over to the new canon—the movies and most of the TV shows (which most of the Lego sets have been based on) stayed canon. I can only recall a handful of sets that were based on stuff outside those media—the TIE Crawler and the one set based on The Force Unleashed are the only things that come to mind.

Brickchap

^Yeah as someone who doesn't like Star Wars, looking at it from an outsider perspective it seems to be the same ships repeated over and over. The updates over time are good, but it's the same thing. Like how many Millennium Falcons do you need?

In fairness, I would also argue that about police stations in City, although at least their design changes, whereas Star Wars ships are always (understandably) the same thing.

Btw, from reading the forum I know the 501st Battle Pack is very sought after. I'm considering getting it to make the cannon thing into a WW2 anti aircraft gun. Saw the set at BigW (think Walmart) for $32.99 which seemed really overpriced. Is that a normal price?

binaryeye

^ Yes, according to the info on the main site, $32.99 is the RRP in Australia.

Brickchap

@binaryeye Which is ridiculously overpriced as usual, but thanks for answering :)

560Heliport

So they should have made the Millennium Falcon in 2000 (as they did) and then never again? 

The_Rancor

MaffyD said:

…we'll see PT era shows before long (I don't think we've got them already?), and those will drag in kids to like sets from that era.

I won’t make the obvious retort about OT-only Lego sets, but I will say - what about The Clone Wars? It was likely key in getting a very specific generation into Star Wars that were slightly too young for the Prequel films but could be picked up by a slightly more mature animation in the ‘wilderness’ between Prequels and Sequels. 

I felt like I might be slightly too old for The Clone Wars when it first started (e.g. ‘Resistance’) but as the storylines grew deeper and more complex it definitely didn’t feel like a ‘kids’ show’ anymore. Because the wars went on for so long and were so significant in the main Star Wars timeline I loved exploring what happened, developing some of the main characters along the way. Plus without it we wouldn’t have Ahsoka, Saw Gerrera, Hondo Ohnaka and many more characters!*

*Caveat - I don’t necessarily just want Filoni, Favreau and others to helicopter in cameos constantly in other series so they should be managed carefully.

Looks like the Acolyte is effectively going to be a prequel show too - as long as they can get through production!

Brickchap

@560Heliport Put it this way, imagine if Lego came out with a slightly updated Cafe Corner every couple years since 2007 instead of all the different modulars we have got.

560Heliport

@Brickchap if the Cafe Corner was a significant part of a broad, ongoing storyline in movies, comic books, novels, video games... then that's just what they would do. 
But that's not the case. 
They keep making Millennium Falcons, X-wings, TIE Fighters, etc. because people who are new to Star Wars might want them. 
And obviously, they sell!

Brickchap

^I never said they don't sell. Just would be nice to see some other things rather than all these TIE fighters, X wings, MFs, Death Stars etc. As I said, once you have one how many more of the exact same thing do you need???

iwybs

Thing is, it’s NOT the exact same thing. Every iteration of the same kind of spaceship has some new approach to the way it’s built or the play features it has. That makes every version new and interesting. Personally, I love to see how the Lego version of the same subject matter changes and develops with time. It gives a sense of continuity and progression that’s largely absent from in-house action/adventure/space themes where they never make the same ship twice, but that can also be found in Town/City and Technic. Count me in for all the X-wings, Y-wings, TIE fighters, Millennium Falcons, etc … I love it when there’s a new version that improves on something I felt the old version lacked. To me, the repetition with variation ADDS value. Where the old version of something was a one-off without context, once the new version is out the old one gains value because it becomes the starting point of a series with progression and improvement. Instead of standing isolated on its own, now it can stand together in a pair or larger group. So yeah, quite apart from the perfectly valid reason to do frequent remakes of popular vehicles that is keeping them fresh for new audiences, I love remakes. That may be an unpopular opinion, but it’s MY unpopular opinion.

 But yeah, I also appreciate getting entirely new vehicles from new media when the sets are well designed, even if I don’t have much interest in the source material. A spaceship is a spaceship is a spaceship to me, whether or not it has a license attached. I have the Razor Crest, the Bad Batch shuttle, the Inquisitor Scythe shuttle, and the Justifier, and I think those are all pretty good sets. (As long as you get the Justifier for half price without minifigs, like I did.)

CCC

Brickchap said:

^Yeah as someone who doesn't like Star Wars, looking at it from an outsider perspective it seems to be the same ships repeated over and over. The updates over time are good, but it's the same thing. Like how many Millennium Falcons do you need?

In fairness, I would also argue that about police stations in City, although at least their design changes, whereas Star Wars ships are always (understandably) the same thing.

How many MFs do you need? Probably just one at each scale. But with iconic and such important ships, one should be available on the shelves at all times to satisfy buyers no matter when they get into LEGO.  In that sense, I don't mind remakes at the same scale. They could design one and keep it on the shelves for 10 years. I am no more likely to buy a slightly different one at the same scale than a second of exactly the same set, so it would make no difference to me. So long as they keep selling, keep the same thing available.

Lyichir

Brickchap said:

^Yeah as someone who doesn't like Star Wars, looking at it from an outsider perspective it seems to be the same ships repeated over and over. The updates over time are good, but it's the same thing. Like how many Millennium Falcons do you need?

In fairness, I would also argue that about police stations in City, although at least their design changes, whereas Star Wars ships are always (understandably) the same thing.

I sort of disagree but that's as someone who bought Lego Star Wars early on and hasn't bought them since. Every update to some of the main ships kind of blows me away a little because I'd happily trade those old, boxy 2000s-era Star Wars ships for these new ones that tend to be so much more accurate and detailed.

Granted, they don't impress me enough to actually BUY these newer ships, especially with the knowledge that a few years from now it's likely that even better ones would show up. But that's less about feeling like they're all the same and more about knowing, with the benefit of time, that there'll always be room for them to improve even more.

bandit778

Brickchap said:

Like how many Millennium Falcons do you need?

Apparently I need 10 - who knew. :)

Brickchap

Okay, somewhat off topic but I am curious people's opinions.

What makes Star Wars so popular?

I can't think of many licenses that have taken over the world the way Star Wars has, and it's a strange existence being someone who has no interest whatsoever in SW, nor having parents from the 'Star Wars' generation. (the overwhelming majority of Lego fans I encounter are also huge SW fans).

We can all like different things, but I'm curious to hear from SW fans what makes it so amazing/special for you.

For me, the early films are creative, but I've seen films from the 1940s and 1950s with far superior special effects. Indeed, although SW is set in futuristic space, they are some of the very few films that feel very dated to me. You can really tell it's made in the 1980s, whereas older (and newer) films I don't get that impression.

The new SW films on the other hand are just remakes of the originals. I forget which one it was but they made the Death Star bigger, called it a different name and then had the heroes blow it up in the same way as the Death Star (the scene by the way was stolen from the film 633 Squadron, and you could almost see Y wings resembling Mosquitos). SW fans will be like Nooo it's not the death star and it's bigger, but to me it's literally the same story.

Apologies if any of the above comes across as an attack on your hobby or whatever, it's not meant that way, I genuinely want to hear your thoughts. Also happy to continue this discussion in PM if that is preferred. (not being an SW fan is a pretty unpopular opinion though)

560Heliport

Well, I was nine when I saw Star Wars in the theater in summer of 1978. The movie had ben out for more than a year by then. My sister and I sat in the front row at her insistence. It had quite an impact on me!

Part of what made the SW universe interesting was the "lived-in" look of a lot of it- prior sci-fi movies tended to look very shiny and clean- "it's the future, everything must be better". I'm not sure just how true that really is, though: I hadn't seen sci-fi at that time.
For example: the missing engine cowling on Luke's landspeeder, the rather dirty, grimy X-wings and Y-wings, pretty much all of Mos Eisley. 

You are not wrong about Episode 7 The Force Awakens just rehashing blowing up the Death Star. That was lazy storytelling, IMO. 

When the special editions of the original trilogy were released in 1997, I was waiting in line at the theater with two of my cousins who were too young to have seen them in theaters, but saw them later (many times!) on VHS because their older (my age) brother was a fan. There was a teenage boy at the theater who clearly was trying to be provocative when he saud loudly, "Star Wars is just a fad." Everyone just looked at him, then went back to whatever they were doing. "Just a fad..." Right... that's why we're waiting in line to see a movie we've seen before, and I'd bet most people there had it on VHS at home. But we're willing to pay money to see it on the big screen.

And here we are, 26 years later, and SW is still a "thing". I don't care whether someone else likes it or not, the fact is that it's still very popular.
There's plenty of stuff I don't care about- like professional sports. 

Brickchap

@560Heliport Thank you for your answer. It is very informative. Also absolutely agree about professional sports. Indeed, if you want to watch teamwork, watch people prepare for a flood or fight a bushfire. The last place you'll find teamwork is in team sports. (one or two people just hog the ball).