| |
We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
like to throw open to the community.
The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
still qualify as a Legend?
In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
Legends are reissues of landmark LEGO sets -- perhaps the first set in a
particular playtheme, or a set widely acknowledged as a superlative building
experience, or perhaps simply a much beloved set."
The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, and
Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded mistakes
like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look), these three sets vary
only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor differences, such as
"ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original solid ones are all that
set them apart.
Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
here's where we start to run into "issues."
Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly different
elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
on. You see the problems...
We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits thrown
in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are those
which require a whole lot of compromise.
So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
know how far we can go with those changes.
We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
Legends everything you want them to be.
Thanks in advance for your help.
Play Well!
-- Brad
Brad Justus
Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
<snip>
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
>
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
> on. You see the problems...
<snip>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
<snip>
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
I think the best way to illustrate your point here, Brad, is to point out
the 1974 helicopter instructions on page 16 of the September-October
2001Mania Magazine.
I personally thought that this "re-do" of classic instructions was great. It
also goes to show that the flavor of classic instructions can be kept in
line with modern part substitutions. The differences in this instance were
so minor, that they in no way spoiled the idea of building new from old. In
fact, your mere willingness to do the Classic and Legend lines shows that at
least the heart is there, in the sets.
In my mind, the true fun of the Classic/Legends sets is the ability to share
these sets that I grew up with with my children now. Along those lines,
well, they never knew the original parts list, so they can't be
dissapointed...but they can see sets from a time when bricks were supplied
with guidelines, not elements with definitive instructions.
To close, I think, at this point, especially after all of the great work
you, LEGO Direct, and The LEGO Company has done on the current re-issues,
not many folks will truly complain about any re-issue whatsoever...they'll
just enjoy them in the spirit they are presented in...the spirit of playing
well.
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
Thank you! I am always glad to help any way I can!
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
(Snipped)
> The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, and
> Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded mistakes
> like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look), these three sets vary
> only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor differences, such as
> "ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original solid ones are all that
> set them apart.
>
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
>
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
> on. You see the problems...
Yes... But don't tell me you destroyed the molds! :-(
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
Ok, here goes my opinion:
As for metal-axle wheelsets, the replacement is ok (old axles might get
rusty... I have a couple ones like that); Stickers are sometimes "not enough
sticky", so if TLC wants to use them for the replacement of decoration in
elements it may be a good idea to make them "stickier", and more resistant
to athmospheric humidity (sp?).
*Changes* are indeed a tricky issue. I personally would not mind about most
changes, if they represent an improvement (like the wheelsets, or the heads,
or the "helmet evolution" from the 80's). It is only when the element in
question is *central* in the playset, or *extremely rare*, that I can feel
slightly sad.
The case of the roadplates is one of the tricky ones. Mostly the missing
stud makes no difference, but in those cityscapes from the 80's... well, you
can always try to use extra baseplates on the sides - who knows, it may work
out fine!
Anyway, in response to your question, the Legends' Spirit rests in the SET,
at least for most sets (99% of the sets before '97). I hope no juniorized
set ever gets to be a "legend"!
;-)
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
Neat! I cannot wait to cast my vote! :-)
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
You guys are on the right track. Keep up the good work!
Pedro
|
|
| |
Hi Brad,
I think Matthew has pretty much got it bang on here - I agree that the
helicopter instructions were great in the Mania magazine. The new version of
the model had the same spirit as the original one, even though some of the
bricks were substituted due to the originals not being available anymore.
I think that is the important thing, that any new 'Legend' release is done
in the same spirit as the original model and follows the original design as
closely as possible. I think that we would be able to handle part
substitutions where neccessary, but for my own part, I would be most upset
if parts were substituted due to reasons other than the parts not being
available (eg cost), for example, using a 1x2x3 brick instead of 3 1x2
bricks. If you have to substitute a part, then try and get the new part as
close as possible (use red wheel hubs for the substitutions of the old axled
wheel sets). I guess what I'm saying is don't juniorise any Legend sets, but
I'm guessing that you realise that that would be a fatal mistake!
I personally would be happy to see any old models and I'm glad you are
thinking even further back than the guarded inn! I would love to see some of
the early town sets from the late 70's early 80's (you know - the ones with
car doors and real lego pieces!) Of course Classic space would be brilliant
as well - I'm sure there are going to be many people screaming for the
Galaxy Explorer, but I would even be happy with some of the smaller models
such as the old 886 Space buggy.
On the subject of stickers - I personally aren't very keen, but will accept
them if neccessary, for example if the only way you could release Space was
by using stickers, then I would rather we had the stickered sets than no
sets!
Just my 2 cents worth
Richard.
"Brad Justus" <legodirect@lego.com> wrote in message
news:GLH3tC.Iw@lugnet.com...
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
>
> In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
> Legends are reissues of landmark LEGO sets -- perhaps the first set in a
> particular playtheme, or a set widely acknowledged as a superlative • building
> experience, or perhaps simply a much beloved set."
>
> The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, • and
> Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded • mistakes
> like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look), these three sets vary
> only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor differences, such as
> "ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original solid ones are all that
> set them apart.
>
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the • Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
>
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, • we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in • order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road • plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge • of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly • different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and • so
> on. You see the problems...
>
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle • is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits • thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are • those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes • are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should • we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the • details?
>
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
>
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
A "Legend" is in the eye of the beholder. That being said, here are my
beholdings:
There are two types of "Legends". One, a set I owned that was great to
build, great to look at, great to play with. The second type (the more
important one), is a set that looked great to build, looked great to
display, and I DIDN'T own it. As a 10 year old, I couldn't get everything
in the catalog-- just a set or two. Now as an adult, part of the excitement
of eBay was the ability to get some of these older sets, but I ran into
problems-- incomplete sets, lost shipments, outrageous prices.
I'm a train buff-- but growing up in America, I didn't have access to the 80
12v train systems Lego was selling in Europe. Those sets looked so great to
me-- they had an intangible character and quality to them. One of your
concerns was about the 100% reproducibility of a set. I don't expect the
12v system to come back, but making a 9v version of the 7740-- call it a
"Modern Legend". I'm your customer in a heartbeat.
If the recreated legend holds the "spirit" of the original, then that should
be the candle you hold toward the wind. The fact that Lego is re-issuing
these sets with a different set number already makes a statement: "it's the
same, but different." I read some previous postings that the heads of the
people from the Guardian Inn weren't from the same mold; I find that type of
examination ludicrous.
In closing, since the differences are an issue for Lego Direct and its
customers, then be honest. Post the differences on a list for the set. You
wouldn't want to be in a position of trying to sell a fraudulant model.
On last thing, on the website, how about a "Legends" category. You have to
hunt and peck to find these things sometimes.
Great job,
Lars
|
|
| |
>
>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
I would be more than happy to accept changes in a set if it ment that we
would be able to see classics. Even such major replacements as changing
a train set to run on 9v track would be more than acceptable, if it ment
we were able to purchase such classic sets as 7740 or 7722.
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
Whatever you do, PLEASE make sure the list has sets from several
different themes and not just all town sets or all space sets or
whatever, give people a choice of which theme they want to see.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
Hi Brad, in my own personal thoughts, to me, a LEGO Legend is a typical
classic set with (this does all depend on certain ways of looking at it,
mind you) maybe pieces that are hard to get in any other set, such as the
Guarded in does come with quite a few pieces in that catagory, specially the
red tudor walls! Or other printed pieces too. Certain Minifigs too can make
the set a classic. Some of the Harry Potter sets I will class as a Classic
as there are new colours and pieces that are so far not as highly available
in any other set.
Maybe you could come up with a large list of sets through the era's (from
biggest sellers to most demanded/popular) and make it into a poll of which
people here class as a Classic/Legend, without revealing any possibilities
that anyone of those sets could be the one's LEGO has in mind.
> In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
> Legends are reissues of landmark LEGO sets -- perhaps the first set in a
> particular playtheme, or a set widely acknowledged as a superlative building
> experience, or perhaps simply a much beloved set."
eBay and Lugnet are a great place to see where and what the LEGO fans bite
at the most, such as the Metroliner always sells well and is highly sought
after. Also the Monorail sets, but sadly we know that this won't happen :(
And other such sets too.
> The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, and
> Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded mistakes
> like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look), these three sets vary
> only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor differences, such as
> "ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original solid ones are all that
> set them apart.
These sets are wonderful, people may complain about this and that, but you
will never make the whole world happy no matter what you do, but you can try
to do your best, there will always be a happy customer though.
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
This line is great, with the news of no more Town sets to be released (bad
move LEGO! - If you search the net, you will find most LEGO fans LOVE the
Town theme :/ ) maybe this will be the only way to get some of those great
sets we missed out on due to childhood and our parents refusing to not buy
them for us hehe and also to keep the Town and other theme's somewhat alive.
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
> on. You see the problems...
There is always the 'complaint' of certain pieces or even in the whole idea
that LEGO has reissued this set again and that maybe the same particular
pieces have changed etc, but that's life and for those who missed out on
some of these sets, this will be great, even if not ALL the same pieces etc
are not the same as the earlier pieces, I'd be thankful for even having
something close enough. Not all those earlier pieces are entirely
wonderful, I look at some and think "this is cool, but I wish it was like
this instead" etc, If LEGO no longer have the mold then what can you do?
But if for some reason to try and get that set out we had to use something
similar then why not? I know many will complain but at the same time there
will be a lot of happy people too.
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
Bummer, just the set that most of us are drooling of :/ Ok, so if you can't
bring THAT set back, then what about something similar to it? Monorails are
still in the future in today's towns. It's a shame they can't come up with
a new version, even if the tracks were slightly different. I think some
people would be quite happy just to know that at least they have ONE
Monorail, even if it's not the one's of the past. There are Loads of sets
you could bring back *dreaming of loads of wonderful sets* From many
theme's, I guess it all depends on what theme's you'd like to bring back
particular sets from and why.
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
The wheels, can always be found on the net somewhere, with people selling
spare parts etc, so there really is no reason to not bring out a set just
because of that, or some people may even have those older style peices in
their collection and they will just have to use them if they REALLY need it
to look the same, why miss out on such great items just because of a piece
or two?
Sometimes stickers are great, because you don't have to use them (if they
are the self applied stickers), where as others will be happy with the
marked pieces. I think the Legend status could come down to the fact that
it is a Classic set, it has brilliant pieces, great instructions, excellent
minifigs, wonderful layout and overall a well thought out set. Look at
other sets and think why some call them classics or Legends and ask your
self why. You may be able to find that it's just a great looking set with
great playing and that it can also be used to make other great items too.
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
Oh cool, just what I asked for :))))) (read above - top). This is cool and
a great idea, can't wait!!!
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
There is not just the Legend's we would like you to bring back alive, but
also many ideas we'd like to see in future LEGO sets too. If you ever need
help in knowing what to plan as far as what the fan is wanting in future
LEGO sets, then you know where to ask! :) For years some of us have been
waiting for LEGO to release such sets, but as of yet... no luck.
> Thanks in advance for your help.
Thanks heaps, it great to ask for our opinion as those who collect and build
with this wonderful product!
> Play Well!
Always.
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
Mel
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
snip
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the >details?
snip
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
Well, here's my 2¢:
Because I really really like older Lego sets compared to newer sets, I
personally would be willing to allow MANY changes to take place. If you
were to release one of the old Classic Space sets, say the Galaxy Explorer
<set:497> and there were several changes, I would still buy one or two (even
though I already own 2 of them). Another tiny change is that I remember
when a set of 2 colored 1x1 round plates came attached to a small piece of
sprue. That would not be the case anymore, but this would not affect the
overall building experience for me, that's for sure!
I think that changes like the wheel sets like you mentioned are so minor to
me that it's a non-issue. As long as the set captured the overall fun
feeling I used to get when opening the set for the first time and then
starting to build it, then I will buy them up.
Plus, I never owned the original Metroliner or Club Car. Now I have both
without paying the really high prices on Brickbay or Ebay. That right there
is worth it to me for releasing as many old sets as possible, regardless of
how many changes have to be made.
Thanks for asking our opinions!
- Bob
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
Some specifics would help…
If your alluding specifically to Space sets predating 1980 then we could
easily determine which particular sets would likely be chosen for the 2002
up-coming Legends line. With this finite list and our resources we would
target the likely sets and propose possible alternatives for out-dated or
inferior parts. (e.g. Old Space helmets in set # ‘497 Galaxy Explorer’ and
other various details involved in updating it to be initiated into the
Legends line. http://guide.lugnet.com/set/497)
Therefore, all we need is a certain direction to provide qualitative
responses. Your generalized statement of ‘what’s acceptable and what’s not’
is far too grand in scope. (Although I do appreciate you situation, and
how you don’t want to spoil any surprises.)
So, just maybe cough in a particular direction and we’ll do our best to
facilitate!
Melody Brown wrote:
> If you ever need help in knowing what to plan as far as what the fan is
> wanting in future LEGO sets, then you know where to ask! :)
Oh, and just to assist your Lego Futura team here’s a future themes list;
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=32839
Sincerely,
--==RiçhärÐ==--
You can reach me @
Shroud_of_Kung_Fu@Hotmail.com
. -Lego good, Canada great-®
|
|
| |
"Brad Justus" <legodirect@lego.com> wrote in message
news:GLH3tC.Iw@lugnet.com...
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, • and
> Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded • mistakes
> like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look), these three sets vary
> only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor differences, such as
> "ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original solid ones are all that
> set them apart.
[ ... snipped ... ]
>
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
I am still thinking about how to answer all of your questions but in the
meantime, I would like to use this forum to propose what I think would be a
great seller for the Legends and it is already in production!
Would it be possible to sell just the center(i.e. passenger) car from the
10001 Metroliner? I would like to make my train longer but don't want it to
be all Club Cars and would really rather not (and almost certainly won't)
purchase additional 10001 sets just to make more passenger cars. I could
see myself buying a dozen passenger cars (over time, not in one shot but
probably two at a time) if they were priced in the $25 range.
These parts are already in production so it would simply be a packaging
issue for LD to work out. It wouldn't even have to have instructions or it
could include the 10001 instructions, either would be acceptable to me.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring dot com
http://www.nclug.net - North Carolina LEGO Users Group
http://www.nclug.net/ctb - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?u=mpw - Brick Depot
|
|
| |
>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
My initial thought is "do not cross out an entire group. You may find some
sets are more readily reproduced than others". Having said that, I have no
problem living with stickers for printed pieces. I also have no problem
with substituting some pieces. I think the big criteria is to be able to
capture the spirit of the original model. One example I can think of is the
London Bus from 1975 (model #760). You can't repro the wheels (like you
said), but you could come up with some new wheels from the creator series
that would be close enough. I know the windows and the headlights would be
slightly different, but if they were the same size and still gave the same
feel, then I could live with that.
I chose the London Bus because it's the first Lego kit I ever owned. I
still have most of it today. I don't think it's appropriate as a re-issue
because I don't think it commands the attention of Lego-heads the way the
metroliner or the original castle series did, so I'd say we should also
consider the popularity of a kit. After all, a legend is something that is
well known and popular.
Finally, I'd also say that in the spirit of Legos, any re-issue that varies
from the original is still a Lego kit and is every bit as worthy of
consideration as a brand new kit. I like Legos, whether they're old, new,
plain, computerized, or re-issued. As long as the spirit of Lego is
captured and the changes are detailed up front, I think you'll hit the mark.
You've already done that with your activity on this forum.
Thanks.....and MANY MANY thanks for the metroliner (I got both of my combo
kits the other day and am loving them).
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets?
I can definitely live without the metal-axle wheels - others may not. But its
the design of the buildings of those sets that is great and why they should be
reissued. The loss of a metal axle is not a show stopper for me.
> Are stickers ok?
In reality, no. Stickers, no matter how good, have an infinitely shorter life
span than painted elements. Some of my Lego is almost 20 years old. The
painted elements have held up. The stickers have faded and worn away into
nothing.
How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the • details?
>
More often than not, its the details. The Guarded Inn has a wonderful design.
But - its the tudor walls, the inn sign and the maiden that make it a classic.
The newer heads were pretty much expected. But, aside from the "exclusive to
this set" items I've described above, this set is made with basic brick and
wall elements. The beauty is in the design, but the details bring it to life.
I think it comes down to honesty. Be honest to the original. If the look is
identical, then its not a problem replacing some elements with newer elements
that do not affect the overall appearance of the original. But any replacement
that would affect the overall appearance of the set, would not be honest to
the original. If you cannot be honest to the original, then don't recreate
the set.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
Other people have posted some great ideas but one I wanted to toss out is to
use the Lugnet set database as one data source.
A large number of people have already voted on what sets they like there,
and I expect that even more would go through and rank their preferences if
you publicly announced you were in fact looking at it as part of your input
process.
I too feel that I would accept significant change in detail if it was
preunderstood what the changes were to be. For some truly classic sets (Main
Street!, the Gravel Pit set) there is no other way to even get close, I
suspect. Wheel axles matter not a bit to me.
I always evaluate sets based on their parts so sets that have useful parts
we don't see in quantity, or that we don't often see in certain colors, are
also good candidates for a certain class of buyer. I know people who are
buying metroliners just to part them out.
Again, resources exist to help with this, use the peeron inventory and look
for parts known to be a bit rare (but not unproducable) and see what sets
they appear in. (for instance this is all the sets (so far inventoried, it's
not complete) that have the 1x10 technic beam, and you can see what years
each color happened in) If the set has good curb appeal it's a candidate in
my eyes.
But the main point is one you hit on, the set has to have that certain
something, so hard to define, that makes adults melt when they see it and
that sophisticated kids will still want to play with as well.
Although I am a train head and would love to see more trains (a 9V 7740
would be AWESOME, (http://guide.lugnet.com/set/7740... it gets a 95 score!)
but include the highly prized additional cars too.) Town and Space are due,
and they deserve a turn. I think I speak for many when I say I can wait till
2003 for a 7740 and friends, if it means Town gets a turn first (yes, the
Gas 'n Wash was no slouch, mind you, but it was just one set).
There are *great* space sets out there. How about Blacktron? This is perhaps
one of the most loved themes among spaceheads (after classic) and I would be
happy to see the value of my MIB MIB (mint in box Message Intercept Base)
plummet because you brought out a rerelease (just as I was happy to see all
my MIB metroliners plunge as well).
But see if you can bring out a few related sets instead of just one. Bundle
them up and make people buy them as one huge item maybe to cut down on SKUs.
If you brought out a Blacktron assortment I'd buy several right away.
I know that a large number of sets would be tough due to manufacturing
constraints, of course, but food for thought.
Actually, (if you can say) what IS your SKU budget? 4 or 50? Probably closer
to 4 but knowing that may help refine suggestions.
Finally, sorry to hear what I had always believed (that mono cannot come
back in its previous form) actually publicly confirmed. As many others said,
any clever idea that would get the key motor component somehow recreated
would be very welcomed. Maybe a farmout to some third party source? That's
assuming the track, wagon plate and bogie molds are still safe... Heck, I'd
even buy a push mono if one were done. But I am atypical, I have many motors
stashed.
|
|
| |
<snip>
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
Very Old Space Sets!!!!!!
|
|
| |
Brad & All,
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
Thanks for the honor, sir! : )
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
Hmm... it really depends on the set. Some sets, which are pretty easy to
replicate in terms of parts selections, a few parts either changed or
modified is fine.I think most of the LUGNET community can live with the
updated or slightly modified parts. If you try to subsititue a Town Junior
car body instead of the 4 or 5 parts that the original set had, then you
might have problems.
> In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
> Legends are reissues of landmark LEGO sets -- perhaps the first set in a
> particular playtheme, or a set widely acknowledged as a superlative building
> experience, or perhaps simply a much beloved set."
Indeed.
> The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, and
> Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded mistakes
> like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look),
LOL! : )
> these three sets vary only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor
> differences, such as "ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original
> solid ones
That is a minimal concern, as long as the classic smiley is there! : )
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
Uh-oh!
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set.
I can imagine. I worked at a plastic injection molding plant, and they had
dies form the 60's, if you can belive that, they shipped in to try to run.
Heh heh.
> For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
Well, I have literally hundreds of those in my personal collection, and I
think that can be a safe modification, since it is a realatively minor
concern (IMO, YMMV).
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals).
Right, and the colors too. Runways, space plates, LEGO baseplates have an
interesting history, like the fact I have all of them from the late
seventies to the green ones of today.
> And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers);
I think that is acceptable. I would love to see them come out replacement
wise. My Classic and Futuron men could use a new uniform! : )
> the need to use slightly different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
> on. You see the problems...
Indeed. You might consider taking a private poll of differnet people on
LUGNET and others and seeing what their reaction would be, as in you buy the
XX set with green plates instead of gray ones, etc. It might give you a
better direction in terms of decision making. Lord knows what I would say if
I was in your shoes.
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are).
NNNOOOOOO!!!!!! Not even the track? Oh, Brad, I have enough motors, give me
track!!!!! (Scott, slowly crying)
Sorry... anyway....
> The thing is, we can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were.
> There are some sets which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a
> few rarer bits thrown in. And there are others which require compromise. And > then there are those which require a whole lot of compromise.
What a decision. Let me take a few sets that I would like to see. Galaxy
Explorer, or maybe the Blacktron 1 Alienator. Say you can get 80 or 90% of
the original parts. Just to get close, even with stickers, I would buy those
in a minute. However, if it is a Unitron set (No offense to you Unitron
fans, I like them too, just picking out a less known Space set, IMO) , or
another less popoular set, maybe you would see a less postivie reaction.
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets?
No, axles are not a big deal IMO. I think half of the problem is to getting
the set to be pretty much the samee as the original. If it has specialty
pieces that can still be produced, I say go for it. However, if those
specialty pieces are rare, and not made anymnore, and they do get
subsituted. people might not be as inclined to buy them. Maybe you can get a
poll of parts that you are thinking of comprimising, and the replacements,
and see what people think.
> Are stickers ok?
Yes.
> How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the
> details?
I guess it really depends on the set, and how much change there is.
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
I guess in conclusion, I would say some changes are unavoidable, and
understandable, comprimises will have to occur, but if at the end, you can
sit back and say, I finally got set X, I think no matter what small changes
do occur, I think most people will be happy. I am anxiously awaiting my club
cars, as I never go those the first time around. : )
Brad, on behalf of all of us here at LUGNET, I want to thank you for your
continuing efforts in this manner, a few yeaes ago, when I first came on
LUGNET, and I heard something that LEGO would be bringing back older sets, I
probably would not belive it. It is truly an honor to see you here, and to
ask for our input. I would love to help in any way if I can.
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
>individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
>Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
>Legends everything you want them to be.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
Thank you!
> Play Well!
As soon as I finish some orders, I will. I am going to MichLUG's 1st
anniversary get together tomorrow, and it will be a blast! Thanks to LEGO
Direct for it's help!
Sincerely,
Scott Sanburn
--
http://www.scottesanburn.org/legoindex.html
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
>
> In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
> Legends are reissues of landmark LEGO sets -- perhaps the first set in a
> particular playtheme, or a set widely acknowledged as a superlative building
> experience, or perhaps simply a much beloved set."
>
> The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, and
> Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded mistakes
> like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look), these three sets vary
> only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor differences, such as
> "ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original solid ones are all that
> set them apart.
>
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
>
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
> on. You see the problems...
>
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
>
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
>
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
Might some consideration also be given to bringing back some accessory sets
to complement the "Legend sets" already released and the others which are to
come?
I am thinking about the highly desired and "Fabled" if not "Legendary"
Cypress Tree twin pack <5192> . It would also be nice to have additional
figures of similar vintage as the sets. Perhaps <6103> to complement the
Guarded Inn, and maybe something like <6032> to complement Train and Town
releases. Others might have more educated opinions as to what figure sets
are most desired by the community. I am a bit out of my field in regards to
this type figure.
If molds of the cypress tree, pitchfork, and pigtail hair for the girl
figure no longer are available, then it would be helpful to know. It would
help us to move on to something that is a possibility. [please note, I have
not asked you to rerelease Fabuland figures... even I can be reasonable
sometimes...]
thank you!
take care,
sheree
|
|
| |
"Brad Justus" <legodirect@lego.com> writes:
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
> [...]
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals).
This would depend on the individual set in question. I suspect you'd
have a hard time reproducing the crater plates and landing-pad plates
from old space sets, but even without any plates, or with plain grey
plates, I think a Galaxy Explorer or Alpha-1 Rocket Base legend would
be welcomed.
> [...] the need to use slightly different elements to replace an
> element for which we no longer have the mold; [...]
Whether missing elements would be a problem depends on which elements.
For example the 1x2 plate with two 'pegs' that is on the nose of just
about every Classic Space ship is a sine qua non. Many others can
probably be replaced with more modern pieces easily though.
> [...] So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can
> you live with? Should we just cross any older Town set off the
> consideration list because we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets?
No problem, as long as the clearance is the same so that the newer
wheelsets can be used in the same manner the old metal-axle ones were.
If you could cast the wheel hubs in red and use the old style of tires
(if they even fit) that would be better, but not completely necessary.
> Are stickers ok?
Absolutely NOT! Even when I was a little kid I hated when Lego
included stickers in the sets. I never applied them. When you wash
the bricks, the stickers come off. They don't survive being "raked"
the way printed pieces do. I don't care if it increases the price by
20% - use the printed pieces. You did it for Guarded Inn, after all.
> How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
I think it's in some of the details, and also in the overall design.
I think that none of the prominent, defining features of a model
should be substituted, but some of the less visible details can be
changed. I think that at first glance it should not be obvious that
it's any different, but when you look closely you might be able to
spot the changes.
--Bill.
--
William R Ward bill@wards.net http://www.wards.net/~bill/
(formerly known as hermit@bayview.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Life is too important to take seriously.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
I hope the Wayback Machine has settings for the 70's. :)
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
Are you referring to the 2x4 black bricks with the 'plug in' wheels that
could go on the long or short sides? Or are you meaning the 2x2 black
bricks with the preinstalled smaller wheels? If it's the latter that you're
talking about, weren't these just seen in the McDonald's sets in the summer
of '99?
Or, are you thinking of another set of wheels altogether?
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
I don't think the level of compromise is as critical as finding sets that
truly and honestly have good solid designs that will stand the test of time.
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
Is it safe to assume that this vote will take place at least in part on
LEGO.com and not exclusively on LUGNET?
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
My personal advice is to take a look at the sets from the past with as fresh
an eye as possible. Hand a 1975 catalog to a 9 year-old kid and see what
set he or she points at first. See what sets may still hold some interest
to today's audience, given all the changes the world has seen over the last
25 or 30 years.
For example, my guess is that this set:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/200_1
Wouldn't sell at all. It's dated, somewhat silly and really not that
interesting.
On the other hand, you might have some success with:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/565_1
The moon landing set from '75. It's a wonderful model, a classic theme, and
a sort of one-of-a-kind diorama set if I'm not mistaken.
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
If you're looking for other candidates for your list, perhaps you'll
consider one or more of the following:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/956
The set that laid the foundation for the success of the Expert Builder line.
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/585
The first in a long line of Police Headquarters/Stations. The line that
unfortunately was recently disgraced by the Jack Stone series.
(This suggestion presumes that those classic 2x2 wheel bricks are available,
and I've tried to ask that question earlier in this posting)
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/357_1
The beautiful and timeless Fire House set. This, like the Police
Headquarters mentioned above provide lots of 1xX bricks and black plates
with which to build many other buildings and creations. Only issue may be
the wheels, as previously noted.
But remember one point (which has obviously been lost on the Sculptures
Series) and that is that not every one of these rerelease sets has to cost a
fortune. Why not reissue some of the tiny gems that many of us may remember
as a first LEGO set?
Such as:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/611
My very very first set. And also the set that I used in the introduction to
my essay that recently appeared on Fast Company's website
(http://www.fastcompany.com/solo/solo_feature/lego_bedford.html)
or
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/442
My first introduction to the Classic Space series.
or
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/386
If you want a NON-violent and extremely well-designed action set that could
go for a mid-range price.
Similarly,
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/371_3
Offers one of the classic LEGO planes in a set with only 115 pieces. I flew
this plane for hours as a kid.
I'm sure others can suggest similar small sets, for similar reasons, so I'll
cut my list short at that.
> Play Well!
I try Brad, but you folks seem to make it so hard sometimes. Please tell me
that the team that created the Jack Stone series now share a single basement
office with no windows. They should be forced to look at LEGO bricks all
day, but not allowed to touch any.
Best regards and best wishes for much much success with the Classic Reissues.
Allan B.
|
|
| |
How about a book of legends? Reprint the old contruction manuals from sets
in the 60s - 80s in one large book. Sets that you cannot/will not reissue,
so that the book won't compete with your own products. The plans on
Brickshelf are generally not clear enough to really use.
I have a huge collection of Lego, so I can probably build most anything. I
only wish that I had kept the books from my early sets. I still have the
parts, just no directions on how to build the old sets.
You could put a premium price on the book, it would still probably sell
quite well.
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
>
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
Personally, I don't know how to answer the above questions--it hurts my head.
But I am going to stir up the sentiment that we do NOT need Legends or any
other Lego set to be re-released.
What has already been done as far as reissuing sets cannot be undone and I
hope
that the experiment has been a successful one. I have bought some of the
re-issued sets and I am not disappointed, but the magic is not there as it was
with the originals. Perhaps this is just due to my being older now.
Regardless, I am of the following opinion:
There is NO REASON to re-issue Lego sets identical to (or nearly so) to sets
sold in the past. Instead, I want to see NEW selections that are based upon
the spirit of old sets.
For example: lets take set 6385 Fire House 1 from 1985 -->
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6385
Using all of the unique and special pieces that came with this set, the
Lego set designers can create a new product. Use a different baseplate,
modify the vehicles, and give the building a facelift to produce a new
and different Lego set. It could even be named Fire House 2.
Will it be a re-issue of the original -- NO.
Will it capture the spirit of the original -- Yes, I hope.
Will it have all of the key pieces of the original -- Yes.
Will it be a Legend -- No, it will be a brand new selection.
Why do this?? Why not!!
Re-issuing Lego sets and calling them Legends or Classics seems to
be taking the easy way out. I see no reason why today's Lego set
designers cannot create stimulating and appealing Lego sets based
upon the quality Lego sets of the past. But do not simply copy
them--make them even better!!!
__Kevin Salm__
....Lego brick enthusaist for over 20 years....
....and owner of over 1,000 Lego sets...........
.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
SNIP!
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
First off, I would like to tell you how great it is that Lego is listening
to it's audience and taking steps to bring back and recreate some of the
sets that we relish and desire. Thanks for all that you have done! How
many toy companies have ever done that before? I think this is just awesome!
As for the question of how far can you vary from the original, I go along
with others who say as long as it still has the look, the flavor, the
playability of the original, then it's no problem. I don't have any problem
with losing the metal wheels and such. I never cared for them anyway.
Where I think you need to concentrate is in sets that have the best design
and that use more bricks and less juniorized parts. What I relish is
building sets that make use of bricks in creative and unusual ways so that
you learn as you build. It spurs the creative thought process and helps to
see things in a different light. After all, isn't creativity the main draw
with lego bricks?
I'm not a fan of stickers, but I would tolerate them. I usually leave them
off of sets I build. On the other hand, I've been known to rub off the
printing on bricks in order to have that part in that particular color (sans
print). It's kind of a toss up for me!
I would like to second the notion that legend sets don't need to be large
and expensive sets! (Of course you followed that with the "Guarded Inn") I
also would like to maybe see a service pack or two that would benefit a
series. How about a special "legends" service pack that would provide some
much sought after parts. Like armor for knights or lattice windows for
ships/town/etc. Minifig packs would be excellent! I think that almost all
themes could use more minifigs available. Look at how the sets containing
special figs sell. Most people would be interested in buying multiples of
those.
One last idea that I would like to offer is in making a legend series with
an alternate color scheme! Instead of trying to recreate the original with
identical colors, make it with a new slate of colors. I may be the only one
who likes this idea, but I would love to see any of a number of sets
recreated with new colors. Especially, now that we have a whole slate of
colors that weren't available then.
I look forward to being able to vote on ideas that your team comes up with.
This whole legends concept has brought new life to my anticipation for
future lego sets. Thanks again for making this reality!
Tom
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Salm writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> > We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> > like to throw open to the community.
> >
> > The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> > cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> > still qualify as a Legend?
>
>
> Personally, I don't know how to answer the above questions--it hurts my head.
>
> But I am going to stir up the sentiment that we do NOT need Legends or any
> other Lego set to be re-released.
>
> What has already been done as far as reissuing sets cannot be undone and I
> hope
> that the experiment has been a successful one. I have bought some of the
> re-issued sets and I am not disappointed, but the magic is not there as it was
> with the originals. Perhaps this is just due to my being older now.
>
> Regardless, I am of the following opinion:
>
> There is NO REASON to re-issue Lego sets identical to (or nearly so) to sets
> sold in the past. Instead, I want to see NEW selections that are based upon
> the spirit of old sets.
>
> For example: lets take set 6385 Fire House 1 from 1985 -->
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6385
> Using all of the unique and special pieces that came with this set, the
> Lego set designers can create a new product. Use a different baseplate,
> modify the vehicles, and give the building a facelift to produce a new
> and different Lego set. It could even be named Fire House 2.
>
> Will it be a re-issue of the original -- NO.
> Will it capture the spirit of the original -- Yes, I hope.
> Will it have all of the key pieces of the original -- Yes.
> Will it be a Legend -- No, it will be a brand new selection.
>
> Why do this?? Why not!!
> Re-issuing Lego sets and calling them Legends or Classics seems to
> be taking the easy way out. I see no reason why today's Lego set
> designers cannot create stimulating and appealing Lego sets based
> upon the quality Lego sets of the past. But do not simply copy
> them--make them even better!!!
>
>
> __Kevin Salm__
> ....Lego brick enthusaist for over 20 years....
> ....and owner of over 1,000 Lego sets...........
This goes along with my idea of doing them in different colors! I wouldn't
mind seeing improvements on older set designs and I wouldn't mind seeing
some sets based on older designs (but different). I agree that lego
designers should be able to recreate the magic the older sets had without
just copying them! Especially in the very early sets, you have more variety
in bricks/plates now! Make them better!!!
-just by addition 2 cents worth!
Tom
|
|
| |
"Brad Justus" <legodirect@lego.com> wrote in message
news:GLH3tC.Iw@lugnet.com...
[snip]
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, • we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in • order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road • plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge • of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly • different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and • so
> on. You see the problems...
How does not having the mold for an element affect it's reproducibility? I
would have thought that with all of the latest and greatest laser measuring
technology there would be *some* way of getting a new master mold for a
particular piece, providing you had the original piece to measure off from.
But there is probably a cost involved in doing this so you're not too keen
on it for that reason? Or does it go much, much deeper than that?
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle • is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits • thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are • those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
Can you elaborate a bit more when you say "there's no way"? I would have
thought that suitably functional replacements could be found for the motor
units, and as for the track, well, I guess it depends on how perfectly one
could remaster a mold for the pieces needed.
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes • are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should • we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the
details?
Stickers are *not* okay. Let me just say that they tend to wear at a
different rate to the plastic piece they're stuck to, over time. I have
stickered pieces in my parts that not only are differently colored to the
originals, they're also a lot newer looking than the plastic they're stuck
to. It makes them look kind of odd, and it does make gettting them cleaned
up impossible, unless someone can invent a solution that does not have
anything attacking the stickers themselves and only the grime and scratching
on the plastic part.
In any case, if the part involved an imprint on a sloped piece, as did
*many* Space sets, it would be pretty much impossible to develop a sticker
that would not only look good, but also be thin enough to not have a rather
un-LEGO-like 'stuck on' appearance, instead of looking like the originals
did.
I don't mind the wheelsets not being metal - in fact, if you offered
suitable plastic replacements that would go under the old models as easily
as the new rereleases, I'd in fact jump at a chance to replace my metal
wheelsets - that bit of wire used for the axle does tend to rust, and
badly!!
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
Well, I think you need to tell people how far you could be willing to go
with the changes - you didn't seem very clear about just how far you were
able to go ... And that, could be as helpful as people posting about what
they want. Which, of course, is as far as you can possibly get it. ;-)
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
I hope my input is of some help. I don't know how far you can go, but I
hope you could go far enough that people's dreams could be a reality. If
you are able to reproduce things far enough that they catch the spirit of
what you're attempting to rerelease, it may well be a success - otherwise,
it may fail badly.
--
Cheers ...
Geoffrey Hyde
|
|
| |
There's a load of reactions here already, so I'll keep it short.
I't very hard to give an overall verdict on replacement parts. I mean,
almost invisible changes, like the minifig heads, would be hard to object
to. In fact, even the 2x4 basic brick has evolved over time, and I don't
think you'd be using the old molds again.
The wheel thing is similar; it's hard to tell without turning the car over.
Baseplates would be another story, because the change there would be clearly
visible. And then there's that huge grey area....
You'd really have to look at this per set and per part. Some sets really
depend on particular parts...
For stickers I think it depends on the set. For expert builder/model team
sets stickers wouldn't be as bad (the stickers from my Rolls Royce are still
on), but for town/space, where the models see more play-action it would be
another issue.
When it comes to picking classics the suggestion to look at the ratings on
Lugnet is a pretty good one. Another indicator would be eBay; prices of sets
and their frequency could give an indication.
My wishlist:
398 Constellation (I'm also still looking for 393 and 391, but 398 is THE
classic. Also, as far as I know there are few if any rare parts)
8860 Auto Chassis (but I can see the problems here; wheels, pistons... It's
not the first supercar, but it looks much better than 853, and has more
functions. The next supercar is but-ugly, and 8880 probably too recent for a
classic- but I'd buy it straight away...)
8868 Airtech Claw Rig (Awesome design, lots of functions, impossible to get
for a decent price these days...)
7740 THE train (I'm not into trains, I never had them as a child because my
dad had n-scale trains. However, releasing 7740 might do the trick.
Especially if it comes with the extra cars. Oh, and please throw in that big
steam loco -7750- while you're at it...)
5571 Black cat. (Too recent, but I think it was a set that was a classic on
first release anyway...)
As for the comments on releasing new sets in the spirit of the old one: YES!
Where's a model team VW Beetle, Citroen DS or Honda GoldWing?
There was a series of airliners but it never included a 747 or a Concord...
There's more brainstorming to be done here...
Duq
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Salm writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> > We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> > like to throw open to the community.
> >
> > The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> > cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> > still qualify as a Legend?
> But I am going to stir up the sentiment that we do NOT need Legends or any
> other Lego set to be re-released.
>
> What has already been done as far as reissuing sets cannot be undone and I
> hope
> that the experiment has been a successful one. I have bought some of the
> re-issued sets and I am not disappointed, but the magic is not there as it was
> with the originals. Perhaps this is just due to my being older now.
>
> Regardless, I am of the following opinion:
>
> There is NO REASON to re-issue Lego sets identical to (or nearly so) to sets
> sold in the past. Instead, I want to see NEW selections that are based upon
> the spirit of old sets.
I both agree and disagree with you Kevin.
I think the reissues are an incredibly good idea. The music industry has
been doing this successfully for years. It allows some folks to finally get
a copy of a 'classic' set even though they may not have been born when the
set was first released. What if the White album had never been reissued on
CD? You'd have Beatles fans young and old bidding on vinyl copies on eBay
to this day.
However, I strongly agree with your point that new sets, based on the design
and building principles of the older sets, are key to the future success of
this company.
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Dan Dickerson writes:
> How about a book of legends? Reprint the old contruction manuals from sets
> in the 60s - 80s in one large book. Sets that you cannot/will not reissue,
> so that the book won't compete with your own products.
A terrific idea Dan. 'The Ultimate Instruction Book'. A companion piece to
'The Ultimate LEGO Book'.
> You could put a premium price on the book, it would still probably sell
> quite well.
But why not put a reasonable price on it? LEGO already puts a premium price
on every brick we buy.
The work on these instructions is long since done. Hopefully the company
has kept reproducable copies of them. This is a 'reiessue' in itself to
some degree. Why not put it out at a price that encourages parents to buy
it for their kids, along with a bucket or two of bricks, and see what kinds
of things they can make?
Allan B.
|
|
| |
Two things that make a classic for me: a good design and interesting,
useful, versatile pieces. I don't care about the wheels as long as the new
design looks good, but a club car without the cool windows isn't a club car.
Had you not been able to include the windows it'd be pointless to release
it. You know LEGO. You know which pieces make a set cool.
I'd rather see great new town sets, though. Make new legends.
Amy
|
|
| |
First off, let me thank you for going out to the lego community like this
and actually asking us what we think about this. It shows us you are aware
of us as a relevant source for opinions. My other great hobby apart from
lego is that I am a huge Bruce Springsteen fan. Trust me, if his management
gave the impression of listening a bit more to what the fans have to say, I
think it would be very hugely appreciated among us dieard "Bruce Tramps",
who see multiple concerts and collect dozens, or even hundreds of bootleg
recordings and in short, collectively have an extremely informed opinion
about his music.
What makes a legend a legend? I'm not sure, I think that is very subjective.
I think that in many cases, one doesn't realise how great a set was until
maybe 5 years later, when it seems to be head and shoulders above just about
anything that has been released since. The classic space stuff from the 80s
seems so much cooler to me than most of the space stuff I have seen coming
out over the last 5 years (not including the excellent starwars sets). But
back when they came out, sure they were cool, but I guess they just didn't
strike me as so brilliant.
Sometimes a model comes along that is one of a kind, an idea that is only
used once. We have seen many castles and pirate ships come and go over the
years, but only one western fort. Considering also the huge number of
otherwise rare, brown log wall pieces included, I would say that Fort
Legoredo is a classic set hands down. Fans of Castle and Pirate themes
welcomed it as well, because the parts could be used in their kinds of
buildings as well.
My thoughts about the legends series is that you should first and foremost
stick to keeping the original "spirit" or "feel" of the set. Beyond that, I
would be happy to see you purposefully change the sets to make it clear that
these aren't replicas of ancient models. Rather, they are newer, perhaps
versions of older sets. Any set can be improved, no matter how great it is.
Take this oppurtunity to use newer bricks that weren't around when the sets
originally came out. While I would absoutely love to see a reissue of the
classic yellow castle, I would love even more, to have that set rereleased
in tan bricks (instead of the less usefull yellow), with the "modern"
horses, instead of horses made of bricks. The overall feel of the set would
remain the same - a very satisfactory, playable castle set with walls made
of bricks instead of wall segments. You could change some of the colours on
purpose, perhaps improve on earlier versions, in order to make it clear that
these legends sets are a kind of "Mark II version". Instead of releasing the
Black Falcon's Fortress as close as possible to what it was, and then worry
about not having the moulds of some little piece, instead make it a bit
bigger, give the knights say a tan and a grey horse, and perhaps two extra
non soldier minifigs. In short improve the set, but maintain the idea of the
model (what made the model so great in the first place), in this case, a
modular castle with a huge gatehouse at the front, and a kind of roofed
tower thing at the back. (But please do keep the Black Falcon minigfigs :))
The advantage of "upgrading" the sets instaed of trying to recreate them
exactly, would be that collectors who really want to have an original model
from back in the day, would still be able to collect them without having
their "fun" ruined. Also, by deciding to change/improve the models, you
wouldn't be agonising over whether you could justify re releasing some old
set with totally new wheels that don't look like they were designed 20 years
ago.
cheers
Magnus
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Dan Dickerson writes:
> How about a book of legends? Reprint the old contruction manuals from sets
> in the 60s - 80s in one large book. Sets that you cannot/will not reissue,
> so that the book won't compete with your own products. The plans on
> Brickshelf are generally not clear enough to really use.
??
I have never found this to be the case, can you provide some examples?
Brickshelf scans are typically at very very high resolution. As good or
better as the print quality itself and images printed from them are as good
as any reproduction that LEGO could do would be unless you recreated all the
instruction artwork, a huge job.
In fact, I would suspect that any instruction compilation may well source
Brickshelf for some of the images as Brickshelf has better images, in some
cases, than TLC does.
Please note I love the general IDEA, just am confused about Brickshelf image
scan quality assertions you make.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
> How does not having the mold for an element affect it's reproducibility? I
> would have thought that with all of the latest and greatest laser measuring
> technology there would be *some* way of getting a new master mold for a
> particular piece, providing you had the original piece to measure off from.
Sure, there is SOME way
> But there is probably a cost involved in doing this so you're not too keen
> on it for that reason?
But that's it. Cost. This is a low budget operation and molds are not cheap.
Precision tolerances are pricey. I have heard numbers batted around that I
have a bit of faith in even though they were speculation... these numbers
are 10-50K USD PER MOLD.
> Well, I think you need to tell people how far you could be willing to go
> with the changes - you didn't seem very clear about just how far you were
> able to go ... And that, could be as helpful as people posting about what
> they want. Which, of course, is as far as you can possibly get it. ;-)
I think you missed/reversed the sense of this question. They can go as far
as they want, what is being asked is how far (in deviation from the
original) is acceptable. They could issue a single BURP in a bag and call it
airport shuttle, but that ridiculous example (reductio ad absurdium) shows
that some distances are TOO far. What they are looking for is what sorts of
changes *are* acceptable.
Some examples that may help clarify:
Consensus seems clear on metal wheels. The sorts of metal wheels they cannot
make any more, we are OK not to get. Likewise for hollow stud minifig heads
and some other part substitutions.
Consensus seems less clear on stickers. There is a camp that wants printed
because of the fading and deterioration aspect and there is a camp that can
accept stickers rather than no set at all.
|
|
| |
Well, I would think it to be a good idea if LEGO released accessory kits to
go along with the legend theme. The voting thing is okay, but I'm looking
for a re-release of a classic space set and more castle sets! Anyways, keep
it up! You're doing a great job!
Matt Hein
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
You have defined a LEGO Legend very well, any set that became a "landmark"
is a good candidate, either because it was the first set in a theme or
because it was a market success.
I guess it depends on how dramatic the difference between the original and
the re-release is.
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
Certain level of compromise is good for both TLC and for the consumer.
Changing basic bricks for a "burp" would be unnacceptable, for instance.
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets?
Changing metal wheels by current ones is, for example, an acceptable change
from my perspective. It makes sense to both the collector, the regular LEGO
consumer and TLC.
> Are stickers ok?
Stickers are Ok, granted, some people prefer pre-printed pieces...
I would prefer sets with stickers that no sets at all.
> How many changes are allowed before it's not a Legend anymore?
Small sacrifices are good for the common good: The classic "Yellow Castle"
has 6 1x1 red (small window), if they get changed to 6 1x1 red bricks with
stud in front, it would be an acceptable change.
Big ones aren't:
Can you picture a re-release of the classic "Yellow Castle" using the castle
walls in yellow? That would be a new set altogether.
> Where do you -- where should we -- draw the line?
> Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
The overall set is more important than the details, as long as such details
don't affect the overall set of course.
You guys have been doing a great job (in my humble opinion), keep it up.
My 2 cents.
J.-
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jorge Fernandez writes:
> > How many changes are allowed before it's not a Legend anymore?
>
> Small sacrifices are good for the common good: The classic "Yellow Castle"
> has 6 1x1 red (small window), if they get changed to 6 1x1 red bricks with
> stud in front, it would be an acceptable change.
Yuck! That would no longer be a window. Better to redesign it. Take this as
a tricky case study in substitution.
Recall: it's a 1x4x3 window space, with 6 red 1x1 windows in the middle
flanked by yellow 1x1 rounds. A narrow red train window (1x2x3) between the
yellow 1x1 rounds would be an easy way out. The window on the poop of the
Armada Flagship is similar in spirit, but it uses the recent 3-high arch-top
window and that would clash with the plain arch on the other side of the
castle tower.
Other possibilities: use a Town window with fancy shutters. Or use a 1x4x2
fence somehow.
Finally, and I find this insulting, the red window could be a sticker.
That red window is the commanding detail over the courtyard. It needs to be
special.
Are those classic windows (1x1, 1x2, 1x3) really gone forever?
> Big ones aren't:
> Can you picture a re-release of the classic "Yellow Castle" using the castle
> walls in yellow? That would be a new set altogether.
I am in total agreement that that would be a disaster.
|
|
| |
Brad Justus wrote in message ...
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend? • <snip>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes • are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should • we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the
details?
I agree with those who have written that the spirit of the set is more
important than the details of individual parts. Specifically, I don't care
about the metal wheels (they were during my dark ages anyway so I have no
emotional attachment to them :-) ) and mostly I prefer stickers to printing
when used on flat bricks. It's not hard to keep them looking pristine, just
store them separate from your other bricks. The problem is stickers on
slopes - because of the slope's texture, stickers don't stick well in the
first place and don't stay on in the long term. On classic space sets that
would be a problem, they had a lot of printed slopes IIRC. One substitution
that I would HATE would be the dopey 3-wheel ATV's for motorcycles - but if
it was the only way to get a great set I'd hold my nose and buy it :-)
However, I think it will be important to be very specific about what has
been changed in the reissue. If some non-LUGnetter Or heck, even a LUGNETter
who doesn't read all the groups and missed the info) buys a Legends set from
the S@H catalog expecting it to be the same as the original, they are bound
to be disappointed if it isn't. The promo materials need to say what has
changed up front.
My vote for sets.. would be a better selection of bulk bricks and parts :-)
Seriously though, <consults 90/91/92 S@H catalogs and LUGNET database> I
would love to see some of the Nautica sets (6542 Launch & Load Seaport, 6541
Intercoastal seaport), small houses (376 house with garden = 560 Town house,
1484 Townhouses (mmmm white 6-pane doors!), 6370 Weekend Home, 6349 Holiday
Villa and many more); 1589/1592 Town Square, Trees and fences packs
(6317/6318/6319), 6376 Breezeway cafe, 6379 Riding Stable, 6394 Metro Park
and Service Tower (my #1) and on and on.
Kevin
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Craftsman Lego Kits & Custom models: http://www.lionsgatemodels.com
Brickbay Lego parts store: http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?p=Kevinw1
eBay Lego auctions: http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/kevinw1/
The Guild of Bricksmiths: http://www.bricksmiths.com
Personal Lego Web page:
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/kwilson_tccs/lego.html
|
|
| |
Just my opinion, but, whatever you do, at least in the case of town, make
sure it's a unique set. Not another police or fire station. Try to think
Main Street/6390 (<<--My #1), Public Works Centre/6383, Holiday
Airport/6395, Weekend Home/6370, etc.
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
>
> In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
> Legends are reissues of landmark LEGO sets -- perhaps the first set in a
> particular playtheme, or a set widely acknowledged as a superlative building
> experience, or perhaps simply a much beloved set."
>
> The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, and
> Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded mistakes
> like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look), these three sets vary
> only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor differences, such as
> "ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original solid ones are all that
> set them apart.
>
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
>
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
> on. You see the problems...
>
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
>
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
>
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In regards to your question, I feel certain changes such as wheels and
stickers are totally accaptable, as long as the reason for the change is
explained before hand. The only changes I would be against are changes in
the colour of pieces (I understand baseplate changes) or juniorization of a
set. For example, lets take set 6390, Main Sreeet. Accpetable changes would
be the baseplates being 8-studs and green intead of gray, if the reasons
why, were explained up front. Same thing with the stickers if it was
explained upfront.
I think legends should not only be fan favorites from the past but, extremly
rare sets form the past such as sets- 1589, 1592,and 1490.
Just my 2 cents LD.
Thanks!
ShawnG
(Bring on Town and Pirate!)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Tom Reed writes:
> One last idea that I would like to offer is in making a legend series with
> an alternate color scheme! Instead of trying to recreate the original with
> identical colors, make it with a new slate of colors.
Indeed!!!!!!!!
A dark Gray 6075 castle would be phenomenal. http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6075_2
(It wouldn’t be a be in the Legends line, but instead a ‘re-mastered classic!’)
And along with a service pack or minifig pack would be most excellent.
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6009 (or) http://guide.lugnet.com/set/5138
But I honestly do believe Tom is onto something with the inclusion or addition
or classic ‘extras.’ (Minifig or Accessory)
> I also would like to maybe see a service pack or two that would benefit a
> series. How about a special "legends" service pack that would provide some
> much sought after parts. Like armor for knights or lattice windows for
> ships/town/etc. Minifig packs would be excellent! I think that almost all
> themes could use more minifigs available. Look at how the sets containing
> special figs sell. Most people would be interested in buying multiples of
> those.
Sincerely,
--==RiçhärÐ==--
|
|
| |
Geoffrey Hyde <ghyde@ledanet.com.au> wrote:
> How does not having the mold for an element affect it's reproducibility?
Lego Direct cannot, as a matter of policy, create new molds for its sets,
so it has a big impact. (This is a totally different restriction than that
of using existing molds with new colors, as has already been done in LD
sets.)
One specific case that was mentioned but not discussed further is that of
classic space helmets. Would a Galaxy Explorer with the newer-style,
swept-back space/town helmets have the same "feel", or do the more retro-70s
bullet-type helmets add to the nostalgia rating?
I am also very curious whether the "classic" windows are a potential obstacle
to any set reproduction, although realistically the percentage of sets that
contain them and would serious contenders for reproduction is probably
relatively small.
Steve
--
Barb & Steve Demlow | demlow@visi.com | www.visi.com/~demlow/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
I would have to say that what made Lego such a great toy in the 80s was the
level of sophistication in the design. That sophistication is why you have a
huge adult follow up these days. This is how kids play: the get the toy,
examine it thoroughly, figure out what it can do, get bored, toss ot out and
go on the next thing. The excellent design we've seen in the 80s-90s gave an
eternal life to those sets because they were good looking and the piece mix
was so good that the possibilities were indeed limitless - you practically
could not get bored. This can not be said of today's set and that may explain
why kids stop playing with Lego at an earlier age. I can not see a kid starting
now playing with Jack Stone and religiously keep his/her collection intact and
get back at it in adulthood. Sophistication is also important for play value -
a young kid puts a driver in a car from an open top and it's just fine for
him/her. As kid grow older they are more sophisticated, they need a door to
open to get in the car - juniorization has eliminated this, another reason why
retention may have weakened.
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
For what I have read so far, the historical instruction book is probably your
best avenue. If we look at the basic sets, everybody can build them with their
available piece right now. If we look at the most desired sets - those with the
rare parts, we may run in the problem of being without mold. I must althought
say here that 398 can be done today.
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
It would actually be interesting to see if the cost involved in reproducing
this set could be easily recouped. It seems that everybody (me included) wants
that set. Should the rails also be sold as an accesory pack, the volume of
sales could justify the expense. - was just fantasizing
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the
details?
Stickers are definitely an annoying occurrence in any Lego set. However, as
many pointed out, better that than nothing. A 3"x3" sticker sheet cost close to
nothing. Why not put four per box. Why? I explain. Here is the life of a Lego
set: the owner purchase or receive the set, built it, drool/play for a period
of time and disassemble it. Two years later, the owner feels an urge to rebuild
that cool set. uh oh, no more stickers, not the same appeal, darn stickers. Put
more stickers sheet and the problem is solved. By the way, you can also produce
a sticker accessory pack.
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
just to give some suggestion: 398 (already mentionned), 497, 1592 (i'm sure you
have this one in mind - the plates are not an issue here as long as they are
grey),6383, 6954 and 375 in another color and decent helmets is also just fine
As some have also mentionned, bringing back memories is good (at least today's
kid can enjoy the true Lego quality) but as good as traditions are, innovation
should not be relinquished.
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
Best success
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend?
<snip>
A great question. To me, it has a lot less to do with nostalgia, and more with
set complexity. I do understand the current catch-22 that TLC is facing these
days with its juniorization policy of sets (feeling the need to hook younger
kids having shorter attention spans). So maybe if the sets being produced today
were more complex, the whole "legends" idea would be moot.
But if I had to choose a set to be rereleased, it would be one that contains a
unique part that is no longer available today. For instance, many point to the
7740 as a "legend":
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/7740
I say fine, or I'd say just give us the 1x2x2 classic window in gray in bulk
(and black, too)! And instead of the 3x3 double low slope in yellow, make it in
dark gray! It is the unique parts that make a great set great. I doubt many
would want you to reissue, say, the 111:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/111_2
Sure, it's from 1966 and a Legend, but it's mostly common bricks!
Here me now and believe me later: despite juniorization, I'll take what is being
produced today over anything produced 25 years ago. Give me tan, brown, dark
gray (dark red;-) over the primaries of the past. The sets may have been more
complex in the past, but who really keeps a set together anyway? (I have 1,000+
sets and not one is together). And if one *does* keep sets together, why not
just be a Playmobil customer?
I hear many people applauding the older sets because of their complexity, but
you can bring them back *and make them better*. So take a "legend" *design*
from the past and update it in some new colors! I would advise against being
beholden to the idea of trying to reproduce a classic so carefully-- that misses
the whole point in my mind. *Forget* about nostalgia, it's all about the bricks
and what we can do with them *after* the set has been torn apart and sorted into
the collection:-)
-.02,
John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
>
> >
> > The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend?
>
> <snip>
>
> A great question. To me, it has a lot less to do with nostalgia, and more with
> set complexity. I do understand the current catch-22 that TLC is facing these
> days with its juniorization policy of sets (feeling the need to hook younger
> kids having shorter attention spans). So maybe if the sets being produced today
> were more complex, the whole "legends" idea would be moot.
Short, sweet and to the point. You summed up the entire problem in your
last sentence.
LEGO buyers are BEGGING for good quality sets.
> Sure, it's from 1966 and a Legend, but it's mostly common bricks!
>
> Here me now and believe me later: despite juniorization, I'll take what is being
> produced today over anything produced 25 years ago. Give me tan, brown, dark
> gray (dark red;-) over the primaries of the past. The sets may have been more
> complex in the past, but who really keeps a set together anyway? (I have 1,000+
> sets and not one is together). And if one *does* keep sets together, why not
> just be a Playmobil customer?
The point that I think often gets lost here is not *keeping* the sets
together forever (you're right, this isn't what they're for) but rather
*wanting* to buy the sets in the first place. What made those old sets sell
wasn't nostalgia for what had once been, but rather it was the joy of how
great the sets were then. What is the real problem now is that the
continued lack of quality designs will eventually see the kids of today
drift away from LEGO. Not to enter a Dark Ages, as many of us adults did,
but rather to abandon the system forever. Who will look back as an adult
and want to declare themselves a fan of Bionicle? Try getting together a
convention of Adult Fans of Micronauts today and you'll find it's a tough
job. Fad toys do not produce lifelong fans.
But you're right, the best of the sets of the past were a joy to build once,
then take apart and use for other things. With all of my old sets though,
rebuilding them months later was always something that happened. There were
good as sets, and also good for parts. The best of both worlds. It *has*
happened in the past and there's no reason it can't happen again in the future.
> I hear many people applauding the older sets because of their complexity, but
> you can bring them back *and make them better*. So take a "legend" *design*
> from the past and update it in some new colors!
I can't argue with you here. This is also a good idea.
> I would advise against being
> beholden to the idea of trying to reproduce a classic so carefully-- that misses
> the whole point in my mind. *Forget* about nostalgia, it's all about the bricks
> and what we can do with them *after* the set has been torn apart and sorted into
> the collection:-)
See my comments above. The need isn't to recreate the nostalgia of past
sets, but rather to build new nostalgia for today's kids.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
No more metal axle wheel sets? NOT A PROBLEM!!!
Sticker versus decorated items--this seems to be an issue. As someone with
a manufacturing engineering degree (and a brother who's in the printing
business), and the fact that you can't produce any "new" things specifically
for the Legends series. Take, for example, the Galaxy Explorer set (my vote
for a Legends set)--the two prominent decorated elements--the 1x4 brick with
"LL 928" and the sloped front piece with the ship around the planet
logo--you may not be able to produce them because the pieces used for the
stamping have probably dried up and crumbled from non-use and natural aging.
Can you use stickers? Yes. Should you use stickers? No.
However, if you can't get those pieces decorated, should that prevent a
Legends series from getting made? The answer is no--I think the general
feeling is that you capture the spirit of the Legends, and not how exact you
can reproduce an old set. Some of the purists out there may disagree, as
they may want a decorated part to really return them to their childhoods,
but it probably won't happen.
My feeling is that if you can somehow find a way to produce decorated parts,
and the cost is minimal enough that you can recoup the cost by adding a few
dollars (i.e. under 10 bucks) to the price of the set, those few extra
dollars will be worth the price. If it's not possible to produce decorated
elements, and stickers are the only alternative, I would say to use the
stickers. There may be some grumbling about "why are they stickers--the
should have decorated the elements", but then you'd have to think "would you
rather have the set, or no set at all?".
My feelings are that decorated elements make the set rather special, but
sometimes stickers have to be used or the sets get really expensive (and
then the general public won't buy them at all)....
Maybe not much of a true solution here, but I say use the decorated elements
if possible, and if there's no way to use the decorated elements--go with
the stickers...
-Scott Lyttle
|
|
| |
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001 22:00:48 GMT, "Brad Justus" <legodirect@lego.com>
wrote:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
>
> In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
> Legends are reissues of landmark LEGO sets -- perhaps the first set in a
> particular playtheme, or a set widely acknowledged as a superlative building
> experience, or perhaps simply a much beloved set."
>
> The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, and
> Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded mistakes
> like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look), these three sets vary
> only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor differences, such as
> "ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original solid ones are all that
> set them apart.
>
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
>
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
> on. You see the problems...
Changes that keep the spirit and character of a set 'alive' are fine
(i.e. the wheels and the hollow studs on the minifig head). To use
another's example, making a #375/6075 Yellow Castle with the various
wall bricks are not.
I'd have to go against stickers VS printed if at ALL possible, in some
cases it's a big issue. Its the durability part of it here, I have
nothing against stickers just because they are stickers, they just
tend to not last as long as printing. If you DO go with stickers,
PLEASE, oh PLEASE do *NOT* use stickers for minifigs. We KNOW you can
still print those, and it shouldn't be to hard to setup the machines
to redo old prints. Well it should be about the same difficultly as
reproducing the setups for making stickers for the minifigs.
>
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
>
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
>
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
I'll add a few suggestions that I'd like to see here :^) Oh inline
comments with the suggestions.
497 Galaxy Explorer (oh ya!)
(Crucial to get the trans yellow elements, beyond that baring the
printed slope I'd see the base plates being the hang-up here, the
crater plate shouldn't be too hard, it was last seen in Aquazone, it
looks like the landing plate would be the potential problem here).
383/6083 Knight's Tournament
(depending upon the tree availability, changing the horses would be
alright here btw. But that'd require a new barding print so figure
the odds are low here, bummer)
677/6077 Knight's Procession
(Ok so the wheels would have to change, other thing would be the
torso/shield design. Neither SHOULD be a big issue though. It might
be a smaller play value by itself, BUT people would buy TONS and it
should be very affordable in price)
5059/5135/5138/5184/5383 Castle Accessories/Castle Equipment (service
packs)
(if not a reissue of one of these, then a new one with the current
shields and weapons, helms and etc, just try and avoid crowns, most of
us have enough of those already :^)
Kinda in general, don't neglect the small sets or possibly service
packs.
You Direct guys are going in the correct direction here with the
Legends and Sculptures and reissues, keep it up.
Also, don't think I've said it recently, thanks for what you are doing
in Direct, it gives us hope.
Mike
--
All other themes are just spare parts for Castle! :^)
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
Oh my, such a simple question, but with so many complicated ways to answer!
This is like asking 'what makes a good wine', or 'what makes a good movie'...
Good pieces, sure - but not everyone buys a set just for the pieces. Some
people buys sets for the SET. The Star Wars sets are good SETs. The new
Harry Potter sets are good SETs.
It has to look good as a set. The Metroliner *looks* like a passenger
train, the same with the 7740. They are realistic LEGO versions of the real
thing.
Playability is important. We have to remember that LEGO is not aimed at the
AFOL market - it will always be aimed at kids. If the average 10 year old
looks at it and isn't interested, it will be a failure as a set. (Bulk
pieces is the exception to this - most 10 year olds don't care that you can
buy 2x2 classic windows in bulk, but AFOLs love them! (We could use more
colors of windows, please!))
I guess the best thing I can say is it comes down to the intangibles - how
do you *feel* when you look at the set? There have been a lot of good LEGO
sets through the years that didn't do much for me, but there have been some
where I just at them and go 'wow!'... The 'Wow' factor is what we're
looking for.
I don't know if I'm adding anything to this thread, but that's the best I
can do right now... :-)
JohnG, GMLTC
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Magnus Lauglo writes:
> ... Take this oppurtunity to use newer bricks that weren't around when the >sets originally came out. While I would absoutely love to see a reissue of the
> classic yellow castle, I would love even more, to have that set rereleased
> in tan bricks (instead of the less usefull yellow), with the "modern"
> horses, instead of horses made of bricks.
I have to disagree with this. For me, one of the things that make this set a
Classic/Legend is those horses you had to build yourself.
I would even balk at, but could accept, the change in the knights' helmets
and the requisite change in the visors.
I'm sure this is a major issue for older castle, space and even town sets
that used the old thin-chin helmet. I think the majority of fans would
rather see the older sets reissued with the newer helmets than not reissued
at all.
BEN GATRELLE
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Ben Gatrelle writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Magnus Lauglo writes:
> > ... Take this oppurtunity to use newer bricks that weren't around when the >sets originally came out. While I would absoutely love to see a reissue of the
> > classic yellow castle, I would love even more, to have that set rereleased
> > in tan bricks (instead of the less usefull yellow), with the "modern"
> > horses, instead of horses made of bricks.
>
> I have to disagree with this. For me, one of the things that make this set a
> Classic/Legend is those horses you had to build yourself.
>
> I would even balk at, but could accept, the change in the knights' helmets
> and the requisite change in the visors.
>
> I'm sure this is a major issue for older castle, space and even town sets
> that used the old thin-chin helmet. I think the majority of fans would
> rather see the older sets reissued with the newer helmets than not reissued
> at all.
>
> BEN GATRELLE
Ben et All,
I'm sorry to disagree with you here, Ben, but I can't stand a classic
spaceman with a newer style helmet. If a Galaxy Explorer or some other
classic was released with the new helmets instead of the thin chins, I'd be
throughly disgusted, and would most likely not buy the set. Thin Chins or
naught is my thinking.
-John Rudy
www.geocities.com/TJJohn12
|
|
| |
I think the point is that to work with the (excellent) brickshelf
instructions usually requires being able to print in hi res at some point.
This is not always an option.
RW
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Dan Dickerson writes:
> > How about a book of legends? Reprint the old contruction manuals from sets
> > in the 60s - 80s in one large book. Sets that you cannot/will not reissue,
> > so that the book won't compete with your own products. The plans on
> > Brickshelf are generally not clear enough to really use.
>
> ??
>
> I have never found this to be the case, can you provide some examples?
>
> Brickshelf scans are typically at very very high resolution. As good or
> better as the print quality itself and images printed from them are as good
> as any reproduction that LEGO could do would be unless you recreated all the
> instruction artwork, a huge job.
>
> In fact, I would suspect that any instruction compilation may well source
> Brickshelf for some of the images as Brickshelf has better images, in some
> cases, than TLC does.
>
> Please note I love the general IDEA, just am confused about Brickshelf image
> scan quality assertions you make.
|
|
| |
I'm sure a 'series' of reprints would sell well.
RW
In lugnet.lego.direct, Dan Dickerson writes:
> How about a book of legends? Reprint the old contruction manuals from sets
> in the 60s - 80s in one large book. Sets that you cannot/will not reissue,
> so that the book won't compete with your own products. The plans on
> Brickshelf are generally not clear enough to really use.
>
> I have a huge collection of Lego, so I can probably build most anything. I
> only wish that I had kept the books from my early sets. I still have the
> parts, just no directions on how to build the old sets.
>
> You could put a premium price on the book, it would still probably sell
> quite well.
>
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> > We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> > like to throw open to the community.
> >
> > The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> > cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> > still qualify as a Legend?
> >
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
Brad,
It would appear that the LUGNET community (as would be expected) has come
through with dozens of responses to your questions. I'm sure it goes
without saying, but I do hope you folks realize how fortunate you are to
have this much free market research and feedback done for you. Many people
have obviously taken this topic seriously and a number of the replies offer
significant insight into the problems faced by LEGO in this matter... and
others. A good deal of time and effort has gone into giving you a ton of
information.
I do hope that someone at your end takes a few minutes to print out some (or
all) of the responses to a request for feedback such as this one. It seems
to make sense that this information (even that which is critical) gets seen
by those with the power to make decisions.
Best regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
First, let me say that although some of my comments regarding 10000, 10001,
& 10002 may have, in the past, sounded a little nit-picky, LEGENDS RULES in
every way! Thank you! I’ve posted some of my nit-picky comments to the
forum so that the community would know some of my actual experiences and
impressions with the services/products/etc. of LD/S@H/TLC. Again, LEGENDS
is GREAT!
I share the general consensus of those who have already posted. The most
important factor is keeping the spirit of the set intact. The re-issue
instructions of the 480 Rescue Helicopter as published in LegoMania offer a
good example of this. The rotors, wheels, doors, and front windshield are
from new molds, but the integrity of the set is kept intact (this is coming
from a guy who still has all of the original pieces & instructions from the
set he got over 20 years ago). To me, the same idea holds true with base
plates as well.
In general, I hate stickers. The only thing I have ever put them on is the
Sopwith Camel , a decision I still question. If it is a matter of a few
extra bucks, I’d prefer to have printed bricks. If it is the difference
between re-issuing the 497 Galaxy Explorer or not, re-issue the set; I’ll
manage to survive the stickers. It would be wonderful, however, if (as
another member commented) with ALL sets 2 or 3 sticker sheets were
included—that way if the stickers got old or trashed, or removed for another
creation, they could be replaced at a later date.
To sum up my feelings, MUCH BETTER to have a Galaxy Explorer re-issued with
*blah!* stickers, *prefer the classics* modern helmets, and *not that big a
deal to me personally* slightly different base plates than NO re-issue at all.
I literally can’t wait for the chance to complete a survey to vote for what
to include in the LEGENDS line, so this is what I would love to see (some of
the sets are somewhat recent and might be better qualified as re-releases in
the same fashion as the Pirate and some Technic sets now offered): 497
Galaxy Explorer; 5571 Model Team Black Cat (5591 Mach II Red Bird or 5590
Whirl & Wheel would be somewhat less desirable but welcome nonetheless);
6285 Black Seas Barracuda (lets face it, the Red Beard Runner just won’t
quench the Legendary thirst); and lastly, 6339 Shuttle Launch Pad (with 1682
Space Shuttle a close alternate).
Finally, THANK YOU for the whole concept and for listening to a bunch of
obsessive fanatics!!!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct John Rudy writes:
> I'm sorry to disagree with you here, Ben, but I can't stand a classic
> spaceman with a newer style helmet. If a Galaxy Explorer or some other
> classic was released with the new helmets instead of the thin
> chins, I'd be
> throughly disgusted, and would most likely not buy the set. Thin Chins or
> naught is my thinking.
I have my own particular parts hang-ups too, but helmets aren't among them.
But to my way of thinking, I'd much rather be able to buy a new Galaxy
Explorer with new-style helmets and have to track down old helmets on
Brickbay than buy a used set. (Theoretical example since my Galaxy Explorer
from childhood still looks fine. :-)
Doug
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Doug Finney writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct John Rudy writes:
>
> > I'm sorry to disagree with you here, Ben, but I can't stand a classic
> > spaceman with a newer style helmet. If a Galaxy Explorer or some other
> > classic was released with the new helmets instead of the thin
> > chins, I'd be
> > throughly disgusted, and would most likely not buy the set. Thin Chins or
> > naught is my thinking.
>
> I have my own particular parts hang-ups too, but helmets aren't among them.
> But to my way of thinking, I'd much rather be able to buy a new Galaxy
> Explorer with new-style helmets and have to track down old helmets on
> Brickbay than buy a used set. (Theoretical example since my Galaxy Explorer
> from childhood still looks fine. :-)
Ditto. I suspect most AFOLs would rather have a Legend that is 99% accurate
than not have a Legend at all.
thanks,
James
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Rudy writes:
> Ben et All,
> I'm sorry to disagree with you here, Ben, but I can't stand a classic
> spaceman with a newer style helmet. If a Galaxy Explorer or some other
> classic was released with the new helmets instead of the thin chins, I'd be
> throughly disgusted, and would most likely not buy the set. Thin Chins or
> naught is my thinking.
I think this too. I'm an original space fan and the thought of them walking
around with big chunky helmuts disgusts me (not as much as Jack Stone, though!)
Also re: wheels - Many of the classic space and Blacktron sets came with
those large round space-tyres that fit on the 2x2 metal axle plate. These
would have to be included in any space 'legend' set. Maybe a way could be
found to make them compatible with the new 2x2 wheel clip-on plate.
Finally, I accept that new molds are expensive. But just think - how many
new molds has LEGO made for the Harry Potter series alone (not to mention
Belville)! It makes me shudder.
Michael Dallaston
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
First let me answer your very first question out of the subject line:
"what makes a legend?"
In my eyes a legend has at least one out of the following two characteristic
qualities:
- it is standing far over the average because it is just a "perfect set" (like
for e.g. the Sopwith Camel right now, but it is hard to say, what makes a set
perfect).
- it is desired, because of its beauty plus rarity. Those are the most legends,
like 398 constellation, 7740 TEE train, 7750 steam engine, 118 electronic
controlled train (sory I am train head: there are sets from any theme to be
added).
In my eyes re-releases of those sets make them becoming just a dead legend as
has been discussed here (the raryty is part of their state as legend):
http://news.lugnet.com/trains/?n=12257
In conclusion of that old thread, let me repeat: in my opinion ANY change in
design and coulour is highly welcome!
[snip]
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore?
The overall appearance should be in a way that you can recognice a set
immediately, but even bigger changes in detail+colour are no problem at all.
The more, the better.
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
The bigger the better.
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
I would love a 7740 on 9V wheel blocks and (that addition is important) in
coulour bronce-gold (known from Bionicle) instead of yellow. (The real ones
have been partly painted in that golden way) When is the 50th anniversary of
the 2x4x1 brick (or something else to be celebrated)? Maybe that would be the
right time to release a golden set!
Kind Regards,
Ben
|
|
| |
The Legend idea was thrilling to me in June. I've since had some time to
realize how bad it is, though. Problems:
1) Your mail-order-only / internet market is a bunch of older people like
me who already have five Galaxy Explorers and thirteen Yellow Castles or
whatever....why do we need yet another one in some ugly 2001 grey box with
no flap? What is the point?
2) Even if you did rehash some great old models, you need to win over the
mainstream again to get back on track. You don't need more money from us
S@H LugNET types. You had us at "hello," and you had us in 1979. I
understand your budget is low, but if it never included marketing, then it's
simply too low. Skimp with some stickers and get these things to TRU.
Past this, I'll just tell you what you'd rather hear, and cast some majority
votes concerning the line in case you insist on continuing it:
1) No stickers. Imprinting lasts longer. Besides, if you really want to
go after collectors, you should know that most collectors would never dare
dream of applying the stickers anyway.
2) No major part substitutions (thin-chin helmets). Don't make it hodgepodge.
3) I'm more interested in new sets designed in the classic theme. I'm a
big Classic Space fan, and can illustrate how you could go about doing this
with some of my own designs of "Sets That Never Were" here:
http://www.umop.com/spacefun.htm
In exchange for my free consultation here today, I'll ask in exchange for a
job position designing your new Classic Space line. I live in northern CT. :-)
--Dave
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
As a member of the Lego-buying community, can I just say how fantastic what
you're doing is. I'll admit I haven't bought a Guarded Inn (yet)*, and I
doubt I'll fork out for a Metroliner (my trains are all British steam-era
customs), but just knowing you're listening and responding to the community
is brilliant.
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
Well, the one I really would go for is the one sold in Europe as '928 Space
Cruiser and Moonbase', or, in the US, '497 Galaxy Explorer'. Regardless of
whether it counts as a Legend or not, there is nothing you could do to this
set that would put me off buying it - except putting a ridiculous price on it.
I surmise from the questions that you are concerned that making too many
changes to a set may harm sales, and that could spell the end of the Legends
line. I'll try to be clear on my own position, but will probably drift into
speculation at times. I know it's just one opinion, but I hope the
information is useful.
I want to see a 928/497. It was too expensive to have as a kid, and I'd
love to be able to buy one now. But, I'm not so enamoured that I would pay
eBay prices - nor do I want one MISB.
I've seen a lot of discussion about the Legends, concerning minor changes
from the originals (e.g. hollow head studs, hairpiece shapes and print
detail), but it doesn't devalue a set to me. I might join in such
discussion, but it's no criticism. It's just wanting to know absolutely
everything about a highly treasured set - to me it shows how popular it is.
I have no interest in what it means to dedicated collectors of originals. I
expect the differences mean that there is still some value in originals, but
in terms of desirability, they don't affect the Legend set one iota.
Focusing again on the 928/497, what changes could you make? Well, let me
first say I'm not assuming you are going to re-release it. I hope that you
are, but I know you can't say yet. What I mean is, I would buy a Legend set
if, to me, it was desirable. The Metroliner isn't, the Gaurded Inn is
sort-of, the Galaxy Explorer would be without a doubt. So, I'll take that
as my example to give a feel for my opinions.
I can't think of many changes so serious that they would stop me buying it.
Some changes may provoke discussion, others could provoke criticism. I
assume though that something I don't like may put someone else off the set
entirely. I suppose it would affect how many of the set I might buy, too. So:
Minifig heads with hollow studs:
I wouldn't have noticed, if it hadn't been pointed out. No worries.
Modern Helmets:
If the moulds for the originals are gone, then it's a necessary step. It
would be an obvious change, but I'd happily go for it - consider it a minor
update of the original. In fact, give them all visors in the classic
trans-yellow colour for an added bonus.
Minifig body stickers:
I would accept stickers, but then I've got several originals I could put in
place. This is detracting from the original, but not too much. Better than
changing the print for one from any of the similar later themes, or not
having the set at all.
Brick and slope stickers:
The LL928 and space logos wouldn't be noticeable on the model. The one on
the front slope would be more noticeable. Again, a little detraction and a
shame - but I'd still buy one. I think Eric had a good idea though, to
supply a spare sticker sheet or two in the box. Surely that can't have much
of an effect on the price of a set this size?
New wheels on the buggy:
I won't miss the metal axles (and I have plenty of originals) - just make
sure the hubs are grey and the wheels are red.
New tyre compound:
So the tyres go on and off easier? Great.
No TV-style antenna on control room roof:
A shame not to have it, but don't let this stop you re-releasing the set.
They never lasted long anyway. Swap it for whatever you like - I wouldn't
mind a modern whip, but I think most people would rather you used a piece
available at the time, like a standard antenna - or maybe put several pieces
together for a similar look.
No landing pad plate:
Shame. Mould a crossroads in grey? The change from the print would be
noticeable in the box pic, but that's another of the things we'd have to accept.
No crater plate:
Hmm - someone pointed out that these were still made recently, but just a
plain grey plate would do - it's the ship I want. Don't bother trying to
build a fake rock wall out of other parts.
But then, if it was:
No 3x6x1 slope (blue or trans-yellow for windscreens):
I assume these are still around, but if they had to be substituted for other
parts, like a long train/Imperial Shuttle canopy? Well, then, to me, it's
no longer the same model. Time to make your excuses and leave. But, let us
know if this is the case (as with monorail track), so we're not left hanging
on. I realise this is an extreme example, but generally major outward
changes are a bad idea.
Any non-essential changes would be most unwelcome too. I mean here things
like using large pre-formed pieces for walls or vehicle baseplates, where
the original was made from several regular pieces, or using trans-dark-blue
for all windows and white wings on an original trans-yellow, blue & grey
classic space ship.
So, I would accept a lot of changes to the minor details in order to own a
desirable classic set. Any changes caused by The Lego Company's 'progress'
into juniorisation, or for no good reason at all, would not be acceptable.
Just be open about the changes (if only on LUGNET), so we're not
disappointed when we open the box.
But, as to what sets are Legends, I'm really not sure. Any of the 90s
town/nautica sets would be great - I'd love a shuttle launch pad - but these
were my dark ages. I didn't really desire any from this period, as I wasn't
buying Lego at the time. The only ones I see as Legends are from the late
70s/early 80s, when I was a Lego-buying kid with limited pocket money.
Now, I wouldn't suggest you do too many sets from back beyond the days of
minifigs, as although there might be some classics, most were of standard
bricks and few will hold interest for modern youngsters. I don't suppose
the Legends are bought exclusively by adults for themselves.
Maybe some smaller sets, like the 'Spirit of St Louis' aircraft, or updates
of others with modern features would work. For example, the Coastgaurd set
369 was updated to 575 for the US. I would say keep the original colours,
but then this probably wouldn't count as a Legend, more an update (still
welcome though!).
As for which of the minifig sets, look around LUGNET for opinion. In
classic space, you have the 1593 fetching high prices, but why? It was a
pretty poor looking set, and it's only valuable now because no-one wanted
one then. So, not a Legend.
The 6950 Rocket Transport ('X-15 Satellite Launcher') - a great design, but
with the spare trans-yellow inverted slopes currently available, anyone can
throw one together. Of course, they might have to change a few details, but
then a Legends re-release would have a few changes too. So, a classic, but
not hugely desireable.
The original yellow castle, whilst a classic set, would have limited appeal
now compared to some early models from the grey castles.
In technic, how about the 951 Bulldozer? Personally, I already have an
original, but I consider it a classic. I probably wouldn't buy a re-issued
one, but others might.
The 497/928 Galaxy Explorer though, was desirable as a set. Just out of
reach of so many kids, it's perfect for todays AFOLs - for themselves, or
for their kids. The parts alone would be great to have, for building others
from the classic space range.
If you're concerned about the changes needed to make it happen, I hope the
answers here have given you some reassurance. If not, I can only suggest
you say exactly what you can do, and take a vote on it. I suspect that's
what you were planning with the vote anyway, but I would rather have the
discussion per set than have to take a vote between sets.
Jason J Railton
*I have two My-Own-Trains and have just ordered a Hopper Wagon. The only
reason I don't have a Guarded Inn is because the money I can spare is going
on bulk packs (sand-red 1xn and wagon bases), or the old accessories before
they run out - which reminds me, knock out some more electric cables,
please! I think it's great that there's such a huge choice I can't have
everything I want - just like being a kid again.
|
|
| |
Like most people here, I would prefer printed bricks instead of stickers.
But if you are going to print on bricks, is it possible to do so a bit more
precisely than on some of the Guarded Inn sets, which apparently had some
printing problems on the shields.
thanks
Magnus
|
|
| |
Brad,
I'm willing to accept any changes you have to make in order to get some of the
old castle sets (including 1592 Castle Town Square or the Weetabix Castle). As
for things like metel axles or ventless minifig heads... I have plenty.
Paul
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
>
> In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
> Legends are reissues of landmark LEGO sets -- perhaps the first set in a
> particular playtheme, or a set widely acknowledged as a superlative building
> experience, or perhaps simply a much beloved set."
>
> The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, and
> Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded mistakes
> like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look), these three sets vary
> only slightly from their honored ancestors -- minor differences, such as
> "ventilated" minifig heads instead of the original solid ones are all that
> set them apart.
>
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
>
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
> on. You see the problems...
>
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were. There are some sets
> which are comprised largely of basic elements, with a few rarer bits thrown
> in. And there are others which require compromise. And then there are those
> which require a whole lot of compromise.
>
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the • details?
>
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
>
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
Brad:
IMO, a Legend is a "best-of" in terms of quality, set design, elements
selection, utility, and attractiveness. I personally don't mind if different
non-juniorized parts have to be substituted, but it is very important to me that
any substitutions be subtle and in the spirit of the original design.
Also, I'd offer that high printing quality should be a priority, whether the
elements in question are originals or substitutions. I would certainly prefer
printed elements over stickers, but I can live with them if the alternative is
poor printing (such as in the Guarded Inn re-release.)
> In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
> Legends are reissues of landmark LEGO sets -- perhaps the first set in a
> particular playtheme, or a set widely acknowledged as a superlative building
> experience, or perhaps simply a much beloved set."
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
If LD is considering reaching far back, my suggestion would be the Hobby sets of
the 70s (*if* acceptable wheels can be found.) Those are the best pre-Golden
Era sets, IMO.)
(much snippage)
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
I can live with quite a lot of substitution, *if* substitutions are subtle, non-
juniorized, and in the spirit of the model. I'd hate to miss out on some great
sets and elements just because a handful of originals prevent production.
Thanks for everything!
Sincerely,
James Simpson
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
Hi Brad
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend?
For starters, I think a lot of what makes a legend a legend depends on the age
of the person being asked. I for one was born in '68, and started with LEGO
when I was about 6-8 years old. For me, the LEGO Space theme, the 96x series
sets would easily be considered legends, as well as some of the early technic
sets. I had the Farm Tractor. While some more recent sets such as the Super
Car - 8880 would also be considered legends.
While my choices for legends may not make the list, I am glad LEGO is doing
this, since now I can get older sets, that I didn't get originally for various
reasons, and would have had the oppurtunity presented itself at the time.
> Or, more precisely, if we cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or
pretty darn close), can it still qualify as a Legend?
I understand your comment regarding unavailable pieces, such as metal axle
wheels. If LEGO still makes a piece, that has the same function, but has some
cosmetic changes, it can still be used in making a legend model. The
Helicopter model from the most recent Maniac Mag is a good example of the
ability to make a legendary model. To me, the changes in the propellors, and
wheels are acceptable - while the need to use two smaller doors instead of one
door of the original size is unacceptable. Having said, this, showing these
instructions in the Maniac Magazine was more than acceptable - but if LEGO
where to reintroduce the 1974 Helicopter, they should use doors closer to the
original ones used.
Basically, as long as the original intent/look and feel of the model can be
achieved with the use of some more comtemporary pieces, calling it a legend is
okay. People just need to realize that there may some minor differences
between the original and the current model.
After all, the use of contemporary pieces may be better. For example, while I
would like to see some of the late 70's space sets reintroduced, I wouldn't
mind if the support pieces, that had a 2x2 plate on the top, stood about 2-3
bricks tall, and the base fit between two rows of studs, either 1x3 or 1x4 in
length; Basically a shorter version of the 2x4x5 stanchion, piece 4476, where
replaced with something more contemporary that was more robust. These pieces
tended to break easily when stepped on.
Dave
|
|
| |
I agree with the majority here in saying that as long as the "tone" and
"feel" of the sets remains intact (without juniorization), then changing out
of parts is fine.
One thing though: please no stickers.
They are just cheap and as has been mentioned, don't hold up well over time.
Printed pieces are the way to go.
Thanks for asking our input, Brad!
- Steve
|
|
| |
While I dmit to being a bit disturbed at the idea of substitutions being
made (wheels, stickers or otherwise) I understand the reasons why it may
have to be done. As for what set(s) should be done as Legends, I would
like to suggest that some of the Universal/Basic sets, including those
that are pre-minifig*, be considered.
Erik
*This brings up the issue of the pre-minifig figures, both the
blank-head non-posable mini and the large bendyarm types. How can/should
they be handled? Current minifig body with blank heads, no arms and a
brick+plate for legs might work for the non-posable minis (or just use
minifigs?) As for the bendyarm figures, since the recent Arctic sets
used the arm segments and hand piece, the limiting factors appear to be
the shoulder brick, head (both mold and decoration issues with this
piece) and hair/hat pieces.
--
Erik L. Knopp
LUGNET Member #61
eknopp@isd.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
<big snip>
As is evident by the 60+ messages in this thread already (in just a few
days) I would say that this topic is very broad and almost every person in
this forum has an opinion. That being said, I apologize now if I am about
to simply repeat the wisdom of those who got online before me...
To be brief, I think there are a few points for you to consider:
1.) Please do make an effort to make clear any modifications to re-released
sets. I for one will rarely have any problem with such, if made aware
before purchase.
2.) Please do include this community (when possible) in voting for possible
Legend sets. We love it that TLC has accepted our presence and heard our
opinions.
3.) Include candidate-sets from a variety of themes and years. I for one
love the 80's Town and Castle, but only a certain few Space sub-themes
interest me. Nonetheless, it would be unfair (and unLEGO?) to always offer
only Train and Castle sets. If only one or two Legends can be offered at a
time, vary the types of sets as much as possible.
4.) Consider also varying the size of the Legends made available. Budget
is a concern for some collectors, and some of the smaller sets might be
viewed as classics too. Often, it seems people go nuts over big sets
(Metroliner, Airport Shuttle, Mega-Core Magnetizer, etc.), but personally I
find some smaller sets just as intriging and fun to play with (e.g.
Blacktron Invader, Turbo Prop 1, or the old 6030 Catapult). I'm sure I'm
not the only one who feels this way. (...Back to the budgeting, even with
the re-release, I *still* am unable to afford the Metroliner...) :(
5.) Finally, please and thank you for continuing to persue any form of
Legend or Classic sets in your offerings (even if not perfect in some eyes).
It not only continues and promotes the great history of LEGO products, but
it serves to strengthen this community's sense of involvement in the future
of TLC. For many of us (the adults in the group) LEGO has played a roll in
shaping who we are. For us to return that favor is an honor, and it creates
a web (wherein our influence on such products might someday shape the lives
of another generation, and so on...). Your willingness to promote and
improve the Legends series is a testament to both LEGO and this group.
Thank you!
-J. Hendo
|
|
| |
<snipped all of it>
Brad,
See the above posts and one thing is clear, we want more legend sets. :-)
As far as modifying design due to current limitations, use you common sense.
We do not want a Galaxy Explorer without wings. ;-) But we do understand
that you cannot make things the exact same way today that you could 10-20
years ago. (I personally prefer the modern helmet on the Classic Space minifigs)
In the sticker or printing debate, which is cheaper? And are those savings
reflected in the prices of the sets?
Thanks for letting us have our input,
Jude
BTW, since the Ice Planet theme was actually called Ice Planet 2002, I think
it would only be appropriate to release the "Legendary" Deep Freeze Defender
next year. :-D
|
|
| |
After reading the other comments from other members, I think I actually have
changed my mind a bit (I offered my comment on Friday, when you first posted
your message, now I've had a weekend to think about it).
The more I think about a Legend, I don't think there's a formula. Using the
LugNet rating or eBay prices is about as close of a science as you're going
to get.
But the trickier question is: what if the set doesn't have the exact parts?
I think Lego needs to be a little more careful with how they market and
categorize their sets. Lego created a "Legends" line, which is suppose to
be classis sets that are re-issued. I now believe that if you can't
recreate the line wihtin 99% of the original, then you should NOT re-issue
the model-- it's just dishonest, and would taint the "Legend" line.
If you re-do a classis model with new parts or colors, it should be called
something else. Lego is already mis-categorizing some sets, like the
Sopwith Camel-- it's a model, not a sculpture. I even question the
Metroliner and Gas-n-Wash as "Legends"-- they're not that old. Age does
have a factor in what makes a "Legend".
I think Lego should consider their integrity when handling these older sets.
To reissue "fake" originals is misleading, and as much as I hate to hear
some of these molds are gone-- I think it's better to take the high road and
not hear the complaints of the vocal minority.
|
|
| |
"Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
news:GLMp57.GIG@lugnet.com...
> As far as modifying design due to current limitations, use you common • sense.
> We do not want a Galaxy Explorer without wings. ;-)
....nor do we want a Galaxy Enforcer without wings.
-Tim
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
> news:GLMp57.GIG@lugnet.com...
>
> > As far as modifying design due to current limitations, use you common • sense.
> > We do not want a Galaxy Explorer without wings. ;-)
>
> ....nor do we want a Galaxy Enforcer without wings.
Now, now Tim...let's not go opening THAT particular can of worms again!
8?)
Matt
|
|
| |
Brad writes:
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend?
To me the characteristics of a Legendary set would include excellent design
(a graceful and ingenius configuration of elements), unique elements
(elements rare in design), and useful elements (elements that probably
belong in accessory packs).
Taking a look at the Guarded Inn set, I find that most of it is comprised of
basic elements -- but it's those few hard to find elements that are key!!!
The 2 high shutters, the ribbed door, the black gable element, the printed
sign (bad quality as it is ::sigh::), the castle maiden hat, and at this
point even the flowers -- these are all part of what makes this small, yet
elegantly designed set so desirable. My one complaint might simply be that
many of these items belong also in the "bulk"/accessory line.
Consider the utility of some of these aforementioned elements in other MOCs.
Those black gable elements are a treasure and not readily available in any
other manner (madness!). Some other elements in other colors would be very
welcome additions to the "bulk"/accessory line -- those ribbed doors and 2
high shutters in all colors maybe? I think my point here is that some of
these elements, while very welcome components in this set, are great
candidates for the accessory line. Why should one have to buy a Guarded Inn
set merely to obtain what should be a common roof element? How about making
a roof elements accessory pack in a variety of colors? See my point?
Despite its shortcomings, the Guarded Inn was not only an excellent choice
for the Legend series, but a great success in my view. The price point was
spot on for thinking of this set as an elaborate accessory pack (which is
what all sets are in the end anyway). Kudos on this one.
> We can bring back almost any set (but before you ask: the Airport Shuttle is
> not in the cards -- there's no way to get the motors and track -- and
> believe me, I'm as disappointed about this as you are). The thing is, we
> can't bring them all back *exactly* as they once were.
Well, to me this is a sticking point. I look at your current catalogue and
see many items that I think will be losers in the marketplace because they
are not very "lego-like", and I can readily see that many of these products
required the creation and molding of many kinds of new elements in new
colors. So, sorry, but I just don't believe that you can't produce just
about anything you wish to put back into production. Making these things is
precisely the business you happen to be in as a maker of plastic toys. If I
am missing some major point, I'd love to hear what that point might be --
otherwise I think that this is and will continue to be a point of annoyance
for us consumers. We simply cannot and will not believe that you couldn't
make monorail sets if you wanted to when your competitors (Rokenbok) are
able to do so!
Please don't belittle our intelligence by insisting that you can't make
pitchforks or Cypress trees when you can apparently make Jack Stone style
stanchions, cockpits, and canopies. How is it you can risk so much $$$ on a
new, untried product line rather than spend a probably nominal amount of $$$
supporting a successful existing product line?
> Are stickers ok?
No. Stickers are what we resort to when we have no other options. TLC should
make printed elements because they, as the manufacturer, have the option of
producing something of much higher quality.
And while printed elements are best, I am concerned about the quality of
printed elements which seems to be going downhill fast. I am not sure what
the problem is lately -- if it is complexity of design or what -- but there
seems to have been an avalanche of poorly printed products of late. Just
yesterday I was contemplating asking for a replacement for the oval shield
that comes in the HP castle set -- yeah, you guessed it, its printed quite
poorly, although not as badly as the smeared printing of the Guarded Inn
elements. What gives with this? Why was the printing of elements of higher
quality in the past?
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
I think all of us lugnuts enjoy interacting with TLC as long as we ACTUALLY
get value in return for our efforts -- and by this I mean great set choices
in the Legend line and improvements and additions to the "bulk"/accessory line.
Lastly, I want to make some points that have nothing to do with your own
particular inquiries.
I won't go into detail for my dislike of things like Bionickle (because it
looks like your third try at this line seems to have hit the profit mark),
but I want to HIGHLIGHT my dislike for excessive product lines in varying
scales (i.e. Creator, Jack Stone, Scala, and Belville). While there are a
few elements in each of these product lines that might prove useful for
minifigure scale builders (and I particularly like some of the Belville
elements, now VERY WISELY included in the Harry Potter sets), I am annoyed
by an apparent lack of focus on the part of TLC. At the same time, and
especially if TLC refuses to abandon these other product lines, I'd like to
see the elements from these larger scale sets that are useful at minifigure
scale made into accessory packs -- then at least some economical form of
cross-pollinating between these many product lines might make some sense.
This would be an obvious extension of what has been done in the Harry Potter
line with these same elements.
Keep costs down! I think I am not alone when I assert that many of us are
looking at cheaper brick sources, sources of increasing brick quality and
excellence of set design. While you are fighting a perhaps losing battle on
many fronts, you are simultaneously losing ground in the one area you should
own completely. The more you dissipate your resources and brand over
product lines that have nothing to do with your core business, the more
likely it is that you will simply disappear as a company altogether. Tread
carefully into new territories if at all.
BTW, I really do expect to see those pitchforks and cypress tress!!! You're
gonna help me out, right Brad?
Hook me up, Baby!
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Tim Courtney writes:
> "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
> news:GLMp57.GIG@lugnet.com...
>
> > As far as modifying design due to current limitations, use you common • sense.
> > We do not want a Galaxy Explorer without wings. ;-)
>
> ....nor do we want a Galaxy Enforcer without wings.
>
> -Tim
I knew you would catch that. :-)
Jude
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Lars Brandt writes:
> I think Lego needs to be a little more careful with how they market and
> categorize their sets. Lego created a "Legends" line, which is suppose to
> be classis sets that are re-issued. I now believe that if you can't
> recreate the line wihtin 99% of the original, then you should NOT re-issue
> the model-- it's just dishonest, and would taint the "Legend" line.
Although I think Lars is being a bit extreme in calling a re-issue with less
than 99% original parts dishonest (in advertising, I presume), he does bring up
a very good point, to my way of thinking.
Even if LD recreates every printed brick, solid head and maskless helmet, those
sets won't be the originals. To get those one must still brave the pricey
waters of eBay.
And so my question to AFOLs is: What is it from the Legends line that makes it
so appealing? Because it seems to me that most people are praising the sets of
the past because of their complexity and creativeness *in general*, and would
want issues *in that vein* rather than *exactly* in that vein.
For example, take the recently reissued Metroliner and Club Car. I was happy to
see them reissued for the sakes of AFOLs who hadn't the opportunity to buy them
the first time around, but personally, I already owned 2 4558s and 4 4547s, so I
passed on that offering.
But what if the Metroliner were reissued in silver (hey, just an example: I can
dream;-) or more close to earth, what if the Metroliner had been reissued, but
all of the wheel sets were *dark gray* instead of black? Whoa, now that gives
folks who already own one like me a reason to buy one. Heck, that gives
everyone a reason to buy one! Folks who never had one in the first place
wouldn't care; they never had one in the first place-- and if they really wanted
black, well there are plenty of wheel sets out there with which they could swap.
This is an example of how I think LD can kill 2 birds with one stone, as it
were, and make a lot more people happy in the process (*except* the nostalgic
and collector-types, who represent a small minority IMO).
So I ask-- what is more important: fidelity to the old classics, or simply more
of the cool sets as offered in the past?
It is my hope that we send a message to LD that sure, offer us classics, but
only because offering them is easier/cheaper/more efficient than redeveloping a
new set, but feel free to change colors, make improvements, in order to make
them *even better*.
-John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal writes:
> [...]
> And so my question to AFOLs is: What is it from the Legends line that makes it
> so appealing? Because it seems to me that most people are praising the sets of
> the past because of their complexity and creativeness *in general*, and would
> want issues *in that vein* rather than *exactly* in that vein.
I have to disagree a little with this only because I don't think that we
should relegate the only sets issued 'in that vein' to being the half dozen
'Legends' that LEGO releases each year. I would hope instead, that as LEGO
senses the popularity of these sets, they would start releasing more and
more of their sets using the principles that the had in the past. In other
words, it would be a tremendous shame if every other set LEGO released got
more and more juniourized, leaving only the tiny Legends line as a faint
echo of how great the company once was.
> For example, take the recently reissued Metroliner and Club Car. I was happy to
> see them reissued for the sakes of AFOLs who hadn't the opportunity to buy them
> the first time around, but personally, I already owned 2 4558s and 4 4547s, so I
> passed on that offering.
>
> But what if the Metroliner were reissued in silver (hey, just an example: I can
> dream;-) or more close to earth, what if the Metroliner had been reissued, but
> all of the wheel sets were *dark gray* instead of black? Whoa, now that gives
> folks who already own one like me a reason to buy one. Heck, that gives
> everyone a reason to buy one! Folks who never had one in the first place
> wouldn't care; they never had one in the first place-- and if they really wanted
> black, well there are plenty of wheel sets out there with which they could swap.
>
> This is an example of how I think LD can kill 2 birds with one stone, as it
> were, and make a lot more people happy in the process (*except* the nostalgic
> and collector-types, who represent a small minority IMO).
>
> So I ask-- what is more important: fidelity to the old classics, or simply more
> of the cool sets as offered in the past?
>
> It is my hope that we send a message to LD that sure, offer us classics, but
> only because offering them is easier/cheaper/more efficient than redeveloping a
> new set, but feel free to change colors, make improvements, in order to make
> them *even better*.
>
>
> -John
Personally I think that the LEGO *Legends* should be as close as possible to
the original. However I would be VERY pleased if they also released another
line of sets 'inspired' by older sets. These shouldn't be called 'Legends',
however.
I don't think that it would be a terrible cost if a few missing molds have
to be recreated to make a Legends set, because the mold can always be used
to make pieces for other newer sets as well. In fact, it would be silly for
LEGO not to make use of these pieces in other sets if they were available.
Hence the cost will be amortized, and so shouldn't be counted against
remaking a legend.
Note, however, that I can easily live with new wheels, ventilated heads, and
other modern equivalents of the original pieces. Even the venerated 2x4
brick has had several minor changes over the years.
So my point of view: depending on how long this Legends line will continue,
(and I hope it's a long, LONG time!) I would prefer passing up on sets --
*for now* -- which can't be reproduced exactly because of 'missing pieces'.
Hopefully the appeal of Legends will make it more desirable in the future
for LEGO to go to the expense to recreate older molds, and then we can have
the Legends line come back to the sets they'd passed on before, and do them
right.
The only exceptions I would be willing to accept would be if there's a piece
that truly has no other use than in that one set. If that set was in fact a
legend, it would be okay to rerelease it with a substitute.
BTW: I'm one of the people who detest using stickers instead of printed
elements. Recreating the stamps to print an element shouldn't be impossible
to do. That technology has improved a lot.
Oh, and please, consider selling LEGO Legends in stores!
--
David Schilling
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Tim Courtney writes:
> > "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
> > news:GLMp57.GIG@lugnet.com...
> >
> > > As far as modifying design due to current limitations, use you common • sense.
> > > We do not want a Galaxy Explorer without wings. ;-)
> >
> > ....nor do we want a Galaxy Enforcer without wings.
>
> Now, now Tim...let's not go opening THAT particular can of worms again!
>
> 8?)
That is an excellent idea for a space craft, Matthew. I think
that I will use it my self. A can of worms does not need wings,
and it can have guns and engines on all of the worms which are
also super space worms and can fire in any direction. I have
nearly 83 weapons on my worm can space craft, Matthew. It is
nearly 200 studs long and is a destroyer class can of worms.
Perhaps I may enter it into the Hover thing contest. It is after
all a Clearly Winning Entry™, Matthew. [1]
fnord
LFB :D
[1] "Clearly Winning Entry" is a quasi-registered semi-official
vaguely service-like mark originated and used for the benefit
of Matthew Gerber, Esq. and his immediate heirs, wingless
Galaxy Enforcers, deposed members of Central Asian royal
houses, Juan Valdez, small pink poodles named "Beatrice," and
the starting lineup of the XFL-champeen Los Angeles Xtreme [sic].
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Michael Dallaston writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, John Rudy writes:
> > Ben et All,
> > I'm sorry to disagree with you here, Ben, but I can't stand a classic
> > spaceman with a newer style helmet. If a Galaxy Explorer or some other
> > classic was released with the new helmets instead of the thin chins, I'd be
> > throughly disgusted, and would most likely not buy the set. Thin Chins or
> > naught is my thinking.
>
> I think this too. I'm an original space fan and the thought of them walking
> around with big chunky helmuts disgusts me (not as much as Jack Stone, though!)
Eh, I'd be fine with BT-I having those helmets. The actual
helmets they sported were the same, IIRC.
> Also re: wheels - Many of the classic space and Blacktron sets came with
> those large round space-tyres that fit on the 2x2 metal axle plate. These
> would have to be included in any space 'legend' set. Maybe a way could be
> found to make them compatible with the new 2x2 wheel clip-on plate.
They already are compatible with something else--the Technic axle.
That is, if you and I are thinking of the same tyres:
http://guide.lugnet.com/partsref/search.cgi?q=4288
> Finally, I accept that new molds are expensive. But just think - how many
> new molds has LEGO made for the Harry Potter series alone (not to mention
> Belville)! It makes me shudder.
I'm still holding out for a BSB or SES (Pirate classics)--
all of those moulds are still in existence, as evidenced
by the re-release of 6289/6280 as 6290/6291.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Matthew Gerber writes:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Tim Courtney writes:
> > > "Jude Beaudin" <shiningblade@home.com> wrote in message
> > > news:GLMp57.GIG@lugnet.com...
> > >
> > > > As far as modifying design due to current limitations, use you common • sense.
> > > > We do not want a Galaxy Explorer without wings. ;-)
> > >
> > > ....nor do we want a Galaxy Enforcer without wings.
> >
> > Now, now Tim...let's not go opening THAT particular can of worms again!
> >
> > 8?)
>
> That is an excellent idea for a space craft, Matthew. I think
> that I will use it my self. A can of worms does not need wings,
> and it can have guns and engines on all of the worms which are
> also super space worms and can fire in any direction. I have
> nearly 83 weapons on my worm can space craft, Matthew. It is
> nearly 200 studs long and is a destroyer class can of worms.
>
> Perhaps I may enter it into the Hover thing contest. It is after
> all a Clearly Winning Entry™, Matthew. [1]
>
> fnord
>
> LFB :D
>
> [1] "Clearly Winning Entry" is a quasi-registered semi-official
> vaguely service-like mark originated and used for the benefit
> of Matthew Gerber, Esq. and his immediate heirs, wingless
> Galaxy Enforcers, deposed members of Central Asian royal
> houses, Juan Valdez, small pink poodles named "Beatrice," and
> the starting lineup of the XFL-champeen Los Angeles Xtreme [sic].
LOL! Brilliant!
(You'll hear from my lawyer)
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Dan Dickerson writes:
> > How about a book of legends? Reprint the old contruction manuals from sets
> > in the 60s - 80s in one large book. Sets that you cannot/will not reissue,
> > so that the book won't compete with your own products. The plans on
> > Brickshelf are generally not clear enough to really use.
>
> ??
>
> I have never found this to be the case, can you provide some examples?
#398 USS Constellation is missing step #15. There are several others with
problems, but I can't remember exactly which ones. It is often the Technic
plans that are not clear.
As Ronan Webb said, the problem is in the printing. High resolution, color
printing is expensive and not always an option. Likewise, building in front
of my computer is not very workable.
I would love to see it sold for a low price, I just can't imagine Lego doing
that. Their main interest is in selling more bricks.
|
|
| |
"Dan Dickerson" <dickersn@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:GLnGCG.424@lugnet.com...
[ ... snipped ... ]
> >
> > I have never found this to be the case, can you provide some examples?
>
> #398 USS Constellation is missing step #15. There are several others with
> problems, but I can't remember exactly which ones. It is often the Technic
> plans that are not clear.
>
> As Ronan Webb said, the problem is in the printing. High resolution, color
> printing is expensive and not always an option. Likewise, building in • front
> of my computer is not very workable.
>
> I would love to see it sold for a low price, I just can't imagine Lego • doing
> that. Their main interest is in selling more bricks.
I would love to see LEGO make older instructions and Idea books available
for download from their web site as high quality (re. print quality) Adobe
Acrobat documents. While I appreciate the Brickshelf scans, some of them
are skewed and overlap from page to page. They are a valuable resource no
doubt but they are not a replacement for the original instructions or
artwork.
Mike
--
Mike Walsh - mike_walsh at mindspring dot com
http://www.nclug.net - North Carolina LEGO Users Group
http://www.nclug.net/ctb - Carolina Train Builders
http://www.brickbay.com/store.asp?u=mpw - Brick Depot
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal writes:
[snip]
> Even if LD recreates every printed brick, solid head and maskless helmet, • those
> sets won't be the originals. To get those one must still brave the pricey
> waters of eBay.
Exactely! So if these are not the real legendary sets, it might be better to
make them noticable copies.
> For example, take the recently reissued Metroliner and Club Car. I was happy • to
> see them reissued for the sakes of AFOLs who hadn't the opportunity to buy • them
> the first time around, but personally, I already owned 2 4558s and 4 4547s, so • I
> passed on that offering.
Same with me and lots of others: I do not need any more grey dors with stripes.
Dark grey or brown dors would have been really cool (and silver of course
too!).
> But what if the Metroliner were reissued in silver (hey, just an example: I • can
> dream;-) or more close to earth, what if the Metroliner had been reissued, but
> all of the wheel sets were *dark gray* instead of black? Whoa, now that gives
> folks who already own one like me a reason to buy one. Heck, that gives
> everyone a reason to buy one! Folks who never had one in the first place
> wouldn't care; they never had one in the first place-- and if they really • wanted
> black, well there are plenty of wheel sets out there with which they could
swap.
Be careful with your arguments, John! When I said this a while ago at
lugnet.trains it caused a small flame war. :-(
> This is an example of how I think LD can kill 2 birds with one stone, as it
> were, and make a lot more people happy in the process (*except* the nostalgic
> and collector-types, who represent a small minority IMO).
I think the collectors are no loudspeakers. They practice their hobby in a very
quiet way, but they are out there, believe me.: they have no MOCs to present
and there is no lugnet.collectors group, so you do not get aware too much of
them. (Anyway: What should be the topic of an lugnet.collectors group? Maybe:
Came 115 with 2x2 or 2x4 plate-hook-couplings? In lugnet trains nobody could
tell so far...)
> So I ask-- what is more important: fidelity to the old classics, or simply • more
> of the cool sets as offered in the past?
>
> It is my hope that we send a message to LD that sure, offer us classics, but
> only because offering them is easier/cheaper/more efficient than redeveloping • a
> new set, but feel free to change colors, make improvements, in order to make
> them *even better*.
I agree one hundred percent! ;-))
Leg Godt!
Ben
So what about 7745 with dark grey wheel blocks and in colour orange?! Or maybe
952 farm tractor as "Ford" in blue + white?
I would buy both at once! But please - TLC - DO NOT release 375 in the way it
has been 1979. In tan it would again be a phantastic set.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
A legend is a model that is unique in design (for the time period) and beggs
to be expanded, have a space port, castle village or town built around it.
It is one that starts a whole line of story and truly expresses originality.
If the spirit of the model can be maintained with minor changes then the
goal is reached. If too much must be sacrificed then go to another set.
Those getting these sets for the first time do not know if the fig head is
"original" or if the helmet was different. If the playability is still
there and the set still evokes the expand on the theme ideas, it is a
successful release.
> In my June announcement of the LEGO Legends series, I wrote that "LEGO
snipped
>
> Now we are considering where we go next with this line. We've gone back to
> the early 90s with the Metroliner and Club Car, and to 1986 for the Guarded
> Inn. Now we'd like to dial the Wayback Machine a bit further back... and
> here's where we start to run into "issues."
>
> Without revealing what specific sets we have under consideration (hey, we're
> trying to maintain an aura of mystery here!), the dilemma is this: in
> general, the farther back we go, the more compromises are necessary in order
> to make the set. For example: the old metal-axle wheelsets? Forget it.
> They're not coming back; we're stuck with the wheels we've got now.
> Baseplates and road plates have changed, too -- on some of the road plates,
> we use one fewer stud now (8 instead of 9) between the roads and the edge of
> the plate -- which could affect the "look" and arrangement of sets using
> those plates (e.g. buildings could be closer together than in the
> originals). And the list goes on: unavailability of certain decorated
> elements (though we could use stickers); the need to use slightly different
> elements to replace an element for which we no longer have the mold; and so
> on. You see the problems...
Wheel change (no problem), building placement (could be a problem, if
playability was compromised). Stickers, rather have printed, but if stickers
are the only choice, put two sets in for the replacement as they wear out.
snipped
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
If the desire is to make the old set again, so it can stay in the box and
become a collectable, then no change is allowable. For me I open the box
and build the set, change it, expand it, even use the pieces for MOC's. The
"Spirit" is what is most important.
snipped
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
Matthew Greene
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
|
|
| |
Hello!
(I didn't read all of the answers given to Brad's posting, so it might be
that some of my points have been brought by others already.)
What makes a legend?
First of all: The "legend" is the OLD set, the ORIGINAL. The new released
sets are just copies of these legendary sets but not "legends" themself.
Elvis is The King, not all the guys imitating him.
What kind of sets can be called "a legend"? A legendary set has to be a
beloved set, beloved because it is a beautiful model, an unique model (like
the Guarded Inn as the only civilian building in the LEGOLAND castle world),
a most wanted model because of the points said above or because it is: a
rare set.
If such a set is re-released as a 1:1 model to the original model it is not
a "legend" any more. Of course it would be still a beautiful and unique
model but it wouldn't be rare. The mystical aura is away. Where is the
thrill of finally having such a legendary set? You can order it and you get
it without any effort you were forced to make before to get it. It's boring.
This is why I very appreciate some slightly differences between an original
legendary set and its "Legend" copy. So there is the old set you can search
for and you will love when you get it, and you have the new set which makes
a good toy and is as nice as the original.
I didn't understand the complaints about hollow minifig heads and the saddle
with two clipps. Indeed, these details make the #10000 different to the
original #6067. But the #10000 is a COPY in any case. It wouldn't be the
SAME as the #6067 even if the minifig heads were solid.
So please, if you plan on any further "Legends" (and of course you do *g*)
make them as different from the original as they have to be. And make them
as different as you can.
Bye
Jojo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Scott Sanburn writes:
> Brad & All,
> > The first three offerings in the series -- the Guarded Inn, Metroliner, and
> > Club Car not only meet the above criteria, but are as faithful to their
> > originals as we could possibly make them. Setting aside boneheaded mistakes
> > like (doh!) putting an Indian horse in a medieval castle set (unless, of
> > course, you were going for the "Tudor Teepee" look),
>
> LOL! : )
Heehee! Actually, since I never bought the Wild West Native sets, and I
already have many Castle sets, the addition of this "Barbarian Horse" was
strangely welcome in my collection...
> What a decision. Let me take a few sets that I would like to see. Galaxy
> Explorer, or maybe the Blacktron 1 Alienator. Say you can get 80 or 90% of
> the original parts. Just to get close, even with stickers... <snip>
Hey! Now there's an idea... Imagine having a Blacktron Legend that could
only be produced with Stickers for the old triangular logo! You could buy
extras and add the logo to all sorts of places on MOCs with Blacktron colors!
> > So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> > Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> > we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets?
>
> No, axles are not a big deal IMO... <snip>
I agree with Scott on that one. Actually I have found that the sets are
more verstile, with the easily removable wheelhubs. Someone else's response
suggested using the newer design, but make the hubs red -that'd work nicely!
-2 more of my cents... (now that I've had time to read more of this thread) :)
--Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Salm writes:
> > <snip>
> > There is NO REASON to re-issue Lego sets identical to (or nearly so) to sets
> > sold in the past. Instead, I want to see NEW selections that are based upon
> > the spirit of old sets.
>
> I both agree and disagree with you Kevin.
I too would say, "Why not do both?" I think the spirit of the Legends
series is great. Even if slight mods are needed to re-produce, the idea
that I can get certain older sets that I missed the first time around is
thrilling to me. The Guarded Inn is a prime example: It was the only
Castle set of 1984-86 that I missed (US), and to have the chance to get it
without paying outragous auction prices was a godsend. ...However, one
might point out that I like to keep many (not all) of my sets built to the
intructions -and reading these other posts, I guess I am in the minority there.
Regardless, the idea of also offering new product lines that have "what we
think of as quality" is worthy of consideration... The question to LD would
be, how difficult is it to design and manufacture a new line? Is producing
a Legend easier? Less time consuming? (My guess is yes. Although we still
hold hope that future sets might be worthy of what we like... or I do anyway.)
-H.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Demlow writes:
> One specific case that was mentioned but not discussed further is that of
> classic space helmets. Would a Galaxy Explorer with the newer-style,
> swept-back space/town helmets have the same "feel", or do the more retro-70s
> bullet-type helmets add to the nostalgia rating?
Actually, I recall trying to adapt different helmet and hairstyles to
older sets, and I have sometimes found that they did not fit. Certain
hairstyles in Town can only be used in vehicles that have sunroofs or no
roof, and in Space certain helmets restrict the closure of some cockpits. I
am not certain if this is the case with the G.E. Anyone out their care to
experiment? That set is one of the oldies I missed ...(first time around...)...
-H.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Rudy writes:
> Ben et All,
> I'm sorry to disagree with you here, Ben, but I can't stand a classic
> spaceman with a newer style helmet. If a Galaxy Explorer or some other
> classic was released with the new helmets instead of the thin chins, I'd be
> throughly disgusted, and would most likely not buy the set. Thin Chins or
> naught is my thinking.
Wow. I feel a generation gap coming on. Only just now, part way into the
new millenium and half way through this thread, did I recognize the fact
that the old style helmet is no longer available! I have so many of them in
my collection, I never noticed they might be considered rare. Man, I feel
old...
<sad smirk> <...if there can be such a thing>
Anywho, I think I agree with John (although perhaps not so adamantly) that
a Classic Space Minifig looks better with the simpler helmet. In my
collection, the Classic Space guys (and gals) represent the civilian
colonists of Billundia, where the Futuron guys (with thick visors) are the
military and police. ...If they had to offer Classic Space sets with newer
helmets, I would be tempted to go one step further and say they'd be best if
they replaced the whole mini-fig with the Futuron one. I think a Tri-Star
Voyager would look cool with a Futuron pilot.
-Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Wilson writes:
> My vote for sets.. would be a better selection of bulk bricks and parts :-)
>
> Seriously though, <consults 90/91/92 S@H catalogs and LUGNET database> I
> would love to see some of the Nautica sets (6542 Launch & Load Seaport, 6541
> Intercoastal seaport)...
Great ideas! ...Although if they ran Nautica sets I would be bankrupt
within a month... <silly grimace>... ...On the otherhand, I knew there
was a reason I haven't spent money on the Metroliner yet. Ah, if only my
harbor could have yet another crane... :)
-H.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Dave Lovelace writes:
> The Legend idea was thrilling to me in June. I've since had some time to
> realize how bad it is, though. Problems:
>
> 1) Your mail-order-only / internet market is a bunch of older people like
> me who already have five Galaxy Explorers and thirteen Yellow Castles or
> whatever....why do we need yet another one in some ugly 2001 grey box with
> no flap? What is the point?
I hate to argue against a fellow AFOL, but I've collected since 1978 and I
have neither of the sets you mention. In those younger years, I was lucky
to get one copy of a small or mid-size set in those themes. So, my point
is, there are some in this forum who are in the market...
> 3) I'm more interested in new sets designed in the classic theme. I'm a
> big Classic Space fan, and can illustrate how you could go about doing this
> with some of my own designs of "Sets That Never Were" here:
> http://www.umop.com/spacefun.htm
Cool.
> In exchange for my free consultation here today, I'll ask in exchange for a
> job position designing your new Classic Space line. I live in northern CT. :-)
And I am in Western Mass, not a bad commute down I-91 to Enfield... I hope
you get the job, Dave, as I'd love to see new Classics myself. The one
problem is, IIRC, TLC only designs new sets in Denmark... A bit more of a
commute for us... =o :)
-H.
|
|
| |
The book of legends is a GREAT idea. Maybe they could even make a
whole encyclopedia style set of chronologically arranged instructions. (Yeah,
right. Just call me the king of wishful thinking.)
Another more realistic posibility would be a legends book that was a
compilation of the product catalogs from the 60's through the present. Sure it
might be as thick as a phone book, sure it might cost $100, and sure the
shipping for something that heavy would be $10 alone...and sure I would buy one
as soon as they became available.
David "Fuzzy" Gregory
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Dave Lovelace writes:
> The Legend idea was thrilling to me in June. I've since had some time to
> realize how bad it is, though. Problems:
>
> 1) Your mail-order-only / internet market is a bunch of older people like
> me who already have five Galaxy Explorers and thirteen Yellow Castles or
> whatever....why do we need yet another one in some ugly 2001 grey box with
> no flap? What is the point?
Ummm, is this true? Aren't there any kids out there without access to a
Toys-R-Us who perhaps count on the Shop At Home catalog to fulfill birthday
and Christmas lists? If the Shop At Home stuff is just for adults, then why
don't they put out a catalog that reflects this?
As a person who built an entirely new LEGO collection (separate from his
childhood stuff) what is needed is definitely some of the old sets (I don't
have a single Galaxy Explorer, as I don't buy LEGO off eBay) along with a
very healthy mix of new and well-designed sets.
And as far as the mail-order only goes... that in itself is perhaps one of
the greatest failings of the Legends stuff. The fact that it's not
available in stores means that people like me, who will not order from out
of country, will never spend dollars on these sets. Put them in the stores
where I can see and hold them. I will buy them there. I won't buy out of
the catalog across the border. Sorry.
> 2) Even if you did rehash some great old models, you need to win over the
> mainstream again to get back on track. You don't need more money from us
> S@H LugNET types.
Quite the contrary. They need all the sales they can get.
> You had us at "hello," and you had us in 1979. I
> understand your budget is low, but if it never included marketing, then it's
> simply too low.
The low budget isn't so much the problem as the LOW exposure this stuff is
getting. Simply dropping the Guarded Inn into the summer catalog and saying
that it's "now available again", does nothing to promote this revolutionary
(for this company) line of products. Promote the heck out of it in the
catalog upon which you are already spending budgeted dollars.
Promote the heck out of it on your website, upon which you are already
spending budgeted dollars.
Put these sets in the stores! For the love of Pete, put this stuff where
people can see it and buy it. If these sets are worth reissuing (and I
believe many of the old ones are) then they are also worth some shelf space.
Take whatever funds you have budgeted for retail sales of Jack Stone and
reroute it to the Legends series.
Of all the stupid moves to come out of any company in the last decade are
the following two statements that litter the LEGO catalogs. They are:
1) Not Available In Any Store
2) Hard To Find
Take the guy who came up with these concepts, put him in a basement office,
with no windows, along with the Jack Stone development team. 1/2 of all
problems at the company are now solved.
LEGO bricks are a toy. The sets were once fun and beloved. The best of
these sets could once be found on toy store shelves. Now the best of these
sets must be ordered from a faceless voice on the phone or by clicking some
keys on a keyboard. Where is the fun in this?
> Past this, I'll just tell you what you'd rather hear, and cast some majority
> votes concerning the line in case you insist on continuing it:
Why not tell them what you think? Give them the chance to respond, as any
smart company would, with positive changes aimed at getting more of your
money into their vault?
Regards,
Allan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
>
> > How does not having the mold for an element affect it's reproducibility? I
> > would have thought that with all of the latest and greatest laser measuring
> > technology there would be *some* way of getting a new master mold for a
> > particular piece, providing you had the original piece to measure off from.
>
> Sure, there is SOME way
>
> > But there is probably a cost involved in doing this so you're not too keen
> > on it for that reason?
>
> But that's it. Cost. This is a low budget operation and molds are not cheap.
> Precision tolerances are pricey. I have heard numbers batted around that I
> have a bit of faith in even though they were speculation... these numbers
> are 10-50K USD PER MOLD.
The solution here seems obvious... and free.
Use more plain old regular bricks in the design of future sets. No need for
new molds. No debates over specialized/juniorized parts. And best of all,
more good old fashioned bricks with which to build other stuff on your own,
once you've built the primary kit.
Take a look at the Jack Stone series. Any reason those columns couldn't
have been stacks of 2x2's? They could have saved one mold right there. :)
Frankly, the problem isn't that they can't afford more molds, but rather
that they already spend way too much on new ones each year.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Demlow writes:
> Lego Direct cannot, as a matter of policy, create new molds for its sets,
Pardon me, but how do you know this? I'd like to see a reference for this
statement. Has Brad, or someone else, stated this emphatically somewhere
before?
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.fun, Lindsay Frederick Braun writes:
>
> That is an excellent idea for a space craft, Matthew. I think
> that I will use it my self. A can of worms does not need wings,
> and it can have guns and engines on all of the worms which are
> also super space worms and can fire in any direction. I have
> nearly 83 weapons on my worm can space craft, Matthew. It is
> nearly 200 studs long and is a destroyer class can of worms.
>
> Perhaps I may enter it into the Hover thing contest. It is after
> all a Clearly Winning Entry™, Matthew. [1]
>
> fnord
>
> LFB :D
>
> [1] "Clearly Winning Entry" is a quasi-registered semi-official
> vaguely service-like mark originated and used for the benefit
> of Matthew Gerber, Esq. and his immediate heirs, wingless
> Galaxy Enforcers, deposed members of Central Asian royal
> houses, Juan Valdez, small pink poodles named "Beatrice," and
> the starting lineup of the XFL-champeen Los Angeles Xtreme [sic].
Muhahahahahahahhahaha.
Oh my!
--Kyle
http://hvl.cjb.net
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Demlow writes:
> > Lego Direct cannot, as a matter of policy, create new molds for its sets,
>
> Pardon me, but how do you know this? I'd like to see a reference for this
> statement. Has Brad, or someone else, stated this emphatically somewhere
> before?
Oh man...I remember seeing a post where Brad did say this (at BrickFest™),
but I'll be darned if I can remember where/who.
Larry might be the one to remember...he may have been the one who posted it
originally.
Brad did mention not having old molds in his first message in this thread:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=3462
Larry brings up Brad's cost vs. sales dilema here:
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=31612
These are the things I could find in a quick LUGNET search.
Matt
|
|
| |
Very nicely said Allen!
I kinda feel sorry for the Lego development team who create Jack Stone.
Cause everybody seams to be targeting their irritation towards this
particular line. Although this angst is justified and has merit, it appears
that Jack Stone is the culmination of everything that is wrong with Lego today.
Perhaps the Jack Stone creators forgot the original Lego credo of ‘a system
of play without boarders.’ When they created a specialized new line that
doesn’t integrate well into the collective. But this could be easily
remedied if TLG just listened to a few AFOL who appear to have
some really good suggestions.
---
***Here’s a summary of a few legitimate points:
#1. Bring the Legends line to the general public with a slick new ad campaign.
#2. Create re-mastered versions of older sets. Such as variants or modern
equivalents. (Like a Dark Gray 375 http://guide.lugnet.com/set/375_2)
#3. Don’t kill a good line just when it gets started.
(Analogy: Lego is targeting a market segment and it’s using buck shots from
a shot gun to bring down its target market, instead, it should use focused,
controlled, repetitive rifle shots that are precise.) What my violent
parallel is attempting to confer is to build up a particular theme [e.g.
Town] and keep adding to the line and develop it further. That’s how you
gain customer loyalty, not through one-time, hid-and-run themes!
#4. And finally, just listen to us!?!
There’s a great deal of us here who are educated enough, market savvy
enough, and just plain taken by the product that we're worth $Millions$ in
research and product testing.
<Gump On>
And that’s all I have to say about that,
<Gump Off>
--==RiçhärÐ==--
You can reach me @
Shroud_of_Kung_Fu@Hotmail.com
. -Lego good, Canada great-®
In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Dave Lovelace writes:
> > The Legend idea was thrilling to me in June. I've since had some time to
> > realize how bad it is, though. Problems:
> >
> > 1) Your mail-order-only / internet market is a bunch of older people like
> > me who already have five Galaxy Explorers and thirteen Yellow Castles or
> > whatever....why do we need yet another one in some ugly 2001 grey box with
> > no flap? What is the point?
>
> Ummm, is this true? Aren't there any kids out there without access to a
> Toys-R-Us who perhaps count on the Shop At Home catalog to fulfill birthday
> and Christmas lists? If the Shop At Home stuff is just for adults, then why
> don't they put out a catalog that reflects this?
>
> As a person who built an entirely new LEGO collection (separate from his
> childhood stuff) what is needed is definitely some of the old sets (I don't
> have a single Galaxy Explorer, as I don't buy LEGO off eBay) along with a
> very healthy mix of new and well-designed sets.
>
> And as far as the mail-order only goes... that in itself is perhaps one of
> the greatest failings of the Legends stuff. The fact that it's not
> available in stores means that people like me, who will not order from out
> of country, will never spend dollars on these sets. Put them in the stores
> where I can see and hold them. I will buy them there. I won't buy out of
> the catalog across the border. Sorry.
>
> > 2) Even if you did rehash some great old models, you need to win over the
> > mainstream again to get back on track. You don't need more money from us
> > S@H LugNET types.
>
> Quite the contrary. They need all the sales they can get.
>
> > You had us at "hello," and you had us in 1979. I
> > understand your budget is low, but if it never included marketing, then it's
> > simply too low.
>
> The low budget isn't so much the problem as the LOW exposure this stuff is
> getting. Simply dropping the Guarded Inn into the summer catalog and saying
> that it's "now available again", does nothing to promote this revolutionary
> (for this company) line of products. Promote the heck out of it in the
> catalog upon which you are already spending budgeted dollars.
>
> Promote the heck out of it on your website, upon which you are already
> spending budgeted dollars.
>
> Put these sets in the stores! For the love of Pete, put this stuff where
> people can see it and buy it. If these sets are worth reissuing (and I
> believe many of the old ones are) then they are also worth some shelf space.
> Take whatever funds you have budgeted for retail sales of Jack Stone and
> reroute it to the Legends series.
>
> Of all the stupid moves to come out of any company in the last decade are
> the following two statements that litter the LEGO catalogs. They are:
>
> 1) Not Available In Any Store
>
> 2) Hard To Find
>
> Take the guy who came up with these concepts, put him in a basement office,
> with no windows, along with the Jack Stone development team. 1/2 of all
> problems at the company are now solved.
>
> LEGO bricks are a toy. The sets were once fun and beloved. The best of
> these sets could once be found on toy store shelves. Now the best of these
> sets must be ordered from a faceless voice on the phone or by clicking some
> keys on a keyboard. Where is the fun in this?
>
> > Past this, I'll just tell you what you'd rather hear, and cast some majority
> > votes concerning the line in case you insist on continuing it:
>
> Why not tell them what you think? Give them the chance to respond, as any
> smart company would, with positive changes aimed at getting more of your
> money into their vault?
>
> Regards,
> Allan
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
> >
> > > How does not having the mold for an element affect it's reproducibility? I
> > > would have thought that with all of the latest and greatest laser measuring
> > > technology there would be *some* way of getting a new master mold for a
> > > particular piece, providing you had the original piece to measure off from.
> >
> > Sure, there is SOME way
> >
> > > But there is probably a cost involved in doing this so you're not too keen
> > > on it for that reason?
> >
> > But that's it. Cost. This is a low budget operation and molds are not cheap.
> > Precision tolerances are pricey. I have heard numbers batted around that I
> > have a bit of faith in even though they were speculation... these numbers
> > are 10-50K USD PER MOLD.
>
> The solution here seems obvious... and free.
"every problem has a simple solution. Unfortunately, it's often wrong" Just
thought I'd toss that out to ponder.
> Use more plain old regular bricks in the design of future sets. No need for
> new molds. No debates over specialized/juniorized parts.
Great advice in general. Not a valid response to Geoffrey who is asking "why
can't we have this part back that we don't have the mold for", though.
> And best of all,
> more good old fashioned bricks with which to build other stuff on your own,
> once you've built the primary kit.
Again great. The rest of this is directed at more than just this post of
yours, or even just you, Allan...
LD has a mandate. That's "direct to consumer". It is not "retail". You can
fault the organization of the company if you like, or you can hope that if
LD is successful, LD type thinking will catch on elsewhere. But saying "go
sell these sets in stores" (as you have) means you are asking LD to take on
Futura, and take on the mandate of what Retail does. That may well be a
political battle that Brad cannot yet win (if he even would want to engage
it!!! Which I doubt.).
LD has a budget. That budget, I speculate, includes a few dollars for new
colors of existing parts (yes, this is not free), but almost certainly does
NOT include dollars for new colors never seen before. It almost certainly
does not include new parts.
The new parts budget, or so I speculate, (which includes OLD parts if the
molds are gone) is in the hands of Futura. Futura designs new sets, I
speculate. Futura gets sets approved by some guy in Denmark who has a pretty
good idea (or so he thinks) of what kids want. Or so I speculate.
LD has gotten permission to design a few new sets under severe cost
constraint, I speculate. LD has gotten permission to bring back some sets,
again under severe cost constraint, I speculate.
> Take a look at the Jack Stone series. Any reason those columns couldn't
> have been stacks of 2x2's? They could have saved one mold right there. :)
>
> Frankly, the problem isn't that they can't afford more molds, but rather
> that they already spend way too much on new ones each year.
Oh, you are so right. Really.
Unfortunately... All it takes to change it, though, is that KKK make Brad
president of everything, displacing all the Danes, and that he sack all the
people in Futura and elsewhere that know better than we do about what kids
want. That can easily happen overnight, right? Or can it?
Just be happy that there is change emanating from LD, and that (as I *said
it would* many months ago) the rate of change is visibily accelerating. The
better LD does at its current mandate, the more likely it is that the budget
will expand or that the mandate itself will expand.
Carping about Jack Stone, valid as it may be, will not in *any way* help LD
choose the next sets to bring back. So you might want to *save* that carping
and focus on the question you were asked, or decide that you don't want to
help LD at all, which is also acceptable. Nobody HAS to give them free
advice if they don't want to, after all.
Me, I want to help LD succeed in every way I can, as I see it as the little
engine that will drag the rest of the semi-inert spaceship that is TLC where
we want it to go.
Do you?
Note that I repeatedly say "I speculate"... that's a hedge and a shield. But
I'll stack my speculation up against *anyone* else here as more likely to be
correct, unless they actually sign their posts LD without being in violation
of the ToS.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Demlow writes:
> > Lego Direct cannot, as a matter of policy, create new molds for its sets,
>
> Pardon me, but how do you know this? I'd like to see a reference for this
> statement. Has Brad, or someone else, stated this emphatically somewhere
> before?
>
> -- Hop-Frog
Richard is correct in questioning this, because it isn't true. LD can do just
about anything it wants, but within certain boundaries. Brad could initiate a
new theme, but the process to do that is long and time consuming (years). They
could develop new molds, but that process is expensive.
No, the reason LD *chooses* not to create any new molds is so that they can
bring products to market with a minimum of expense and time to market. The
beauty of the LD plan is that producing different colors for existing molds is
no problem; and with minimal overhead, sets can be brought to market without the
worry of recouping huge investment costs.
Add to that the Direct aspect (eliminating retail) and you have a formula for
success that hopefully will make Billund sit up and pay close attention (as I
think they already are).
That is not to say that LD won't *ever* pursue such endeavors in the future (new
molds, new themes), but initially it is trying to attain maximum profitablity
through the marketing of existing parts *by choice*.
-John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matthew Gerber writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Demlow writes:
> > > Lego Direct cannot, as a matter of policy, create new molds for its sets,
> >
> > Pardon me, but how do you know this? I'd like to see a reference for this
> > statement. Has Brad, or someone else, stated this emphatically somewhere
> > before?
>
> Oh man...I remember seeing a post where Brad did say this (at BrickFest™),
Is that a TM or an SM? GRIN.
> but I'll be darned if I can remember where/who.
> Larry might be the one to remember...he may have been the one who posted it
> originally.
I cannot confirm or deny that Brad said this.
> Brad did mention not having old molds in his first message in this thread:
> http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=3462
>
> Larry brings up Brad's cost vs. sales dilema here:
> http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=31612
>
> These are the things I could find in a quick LUGNET search.
>
> Matt
++Lar
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> Perhaps the Jack Stone creators forgot the original Lego credo of ‘a system
> of play without boarders.
So much for Pirates, then. :-)
Pirates respect no borders and repell all boarders. What's a good pirate
ship without some boarders?
XFUT .fun
|
|
| |
To All,
Something to think about in terms of mold cost. When I worked in a plastic
injection molding plant in Fowlerville, Michigan, a few moons ago, they were
making molds for various hard plastic parts for various customersd, such as
Ford. A typical mold, let's say for the Chrysler Neon Battery box (Just the
ottom of it) came out to $500,000 in 1995. That was about the shape of a
3033 tub. So figure witht he multiple cavities and precision tolerances LEGO
does run, I am sure a mold is quite expensive. If they can substitute
another part without jepordizing the model or their profit / loss margin,
all the more power to them.
Scott "Who saw a lot of molds, both yesterday and today" S.
--
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.lego.direct, Geoffrey Hyde writes:
> > >
> > > > How does not having the mold for an element affect it's reproducibility? I
> > > > would have thought that with all of the latest and greatest laser measuring
> > > > technology there would be *some* way of getting a new master mold for a
> > > > particular piece, providing you had the original piece to measure off from.
> > >
> > > Sure, there is SOME way
> > >
> > > > But there is probably a cost involved in doing this so you're not too keen
> > > > on it for that reason?
> > >
> > > But that's it. Cost. This is a low budget operation and molds are not cheap.
> > > Precision tolerances are pricey. I have heard numbers batted around that I
> > > have a bit of faith in even though they were speculation... these numbers
> > > are 10-50K USD PER MOLD.
> >
> > The solution here seems obvious... and free.
>
> "every problem has a simple solution. Unfortunately, it's often wrong" Just
> thought I'd toss that out to ponder.
Strange quote. The way I've heard it is, "The best solution is often the
simplest one." Maybe I should stop hanging around software engineers. :)
> > Use more plain old regular bricks in the design of future sets. No need for
> > new molds. No debates over specialized/juniorized parts.
>
> Great advice in general. Not a valid response to Geoffrey who is asking "why
> can't we have this part back that we don't have the mold for", though.
I wasn't really trying to answer Geoffrey's question. My apologies if it
seemed that I was. I was really just trying to present an alternative
solution for the company to consider.
> > And best of all,
> > more good old fashioned bricks with which to build other stuff on your own,
> > once you've built the primary kit.
>
> Again great. The rest of this is directed at more than just this post of
> yours, or even just you, Allan...
>
> LD has a mandate. That's "direct to consumer". It is not "retail". You can
> fault the organization of the company if you like, or you can hope that if
> LD is successful, LD type thinking will catch on elsewhere. But saying "go
> sell these sets in stores" (as you have) means you are asking LD to take on
> Futura, and take on the mandate of what Retail does. That may well be a
> political battle that Brad cannot yet win (if he even would want to engage
> it!!! Which I doubt.).
I suspect you are entirely correct on your last point... an internal
political battle. I am simply trying to do my part, as a caring consumer, to
give Brad all the ammunition I can... should he decide he wants it. I
haven't a clue how to get my opinion heard by the company. I figured if I
posted something to this type of direct contact... maybe... someday...
somewhere... my opinion might be heard. I am a huge fan of this company and
it pains me to see what they do to themselves.
> LD has a budget. That budget, I speculate, includes a few dollars for new
> colors of existing parts (yes, this is not free), but almost certainly does
> NOT include dollars for new colors never seen before. It almost certainly
> does not include new parts.
>
> The new parts budget, or so I speculate, (which includes OLD parts if the
> molds are gone) is in the hands of Futura. Futura designs new sets, I
> speculate. Futura gets sets approved by some guy in Denmark who has a pretty
> good idea (or so he thinks) of what kids want. Or so I speculate.
Actually, my comments regarding budgeting were almost exclusively about
promoting the LEGO Direct services and especially the Legends series. A
good job they have done on the reissues themselves... a poor job they have
done marketing them. My point was that in order to share
production/marketing costs LEGO Direct should get LEGO Regular to sell the
stuff in stores.
> LD has gotten permission to design a few new sets under severe cost
> constraint, I speculate. LD has gotten permission to bring back some sets,
> again under severe cost constraint, I speculate.
See comment above about sharing costs.
> > Take a look at the Jack Stone series. Any reason those columns couldn't
> > have been stacks of 2x2's? They could have saved one mold right there. :)
> >
> > Frankly, the problem isn't that they can't afford more molds, but rather
> > that they already spend way too much on new ones each year.
>
> Oh, you are so right. Really.
Larry... I marked my calendar, I hope you mark yours. We agreed on
something! :)
> Unfortunately... All it takes to change it, though, is that KKK make Brad
> president of everything, displacing all the Danes, and that he sack all the
> people in Futura and elsewhere that know better than we do about what kids
> want. That can easily happen overnight, right? Or can it?
No it can't. This type of change takes time. But the time to start
changing is now. My fear is that if significant changes don't occur soon
then LEGO will go the way of Meccano and eventually be bought up by it's own
competition. The history of the Meccano company, including how it couldn't
keep up with changing times, didn't listen to its adult customers and
eventually lacked focus, is a tale that should be studied in the Halls of
LEGO to see what can go wrong, even when you think you've always done things
right.
> Just be happy that there is change emanating from LD, and that (as I *said
> it would* many months ago) the rate of change is visibily accelerating. The
> better LD does at its current mandate, the more likely it is that the budget
> will expand or that the mandate itself will expand.
I am extremely happy with what they're doing. I just wish I could wander
down to the store that sells the Jack Stone sets and buy one of the
reissues, or perhaps a sculpture.
> Carping about Jack Stone, valid as it may be, will not in *any way* help LD
> choose the next sets to bring back. So you might want to *save* that carping
> and focus on the question you were asked, or decide that you don't want to
> help LD at all, which is also acceptable. Nobody HAS to give them free
> advice if they don't want to, after all.
I wasn't asked a question. I decided to stick my nose in and bitch about the
company's problems. They don't have to take my advice, I suspect they would
rather ignore people like me who do nothing but whine. I'm not presenting
the popular opinion... I'm not trying to. One of my responses to the
original thread was one that encouraged Brad to print out many or all of the
responses and let them be heard within the company. I would love it if all
the voices got heard, not just mine.
Larry, I have to be sincere with you for a moment. I love this company
(more accurately its products) more than you can know. My biggest fear is
that someday, if I have kids who might like to enjoy it the way I did as a
child, that there won't be a company around to enjoy. If I've chosen the
wrong place to bitch about this.... sorry. I am trying to make an
alternative opinion heard. Carping about Jack Stone is like telling an
alcoholic that his problem is the bottle of beer in his hand. It's the
obvious problem, but someone needs to point it out to him.
> Me, I want to help LD succeed in every way I can, as I see it as the little
> engine that will drag the rest of the semi-inert spaceship that is TLC where
> we want it to go.
>
> Do you?
I spent a great deal of time and effort on my initial response to this post.
See:
http://news.lugnet.com/lego/direct/?n=3480
It's full of ideas aimed specifically at helping LEGO Direct succeed, and
offers specific responses to Brad's questions.
But ultimately... I want to see the entire company succeed and prosper. I'm
willing to offer any amount of advice, criticism or insight that I can.
They *seem* to want this information, though I'm not entirely sure any of it
ever bubbles to the top. Can it hurt to try?
> Note that I repeatedly say "I speculate"... that's a hedge and a shield. But
> I'll stack my speculation up against *anyone* else here as more likely to be
> correct, unless they actually sign their posts LD without being in violation
> of the ToS.
I'm sure your speculation is worth whatever weight you decide to assign to
it. I'm not looking to be the authority on anything around here. I'm
saying to them, "look, here's an average guy, with an average collection of
LEGO bricks, who'd like a little more out of your company. Here's the
things that interest me, and here's the things I think you're a bit
misguided about. I want to work with you to see that your company succeeds."
I quit LUGNET once Larry... because no one seemed willing to talk about the
problems that LEGO is facing. Everyone seemed to just want to tell them how
lovely all the new sets were no matter how poorly designed or marketed they
were. When the summer Shop At Home Catalog came out, I felt that things had
gotten even worse. I began posting again in the hopes that someone *might*
listen... someday.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal writes:
> That is not to say that LD won't *ever* pursue such endeavors in the future
> (new molds, new themes), but initially it is trying to attain maximum >profitablity through the marketing of existing parts *by choice*.
Yeah, but in this case I am trying to raise the specter of element molds now
gone, and not necessarily worry about "new" elements or themes.
There seems to be at least an assertion that LD will not reproduce molds for
elements from the past in order to rerelease a Legend set. I think this is
a really wrong way to think about this product line -- it should absolutely
be about bringing old elements back from the dead. Classic space helmets
that can double in a recreation of the yellow castle -- why not? Monorail
motors and track that can be used first in the Legend line and elsewhere
later on -- why not?
I am not very pursuaded by the idea that a $15K cost in mold making prevents
any of this. Frankly, I'd prefer to push in the direction of bringing back
some older elements.
Questions: Did they remake the maiden hat for 2000 or was the old mold still
available? Can we speculate that other molds from that same period are
still available?
We are playing at this answer game for Brad with very insufficient
information as to the manner in which they decide these matters. I think
they could at least throw us a bone about the subject.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> Very nicely said Allen!
>
> I kinda feel sorry for the Lego development team who create Jack Stone.
> Cause everybody seams to be targeting their irritation towards this
> particular line. Although this angst is justified and has merit, it appears
> that Jack Stone is the culmination of everything that is wrong with Lego today.
> Perhaps the Jack Stone creators forgot the original Lego credo of ‘a system
> of play without boarders.’ When they created a specialized new line that
> doesn’t integrate well into the collective. But this could be easily
> remedied if TLG just listened to a few AFOL who appear to have
> some really good suggestions.
Let me take a stab at defending the Jack Stone line, and maybe we can get to the
real issue at hand.
First of all, I don't see or hear anyone ripping on the Duplo line as
"juniorized", or "doesn't integrate well" into System. Why not? Because we
realize that Duplo *is targeted* at a younger audience. It's *supposed" to be
juniorized.
So don't you see? That is the same intention of the Jack Stone line. TLC *is
targeting* very specifically kids who are too old for Duplo but not ready for
System. They saw a gap between Duplo and System and decided it needed bridging.
It's not a bad strategy-- trying to hook kids at a younger age *before*
(hopefully) they reach video games, MTV, etc.
The problem is that while TLC was busy filling that gap, they *created* one in
System by abandoning the types of sets we would characterize as "legends" when
they started pursuing the younger market.
Why did they abandon the 8-12 market? Perhaps they felt they couldn't compete.
Maybe they felt that they needed to pursue the 8-12 market with stuff like
Mindstorms, Studios, Bionicle, and <shudder> software instead. I don't know.
So the real problem isn't the existance of Jack Stone, just the absence of more
themes in the same vein as the Star Wars one.
And lo and behold, along comes LD to fill that niche vacated by TLC. Hopefully,
the success of LD will show Billund that that niche is still worth pursuing with
new themes and major investments.
-John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal writes:
> > That is not to say that LD won't *ever* pursue such endeavors in the future
> > (new molds, new themes), but initially it is trying to attain maximum >profitablity through the marketing of existing parts *by choice*.
>
> Yeah, but in this case I am trying to raise the specter of element molds now
> gone, and not necessarily worry about "new" elements or themes.
>
> There seems to be at least an assertion that LD will not reproduce molds for
> elements from the past in order to rerelease a Legend set. I think this is
> a really wrong way to think about this product line -- it should absolutely
> be about bringing old elements back from the dead. Classic space helmets
> that can double in a recreation of the yellow castle -- why not? Monorail
> motors and track that can be used first in the Legend line and elsewhere
> later on -- why not?
>
> I am not very pursuaded by the idea that a $15K cost in mold making prevents
> any of this. Frankly, I'd prefer to push in the direction of bringing back
> some older elements.
>
> Questions: Did they remake the maiden hat for 2000 or was the old mold still
> available? Can we speculate that other molds from that same period are
> still available?
>
> We are playing at this answer game for Brad with very insufficient
> information as to the manner in which they decide these matters. I think
> they could at least throw us a bone about the subject.
While I see your point, Richard, I think the crux of the matter, and perhaps
the ultimate answer to Brad's original question is this: In order to keep
development/marketing costs down for LEGO Direct, rather than trying to
figure out what would be involved in re-creating sets in which molds for
certain parts are no longer available (due to loss, destruction, old tooling
not working with newer machines, whatever), perhaps LEGODirect's time would
be better spent researching to a happy balance point.
What do I mean? Find sets to reproduce that are relatively popular, but also
use nothing but existing pieces/molds. Seems pretty simple to me.
Sure, it might not be the "Ulitmate Collectors Set" or "LUGNET's #1 Most
Wanted" or anything, but perhaps it'll be a set from 10-15 years ago that
will make a good model assembled, and a good parts set sorted. Wouldn't you
rather see LD get many multiple, fairly inexpensive rereleases out each year
by following this idea, than getting a couple of really expensive rereleases
that may or may not have part substitutions or stickers? Because,
ultimately, it'll be us...the AFOL...who foot the cost for LD developing new
molds of old pieces, because we are the target market for these sets. I'd
much rather buy several $25-$30 rerelease sets each year than one $100-$200
set, you know?
Just another 2¢ from me (what am I up to now, 4 maybe 6¢? I guess that's
enough for the time being).
Matt
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> Yeah, but in this case I am trying to raise the specter of element molds now
> gone, and not necessarily worry about "new" elements or themes.
>
> There seems to be at least an assertion that LD will not reproduce molds for
> elements from the past in order to rerelease a Legend set. I think this is
> a really wrong way to think about this product line -- it should absolutely
> be about bringing old elements back from the dead. Classic space helmets
> that can double in a recreation of the yellow castle -- why not? Monorail
> motors and track that can be used first in the Legend line and elsewhere
> later on -- why not?
>
> I am not very pursuaded by the idea that a $15K cost in mold making prevents
> any of this. Frankly, I'd prefer to push in the direction of bringing back
> some older elements.
15K sounds cheap-- more like twice that. Remember, LD is *direct*, and doesn't
have the luxury of a huge market (like retail). LD can release a set with no
new parts and could sell merely 1,000s and be profitable, but a new theme needs
to sell 100,000s to be profitable. So what would you rather have? Dozens of
reissues with no new parts, or 1 with a few authentic remolds? The bang for the
buck simply isn't there; not enough people care about *authentic* reissues, and,
in my mind, rightly so.
>
> Questions: Did they remake the maiden hat for 2000 or was the old mold still
> available?
I don't know that.
Can we speculate that other molds from that same period are
> still available?
How would we or even Brad know unless each element was researched to find out?
>
> We are playing at this answer game for Brad with very insufficient
> information as to the manner in which they decide these matters. I think
> they could at least throw us a bone about the subject.
I don't think so, Richard. The reasons given by Brad here and elsewhere seem
convincing to me.
-John
>
> -- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> LD has a mandate. That's "direct to consumer". It is not "retail". You can
> fault the organization of the company if you like, or you can hope that if
> LD is successful, LD type thinking will catch on elsewhere. But saying "go
> sell these sets in stores" (as you have) means you are asking LD to take on
> Futura, and take on the mandate of what Retail does. That may well be a
> political battle that Brad cannot yet win (if he even would want to engage
> it!!! Which I doubt.).
<and later>
> Me, I want to help LD succeed in every way I can, as I see it as the little
> engine that will drag the rest of the semi-inert spaceship that is TLC where
> we want it to go.
That's been my reading of the subject. LD has to go to the
feeding trough as an intruding tendril of the company, rather
than as its lifeblood--in a sense, it's a shoot off of the main
vine that continues to get stronger, but still can't dictate
to the rest of the company. It's the little dynamo, fueled
by direct interaction with and recruitment from the AFOL
community.
> LD has a budget. That budget, I speculate, includes a few dollars for new
> colors of existing parts (yes, this is not free), but almost certainly does
> NOT include dollars for new colors never seen before. It almost certainly
> does not include new parts.
I can agree with the first and the last statements, but I'd
say that the presence of a new color (Dark Red) in the Rebel
Blockade Runner is a pretty clear indication that new colors
are at least possible for LD, if still uncommon. And are those
parts printed, or are they stickers? That would also require a bit
of new printing design.
(And what's with those 1x4 plates that angle outward to 2x? I
have never seen those anywhere before!)
> LD has gotten permission to design a few new sets under severe cost
> constraint, I speculate. LD has gotten permission to bring back some sets,
> again under severe cost constraint, I speculate.
We'll almost certainly never get a really clear idea of LD's
balance sheet. That said, the operation is tiny in comparison
to Futura, and the impression I've gotten from everyone I've
spoken to--including LD people--is that LD took coaxing to
launch, and continues to require coaxing and energy input from
its team to exist, expand, and fight for resources from within
the company. The day may come when a mold is reconstructed--
there's no way that they couldn't be, as each surely has
a whole series of drawings and numbers on file--but the dollar
signs and the organizational inertia don't warrant it at this time.
But time does change things--considering LUGNET just had a big
ol' 3rd birthday, think back (for us old-timers) to rtl and atl (I
was only a lurker then!), and how far things really have come.
That said, I think that wishing and dreaming and, most of all,
ASKING for these parts is absolutely crucial to helping overcome
what limits currently exist. The only thing as important one
can do is support LD as a consumer--something I don't have any
trouble with whatsoever. (That's why, whenever Richard would
run around screaming "Cypress trees! Cypress trees! My kingdom
for cypress trees!" I thought it was a *good* thing.)
Um, all of that aside, I'm busily looking through my wish lists,
and seeing what's out there that fits my "want" plus "useful"
lists. I've been delighted so far, and I have no reason to
expect that it won't continue.
best
LFB
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
From my little corner one of two things can make a legend:
1) The original 'model' was creative, imaginative and showed off what you
can do with the parts included (Guraded Inn, Redbeard Runner)
2) The original set contained enough variety and versatility in the included
bricks that creativity wasn't too limited (Knight's Castle/Black Falcon
Fortress)
In both cases it seems the creative process was "Here are the parts
available, buidl something", whereas today its, "here's what we want to
build, make the pieces fit". Thus the variety in reception of the new sets
offered by LC today.
Decals: No. They have a low survivabiliy if played with.
Parts switch: In cases where the parts are not reproducable, okay. NOT the
replacement of several bricks by a single piece!
That's about it, go to it!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Noeckel writes:
> If your alluding specifically to Space sets predating 1980 then we could
> easily determine which particular sets would likely be chosen for the 2002
> up-coming Legends line. With this finite list and our resources we would
> target the likely sets and propose possible alternatives for out-dated or
> inferior parts. (e.g. Old Space helmets in set # ‘497 Galaxy Explorer’ and
> other various details involved in updating it to be initiated into the
> Legends line. http://guide.lugnet.com/set/497)
Galaxy Explorer is, by far, my favorite Classic Space set. Unfortunately,
I'd guess that compromises would include:
No old style TV antenna on the top of the mini-base. This I could live
without. I always thought it looked kind-of silly anyway. Just replace it
with a straight antenna (use one like the two on top of the ship in this set).
No crater plate. I suppose you could substitute a plain gray plate, but
that would suck, as the crater plate was one of the coolest additions to
this set. I'd still buy it without the crater plate, and possibly even
without the landing plate, but I'd be a bit disappointed.
No old style helmets (they broke regularly anyway, so just replace them
with the appropriate color newer style "Town motorcycle" helmet and use a
clear visor to mimic the look of the old helmet).
No old style wheels with metal axle. This is no big deal, just
substitute modern parts that still let the vehicle fit in the cargo bay of
the ship.
Hopefully no more changes would be necessary.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> No old style TV antenna on the top of the mini-base.
Yeah, I don't think of that one as a big loss in the age of cable, unless
you were going for that 1950s-1970s look in a town MOC or something.
> No crater plate.
Actually, the crater plate probably exists. See this 1996 set in the
database: http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6190
> No old style helmets (they broke regularly anyway, so just replace them
> with the appropriate color newer style "Town motorcycle" helmet and use a
> clear visor to mimic the look of the old helmet).
Actually, this is one element I'd like to see back again -- along with the
visors for the #375 yellow castle. In my experience (admittedly anecdotal),
these helmets do not break (I really wonder at the reputation of this
element on this point too), and I'd love to see the classic space and castle
stuff come back again. Perhaps the ubiquity of this helmet element in the
older sets justifies it's being put back into production for the Legend
line. It could serve in the rerelease of many sets and therefore also
justify its cost of manufacture. AND, if people are really worried about
the chin strap breakage issue -- maybe the element could be re-engineered to
add an extra thickness of ABS at the stress points there.
This is a win-win issue for space- and castle-heads alike. I say let's get
this element back into production! Galaxy Explorer now, Yellow castle later...
> No old style wheels with metal axle. This is no big deal, just
> substitute modern parts that still let the vehicle fit in the cargo bay of
> the ship.
I don't think anyone cares about the metal axle wheels -- that seems almost
unanimous unless I missed someone's post.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Dan Dickerson writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Dan Dickerson writes:
> > > How about a book of legends? Reprint the old contruction manuals from sets
> > > in the 60s - 80s in one large book. Sets that you cannot/will not reissue,
> > > so that the book won't compete with your own products. The plans on
> > > Brickshelf are generally not clear enough to really use.
The scans on brickshelf are a useful reference and i have found them very
useful, but you can't, for example lie in bed and read them and dream (bout
all i do when it comes to lego!)
<snip>
> As Ronan Webb said, the problem is in the printing. High resolution, color
> printing is expensive and not always an option. Likewise, building in front
> of my computer is not very workable.
To download and print out costs time and money and at the end of the day the
printouts need to be put in a folder, a properly produced book on quality
paer such as the Ideas books of the past would be great
Tim
|
|
| |
<snip>
> Wow. I feel a generation gap coming on. Only just now, part way into the
> new millenium and half way through this thread, did I recognize the fact
> that the old style helmet is no longer available! I have so many of them in
> my collection, I never noticed they might be considered rare. Man, I feel
> old...
<snip>
Well me too, i always thoughts that they just added various visors/face
masks etc to the existing helmet, i'll hav to have a look. mind you i did
notice that the originals are a bit fagile
Tim
|
|
| |
John Neal <John@TCLTC.org> wrote:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Demlow writes:
> > > Lego Direct cannot, as a matter of policy, create new molds for its sets,
> >
> > Pardon me, but how do you know this? I'd like to see a reference for this
> > statement. Has Brad, or someone else, stated this emphatically somewhere
> > before?
>
> Richard is correct in questioning this, because it isn't true. LD can do just
> about anything it wants, but within certain boundaries.
John and I were both there and heard Brad say the same thing (unless John
knows something I don't, which may well be true) but apparently we have
different interpretations. I took Brad's comment about "no new molds" to
mean that it was part of the "deal" with Lego corporate that allows LD
to (re)develop sets outside of the normal process (Futura).
Pedantically, my statement is correct either way - it's just a question of
whether the "policy" is self imposed or imposed from above. Either way,
based on what I heard Brad say a few months ago, we shouldn't expect any
new element shapes to come out of LD. (Again, hearsay disclaimer, etc.)
Steve
--
Barb & Steve Demlow | demlow@visi.com | www.visi.com/~demlow/
|
|
| |
Hurrah - I totally agree if one piece should be brought back this is it.
unfortunately what people seem to have forgotten is that the visors on the
knights in the yellow castle have probably also gone and they are kinda
integral to the feel of the whole set.
wasnt the old style helmet rejigged a little at one point to make the chin
strap thicker and stronger anyway??
--
James Stacey
---------
www.minifig.co.uk
#925
"richard marchetti" <blueofnoon@aol.com> wrote in message
news:GLqCI0.3B4@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> > No old style TV antenna on the top of the mini-base.
>
> Yeah, I don't think of that one as a big loss in the age of cable, unless
> you were going for that 1950s-1970s look in a town MOC or something.
>
> > No crater plate.
>
> Actually, the crater plate probably exists. See this 1996 set in the
> database: http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6190
>
> > No old style helmets (they broke regularly anyway, so just replace • them
> > with the appropriate color newer style "Town motorcycle" helmet and use a
> > clear visor to mimic the look of the old helmet).
>
> Actually, this is one element I'd like to see back again -- along with the
> visors for the #375 yellow castle. In my experience (admittedly • anecdotal),
> these helmets do not break (I really wonder at the reputation of this
> element on this point too), and I'd love to see the classic space and • castle
> stuff come back again. Perhaps the ubiquity of this helmet element in the
> older sets justifies it's being put back into production for the Legend
> line. It could serve in the rerelease of many sets and therefore also
> justify its cost of manufacture. AND, if people are really worried about
> the chin strap breakage issue -- maybe the element could be re-engineered • to
> add an extra thickness of ABS at the stress points there.
>
> This is a win-win issue for space- and castle-heads alike. I say let's • get
> this element back into production! Galaxy Explorer now, Yellow castle • later...
>
> > No old style wheels with metal axle. This is no big deal, just
> > substitute modern parts that still let the vehicle fit in the cargo bay • of
> > the ship.
>
> I don't think anyone cares about the metal axle wheels -- that seems • almost
> unanimous unless I missed someone's post.
>
> -- Hop-Frog
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Salm writes:
> Instead, I want to see NEW selections that are based upon
> the spirit of old sets.
>
> For example: lets take set 6385 Fire House 1 from 1985 -->
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6385
> Using all of the unique and special pieces that came with this set, the
> Lego set designers can create a new product. Use a different baseplate,
> modify the vehicles, and give the building a facelift to produce a new
> and different Lego set. It could even be named Fire House 2.
>
> Will it be a re-issue of the original -- NO.
> Will it capture the spirit of the original -- Yes, I hope.
> Will it have all of the key pieces of the original -- Yes.
> Will it be a Legend -- No, it will be a brand new selection.
>
> Why do this?? Why not!!
> Re-issuing Lego sets and calling them Legends or Classics seems to
> be taking the easy way out. I see no reason why today's Lego set
> designers cannot create stimulating and appealing Lego sets based
> upon the quality Lego sets of the past. But do not simply copy
> them--make them even better!!!
This is a bad idea. If you don't stay close enough to the original, AFOL's
will not like the set. If you don't Juniorize some of these sets enough, it
won't be cheap enough to sell to kids (with parents who aren't AFOL's) at
your local TRU. Instead, these kids/parents will buy more Megablocks
because they're buying more on price than quality.
In the end, if you compromise too much, you'll make everyone unhappy. Kids
today want flashy characters and sets, not "classic" designs with minifigs
that have plain smiley faces. Ledgends are purchased primarily by AFOL's
and changing the sets too much will upset them to the point that they won't
buy the set.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Demlow writes:
> One specific case that was mentioned but not discussed further is that of
> classic space helmets. Would a Galaxy Explorer with the newer-style,
> swept-back space/town helmets have the same "feel", or do the more retro-70s
> bullet-type helmets add to the nostalgia rating?
My suggestion was to use the newer-style space/town helmet with a clear
visor. The old, non-visor, helmets are a more retro look, but they were
*very* fragile. I think less than half of my old style helmets survived.
The thin piece below the minifig's chin always broke in the middle. Some
broke in two spots, making them completely unusable.
The classic space minifigs that I still have are too valuable to play with,
so getting a new set without the old helmets really doesn't affect the
playability of the set. The availability of all the cool gray plates, wing
pieces, engines, and etc. in Galaxy Explorer will keep this set a classic,
even without the old space helmets.
> I am also very curious whether the "classic" windows are a potential obstacle
> to any set reproduction, although realistically the percentage of sets that
> contain them and would serious contenders for reproduction is probably
> relatively small.
I'd be curious about this as well.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Salm writes:
> > Instead, I want to see NEW selections that are based upon
> > the spirit of old sets.
> >
> > For example: lets take set 6385 Fire House 1 from 1985 -->
> > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6385
> > Using all of the unique and special pieces that came with this set, the
> > Lego set designers can create a new product. Use a different baseplate,
> > modify the vehicles, and give the building a facelift to produce a new
> > and different Lego set. It could even be named Fire House 2.
> >
> > Will it be a re-issue of the original -- NO.
> > Will it capture the spirit of the original -- Yes, I hope.
> > Will it have all of the key pieces of the original -- Yes.
> > Will it be a Legend -- No, it will be a brand new selection.
> >
> > Why do this?? Why not!!
> > Re-issuing Lego sets and calling them Legends or Classics seems to
> > be taking the easy way out. I see no reason why today's Lego set
> > designers cannot create stimulating and appealing Lego sets based
> > upon the quality Lego sets of the past. But do not simply copy
> > them--make them even better!!!
>
> This is a bad idea. If you don't stay close enough to the original, AFOL's
> will not like the set.
Speak for yourself. I for one wouldn't mind at all, and would welcome changes,
especially in the unique colors for elements area.
If you don't Juniorize some of these sets enough, it
> won't be cheap enough to sell to kids (with parents who aren't AFOL's) at
> your local TRU.
Remember, we are talking about LEGO *Direct*. They do not sell retail by
charter. And I doubt juniorization has as much to do with cutting costs
(certainly in the short run it is *more* expensive-- new molds for all of the
POOPs) as it does about making sets *quicker* to build for little minds with
shorter attention spans...
Instead, these kids/parents will buy more Megablocks
> because they're buying more on price than quality.
>
> In the end, if you compromise too much, you'll make everyone unhappy.
Well, it's like I asked elsewhere-- what do AFOLs want-- more sets *like*
produced in the past, or the *actual* sets produced in the past? It seems to me
that the only advantage to producing a "legend" is that it eliminates a lot of
design time and cost for LD. All they have to do is research the parts, print
up some stickers, and away they go.
Kids
> today want flashy characters and sets, not "classic" designs with minifigs
> that have plain smiley faces. Ledgends are purchased primarily by AFOL's
Uh, we just don't know that, and I doubt if it is even true. But that is not to
say that we couldn't *be* the target audience. Although the AFOL market is
relatively small and normally not profitable to pursue for a company such as
TLC, *LD* is able to market to us *because they are able to keep production
costs to a bare minimum* by selling directly to the customer and not incurring
high costs such as creating new molds.
> and changing the sets too much will upset them to the point that they won't
> buy the set.
Keeping them exactly the same will discourage those who already have the set
from buying it also... Which group is larger, collectors who want them the
same, or AFOLs who already have the sets? Both, I suspect, are small compared
to the entire AFOL population.
-John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Demlow writes:
> John Neal <John@TCLTC.org> wrote:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Richard Marchetti writes:
> > > In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Demlow writes:
> > > > Lego Direct cannot, as a matter of policy, create new molds for its sets,
> > >
> > > Pardon me, but how do you know this? I'd like to see a reference for this
> > > statement. Has Brad, or someone else, stated this emphatically somewhere
> > > before?
> >
> > Richard is correct in questioning this, because it isn't true. LD can do just
> > about anything it wants, but within certain boundaries.
>
> John and I were both there and heard Brad say the same thing (unless John
> knows something I don't, which may well be true)
Maybe you know something I don't! Are you referring to Brad's visit to the
GMLTC (which I *missed* because I was out of town?)
but apparently we have
> different interpretations. I took Brad's comment about "no new molds" to
> mean that it was part of the "deal" with Lego corporate that allows LD
> to (re)develop sets outside of the normal process (Futura).
>
> Pedantically, my statement is correct either way - it's just a question of
> whether the "policy" is self imposed or imposed from above.
I am not disagreeing with Steve-- it isn't relevant, really, from where the
policy comes; just that it is there. I was speaking about LD's *theoretical*
ability to act in certain ways. If they stick to producing sets without
creating any new molds, they have maximum flexibility as to what they can do.
When they start creating new molds, they also start having to submit to
protocols and jumping through hoops initiated from Billund.
Either way,
> based on what I heard Brad say a few months ago, we shouldn't expect any
> new element shapes to come out of LD. (Again, hearsay disclaimer, etc.)
Agreed, at least in the near future (2-3 years). Hopefully by that time LD will
have proved its success and more freedom is this area will be attempted/allowed.
-John
>
> Steve
|
|
| |
This has been pointed out before. The more things change, the more they stay
the same...
http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=2445
-Duane
In lugnet.lego.direct, John Neal writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Salm writes:
> > > Instead, I want to see NEW selections that are based upon
> > > the spirit of old sets.
> > >
> > > For example: lets take set 6385 Fire House 1 from 1985 -->
> > > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6385
> > > Using all of the unique and special pieces that came with this set, the
> > > Lego set designers can create a new product. Use a different baseplate,
> > > modify the vehicles, and give the building a facelift to produce a new
> > > and different Lego set. It could even be named Fire House 2.
> > >
> > > Will it be a re-issue of the original -- NO.
> > > Will it capture the spirit of the original -- Yes, I hope.
> > > Will it have all of the key pieces of the original -- Yes.
> > > Will it be a Legend -- No, it will be a brand new selection.
> > >
> > > Why do this?? Why not!!
> > > Re-issuing Lego sets and calling them Legends or Classics seems to
> > > be taking the easy way out. I see no reason why today's Lego set
> > > designers cannot create stimulating and appealing Lego sets based
> > > upon the quality Lego sets of the past. But do not simply copy
> > > them--make them even better!!!
> >
> > This is a bad idea. If you don't stay close enough to the original, AFOL's
> > will not like the set.
>
> Speak for yourself. I for one wouldn't mind at all, and would welcome changes,
> especially in the unique colors for elements area.
>
> If you don't Juniorize some of these sets enough, it
> > won't be cheap enough to sell to kids (with parents who aren't AFOL's) at
> > your local TRU.
>
> Remember, we are talking about LEGO *Direct*. They do not sell retail by
> charter. And I doubt juniorization has as much to do with cutting costs
> (certainly in the short run it is *more* expensive-- new molds for all of the
> POOPs) as it does about making sets *quicker* to build for little minds with
> shorter attention spans...
>
> Instead, these kids/parents will buy more Megablocks
> > because they're buying more on price than quality.
> >
> > In the end, if you compromise too much, you'll make everyone unhappy.
>
> Well, it's like I asked elsewhere-- what do AFOLs want-- more sets *like*
> produced in the past, or the *actual* sets produced in the past? It seems to me
> that the only advantage to producing a "legend" is that it eliminates a lot of
> design time and cost for LD. All they have to do is research the parts, print
> up some stickers, and away they go.
>
>
> Kids
> > today want flashy characters and sets, not "classic" designs with minifigs
> > that have plain smiley faces. Ledgends are purchased primarily by AFOL's
>
> Uh, we just don't know that, and I doubt if it is even true. But that is not to
> say that we couldn't *be* the target audience. Although the AFOL market is
> relatively small and normally not profitable to pursue for a company such as
> TLC, *LD* is able to market to us *because they are able to keep production
> costs to a bare minimum* by selling directly to the customer and not incurring
> high costs such as creating new molds.
>
> > and changing the sets too much will upset them to the point that they won't
> > buy the set.
>
> Keeping them exactly the same will discourage those who already have the set
> from buying it also... Which group is larger, collectors who want them the
> same, or AFOLs who already have the sets? Both, I suspect, are small compared
> to the entire AFOL population.
>
> -John
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
It has taken me five severe revisions to answer this very difficult
question. Each time I allowed myself to go off topic into the realm of what
I wanted to see, and what I thought LEGO could do to improve their company,
rather than answer the question of what substitutions were acceptable.
For Brad's sake, I think I have finally restricted my answer adequately. :)
There are two kinds of substitutions that might need to be made: Functional
changes, and Cosmetic changes.
From what I have read, the functional changes are ok, even preferred if it
means the re-release of a favored set. Such changes as substituting the
metal axles for something current, or switching a 4.5v or 12v train model to
use the current 9v system would be fine. (I believe we would all purchase
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/7740 and others if modified to the current train
specs. I doubt very much if even the most devout purists would complain.)
However, the cosmetic changes are much more difficult to rate. This is
where the stickers, minifig style and baseplate questions come in.
To sticker or not to sticker? I hate stickers - No, I take that back. I
love stickers, they definitely add a certain detail to the models that
bricks could not achieve alone. However, I never use the stickers that came
with the sets. I have gone to great pains to make my own (disposable)
stickers - my original LEGO stickers remain flat in a cool, dry place,
untouched by human hands. If the original decaled pieces do not exist, I
raise no objection to the inclusion of stickers to replace them - but I
still won't put them on. However, I draw the line at stickering a minifig.
The minifigs see way more action than a single brick does. A sticker on a
minifig wears out several times faster than on an ordinary brick, and I
won't even bother putting my own stickers on.
Along the same lines of cosmetic changes, last night I built my Galaxy
Explorer - the same one my parents bought for me when I was 11. (So that
makes me how old?) But I did not use the 6x3x1 slope with the decal, I used
a plain slope. Same with the LL928 bricks. I substituted them with blank
bricks. The minifigs I substituted with unmarked red and white town
minifigs with the new helmets and clear visors. The wheels I substituted
for the current plastic axle type. Finally, I built it all over again using
the wrong color pieces. You know, it is still a good set! The cosmetic
changes did
not bother me like I expected them to. The only thing I could not get past
was the landing base plate. I substituted a plain gray one (no road) and it
did not look right at all. If that landing pad design does not exist, that
is going to be one BIG sticker. ;)
I did the same with some of my other space sets - the change in minifig
design did not bother me like I thought it would. There is no doubt that
collectors will scream "But it's not the same!" I believe that for most, it
is simply because we would be denied a source for those rare parts not being
manufactured any more, which long time collectors most definitely want. I
for one, would jump at the chance to beef up my classic minifig collection,
lay my hands on some cypress trees (if everyone else does not buy them all
up first) and supplement my monorail tracks. But I also have the
realization that this is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. In the
meantime, I can live with a good deal of change, and I will continue my
purchases of the legends series.
One last note to keep in mind though - It appears AFOL's are the primary
audience for this, after all, no child age 6 to 14 was even alive when these
sets originally came out. The only ones with nostalgia towards these sets
are the AFOL's. Be cautious in the changes you choose to make. Nostalgia
is a difficult thing to measure. There is no way that LD can tell ahead of
time if a set is going to be a success or not, and it IS possible that too
many changes might deter some purchases. Brad, you may want to follow up
your original message with some specifics so that we can give you a more
solid response. Don't tell us which sets are under consideration, but
suggest "LD wants to replace x piece with y or z pieces" and see what
reaction this evokes. We seem to have come to a unanimous decision that
metal axles are out, and the newer ones are in. A similar consensus might
be achieved on other parts without giving too much away about which sets are
under consideration. You were sufficiently vague in your request of how
much is too far - I fear that we were equally vague in our answer (I was
anyway), and may not have helped as much as we all wanted to.
"Bury me with my Bricks"
Mark
PS - This was a pretty important issue to me. This is my first post, ever. :)
|
|
| |
John Neal <John@TCLTC.org> wrote:
> Maybe you know something I don't! Are you referring to Brad's visit to the
> GMLTC (which I *missed* because I was out of town?)
Yep - I assumed you were referring to the same event, but obviously not.
> > based on what I heard Brad say a few months ago, we shouldn't expect any
> > new element shapes to come out of LD. (Again, hearsay disclaimer, etc.)
> Agreed, at least in the near future (2-3 years). Hopefully by that time LD will
> have proved its success and more freedom is this area will be attempted/allowed.
We can hope!! (And, buy, to encourage the hope in a concrete way. ;)
Steve
--
Barb & Steve Demlow | demlow@visi.com | www.visi.com/~demlow/
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Mark Klein writes:
> PS - This was a pretty important issue to me. This is my first post, ever. :)
Well, IMO, for your first post that was extremely well written! And I too
would agree that this is perhaps the most interesting general topic I have
seen since my internet dark age ended several months ago...
I look forward to Brad's future questions and comments. (In the event that
LD needs more staff to read and analyze all the messages in these threads,
I'd be happy to join their payroll...) <big grin>
-J.Hendo
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Matt Hein writes:
> Well, I would think it to be a good idea if LEGO released accessory kits to
> go along with the legend theme. The voting thing is okay, but I'm looking
> for a re-release of a classic space set and more castle sets! Anyways, keep
> it up! You're doing a great job!
Actually, it would be cool if along with the Ledgends sets there were
acessory packs created at the same time as the sets. For example, if there
were pieces in some older sets that weren't used in newer sets, but the
molds still exist, the acessory pack could contain those very hard to find
pieces. Also, if parts had to be made in colors that don't exist today,
they could be in the acessory pack too.
One of the pieces I'd *really* like to see come back is the Blacktron II
MMU/jetpack (they look roughly like the MMU's which were tested by shuttle
astronauts for flying away from the shuttle without a tether). Anyway, take
a look at some pictures of Blacktron II sets and you'll see what I mean. If
this piece were brought back in a Ledgends set, it would be even more
exciting to me if I could also buy more of the BtII MMU's in an acessory
pack. I'd really like to buy enough of these pieces to build a military
shuttle with space Marines in the payload bay as seen in the James Bond film
Moonraker. :-)
Ledgends parts packs! Cool idea!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Dave Lovelace writes:
> 1) Your mail-order-only / internet market is a bunch of older people like
> me who already have five Galaxy Explorers and thirteen Yellow Castles or
> whatever....why do we need yet another one in some ugly 2001 grey box with
> no flap? What is the point?
The point is:
1. My Galaxy Explorer isn't complete since many pieces are long gone.
2. The instructions are trashed beyond all recognition.
3. Some of the pieces I do still have for it are scratched up.
4. It would be so great to get a brand new version of this set again without
paying hundreds of dollars to someone I don't trust that I met on the Internet.
> 2) Even if you did rehash some great old models, you need to win over the
> mainstream again to get back on track. You don't need more money from us
> S@H LugNET types. You had us at "hello," and you had us in 1979. I
> understand your budget is low, but if it never included marketing, then it's
> simply too low. Skimp with some stickers and get these things to TRU.
No, you don't. Lego Direct is focusing on hard core LEGO fans, the ones
that don't buy from K-Mart once or twice a year. The people who use Lego
Direct to purchase Lego sets are ready to whip out their credit cards and
plunk down ten times what a K-Mart shopper will. Younger Lego Direct
shoppers will buy Ledgends sets because they're unique. You can't get
*these* at K-Mart folks!
Older Lego Direct shoppers will likely buy them because they remember the
original set and would like to have a copy at non-E-Bay prices.
> Past this, I'll just tell you what you'd rather hear, and cast some majority
> votes concerning the line in case you insist on continuing it:
>
> 1) No stickers. Imprinting lasts longer. Besides, if you really want to
> go after collectors, you should know that most collectors would never dare
> dream of applying the stickers anyway.
Bah! Imprinting is much better, but stickers would be acceptable if this is
a make it or break it cost item to produce the set.
> 2) No major part substitutions (thin-chin helmets). Don't make it
> hodgepodge.
Again, the original pieces are better, but the set would still be acceptable
if this is a make it or break it cost item to produce the set.
> 3) I'm more interested in new sets designed in the classic theme. I'm a
> big Classic Space fan, and can illustrate how you could go about doing this
> with some of my own designs of "Sets That Never Were" here:
> http://www.umop.com/spacefun.htm
This isn't a bad idea, as long as the set stuck to the orignal look and feel
of the theme. For example, no modern pieces in a new Classic Space set.
The astronauts would have to have the original looking torso printing, and
etc. If you're going to do this sort of thing, color becomes very
important. You really can't substitute a newer transparent color for the
trans-yellow used in Classic Space.
> In exchange for my free consultation here today, I'll ask in exchange for a
> job position designing your new Classic Space line. I live in northern >CT. :-)
You'll have to fight me (and a hundred or so others) for that job. :-)
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, James Stacey writes:
> wasnt the old style helmet rejigged a little at one point to make the chin
> strap thicker and stronger anyway??
I had forgotten about this, but I think you may be right. Playing with
these sets as a kid, I remember breaking many of these old style helmets.
The common failure mode was the chin strap's inability to withstand the
compressive force of a 40 pound kid stepping on it. :-O
The newer style town/space helmets (that look like plain motorcycle helmets)
are much stronger. They seem to hold up to the abuse of child's play very well.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> One of the pieces I'd *really* like to see come back is the Blacktron II
> MMU/jetpack (they look roughly like the MMU's which were tested by shuttle
> astronauts for flying away from the shuttle without a tether). Anyway, take
> a look at some pictures of Blacktron II sets and you'll see what I mean. If
> this piece were brought back in a Ledgends set, it would be even more
> exciting to me if I could also buy more of the BtII MMU's in an acessory
> pack. I'd really like to buy enough of these pieces to build a military
> shuttle with space Marines in the payload bay as seen in the James Bond film
> Moonraker. :-)
Something like the one in this set: <http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6457_2>?
Steve (who woulda been *really* ecstatic if 6457 had included the female
astronaut face) Bliss
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
If you want to go "way back" to a set that's mostly built of generic bricks,
I'd highly suggest 565 Moon Landing. Surely there would be compromises.
As far as stickers go, this set had stickers anyway, so substituting a few
more printed elements for stickered bricks is no big deal, in my opinion.
As far as pieces without molds, you'd likely have trouble with:
The flag (with US flag sticker) - just substitute something appropriate here
so you still get a US flag.
The TV antenna - just substitute a modern whip antenna, or build up a TV
antenna from a few modern parts.
The bendy arm astronauts - if you can't get the heads, it's no big deal.
The heads weren't used in the main model anyway. If you have to substitute
something else for the 2x2 brick that the bendy arms attached too, this is
o.k. too, as modern parts likely exist that would work just as well.
Hopefully the bendy arm hand and wrist molds still exist. ABSOLUTELY DO NOT
SUBSTITUTE MODERN FIGURES LIKE THE ONES IN TECHNIC! The astronauts should
be built from mostly basic bricks. That was one of the unique things about
this pre-minifig set.
Yellow ladder - just find a yellow ladder (or ladders attached together)
that looks similar. I was never too happy with the old ladder design
anyway. Mine broke (rungs pulled away from the side pieces).
Wheels and axle sets - just substitute something modern that looks good.
The wheels in this set didn't look to authentic anyway. Take a closer look
at a real lunar rover (US Smithsonian Air & Space Museum has one) and find
modern parts that look better.
Old style helicopter rotor - just substitute the modern version of this (as
was done in the Mania Magazine recently).
I feel this set is perfect for a Ledgends set. There are a minimum number
of "special" pieces to give you trouble with missing molds, and it really
lets the buyer build quite a massive model, with mostly bricks, plates, and
slopes.
Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> Something like the one in this set: <http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6457_2>?
That's it. Unfortunately, that appears to be a version you can't get in the
US. If you enter set 6457 into the LEGO S@H web site, you get this ugly thing:
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6457_1
> Steve (who woulda been *really* ecstatic if 6457 had included the female
> astronaut face) Bliss
I wish I could find version 2 of 6457. :-(
Jeff
|
|
| |
Jeff,
I have one of these in my collection and I have just been doing a bit of
digging around to see ehich set it came from.
There is one that is still current - 6458
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6458
I bought this from lego shop at home just over a month ago, so they may
still be available.
Richard.
"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@sdrc.com> wrote in message
news:GLtH31.2E6@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Steve Bliss writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> > Something like the one in this set: <http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6457_2>?
>
> That's it. Unfortunately, that appears to be a version you can't get in • the
> US. If you enter set 6457 into the LEGO S@H web site, you get this ugly • thing:
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/6457_1
>
> > Steve (who woulda been *really* ecstatic if 6457 had included the female
> > astronaut face) Bliss
>
> I wish I could find version 2 of 6457. :-(
>
> Jeff
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> > We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> > like to throw open to the community.
> >
> > The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> > cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> > still qualify as a Legend?
>
> If you want to go "way back" to a set that's mostly built of generic bricks,
> I'd highly suggest 565 Moon Landing.
I think this is at least the 2nd vote for this set, in response to the
original question. Anyone else want to jump in and support it?
http://guide.lugnet.com/set/565_1
I think this set would make a good reissue for several reasons:
1) It is historically significant. It represents a turning point in
history... a positive turning point.
2) It has some nationalistic overtones which might play well in the U.S.
However, don't forget that a number of the engineers at NASA at the time
were Canadians and also Germans.
3) It can't be stressed enough that this set represents good old fashioned
LEGO design using a ton of regular and sloped bricks and plates. But
generic parts, not specialized ones; parts that can be reused in many ways.
4) This set might look even better if updated using the newer grey bricks
that are available today.
Regards,
Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
> 2) It has some nationalistic overtones which might play well in the U.S.
> However, don't forget that a number of the engineers at NASA at the time
> were Canadians and also Germans.
They could include sticker flags for other countries. Lego is about
imagination. Let a kid have a Dutch moon landing, or whatever.
james
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
<snip>
> I think this is at least the 2nd vote for this set, in response to the
> original question. Anyone else want to jump in and support it?
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/565_1
Yes, I think this would make a great re-issue...and I love your idea of
re-releasing it in gray!! I would want it in gray more than the original in
blue.
--
Thomas Main
main@appstate.edu
>
> I think this set would make a good reissue for several reasons:
>
> 1) It is historically significant. It represents a turning point in
> history... a positive turning point.
>
> 2) It has some nationalistic overtones which might play well in the U.S.
> However, don't forget that a number of the engineers at NASA at the time
> were Canadians and also Germans.
>
> 3) It can't be stressed enough that this set represents good old fashioned
> LEGO design using a ton of regular and sloped bricks and plates. But
> generic parts, not specialized ones; parts that can be reused in many ways.
>
> 4) This set might look even better if updated using the newer grey bricks
> that are available today.
>
> Regards,
> Allan B.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Thomas Main writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
> <snip>
> > I think this is at least the 2nd vote for this set, in response to the
> > original question. Anyone else want to jump in and support it?
> >
> > http://guide.lugnet.com/set/565_1
>
> Yes, I think this would make a great re-issue...and I love your idea of
> re-releasing it in gray!! I would want it in gray more than the original in
> blue.
If you were going to bring out ONE set from the bighead era this would be my
vote.
However it's too old to be of interest from a parts perspective. It would
probably not make my top 10 most wanted list.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Kevin Salm writes:
> > Instead, I want to see NEW selections that are based upon
> > the spirit of old sets.
> > Why do this?? Why not!!
> > Re-issuing Lego sets and calling them Legends or Classics seems to
> > be taking the easy way out. I see no reason why today's Lego set
> > designers cannot create stimulating and appealing Lego sets based
> > upon the quality Lego sets of the past. But do not simply copy
> > them--make them even better!!!
>
> This is a bad idea. If you don't stay close enough to the original, AFOL's
> will not like the set. If you don't Juniorize some of these sets enough, it
> won't be cheap enough to sell to kids (with parents who aren't AFOL's) at
> your local TRU. Instead, these kids/parents will buy more Megablocks
> because they're buying more on price than quality.
>
> In the end, if you compromise too much, you'll make everyone unhappy. Kids
> today want flashy characters and sets, not "classic" designs with minifigs
> that have plain smiley faces. Ledgends are purchased primarily by AFOL's
> and changing the sets too much will upset them to the point that they won't
> buy the set.
I disagree with these arguments. If a product is good, people will buy it.
Keep in mind, also, that Lego Direct does not sell in normal retail channels.
They currently only sell via catalog for online or telephone ordering.
Your assumptions about who is buying Legends sets or what age group LegoDirect
is targeting are simply assumptions. That information is not available to us
and is not of importance here.
+++++++ EMPHASIS on this statement +++++++
Also, what kid today has any knowledge about what sets came out in the past?
If Lego makes changes to a particular set to make it better I doubt that many
kids will have even heard of or actually seen its predecessor that came out 15
years before they were born.
As a serious AFOL, I am with John Neal in saying that we want better sets.
Re-makes are not important to builders like us, what we want are __key
pieces__
in the correct colors. Personally, I am not the least bit interested in a
re-make if I can get something better instead. If it is better, then I might
buy 10 or 20 copies instead of 1 or 2.
To give you a specific example: item 10001 Metroliner re-issue.
I am glad that it was reissued because it will make thousands of people happy.
But I do not plan to buy any since I have enough originals. However, if it had
been modified and produced in White or Dark Gray instead of regular Gray, I
would have bought a dozen copies without blinking.
So, again, I want something better. Not re-makes of stuff we have already
seen
and I can buy elsewhere on the secondary market.
__Kevin Salm__
....Lego Brick enthusiast for over 20 years....
.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.lego.direct, Allan Bedford writes:
> In lugnet.lego.direct, Jeff Findley writes:
> > In lugnet.lego.direct, Brad Justus writes:
> > > We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> > > like to throw open to the community.
> > >
> > > The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> > > cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> > > still qualify as a Legend?
> >
> > If you want to go "way back" to a set that's mostly built of generic bricks,
> > I'd highly suggest 565 Moon Landing.
>
> I think this is at least the 2nd vote for this set, in response to the
> original question. Anyone else want to jump in and support it?
>
> http://guide.lugnet.com/set/565_1
I certainly had a lot of fun playing with mine growing up. This set probably
had the most play value of any that I got. I might even buy it again.
George
|
|
| |
Brad Justus wrote:
>
> We're having a debate here in the ABS-paved halls of LEGO Direct that I'd
> like to throw open to the community.
>
> The topic is: what makes a LEGO Legend a legend? Or, more precisely, if we
> cannot bring back a set precisely as it was (or pretty darn close), can it
> still qualify as a Legend?
What makes a legend a legend is the same as asking what makes a favorite
a favorite. Elements that answer this question have been posted:
> Eric Lanteigne: I would have to say that what made Lego such a great toy in the 80s was the
level of sophistication in the design. That sophistication is why you
have a
huge adult follow up these days.
> Steve Tanner: I agree with the majority here in saying that as long as the "tone" and
"feel" of the sets remains intact (without juniorization), then changing
out
of parts is fine.
> Richard Marchetti: To me the characteristics of a Legendary set would include excellent design
(a graceful and ingenious configuration of elements), unique elements
(elements rare in design), and useful elements (elements that probably
belong in accessory packs).
> Matthew Greene: A legend is a model that is unique in design (for the time period) and beggs
to be expanded, have a space port, castle village or town built around
it.
> Richard Moberg: From my little corner one of two things can make a legend:
1) The original 'model' was creative, imaginative and showed off what
you
can do with the parts included (Guarded Inn, Redbird Runner)
2) The original set contained enough variety and versatility in the
included
bricks that creativity wasn't too limited (Knight's Castle/Black Falcon
Fortress)
Elegance and sophistication (not juniorization) are the foundation to a
classic and a legend. And it must resonate with imagination and fantasy,
or include enough pieces that it can be made into the ship or castle
that one imagines.
> snip...
> So here's my question for you all: how much compromise can you live with?
> Should we just cross any older Town set off the consideration list because
> we can't use the metal-axle wheelsets? Are stickers ok? How many changes are
> allowed before it's not a Legend anymore? Where do you -- where should we --
> draw the line? Is the Legend in the spirit of the overall set or in the details?
My vote for a Legend is the Blacktron I sets. Great colors, excellent
design, but the modularity that allowed for different sets to be
effortlessly combined is unrivaled. I'm not fond of stickers, but modify
any Blacktron I set however you like so long as it's 95% as it was
originally
>
> Next year, we hope to give you at least one opportunity to vote -- from a
> short list of candidates -- for the Legend set you'd like to see us make.
> When we post the contenders we'll be specific about any changes we'll have
> to make from the original. But it would be incredibly helpful to us now to
> know how far we can go with those changes.
You won't make everyone happy, but it's nice to know you're trying. We
can't go home to 1975. But, get us as close to that as you can, and most
of us will be happy. Make whatever changes needed to be made.
Why "ruin the mystery" with a vote on the candidates? Ask for people to
give a list of their top 5 favorites they'd like to see re-issued with a
short reason why. Compare the posts with the candidates on your list,
and announce the winners when you're ready to ship the sets. People
whose favorites were a candidate could be very disappointed if their set
isn't reissued. Just a thought.
Mark K.
>
> We've received great input from the community here, and from many of you
> individually, on the direction we're taking with products coming from LEGO
> Direct. We need some of that input now. Please help us make next year's
> Legends everything you want them to be.
>
> Thanks in advance for your help.
>
> Play Well!
>
> -- Brad
>
> Brad Justus
> Senior Vice President, LEGO Direct
|
|
|
