Alexandrina

I don't remember using the word "fact" anywhere, tbh, and I thought it was fairly obvious I was giving an opinion. And honestly the main thrust of my comment was more that it's entirely possible to do Mara in new canon (and therefore bring Mara to Lego)

IIRC Mara was at least to a certain extent controlled by Palpatine during his lifetime - it was why his death was so traumatic for her, as the link was broken. (And why she hates Luke to begin with, as she inherited Palpatine's hatred) I don't remember controversy when Luke appeared in The Mandalorian. If anything it was the opposite. So long as Mark Hamill's likeness was used with his blessing, I don't see why it would need to be an issue (and it would be counteracted by the hype of Mara Jade). A recast is more likely though if they need a full cast - and they've already done Han and Lando, as you say. There was a bit of gurning when it was announced but people got over it. Honestly there are plenty of great stories you could do with Mara, and it would be easy enough to contrive a way to have her alongside Rey in the NJO trilogy too if Disney wanted to go that route. I just hope she doesn't make her triumphant appearance in something with Filoni's hands on it - he's demonstrated that he's incapable of doing justice to characters that aren't his own babies, and I'm not sure he's capable of writing a good story either (certainly he has a terrible track record of Star Wars projects). I wonder if there's the possibility for a spin-off "what could have been" series pulling from Legends, so we can get not only Mara but Jaina Solo as well

Maybe that's where I'm standing out then. I'm honestly not super-fussed about the machines, it's the minifigures (and the potential for locations) that appeal to me. When I got my Tallneck set, I cracked it open straight away to get Aloy built. It's been nearly two years and I still haven't finished the Tallneck itself.

I'm beginning to feel like I'm the only person who saw the machines as an added distraction in the game, and a necessity for gameplay purposes, rather than the main draw. I was much more invested in the characters and the post-Zero Dawn world

I don't think this is the case at all - certainly, in the recent Castle sets there have been plenty of female minifigures in 'traditional' roles in addition to the female knights. With Pirates, I think it's more a combination of Lego's new policy of broad gender equality within their own IPs (which is a vast improvement on the era of one female character per theme, if that) and there not being many interesting 'traditional' roles for women that fit with the recent sets while also being appropriate. The only missed opportunity was for a Governor's daughter/Camilla Broadside figure in Eldorado Fortress. You'd be hard pressed to find fault with the Barracuda Bay figures, and innkeepers and such don't really fit in Eldorado Fortress. They'd be a great addition if we had an Imperial Trading Post remake, though. (When it comes to CMF, it's more up for debate, but I definitely don't think most 'traditional' female roles are compelling for a minifigure on its own, in the same way as a generic male peasant/merchant probably wouldn't be. Great as part of a set - but not going to sell much as a standalone thing. You're inherently going to get more female CMFs in ahistorical roles because CMFs skew towards more exciting archetypes, which were historically primarily off-limits to women)

Based purely on wants not what's rumoured: Andor, Sequel Trilogy, OT. I don't really have any interest in Clone Wars sets or anything from animated properties, and probably wouldn't buy them. Unless it's got Kit Fisto in it. Then I'd be buying day one.

So long as it's in a set devoted to that IP. It would be really annoying to miss out on getting important Horizon characters in the Horizon sets because we instead get a character from a different IP - I'd be irritated if he turned up in a Horizon set before we get at least the likes of Rost/Sylens Maybe a video-game heroes CMF could be a thing? (Or even limiting it to a single console?) That way they could pop out figs for a lot of desirable characters unlikely to get sets of their own

I don't know if they got more generous in the mid-2010s, but they were very stingy with most sets in the mid-late 2000s (battlepacks and expensive sets aside). A lot of the sets on the shelves when I was getting into Star Wars Lego were £40 or £50 for either one minifigure or if you were lucky two copies of a generic minifigure

Yes! Varl! Hopefully this is just a taste of what's to come. At the very least we need Sylens and Erend figures (and Blameless Marad because he has the coolest name in all fiction). I wouldn't be opposed to a Petra figure too but that might be getting a little too into the weeds for Lego themes not called Star Wars

You wanna use some of that reality power to manifest a canon Mara Jade?

I don't think this is necessarily true or fair. All the Lego animals, even the more modern ones, have always retained a distinct unreal element; they're a cartoonised version of the real thing, and preferring them over older styles doesn't necessarily mean you want minifigures to resemble human beings even more through noses and ears. In fact I'd go so far as to say your observations on Lego's design language are insufficient to explain the gap between old and new animals. The main classic animals, Belville aside, are the dragon, monkey, horse, shark and alligator. Three of these are still used today with only minor changes - a properly-posed horse from the current sets is hard to distinguish in silhouette from a 1980s-era horse, for example - and they don't really look out of place next to more modern introductions. If you're referring to Lego generally, rather than just animals, then I'd disagree even more (or at least argue that it's a point entirely separate to the matter of the dragon design). Curved panels and slopes started to appear in the very early 1990s, and specialised panels and the like go back even further. Nostalgia aside, there's not much inherent difference between 6091 and 3563, for instance, as concerns their relationship to the original vintage of Lego parts - just as there's not much inherent difference between the horse or the dragon and something like the sheep. It's perfectly reasonable to trace the lineage of early part designs to Lego's origins as a wood-toy manufacturer, but even by the beginning of their 'classic' age they'd moved away from that to a design language that is uniquely Lego. If you're hankering for an age before this more sleek aesthetic to parts, you're hankering for an age before moulded animals were even a thing.

They all look the same colour to me. Minor variations, sure, but any given piece I'd say is bright light yellow, and I can't see a distinct enough difference between any two to counter my instincts. It's certainly not light yellow. That would be far more immediately obvious.

To be fair, Endor Leia was a decent inclusion in last year's calendar. Every now and then we get a good pick

They're already doing that in some cases but it's not the same imo. For me at least the appeal of old sets is specifically the old parts that you can't get any more except on the second-hand market - if I'm getting a modern set I'd rather they didn't limit themselves to the silhouette of an old set

Was it actually retired in the way the mid-2000s colours were (as in, straight up not an option for inclusion in any sets going forward) or just discouraged from use? There's still a handful of TNG parts kicking about on Pick a Brick so at the very least they must still have some access to the colour (And it wouldn't be the first time a colour has been brought back from retirement either. Let Dark Turquoise be a shining example of what could be)