Licensed Sets LEGO Missed the Ball On/Never Made

[adotnamedstud]

Woah, my thread got bumped.

Awesome to hear all about these sets that could've been better.

I believe the Gorilla Grodd goes Bananas set was fairly wasted by over-Batmanning it. I'd like to imagine we'd see WW and Flash teaming up to take on Cold and Grodd with perhaps a decent sized playset build. The banana truck and the Bat-mech took up way too many parts. And Grodd was very underwhelming. I'd like to imagine a park with a huge device in the middle for Grodd that shoot spring missiles into the air. That'd be cool. It would also give Flash a purpose to be there as the set was set up to be more of Batman saves the day. Which shouldn't be the basis of every set.

[Still Raindrop]

Four words: Avatar: the Last Airbender. What a hot mess that line was. It was instrumental in getting me back into LEGO because I loved the show, but in retrospect I can see just how badly they skimped on production--only two sets and one new mold (Momo the lemur), dismal minifig numbers... Even just drawing from Season 1 of the series, we should have had a buildable Appa. We should have had a set taking place in a polar environment--the season both begins and ends at one of the poles. We should have had Uncle Iroh and Admiral Zhao minifigs. We should have had molded pieces to represent Katara's waterbending and Sokka's boomerang. We should not have had an Air Temple with a hidden armory full of swords--the Airbenders were pacifists!

If they had put just a little more effort into faithfully recreating the best moments of the series, the line might have done much better and could have moved on to Season 2, which is where, for my money, things really picked up.

I agree. I only got into Avatar recently, and was disappointed when I saw Lego's two sets (which came out during my Dark Age). I posted a little earlier in this thread, but I absolutely agree: more sets and better representations of not only characters, but also environments (an igloo, perhaps, a buildable Appa, some other small buildings, etc.) might have made the line a huge success. And a good Uncle Iroh minifigure would have been amazing--Iroh is my hero.

[DJ Bricks]

I agree. I only got into Avatar recently, and was disappointed when I saw Lego's two sets (which came out during my Dark Age). I posted a little earlier in this thread, but I absolutely agree: more sets and better representations of not only characters, but also environments (an igloo, perhaps, a buildable Appa, some other small buildings, etc.) might have made the line a huge success. And a good Uncle Iroh minifigure would have been amazing--Iroh is my hero.

Well, SpongeBob and Avatar sets came out at the same to see which would sell better. SB won, due to the shows better popularity having a couple seasons under its belt, Avatar was barely through its first season

[fred67]

Maybe the timing was wrong for Avatar. It might have been revisited if the movie wasn't terrible (it actually wasn't all that bad, IMO, but apparently it didn't do all that well, either).

I didn't get the sets, but I wish I had.

[Still Raindrop]

Maybe the timing was wrong for Avatar. It might have been revisited if the movie wasn't terrible (it actually wasn't all that bad, IMO, but apparently it didn't do all that well, either).

I didn't get the sets, but I wish I had.

I think the timing was wrong in all kinds of ways. Not only was the show just starting (so they didn't have as many things/characters to draw on as they might have later, not was the adult and kid fanbase as big), but Lego was starting to get out of a bad place financially (Jørgen Vig Knudstorp had just become CEO), so they probably weren't willing to risk a lot on a brand new licensed property that didn't have the proven popularity of Star Wars or Harry Potter. Moreover, their minifigures weren't as sophisticated yet, so the character likenesses were a bit "off" in ways that could be easily fixed nowadays (like giving Aurra Sing's hair to Book 1-era Zuko and making a few new molds). By the time that they could have done ATLA justice, it had already been a failed line, and they may have thought that its time had passed.

[Blondie-Wan]

As far as dropping the ball on themes they've had, I'm disappointed Indiana Jones didn't get one more year of sets to really round out the remaining action scenes in the movies. Once again I think some of the blame goes to Prince of Persia, whose deserty adventurer premise overlaps a little to much with Indy and forced it to come to an end prematurely. Two of the four Indy movies (Raiders and Crusade, which happen to be the two best movies) never even got their respective climaxes made into Lego sets. And if Lego would've allowed it, the Mark VIII tank from Last Crusade could have easily been one of the coolest licensed Lego sets ever. Given that they actually made a Nazi fighter plane in set 7198, as well as many fictionalized tanks in other themes, making a World War I tank belonging to Hatay would not be any worse, in my opinion of course.

While I don't know that I'd say they dropped the ball, exactly, I certainly would have liked to have seen another year's worth of sets - or better yet, two, since that would have let them have a big finish for the franchise's 30th anniversary. I do find it particularly vexing that they never produced a single minifigure of Sallah, Marcus, Katanga, Mac, Ox, Toht, Donovan, Chattar Lal, or so many others. I would also dearly love for them to have made sets based on the TV series, though I understand that might not have been a realistic hope. They still could have been great sets, though.

Eventually, of course, there will be another Indiana Jones movie - most likely a reboot, alas, but though I'm not keen to see the series rebooted just yet, I do have to say I'd like to get the inevitable LEGO sets, even if they're all reboot-based, as I'm sure I'll be able to utilize aspects of them for classic Indy MOCs (and of course, if we get a non-reboot movie, that would just be glorious).

And for themes they should be doing but don't have the means to do so at the moment, they definitely need to tap into Nintendo at some point. Lego has crossed over with film and TV many times, but thus far they've barely touched video games. We have the Minecraft theme which is pretty straightforward and open-ended, and we've gotten a few sets based on The Force Unleashed and The Old Republic, but basically nothing else. Nintendo would give them access to a huge number of subthemes popular with kids, which could easily be mashed together officially or unofficially as Super Smash Bros. The point is that they wouldn't have to worry about the respective subthemes clashing because Nintendo already makes them work together seamlessly. Individually though, the subtheme possibilities are richer than Marvel or DC could ever hope to be. Mario, Mario Kart, Donkey Kong, Zelda, Metroid, Pokemon, Starfox, Kirby, as well as franchises probably good enough for a one-off set like F-Zero and Kid Icarus. If anyone has been following the Amiibo craze since November, you'll know that Nintendo fans are absolutely rabid about collecting toys of their favorite characters. So not only would this be popular with kids, but it would be huge with TFOLs and AFOLs as well. So I really think Lego partnering with Nintendo would be one of the last great frontiers that Lego needs to conquer from a licensing standpoint.

They may not have much choice in the matter, of course, as it's dependent upon what Nintendo wants to do. And now that there'll be a certain degree of competition between them because of Amiibo and LEGO Dimensions, it may be less likely than before.

Edited August 14, 2015 by Blondie-Wan

[Karalora]

Eventually, of course, there will be another Indiana Jones movie - most likely a reboot, alas, but though I'm not keen to see the series rebooted just yet, I do have to say I'd like to get the inevitable LEGO sets, even if they're all reboot-based, as I'm sure I'll be able to utilize aspects of them for classic Indy MOCs (and of course, if we get a non-reboot movie, that would just be glorious).

If I may digress here for a moment, I have to say that Indy is one of the few big geek franchises that I think would handle being rebooted quite well. A large part of what irks long-term fans about reboots is the implication that the original continuity which they loved is being overwritten. Did you like idealistic, brightly-colored Superman and want to see more of his exploits? Too bad for you, the Man of Steel version is the "real" one now.

But Indiana Jones didn't have much continuity to begin with. The original trilogy went story-prequel-sequel, demonstrating that it really doesn't matter which order you watch them in. Each one is self-contained; there is no overarching plot connecting them beyond "Archaeologist goes on globe-trotting adventures in the 1930s, fights Nazis, encounters divinely powered artifacts." Any new scripts could be framed as episodes of Indy's life we didn't see during the first go-around, taking place in and around the ones we did, neither contradicting them nor relying on our knowledge of them to make sense. Harrison Ford is too damn old for the role now (unless you want more 1950s Communists-aliens-and-nuclear-terror hijinkery), but there's probably a youngish actor who could do justice to Indy.

So yeah...Indiana Jones "reboot"? Bring it on!

[fred67]

Digression continued.... I don't mind reboots - Batman Begins was as reboot and it was fantastic; The Amazing Spiderman was a reboot, and it was fantastic. They were different than, but just as good (or better) than the previous versions.

At the same time, some reboots are absolutely horrible. I loved Conan the Barbarian, but the reboot was terrible, ruining any chance of getting more of them. Now, while I haven't seen it, the Fantastic Four reboot seems to have been pretty bad, too, so you're not likely to see more FF anytime soon.

So I think the complaint is more along the lines of that people are tired of seeing Hollywood not having original ideas, so they steal from the past and, too often, screw it up. It still seems like a lot of production companies want to take the old license and spruce it up with newer and better special effects because they can and, just like "original" stories, think the special effects is what people want. We can make fun of Ed Wood all we want, but I'd rather have a good story with bad special effects than the other way around (of course, Ed Wood had neither, but he insisted the effects didn't matter if the story was compelling).

I won't mind an Indiana Jones reboot if they don't screw it up...

Digression over, but on the same topic, it would be a chance for LEGO to do some decent IJ sets that they either never did, or didn't do a good job with in the past. If half the sets have to be for the new movie, then the other half would have to be for the old ones - a golden opportunity.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen with a reboot - they'd only release new sets for the older movies if it was a sequel, because the license holder wouldn't want to remind people of the older ones. Believe me, they don't want the "current" generation of kids watching Raiders and then inevitably comparing it to the reboot, so they don't want to remind people of the older movies.

EDIT: I want to add they could do IJ the way they used to do James Bond. It wouldn't really matter who the actors were. Unfortunately, while I like Daniel Craig a LOT as James Bond, the movies he's been in have had a lot more continuity between them. That screws up the formula.

Edited August 15, 2015 by fred67

[Blondie-Wan]

If I may digress here for a moment, I have to say that Indy is one of the few big geek franchises that I think would handle being rebooted quite well. A large part of what irks long-term fans about reboots is the implication that the original continuity which they loved is being overwritten. Did you like idealistic, brightly-colored Superman and want to see more of his exploits? Too bad for you, the Man of Steel version is the "real" one now.

But Indiana Jones didn't have much continuity to begin with. The original trilogy went story-prequel-sequel, demonstrating that it really doesn't matter which order you watch them in. Each one is self-contained; there is no overarching plot connecting them beyond "Archaeologist goes on globe-trotting adventures in the 1930s, fights Nazis, encounters divinely powered artifacts." Any new scripts could be framed as episodes of Indy's life we didn't see during the first go-around, taking place in and around the ones we did, neither contradicting them nor relying on our knowledge of them to make sense. Harrison Ford is too damn old for the role now (unless you want more 1950s Communists-aliens-and-nuclear-terror hijinkery), but there's probably a youngish actor who could do justice to Indy.

So yeah...Indiana Jones "reboot"? Bring it on!

That all might have been true at one time, but ceased to be with The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, which expanded upon the framework established by three episodic individual adventures and made them chapters in a more developed, ongoing screen biography of sorts. The franchise gained immeasurably from it. A reboot might work with the extant features alone, but would it preserve the more subtly nuanced continuity established by the show? And even if so, assuming it had a actor taking over the role at a point in Indy's life in the "high adventure era" covered by the original three, it would mean that if one watched everything in internal chronological order, there'd be a point in which the actor keeps changing from movie to movie between Harrison Ford and some other guy. Right now, Corey Carrier, River Phoenix, Sean Patrick Flanery, Harrison Ford, and George Hall each cover the character in a specific age range and time frame. Doing new movies in the '30s would disrupt that.

Moreover, for the purposes of filling in the major details of the life of this remarkable individual, another 1930s adventure isn't needed nearly as much as one set a good while later. Harrison's current age range of 36 to 58 isn't even the oldest at which the character has been portrayed; that honor goes to George Hall, whose appearances as a 93-year-old Indy established that he had at least one particularly harrowing adventure later in life that we still know nothing about. I for one would really like to see that, and the big gap from 1958 to 1992 is also still the longest unexplored gap in his bio. I'd really like at least one more movie to fill in that gap, if only just a bit.

One more movie with Harrison at any age will always have a particular, unique appeal that no movie with someone else in the role will have anyway, but to state the obvious, they can only do it if they do it. A reboot (or even a "soft" reboot, with a younger actor but still in continuity) can always happen at any time, and indeed can and probably will happen more than once from here on into the future. But if there is to be any more Indy with Harrison in the role, ever, it should be the next one, since there'll undoubtedly be no going back once someone new has taken over. In other words, the film(s) you want *will* happen, sooner or later, no matter what, regardless of whether the one I want happens first. But the one I (and others) want can only happen before that; once they go to one without Harrison, there'll be no going back. Why not have one last one with the actor who most embodies the character, while we still can?

Digression over, but on the same topic, it would be a chance for LEGO to do some decent IJ sets that they either never did, or didn't do a good job with in the past. If half the sets have to be for the new movie, then the other half would have to be for the old ones - a golden opportunity.

Unfortunately, I don't think it will happen with a reboot - they'd only release new sets for the older movies if it was a sequel, because the license holder wouldn't want to remind people of the older ones. Believe me, they don't want the "current" generation of kids watching Raiders and then inevitably comparing it to the reboot, so they don't want to remind people of the older movies.

That's another thing I'm thinking. While it's far from the most important consideration with any new Indy movie for me, I don't know that we'd get all the LEGO sets we'd want with a reboot. Heck, we didn't get new sets representing any of the older Jurassic Park movies with the current film and theme, even though it's still in continuity with at least the original. I fear that if Indy were rebooted, it might diminish the chances of getting more sets from the four extant films, to say nothing of the TV series.

EDIT: I want to add they could do IJ the way they used to do James Bond. It wouldn't really matter who the actors were. Unfortunately, while I like Daniel Craig a LOT as James Bond, the movies he's been in have had a lot more continuity between them. That screws up the formula.

Well, as noted, there's a lot more continuity to the Indy series than many realize, and has been for a long time. In fact, he's always had a more "nailed down" continuity than Bond, whose adventures prior to the Craig reboot always took place in something like the "present day" (at the time of the film's release), yet essentially kept the character from aging by constantly recasting, putting the series in this sort of weird "floating time" chronology not unlike a lot of comics. Indy's adventures, on the other hand, have always been specifically dated with at least the year, and have taken place at specific points in time throughout the 20th century; we even have his exact birthdate (July 1st, 1899) and everything, and his adventures reflect his maturation and progression through life.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Blondie-Wan

[Blondie-Wan]

(d/p)

Edited August 15, 2015 by Blondie-Wan

[Karalora]

With all due respect to those who followed the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, I doubt it's very high on the radar of the mainstream moviegoing public. Making sure new movies harmonize with that content would likely be more trouble than it's worth.

As for this...

if one watched everything in internal chronological order

By my reckoning, if you even bother to do that, you're already assigning the internal chronology more importance than the movies warrant. Indy's cinematic adventures, like those of the pulp heroes whose tradition he inherits, are episodic. It literally doesn't matter whether Temple happens before or after Raiders. Raiders introduced audiences to the character, but it was by no means an "origin story"...but neither was Temple. Apart from the Young Indy series--which, again, not everyone who enjoys the movies is familiar with--Indy doesn't have an origin story. Nor, in my opinion, does he need one. He doesn't need a fixed chronology. It's perfectly acceptable to me if they slap dates on his adventures without regard for whether such a timeline could be internally consistent. It elevates the whole enterprise to a mythic status.

[Blondie-Wan]

I respectfully disagree. I fully realize not everyone shares my appraisal, but to many of those of us who are really big fans of the character, this stuff is important, while the general masses who just want an adventure lose nothing if continuity is maintained. But those of us who do care do lose something if it isn't.

Moreover, what you're calling for will happen eventually, whether I like it or not, and I acknowledge that. The issue is that there's still room and time for a bit more with Harrison before that happens, and I for one would like to see that, but once the reboot comes that'll be it, and I'd hate to see the opportunity for one more "original" Indy passed up, never to return.

Anyway, we're getting a bit away from LEGO-related discussion, so to bring it back a bit before the mods step in and do it for us, I'll just note that having another movie that continued the existing series would be more likely to help us "complete" the theme than a reboot, which would probably leave us with something more like two incomplete LEGO themes based around the property.

Edited August 15, 2015 by Blondie-Wan

[lifeinplastic]

No torsos representing Ravenclaw & Hufflepuff was a let down.

[Iam epic]

LEGO missed an opportunity to get a Second Jurassic World wave in production, and maybe even do a throwback wave of sets based on the first film(s). The Videogame saw new Dinosaurs designed with real-LEGO applicability in mind, and saw all the vehicles represented in an appropriate scale, with many of the models in the game being aesthetically pleasing too - not to mention all the character models. LEGO could've tweaked this in-game material for real world sets, but instead, it just stinks of wasted material and wasted opportunity.

Agreed. Where is Lego going to make a Mosasaur figure? I also agree with the fact that Lego should have done better with Iron man 3. Lego should do more indiana jones sets in the future since there is talk of a reboot starring Chris Pratt. Speaking of Chris Pratt, I wish Lego had made more GOTG sets . A Yondu and collector minifies would have been nice.

[adotnamedstud]

In light of buying some classic Batman I remembered that the Lex Luthor Mech had a totally different torso than what we got in the instructions graphics for Batman.

Kinda sad we never got this. I really like the torso, it's not a copy of anything either, by looking at the belt design it seems to have been a final design.

[Blondie-Wan]

Agreed. Where is Lego going to make a Mosasaur figure? I also agree with the fact that Lego should have done better with Iron man 3. Lego should do more indiana jones sets in the future since there is talk of a reboot starring Chris Pratt. Speaking of Chris Pratt, I wish Lego had made more GOTG sets . A Yondu and collector minifies would have been nice.

They actually made a Mosasaurus as part of the Dinosaurs theme in 2001.

While I'm not crazy about rebooting Indiana Jones just yet, I do think it'll happen eventually - with or without Pratt, and with or without doing one more movie or so in the classic continuity (for me, hopefully with), and however the franchise goes on I'm sure it'll be accompanied by LEGO sets. Whether they include new sets based on anything that's gone before might hinge upon whether the new movie(s) is/are reboots, though, though even that's not certain.

They did in fact release a minifigure of The Collector, but it was an SDCC exclusive, so it's quite rare, unfortunately.

[Venunder]

I will just say Lord of the Rings. The ball was dropped over the edge of a cliff and TLG never recovered it.

Everything you need to know is here:-

http://www.eurobricks.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=78687

[AFOLguy1970]

I will just say Lord of the Rings. The ball was dropped over the edge of a cliff and TLG never recovered it.

Everything you need to know is here:-

http://www.eurobrick...showtopic=78687

The problem with LOTR is fairly obvious to anyone who looks at the LOTR pinned thread on the History board. To those who are unfamiliar with the trilogy, I will sum it up in a nutshell. Imagine the most epic battle and one of the most important factions of a fantasy theme trilogy being completely omitted. Imagine the most powerful creature in the first movie and an incredible scene being completely overlooked. Also, try to imagine the key villian and his primary lieutenant not making the cut either. Then, imagine having the two biggest slots in a release of four sets being based on extended edition scenes. The movie features armies and epic battles, yet we get only one battle pack which does not feature the main body of the main "bad guy" army. The good guys feature a named character and the only unnamed good guy soldier in the trilogy. In a theme made for battle packs, that was the only one, and it retailed at $30. This is what we got.

[Ashnflash]

LEGO dropped the ball with not releasing pictures of Doctor Who yesterday...

I miss LOTR hopefully LEGO will smarten up and do more with it if it does well in Dimensions!

Edited September 2, 2015 by Ashnflash

[Zilcho]

Speaking of Chris Pratt, I wish Lego had made more GOTG sets . A Yondu and collector minifies would have been nice.

That would have been nice but I don't blame Lego. No-one knew GotG would do so well until it was released, so releasing even 3 sets was a bit of a risk.

[adotnamedstud]

LEGO dropped the ball with not releasing pictures of Doctor Who yesterday...

A rumored reveal's date hasn't got anything to do with the set.

With all the LotR complaints, I agree. I've been slowly becoming a fan and would love to see more. There's still a lot of things from every movie they could still cover. Which is sad because the better things are the ones they left out. Maybe we'll get lucky.

Edited September 3, 2015 by (Nexus)