In the good ol' days, when LEGO always had an ongoing casle theme available, they seemed to alternate between fantasy and realistic-ish subthemes.

Overview of fantasy in past Castle themes:

• The 'post-classic' or 'modern' castle era as I'd call it began with 2000's Knights kingdom 1. This theme was mostly realistic, with the castles, armour and siege weapons being inspired by realistic historical ones. However, one set sneaked in a fantastic element: 4818: Dragon Rider, which appropriately with its name included a black dragon (the 90's version). So in conclusion, it was realistic with just a touch of fantasy here and there.

• Our next theme, 2004's Knights kingdom 2, was all about the fantasy. With the main heroes being color-coded knights, the evil Vladek using magic to control the kingdom and fight the heroes in their quest to retrieve a magical MacGuffin, there was no doubt LEGO took the fantasy approach. The theme lasted until 2006, but never saw the inclusion of dragons, ghosts or classic wizards.
• 2007's Fantasy era was where things finally blew out of the roof! Wizards, Dragons, resurrected skeleton army, trolls, orcs, dwarves - we got em' all! What I find important to note for this topic however, is the birth of the modern LEGO moulded dragon pieces, also known as "version 2" included in three sets. This will be important soon.

  

• 2010's Kingdoms was when things shifted back to realistic. I will expand on this later. For now, let's just leave it at that: there were no fantastic elements present in this theme's two years run.
• 2013 was the return of Fantasy era. Or rather, was it? If we take a closer look on the sets, we will find only one set to contain non-realistic elements, being 70403 Dragon Mountain, which contained the Evil Wizard and the updated Version 2 Dragon. What was updated exactly? Mostly the prints, but one mould was completely new: piece 6039910, the lower jaw. If I am correct, this is more significant than what meets the eye at first!

 

 

So why would I even think we could have gotten a Dragon in 2010? Wasn't the theme realistic?

yes, it was realistic, but one set broke the rules; set 7955: Wizard - which contained a wizard, a baby dragon and one peculiar printed tile that says 'You are far more powerfull than you would ever imagine...' but! If we look at earlier promotional pictures, the same printed tile used to say 'There is no danger greater than the evil Dragons". The piece was physically produced and not rendered with software, I should note. Why would LEGO double back on the original writing? Here's the bottom line: I believe they planned this theme to contain a green Dragon in one of the sets, but a shift in their part connection philosophy made that impossible.

 

 

The classic Dragon Fire piece, and the modernization of LEGO's part inventory:

Ah. The memories. Every 90's kid who loved LEGO knew the joy of getting one of these in a set. It was such a cool piece, and the idea of being able to represent "fire" in a toy is useful. Originally, it was introduced in 1993 not just as any fire, but as Dragon fire. The base pins (the two narrow bars sticking from the sides) were used to lock the flame piece in place inside the mouth of the nostalgic 90's dragons.

I want to note that the piece was secured exclusively by the grace of those base pins, and not by the standard-sized bar the the bottom. This was simply because LEGO couldn't figure out a design for the lower jaw piece that would allow them to stick something bar sized in (and still allow the mouth to open and close), so they solved the problem by making the flame piece compatiable instead. A smart decision that made a lot of sense in the 90's, a time when there were very few specialized pieces and LEGO couldn't yet predict how ridiculisly complex their part inventory and connection system will become in the next two decades.

Those base pins, unfortunately, were too fragile for two reasons:

1. the shape itself is prone to breaking for it's geometry
2. the material used for transparent pieces is softer in it's nature, adding to the problem

despite those facts, LEGO kept using this piece for many years to come. Until 2008, besides the old Dragons no other build utilized the base pins (as far as I know at least), but they still kept the design the same for backwards compatibility. That was until - you guessed it right - the year 2008 with the introduction of version 2 Dragons, and specifically - their lower jaw:

These pieces not only utilized the base pins, but went as far as to have a narrow gap through which only the traditional fire piece could fit. This means the gap was not bar sized, or any other standard lego size either; it was a specific modification made to fit a certain piece.

However, after the awkwardness and brink of bankrupcy of the early 2000's, around late 2008 LEGO finally started to re-define their identity and part roster; They sought to get rid of old depricated pieces and connections and replace them with better versions, and the fire piece was one of the first to be updated since it was so common. And there we have it, the new fire piece. Isn't it beautiful?

 

 

This piece was first intoduced in one set in 2008, but it wasn't until 2010 that the old piece was fully discontinued.

Finally, to the bottom line!

This is mere speculation, and can only be confirmed or denied by inside knowledge from within LEGO. But! I believe that they wanted to include a green dragon in one of Kingdoms sets (thus making one set fantasy based) but just couldn't because of that change. Throughout the 2010 Kingdoms line, only the newer version was used, showing that LEGO already decided to commit to the change by then.

Thae new fire piece couldn't be connected to the existing Dragon jaw, and ultimately required LEGO to introduce a new piece that could recieve a standard-sized bar, which wouldn't be made until 2013. I imagine such piece would have relatively low priority, since it is extremely specific and required printing for the teeth (thus increasing the production complexity).

So I believe one of the following scenerios happened:

1.  LEGO originally planned to include a green Dragon but couldn't so they gave up on it. Or:
2.  LEGO knew from ahead of time they couldn't make a Dragon and decided to make the theme realistic to begin with.

It was only with 2013's Castle that we finally got our latest version of an original LEGO dragon (Smaug does not count for this discussion since he is licensed. Plus he is a wyvern not a dragon!  ) along with a new, larger and more sturdy fire piece to accompany him:

(Note that the bar at the end is longer, which helps a lot and prevents the piece from falling out all the time - this is with conjunction to LEGO's new design philosophy which allows no flimsy connections).

So, there you have it. This took me very long to write, and I hope someone can find this interesting. I could be entirely wrong with the green 2010 dragon, but the "history lesson" about the pieces is at least correct so this article does have some value even if so.

That's it! goodbye for now!

 

 

Edited November 10, 20204 yr by HappyAFOL

Wow... what an interesting choice for your first post!  I did find that quite interesting and enjoy things like this, connecting obscure bits of history and lore.  I don't know if I agree with you (since there are other solutions besides just not making a dragon, plus the dragon doesn't need to breath fire at all), but putting those pieces together (pun intended) does make it a pretty interesting theory.  

16 minutes ago, deraven said:

Wow... what an interesting choice for your first post!  I did find that quite interesting and enjoy things like this, connecting obscure bits of history and lore.  I don't know if I agree with you (since there are other solutions besides just not making a dragon, plus the dragon doesn't need to breath fire at all), but putting those pieces together (pun intended) does make it a pretty interesting theory.  

Thanks I enjoyed writing that alot and I'm glad I could share this with everybody! And yeah, LEGO could simply decide to omit the fire breath feature, but I find that to be uncharacteristic for them;

I think audiences could be disappointed by the downgrade (kids and AFOLs alike), and from toy design perspective having a fire breath adds a lot to playability. There are also low-key factors that most of us would not even consider: LEGO likes to spice up fire effects on their box arts because light tends to draw attention quite well (video game designers know that as well).

They could of course just use the older piece and be done with that, but LEGO really stepped up in the last 15 or so years and they take their part design philosophy very seriously. You may see quality issues nowdays, and some poor design choices with some sets, but the way they manage their inventory is still top notch; they are not afraid to retire older pieces for good even it that means their set designers have to accommodate to the restrictions.

An alternative view is that the Green Dragons (and the picture on the tile) refers to the army.

Wow, your first post is very interesting and enjoyable to read! I like it how you put history/information together and present a theory with us here. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us!

By the way, welcome to Eurobricks! :) 

Neat.

I was super excited to read this post. I dig analytical work and this is a cool theory. Kingdoms is a really solid line, and I dig its more grounded medieval setting, but it certainly would have been neat. I owned 7955, but never thought much about the baby dragon piece that was included in it. The change in the text on the tile piece is super interesting, too. I think you might be on to something regarding the green dragon.

Awesome stuff.

Welcome to the boards! This is an interesting topic for your first post. We'll probably never know the answer but it's fun to speculate. Personally, I don't get why they went through the hassle of designing a similar, but inferior line in 2013 to replace Kingdoms. There was a brief moment when people thought Kingdoms was coming back instead of being replaced, which would have made more sense, and that red dragon could have been a green one just as easily.

On 11/10/2020 at 5:43 PM, MAB said:

An alternative view is that the Green Dragons (and the picture on the tile) refers to the army.

Given that he's a wizard, an old scroll referring to a modern army doesn't really work. There's even a baby dragon in the set 

Edited November 11, 20204 yr by BrickJagger

11 hours ago, BrickJagger said:

 

Given that he's a wizard, an old scroll referring to a modern army doesn't really work. There's even a baby dragon in the set 

It is a fantasy army with a fantasy wizard. There isn't anything modern about it. Yes, the wizard has a baby dragon. Is it a mascot. Is it real?

was the green dragon from fanatasy maybe not ment to be used for kingdoms ?

Personally I always viewed the "baby dragon" in the Wizard set as a taxidermied fake, the kind of oddity or hoax you might see a wizard use to impress or astound guests.