NEW Official Pirate Minifigure Pictures?

[Norrington]

lots of sets had back walls. Just about all ships had a complete cabin (besides the Imperial ships and the RBR).

Eldorado Fortress had back walls. They weren't walls, more two-brick high walls with arches. Same goes for the small room with a tower. I can't say for the Imperial Trading Post, as I never owned it, but from the instructions, most walls were complete.

[Eilif]

As to the price situation, look up the original retail prices that 80s era sets sold for and adjust for inflation, factoring in piece count. You'll discover something surprising if you do: LEGO isn't any more expensive now than it ever was, and in some cases it's cheaper, even with licensing costs. It's scary if you do the math.

Even though this is getting a bit off topic, I wanted to add that I'm right there with you. Yes, prices have seemed to go up a bit (PAB cups in LEGO stores went from 13-15$ this year) but when prices and piece counts are compared and adjusted for inflation, the resuts are quite startling. We are getting sets with more pieces, and paying less cash than almost any time in LEGO history.

As for the suggestion that folks have made that LEGO is all about the money, they certainly are concerned with making a profit, but considering the fact that they are only recently out of a major financial crisis, I sincerely hope they are giving appropriate attention to their bottom line.

[capn black pancake]

Holy cow I hope this is for-real i don't have any pirate products only mocs

Edited July 22, 2008 by capn black pancake

[Adam]

Well, since Pirates were only introduced 19 years ago, and they've always had open backs, let's try going further to see if your case holds.

Classic Town and Castle both had the exact same style of build in the earlier 80s, open and hollow. Heck, people gripe about junorization as being big walls and such, but those started in the early castle era in some of the best sets ever produced and that has continued to the present. Open walls were always meant for playability, but also a certain amount of economy.

Seriously, how much more would you pay to have sealed structures, and then what? You'd expect removable roofs or hinged walls or something, and honestly, it kills the whole interaction you get from a more open set.

To be blunt, LEGO is like a doll house for boys. We have little furniture and walls and doors and various types of buildings ranging from houses to space stations, but in the end, they're all doll houses of a different type.

LEGO did eventually go too far with the concept, briefly, with the Studios line, however. Big sections of nothing but cardboard backdrops and limited structure was too much for people to tolerate and the line died, despite some excellent ideas (the monster sets were almost brilliant).

As to the price situation, look up the original retail prices that 80s era sets sold for and adjust for inflation, factoring in piece count. You'll discover something surprising if you do: LEGO isn't any more expensive now than it ever was, and in some cases it's cheaper, even with licensing costs. It's scary if you do the math.

Whoa! Hold off there, big fella, it's just an opinion!

[Wily Manc]

I don't know. I think if the pirate line was going to be re-released, it would have been done so when POTC was released. Then people would have been interested in pirates enough to make sales skyrocket, Yes?

A couple of people have said this, but then the trolls, dwarves, and elves didn't come out at the same time as Lord Of The Rings.

Mr Phes, is there any chance your Lego Ambassadors are bluffing you? Or that it's being kept under wraps?

[Teddy]

As to the price situation, look up the original retail prices that 80s era sets sold for and adjust for inflation, factoring in piece count. You'll discover something surprising if you do: LEGO isn't any more expensive now than it ever was, and in some cases it's cheaper, even with licensing costs. It's scary if you do the math.

Dear ImperialShadows,

I did the math like you suggested with a Dutch 1989 lego catalog and selected a basket of larger sets

spread over several themes.

What i found out was that the average price for a single brick in such a set is roughly simular to todays

average price for a single brick in a larger set.

But if you correct for inflation ( using Dutch figures of an average anual inflation of 2,4% a year for the last 20 years)

the average lego brick in a larger set has actually become 40% cheaper.

So this leads me to conclude that lego actually has become 40% cheaper than 20 years ago!

I'm curous what would happen if one would do an analysis on 1960s data.

Kind regards,

Teddy

[Shadows]

So this leads me to conclude that lego actually has become 40% cheaper than 20 years ago!

I'm curous what would happen if one would do an analysis on 1960s data.

Good job, Teddy, thanks for participating!

I don't know how LEGO would do against the 60's, partially because that's when they changed plastic types and partially because that's pre-minifig. The minifig has always seemed to be responsible for a large portion of the price of a set. It would be interesting to study, wouldn't it?

[Teddy]

Good job, Teddy, thanks for participating!

I don't know how LEGO would do against the 60's, partially because that's when they changed plastic types and partially because that's pre-minifig. The minifig has always seemed to be responsible for a large portion of the price of a set. It would be interesting to study, wouldn't it?

Yes it is! :) I think i can do a litlle calculation on that one too:

Considering the minifig "packs" of the 1989 catalog to the current ones i would say minifigs have become slighlty more expensive.

In the 1989 "minifig-packs" one minifig was priced at around 1 euro. Adjusted to inflation that would amount to 1,60 Euro in current money.

The minifigs in the current packages are more around 1,80 Euros.

So minifig prices have actually gone up 12% since the 1980s! Oposed to regular bricks which have gone down 40%!

So minifigs have become a relatively greater part of the pricing the last 20 years.

kind regards,

Teddy

[Squeaker]

A couple of people have said this, but then the trolls, dwarves, and elves didn't come out at the same time as Lord Of The Rings.

I dought LEGO meant to imitate Lord of the Rings, or ride on the popularity of it. In fact, it is quite unfair to say that. So many popular titles are based in this fantasy world of Elves and Dwavres that LEGO can ride on fans of just about all of these titles.

You know, it can take three or more years for LEGO to create a theme from point of conception to release. So it might make sense that LEGO is hoping to ride the wave of Pirates of the Carribean fans.

Yet agian, LEGO is probably trying to avoid Pirates of the Carribean after MegaBloks got it's lesence, and I can picture some fool saying, "Oh noes, LEGO is copying MegaBloks!!!!11!11one!!1". It was probably in TLG's best interest to wait a while and try not to let too much fantasy in their own Pirate theme, sticking to thier Pirate theme's roots.

[Lord Admiral]

Perhaps the increase in minifigure price is due to the increased amount of detail and variation between minifigures. I remember the old minifigures all having one generic face. Occasionally, there were those that had glasses or some such, but those were much rarer.

Nowadays, every face is a little different. The same goes with the torso, and sometimes even the legs. While it's a nice touch, I don't think on the generic sets (city, castle, space), this is really necessary. I mean, it's not like I'm going to see much of a dwarf's face through his beard, much less through beard and helmet (hair). And it's not like a dwarf is going to go without his beard and hair.

Also, the return to generics is not necessarily a bad thing. There are even generics for the licensed lines (baddies and such). I'm sure if the minifigure designs stayed as detailed as they are now, nobody except us die hard fans would notice. And us die hard fans probably aren't going to mind, since the generic face is what we grew up with anyway.

Edit: Oops, didn't mean to thread-crap.

To go back on topic, I agree that since Lego lost or just didn't go for the POC license, releasing their Pirates too early would've looked bad. But I think they shouldn't have stopped the Pirates line in the first place.

And we did see human vs. human in KK. It's a big reason why I ended up with as much KK as I did, despite the presence of decals on nearly every set... If pirates are going to be in the late '08/early '09 lineup, I'm rooting for Pirates vs. Ninjas. I still regret completely forgetting about legos in the late '90's and early '00's. Ah well.

Edited July 24, 2008 by Lord Admiral

[yorkiejim]

Yet agian, LEGO is probably trying to avoid Pirates of the Carribean after MegaBloks got it's lesence, and I can picture some fool saying, "Oh noes, LEGO is copying MegaBloks!!!!11!11one!!1". It was probably in TLG's best interest to wait a while and try not to let too much fantasy in their own Pirate theme, sticking to thier Pirate theme's roots.

i agree to the fact that lego is currently avoiding a pirate line for fear of being sued.

[hamilton]

i really fail to see how Lego releasing a Pirate theme could be grounds for any kind of legal action.

Nobody owns the intellectual property rights to the idea of piracy, that would be a truly absurd concept.

It's akin to being sued for releasing the Racers theme, because somebody else already invented cars.

[NewRight]

Missed this thread earlier. Can't wait to see when the new line may come out.

How is a lawsuit involved?

[Dovchenko]

The increase in price isn't just so that LEGO can save itself from exchange rates. It's so that they can make a profit when people buy new sets, as compared to old sets, if they're an AFOL. AFOL's of course have the tendency (more like the immediate motive) to buy older sets due to their nostalgic feel. LEGO claims they're trying to revive things, and it becomes hit news on Eurobricks. You ever go into TRU and find the set you want, pathetic and small as it is, gone? And then you see someone walking out with all 50 of them in a giant burlap sack? That's because nostalgia can be recreated. See Indy LEGO. Out of stock in a flash at my store, because with kids wanting to try out this new theme, teens wanting to buy something they're just getting into and adults wanting to have a plastic version of their favourite movie... man they've got it made. Not as long ago as you may think, LEGO managed to create adult interest with the UCS Star Destroyer. Who has the money? No one. But adults have much more than kids or teens. With adults hooked on both buying 1989 sets on Bricklink AND buying that giant chess set, LEGO has it made. As well, would you buy the Death Star if it was 100 bucks? I wouldn't, imagine how poor the quality would be. Giant pieces... everywhere. If it were 1000$ dollars? I couldn't buy it, but I'd want to anyway. Maybe the random adult could. And think... with all those random adults around the world? That's at least 10,000$ they're getting out of adults alone. Collectables are expensive because it makes them exclusive. No one wants a 10$ collectable, they'd throw it away. Admit it... it isn't really that collectable unless it's twice as much as it should be.

Maybe I should change my name for the third time to Palpatine... I act like I know everything.

Seriously...

[Norrington]

Yet agian, LEGO is probably trying to avoid Pirates of the Carribean after MegaBloks got it's lesence, and I can picture some fool saying, "Oh noes, LEGO is copying MegaBloks!!!!11!11one!!1". It was probably in TLG's best interest to wait a while and try not to let too much fantasy in their own Pirate theme, sticking to thier Pirate theme's roots.

Pirates isn't the same as the POTC movie or better, (actually, it isn't that good scince they added Jack Sparrow and the lot. I now avoid the version at WDW, due to it being horribly botched [it's missing a lot of Disneyland original scenes] in both it's original form and this recent rehab.)

POTC weren't even that great movie. I can deal with unrealistice things in movies. The skeleton pirates I could deal with. But fish pirates who control and collosial relative of the squid? And then that fish pirate is the slave of a historical British Trang Company? That is just too contrived.

The original theme was good because it invovled the real owners of the caribbean, the Imperials. It was, to a certain degree, realistic. Sure, all the pirate captains had hooks, eye-patches, hooks, and bicornes with skull and cross bones on it, most ships had massive skulls and stripes on their sails, but were they fighting fish pirates and skeletons? No. They were fighting the Imperial forces that were dominating the Caribbean. Like the real pirates. Of course, real pirates pillaged, but most Imperial ships had treasure chests, and there was the Cutter form the IMTP.

Sure, if a pirate theme is released again, sure, I'd like to see whalers, etc. I'd like to see giant squids, whales, and more sea life, but not fish pirates. More Imperials, but not skeleton pirates, more pirates, but not undead or aqautice pirates. (I know in another thread I advocated Under-sea Steam Punk pirates, but that was silly because I know LEGO would never do something that awsome.

IN short, I think the 2nd & 3rd POTC movies sucked.

[Moose]

I cant see whyd they have another whole line of fantasy. the castle line is already chock full of it with dragons, trolls, dwarves, elves, undead skellies etc. So i think theyd stay (mostly) with the original idea of pirates, maybe with a minor fantastic element here or there. I think Lego knows that if they stray too far from what pirates used to be, it won't be too appealing, resulting in lesser sales. And i hear mention of pirates vs ninja often. While i love pirates and i love ninjas and both lego adaptations of them, i think a lego line of pirates vs ninja would be one of the worst ideas lego could ever go through with. its just dumb

[Shoc]

I cant see whyd they have another whole line of fantasy. the castle line is already chock full of it with dragons, trolls, dwarves, elves, undead skellies etc. So i think theyd stay (mostly) with the original idea of pirates, maybe with a minor fantastic element here or there. I think Lego knows that if they stray too far from what pirates used to be, it won't be too appealing, resulting in lesser sales.

Even with the Duplo and 4+ Pirate sets, TLC didn't include any particular fantasy elements so I doubt they would in a proper Pirate line.

And i hear mention of pirates vs ninja often. While i love pirates and i love ninjas and both lego adaptations of them, i think a lego line of pirates vs ninja would be one of the worst ideas lego could ever go through with. its just dumb

Yeah, I think Pirates vs Ninjas is a jokey thing, TLC would never do that.

:skull:

[Athos]

I'm going to weigh in here. I think there is a pirate line coming soon. Here's why:

(1) The figures, obviously. I can't see Lego making two piratey torsos just for a store display that most people won't even notice.

(2) I can't think of another non-pirate theme use for them.

(3) No denial from the LAs. I think if there wasn't a pirate line, Lego would have told them to pass the word to us.

(4) I just feel a piratey disturbance in the force.

Steve

[Mister Phes]

(3) No denial from the LAs. I think if there wasn't a pirate line, Lego would have told them to pass the word to us.

I don't think it works like that, but if someone who knows more then please do correct me.

Here's my interpretation:

The LEGO Group is not obliged to confirm or deny their upcoming products to the AFOL community, so therefore may NOT inform the LEGO Ambassadors of anything. In subsequent Emails the LEGO Representative said even if there were upcoming Pirate LEGO products he could not confirm this. They're acting under Non Disclosure Agreements after all and if they value their employment they will honour this agreement.

But hey wait a minute! Doesn't somewhat contradict my report that they said there was nothing planned for LEGO Pirates?

[Wes]

This picture wasn't posted:

Look at the redcoat with the tricorn. Printing on the back!

[hollisbrick]

I don't think it works like that, but if someone who knows more then please do correct me.

Here's my interpretation:

The LEGO Group is not obliged to confirm or deny their upcoming products to the AFOL community, so therefore may NOT inform the LEGO Ambassadors of anything. In subsequent Emails the LEGO Representative said even if there were upcoming Pirate LEGO products he could not confirm this. They're acting under Non Disclosure Agreements after all and if they value their employment they will honour this agreement.

But hey wait a minute! Doesn't somewhat contradict my report that they said there was nothing planned for LEGO Pirates?

Yes...Yes it does...but what does it mean???

[Norrington]

This picture wasn't posted:

Look at the redcoat with the tricorn. Printing on the back!

Actually, I believe it was posted a while ago by SirNadroj, and I confirmed it before that too.

[Johnny 5]

Yes I know, but I thought I'd let everyone speculate for a while first.

So here's the answer:

Both LEGO Representatives told me these were not official Pirate LEGO mini-figures and nothing is planned.

If they're not for pirates, then why were they made?

Can you ask them that?

[Mister Phes]

Yes...Yes it does...but what does it mean???

If they're not for pirates, then why were they made? Can you ask them that?

Here's the thing... Even if there is a new Pirate theme on the horizon they can't tell anyone until the LEGO Group is ready to make an official statement.

So even if the answer is yes, they've still got to say no... It keeps everyone speculating which is rather teasing in a way... A fun way of course...

[Infomaniac]

Cool

This is a sure sign that the pirates are coming back.

It makes sense if you think about it, Lego has been facing hard times in bionicle, exo-force, and liscensed(sp).

So tlg responds by brining back dependable lines like Castle, Classic Space (Mars Mission), and Pirates.

Infomaniac