[OFFICIAL] 10320 Eldorado Fortress - Retiring SOON!

[MAB]

7 hours ago, Mister Phes said:

While I don't disagree with your statement, it doesn't adequately address whether the set would exist if it wasn't for the established fan base.

Because, why would a manufacturer revitalise a 30+ year old product, when they could simply develop a brand new product to appeal to modern consumers?

The second question is an interesting one. I would have preferred a new product inspired by the old theme, much like Barracuda Bay and the Lion Knights Castle are, rather than an attempt to remake an old set (or rather most of one old set and a bit of another). For the piece count, I think a better job (at least, to the eyes of someone that has had LEGO during the last 30 years) could be done with modern parts and modern techniques) by starting from scratch without trying to model it on a specific vintage set. They could have still used a vintage style box for a modern design.

And that leads to the first question. I'll attempt an answer. It is important to understand what the question is! What is the fan base here - fans of the original set, fans of the original theme, fans of LEGO Pirates in general or fans of LEGO. Each is a subset of the next, getting bigger. I think fans of the original theme and fans of LEGO Pirates would be up for both the set as it is and a newly designed set. I imagine the fan base here is fans of the theme more than the exact set, based on the survey they did a while back before producing the Lion Knight's Castle, the Galaxy Explorer and leaving Pirates fans with nothing. I think that vote was enough to convince them that there is life in the old theme, although they could have gone either way with the remake / something new. I would imagine that if Pirates had crashed and burned in that survey, then this set would not have been made. So no, I doubt it would exist if it wasn't for the fan base if you define the fan base as people that voted for the theme in the Classic themes poll. However, the question is not just the fan base but the established fan base. That additional word needs defining - I'll take it to mean someone that actively builds Pirates MOCs or collects Pirates sets or similar. I doubt it actually matters to LEGO too much whether it is an active, established fan base that voted or if it was at the other extreme, people voting purely from nostalgia that had not shown any interest in LEGO Pirates for 30 years. I don't think it would have been made without the fan base voting for it but that doesn't necessarily mean it was only an established fan base that voted. The reality is probably somewhere in between. Both long term Pirates enthusiasts and nostalgic voters that hadn't thought about Pirates for decades, with a sprinkle of people with neither nostalgic memories nor any history with the theme that thought Pirates would be a cool new theme to them.

 

Edited June 16, 2023 by MAB

[dimc]

29 minutes ago, MAB said:

The second question is an interesting one. I would have preferred a new product inspired by the old theme, much like Barracuda Bay and the Lion Knights Castle are, rather than an attempt to remake an old set (or rather most of one old set and a bit of another). For the piece count, I think a better job (at least, to the eyes of someone that has had LEGO during the last 30 years) could be done with modern parts and modern techniques) by starting from scratch without trying to model it on a specific vintage set. They could have still used a vintage style box for a modern design.

And that leads to the first question. I'll attempt an answer. It is important to understand what the question is! What is the fan base here - fans of the original set, fans of the original theme, fans of LEGO Pirates in general or fans of LEGO. Each is a subset of the next, getting bigger. I think fans of the original theme and fans of LEGO Pirates would be up for both the set as it is and a newly designed set. I imagine the fan base here is fans of the theme more than the exact set, based on the survey they did a while back before producing the Lion Knight's Castle, the Galaxy Explorer and leaving Pirates fans with nothing. I think that vote was enough to convince them that there is life in the old theme, although they could have gone either way with the remake / something new. I would imagine that if Pirates had crashed and burned in that survey, then this set would not have been made. So no, I doubt it would exist if it wasn't for the fan base if you define the fan base as people that voted for the theme in the Classic themes poll. However, the question is not just the fan base but the established fan base. That additional word needs defining - I'll take it to mean someone that actively builds Pirates MOCs or collects Pirates sets or similar. I doubt it actually matters to LEGO too much whether it is an active, established fan base that voted or if it was at the other extreme, people voting purely from nostalgia that had not shown any interest in LEGO Pirates for 30 years. I don't think it would have been made without the fan base voting for it but that doesn't necessarily mean it was only an established fan base that voted. The reality is probably somewhere in between. Both long term Pirates enthusiasts and nostalgic voters that hadn't thought about Pirates for decades, with a sprinkle of people with neither nostalgic memories nor any history with the theme that thought Pirates would be a cool new theme to them.

 

I can add one data point.

As a child, Eldorado was the pirates set I wanted most. It looked SO cool. If I go back through my bin from my childhood, I find a single pirates set: 6234, a measly little raft with a single pirate. So while I did covet the theme, I spent my money more on castle and space. Price per piece was better and it was easier to swoosh space sets. An important thing for a poor child who wanted to take Legos everywhere.

Fast forward to the mid teens (the years, not my age), and as an adult with a friend who had been into Lego (and ended his dark ages earlier), I started getting back into it. Got some City stuff, LOTR, Creator, but nothing specific. Was only sorta into it. Eventually noticed that they had remade pirates, so I bought an ebay lot of some of the 2015 series. Built them, but it didn't scratch the itch. Too small, just...not right, somehow.

Add a few more years with the occasional impulse purchase, and I discover that people sell bins of old Legos sometimes. Find this to be a way to acquire old sets for relatively cheap. Buy a bin with most of Eldorado, and buy a few lots to complete it. Since then, it has occupied a most hallowed shelf on my display. This is THE set, the white whale, the one I wanted most.

In the meantime, of course, I've collected much of the original pirates line (and a lot of other lines besides), but if I had to have one set, Eldorado is it. I am a fan of the original set, and I am a fan of the new one. While I'd take any modern pirate set with 2500 pieces (and have PoBB waiting in the queue), this fills me with a joy that would surpass any other set (perhaps barring 10210) even when I own the original. I love that they remade this, albeit with modularity instead of the baseplate (obviously), with more details, with ladders (FINALLY!), and added the ship from 6277. Just...fantastic.

Edited June 16, 2023 by dimc

[Jiesdeo]

50 minutes ago, CAESARBLACK said:

Hi Everyone,

AFOL and a new member here. Just joined up to comment about this set in the hopes that someone at LEGO is at least reading this for all the masses.

Welcome to the forum!

[LegoAUT]

It would be cool if they would include some piraty-style minifigs in the BAM-towers as of July! 

[F1stzz]

7 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

My point is that dual-moulded legs are not the most accurate way to represent most variants of the colonial-era French uniform, which was the inspiration for the bluecoats.

Silly me, I was being constantly told LEGO is a fantasy world that has little to do with historic accuracy, but I guess bringing up anything history related is convenient when the lack of such a desired piece as dual molded legs in a $200+ set needs to be justified 😏 FYI, puttees were not even a common practice or norm in European armies before the second half of the nineteenth century, and then they were used to cover the leg itself, not the boot. The thing you're calling "white puttees" on few pictures of the French troops in 17th-18th century is actually a white overlay for the black boot or simply the boots in white colour, which were not in fact a combined arms standard & were used by specific regiments in a specific period. And while all that was indeed a thing at one point, the regular black high (up to the knee) leather boots never went anywhere & were indeed a combined arms standard used throughout the centuries (those were worn by Napoleon too, btw). Therefore, I still don't understand why we couldn't get double molded legs in Imperial Soldiers sets 

[Alexandrina]

9 minutes ago, F1stzz said:

Silly me, I was being constantly told LEGO is a fantasy world that has little to do with historic accuracy, but I guess bringing up anything history related is convenient when the lack of such a desired piece as dual molded legs in a $200+ set needs to be justified

Nothing about it needs to be justified, though. Dual moulded legs are 1) not essential to recreating the figures historically, 2) not important for making all of Lego's customer base have representation (unlike being female, being dual-moulded is not a condition which typically afflicts human beings) and 3) not objectively more desirable. There are lots of people who would prefer plain legs. On top of that, dual-moulded white legs have never appeared in mainline Lego products, and haven't appeared in CMF for six years - they're almost certainly not currently in production, and for the reasons above are definitely not the priority. I'm fairly sure, in fact, that even most Pirates fans would take, say, the old palm tree mould over dual-moulded legs if there was room in the budget for one more 'new' piece.

And we both knew what I meant by "puttees". There's no need to nitpick on this point, especially when there doesn't appear to be an actual specific term for the part of the uniform I was describing.

[F1stzz]

2 hours ago, LegoAUT said:

The one TLG opted for here looks much more refined than stacking brick on brick.

Respectfully disagree, it looks like 4ss. Masonry bricks' aesthetics couldn't be beaten by the aforementioned combos in mass-produced LEGO sets in my eyes, and those bricks are definitely the part savers at that.

[F1stzz]

2 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

Dual moulded legs are 1) not essential to recreating the figures historically

And this was never the point, the discussion was about not getting a cool piece (which many people would love to receive, especially army builders, we have a lot of these guys in the space) in an expensive set, which does appear as a con.

2 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

2) not important for making all of Lego's customer base have representation (unlike being female, being dual-moulded is not a condition which typically afflicts human beings)

Yeah, I bet if they were indeed important for that we'd get 'em in an instant 

2 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

3) not objectively more desirable

That's not true at all, lol. It's enough to look through the now closed 10320 speculation topic to get the clear evidence of people voicing their desire to have double moulded legs on Bluecoats and discussing the potential of it happening based on the recent Nutcracker figure release. Not to mention the amount of MOC builders around that are swapping the legs on soldiers & officers (and pirates even) to double moulded once they get the opportunity — again, lots of evidence of that on Insta. 

2 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

There are lots of people who would prefer plain legs.

Absolutely, but I haven't seen people complaining much about legs not being plain in sets or figures which included dual moulds or leg printing, while there's always some disappointment present in opposite cases.

2 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

On top of that, dual-moulded white legs have never appeared in mainline Lego products, and haven't appeared in CMF for six years - they're almost certainly not currently in production

Finally I'm starting to hear the voice of reason, even tho the aforementioned Nutcracker was around just few months ago, so I'm sure TLG could've come up with something if they really cared. 

2 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

I'm fairly sure, in fact, that even most Pirates fans would take, say, the old palm tree mould over dual-moulded legs if there was room in the budget for one more 'new' piece.

That's highly debatable: if you're an army builder or simply prioritize minifigs to the nature elements — hell nah to those old bolt joints, if you have your own LEGO city or any other suitable usecases (while u really appreciate the older mould more) — than yup, I can see that. 

2 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

And we both knew what I meant by "puttees".

Nope, I actually got confused ('mind u, English is not my first language, so sometimes I'm taking things quite literally), cuz I've never heard of puttees being applied on the boot instead of leg & quite frankly haven't heard at all of them being used on a regular basis in European armies prior to the 19th century, so that genuinely made me curious to do some fact checking.

2 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

There's no need to nitpick on this point, especially when there doesn't appear to be an actual specific term for the part of the uniform I was describing.

The fact that you're using a term "puttees" (an item that's placed inside the boot, in fact) to describe an item that covers the boot (or, funny enough, is the boot itself) indicates that you don't quite have an idea of what "puttees" actually is, therefore don't have an understanding of what you're trying to bring up in an argument. And that could indeed result in a confusion.

 

Anyway, I'd say we've spent a bit too much time & space arguing about puttees both in a real world & a fantasy LEGO one, lol. As you can see, you've also failed to convince me that LEGO Pirates fans don't want minifigures to have double moulded legs or would necessarily prefer anything over it, or wouldn't be happy to get those in a set in general. Given that, I can see both of us moving forward  Best regards 

Edited June 17, 2023 by F1stzz

[LegoAUT]

1 hour ago, F1stzz said:

Respectfully disagree, it looks like 4ss. Masonry bricks' aesthetics couldn't be beaten by the aforementioned combos in mass-produced LEGO sets in my eyes, and those bricks are definitely the part savers at that.

Hmm.. I guess it‘s a matter of preference. I believe combining bricks with plates and rounded plates makes for a more realistic looking wall in older/ historical buildings. I would not use it for modern buildings though, unless I would want a withered effect. 

1 minute ago, F1stzz said:

That's not true at all, lol. It's enough to look through the now closed 10320 speculation topic to get the clear evidence of people voicing their desire to have double moulded legs on Bluecoats and discussing the potential of it happening based on the recent Nutcracker figure release. Not to mention the amount of MOC builders around that are swapping the legs on soldiers & officers (and pirates even) to double moulded once they get the opportunity — again, lots of evidence of that on Insta. 

I agree! 

[Lyichir]

Regarding dual molded legs, worth keeping in mind that they are still relatively rare in Lego for a reason. Because dual-molded legs are newer, Lego's production capacity for them is much, much smaller than their existing capacity to produce standard legs (with or without printing). So giving all the Imperial soldiers boots, when they make up the 6 out of the 8 figs in the set, might simply have not been an option.

[F1stzz]

5 minutes ago, LegoAUT said:

Hmm.. I guess it‘s a matter of preference.

It certainly is 

 

6 minutes ago, LegoAUT said:

I believe combining bricks with plates and rounded plates makes for a more realistic looking wall in older/ historical buildings

Oh, it sure does in big MOCs in general. But in official TLG products, when the cost of each piece & their total count matters, the perception of the whole thing changes a bit for me personally. 

16 minutes ago, LegoAUT said:

I agree!

Cheers  

 

18 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

Because dual-molded legs are newer, Lego's production capacity for them is much, much smaller than their existing capacity to produce standard legs (with or without printing). So giving all the Imperial soldiers boots, when they make up the 6 out of the 8 figs in the set, might simply have not been an option.

That's understandable, & as I've already mentioned, with that in mind community had hopes and speculations prior to the official announcement about getting at least one or couple of those for Governor & Lieutenant, not necessarily the whole squad  I don't think that would've caused some tragedy for the production lines and after all — someday dual-moulded legs could become a standard, we already have quite a few sets in production with various kinds of these moulds, so why should we be delaying the inevitable when opportunities are staring at us straight?

[CommanderJonny1]

1 hour ago, Alexandrina said:

Nothing about it needs to be justified, though. Dual moulded legs are 1) not essential to recreating the figures historically, 2) not important for making all of Lego's customer base have representation (unlike being female, being dual-moulded is not a condition which typically afflicts human beings) and 3) not objectively more desirable. There are lots of people who would prefer plain legs. On top of that, dual-moulded white legs have never appeared in mainline Lego products, and haven't appeared in CMF for six years - they're almost certainly not currently in production, and for the reasons above are definitely not the priority. I'm fairly sure, in fact, that even most Pirates fans would take, say, the old palm tree mould over dual-moulded legs if there was room in the budget for one more 'new' piece.

And we both knew what I meant by "puttees". There's no need to nitpick on this point, especially when there doesn't appear to be an actual specific term for the part of the uniform I was describing.

They're called gaiters, though to be fair, they serve pretty much the exact same purpose and can look similar.

I agree that plain legs are not essential, both from a historical perspective (vis a vis boots, gaiters, etc.) and from a toy perspective, and I'm indifferent to whether they're used or not (though I still like getting dual-molded ones of course). Which palm tree mold are you referring to, the one they used, or 30239/10884? Because while I can use the older style of palm leaves in different ways, the newer style is, I think, better at making an actual palm tree. I can still accept its use in the set, as a callback, but I'm not sure even that holds up, since 10884 was used in PoBB.

1 hour ago, F1stzz said:

Respectfully disagree, it looks like 4ss. Masonry bricks' aesthetics couldn't be beaten by the aforementioned combos in mass-produced LEGO sets in my eyes, and those bricks are definitely the part savers at that.

I don't know if using masonry bricks would of necessarily have saved enough parts to be worth it. Also, in the set the round plates are used to mimic the old printed panels that show exposed red bricks; they tried doing the same thing with masonry bricks in the 2015 sets, and while it wasn't a terrible idea, the use of rounded plates here makes it where the exposed 'bricks' aren't just a blocky splotch of color. I supposed they used rounded plates instead of regular ones so that there's texture, but plates also allows a more 'fluid' or 'natural' look to the thing that wouldn't be achieved as well with bricks.

34 minutes ago, F1stzz said:

Nope, I actually got confused ('mind u, English is not my first language, so sometimes I'm taking things quite literally), cuz I've never heard of puttees being applied on the boot instead of leg & quite frankly haven't heard at all of them being used on a regular basis in European armies prior to the 19th century, so that genuinely made me curious to do some fact checking.

The fact that you're using a term "puttees" (an item that's placed inside the boot, in fact) to describe an item that covers the boot (or, funny enough, is the boot itself) indicates that you don't quite have an idea of what "puttees" actually is, therefore don't have an understanding of what you're trying to bring up in an argument. And that could indeed result in a confusion.

Puttees are long pieces of cloth that are wrapped around the lower leg, reaching from ankle to calf (or sometimes to the knee); they've also been used for thousands of years in some form or another, though the term and expanded use of them started in the latter half of the 1800s- so yes, they'd wouldn't be as prevalent as gaiters for the time period that Pirates is "set in". Perhaps it's a difference in use of the word, but I don't know where your view of puttees comes from.

[F1stzz]

29 minutes ago, CommanderJonny1 said:

they've also been used for thousands of years in some form or another

Yup, but as far as I know, they were adopted by British army first in the latter half of the 1800s indeed — and only after that their use started to gain popularity among the military and eventually became a norm in other European (as well as non-European) armies. 

29 minutes ago, CommanderJonny1 said:

I don't know where your view of puttees comes from.

Well, in Russian & Austro-Hungarian armies those were also used to cover & protect the foot, and the naming was the same. That's why I'm differentiating "puttees" & "gaiters", in fact.

Edited June 17, 2023 by F1stzz

[eldiano]

On 6/15/2023 at 3:07 PM, Arjo said:

speaking of buying two... my imagination easily runs wild (and my wallet and flat can't keep pace)... with the spread out configuration of the set, if one was to mirror build a second copy, I can easily picture in my mind's eye how it would form a nice access/check-point/lock to a marina/harbour of some sort. Onto securing the perimeter and the land with thousands extra bricks of course:)

If I am lucky I am planning for my second set of this to be an Imperial trading post, considering the ship we got for this and the similarities it makes perfect sense I think! 

12 hours ago, Captain Dee said:

On the one hand, this looks like a pretty cool set, but...

On the other hand, when the only offerings are remakes, it feels like this theme is dead. Somehow I can't muster much excitement.

In 5 years maybe they'll do a reimagined Armada Sentry. That would just be glorious.

LEGO legit said that castle/Pirates would only move forward as creator 3 in 1 sets. 

they sold enough castles and ships to finally throw in the towel and give us PoBB/Lion knights castle.  

I'm excited. 

 

 

[CommanderJonny1]

2 hours ago, F1stzz said:

Well, in Russian & Austro-Hungarian armies those were also used to cover & protect the foot, and the naming was the same. That's why I'm differentiating "puttees" & "gaiters", in fact.

I think I get it now; do you mean that the same word is used for both puttees and foot-wraps?

Also, to get back on topic, I don't know the breakdown for the cost of pieces for Lego, but of the three kinds of dual-molded legs with black bottoms I can find on PAB in the US, they are $0.66 apiece for the relatively common Dark Bluish Gray ones (has been in 11 sets), $2.12 each for the Red ones (3 sets), and $3.16 each for the Dark Red ones (1 set). Each time a dual-molded legs with black bottoms has appeared, there's only been one in the set or CMF or whatever, so having anywhere between one and six in a single set means a varying amount of cost. Would Lego consider the cost of producing those worth it? CMFs I feel are profitable for them because there's relatively little there (resource wise), and almost every other time one of these things pop up, it's either in a big set like a UCS set, or in a GWP. Both of which aren't really monetary risks for Lego, so they can afford to put in something extra. While I would put this set (along with PoBB and LKC) up there in the same (or similar) tier as a UCS set, Lego might not consider it the same way, given the price disparity between them.

1 hour ago, eldiano said:

If I am lucky I am planning for my second set of this to be an Imperial trading post, considering the ship we got for this and the similarities it makes perfect sense I think!

I mean, the pictures make it seem pretty easy to reconfigure it with the modularity aspect, especially if you had two copies. Plus, you could combine the two ships into a bigger merchantman

1 hour ago, eldiano said:

LEGO legit said that castle/Pirates would only move forward as creator 3 in 1 sets. 

they sold enough castles and ships to finally throw in the towel and give us PoBB/Lion knights castle.  

I'm excited.

That's the thing, though. Technically they didn't throw in the towel, which in any case was more like "Oh no! A bunch of money! Whatever shall we do?". Both Pirates of Barracuda Bay (30th-ish) and Lion Knights' Castle (90th) are anniversary sets of something, and PoBB was based off an Ideas submission. I'm not trying to dash your hopes, but while I can see them releasing more sets within those themes, they'll probably use some excuse or another when rolling them out, and I doubt they'll release them as actual themes again. The best I can see is nostalgia bait and GWPs.

Although who knows? Mayhaps you've got the right idea, and they will bow down to the myriad voices (and wallets) and start releasing the classics themes again. If so, I'll be right there with ya

[Doddsino]

Eh. I think I'll pass on this one. 

Honestly, just a little too similar to the original set, while losing all the charm of the simpler version.

Not a fan of recreating the baseplate when they could have either created a unique new foundation, or included a baseplate and freed up those pieces for other usage. 

Maybe if it was bigger or had something uniquely more different, otherwise I'm rather disappointed.

[Roebuck]

10 hours ago, CAESARBLACK said:

Hi Everyone,

AFOL and a new member here. Just joined up to comment about this set in the hopes that someone at LEGO is at least reading this for all the masses.

Hi and welcome

I am sure Lego appreciate constructive criticism an listen to it so the next retro set will probably look less like the original set. Have you seen a pic of the medieval marked village we hopefully get one day? One of the buildings there is inspired by the guarded inn set, but the rest of the set is new and the set is made to compliment the old MMV so that look very promising However until we see reviews and/or designer interviews we can not know all the functions and the thought processes that lead to make the set this way

8 hours ago, LegoAUT said:

It would be cool if they would include some piraty-style minifigs in the BAM-towers as of July! 

Yes and bring back the white falcon knight as well

I wonder if Lego included a maybe slightly updated part, but very similar to the old mould in this set and they could only include one what would you choose:

1. Classic chrome gold coins
2. Classic monkey
3. Classic palm tree trunks

[TheWineNut]

I have the set in hand. It was delivered in error to me in Australia instead of the Rivendell set. I'm returning it to Lego as I value the Rivendell set more; although while it was here I took a few photos to record the event.

[Arjo]

Well… let me share what may or may not be a well kept secret… if you are fortunate enough to have a lego store close enough that you can regularly visit (a double edged sword when you try not to overspend), you should check out the BAM stations. I ignored them for the longest time as it is always under assault at any time of the day but no longer. The one interesting part I have consistently found there are dual moulded legs of all kinds of colours. Compared to the cost of PAB on the website, you basically get the other four elements of each of your 3 minifigs for free.

I bought a dozen white/black legs for my “Spanish” imperials (all made up of BAM parts) and many more in red/black for lion knight soldiers (once I overcame the “santa” mental block, I found these legs to be the best vs. Printed ones or worse still the blue/red dual molded which are too spidey for one and in my imagination less appropriate though I know some soldiers had to try and survive in bright colour uniforms).

Now I hope none of you live next to me so that arbitrage opportunity does not dry up. If it does I will save money I guess:)

Separately, I am very glad to see this thread so lively (I have never been that active myself which makes me realise where my lego priorities really are, as important as ever facing a constant stream of tempting but expensive set released), and I am impressed by how knowledgeable some of you come across.

As far as the Eldorado revamp is concerned, having firmed up my appetite by reading and exchanging with you, I only worry about the size of interior spaces. The “admiral office”, or whatever they call it in the description, only has a single stud to place a minifigure (and the picture is misleading because the close shot conveniently makes this sad reality disappear). Likewise, in “spread out” formation, the jetee turned walkway is at best two studs deep (sometimes one!).

Long story short, I suspect quite a few of us inclined to use the modular feature of the set will need many extra bricks to make the set shine with all its potential (and meet AFOLs’ expectations, audience to whom the set is targeted).

[GameTime]

I thought we would get "Pirates of Barracuda Bay" mixed with "Lion Knights' Castle"

This is such a disappointment and honestly I would be embarrassed to display this next to POBB.

POBB is a 10/10 masterpiece, this is so far off its a joke.

Even the palm trees are different. The lack of detail make this a huge let down.

You could buy this set 3 times over and still not get the level of detail POBB has.

Edited June 17, 2023 by GameTime

[Mister Phes]

19 hours ago, MAB said:

The reality is probably somewhere in between. Both long term Pirates enthusiasts and nostalgic voters that hadn't thought about Pirates for decades, with a sprinkle of people with neither nostalgic memories nor any history with the theme that thought Pirates would be a cool new theme to them. 

I would also assume this to be the case.  A pre-existing market was the impetus for releasing a new product based on an existing product, but to maximise profits, the manufacturer must develop the new product to appeal to a wider market.

Having said that, the press release specifically addresses fans who grew up with the original set:

Quote

Play like you did as a kid

Do you remember these vintage LEGO® sets from your childhood?

Rediscover the world of LEGO® Pirates with the LEGO Icons Eldorado Fortress (10320) building set for adults. This tribute to the iconic 1980s model (6276) comes with new features that will thrill fans of the LEGO Pirates range.

A classic LEGO® Pirates build for adults – Step back in time for a nostalgic building project with the LEGO Icons Eldorado Fortress (10320), a tribute to the iconic 1980s LEGO Pirates range

 

[F1stzz]

6 hours ago, CommanderJonny1 said:

I think I get it now; do you mean that the same word is used for both puttees and foot-wraps?

Exactly, mate 

 

2 hours ago, TheWineNut said:

I took a few photos to record the event.

Thanks a lot for sharing these pics with us, sir! One thing is for sure: if anything, the box art of 10320 is gorgeous & absolutely pays its respects to the OG 6276 set 

[Arjo]

GameTime, I respect your point of view and I am sure many might share it. However, I for one was VERY disappointed in PoBB: the boat was alright and might have been enough for many, but the island was a mess compared to the Ideas project. In hindsight, I should have bought many sets I eventually passed on given current pricing of new sets.

Provided close inspection is not a turn off exposing how shallow and/or limited interiors are, I will be happy to get this set with the boost of 2x VIP and/or GWP of interest to me. That will be reasonable value in my eye, for a set the features of which have not been seen in a long time and might not be available again. Bonus, it will help me not overstretch to other sets I like but which are even more expensive.

ps: hit the store this morning and scored dual molded legs for the Imperials, am good to go now and hope others who wish their soldiers will boot up will be able to get some as well.

[danielhstahl]

"We must have female representation no matter how ahistorical such representation is"

"We must have no islander representation lest we be the least bit ahistorical"

I don't really care either way about the gender of lego characters.  I would like to see some Islander sets, though at the moment I'm just grateful there are more pirate themed sets. 

Probably won't pick this one up though.  It feels too "blocky".  An homage should embody the spirit of the original but not inherit its limitations.

 

[F1stzz]

2 hours ago, Arjo said:

hit the store this morning and scored dual molded legs for the Imperials, am good to go now and hope others who wish their soldiers will boot up will be able to get some as well.

You see, that's my problem with the set in this particular case. You still have to spend some extra on da bootz, cuz you do wish to get 'em for your new Bluecoats, while this exact cost could've been added to the initial price of the set, that's already stepped over the $/€200 mark, with legs being included. You can spend €215 + €5-10+ (or whatever the additional cost would be, it's still just that — the additional cost) separately or have a €230 or some set with dual moulds already in it. The latter is much more convenient for those, who simply don't have a LEGO Store nearby or it just doesn't exist in their country at all (which is the case for me personally, btw). Those additional €5-10+ I've mentioned for people who have the LEGO Store around the corner are suddenly transforming into €20-30+ for people who don't have one (the amount of additional spendings may vary depending on the region). It doesn't mean the set becomes a flop by not having the piece, but there are cases that allow to consider this circumstance a negative.