Should Lego bring back the green dragon in its original form?

[Lyichir]

2 hours ago, Wardancer said:

They should make a dark green Smaug!

I don't think they could—Smaug is so specifically based on the design he had in the movie that all his parts are likely IP-locked to the LotR/Hobbit theme.

[MAB]

4 hours ago, Lyichir said:

I don't think they could—Smaug is so specifically based on the design he had in the movie that all his parts are likely IP-locked to the LotR/Hobbit theme.

The head and jaw maybe, but the rest of the body (without the printing)  is pretty generic and as it is buildable, they could easily swap out some parts such as the spiked neck for a smooth neck. Some of the parts have been used in other themes.

Although even a green version of the non-IP Kingdoms dragon would be nice. They almost got there in the troll ships years ago. 

Edited November 7, 2024 by MAB

[JohnTPT17]

I maintain that the best Lego dragons are the Fantasy era/Kingdoms molded dragons. Big enough to be imposing, poseable in a lot of ways, able to have wings damaged or tails chopped off if the stories called for it but still easy to put back together, room on the back to easily put a rider, able to breath fire and hold minifigures in their claws... Great things all around. Only sad thing is how expensive they are on the aftermarket nowadays, and how unlikely they are to come back exactly like that due to all of the specialized pieces. I'll miss the days you could get one of them, a castle, and a few knights for $50...

I'll also give a shoutout to the small, single-piece dragons that have been made for Ninjago, D&D, and Harry Potter in the recent years. they make for good little characters, and the printing goes a long way in giving them character. Same with the molded Elves baby dragons - though most of them are also absurdly expensive. 

I do think that the brick-built dragons have gotten a lot better over time - I've really only handled the older Ninjago and Elves dragons, which have largely not aged very well, but the newer Ninajgo ones seem to be a lot better. I don't have a huge opinion of them since I haven't build or interreacted with any of them much, but I do see why they're so prolific: you can have a lot of different body shaped and designs if you're building from scratch than if you're forced to work with molds. I do wonder about their playability, though - are the stickers an issue? Is there an issue with small parts falling off during play, and not knowing where they are supposed to go? I genuinely don't know.

And, finally, the old molded dragons... I only know them as a relic from the past. I respect them for their historic value and recognize their iconography, but I do think they're largely outdated in terms of design and size. That, and I've found that a lot of those dragons are also pretty fragile - maybe that's just the ones I've interacted with, but it could be that the connection points and clips in general are just weak, which would be another point against them coming back. No, so I don't think that these ones will come back - I think the future is brick built large dragons, and specialized molds for small/baby dragons.

[MAB]

39 minutes ago, JohnTPT17 said:

 do think that the brick-built dragons have gotten a lot better over time - I've really only handled the older Ninjago and Elves dragons, which have largely not aged very well, but the newer Ninajgo ones seem to be a lot better. I don't have a huge opinion of them since I haven't build or interreacted with any of them much, but I do see why they're so prolific: you can have a lot of different body shaped and designs if you're building from scratch than if you're forced to work with molds. I do wonder about their playability, though - are the stickers an issue? Is there an issue with small parts falling off during play, and not knowing where they are supposed to go? I genuinely don't know.

My daughter had a couple of Elves dragons and they got played with a lot. They are very cartoony, too cutesy for Castle, but they fit perfectly with the Elves style. I think they held together pretty well even during heavy play with all their flying around her bedroom.

[Lyichir]

1 hour ago, JohnTPT17 said:

I do think that the brick-built dragons have gotten a lot better over time - I've really only handled the older Ninjago and Elves dragons, which have largely not aged very well, but the newer Ninajgo ones seem to be a lot better. I don't have a huge opinion of them since I haven't build or interreacted with any of them much, but I do see why they're so prolific: you can have a lot of different body shaped and designs if you're building from scratch than if you're forced to work with molds. I do wonder about their playability, though - are the stickers an issue? Is there an issue with small parts falling off during play, and not knowing where they are supposed to go? I genuinely don't know.

As a big fan of dragons in Ninjago, they've gotten really good in terms of sturdiness and playability. The bigger ones in particular tend to have their limbs and bodies locked together quite well so that they can be posed and moved without coming apart, and recently introduced joints that combine the smaller click hinges from the Knights Kingdom II figures with the big ones from AT-AT sets have allowed for stronger joints at the shoulder/hip with a decent range of movement. The Source Dragon of Motion that came out this year is the biggest and very possibly the best yet, very sturdy and stable and well-sculpted without sacrificing articulation. Smaller dragons in the theme still tend to rely largely on Bionicle and Mixels-style ball joints for articulation, which generally work well at those scales even if they can sometimes result in a blockier look in places. Many current dragons in the theme, big and small alike, have molded heads with printed detail—most of which have opening jaws, and use similar part types so that you can mix and match different upper and lower jaw pieces to create a distinct look for each (many bigger dragon sets use additional parts to build up the head behind the upper and lower jaws and add features like horns).

Stickers on Ninjago dragons are rarely an issue—complex areas like the eyes tend to be printed, so stickers end up mostly attached to basic sorts of slopes or tiles where they are easy to apply and where they aren't likely to shift during play. And since stickers on Ninjago dragons mostly tend to add minor detail like scale patterns or decorative emblems to sets that already tend to have a fair share of brick-built detail for color blocking and texture, if you choose to do without them it generally won't detract too much from the overall look. Smaller dragons often use molded wings but bigger ones tend to use a plastic film membrane stretched across a bony Technic frame, which still tends to be sturdy and sometimes even allows the wings to be "folded" smaller sort of like the rubbery wings used for Smaug in the Hobbit sets.

And yeah, the fact that brick-built dragons can basically adapt to any scale or body plan is part of the appeal—it ensures that a good portion of your enjoyment comes from building the dragon itself, rather than the dragon feeling like a glorified action figure tacked on to a build; and that getting multiple dragon sets rarely feels repetitive or stale compared to getting a bunch of molded animals that tend to stay roughly the same shape and size for years on end.

[Agent Kallus]

22 hours ago, Alexandrina said:

The monkey at the very least must presumably still exist as a digital file somewhere - it's not that long ago it was retired

The Monkey definitely does. It's on LDD for one thing, which is an in-house TLG program.

20 hours ago, SpacePolice89 said:

 What do you think?

I do think they are different however.

20 hours ago, SpacePolice89 said:

It seems to be a little different from the Pirates monkey

The differences are small enough that it's still an obvious update of the old mould. So if they did bring back the classic dragon I don't think they even consider bringing back the flame with the two little pins on the base, they'd just give it  a different connection point for a different fire part.

[SpacePolice89]

1 hour ago, Agent Kallus said:

The differences are small enough that it's still an obvious update of the old mould. So if they did bring back the classic dragon I don't think they even consider bringing back the flame with the two little pins on the base, they'd just give it  a different connection point for a different fire part.

Yes, they probably would modify the mouth so it could use the new flame piece.

[ILoveSeatron]

3 hours ago, SpacePolice89 said:

Yes, they probably would modify the mouth so it could use the new flame piece.

So the two small bar things on some fire pieces are made for dragons?

Edit. SpacePolice89, how did you post the voting thing?

Edited November 8, 2024 by ILoveSeatron

[SpacePolice89]

1 hour ago, ILoveSeatron said:

So the two small bar things on some fire pieces are made for dragons?

Edit. SpacePolice89, how did you post the voting thing?

Yes, I believe its primary purpose is attaching the fire piece to the mouth of the dragon. After reaching 500 posts (Knight rank) members can start polls.

Edited November 8, 2024 by SpacePolice89

[Classic_Spaceman]

No - The design is far too simplistic, static, and clunky for modern LEGO. That being said, I would not mind seeing a brickbuilt version of the classic dragon used as a statue. 
 

[ILoveSeatron]

4 hours ago, SpacePolice89 said:

Yes, I believe its primary purpose is attaching the fire piece to the mouth of the dragon. After reaching 500 posts (Knight rank) members can start polls.

Thanks for the info.  

[Triceron]

It's a tricky thing to discuss.  Like the old horse, it only has relevancy with classic, and wouldn't necessarily fit with modern castle.

I'd say if it could be updated to the on the level of the new dragonborn heads in style, detail and print, I might be interested.  The new crocodiles may be a step in that style and snd direction, something with cleaner panel lines but still carefully homaging classic.

 

I guess the best example is how Basil's hrlm is completely updated to fit modern Castle while still being recognizable as Basil.   It's new, it's different yet undeniably familiar.

 

That being said, I might take a crack at this idea.  If anyone here wants to collaborate on a revamped classic dragon concept, hit me up.

Edited November 10, 2024 by Triceron

[SpacePolice89]

So far this poll has been very even. At this moment 22 for and 20 against reintroducing the green dragon. 

Edited November 12, 2024 by SpacePolice89

[GeoBrick]

Bringing it back in its original form would be a wasted opportuniy in my opinion.
A similar looking dragon with (like in horses) a place to put in a minifig or saddle is a necessary improvement in this day and age.

[AmperZand]

On 11/7/2024 at 1:40 PM, Renny The Spaceman said:

That's a reductive way of looking at it, LEGO's modern aesthetic isn't inherently better because it looks less like it's made of bricks. Wouldn't think people would still view it that way in a post Slugger world, they're unlikely to ever go back to that aesthetic outside of occasional throwback sets marrying the best of old school aesthetics and modern engineering (Like the Galaxy Explorer redux) and it'd make no financial sense too but this isn't a pure nostalgia thing, that aesthetic is more timeless and charming, the classic green dragon still holds up today but if I look at Ninjago dragons from 2016 they look like robots compared to modern ones.

This isn't a progress thing, it's a fundamentally different aesthetic with different benefits and drawbacks

I completely agree. Indeed, I’d go further. Current LEGO speaks two design languages simultaneously.

On the one hand, you still have parts that emulate ones that can made by hand of wood. The minifig head, for example, is a shape that can be turned on a lathe. The torso and legs have flat sides because those or relatively easy to make of wood.

On the other hand, you have intricate parts with many curved surfaces that would be a nightmare to shape consistently by hand.

LEGO of yesteryear adhered to the first (or came close). LEGO of today is an incoherent mix. The earlier style had a charm from its simpler lines that the newer aesthetic lacks, and combining the two just accentuates that difference. If you’re going to advocate for more detail being better in the moulds and prints because it’s less abstract, then you’re in favour of standard minifigures having more realistic features such as noses, ears and round body shapes.

[thewatchman]

The newest leak of the creator dragon appears to be a remake of the classic style. 
 With red wings on a green body, and the alternate build seems a sneaky nod to the water version that was never released.

[SpacePolice89]

3 hours ago, AmperZand said:

On the one hand, you still have parts that emulate ones that can made by hand of wood. The minifig head, for example, is a shape that can be turned on a lathe. The torso and legs have flat sides because those or relatively easy to make of wood.

The minifig was designed long after the wooden toy era and was designed with plastic in mind,

[Triceron]

  The creator set looks solid for each of the builds. If someone makes a moc out of that creator set that looks like the Classic Dragon that would be icing on the cake

Edited November 12, 2024 by Triceron

[Alexandrina]

2 hours ago, AmperZand said:

If you’re going to advocate for more detail being better in the moulds and prints because it’s less abstract, then you’re in favour of standard minifigures having more realistic features such as noses, ears and round body shapes.

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.

[RichardGoring]

It's a nicely impressive dragon that can really terrorize a castle. The classic one is good for play, but the brick built new one looks much better to me.

[zoth33]

9 hours ago, Triceron said:

  The creator set looks solid for each of the builds. If someone makes a moc out of that creator set that looks like the Classic Dragon that would be icing on the cake

Yes I think it looks pretty good and actually look forward to getting this.  I wonder if BrickMonarch will go over this set next week on their YT show.  

9 hours ago, RichardGoring said:

It's a nicely impressive dragon that can really terrorize a castle. The classic one is good for play, but the brick built new one looks much better to me.

Yeah and the alternate builds look really solid too.  

[Triceron]

On 11/12/2024 at 5:43 AM, AmperZand said:

I completely agree. Indeed, I’d go further. Current LEGO speaks two design languages simultaneously.

On the one hand, you still have parts that emulate ones that can made by hand of wood. The minifig head, for example, is a shape that can be turned on a lathe. The torso and legs have flat sides because those or relatively easy to make of wood.

On the other hand, you have intricate parts with many curved surfaces that would be a nightmare to shape consistently by hand.

LEGO of yesteryear adhered to the first (or came close). LEGO of today is an incoherent mix. The earlier style had a charm from its simpler lines that the newer aesthetic lacks, and combining the two just accentuates that difference. If you’re going to advocate for more detail being better in the moulds and prints because it’s less abstract, then you’re in favour of standard minifigures having more realistic features such as noses, ears and round body shapes.

IMO it's more about finding a way to make it relevant with modern Lego.

There is charm to old molds and styles, but at some point there is a fairly clear separation between classic and current looks.  I think an update would be warranted if nothing but as an option.

Look at how Harry Potter creatures have been modernized to fit current styles.  We have old buckbeak that was made like the old style horses and didn't even have eye prints, and we have new buckbeak that fits a much more modern style.  Or Fawkes being quite an abstract piece, while the updated version looks more appropriate alongside other current birds.

I even have a classic polar bear and wish I had a newer one because the classic lacks play features, not even a stud on top or a movable jaw.  Articulation is important too.  A new Dragon that is as good as Buckbeaks remake could be a good thing if nothing more than just being a new option. It doesn't have to be a 100% improvement, that is always subjective, like how people are divided over Basils new helm design.  It's just different and I think it's better to have more options than not.

Edited November 13, 2024 by Triceron

[Ardelon]

I vote for Yes - with the above-mentioned caveats that it should probably have a new way to connect the new flame pieces, and I wouldn't mind leg articulation (though the tail might get in the way) or head/neck articulation (it it could be done without compromising the form too much). I still consider it a "yes" vote since I would like to preserve the actual "form", with or without any "functions". It already has the ability to carry a sitting minifig, so I don't see a need for it to accommodate a saddle piece, as was also suggested above.

It is simply an iconic creature, and it looks much more organic than brick-built dragons, and therefore fits in the minifigure world better. Brick-built animals are still too robotic for my taste. Maybe if there was a more seamless way to make the joints, something like the way arms attach to minifigs but on a larger scale, then brick-built animals might look better to me.

I would also like the see the dragon in new colors - dark green, olive green, red, dark red, etc.

Edited November 15, 2024 by Ardelon

[SpacePolice89]

2 hours ago, Ardelon said:

I would also like the see the dragon in new colors - dark green, olive green, red, dark red, etc.

Same here, some new colors in addition to the existing ones would be very welcome.

[sondh]

I don't care about pose, my main concern is whether we can attach a fire piece to his mouth or not.