Very good point. I think the snakes having the extremely advanced weaponry of a construction vehicle was a bit silly, but the villains were primarily the ones with the manufacturing power to produce vehicles of such nature.
Honestly, it seems like the ninja have access to more tech than the villains do at this point. It also makes the whole underdog heroes thing the theme has thrived off of go completely unusable if the previous years’ vehicles aren’t magic’d away or the giant flying boat doesn’t radically change form again, because they would significantly inhibit the plot.
Another advantage Bionicle had was forcing the protagonists to constantly change locations so the familiar, accessible solutions were no longer an option - Metru Nui was abandoned in favor of chasing the Piraka, Voya Nui was abandoned to chase the Mask of Life, etc.
I’m pretty sure if you gave the Exo-Force cast some face scarves you’d have the same theme.
Although, and since this is in line with the topic, what would you consider to be Ninjago’s aesthetic? I don’t think it’s kept it either, but I’m curious to see what your definition is.
Agreed. I liked it when it felt like a more fleshed-out version of Castle’s short-lived ninja subline, but now it’s just every Power Rangers plot ever. The heroes need the macguffin of the episode, they have infinite numbers of magical weapons that get lost and found like dollar tree toys in a thrift store, and they rely heavily on vehicles to sell sets over locations or creatures. I really like the 2011 sets because the Ninja just had the dragons and Wu’s Monastery, and occasional temples in elemental-aligned locations that were booby-trapped against everyone. It didn’t have anime milspec equipment as the focus of the plot, just a fantasy “power sword” plot, and ever since they abandoned the rural Asia setting, it has further devolved into inanity. Most villains don’t even have a unique ability anymore, they’re like Pokémon with their overlapping abilities and redundant designs.
I honestly think it’s not quite as bad as Power Rangers, since Power Rangers barely ever has to reference itself to keep functioning. However,your point is still valid.
They also have a problem of villains of increasing levels of power spawning out of the aether when needed. Another issue Bionicle had and solved; the scope of the world kept dramatically increasing, from an island to an abandoned futuristic city to a whole chain of islands to an entire universe inside a giant robot which traveled back to its home planet. Kinda goofy, but it naturally produced a number of holes in the setting that villains appeared to fill.
It’s very interesting, though, that all the largest sets designed to appeal to legacy fans lean heavily on the rural Asia aesthetic even in the cityscapes. One (and maybe the only) positive thing the movie did for the franchise.
I wouldn’t know about that, but I think it’s worth highlighting how strong Ninjago’s villains started out, especially in design. Garmadon and Samukai were an excellent pair, and as overdone as they later became, the snake tribes were each distinct and served to interject cross-conflict into the villain side.
Actually, on that note, another unpopular opinion: I think LEGO needs to return to the days of more one-dimensional villains such as cropped up in the pre-Bionicle and early-Bionicle years. That may sound antithetical to the idea of a more complex story, but LEGO has proven they don’t know how to make villains captivating out the gate. It’s time to dial back the nuance and refocus on making good characters again.
I suppose Ninjago behaves as the new Power Rangers, and soon a reset in team members each year with the occasional team up of former members.
I rather hope things do not grow stale. Seeing new ideas blossom is an appealing aspect of LEGO, but anything to get the children off the devices remains a bonus as long as it does not contribute to their minds becoming mush.
This. With the possible exception of Bionicle, the teenage demographic is pretty much all but ignored by LEGO. They nowadays tend to appeal either to youngest of kids or to 40 year old nostalgic adults. The actual teenage and young adult audience (which I would argue, forms a demographic just as large as the AFOL one) I feel like is criminally neglected by LEGO. Instead of candy-colored themes like Dreamzzz, imagine what would it be like if we got something with a more dark and gritty aesthetic. It’s weird, because during the 2000s we actually used to get themes like this, just look at Dino Attack or Vikings.
In terms of storytelling, LEGO seems to be stuck in only appealing to 7 year olds without having any understanding of the fact that your story should mature as your audience also does, instead of just keeping it at the same level constantly.
Unfortunately, it seems like LEGO have reached such a level of being corporately controlled that any idea that doesn’t have a proven track record of guaranteed sales is not even considered.
Again, as I mentioned above, LEGO announced yesterday that the new Ninjago spinoff (Ninjago Legends: Duskfall) will be aimed at a more mature teenage audience. Is that a new theme? Technically, no, but, judging by the trailer, it practically is. So, perhaps this isn’t such an unpopular opinion?
Unfortunately, Dino Attack (Dino 2010) and Vikings didn’t actually perform all that well at the time, although certainly the latter is celebrated now. However, neither featured all that notable or even present of a story, so they’re not the best examples of mature storytelling.
Beyond that, I have to agree.
I think that’s the main problem: LEGO wants to have its cake and eat it, too. Appeal to the primary target audience of children who want to watch shows and buy sets while also crafting an intricate story to build a long-standing fanbase.
Ninjago’s story falls more into the former camp, wanting to appeal to the same age demographic even if they age out fairly quick. As DuneToa pointed out, ideas get retreaded frequently and what made the theme special in the first place has been lost in favor of an all-flavors theme that does everything except what it says in the name.
But beyond that, what else is there? Every other theme ends up too similar to the all-theme that it runs in direct competition with it. As a result, LEGO falls back on the one area proven to work well regardless of their own competition.
Licensed themes statistically perform much better than original themes do, as they target the wide intersection of fans of well-established media and the LEGO consumer base. And new properties enter into the public sphere of interest all the time, with completely free (for LEGO) market data to show what does and doesn’t sell.
So, Ninjago consumes the resources and ideas that new original themes would be tested with, while the licensed themes continue to grow, recycling their own ideas as well. And LEGO will likely never make a license deal with a property surrounding mechs, because that would provide direct competition with Ninjago and defeat the purpose of the license.
I can confirm that this is both highly likely to be true and an unpopular opinion among the massive AFOL crowd. Most of them view the mid-teen years as the prime point for a builder’s dark ages to occur, and subsequently don’t see a reason for LEGO to market to that demographic, despite that very demographic being a driving force behind shows and displays.
But, that’s what the licensed themes are for. Why market to the key bridge between adult collectors and the target audience when everyone else can do that for you, and all you have to do is sell merchandise for them?
Now I’m a sucker for licensed themes too, don’t get me wrong. But much like LEGO, I’d like to have it both ways, too.
Actually, that’s not true, in LEGO’s 2005 annual report, they specifically mentioned that Dino Attack had performed “above expectations.” For a short lived experimental theme that wasn’t meant to last beyond one wave, that didn’t feature any elaborate marketing, I would say that was quite a successful experiment.
Ironically, I feel like LEGO themselves are the reason why so many teenagers and young adults loose interest in the hobby at that age: Because LEGO has nothing to offer them that actually interests them!
Teenagers and young adults are the primary demographic that watches mature shows such as anime, many of which often have concepts and ideas that would translate wonderfully into LEGO (which in my opinion makes Exo-Force stand out even more as a theme).
It’s a similar story behind why teenagers and young adults frequently lose interest in animated Disney movies, yet many of them don’t just give up watching animated movies and go for only live-action, but instead end up flocking to Anime or Studio Ghibli movies instead. It’s not the medium of animation itself that is the problem: It’s the subject matter not being interesting anymore for their particular age group. I would argue it’s exactly the same with LEGO.
“Above expectations” isn’t the same thing as “all that well”. But it’s interesting that LEGO didn’t have high expectations for it; the LEGO of today certainly wouldn’t be willing to take such gambles.
There’s also significantly more animated material to work with for licenses nowadays, along with more animation studios with proven success rates and dedicated followings. Personally I’m always holding the irrational hope that LEGO will show sudden and unprompted interest in major indie animation studios with no global prominence or proven market power just because it would be funny I think
I see my last post has made some intense ripples here.
I’d like to share some of my thoughts on some of your takes:
Heh, then it’s indeed a settled issue. Anyway, thanks for the heads up!
Yes, that’s undoubtedly the case.
However, that shouldn’t stop them from trying it in the forseeable future.
Mainly, because the market as it is is an ever-changing thing, and Ninjago may withstand it for a while, but that won’t always be the case.
Besides, I think it would be only beneficial for Lego to be able to lean on more legs than just one.
Ha! Thank you for the compliment!
Interesting! I will take a look at it when it is released somewhere.
Absolutely! They should really put a heavier focus on that group in the future.
Hopefully, if the tides turn in a different direction in the market, Lego may try to take another shot at appealing to the teens once again.
I would be more than happy if Lego just focused on creative world building with simple characters. They can imply more mature themes without having to do the extremely difficult job of writing an extensive series. The fans can fill in the gaps with their own imaginations in conjunction with the sets.
Hard agree, but how do we get John LEGO to see the light?
LEGO can only lean on one leg at a time (Bionicle, then Ninjago) I’m beginning to think they don’t actually have more than one leg
This should be how the company handles things as the status quo, but I can’t recall any time in recent history they’ve ever done this. It’s either no story and no world building or a story that isn’t really that good and doesn’t go anywhere.
Actually, there is one time, but not really by intent. Bionicle had something of that effect, with the setting being so expansive it was possible to slot a thousand completely isolated adventures into the surrounding world with no interference with the main plot. And people are still making stories to fill the void today.
But it would be cool to see a theme entirely dedicated to that concept. No prewritten story, no named protagonists, just an open lore and lands to fill with the creations the fans desire. To tell their own stories and make up their own adventures. It would take a lot from LEGO to do it well, but I think it’d be worth it.
With this, I make a further claim: Lego has successfully boxed themselves in with this way of thinking, because they have essentially created a self-fulfilling prophecy situation. They predict that during this period of a fan’s life, their interest in LEGO will significantly decline. So they don’t make anything targeting teens. Then they get data and feedback from fans that confirms this hypothesis (despite LEGO themselves being the reason interest declines, not their stated assumption that numerous external factors are the cause). This leads them to lose any reasonable interest to invest in this area of the market, as the data keeps confirming their belief that few teens are really interested in LEGO until after college.
Eventually, this means that unless LEGO themselves take the initiative in creating a theme that really tries to provide something for teens and young adults (and does a solid job of it), they cannot be convinced that it’s their fault that they can’t hold fans’ interest until those fans have a decently-paying job because they have infinite data confirming their corporate assumptions.
It’s the same problem other toy makers have right now, that they (intentionally or not) set up a situation where they reinforce their own claims of failing sales by ignoring the groups that historically made them money and constantly going after extremely marginal gains (like how LEGO has way too many licensed themes right now because they’re chasing everyone else’s success, whether FIFA or Star Wars or Harry Potter or every sports car manufacturer ever). Sometimes this is successful, but it also leads to companies forgetting who they are in their own mission, vision, and values. Too much of this, and any company starts cultivating a reputation of mediocrity and seeming greed. Lego already is starting to have this issue with their licensed sets, and some could say it’s leaching into their other lines as well (though honestly a lot of their core IPs like City are basically immune to the mediocrity claim).
They really need to step out from that box/bubble one day, because Ninjago won’t be there for them forever to lean on it.
(If , OFC, They’d get into another financial disaster.)
Plus, as a firm believer that “diversity is the spice of life,” I think it would really benefit both them & their customers if they’d be willing to be more open towards teenagers.
TBH?
IMO, they’d need to be presented with a strong enough pitch for a teen-oriented theme that would be promising enough for them to give it a shot.
If this theoretical line were made, it would end up being a major hit among its audience; then, perhaps, they would change their stance.
But that’s just how I would imagine it.
Hence, why there is only one “Leg” in the name Lego and not “legs”. /j.
Y’know at some point we’re gonna have to rename this topic to Extremely Popular And Based Opinions about LEGO
I think this is compounded by a completely external factor LEGO has no control over: the growing public consensus that legacy IPs have fallen into the hands of people severely lacking the ability to produce good content with them, either through intentionally malicious efforts or (Hanlon’s razor) general incompetence.
It’s a completely separate discussion, to be sure, but it means those separate successes LEGO has been fervently chasing are now starting to lose their guaranteed interest status in the public eye. Meaning that, with Ninjago focusing on a decidedly younger audience, and the adult collector range becoming more niche in the properties it adapts, that middle ground of teen to young adult is growing wider and wider, with even less reason to want to buy LEGO.
The time for a new, teen-focused IP is now, before LEGO pushes out one of their biggest audiences away for good.
…How do I get in touch with John LEGO
I can’t even be mad the setup was too good Here is your fave
New and probably not that unpopular opinion idk: LEGO Creator has fallen off hard. I really love all the well-built (when they actually are, that is) animal sets, but they used to make relatively inexpensive sets with 8 alternate builds as the standard, and cheaper sets with loads of alternate build options (like 4881 my beloved). We need more of that.
LEGO have sold their soul for profit and have allowed themselves to become controlled by greedy money-minded executives that don’t actually know anything and cannot care less about the LEGO hobby. This may seem like a conspiracy theory, but when you look into who the current CEO of LEGO actually is, you start to realize that this idea is not actually that far fetched. The current CEO, Niels Christiansen, which took over the company in 2017, was previously the CEO of Danfos… A Danish manufacturing company specializing in climate solutions, power systems, and industrial automation.
Anyone who learns this bit of information may naturally ask… What does a company like that have to do with LEGO at all, or even the toy industry more broadly? Absolutely nothing.
The timeline also honestly really makes a lot of sense to me. 2017 is around the time when we really started to see the decline of original themes and an unprecedented rise in Licensed themes. Now, 10 years after this guy has taken over, LEGO is utterly unrecognizable from what it was prior to the 2017.
I am genuinely curious, why would LEGO bring in a guy to lead them that had no previous experience in the toy industry? That to me sounds as absurd as bringing in the CEO of Nintendo to lead an agriculture company, the subject matters just seem to have nothing to do with each other.
With such a guy in charge, it’s honestly no wonder LEGO have shifted in the direction they have.
If LEGO wants to recapture the souls and imagination of both new generations of kids, and the kids who have already grown up with LEGO and are now adults, they really ought to drop this whole corporate act and bring in a new CEO who actually understands the LEGO Hobby and is a LEGO fan himself.
This makes a whole lot of sense! I’ve seen the same with Hasbro: their current CEO wants to move to digital instead of physical products, so instead of selling reasonably high-quality products to customers, he tries to min-max product costs and materials while hyping up video games that either never get made or become abandonware shortly after release. The reason? He worked as a member of Wizards of the Coast and also for XBOX. Neither are businesses that sell toys. Just games and higher-end collectible merch.
We definitely need companies to start vetting executives more, because too many of them don’t hold to anything that characterizes the brands they work for.
/j.
Here is your fave 