>>131
Just want to make it clear I didn't make that tier list, because I don't have such unbelievably shit taste. You can make your own list over on: https://tiermaker.com/create/all-past-and-preset-lego-themes-76681

I spent a bit of time making this, looking at a bunch of lego sets and evaluating the themes
Some of the ones in the lower tiers might be debatable but the bottom tier is definitely accurate

The S tier themes have soul, there's just something about them which captivates in the way that some of the later released but great themes can't quite capture

>>146
Can Duplo even be categorised? I don't think anyone outside of the intended age range likes can judge it. Is Toy Story 4 that bad too? I know its Junior-ised but the sets are alright, especially the one with Woody, the Toy Soldiers, and RC.

I'd make the case that Stranger Things should go in the bad tier as it's just a single set designed for adult pop culture enthusiasts, and doesn't really offer anything.

>>147
>Can Duplo even be categorised? I don't think anyone outside of the intended age range likes can judge it.
Maybe its bad to categorize duplo but it has the most limited age range/usage
Granted, the duplo line itself might not be bad but since it was in there its on the bottom
>Is Toy Story 4 that bad too? I know its Junior-ised but the sets are alright, especially the one with Woody, the Toy Soldiers, and RC
From the way that toy story pieces (especially the characters) are shaped they don't look or feel much like lego, they might aswell be some other toy line, I don't know but it just feels very forced just from looking at it. I haven't actually had experience with that as a lego theme so I may have made an error with the assessment but from what I've seen it goes into lower tiers either way
>I'd make the case that Stranger Things should go in the bad tier as it's just a single set designed for adult pop culture enthusiasts, and doesn't really offer anything
Oh is it only one set? From what I could see of it, it didn't look too bad, but again my experience with some of the themes is limited. I did see the tv episodes and the set matches that. Granted, I don't like too much specific pop culture things made into Lego sets either

>>148
>it has the most limited age range/usage
Didn't think of it that way, but you're right. Some of the bigger bricks can be used for filler though if you need to build a big skeleton for a MOC, but that's its only use for AFOLs
>from what I've seen it goes into lower tiers either way
I'd make the case it belongs in the passable tier because the sets are at least decently designed and have some useful pieces that can be repurposed. If you aren't a fan of Toy Story though it isn't much.
>Oh is it only one set?
Yeah they made the house, a comic con exclusive figure and some promotional polybag (think it was a small fort/treehouse/den). I don't know how well the set sold, but if it doesn't get anymore sets it will be another IP Lego has fruitlessly invested in.

>>145
>Jack Stone
>Ben 10
>Passable
Anon...

Any list where Bionicle and Creator aren't S-tier is objectively fucking wrong.

>>153
Assigning a single tier to all of Bionicle is really unfair in my opinion, it went on for too long and had too many swings in quality. Everyone can agree that the first 3 years were an automatic S tier, but the Ignition trilogy was good tier at best. And that's not getting into the shitshow that was the end of the line and G2's shitty build-a-bear sets.

>>146
>>147
Fixed

>>162
>G2's shitty build-a-bear sets
Lol, pretty much what they were

>>165
Nice ranks, far better than the original. Why'd you put Prince of Persia so high and Galaxy Squad so low? Just wondering.

>>150
I had too much fun with Jack Stone's car and bank robbery set as a kid to call it bad. It gets a pass.
Ben 10 had some great pieces for bionicle.
Any other questions?

>>169
Objectively speaking, I think they're both bad themes that didn't bring much to the table. Got to admit that I did have some fun with the Jack Stone figures from the toothbrushes though, even if I had no idea what theme they were from or who/what he was. Childhood me thought he was some sort of secret agent with the different types of jumpsuits he had.

>>166
I put galaxy squad so low only because I couldn't tell what it was, these thumbnails are tiny and I don't have experience with every single theme
Like what even is that yellow listing thing second lowest and second from the right?

>>171
>these thumbnails are tiny
Yeah, I don't blame you. It doesn't help that they don't just use the logos either. It took me a while to realise that the one below Unikitty was Mars MIssion.
>Like what even is that yellow listing thing second lowest and second from the right?
Think I can make out Fabuland, not to sure though

>>131
Scooby Doo sets were great, kys retard.
>Overwatch
>anything but shit
Absolute Zoomer.

>>261
See >>132

The truth.

>>273
Why isn't freestyle in the same tier as classic? What makes Lone Ranger passable?

When making your charts, disregard every licensed theme that came after 1999-2001 System Star Wars.

>>275
Tbh, I have bad eyesight and couldn't recognize what some of the themes were.

>>276
>Indiana Jones
>LOTR
>POTC
>Prince of Persia
Pretty good themes in terms of pieces they introduced if you ask me.

>>281
They're soulless.

>>283
If you're only looking for how soulful a theme is, then you'll only find that yellow minifg era Star Wars is the only soulful licensed theme. It doesn't mean other licensed themes are bad per se.

>>285
Old licensed sets had a touch of LEGO's own creativity in them. Models weren't perfect recreations, and that's where the soul lies, since you use your imagination - or even better - improve them yourself, and thus draw enjoyment from them. Nowadays every licensed theme has specific unique pieces made for them that are designed specifically after the original thing from the source material.
Why make a star wars blaster out existing pieces and your own imagination when you can just make a one-piece mold of a blaster, right? Why try to build anything instead of just making specific molds for everything like all other toys do?
Why stop there, why have your own pirate theme you can do anything with and make incredible shit (like Vikings) when you can just license POTC and join the mainstream? Why have a cheeky aussie explorer when you can just make Indiana Jones the only cheeky explorer in existence? No need for originality.
I excuse Star Wars '99 because LEGO Space/Tron series was long retired and there was a vacuum in space themes around that time, but doing it too much just makes it pointless. What's the point if it's just an imitation of existing media? All other licensed toys already do that. It makes me sad, but I guess you have to follow the money sometimes.

>>286
You hit the nail on the head there anon. It's a case of modern licensed themes being made by Lego while older Lego making licensed themes, if that makes sense. New licensed themes are accurate representations of their source material (hyper-detailed minifigures, heavy reliance on specialised pieces with no re-usability, and no evidence of it being a Lego set as it feels more like a scaled model) whereas the older themes had a distinct Lego feel to them. If I had to single out a specific theme that shows this, it'd be Harry Potter. Back in 2001 the sets were wildly different to the movies (I don't remember Hogwarts being that garishly coloured!) but had the Lego touch to them - the modern sets have lost this completely.

I've looked online and find that this change seems to be noticeable around 2006-08 with a slew of licensed themes each with unique pieces and less of a focus on rebuilding sets, though the first major change has to be the switch to flesh tones.

Pardon my 90's boner

>>287 >Harry Potter That reminds me of the old Ford Anglia build they had, at the time it was awesome and you could neatly fit it into city builds, now, because all the changes, it looks completely out of place in a city.

>>1190 Wtf is wrong with you