Classic-Castle.com

Hey all,

Apparently there is credible news that LEGO might consider a Simpsons license. My response was 'Great! This is so hip and edgy ... twenty years ago.' Do kids still watch the Simpsons? This was a must-see show for me each week back in the mid-nineties, but I probably haven't seen a full episode in years. I'm always surprised when I flip past and see that it's still on TV. A commenter on Brickset kind of summed it up for me saying that for him it was like the Turtles - he might get a set for nostalgia's sake, but that's about it. At least with the Turtles I think there's an ongoing cartoon on the Hub or the Cartoon Network or maybe Nick, so there's a new generation of watchers. But IMO the Simpsons has just sort of dwindled for over a decade. It lost out in being the 'edgy cartoon for teens and grownups' to shows that pushed the boundaries much further, like South Park and the Family Guy, and I'm not sure if younger kids are into it either. Anyway, what do you think? Would this be a viable license? Would kids buy it? Or is it more geared to the AFOL collectors who remember the show from its heyday?
BTW, I've started another related thread to suggest other decades-old irrelevant license ideas to LEGO. I'd like your thoughts there as well, because it seems like LEGO needs some advice.

Bruce

Assuming the rumours of a new Simpsons movie are true it is just as relevant as TMNT, Lone Ranger, Star Wars or any other licensed property. The show is still on TV with new episodes being produced. It must have a reasonable following to still be on the air. Just because you and I stopped watching it years ago does not mean that the target demographic (kids) will not find the theme attractive. And yes, adding in the nostalgia factor for adults is a plus that helps to boost sales of the theme.

I am finding all the hate for a Simpsons theme to be more about personal preferences and less about what makes business sense despite what some critics are saying.

I cannot believe they still make SpongeBob sets. At least the Simpsons might give us interesting characters and places like Krusty Burger or a Qwick-E-Mart which would be fun to modify and add to a town display.

I like the Simpsons. Not the recent episodes (its probably time to put the show out to pasture), but the earlier ones. But I'm not sure they will be a good fit for Lego. At least half the jokes aren't exactly kid friendly. Duff Beer. Moe's Tavern. Quimby and his mistresses.

Though, depending on the sets, I might buy them. A 742 Evergreen Terrace would be a great burnt flesh brick pack. Blockoland might be a fun set.

Steve

AK_Brickster wrote:Well since we aren't sticking to kid-friendly themes (Simpsons is NOT a 5-12 yr old show!)

This sort of sentiment has cropped up a lot in articles and comments I have been reading. I happen to think you are fooling yourself if you think kids in that age group are not watching the Simpsons. Have you ever seen the amount of lunch boxes, t-shirts, shoes, etc that carries Simpsons branding for kids that age?

With a lot of shows aimed originally at adults, once these shows get shown repeatedly in reruns at earlier times in the day more and more parents simply let their kids watch the show. Every generation the kids watch what the parents used to watch as what is socially acceptable changes. Sometimes parents are a little embarrassed if they happen to watch a bit of an episode with their kids and realized that they might have some explaining to do. When it happens to me I gird myself for questions from my ten-year-old and start thinking about what to say. I wait for a minute and usually she just keeps watching the show.

Saying it is not a kids show is simply an excuse from the producers to push the boundaries a little. Compared to Family Guy however which lots of kids watch (thankfully not mine) The Simpsons is the modern equivalent of the Flintstones, a show originally aired in prime time like The Simpsons. When I was a kid it was already being shown in endless reruns during the day and watched by primarily kids.

Hey Tedward,

At the risk of over-moderating (something I try not to do), I'm moving this post from the other thread to this. You make some very valid points here, and I don't want these to get lost. I deliberately started two different threads - this one to discuss the possible new Simpsons theme in a more serious way, and the other one more as just a fun discussion of different licensed theme ideas (though I admit I obviously threw in some editorial jabs at the possible Simpsons theme in the set-up for that thread).

I do get your point about what was for adults in the past is for kids today. E.g. back when Platoon came out I was a teen - my parents told me that I could go see it but only if my dad went along. I'm not a gamer, but I'll bet Call of Duty is much more violent, and I'm sure tons of teens play that without any parental concern. Remember back in the early days of the Simpsons how appalled different family advocacy groups were? And now we just yawn at it. Either we've gotten wiser and less reactionary, or else society has just slid further downhill so that this is tame relative to other things, or maybe the show itself has tamed down a bit to appeal to younger audiences. I suppose it's a mix of these.

Bruce

In my personal opinion, I don't think LEGO and Simpsons is something that goes together or fits the LEGO brand. I personally don't see it as a good choice to license.

So I read this and my thoughts were exactly this "meh." I would not be excited to see this license. Not much I can think of that would be in that license that I would want/need or more importantly...use.

But the reality is LEGO is and has been actively gathering licenses. Some are due to their relationship with Disney (see Marvel, DC, Lucas, and all other Disney related themes that have and do exist and you might go ) and some are due to films, either way, currently LEGO is going after licenses...whether we the AFOL's or TFOL's like it or not.

Relevant to today's society? I'm not sure that is something they consider. Relevant to what a kid would buy? I'm sure if it is going to exist then it tested well...and they do test the lines with kids. Relevant to what a kid should buy? I don't think it is my place to decide what a parent lets their child buy or play with. Therefore I don't think I will debate that.

Also, just because they obtain the license, does not mean they will use it immediately. They had the Harry Potter license for a long time and it went dormant for a few years, then came back with the best sets of that theme right before the license expired.

My only guess is that LEGO would think they could make a profit off this license. And with the number of competitor brick companies popping up all over the place...and they are...it doesn't take a lot of imagination to make the jump from "oh this isn't what why normally sell" to "okay boys, we need to compete and licenses are our bread and butter..so jump on them all."

Bluesecrets wrote:So I read this and my thoughts were exactly this "meh."

Which is quite appropriate, as the Simpsons help to popularize the term. Was that intentional?

Steve

I can't help but feel this really is a bit too late to bother with it. I am sure it will be moderately successful but not half as successful as if it would have been released a decade ago. As has already been mentioned I suppose it will give parts that can easily be integrated into a city/town builders sets but that about it.


I could be completely wrong though

I have a hard time making sense of this. It just seems... odd. I'm not saying they couldn't sell enough to make a profit but it just seems like there are dozens of things that would be far more deserving of shelf space. Like say, Seinfeld, MASH... the Dick Van Dyke show.

Like say, Seinfeld, MASH... the Dick Van Dyke show.

Ah but you forgot, we are not the demographic they pick stuff to sell for. We buy only something like 10% of all LEGO sales world wide. So with that in mind, those shows do not really appeal to the target audience.

Bluesecrets wrote:

Like say, Seinfeld, MASH... the Dick Van Dyke show.

Ah but you forgot, we are not the demographic they pick stuff to sell for. We buy only something like 10% of all LEGO sales world wide. So with that in mind, those shows do not really appeal to the target audience.

I know, I was being sarcastic. The Simpsons does not seem like a great theme for a very large percentage of any age demographic now but even less so for kids. I have a hard time imagining them not collecting dust at most stores.

To me this license is NOT striking while the iron is hot so to speak, as mentioned above it would've sold better a decade ago. Can it still be relevant? Yes I believe so, I can easily see it out-selling SpongeBob. I cannot see any licensor being happy with a deal if they find out afterward that their partner company did the agreement just to 'lock-up' the license away from competitors. If they get the license for the Simpsons they'll make sets,they pretty much have to. It doesn't say how GOOD or the quantity of them that will be designed just that they will be made/released.
Personally I'd say that there are better properties out there to license even if they are not quite as available on public airwaves or theater screens. Can you say Ducktales anyone? Even though it came out a bit later than me be it's primary demographic I could see some fabulous Darkwing Duck sets just to throw out one example.....

For me the bottom line is, if they do a Simpson's line I'd likely get some for the parts but it's not line I'd care about collecting (unlike Castle or a couple of other lines).

I assume that if they do make Simpsons sets that this will be the ones licensed theme where the minfigs aren't fleshies?

Lego Enthusiast wrote:I assume that if they do make Simpsons sets that this will be the ones licensed theme where the minfigs aren't fleshies?

Just another reason to hate it.