For me, when I was into legos, the answer would be: take it apart and add the pieces to my larger collection, from which I can build whatever I want.
For me, when I was into legos, the answer would be: take it apart and add the pieces to my larger collection, from which I can build whatever I want.
Me too. Reminds me of the Milton Jones joke:
When I was younger, I used to own a zoo, and a pirate ship....
Though not at the same time. We couldn't afford that much lego.
when you were into Legos, the bricks used were of universal shape. modern sets like this are mostly of a shape that is highly specific to the intended outcome. which is basically orthogonal to the original appeal of playing with Lego. I'm saying that as someone who grew up with two large boxes full of Lego bricks and pieces.
This is actually not particularly true. In fact, the problem of unique pieces almost ended up sinking Lego because they were spending so much on molds and manufacturing of a single piece that was only used in one set. If the set didn't sell well, Lego could potentially lose money on the set overall because of all the tooling costs.
Back in the aughts, they redid their philosophy of having large single-purpose pieces and went to having those large pieces be replaced by subassemblies of much smaller pieces that were much more general purpose. That's when SNOT became huge in Lego's official sets.
As someone with multiple decades of experience with Lego, things now are much much better than they were back in the 90's and early aughts specifically because of this pivot that Lego did. There is something to be said about part count inflation, and how many of the parts nowadays are tiny little pieces rather than the big 2x2 or 2x4 bricks. And also, some sets and some themes do require their unique pieces. Friends has their little minifigures that are different from the standard minifigs. The Mario sets might need to have some specific pieces -- there's no standard 'mario mustache' tile. But overall, Lego has done a pretty incredible job of increasing the utility and decreasing the single-use aspect of many pieces.
With a lot of the adult-oriented sets (ICONS and others), especially anything plant-based, they go out of their way to point out how they're using existing pieces in an unusual way. One example is the cherry blossoms on the bonsai tree are actually frogs, but cast in a pink color for the first time, called out in the instruction manual as you're building it.
I love it, knowing about these little details. Also fun to share with friends that inquire about the various LEGO on display in the house. This, and all the fancy mechanics (e.g. typewriter, nintendo), engender a ton of respect and awe for the designers.
I've talked with a Lego designer before, and for some themes they're not allowed to even request new molds. Even new colors of existing pieces can be contentious. My own head canon about the bonsai set is that the reason they made such a big fuss about having the recolored frogs is because it probably was a big fuss internally too. "Who'd ever need pink frogs?" sort of thing.
It's an impressive model and I'd like to see it in the Lego shop - but I wouldn't like to own it. When it comes time to use the pieces for something else, that's ten thousand beige blocks. Its like some of the Star Wars Lego, for instance the AT-AT is a fantastic creation but its just all the same colour, and to me isn't interesting for more than a few minutes. I like the larger builds that are minifigure-scaled e.g. the bookshop or Hogsmeade or Ninjago city gardens, there's much more detail and variation and fun
This cathedral would make a very fine intergalactic battlecruiser.
You could probably make Rocky's ship from Project Hail Mary with this cathedral model.
when I was into legos (as a kid; I've sadly had too many hobbies and not enough time as an adult) I would jump directly to step 2. I only bought (asked my parents for :)) specific models if they had a lot of interesting new piece types.