Problem Minifigs: More on Johnny Thunder

Over a year ago, I posted (linkie!) about Johnny Thunder as a minifig, calling him a "problem minifig." The particular definition that I was going for was that, although he's an attractive minifig by himself, he's a difficult fig to assimilate in multiple copies to one's collection. This is a problem with hero, villain, or other "character" minifigs because they've been designed to stand out, unlike "soldier figs," who are conducive to army-building by their very nature. As far as problem minifigs go, Johnny Thunder is by no means the most problematic. The post from last year showed how I've incorporated the five Johnny Thunders of my collection into new forms; this post will go further and deal with other "Johnnies" I've had to deal with. These other Johnnies come from two sources: Soccer sets (3420 and 3406) and the Knights' Kingdom (2) chess set, 678. Before I get to the fates of these eleven minifigs, however, I'll deal briefly with a duplicate Johnny head that entered my collection via Bricklink last summer. It may be wondered why I ordered a Johnny head at all, when these posts show that I have more Johnny heads than I need; the answer is an illustration in the economy of Bricklink: in order to replace a minifig that was part of a stolen bag last summer, I needed a Johnny torso, and it was more expedient for me to buy the whole fig than just the head. The discarded extra head, however, did not stay discarded long, and soon found a job on the police force:

It will be noted, at least, that this redundant Johnny is at least a Johnny 2.0, of which there are fewer in my collection--not least because the 11 Johnnies-that-did-come-as-a-Johnny are all the original versions. Eight came as Shadow Knight pawns in the chess set; the other three are members of soccer teams. Here is a group shot of the 11 duplicates, in their new roles:

It is easy to see here how Johnny-heads are not useless, despite being something of a "problem." Four of them--the four in the back--retain, more or less, the identities they possessed when they arrived in my collection: three soccer players and a Shadow Knight--though there have been some trades in the Soccer league. The major difference is that I did not keep the other seven Shadow Knights as they were. Three have joined other Castle armies: Dragon Master, Royal Knight, and Shadow Knight. Two more have joined other historical themes, Imperial Guard and Wild West cavalry. Joined with three of the extra Johnnies in last year's post who were added to historical (Castle and Pirate) themes, this shows an overwhelming preference for using Johnny's be-follicled face for minifigs who predate modern razors. They don't work uniformly well--I don't think the Dragon Master wears his mustache quite so well as the Imperial Guard, for example, but they do work. In much the same way, Johnny's face can be used in science fiction settings, such as the Aquanaut and Blacktron (1) figs shown here. I don't think Johnny works quite as well in a futuristic setting, but it isn't completely incongruous, possibly because Johnny's facial hair is well-kept and not overly lurid--though maybe more lurid would work better, if one went for more of a "large ham" and less of a "Starfleet" sort of look. Meanwhile, what does the Shadow Knight army look like these days?

Well, in keeping with the original Shadow Knight and with the Johnny-Shadow Knights of the Chess Set, there is a strong tendency towards facial hair among this newer, more diverse cast of soldiers. Nor is this quite the entire army--just the eight soldiers who more or less take their origins from the Chess Set pawns. Coming someday... what about Johnny's shirts? Johnny's hats? Other Shadow Knight heads? The list of Problem Minifig examples are endless, and I'm sure will be discussed again.

Some Statistics

Unfortunately, Boston has been cloudy since I've been home, so today's post may be a bit more boring than it might have been in the weather had felt cheerier. Of course, I'm talking about statistics today, so it's possible that no amount of pictures would make that better. On the other hand, I don't think I would have decided to talk about some statistics if I had pictures...

Anyway, you've been duly warned.

I've been using Excel to keep a record of my LEGO collection for some years now. I had a paper record ca. 2000 that listed when I acquired all of my older sets, which remained current until about 2003-4ish (just before the Great Take Apart), and the current Excel document was started in 2007, so it's a mostly accurate record of when I acquired my sets, a completely accurate record of what sets I have, and has also developed into a bit of a statistical chart, as I keep track of the "ratings" my sets get.

Each set is evaluated on five criteria (developed on Classic-Castle in the course of reviewing Castle sets on the official review threads): Parts, Playability, Figs and their Accessories, Design, and "Nostalgia." Obviously, these are all open to subjectivity, and since the point of the whole exercise is more or less to figure which sets are my favourites, that's not really problematic. It's been interesting to compare where sets line up with Lugnet's rating system, and it would seem that (for the most part) once you average out my five criteria, you end up with fairly standard assessments. "Nostalgia" is the trickiest of the five, because while the other four aim for objectivity (while admitting it's a biased process), Nostalgia is there specifically to provide a category to account for sets that I really like (or dislike)... and can't give any good reason for.

On the basis of these statistics, I've also calculated the averages for each subtheme. The numbers are less fair here, since I've only evaluated sets that I own, so a theme with two small (and often mediocre) sets in my collection will probably not rate as well as a theme with 15 sets ranging from small to large, which in turn will not rate as well as a set with only one or two of the largest sets (which often get the best ratings from me). However, as a measure of "favourite," I think this list is fairly accurate, and it's as good a way as any of listing them.

Some other day I might go into a discussion of my favourite or least favourite sets, but for today we'll just look at the favourite and least favourite themes in my collection. Starting at the top, my favourite themes according to this criteria are:

1. Adventurers-the Egyptian Subtheme from 1998, with a 9.85 rating
2. Black Knights, ca. 1992, with a 9.3 rating
3. Designer (the large house sets from the 2000s-2010s), with a 9.25 rating
4. Imperial Guards, 1992-5, with a 9.0 rating
5. Legoland Castle, ca. late 1980s, with a 8.94 rating

The interesting thing about this list, is that the only theme from the 3rd Millennium is the Designer line, probably reflecting the fact that the earlier sets have a higher nostalgic quotient. Indeed, both the Black Knight and the Imperial Guards have been looked at as "Ones That Got Away," and Legoland Castle and the Egyptian Adventurer line would have counted as the same if I had not, in fact, caught them.

At the bottom of the list (of 86 distinctly considered themes--not including Bionicle, Technic, or Duplo) are the following:

82. Alpha Team-Mission Deep Sea, from 2002, with a 7.35 rating
83. Soccer, from the early 2000s, with a 7.25 rating
84. Aquasharks, from 1995-8, with a 7.25 rating (technically a tie with Soccer)
85. Xtreme Island Stunts, from the early 2000s, with a 7.15 rating
86. Junior Pirates, also from the early 2000s, with a 6.4 rating

I do not think it is coincidental that the bottom bunch of sets tends to hail from the early part of the 2000s, nor that Junior Pirates is so abysmally below the rest--Jack Stone would probably be there too, if I'd ever got a set from that line. The Aquasharks are perhaps unfairly in the bottom five, mostly due to the fact that I have only got two sets, and one of them is the abysmal Super Sub, also know as The Aquashark Dart, which has a 6.6 rating.

All of this only goes to show, perhaps, that I am either too much of a nerd or have way too much time on my hands... or both. But I doubt I'm the only one out there who has done anything like this.