Jump to content

THEORY: The Sam Sinister Switcheroo


emily
 Share

Recommended Posts

You all know what I'm talking about. That logic defying enigma of the Adventurers theme, when Baron von Barron became Sam Sinister, and Sam Sinister vanished into the ether, his only subsequent appearances defaulting to his German name Slyboots.

 

It's become more or less the punchline to the joke of the Baron's many names, which in itself was a symptom of LEGO's problem with leaving character names and specific story details up to each individual region at the time.

 

It's tempting to chalk it up to some error on LEGO's part, but that's proven impossible thanks to ">this infuriatingly tantalizing MANIA Magazine page that bills the character "Sam Sinister (aka Baron von Barron). So the question is, why the heck did LEGO assign the name to another character? And why did that character later assume the dress of the original?

 

I think I may have an answer. But first of all, to avoid things getting confusing really fast, I'm going to assign identifiers to each minifig that is pertinent to this discussion. This guy will heretofore be referred to as fig A, this guy is fig B and this guy is fig C. And now, for absolute clarity, here's a rundown of the known names that have been assigned to each figure:

 

FIGURE A

1998: Baron von Barron, Evil Eye, Mr. Hates, Ulrich Unhand

2000: Sam Sinister, Sam Sanister, Alex Gluipstra

 

FIGURE B

1998: Sam Sinister, Lizard Boots, Slyboots

 

FIGURE C

2003: Lord Sam Sinister

 

This theory hinges on one major assumption: That there was a massive miscommunication in 1998 regarding the identities of the Adventurers figures. I do not believe that this is too far-fetched - continuity and consistency were the furthest things from LEGO's minds at the point, and the names and personalities of figures were by and large only a small part of what they were doing - selling toys. Look at the awful confusion of Insectiods and UFO characters that we see all over the place - it is apparent that LEGO was not devoting too much energy to fig identity at the time.

 

So what would this massive miscommunication be, then? It's comprised of a few parts. At the core of it, this theory assumes that in the original story treatment for Adventurers, Figure B is designated the 'big bad' while Figure A is designated his sidekick or hired help. This idea may seem unintuitive to us as fans long trained to think of Figure A as the definitive villain of Adventurers, but bear with me - this will make more sense as it goes along.

 

In fact, we know with full certainty that the original US continuity did, in fact, have Figure B as the big bad - it just chose to shine more of the spotlight on Figure A anyway. Figure A is shown as the brutish and forward muscle of the team, with Figure B as the sneaky brains. This leads us to our first major proposition - the name Sam Sinister was always originally intended for Figure A, and the name Baron von Barron was originally reserved for Figure B. "Baron von Baron," while being distinctly tongue-in-cheek, is a name that carries overtones of dignity and aristocracy. In that regard, it is much more applicable to the tux-and-tophat clad Figure B, as opposed to Figure A, who is more rough-and-ready with proper desert gear.

 

Now we turn our attention to the other continuities. The stories in the UK and Germany overlap almost entirely, with Figure A being the villain leader and Figure B being his hired help, a retired boxing champion. When was the last time someone said 'boxing champion' and you imagined a man in a tuxedo and spectacles? Contrast that with the powerful Figure A, with battle wounds and a silhouette made more powerful by bulking his shoulders with epaulettes. Figure A is also framed as the brute of the two in the US continuity. And so I propose that in the UK/Germany continuities, the names of Figure A and Figure B were not switched, but their identities were.

 

If we go so far as to assume all of the above is true, things begin to fall into place. In 2000, with the advent of the Dino Island line, LEGO wants to bring back Figure A as the antagonist. Rather than pursue their now two-year-old blunder in naming him Baron von Barron, they use his proper, intended name and leave a note in MANIA magazine for any readers that might remember back to the 1998 issues. This ultimately creates a problem for third-party story developers like ATD when they worked on LEGO Racers - Figure B had had a name, but now it had been taken away from him. The solution, then, would be to look at other names that had been used for that figure and select one, (Slyboots).

 

So a few years pass and LEGO gears up to reboot Adventurers as Orient Expedition. They want to bring back the original big bad, Figure B, as the antagonist, but they run into a problem: Figure A's presence in the Dino Island theme, and later the Johnny Thunder and the Adventurers animations in 2002, had solidified him as the definitive villain of the series. Bringing back Figure B wouldn't make sense to fans, especially considering the confusion with his name that would already have been apparent. So they compromised: use Figure A, but give him Figure B's garb to channel some of that energy. A nice idea on paper, maybe, but it's given people like us some serious headaches as we wonder what the heck is going on.

 

And so the Sam Sinister switcheroo was complete, and two Sams became one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol username

It sounds bizarre at first - but it wouldn't be the worst they got things mixed up by a long shot; I'm still baffled by how much they scrambled the Alpha Team characters in 2004. So it sounds plausible.

 

Also, isn't there an ad in some magazine (I think the same one that has the Scooby Doo/Insectoids crossover) that gives a name as "Simon B. Sinister"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh yeah. That was weird.

 

I wonder if he is referred to by that name consistently in the game. Unfortunately I've only ever seen it being sold for exorbitant sums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So Figure A was always meant to be "Sam Sinister" while Figure B was intended to be "Baron von Barron"?  I'd argue that a deliciously-villainous name like "Sam Sinister" could fit either of these "Richard" Dastardly-esque characters (and it ultimately did), but considering that, as you said, Figure B's attire is more fitting of a 1920s aristocrat, it seems plausible to me.  I'd also like to point out that, a year before Orient Expedition was released, Figure A was already wearing Figure B's top hat, for whatever that may be worth.

 

As for Simon B. Sinister, it's worth noting that the Instructions (more clearly transcribed here) refer to him as "Sam Sinister", so I have no idea where "Simon B." comes from.  But... the first syllables of Simon and Slyboots sound similar (just with the inclusion of the letter L in the latter) and the initial B. may stand for Boot(s) (one set even calls him Sly Boot), so perhaps we can come up with some overly-convoluted MOCanon about how "Slyboots/Sly Boot" is an alias and his real name is Simon B.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So correct me if I'm wrong:

 

Figure A in Lego Racers 1: Baron von Baron, should be called Sam Sinister

Figure B in Lego Racers 1: Sam Sinister, should be called Baron von Baron

Figure A in Lego Racers 2: Sam Sanister, should be called Sam Sinister

Figure B in Lego Racers 2: Slyboots, should be called Baron von Baron?

 

And Figure C is in fact Figure A wearing Figure B's clothes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

This is an interesting theory, and one that makes a lot of sense. However, it does raise some questions.

I think that "Baron von Barron" is actually a very fitting name for Figure A, and perhaps more fitting than if the names were switched: in addition to suggesting aristocracy (and that monocle sure seems aristocratic), it also could be a nod to the Red Baron, since Figure A was always the one flying the planes in the original desert line. In fact, there was a set that, in the USA, was called "Bi-Wing Baron."

Of course, your theory is very probable--and rather unique in that it attempts to see what was going on behind the scenes. Most other theories I've seen are in-universe explanations--like mine, which posits that Baron Samuel von Barron somehow cheated Lord Sam Sinister out of his title and manor and assumed the styling of "Lord Sinister" for himself, since he is now lord of the Sinister estate. This fits in nicely with his MO of using and then ditching associates, etc. However, it's certainly nothing close to what Lego intended, so kudos to you for going more meta and reaching the most likely conclusion I've seen outside of "they just didn't care."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.