The position and future of Friends and minidolls in Lego?

[Esvald Forceswoop]

I don't like minidolls, though it's no surprise since I'm not the target audience for them. Sadly, they are the major factor why I don't buy Elves sets. Elves has some nice builds and is finally a fantasy theme, the only available fantasy theme. Nice buildings, which I really want more, since 90% of my collection is vehicles. However, the strange minidolls are... I don't know how to describe them. They're... alien? I mean, I love doing weird crossovers between themes, and LEGO is perfect for that. Harry Potter fits into the Republic Gunship perfectly, just like Batman can visit the Hogwarts School. But a minidoll would not fit into a Gunship's cockpit, and would stand out if placed into a crowd of regular minifigures. It would be as strange as putting my Hasbro Clone Commander Cody next to my Max Factory Sakura Kyouko. The size difference makes them horribly displayable together.

And this is my biggest concern: An elf girl is not supposed to be bigger than a clone pilot.

As for why not just buy the set and ditch the minidolls: If I done that, I'd have a number of empty buildings. Since I rarely have any fantasy-related minifigures (the closest are my custom made Sword Art Online figs and maybe Harry Potter, but HP is a vastly different type of fantasy), I'd have to buy every single character individually. Which is way too costly for me.

If the minidolls would be around the same height of a minifigure or maybe even smaller a little bit, I wouldn't hesitate to buy Elves sets. But like this, it's a major turn away point.

[Sarah]

As you said, for the target market, I don't think the different sizes is an issue at all.

 

I see my son and daughter playing with their Lego together. It is never a problem if the figure they are holding is a minifigure or a minidoll.

 

I remember the play I did as a child. I would put families together of dollhouse figures and minifigures for the "toddlers" (even though they were out of proportion) and we would act out the Christmas story using every toy that could come to hand -- the angel was always the ceramic decorative angel on the wall. But some figures would be Little People while others would be brick-built people or Barbies. Just depended on what we were playing with that year.  I remember the year we used a Hot Wheels car as the "Camel" to carry Mary and Joseph to the stable. And baby Jesus would usually be one of our baby dolls so we could cuddle him ourselves. (So massively bigger in scale than all the other people)

[rodiziorobs]

3 hours ago, Esvald Forceswoop said:

I don't like minidolls [snip]

I was the same, the minidolls just seemed off to me. Then I bit the bullet and bought an Elves set, and I haven't looked back.

They are not as versatile as minifigs--lack of articulation or variety of 'dolls so far being the biggest issues--but they are intricately detailed and I have come to really like them as their own thing (even integrating them in interesting ways with minifigs in Andromeda's Gates). Apart from the minidolls, the sets are top-tier designs with great value. I was skeptical at first, but now I think Elves is by far Lego's best theme in years.

(I don't care for Friends, but that's because I prefer to build Sci-Fi/Fantasy than city. If there were a "Friends in Space" theme I would probably be into it.)

Edited November 21, 2016 by rodiziorobs

[LEGOshibainu]

Problem with minidolls?

Stop-motion walk cycles!

And completely filling the "Minifig Heads, Modified" section of bricklink!

Edited December 9, 2016 by LEGOshibainu

[Lyichir]

34 minutes ago, LEGOshibainu said:

Problem with minidolls?

Stop-motion walk cycles!

And completely filling the "Minifig Heads, Modified" section of bricklink!

The latter falls more on Bricklink for not having the foresight to create separate categories for mini-doll parts in the first place.

As for stop-motion... it is an issue. I would not be opposed to Lego updating the mini-doll to have individually articulated legs in future years (provided they could keep the figures looking just as good). Then again, I have to wonder if the longer, legs would look half-decent in a walk cycle anyway, considering that they don't bend at the knee and might look more awkward than the more abstracted minifigure legs do.

[dr_spock]

58 minutes ago, LEGOshibainu said:

Problem with minidolls?

Stop-motion walk cycles!

And completely filling the "Minifig Heads, Modified" section of bricklink!

You can film them from the waist up as they are moving across the scene.  It's one of the techniques used in the Muppet Show or Sesame Street.  Let the viewer's mind fill in the blank that their legs are moving.  You also would some work and time on having to stop motion film moving legs. In the case of muppets, how to hide the operator's arm stuck up their butts. 

 

[ProvenceTristram]

On 11/21/2016 at 10:32 AM, Esvald Forceswoop said:

I don't like minidolls, though it's no surprise since I'm not the target audience for them. Sadly, they are the major factor why I don't buy Elves sets. Elves has some nice builds and is finally a fantasy theme, the only available fantasy theme. Nice buildings, which I really want more, since 90% of my collection is vehicles. However, the strange minidolls are... I don't know how to describe them. They're... alien? I mean, I love doing weird crossovers between themes, and LEGO is perfect for that. Harry Potter fits into the Republic Gunship perfectly, just like Batman can visit the Hogwarts School. But a minidoll would not fit into a Gunship's cockpit, and would stand out if placed into a crowd of regular minifigures. It would be as strange as putting my Hasbro Clone Commander Cody next to my Max Factory Sakura Kyouko. The size difference makes them horribly displayable together.

And this is my biggest concern: An elf girl is not supposed to be bigger than a clone pilot.

As for why not just buy the set and ditch the minidolls: If I done that, I'd have a number of empty buildings. Since I rarely have any fantasy-related minifigures (the closest are my custom made Sword Art Online figs and maybe Harry Potter, but HP is a vastly different type of fantasy), I'd have to buy every single character individually. Which is way too costly for me.

If the minidolls would be around the same height of a minifigure or maybe even smaller a little bit, I wouldn't hesitate to buy Elves sets. But like this, it's a major turn away point.

Yup. I would have bought more than a few Elves sets if not for the dolls. Such a shame, really.

[Faefrost]

It isn't so much the dolls themselves. Some of the elves and especially the new DC comic ones are adorable. But the Friends style sets are also slightly over scales for minifigs. So they don't convert that well. 

[Aanchir]

16 hours ago, Faefrost said:

It isn't so much the dolls themselves. Some of the elves and especially the new DC comic ones are adorable. But the Friends style sets are also slightly over scales for minifigs. So they don't convert that well. 

Is the scale difference for the sets themselves really anything unusual, though? After all, even LEGO themes that use regular minifigures are often out-of-scale with each other. Just look at the cars and trucks from LEGO Agents compared to those from LEGO City. The Agents vehicles are around twice the width of their City counterparts. And as buildings go, LEGO City and Creator 3-in-1 buildings often feel tiny compared to, say, Creator Expert modular buildings or Simpsons buildings.

When things in mini-doll sets are scaled differently from things in minifigure sets, it often has more to do with the specific themes' or sets' economy of detail than with the type of figure those sets use. A classic minifigure certainly wouldn't look out-of-place on a 4x6x2 bed with a plush comforter like the one in Emma's House, the Dolphin Cruiser, or Ragana's Magic Shadow Castle. And in fact, Pet Shop features a bed around this same size. But City House, Deep Sea Exploration Vessel, and Battle for Ninjago City are furnished instead with meager 2x6x⅔ slabs not unlike those featured in LEGO City prisons. It's not because the type of figure would somehow make a bigger and fluffier bed seem silly. Rather, it's because these sets are from themes that emphasize action over comfort and livable spaces. Truly, it's a pleasant surprise when themes like City or Ninjago feature such "creature comforts" as beds and toilets at all.

Edited December 10, 2016 by Aanchir

[Faefrost]

On 12/10/2016 at 0:31 PM, Aanchir said:

Is the scale difference for the sets themselves really anything unusual, though? After all, even LEGO themes that use regular minifigures are often out-of-scale with each other. Just look at the cars and trucks from LEGO Agents compared to those from LEGO City. The Agents vehicles are around twice the width of their City counterparts. And as buildings go, LEGO City and Creator 3-in-1 buildings often feel tiny compared to, say, Creator Expert modular buildings or Simpsons buildings.

When things in mini-doll sets are scaled differently from things in minifigure sets, it often has more to do with the specific themes' or sets' economy of detail than with the type of figure those sets use. A classic minifigure certainly wouldn't look out-of-place on a 4x6x2 bed with a plush comforter like the one in Emma's House, the Dolphin Cruiser, or Ragana's Magic Shadow Castle. And in fact, Pet Shop features a bed around this same size. But City House, Deep Sea Exploration Vessel, and Battle for Ninjago City are furnished instead with meager 2x6x⅔ slabs not unlike those featured in LEGO City prisons. It's not because the type of figure would somehow make a bigger and fluffier bed seem silly. Rather, it's because these sets are from themes that emphasize action over comfort and livable spaces. Truly, it's a pleasant surprise when themes like City or Ninjago feature such "creature comforts" as beds and toilets at all.

With Friends I think it is more things like table, counters, furniture etc that feels off. Everything feels 1-2 plates too high for minifigs. The wildly scaling spaceships never bother me, but for some reason I expect my minifigs to be able to see into the bakers counter without needing a stepladder. 

[Aanchir]

18 hours ago, Faefrost said:

With Friends I think it is more things like table, counters, furniture etc that feels off. Everything feels 1-2 plates too high for minifigs. The wildly scaling spaceships never bother me, but for some reason I expect my minifigs to be able to see into the bakers counter without needing a stepladder. 

The varying scales of furniture and fixtures are why I brought up the beds. Even things like countertops in LEGO Friends aren't all that oddly proportioned compared to ones in themes that use classic minifigures. The kitchen countertops in Emma's House are exactly the same height as those in the Parisian Restaurant (both in the downstairs kitchen and upstairs apartment), whereas the countertops in Heartlake Pizzeria are anywhere from one to four plates lower. Likewise, the checkout counters at the Downtown Bakery and Heartlake Juice Bar are the same height as the ones in the Winter Village Bakery, Pizza-To-Go, and Bike Shop & Cafe. As I said before, the size of furniture and fixtures seems to correlate more to their level of detail than the type of figure they're designed for. And in general there tends to be quite a bit of variation in the size of those fixtures not just from one theme to the next but also from one set to the next, even among sets and themes that use the same type of figure.

Edited December 14, 2016 by Aanchir

[rdflego]

Forgive me if this has been said before but if I, a 6ft human, stand in a doorway the top of my head is a few inches away from the top of the doorframe. If I were to scale myself to the size of a minidoll there would be a similar amount of space between me and the top of a 60596 doorframe; whereas if I was scaled to a minifigure there is a much greater, unrealistic height. I use this comparison to say that any WIP building I make would have better, more realistic proportions and look visually more appealing if I build at minidoll scale.

I rarely create MOCs that aren't going to look visually comparable to objects, buildings, ect. in real life which is why minidolls help me scale things down a lot easier. This is just my opinion because I have a particular reason why I prefer minidolls and doesn't mean I don't enjoy minifigures; minidolls just suit my needs better. That's why I think Lego would be better to continue minidoll scaled creations into the future because buildings would look more realistic.

Edited December 15, 2016 by rdflego

[Esvald Forceswoop]

Having my own minidolls now (couldn't resist 41180) my opinions are somewhat changed. I still don't like them overall, but I can come up with a few solutions at least. The height is no longer a problem, since they are not human. Elves can be any height, so it's okay. The castle also functions perfectly for minifigures, I don't need to alter it in order to fit them it, so it's also okay. At times like this I'm glad I'm not a fan of modern day themes, because I couldn't just say to minidolls from Friends "Ah well they are not human so it's okay"

There's a new problem though: Restriction. They can barely move. Sure the detailing is much better than a minifigure, they look better than a minifigure but they are so restricted. They can't move their legs, neither their hands; only their arms and their heads when the hairpiece lets them. This is not good at all. Isn't this theme, these themes with minidolls are dedicated to little girls? People who want ti play with them? I don't know about you, but I think playing with a figure/doll/whatever is really hard and now fun.

I can compare minidolls to anime figures made by Alter, Kotobuyika etc... and minifigures to May Factory's figma line. You see the first is more detailed, but not meant for play, only display since they are more like statues: Looks nice, but that's all there is to it. The latter is more for playing: They are movable and coming with a lot of accessories, so you can actually play with them. Now the problem is the target audience: Most of the buyers for the first group is people who are 16-18+ in terms of age. What we are calling late TFOL and AFOL. But isn't this theme is made for little girls? I doubt they are into collecting and displaying stuff only. As a collector myself, I find this situation very weird. As if the minidolls were designed in our favor. But I'm sure I'm not gonna make a stop motion series with them (which is a shame, because I had a plan in my mind).

[Sarah]

On 12/24/2016 at 1:35 PM, Esvald Forceswoop said:

Having my own minidolls now (couldn't resist 41180) my opinions are somewhat changed. I still don't like them overall, but I can come up with a few solutions at least. The height is no longer a problem, since they are not human. Elves can be any height, so it's okay. The castle also functions perfectly for minifigures, I don't need to alter it in order to fit them it, so it's also okay. At times like this I'm glad I'm not a fan of modern day themes, because I couldn't just say to minidolls from Friends "Ah well they are not human so it's okay"

There's a new problem though: Restriction. They can barely move. Sure the detailing is much better than a minifigure, they look better than a minifigure but they are so restricted. They can't move their legs, neither their hands; only their arms and their heads when the hairpiece lets them. This is not good at all. Isn't this theme, these themes with minidolls are dedicated to little girls? People who want ti play with them? I don't know about you, but I think playing with a figure/doll/whatever is really hard and now fun.

 

They do not have any less movement than the doll house figures I played with endlessly growing up. IT never even occurred to me to wish they had more movement. Nor did it prevent me from spending hours having them go visit my sister's family and her house, or playing my own house.  I think a figure the target aged girl can identify with is much more important than movement.

 

My own daughter (age 5) plays more with the animal figures as the main characters in her stories -- and they do not move at all!

[rodiziorobs]

On 12/24/2016 at 0:35 PM, Esvald Forceswoop said:

But isn't this theme is made for little girls? I doubt they are into collecting and displaying stuff only.

I think kids' imagination fills in the gaps left by lack of articulation. It's the adults who like to display things that worry more about how to pose the figures. Kids are often too busy with the stories they are creating to necessarily worry about whether or not a character can turn their wrist.

Anecdotally, my own son prefers to build megaweapons for his Ninjago figures, then just have them hold them. If there is any swashbuckling to be done, he does that with his own wrist while holding the figure, rather than pose Zane doing it himself. As long as the figure can hold the thing he built, that's good enough.

(Obviously not true of all kids, and I agree that lack of articulation is the major drawback with minidolls, but I don't see much logic or evidence in claiming that it turns away the target audience.)

[Aanchir]

1 hour ago, Sarah said:

They do not have any less movement than the doll house figures I played with endlessly growing up. IT never even occurred to me to wish they had more movement. Nor did it prevent me from spending hours having them go visit my sister's family and her house, or playing my own house.  I think a figure the target aged girl can identify with is much more important than movement.

My own daughter (age 5) plays more with the animal figures as the main characters in her stories -- and they do not move at all!

Helpful insights, and you have a good point that other toy figures don't always put a lot of emphasis on articulation. In fact, critics of the mini-doll often compare them to Polly Pocket or Playmobil — which, despite having similar limits on their leg and arm movement, are pretty successful toys in their own right.

Even for me, I've found typical play tends to have fairly low demands in terms of movement compared to stop motion… when playing with classic minifigures as a kid, I wouldn't necessarily be making their legs move individually. It's just too much work to do that every time I wanted a figure to take a step. More often, I'd sort of "hop" them from place to place, and the main purpose of moving the legs would be to change them from a sitting to a standing position, which mini-doll legs are fully capable of.

If the amount of articulation were a tremendous issue for kids, I don't know if even the classic minifigure would be as beloved as it is. Truth be told, its movement is very limited, which becomes increasingly apparent as competitors like Mega Bloks, Kre-O, and Ionix introduce minifigures with ball-jointed shoulders and legs as well as other advantages in articulation over the minifigure. But I think the simplicity of the minifigure and mini-doll (limitations and all) is actually a part of their enduring charm.

Mind you, I do like more articulated toys that you can put in lots of different poses. I would love if at some point LEGO released full-size "doll" sets, sort of analogous to the action figure/"constraction" sets that are generally aimed at boys. It's tricky to think of how best to realize this, though, since you'd want to maintain emphasis on creative building. To some AFOLs, even the existing Character and Creature Building System used in Bionicle sets is more specialized than they feel LEGO should be, and a more lifelike figure of similar height (i.e. with fewer hollow spaces) might demand parts with even more specific shaping. Even so, it's something I'd love to see, particularly considering the gorgeous character and costume designs in themes like LEGO Elves.

[Sarah]

"hopping" That's a good way to describe how characters move.  IF we physically moved them a step at a time.

I think it could also be termed "flying" -- Unless you have a car to put them in. Then the car Zooms across the floor. (but if the destination is on a table/bed, there is equal chances of the car "driving" up the leg or having a quick flying jaunt to the destination)

We didn't have doll house cars, so we would put all the people in a shoe box and then move that shoe box to the house in the other room -- the shoebox was the "car" (And no, we didn't put wheels on it or decorate it like a car or anything. Think of a fairy godmother. *tap" and it is a car.  *tap* and it turns back into shoebox/general storage for whatever is needed.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by Sarah

[BubbaFit45531]

Today I saw one polybag of Friends at Target marked down for clearance at $1.18. I saw a bunch at Walmart along with CITY construction vehicle polybag.

[Esvald Forceswoop]

Interesting points of view! It certainly helped me understand the situation better.

I will share my experience too, perhaps you can see where I came from:

When I was a child the first toy I fell in love with was Hasbro's Star Wars action figures. They had great detail and playability. They were like my favorite franchise coming to life, and that was awesome. But even with all the details, weapons and extended range of movement aside, playing with them was more like a chore. It was like the setting up and the correcting always took up most of the time. They dropped their weapons, they fell down easily etc. I remember having Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader, so I can finally have my own lightsaber battle! Only to get disappointed and frustrated with how every second or third time the lightsabers clashed one of them would fall out of the hand of the figure and fly all over across the room. Needless to say I don't have any of those lightsabers from my "playing age". Not to mention Hasbro didn't even include baseplates for their figures (I found out they don't give them today either, and even the accessories are most of the time useless junk - but Hasbro's denying quality is a good topic, for another time) so they kept falling and falling. Really they were only good for displaying purposes, but I was a 10-12 year old child, I wanted to have my own Star Wars in my room.

So I got interested in Lego thanks to the Lego Star Wars Video Game. I had to beg for my mom for hours to get my first set which was 7655 - Clone Trooper Battle Pack. And what a blast it was! Not only for the price of one (ONE!) Hasbro figure, I got 4 clone troopers (3 of them were different too!) but also a speeder bike and a turret. The value compared to the Hasbro figures was through the roof. Not to mention the biggest benefits: No weapon dropping, no falling down. Sure they were less detailed, but I could play with them. Getting 7654 - Droids Battle Pack really bought Star Wars to the room, as the clones now had opponents. And for this price, I could only get a single Clone Trooper and Battle Droid from Hasbro.

Soon after I had my Jedi and Sith and I could play lightsaber battles too - sure the blades would sometimes fall out and due to the limited mobility of the minifigure arm and hand the attacks were less diverse - but it was fun, enjoyable and playable. Not to mention the buildable vehicles I had, although it was more like destructible, as my rebels blew up the imperial transport and it could really fall apart without any real damage to the product.

If Lego figures had the mobility of the minidolls I don't think I would have switched. With minidolls you cannot really do lightsaber duels, they also cannot really sit in a speederbike etc.

It's not like my imagination was limited, the stories me and my friends made were creative for children of our age, but we were just unable to play them out.

[Sarah]

On 1/11/2017 at 10:31 AM, Esvald Forceswoop said:

Ithey kept falling and falling. Really they were only good for displaying purposes, but I was a 10-12 year old child, I wanted to have my own Star Wars in my room.

 

 

Partially we are talking about different age groups. I was no longer playing dollhouse at ages 10-12. (well, Maybe at age 10 but not by age 12) I had moved on to programming (in Basic -- We had a Kaypro computer and at the end of that time I got a Commodore 64 of my very own), Making my own robot from a kit, etc. I don't think I was doing much with dolls at all. We made up skits from music we liked and put them on for family and occasionally visiting friends. We played board games. I wrote stories in the Star Trek universe (TOS) and the Batman and Robin TV-show universe. I think my Lego days were mostly behind me at that time too. Though I did play with Star Wars figures when younger -- a friend of ours had them -- but we pretty much played the same way I talked about above with dollhouse figures. We were not trying for accuracy (I'm not even sure we knew the REAL Star Wars story at the time -- early 1980s.. The figures were just cool)

 

[Dorayaki]

Post edit and add some official source / new findings to help new readers understand. (sorry for bumping if that is it).

As for stop-motion, I just think there are already some official LEGO minidolls short films using stop motion. I guess LEGO would just do the same if they officially decide to bring minidolls into The LEGO Movie  On the other hand, most of their "product animation" just show that the minidolls can normally walk. It's mainly the defect in real toy playing rather than stop-motion video, and only imagination can save that.

[Digger of Bricks]

After reading all the insightful replies within this topic, I see that most users here have already addressed the majority of issues that minidolls pose for AFOLs, with many of those observations and opinions I've had myself.

One thing though I hadn't seen addressed here by others is the issue of the minidoll's limited System compatibility. Compared to the traditional minifigure, there are only three attributes of minidoll that allow for System connections (not counting the anti-studs for their feet), that being the stud upon their heads, their clip hands, and their 318-bar neck stem. The arms of the male minidoll torso offer a light 318 clip connection; but besides that, I feel that designers overall didn't aim to make System compatibility a priority for the minidoll. 

Also, as a slightly related side-note, I do wish that newer minifigure and minidoll armor/cape/bodywear parts from 2012 onward had been designed at the time to at least be compatible with both types of figures. Plus, did minidolls really need noses? Some minifigure headgear parts won't fit over their heads as a result of that roadblock. 

On 12/9/2016 at 10:13 AM, LEGOshibainu said:

Problem with minidolls?

Stop-motion walk cycles!

I had vainly hoped in the past that would've been remedied by The Lego Movie 2 for the sake of more natural movement on-screen, but as we've seen from the teaser...

 

[MAB]

31 minutes ago, Digger of Bricks said:

One thing though I hadn't seen addressed here by others is the issue of the minidoll's limited System compatibility. Compared to the traditional minifigure, there are only three attributes of minidoll that allow for System connections (not counting the anti-studs for their feet), that being the stud upon their heads, their clip hands, and their 318-bar neck stem. The arms of the male minidoll torso offer a light 318 clip connection; but besides that, I feel that designers overall didn't aim to make System compatibility a priority for the minidoll.

5

Why should they? Sure, the neck of a minifigure can be used to attach a brick for example, or the torso attached on top of a brick or plate (useful for in water) but how often do kids need this? Minidolls are meant to be legs plus torso plus head plus hair. They don't need to attach to system parts.

34 minutes ago, Digger of Bricks said:

Also, as a slightly related side-note, I do wish that newer minifigure and minidoll armor/cape/bodywear parts from 2012 onward had been designed at the time to at least be compatible with both types of figures. Plus, did minidolls really need noses? Some minifigure headgear parts won't fit over their heads as a result of that roadblock. 

4

While that might be a good idea, they do have different body shapes. Would minifig lovers accept slightly worse looking minifigure parts if it meant compatibility with minidolls? Probably not. It would also mean loose connections around smaller minidoll necks.

As to noses, yes they definitely needed them. The point of the minidoll was to be more realistic compared to minifigures, as that is what their research showed people (girls) that didn't currently play with LEGO found more acceptable. It would have been a bad decision to decide to do a new minidoll but make it look like a mashed up minifigure. Removing the noses on an otherwise accurate looking figure, or making them minifigure yellow, or other things to look like minifigs would be pointless. They aren't minifigures as that is not want they wanted. If they ended up looking like a very slightly more realistic minfigure, they might as well just stick to minifigures.

[Digger of Bricks]

3 hours ago, MAB said:

They don't need to attach to system parts.

Of course they don't, not necessarily that is; but, I do believe that more AFOLs would appreciate them to a greater degree for the sake of experimentation if they were, despite their overall aesthetic incompatibility with the traditional Lego minifigure.

3 hours ago, MAB said:

While that might be a good idea, they do have different body shapes. Would minifig lovers accept slightly worse looking minifigure parts if it meant compatibility with minidolls? Probably not. It would also mean loose connections around smaller minidoll necks.

I guess you are right about that, thinking more about it, as there can't really be any sort of universal way to firmly set such parts over both torso types. 

3 hours ago, MAB said:

As to noses, yes they definitely needed them.

Couldn't they have just printed them on instead? It's such a minor molded detail that causes much incompatible obstruction of many headgear parts. 

[Aanchir]

The mini-doll has more compatibility than System than you give it credit for, I feel like. A lot of mini-doll hair has two 1.5mm accessory holes, as opposed to just one or none at all on most traditional minifigure hair, and a 3.2mm bar can attach to the underside of the torsos, giving them about as much connectivity as standard minifigure torsos have. A 1x1 brick or plate can also attach to the legs at a 45 degree angle, useful if for instance you wanted to have a gown hanging from a clothes rack. That said, I don't feel as though the lack of non-figure uses for mini-dolls plays much role in the opinion of most AFOLs who dislike the mini-doll. I've encountered many AFOLs who are perfectly willing to accept "bigfigs" like the Hulk or Thanos despite their much more extreme specialization and limited connectivity, yet refuse to allow mini-dolls into their collection.

I don't feel like printed noses would be anywhere near as effective at making the mini-doll feel relatable and lifelike as molded noses are. And I don't know why you've had any trouble fitting headgear on the mini-dolls considering the nose doesn't actually stick any further forward than the front edge of the forehead. To put it a less tongue twistery way, the nose of the mini-doll doesn't stick out from the front, the eyes, mouth, and chin stick in.