Are Minifigures Overrated?

[dr_spock]

Minifigs and minidolls are just LEGO pieces.  It's up to you how you use them, put value on them, whatever.

 

[Aanchir]

I generally don't like the word "overrated" because it implies that there's something bad about groups of people being really passionate or enthusiastic about the things they enjoy. There's a lot of stuff about minifigures that's genuinely worth valuing, such as the various types of creativity, detail, humor, characterization, and visual appeal they demonstrate through their colors, molding, graphic designs, and play features.

Now, "underrated" is a term I can more easily get behind, but even then, I'm not sure that appreciating or valuing minifigures more than other aspects of a set is something people should necessarily be ashamed of. My general perspective is that there's no wrong way to play with or enjoy LEGO. Frankly I find it kind of obnoxious when people try to establish some kind of hierarchy of creativity with MOCists above people who don't MOC, particularly since it disregards other ways LEGO helps kids express themselves creatively, such as telling stories using the sets and characters.

Plus, there are plenty of other forms of value people get out of LEGO beyond its creative potential, like its decorative or therapeutic value. I'm sure a lot of people get emotional comfort from having a collection of minifigures to display in their house or on their desk, to play or fidget with, to mix and match, etc. I'm not going to shame those people for that or insist they're enjoying LEGO incorrectly or for the wrong reasons.

What's more, there are a lot more ways that people sell the other strengths of LEGO products short than just having a "collect them all" mentality about minifigures:

• When fans say that licensed sets are just "overpriced minifigure packs", the usual implication is that LEGO is making a mistake by pandering to people who buy sets just for the minifigures. But from my perspective, it's the people insulting these sets who are by ignoring any strengths the sets have to offer besides the minifigures.
  
  Consider the set https://brickset.com/sets/76088-1/Thor-vs-Hulk-Arena-Clash. A lot of AFOLs acted as if there's no reason anybody would buy it except for the characters. Really? Because I see quite a few different play features built in — a smashable wall, another wall that folds open to reveal hidden weapons, lampposts that can be knocked down, a prison cell behind the main structure, a door that slides open, etc.
  
  It's also a fairly recognizable rendition of the source material… perhaps more brightly colored than AFOLs tend to prefer, but for a lot of kids bright colors are a strength, not a weakness. And as for it being "just a wall"? So was https://brickset.com/sets/6059-1/Knight-s-Stronghold, and nobody seems to act as if it was "an excuse to sell minifigs". A wall is a great play or story starter, because it inherently represents some kind of obstacle characters are unable to overcome.
  
  Many AFOLs counter that an "obstacle" like that is meaningless because "the characters can just walk around". I'd argue in turn that this is exactly the kind of weak imagination such AFOLs claim to be against. It's no trouble for a kid to pretend that there is an implied "fourth wall" to a set that is not fully enclosed, same as people typically do with stage performances except those that invite them to imagine otherwise. Why is that type of pretend play so foreign to the very people who claim to miss when LEGO was "all about imagination"?
   
• A lot of the same AFOLs who complain about licensed or story-driven themes being mediocre, creatively stifling builds designed to sell minifigs, are also the kinds of people who complain that LEGO has made it too expensive to stockpile mass quantities of interchangeable, nameless Castle, Space, or Pirates figures. It astonished me how many such fans gladly went out and bought numerous copies of https://brickset.com/sets/70841-1/Benny-s-Space-Squad, even though it offers no particularly innovative play features or building techniques, no surprises or challenges, and not even any new graphics.
  
  Even many Batman sets demonstrate a lot more originality than that, in that they have a broadly-defined design language inspired by many decades' worth of Batman movies, comics, cartoons, and toys created by all kinds of people, instead of a narrowly-defined design language inspired by a specific LEGO Space subtheme that ran for less than a decade, was created by a small team of designers in Denmark, and ended more than 30 years ago.
  
  It's not that Benny's Space Squad is a bad set for its price in terms of design or playability, but it's extremely hypocritical that fans who thumb their noses at licensed or story-driven themes and their fans would eagerly buy several copies of a set that's so derivative and so unapologetically minifigure-focused, yet be "meh" about sets with far more creative, elaborate, and advanced builds because they happen to feature other types of figures like brick-built characters or mini-dolls.
   
• I think it further speaks to many old-school fans' simultaneous appreciation of the minifigure's nostalgic value and collectibility, yet disregard for its creative value as a storytelling tool, that they think sets back before minifigures had distinguishing names, personality traits, facial features, and physiques were fundamentally more creatively liberating than today's highly-detailed and varied LEGO characters.
  
  After all, it seems a teensy bit stifling when all the characters in a theme are identical besides having one of five different colors of spacesuit. How are you supposed to tell a story with more than five Classic Space characters without some of them becoming impossible to differentiate? Today, in the very least, you have the option to swap out Space minifigures' facial features or facial expressions to give them more individuality, and many Neo Classic Space builders do exactly that. But prior to 1989, even THAT wasn't an option.
  
  Plus, I think a lot of people neglect that even when LEGO characters do have established identities and backstories, that kind of thing is how a lot of kids learn new storytelling styles, character design skills, and narrative devices they can repurpose for their own original characters and stories. Hardly anybody ever became a storyteller without reading or hearing other people's stories, or became an actor without watching other people's acting, or became a musician without listening to other people's music.
  
  I know it's a heartwarming cliche that kids are a wellspring of unbridled creativity straight from the womb and that said creativity is then squeezed out of them, but that's not how the real world works. Creativity is not a magical ability people are born with, it's a practiced skill, and denying yourself influences from the world around you (including the creative influences of the other people in it) is just refusing opportunities to develop that skill further.

1 hour ago, dr_spock said:

Minifigs and minidolls are just LEGO pieces.  It's up to you how you use them, put value on them, whatever.

This post illustrates yet another way that even many grown-ups who often may not "play" the same way kids do still manage to embrace the minifigure's creative value as a storytelling tool: creating comics, brick-films, or even just photographs that happen to tell a story about what's happening in them!

[tafkatb]

Certain segments of the fandom clearly value minifigures much more than I do, but that's about as definitive a conclusion as I can come to.

I do think it's a bit ridiculous that some in this forum have referred to sets like the Helicarrier or Disney Castle as "failures" solely on the basis of the perceived inadequacy of their minifigure lineups, but that's because I personally value big, challenging builds for which minifigures are a nice bonus but not strictly necessary. (I'm thinking here of sets like the aforementioned Helicarrier, the Tumbler, and Hogwarts Castle, all of which I own and which I can honestly say I would have purchased even if they had no minifigures at all. The obvious commonality there is that those aren't even scaled to minifigures, so the ones they do include function as separate little display stands that don't directly integrate with the model itself.) On the other end of the spectrum, I've bought a fair few smallish sets I wouldn't have given a second glance if they didn't include characters I like. I mean, I would have no interest in a tanker truck - even one with an admittedly pretty cool play feature - but throw in Hawkeye, Vision, and Spider-Man, and I grab it up the first chance I get.

So to answer your question, yes, and no, and also who cares.

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

[Vindicare]

I would say yes(only slightly so) & no. They can make or break a set. But to me it’s when the set itself looks like an after thought is when it comes in that minifigs seem overrated. I’ll use 76008 Iron Man vs. The Mandarin: Ultimate Showdown. Now, I can usually appreciate small builds where others don’t, but there’s no defending that mess. But throwing in Heartbreaker armor made this go from pass to buy for me. 

As you put it, Lego_David, minifigs are accessories to the set.

[MAB]

14 hours ago, deraven said:

Right- and that's basically putting together people like MAB and Mylenium so they're both happy.

 

Actually, far from it. I like building more than minifigures, but like the minifigures to go with the sets too. If there is a set that interests me, I will typically buy three of them. One set of minifigures is mine, the other two sets will be sold. For many sets, the minifigures can be sold for at least 50% of the cost of the set. If I manage to get a 33% or so discount when buying three sets, that means for the RRP of one set, I get a complete set plus the bricks for two others. So one extended build, plus a complete set of figues. I had already built a MOC of Orthanc before that one was announced, hence me wanting Grima. I did eventually buy the official Orthanc too though.

 

Also, I don't think they are overpriced on the secondary market, simply because most sellers price them so that they sell. Sometimes they may seem high for just a minifigure, but if someone is willing to pay that price, then it was priced correctly. If a seller prices too high, they get to keep their stock until they either lower the price, or a buyer caves in and pays the asking price.  It is supply and demand. It will usually take a while for the market value to adjust too. When a set first comes out, prices will be high, they will typically then drop, then rise again if the figure is still in demand but no longer produced. Which are the ones that usually stay in demand? Licensed ones that are not redone or in-house ones that are fairly unique. Plain torso and City ones, forget it. However, even licensed ones can be worth very little if there are multiple variations of that character. Back in the LOTR days, I bought a batch of 25 Eomers on BL for about $4 a piece. That was his value when the set had been out for a long time and was on discount to clear and there was loads of stock on BL. Resellers wanting high cashflow sold them at that price to get rid of them, which now seems cheap, but they were making money at that price. I was happy to sit on them for five years and resell them at $20. Values change with time. $20 would have been overpriced in 2013. It wasn't in 2018.

[Mylenium]

7 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Creativity is not a magical ability people are born with, it's a practiced skill, and denying yourself influences from the world around you (including the creative influences of the other people in it) is just refusing opportunities to develop that skill further.

Actually not entirely. If your brain isn't wired in a specific way, you cannot be truly creative. It's a common misunderstanding even in the creative and media industries where this "learned creativity" is pretty widespread - people may be able to re-create specific styles and apply their academic knowledge, but not come up with something fresh entirely of their own. Same for kids. I've been surrounded with teachers, psychologists, sociologists and other people of that ilk all my life and they would probably contend your argument, too. You could throw an entire stack of minifigs at some kids and they just don't know what to do with them, not even being able to recreate and reenact scenes from their everyday lives. So to sum it up: You have to have the genes just as you have to have an understanding of your surroundings and a willingness to learn to develop true creativity, though of course that in itself would be an endless field for debate on how much each part matters...

Mylenium

[astral brick]

On 4/10/2019 at 2:09 PM, Lego David said:

Minifigures are nothing but accesories that come with the sets, and suddenly they are treated like they are worth more than the sets themselfs...

I am in agreement with you. The current minifigures' mania is beyond me. I mean, I understand that from TLC point of view minifigures have become an important asset, but I find inconceivable that the presence of certain minifigures could constitute a reason to buy a set. And on top of that, it is somehow considered acceptable to buy minifigures in blind bags, just like trading cards.   

There is a fine line between collecting and obsession.

 

 

17 hours ago, LucyCol said:

Yet we see a lot of sets for sale as 'complete' LESS min figures

Another sign that collecting minifigures has gone too far.

[tafkatb]

15 minutes ago, astral brick said:

And on top of that, it is somehow considered acceptable to buy minifigures in blind bags, just like trading cards. 

...How is that a problem, exactly?

[MAB]

37 minutes ago, astral brick said:

I am in agreement with you. The current minifigures' mania is beyond me. I mean, I understand that from TLC point of view minifigures have become an important asset, but I find inconceivable that the presence of certain minifigures could constitute a reason to buy a set.

3

But then I find it inconceivable that you find this inconceivable. People want different things out of the LEGO they buy. Some people buy it for the build experience, some people buy it as they collect minifigures, some people buy it as they collect unopened sets, some people buy it as they want the parts. None of those are doing anything wrong. If a person is a fan of a particular theme (licensed or not) and then a set comes along with their favourite or a unique character in it, there is a good chance that they will buy it. They probably don't care what the actual set is, they want it for that character. They get the rest of the set too, which they might build and keep anyway or use the parts for something else or they might sell. It is perfectly conceivable to me that people do this. Alternatively, they might buy just the minifigure from someone that wants the bricks but not the minifigures.

There are also people that buy sets because they want specific a part or parts. Should these people be demonised because they are overrating some bricks or underrating the minifigures? They don't necessarily care about the set, they care about what else they can do with the parts in the set. For example, I once bought 20+ sets of "The Wizard Battle".

I had absolutely no interest in building all the sets as shown in the instructions. But they were brilliant parts packs for black pieces, and at the price I paid per set and by selling the minifigures, the trans yellow parts and the technic gear boxes and gears, I got them for nothing. I cared more about the parts than the figures there.

37 minutes ago, astral brick said:

Another sign that collecting minifigures has gone too far.

1

Or just a sign that some people buy LEGO for the minifigures. But why does that mean minifigure collecting has gone too far? It just shows that minifigures tend to be worth more than most other parts. It may also be that the seller has enough bricks to keep them busy and does not need the bricks. It may also be that the person does not have enough display / storage space for complete sets but likes to keep up to date with minifigures.

If people could not sell the bricks or even give them away as nobody wanted them, then I think that would be a sign that collecting minifigures had gone too far.

37 minutes ago, astral brick said:

And on top of that, it is somehow considered acceptable to buy minifigures in blind bags, just like trading cards.   

There is a fine line between collecting and obsession.

1

Again, what is the problem with that? Some people will want to have a complete set of CMF. Some people will want multiples of one or more specific characters to 'army build'. Some people will want just a few random characters to add on to their collection. Some people enjoy trading them - like trading cards. Different people want different things from the CMF range. If you don't want to buy blind bagged figures, there are plenty of other sets you can buy where you know exactly what you are getting.

Edited April 11, 2019 by MAB

[Robianco]

No. They're not.

But no set should be defined as a success or failure purely on the minfigures included. Some of the greatest sets Lego has ever produced have had very few minifigures, and sometimes none at all. Other times a great figure selection, or even the inclusion of a single particular figure, can really enhance a set without necessarily defining it.

[Tariq j]

3 hours ago, astral brick said:

but I find inconceivable that the presence of certain minifigures could constitute a reason to buy a set.

But again this just boils down too “he/she isn’t getting set X for the same reasons that I’m getting set X” They’re a multitude of reasons as to why someone may purchase a set. A particular minifigure(s), parts, maybe they’re a big fan of the source material, they may want to MOD the set into something else, they may think the set is useful in another theme, some may buy it because they want to collect the full wave of a theme. But does it matter? Is my enjoyment of the Hogwarts Castle set going to be lowered knowing someone else may have bought it purely for parts? Of course not. 

[Mylenium]

4 hours ago, astral brick said:

There is a fine line between collecting and obsession.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that most minifig collectors suffer from genuine clinical OCD. I'm gonna say it again: The biggest problem with the minifig craze in my view is that LEGO are all too willing to feed the frenzy because it makes them tons of ca$h. Unless they dial it back you can't exactly fault a completionist for going batty over that one missing figure in his collection. The rest is just a matter of personal view. I may not particularly get the hots for minifigs for the most part, but I totally get the appeal to some. As @Aanchir said, it's not far fetched to assume that it is therapeutic to a degree, makes you feel good and also counts as an achievement if you have hunted down that super rare figure and your collection is complete. Whatever makes them happy...

Mylenium

[samurai-turtle]

I want to yes and no to the overrated question.

Star Wars might be the biggest reason mini-figures are overrated. And it really not LEGO's fault it is the Star Wars fans, they want every single character even if they were on the screen for a second (I am not sure it is still true today). But if you look at other toys lines I remember seeing a blue Droid and I don't even remember seeing it on the screen. I am sure it showed up in the background somewhere, it was a blink and you missed it moment. 

Another example would be the Master of the Universe line from Mega Construct. I am sure people want it on mini-figures form but it not happening. And their is only one vehicle made so far. (I do think a Castle Grayskull is coming out.) Everything else has been characters packs (so far). 

[MAB]

6 minutes ago, Mylenium said:

The biggest problem with the minifig craze in my view is that LEGO are all too willing to feed the frenzy because it makes them tons of ca$h.

1

That is the same reason they are willing to feed all their customers' needs, including ones that buy minifigure-free sets.

[MAB]

5 minutes ago, samurai-turtle said:

I want to yes and no to the overrated question.

Star Wars might be the biggest reason mini-figures are overrated. And it really not LEGO's fault it is the Star Wars fans, they want every single character even if they were on the screen for a second (I am not sure it is still true today). But if you look at other toys lines I remember seeing a blue Droid and I don't even remember seeing it on the screen. I am sure it showed up in the background somewhere, it was a blink and you missed it moment. 

 

1

But it is not just Star Wars. Give a kid a police car, a fire engine and a policeman minifigure. Or give them Cole, Zane and Jay.  Do they feel something is missing?

 

[Mylenium]

15 minutes ago, MAB said:

That is the same reason they are willing to feed all their customers' needs, including ones that buy minifigure-free sets.

Yes/ No/ Perhaps. That would be like opening that old can of stinky fish on what sets people actually want, but let's not go there again. ;) My point more specifically being, that I sometimes can't shake the feeling that someone at LEGO is gleefully rubbing their hands at how easy it is to make money with minifigs. It seems to have to come to a point where re-combining existing figure parts and selling it as a new one with only slightly modified printing is too easy. To me that feels a bit lazy at times in the sense that minifigs may be favored over other aspects of a set...

Mylenium

[Vindicare]

5 hours ago, astral brick said:

I am in agreement with you. The current minifigures' mania is beyond me. I mean, I understand that from TLC point of view minifigures have become an important asset, but I find inconceivable that the presence of certain minifigures could constitute a reason to buy a set. And on top of that, it is somehow considered acceptable to buy minifigures in blind bags, just like trading cards.   

I’m not sure how blind bags being used is not acceptable? They aren’t the first toy company to use them. One that has always stuck from my childhiod were “Trash Bag Bunch” toys. As the name suggests, they were in black bags. And while not completely the same, the old quarter machines in front of grocery stores & the like we’re essentially blind buys. 

[MAB]

1 hour ago, Mylenium said:

 It seems to have to come to a point where re-combining existing figure parts and selling it as a new one with only slightly modified printing is too easy. To me that feels a bit lazy at times in the sense that minifigs may be favored over other aspects of a set...

2

It is up to a buyer to decide whether they need every possible variant though, and if LEGO are banking on selling an expensive but crappy set by including a character in which the mouth or eyebrows are slightly different to a version that also appears in a cheaper set, then they are probably not going to sell many copies of that set.

For example,

I own this Leia

but I don't feel compelled to buy Cloud City or the Hoth Medical Chamber just to get this one.

 

Especially when I already have the same head on a different version of Leia from the Death Star. However, I am glad that there are multiple variations of heads. I wouldn't want all Leias to have exactly the same head and it makes sense to mix them up a bit.

Whereas getting a completely unique figure like CC Lando, or Leia in the Bespin outfit, or Luke, or the Ugnaught,  is clearly a bigger incentive to buy the CC set. Are minifigure collectors that buy that set overrating the figures?  To me, no. They are into minifigures and if that is what they look for in a set, then it is fine. Personally, I find the CC set as a whole quite ugly. I'd probably keep the figures, the (yet another scale!) Slave 1 and Cloud Car, maybe MOD a room or two and the gantry into something completely different, and the rest of the parts for the structure and the freezing chamber would be sold off or go into the parts bin. Is that overrating the figures and some parts of the build, or underrating other parts of the build, or just realising that I like some bits of it and don't like other bits and only want to have the bits that I like.

Just because some people don't want to display sets exactly as prescribed by LEGO doesn't mean they overrate the bit they decide to keep.  They just know what they like, and they happen to like that bit more than what other people like it. And who decides what the baseline is. If I don't want some figures or parts of a build and I sell them, is the buyer overrating the figures or am I underrating them? Or are we both just getting what we want, which in both cases is different to how LEGO intended them to be used.

 

Edited April 11, 2019 by MAB

[koalayummies]

50 minutes ago, Vindicare said:

I’m not sure how blind bags being used is not acceptable? They aren’t the first toy company to use them. [snip]

Ohhhh, well then that makes it okay. As long as they weren't the first.

[Vindicare]

13 minutes ago, koalayummies said:

Ohhhh, well then that makes it okay. As long as they weren't the first.

Exactly.  I just don’t understand the griping that comes with the blind bags by TLG. It’s not something they cooked up in oreder to get more money out of people, we all know they have no problems getting our money.  It’s just a fun gimmick that adds a little surprise value in getting who you wanted...or disappointment at not. Unless you’re like the feelers, then you know what you get. 

[Robianco]

'Toy makers utlilise different techniques to entice different people to buy their full range of product shock'

[Johnny1360]

I have never bought a blind bag but I have felt up a few and it is pretty easy to guess what figure they contain if you have prior knowledge of what characters and accessories are in them, so it really can't be that hard to get what you want. I always figured they did the blind bag thing so that all the figures would sell, where as if you knew what figure was contained within they would be left with a stack of undesirable figures, which I guess would be considered sneaky and underhanded by some.

3 hours ago, Vindicare said:

 And while not completely the same, the old quarter machines in front of grocery stores & the like we’re essentially blind buys. 

Man I hated those machines I was always a sucker and you would never get any of the cool stuff they had on display. 

So I guess I am one of the people that has no use for a Minifigure unless it comes with a build, why I am not sure. I am guilty of buying a recent Iron Man poly-bag though that has a really small insignificant side build, Dum-E. I honestly don't try to over think why I buy certain sets, if I like it I get it, regardless of what figures it contains or what popular opinion of said set is. A review has never made me get or not get a set, in fact I actually usually read reviews after I get the set. I do look for cool parts though. 

[Aanchir]

6 hours ago, Mylenium said:

Yes/ No/ Perhaps. That would be like opening that old can of stinky fish on what sets people actually want, but let's not go there again. ;) My point more specifically being, that I sometimes can't shake the feeling that someone at LEGO is gleefully rubbing their hands at how easy it is to make money with minifigs. It seems to have to come to a point where re-combining existing figure parts and selling it as a new one with only slightly modified printing is too easy. To me that feels a bit lazy at times in the sense that minifigs may be favored over other aspects of a set...

I mean, for what it's worth, LEGO usually doesn't make any kind of tremendous effort to call out which minifigures are new and different. Like, The LEGO Batman Movie had a variety of different head patterns for most of the main characters, but I doubt most kids cared much about whether the Batgirl they got had faces A and B or faces C and D.

The way I see it, most of the reason for a lot of those sorts of minor changes aren't to squeeze money out of collectors who actually keep track of those kinds of variants (who I'm sure are a tiny sliver of their buying audience). Rather, it strikes me as a way to make it so that characters can express more emotions, while simultaneously making the inevitability of getting repeats of a theme's main characters feel less worthless/redundant.

It's not as though they wouldn't put Emmet or Batman minifigures in just as many sets even if they were all exactly the same. After all, they are some of the most popular and well-known characters of their respective themes. But including some variations in outfit or headgear or facial expressions, even subtle ones, makes getting a set with Emmet in it when you already have an Emmet feel like less of a waste.

Notably, if this were all about making people buy more sets than they'd want otherwise, there'd be no logic in spending more money on minor differences in facial expression that most buyers wouldn't notice or care about when casually browsing a catalog or toy aisle, instead of less money on something that's practically impossible not to notice, like changing the characters' hair colors or clothing colors, or even giving them a neck accessory or headgear piece that already exists but is clearly absent from other sets in that theme.

After all, if manufacturing more character faces were just about making people buy more sets, why put two or three different Unikitty/Ultrakatty faces in a single set in so many cases, instead of spreading them out between different ones?

Edited April 11, 2019 by Aanchir

[PeteM]

Obviously any answer is going to be entirely subjective based on the poster’s personal predilection and no minds are going to be changed in this discussion :) 

Having said that, I find nothing more frustrating than reading a user ‘review’ on Brickset (or anywhere) that spends 4/5th of the text going into minute detail on every aspect of the minifigures, then quickly mentions right at the end that there was some Lego included and the build ‘was great’. There are YouTube reviewers with a similar, and equally irritating approach - people for whom the minifigures included are the be all and end all of a set, and it’s simply not a viewpoint I have any particular understanding of.

I get the occasional CMF for myself or my daughter based on what appeals (and certainly don’t collect whole runs of them), and generally appreciate the minifigures in the sets I buy, but I can’t think of a single set I have bought where the minifigure(s) feature in my decision to purchase at any point. I think the only time I feel like I ‘missed’ a minifigure is in 7725 (see my review linked in my signature)  - a set that calls itself a ‘passenger train’ but doesn’t actually include any passengers!!

The best thing about it all is the abundance of cheap Lego sets available on eBay - I bought two (minifigless) Spiderman bridge battles for around half the cost of just one!

Edited April 11, 2019 by PeteM

[Mylenium]

8 hours ago, PeteM said:

Having said that, I find nothing more frustrating than reading a user ‘review’ on Brickset (or anywhere) that spends 4/5th of the text going into minute detail on every aspect of the minifigures, then quickly mentions right at the end that there was some Lego included and the build ‘was great’. There are YouTube reviewers with a similar, and equally irritating approach - people for whom the minifigures included are the be all and end all of a set, and it’s simply not a viewpoint I have any particular understanding of.

Yupp, sometimes reviews feel like a minifigure wank job...

9 hours ago, Aanchir said:

Rather, it strikes me as a way to make it so that characters can express more emotions, while simultaneously making the inevitability of getting repeats of a theme's main characters feel less worthless/redundant.

...but then again, a lot of times it's just "standard" faces like the infamous angry clone face in Star Wars. And to be honest, I can't really see the value in having mutliple variants of emotional states on the same figures. As I wrote further above - kids probably don't even care or have difficulty to swap out heads or even rotate them, so to me this is another thing solely catering to collectors. Say what you will, but I don't think the minifigure stuff is in any way driven by their actual play value. I appreciate that LEGO are of course putting some thought into this, but more or less in many cases it seems a pointless exercise. That and of course it still seems a cheap and lazy way to make more money. You know, modifying one of those print templates in some cases literally probably takes ten minutes.

Mylenium