LEGO Group Attending Pride in London!

[Aanchir]

16 hours ago, pooda said:

@Aanchir Uh....wouod you mind giving the short version of your answers please?

I wish I could. I'm terrible at expressing what I want to say concisely and when I try it comes out all wrong. I hate how long it takes me to say what's on my mind but I still haven't figured out how to fix that.

[The Brick Boss]

On 7/13/2019 at 10:35 AM, Aanchir said:

I wish I could. I'm terrible at expressing what I want to say concisely and when I try it comes out all wrong. I hate how long it takes me to say what's on my mind but I still haven't figured out how to fix that.

You should do what I do. Be straight to the point unless you have to explain something to others. 

 

As for the minifigs, I think they should stay yellow. Race-free ideas are what help the imagination grow when playing with minifigures. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by pooda

[TeriXeri]

1 hour ago, pooda said:

As for the minifigs, I think they should stay yellow. Race-free ideas are what help the imagination grow when playing with minifigures. 

I agree LEGO should stick to yellow figures for their in-house sets. 

It makes sense for Licensed themes to have human skin tones as they are often based on actors/characters outside of LEGO's origin, but in-house themes should just stick to yellow.

In the context of the 2019 Chinese New Year sets, yellow figures are fine, as they are in-house sets.

I know prefences of minifig skin tones differ and people use flesh toned minifigs even for things like non-licensed historic/pirates/space MOCS and that's 100% fine, I think choice is good, be it yellow figures, flesh tones, or minidolls etc.

Edited July 13, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Aanchir]

5 hours ago, pooda said:

You should do what I do. He straight to the point unless you have to explain something to others.

Often I just have a hard time finding the right way to put my point into words without it coming out wrong…

EDIT: Turns out yesterday LEGO shared this video that they shot while at London Pride! Great to see how much this meant to their employees and fans alike!

https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6555378162828660736

Edited July 13, 2019 by Aanchir

[The Brick Boss]

5 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

I agree LEGO should stick to yellow figures for their in-house sets. 

It makes sense for Licensed themes to have human skin tones as they are often based on actors/characters outside of LEGO's origin, but in-house themes should just stick to yellow.

In the context of the 2019 Chinese New Year sets, yellow figures are fine, as they are in-house sets.

I know prefences of minifig skin tones differ and people use flesh toned minifigs even for things like non-licensed historic/pirates/space MOCS and that's 100% fine, I think choice is good, be it yellow figures, flesh tones, or minidolls etc.

What do you think would happen if Lego stopped doing licensed out of house themes? 

Just curious 

[TeriXeri]

29 minutes ago, pooda said:

What do you think would happen if Lego stopped doing licensed out of house themes? 

Just curious 

Even if all Licensed themes would be instantly stopped now, I think they'd still use yellow minifigs.

Friends minidolls will still use flesh tones, as we also saw with Elves / Lego Movie 2. 

Long term (10+ years from now) I have absolutely no idea.

This is LEGO's own reasoning (for minifgures at least) :

Quote

Why are minifigures yellow?

We chose yellow to avoid assigning a specific ethnicity in sets that don't include any specific characters. With this neutral color, fans can assign their own individual roles to LEGO minifigures. In some sets, such as movie themed ones, we want to represent the characters as authentically as possible. Some figures included will therefore be represented in different ethnic roles to stay true to their characterisation.

https://www.lego.com/en-AU/service/help-topics/fun-for-fans/behind-the-scenes/brick-facts/why-are-minifigures-yellow

Quote

WHY SOME MINIFIGURES ARE DIFFERENT COLORS

We want to inspire the builders of tomorrow – that means kids from all around the world! We want every one of our fans, wherever they live and whatever their own skin color, to imagine themselves as part of the action. When we invented minifigures almost 40 years ago, we chose yellow because it’s a neutral “skin color” – nobody in real life has bright yellow skin, so LEGO® minifigures don’t represent a specific race or ethnic background and nobody is left out.

While we’ve made some minifigures that aren’t yellow, they’re usually based on characters we didn’t create. We try to make them look just like those characters so kids can play out the story at home.

https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/bricks-building/brick-facts/why-some-minifigures-are-different-colors-408100000007856

 

 

Edited July 13, 2019 by TeriXeri

[BrickG]

I think the commercialism of any given good move forward is fine and, though kind of lacking in the legitimacy you'd get from individuals supporting a cause, is still a positive step forward. I don't agree with the general attitude saying "companies should keep these things to themselves or not put in a voice on topics like this". As long as it's a positive move forward, whatever.

No if the companies started doing the opposite and announced their hate of LGBQT+ since that's just them being jerks I'd tell them to shut up. 

I actually think the positive commercialization, again though lacking real heart, is a sign of more acceptance and another step towards a more positive future where everyone, no matter your sexuality, race, creed, etc, is equally heartlessly commercialized. 

 

 

 

As for the yellow skinned thing. It's from an old idea that colorblindness was good (it's not, and as they discovered with Lando yellow doesn't really work with black people). I think unless the tradition is just that stubborn, eventually I wouldn't be surprised to see the yellow disappear.

Edited July 14, 2019 by BrickG

[TeriXeri]

13 hours ago, BrickG said:

As for the yellow skinned thing. It's from an old idea that colorblindness was good (it's not, and as they discovered with Lando yellow doesn't really work with black people). I think unless the tradition is just that stubborn, eventually I wouldn't be surprised to see the yellow disappear.

Lando isn't a character created by LEGO however, during 2003, figures started to get skin tones (Cloud City Lando and NBA Basketball sets based on real people/actors), in 2004 Harry Potter figured changed from yellow to flesh color.

However I do think if LEGO minifigs designed today, they wouldn't be yellow (See Friends/Elves minidolls), but that could have other reasons as well, since Belville even had flesh toned dolls in 1994.

For minifigs, I think LEGO is sticking to their yellow figures, LEGO Movie 1 (2014), could have been a big swing point to change minifigures, but they didn't, but LEGO Movie 2 sets did start to mix flesh/yellow figures and minidolls into sets, and CMF series. (the flesh figures were still limited to characters not made by LEGO however, like Batman, Green Lantern, Dorothy)

Of course things can change in the future, but we're almost 2020 now, that's a long time since 2003/2004.

Edited July 14, 2019 by TeriXeri

[MAB]

On 7/12/2019 at 8:27 PM, Aanchir said:

If I'm being honest, it's fairly tiresome how you keep suggesting that gay or transgender stereotypes are one of the most logical ways for LEGO to depict LGBTQ+ representation. In particular, these examples of gender stereotypes you see in LEGO are hardly as offensive as the "man in a dress" or "bearded lady" stereotypes that a transgender character made simply by mixing and matching male and female minifigure parts might reinforce.

:

It's telling that people touting the idea that many LEGO characters are "whatever you want them to be" generally stop short of suggesting that existing characters without any established sexuality could "come out" more visibly in future sets or media. Certainly that's the obvious way to create more LGBTQ+ representation in LEGO themes without introducing stereotypes.

 

I am not suggesting stereotypes are the most logical way. You don't seem to accept that minifigures can be whatever you want them to be. So therefore the only way around that is to use stereotypes.

 

[The Brick Boss]

On 7/13/2019 at 5:29 PM, TeriXeri said:

Even if all Licensed themes would be instantly stopped now, I think they'd still use yellow minifigs.

Friends minidolls will still use flesh tones, as we also saw with Elves / Lego Movie 2. 

Long term (10+ years from now) I have absolutely no idea.

This is LEGO's own reasoning (for minifgures at least) :

https://www.lego.com/en-AU/service/help-topics/fun-for-fans/behind-the-scenes/brick-facts/why-are-minifigures-yellow

https://www.lego.com/en-us/service/help/bricks-building/brick-facts/why-some-minifigures-are-different-colors-408100000007856

 

 

So you don't think Lego will suffer financially? 

I mean I know they'll save billions because they don't have to pay all that money for licensing. 

[MAB]

25 minutes ago, pooda said:

So you don't think Lego will suffer financially? 

I mean I know they'll save billions because they don't have to pay all that money for licensing. 

It wouldn't surprise me if LEGO went under if they stopped doing licensed sets. If they stopped doing them, then another building brick company would soon step in and take their place and the lucrative licensed area. Then slowly they would become the top brand, at the expense of LEGO.

[TeriXeri]

3 hours ago, pooda said:

So you don't think Lego will suffer financially? 

I mean I know they'll save billions because they don't have to pay all that money for licensing. 

The subject at hand was minifigs and their skin color, not finances, so I didn't adress that.

[Agent Kallus]

On 7/13/2019 at 3:37 PM, pooda said:

You should do what I do. Be straight to the point unless you have to explain something to others. 

 

As for the minifigs, I think they should stay yellow. Race-free ideas are what help the imagination grow when playing with minifigures. 

Easier said than done isn't it though.

On 7/6/2019 at 7:45 PM, Aanchir said:

Just consider how the mother, father, and child from Fun in the Park conspicuously reappear in Pickup & Caravan, how Dr. Brains from LEGO Power Miners makes a guest appearance (with a new face print) in the LEGO Atlantis Deep Sea Raider, or how a much older version of Solomon Blaze from LEGO Galaxy Squad reappears as the leader of the LEGO Ultra Agents.

It's not hard to imagine stuff like that being used to express a transgender narrative, such as taking a LEGO character (named or unnamed) who has previously been identified or depicted as male, and putting an unambiguously female redesign of the same character in a later set.

A lot of people might just think that the characters are related rather than being the same person though, but I don't really know how they could fix that without a narrative medium to clarify it (Ala ninjago).

17 hours ago, TeriXeri said:

Lando isn't a character created by LEGO however, during 2003, figures started to get skin tones (Cloud City Lando and NBA Basketball sets based on real people/actors), in 2004 Harry Potter figured changed from yellow to flesh color.

But Lando wasn't made in yellow in a set where everyone else was, whether he was created by Lego or not doesn't matter that they though yellow skin would make sense for him shows that their would yellow philosophy was flawed, hence the introduction of fleshies because in pre-fleshie licensed themes white people were yellow  they change it so they are all accurate skin tone and yellow went back to representing no race in particular.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by Agent Kallus

[TeriXeri]

10 minutes ago, Agent Kallus said:

But Lando wasn't made in yellow in a set where everyone else was, whether he was created by Lego or not doesn't matter that they though yellow skin would make sense for him shows that their would yellow philosophy was flawed, hence the introduction of fleshies because in pre-fleshie licensed themes white people were yellow  they change it so they are all accurate skin tone and yellow went back to representing no race in particular.

2003 was a year where they started to change. Star Wars just wasn't the first theme to introduce pink skin figures first. 

2003 Basketball is the one theme within the same year where the change is clearly visible. 

https://brickset.com/sets/theme-Sports/subtheme-Basketball/year-2003

For example those 2 sets are nearly identical but from the same year and only 1 set number difference, basicly going from generic NBA characters towards actual existing players from licensed themes.

Now I don't know what months those sets released, but I imagine the 3432 set was earlier in the year and 3433 was a later release.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Agent Kallus]

1 minute ago, TeriXeri said:

2003 was a year where they started to change. Star Wars just wasn't the first theme to introduce pink skin figures first.

2003 Basketball is the one theme within the same year where the change is clearly visible, and also the first theme to introduce multiple skin tones beside

https://brickset.com/sets/theme-Sports/subtheme-Basketball/year-2003

For example those 2 sets are nearly identical but from the same year and only 1 set number difference, basicly going from generic NBA characters towards actual existing players from licensed themes.

Yes... and your point is?

Edited July 15, 2019 by Agent Kallus

[The Brick Boss]

@TeriXeri That was kinda different though. Sports was licensed, but in house at the same time - similar to Speed Champions! So it wouldn't have mattered either way whether the minifigs were yellow or brown skinned/white skinned. I guess since it was kind of a subsidiary of the old Town theme in a way. 

Edited July 15, 2019 by pooda

[TeriXeri]

31 minutes ago, Agent Kallus said:

Yes... and your point is?

That the Lando set was only a part of the process. It might have been a set where he was one of the first dark skin toned figures among yellow figures, but LEGO moved along with the NBA team figures, and 2004 Star Wars/Harry Potter lines, where yellow was a thing of the past since 2004.

Anyway, comparing a 2003 set with a 2019 current policy is kinda pointless as I do not know LEGO's policy during the early 2000s, LEGO was clearly into some structural changes during that time and trying to get out of a financial bubble which is another subject matter on it's own.

30 minutes ago, pooda said:

@TeriXeri That was kinda different though. Sports was licensed, but in house at the same time - similar to Speed Champions! So it wouldn't have mattered either way whether the minifigs were yellow or brown skinned/white skinned. I guess since it was kind of a subsidiary of the old Town theme in a way. 

Yes I can see sports had some "neutral" sets even past 2003, and I figure the NBA license was more focused around the USA market, while the generic sets might have been wider produced.

Still was the first theme to introduce flesh toned characters beside the 1 Lando figure in 2003.

If this set was made in 2004 instead of 2000, Zidane might have had flesh toned skin. I can see they made a similar kind of adidas promotional set in 2007, but the player was just called generic "Superstar" instead.

 

 

Edited July 15, 2019 by TeriXeri

[Aanchir]

13 hours ago, MAB said:

I am not suggesting stereotypes are the most logical way. You don't seem to accept that minifigures can be whatever you want them to be.…

Um, I definitely accept that minifigures can be whatever you want. I also understand that that doesn't somehow negate the value of designing minifigures with particular identities in mind.

A minifigure of Jay from LEGO Ninjago can definitely represent whoever or whatever you please. But that minifigure ALSO represents Jay Walker, a specific character with established personality traits and relationships to other characters.

Jay is the biological son of Cliff Gordon and the previous Elemental Master of Lighting, and the adopted son of Ed and Edna Walker. He has a close friendship with Cole and is in love with Nya. He loves tinkering with gadgets and playing video games. He frequently becomes flustered, and uses his sense of humor to compensate for his insecurities.

Even if not all of these things are part of the figure's physical appearance, they are sometimes alluded to in various ways by the sets he appears in. And whether or not they're made apparent in the sets themselves, his identity is a big part of why many fans love the character and are attracted to sets he appears in.
 

14 hours ago, MAB said:

… So therefore the only way around that is to use stereotypes.

I've already stated several ways to include LGBTQ+ representation in sets without having to rely on heteronormative/cisnormative stereotyping — including similar ways to how opposite-sex relationships or background information on characters unrelated to their gender identities are already portrayed in various sets. But I guess you just decided to ignore all that?
 

12 hours ago, pooda said:

So you don't think Lego will suffer financially? 

I mean I know they'll save billions because they don't have to pay all that money for licensing. 

Not sure it makes sense to say they'd SAVE money by not doing licenses. Usually most of what they owe on licensed is royalty payments, which are calculated as a fraction of the revenue the sets for those licenses bring in.

For a licensed set or theme to actually LOSE money, it has to sell so poorly that it fails to earn back the costs of developing, producing, distributing and marketing it, same as would be the case for a non-licensed theme.

Even if we assume LEGO continued to make as much revenue on exclusively non-licensed stuff as they do on a mix of licensed and non-licensed, developing original set and theme concepts isn't without its own costs. And giving up licensing practically amounts to handing all those popular IPs over to competing building toy brands on a silver platter.
 

But hopefully to swing this back a little closer to the topic of representation, I do think the question you posed is interesting. The amount of flak LEGO gets over a lack of figures with darker skin tones could only be expected to increase if they had no licensed sets, and thus no darker human skin tones in themes that use traditional minifigures.

Right now, licensed themes are also pretty much the only unambiguous source of LGBTQ+ representation in official LEGO sets, thanks to the LGBTQ+ characters in some of the IPs LEGO has obtained licenses for (79 figures and counting!): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZnlICkoUU66QIwy-F90HNATiY2sPh8DyXkN3X3x4n-o/edit?usp=sharing

Still kind of frustrated that this discussion continues to veer off on bizarre tangents like debating whether LEGO characters have any kind of, or even whether they SHOULD have any kind of identities.
 

On 7/14/2019 at 3:49 AM, BrickG said:

I think the commercialism of any given good move forward is fine and, though kind of lacking in the legitimacy you'd get from individuals supporting a cause, is still a positive step forward. I don't agree with the general attitude saying "companies should keep these things to themselves or not put in a voice on topics like this". As long as it's a positive move forward, whatever.

No if the companies started doing the opposite and announced their hate of LGBQT+ since that's just them being jerks I'd tell them to shut up. 

I actually think the positive commercialization, again though lacking real heart, is a sign of more acceptance and another step towards a more positive future where everyone, no matter your sexuality, race, creed, etc, is equally heartlessly commercialized. 

Thank you so much for such a refreshingly on-topic and sensible response!

Truthfully, I think LEGO's heart is in this in more ways than some other companies, particularly since (as mentioned on the previous page) they have a pretty good track record of supporting their LGBTQ+ fans and employees without trying to leverage it into any sort of marketing campaign.

[The Brick Boss]

@Aanchir Yes! Let's get back on topic. Sorry I took us off. 

I have done ethnic stereotypes with my minifigs before. For example, the bank truck driver has a black bun and a cute voice tone to portray a Chinese-American style and I gave the police chief in my town an alphamale voice and a black beard to portray an African American Male. 

Edited July 16, 2019 by pooda

[Anonknee Muss]

Wait this event was a thing?

[Robert8]

On 8/3/2019 at 7:16 PM, J4ck said:

Wait this event was a thing?

What do you mean? 

There are pictures and everything

I would say it did happen 

[Anonknee Muss]

8 hours ago, Robert8 said:

What do you mean? 

There are pictures and everything

I would say it did happen 

I saw on LinkedIn about Lego celebrating pride internally but I didn’t realise they celebrated it out in the open if you get what I mean.