Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Fuppylodders]

18 minutes ago, MAB said:

Fanfic is fiction made up by fans about characters from other people's movies or books or other IP, and AO3 is the "Archive of our own", a repository for that sort of stuff. So the meaning is you can write whatever the heck you like about copyrighted characters but it deserves to stay only on that repository as none of it is "true", in the sense of what the copyright owner thinks. So if you want to write a story about Johnny Thunder being gay or that the female inhabitants of Heartlake kill most of the males at birth and only keep some for future breeding, then it is fine to do so there as long as it is not present here.

Ahhhhh I see! Thank you for the explanation. 

I'ma go back under my rock now... 

[Peppermint_M]

2 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

what you mean by you're unashamed shipping trash

Shipping is relationship-(ing) as in, X Character is involved with Y Character (Or more often than not XY with XY and XX with XX... ) take characters from any media property and write a story where they are in a relationship.

Trash, in this instance is "a person or people regarded as being of very low social standing." Applied to myself in a self-deprecating kind of way as I am a sucker for a cute pairing whether it is an actually depicted in the media property (So, I dunno, fleshing out the relationship between a Disney Prince and Princess) or one that did not exist, never existed or was only pointed out in subtext clues of some piece of media. I appreciate that it can be a weird part of the internet where the Fanfiction lives and again, I am one of those ones who write (under other web handles, naturally, I have a reputation which I have now tarnished!)

A LEGO website about LEGO, in a discussion over unpopular opinions of LEGO/TLG is not where one will pull out their notebook and share all their personal narratives for characters or their own minifig creations.

Now if you have made a MOC, Brick Film or Comic to depict it, go ahead and post it in the right forum!

Enjoy the rock, sometimes I wish I could go back under it. 

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, MAB said:

Fanfic is fiction made up by fans about characters from other people's movies or books or other IP, and AO3 is the "Archive of our own", a repository for that sort of stuff. So the meaning is you can write whatever the heck you like about copyrighted characters but it deserves to stay only on that repository as none of it is "true", in the sense of what the copyright owner thinks. So if you want to write a story about Johnny Thunder being gay or that the female inhabitants of Heartlake kill most of the males at birth and only keep some for future breeding, then it is fine to do so there as long as it is not present here

Thank you that helped (me) a lot!

I always admire the different ways one can express things in any language. But really shows when reading in a "non mother tongue" language. This is a very nice example! Thank you for your time translating this from English to English @MAB!

I really like this.

Best wishes,
Thorsten

[danth]

11 hours ago, 1974 said:

If yellow represents white, why didn't TLG not just use white? A colour that was in production since before the introduction of the minifig

Because the literal color white doesn't look anything like a "white" person's skin tone. When I was in kindergarten and there were only 8 crayon colors, we all used Yellow for white people. It was the obvious choice.

But the point isn't that yellow was explicitly chosen to represent white people. It's that it just doesn't work at all for black people. Saying it's racially neutral was a cop out on Lego's part.

And they know it. If they didn't, why did they decide to make a brown colored Lando in the 2003 Cloud City set and keep all the other minifigs yellow?

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=10123-1

That set is living proof that Lego themselves thought that yellow figures "worked" for white characters but not black characters.

 

 

[1974]

It could very well be Lucasfilm who made that call, same thing with the NBA series

I never used yellow to represent me, my friends or family in kindergarden/preschool. Their colour was determined by the piece of paper which was white

 

 

 

 

 

[Aanchir]

9 hours ago, Peppermint_M said:

Can we all agree that we can Fanfic the heck out of named characters and leave it on AO3 where it belongs. (I am unashamed shipping trash. but that is for fanfic sites, not LEGO sites.) 

Minifigures are little plastic humanoids and kids can and will apply whatever they want to the character of the figure.  

No one has a universal experience, nothing can fully represent the scope of humanity in a mass produced object. LEGO as a toy is magnificently customisable, so you can encompass whatever you like.  

Again, I totally understand and agree that LEGO's imaginative potential enables fans like me to create our own models, storylines, and interpretations that make up for the shortcomings of official sets and media. At the same time, I don't think that somehow makes it pointless to have our own hopes and expectations for official sets and media as well.

Acting like there's no point in hoping for more diverse characters (of any sort) in official sets and themes since you can just re-imagine the existing characters however you like is sort of like telling LEGO Castle, Pirates, and Space fans there's no need to hope for new versions of those themes in the future, because they can just MOC their own. Even if it's technically true, it still feels dismissive and slightly patronizing, since most of us are already doing whatever we can with what we have to make up for the stuff we feel LEGO's own products are lacking.

It's one thing to feel like LEGO is unlikely to fulfill certain wishes or meet certain expectations anytime soon, but it's frustrating when those wishes are treated like some naive, impossible fantasy that will never be fulfilled.

10 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

As for media, that's entirely different. It'll happen, it'll change. We're all aware lgbqt is so much more widely accepted now than it was before. 

But, you also can't be ignorant to the fact, that TLG is a business. To make money. And there are still the generations of parents that were brought up by anti-lgbqt (or blind eyeing lgbqt) people who will be mindful of what they expose their kids to. TLG can't just dive in balls deep instantly. Because it *will* spark outrage from the 'anti lgbqt' people, and it'll lose them profits. 

It's difficult to tell how mu h of their profit comes from the anti and pro. They might be able to do a sneak survey that doesn't straight up ask your gender but they might be gathering the info in the background to keep an eye on things so they know when it's safe to start dipping toes.

Trust me, I'm well aware of all of these factors. I certainly don't expect LEGO to immediately start putting LGBTQ+ characters in all of their themes. But as you say, LGBTQ+ representation in media is expanding slowly but surely, and I'm hopeful that it won't be TOO long before we start to see more signs of it in LEGO-related media.

After all, LEGO's made some positive strides in representation in some of their other forms of marketing. Consider this recent "Rebuild the World" video featuring openly gay actor Billy Porter (who is well-known for his glamorous, gender nonconforming fashion sense):

Although the video doesn't explicitly refer to sexuality, gender identity, or gender norms, it sends a pretty clear and affirming message, such as with its concluding statement: "One must actively choose to love themselves. One must actively choose to block out the haters. And choose yourself."

Needless to say, there are risks of releasing a marketing video like this, which inevitably would (and did) create controversy among parents with very rigid opinions about sexuality and gender expression! But clearly, LEGO decided that those risks were worth taking. So I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that LEGO might soon be willing to take similar risks with other forms of LGBTQ+ representation in their sets and media.

And contrary to another concern I often see raised, this doesn't have to involve any sort of negative stereotypes. Even small, inconspicuous details — like, say, a minifigure with a trans pride flag pin on their jacket, or a family portrait in a Friends or City set that happens to include two moms or two dads, or a nonbinary Ninjago supporting character who uses "they/them" pronouns — can have a positive and meaningful impact without "shoving it in people's faces" (as some critics might put it).

Certainly, if LEGO were to do this, some stores might choose not to carry certain sets that conflict with their "values", and apps or TV episodes might need slight dialogue changes in certain countries. But those sorts of things are already not unheard of. For example, The Entertainer", a major UK toy store chain, doesn't carry any sets or themes that they consider "occult", (including themes like Monster Fighters or Hidden Side). And likewise, it's common practice for companies to edit movies, TV shows, software, and printemedia to account for jokes, figures of speech, and cultural references that don't translate neatly from one language to another.

10 hours ago, Fuppylodders said:

Surely you're not incensed that your opinion is somewhat unpopular, given you posted an opinion in the unpopular opinion thread...? You effectively proved that your opinion fits in this thread is all. 

Oh, definitely not. I fully recognize (and in fact, mentioned in my earlier post) that this particular opinion of mine is not really popular here on Eurobricks. And as you mention, sharing unpopular opinions is the whole point of this topic!

At the same time, I originally only brought up this issue as an example of how much the community's level of criticism towards LEGO can vary depending on who you're talking to and what issues they're discussing. So I found it interesting/noteworthy that so many people responded with the exact sort of responses I already mentioned receiving in previous discussions of that issue, whereas other highly unpopular opinions mentioned in this topic (like "The classic Castle theme should never return" or "I love it when a set has large numbers of stickers") have gotten far fewer responses.

Edited April 9, 2021 by Aanchir

[Flak Maniak]

I don't know if this one counts as "unpopular", but surely you can at least give me a "controversial":

I think many online fans are far too concerned with "what sets Lego makes". No, what I think matters is cheap and consistent access to useful parts, in good colors, in high quantities. The price of commodity parts affects me more than the design of whatever new marquee set does. New sets are useful to me insofar as they contain interesting new parts, or parts in new colors, that I will buy later on BrickLink or Bricks & Pieces.

If anything, I understand the licensed minifig collectors more; yeah it's a lot more work to design minifig prints or specialized new molds yourself, than to merely make your own builds! I understand the desire for Lego to come out with new prints and molded parts for XYZ character. (I mean, I understand it; I don't share it. I don't want licensed figs; just cool new Lego-original figs that spark my imagination.)

I suppose the contemptuous, "evil" version of this post would be, "online Lego fans need to be told what to do, and are too obsessed with 'official' configurations of parts and cardboard boxes, too much about collecting canonical products and not enough about what we did as children: BUILDING FROM OUR IMAGINATIONS!"

And by "building from our imaginations", I mean "shopping on BrickLink all day while vaguely fantasizing about what sorts of builds these parts might go towards, and oh, my, that many of THIS part, in THAT color, for this price? How can I not buy them? I'm sure I'll find a good use for them eventually!"

What I mean to say is, if you want XYZ subject matter depicted, you have the power. Free your mind, and your bricks will follow!

[Pdaitabird]

23 minutes ago, Flak Maniak said:

I think many online fans are far too concerned with "what sets Lego makes". No, what I think matters is cheap and consistent access to useful parts, in good colors, in high quantities. The price of commodity parts affects me more than the design of whatever new marquee set does. New sets are useful to me insofar as they contain interesting new parts, or parts in new colors, that I will buy later on BrickLink or Bricks & Pieces.

 

Amen! While I understand that not everyone has the time, skills, or parts collection to design their own models, some folks do seem overly constrained by what TLG produces. I would encourage those who have never ventured into the world of MOC building to just sit down with a pile of bricks and see what you can come up with - you might surprise yourself!

[The Brick Boss]

3 hours ago, Aanchir said:

It's one thing to feel like LEGO is unlikely to fulfill certain wishes or meet certain expectations anytime soon, but it's frustrating when those wishes are treated like some naive, impossible fantasy that will never be fulfilled.

That's how my wishes were treated when I first came to this community. I was very eager to show off my ideas and was hoping to get encouragement from fellow Lego fans to give out more. I got quite the contrary. I'm annoyed by that a lot. So I'm there with you. 

But I also understand that perhaps the people who do that might actually be closer to Lego that me and may actually know what Lego wants to do with certain themes. 

[Lord Insanity]

 

6 hours ago, danth said:

Because the literal color white doesn't look anything like a "white" person's skin tone. When I was in kindergarten and there were only 8 crayon colors, we all used Yellow for white people. It was the obvious choice.

But the point isn't that yellow was explicitly chosen to represent white people. It's that it just doesn't work at all for black people. Saying it's racially neutral was a cop out on Lego's part.

And they know it. If they didn't, why did they decide to make a brown colored Lando in the 2003 Cloud City set and keep all the other minifigs yellow?

https://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?S=10123-1

That set is living proof that Lego themselves thought that yellow figures "worked" for white characters but not black characters.

To be fair Lego had previously depicted native Americans and Pacific islanders as yellow figs.  Neither of those would be considered "white" anymore than Lando would.

 

I find the whole "inclusive" discussion really odd.  Not because I am opposed to diversity and representation in Lego form, but because I have never considered mini-figs to be representative of "me" at all.  I always treated yellow figs as an alien race of "minfigians" that just happen to have silly caricatures of humans from different time periods and eras applied to them.   I do like the modern policy of licensed sets depicting real people and characters get proper flesh tones while non-licensed stick with the classic yellow.  But I also view yellow as being the non-human "minfigian" race of "people".   Like most good compromises no one is really happy.

The whole reason I love classic Lego is because " I " make the story.  Now I realize that is much harder to do in the modern era of Lego with so much defined story material compared to the mere "seed ideas" of 20-30 years ago.  That is something The Lego Movie depicted that I have always done even as a kid.  " I " am the "creator".

If Lego insists on defining so much story in their themes and expects people to identify with the mini-figs, then they need to be as all inclusive as they can.  With Lego it is stupidly easy to just add a few extra heads and hair pieces to gender swap most figs.  The company really has no reason not to be able to sell a few sets with those options if people actually want them.

[MAB]

8 hours ago, Flak Maniak said:

I don't know if this one counts as "unpopular", but surely you can at least give me a "controversial":

I think many online fans are far too concerned with "what sets Lego makes". No, what I think matters is cheap and consistent access to useful parts, in good colors, in high quantities. The price of commodity parts affects me more than the design of whatever new marquee set does. New sets are useful to me insofar as they contain interesting new parts, or parts in new colors, that I will buy later on BrickLink or Bricks & Pieces.

If anything, I understand the licensed minifig collectors more; yeah it's a lot more work to design minifig prints or specialized new molds yourself, than to merely make your own builds! I understand the desire for Lego to come out with new prints and molded parts for XYZ character. (I mean, I understand it; I don't share it. I don't want licensed figs; just cool new Lego-original figs that spark my imagination.)

It is also true of non-licensed figures too though. I like building historical MOCs. I don't really care whether LEGO does historical sets for the builds, as I prefer my own. However what I cannot do is (purist) figures. The CMF used to provide a reasonable amount of figs, but that has gone from 48 a year that were relatively cheap to 12 a year that are now expensive.

[Johnny1360]

9 hours ago, 1974 said:

 

I never used yellow to represent me, my friends or family in kindergarden/preschool. Their colour was determined by the piece of paper which was white

 

 

 

 

 

That's the way it was for me too, in fact yellow was reserved for asians. I am old, all my lego was red and white and there was no minifig, I will never forget how excited I got when blue and yellow hit the scene.

Probably one of the reasons why the whole minifigure mania thing still puzzles me after 5 years of being out of my dark age.

[1974]

Yeah, I don't get this doll collectiong craze either. TLG took a wrong turn when they started personalizing the minifigs

I went into my dark age when the Pirate line was introduced and it's was quite a shocker to me to see those bearded minifigs

I also really dislike those curvy female minifigs with lipstick

3 hours ago, Lord Insanity said:

The whole reason I love classic Lego is because " I " make the story.  Now I realize that is much harder to do in the modern era of Lego with so much defined story material compared to the mere "seed ideas" of 20-30 years ago.  That is something The Lego Movie depicted that I have always done even as a kid.  " I " am the "creator".

This is THE essence of LEGO for me. Today as well as back when I was a kid four decades ago

[BrickG]

I think there's two major aspects of Lego in that regard. You can be the creator. But then you can also, in a more model building way, simply follow the instructions and build a cool thing you like. Both are 100% legit. Yeah the creator requires more creativity. But the modeller is just as legit.

When I was a kid I was more "creator" style. Now as an adult I have no time, so I'm the "modeller" style now. There's no need to be butting heads. It's harder to be creative with a Star Wars set which has a written script almost of creativity vs a pile of bricks? So what? LEGO is whatever the heck it wants to be and it can be different things.

[Johnny1360]

That is also very true and I believe I could be shoehorned into that description as well.

Also not sure how much it matters but many people, like me have never seen the associated media tied to specific sets, although I have seen the original Star Wars and the Empire strikes back, so many star wars sets, I have no clue what the characters are supposed to be "doing". The same for almost all other sets. Never seen any Super Heroes movies, same with Ninjago, Harry Potter any Lego movie whatsoever. So for me anyway none of those characters have any predetermined role whatsoever. Also I get I am probably the only person in the world that has that experience, lol. I would like to believe though there are many children out there that may not have seen all the media that is associated with certain sets and actually do use their imagination when playing with their LEGO.

And again, when I was a child, there was no minifig, probably why I enjoy building with Technic so much, no characters. I also display my LEGO sans minifig, they are all in tubs in the closet, with the exception of Speed Champions, I do put the driver in the car.

Edited April 10, 2021 by Johnny1360

[Aanchir]

11 hours ago, 1974 said:

Yeah, I don't get this doll collectiong craze either. TLG took a wrong turn when they started personalizing the minifigs

I went into my dark age when the Pirate line was introduced and it's was quite a shocker to me to see those bearded minifigs

For my part, I think the more personalized designs that started to appear in the 90s have a lot of advantages besides their appeal to collectors. I mean, even if you prefer to imagine minifigures as being gender-neutral, racially-neutral, etc… that still wouldn't explain why there aren't any LEGO people with glasses, when it's otherwise normal to see them with real-world clothes or accessories!

Plus, from a creative perspective, more varied faces mean more unique ways to mix-and-match the parts to create new characters or archetypes (as I ended up doing with my sigfig). Certainly back in the 90s when I was a kid, that customization potential was a big part of what made LEGO minifigs so much fun compared to, say, Duplo or Playmobil figures. And when figures have varied enough features to set them apart as individuals (as opposed to, say, all firefighters being indistinguishable from one another when in uniform), it's much easier to assign personalities to them when creating your own original stories. Would you really prefer if LEGO had prevented all those creative possibilities from coming to fruition, just to keep "collectors" from enjoying minifigures in a way you don't understand/agree with?

And anyhow, there are also other types of collecting like "army building" that don't even require the minifigures to have any individualized features (just look at the people back in the early days of the Minifigures blind bags who bought obscene numbers of Zombies, Spartan Warriors, and Elf Warriors, inflating their aftermarket value many times the blind bags' original price). Likewise, different colors of Classic Space astronaut minifigs are just as "collectable" as different colors of Ninjago ninja minifigs, Bionicle villagers, or Hero Factory heroes.

9 hours ago, BrickG said:

When I was a kid I was more "creator" style. Now as an adult I have no time, so I'm the "modeller" style now. There's no need to be butting heads. It's harder to be creative with a Star Wars set which has a written script almost of creativity vs a pile of bricks? So what? LEGO is whatever the heck it wants to be and it can be different things.

I definitely agree with this last point. I think a lot of the time, we get so caught up in our own ways of enjoying LEGO that we forget just how many different ways other people (kids and adults alike) enjoy it. I can't tell you how many times I've heard people insist that LEGO themes with established characters and storylines "stifle creativity". But at the same time, examples abound of themes like Bionicle, Ninjago, and Elves inspiring their fans to create copious amounts of fan art, fan fiction, fan videos, cosplay, etc. Not to mention the countless original characters (or original redesigns of existing characters) that fans create to expand on established fictional universes.

And anyhow, it's not as though a "written script" really prevents people from creating their own concepts and stories within that particular universe. After all, that's the only way that long-running brands like Star Wars or Batman or the Avengers have been able to stay relevant so long in the first place! Basically every writer or artist for a new Star Wars, Batman, or Avengers comic or movie is tasked with the challenge of creating and portraying new scenarios based on an established universe and cast of characters, or creating new characters to expand on that established universe.

Likewise, kids playing "Superhero" or "Star Wars" on the playground (or with LEGO figures) are rarely interested in re-enacting existing stories line-for-line and shot-for-shot. Rather, the universes and characters they grow up enjoying become "building blocks" for creating their own stories — stuff like "what would happen if Captain America fought Batman?" or "If Boba Fett stole the Millennium Falcon, how would Han and his friends get it back?" or "What would happen if Thor and Loki's powers got switched?" After all, play scenarios with completely predetermined outcomes and no room for twists or improvisation don't tend to be very fun!

[Vindicare]

On 4/8/2021 at 5:45 PM, Aanchir said:

Regardless, it seems we've effectively proven the point I was making in the first place pretty nicely: regardless of the reputation I often seem to have for being too defensive or uncritical about LEGO's decision making, all it took was mentioning one significant change I'd like to see from LEGO in the future (in a topic specifically for sharing our unpopular opinions) to generate several different replies explaining why the issue I brought up doesn't actually matter, and LEGO would be better off keeping things as they are.

The diversity is already there. It’s like the saying “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” I don’t recall any box art explicitly showing any two adults as being husband & wife. Parisian Restaurant was brought up earlier. Who’s to say that couple isn’t two females? I’ve seen plenty of lesbians dress in suits before. I recently got the newest RV. Who’s to say they aren’t siblings doing a caravan trip with family & decided to ride that leg together? Minifigures are what you make of them. There’s no way, aside from throwing in a gay pride flag or the like, to indicate that X person is gay. 

[MAB]

On 4/10/2021 at 7:52 AM, 1974 said:

Yeah, I don't get this doll collectiong craze either. TLG took a wrong turn when they started personalizing the minifigs

Whereas I think it helped popularise LEGO again. If there were only plain legs and torsos, smiley heads and half a dozen choices between hats, helmets and basic hair, would LEGO be as popular as it now is. Especially when other companies are producing customisable minifigures.

[BrickG]

When minifigures started getting personalised and specific I didn't like it. Seemed anti-LEGO. But eventually I did a complete 180 and now love them.

But I mean... the first ones were often pretty hideous.

Look at that. Nobody wants that. The earliest totally custom minifigures were just terrible sometimes.

 

Heck, even Chewie was incredibly basic for WAY TOO LONG.

AND he has the "arrow" crossbow for a ridiculous amount of time. The soulless eyes... the absolute garbage printing... The quality of the first personalized LEGO minifigures was often just bad! But now they're pretty great so it's ALL GOOD.

One of the appeals for minifigures for me is you get them all in the same format (mostly) across multiple franchises. So you can have Darth Vader next to Sponge Bob and have it still look right. AND it's all LEGO so the builds look right too. PLUS Minifigures just look good especially compared to the off-brands. I only wish all my favorite franchises would be adopted by LEGO. I had a dream just last night where they did Star Trek (not the new crap).

[MAB]

2 hours ago, BrickG said:

When minifigures started getting personalised and specific I didn't like it. Seemed anti-LEGO.

I am not sure they are anti-lego. After all, printed ones (rather than stickered ones) came about really quite quickly after the minifigure was introduced. 1979 saw many printed, personalised, specific minifigures ...

 

 

Personally, I think this was a good move so that figures could start looking like what they were meant to be rather than just plain parts. Remember other toys of the time (toy soldiers, action men / GI Joes, dolls, small articulated figures such as Kenner) had quite detailed figures for playing out certain stories. I wouldn't have used a knight to stand in for Darth Vader in my LEGO model of his tie fighter, but then I wouldn't use a plain LEGO figure either. I used to put Kenner figures into my LEGO models. Similarly I wouldn't have used a classic spaceman or a woman with a necklace to represent a police man as they are obviously not police men. I 'd prefer a minifigure with a police print.

If LEGO had stuck with completely generic minifigures, I doubt it would be where it is today.

 

[1974]

Those are not personalised to me. I had loads of red spacemen, they all looked the same. Same with the early castle figs etc. I made them unique, I gave them names, stories, jobs and position in my LEGO world hierarchy

I also determined the sex. When I took of the helmets, I put on a hair piece, Some was female, some was male (nothing in between 'cause i did absolutely not have a clue there could be anything in between)

And if they were happy, angry, sad, sleeping, I was the one who decided

Now, every fig seems to be unique, a face frozen in one expression, has a name, backstory, a cartoon and everything on a platter. No need to make up your own stories and develop

Back then a fig from '79 was not out of place with a fig from '88 (the years I was into LEGO), now a theme is launched with great fanfare and forgotten the next year ...

 

 

[MAB]

46 minutes ago, 1974 said:

Those are not personalised to me. I had loads of red spacemen, they all looked the same. Same with the early castle figs etc. I made them unique, I gave them names, stories, jobs and position in my LEGO world hierarchy

I also determined the sex. When I took of the helmets, I put on a hair piece, Some was female, some was male (nothing in between 'cause i did absolutely not have a clue there could be anything in between)

And if they were happy, angry, sad, sleeping, I was the one who decided

Now, every fig seems to be unique, a face frozen in one expression, has a name, backstory, a cartoon and everything on a platter. No need to make up your own stories and develop

Back then a fig from '79 was not out of place with a fig from '88 (the years I was into LEGO), now a theme is launched with great fanfare and forgotten the next year ...

 

 

OK, but were your spacemen ever medieval soldiers? As the print suggests exactly what they do and so has already partly set the story. And what is great about now, if you want someone to be happy or sad or even sleeping, there is a head with a print that allows them to be doing that. Yes, those faces are frozen in one expression (usually two, as they are double sided) but then so is the classic smiley. At least now you can swap heads and make a sad figure look sad or an angry one look angry. Not only can you make up your own stories, you can also make your minifigures express what is going on using their faces. In the past they all had blank eyes and a smile no matter what the situation. And if you really want every figure to have that same face, they are very cheap.

[ShaydDeGrai]

2 hours ago, MAB said:

If LEGO had stuck with completely generic minifigures, I doubt it would be where it is today.

I think this is very true, and I very much appreciate that the revenues generated by CMF sales and other mini-fig collectables has subsidized my brick habit over the decades.

Then again, I remember when they first started printing smily faces on the yellow heads; I took to putting their heads on backwards so hair and headgear would cover up the printing because my imagination preferred starting from a blank slate rather than everyone smiling all the time - as if Legoland had become a manic Village of the Damned.   Maybe I was just a weird kid...  

[MAB]

8 minutes ago, ShaydDeGrai said:

I think this is very true, and I very much appreciate that the revenues generated by CMF sales and other mini-fig collectables has subsidized my brick habit over the decades.

Then again, I remember when they first started printing smily faces on the yellow heads; I took to putting their heads on backwards so hair and headgear would cover up the printing because my imagination preferred starting from a blank slate rather than everyone smiling all the time - as if Legoland had become a manic Village of the Damned.   Maybe I was just a weird kid...  

And no doubt this also was the reason for old scribble face cop in The Lego Movie ...

I remember kids doing that to minifig heads to include new expressions.

Edited April 12, 2021 by MAB

[Lego David]

1 hour ago, 1974 said:

Those are not personalised to me. I had loads of red spacemen, they all looked the same. Same with the early castle figs etc. I made them unique, I gave them names, stories, jobs and position in my LEGO world hierarchy

I also determined the sex. When I took of the helmets, I put on a hair piece, Some was female, some was male (nothing in between 'cause i did absolutely not have a clue there could be anything in between)

And if they were happy, angry, sad, sleeping, I was the one who decided

Now, every fig seems to be unique, a face frozen in one expression, has a name, backstory, a cartoon and everything on a platter. No need to make up your own stories and develop

This simply isn't true. If anything, minifigures having more facial expressions allows for even more potential to use your imagination and create your own stories. To be fair, the Classic Smile doesn't really inspire me to do anything with the figures... as much as it has a certain charm to it, the figures just look... very lifeless to me. But more expressions gives them more liveliness, and makes them stand out from each, each of them having their own distinct traits and personalities. And you can use those unique traits as a foundation for creating your own stories and characters. Why does this figure look like this? Why does it have this outfit and this facial expression? You can still very well use your imagination to fill in those gaps.

I am sorry to say it, but I think a lot of AFOLs are blinded by their own nostalgic interpretation of what LEGO should be like, and fail to realize that LEGO has more or less always been the way they are. They, like everyone else, have just evolved, and that is not a bad thing at all. 

Edited April 12, 2021 by Lego David