Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Northgeorgiamasonry]

Unpopular opinion: even though Barracuda Bay was 2020 set of the year for a lot of people, it was only the third best ship build of that year. Creator Pirate Ship and Destiny’s Bounty are both better.  Now, the final product of Barracuda Bay is certainly much more impressive.  But if we’re just talking about the builds, Barracuda Bay uses lots of big hull pieces and the build spends a lot more time simply furnishing the ship.  The other two are more technical and satisfying building experiences that construct the ship from no (creator) or fewer (bounty) big hull pieces and incorporate more system detailing (creator) and technic functions (bounty).

Edited May 17, 2021 by Northgeorgiamasonry

[The Brick Boss]

Unpopular opinion: While the buildable road plates are a valuable asset. I don't agree with them being included in the town planning sets. I personally think they should be sold separately like this:

 

I just feel like in a set, they kinda get in the way of playability. That and the fact that they mess with the piece count in the sets. So that's why I think that just like road baseplates were, road platelets should be sold separately. Perhaps Lego should take this into consideration for City in 2022. I know a lot of people may disagree. But well.....its called Unpopular Opinions for a reason. 

Edited May 17, 2021 by Poodabricks

[Lego David]

The "Everyone is Awesome" Pride set just got leaked, clearly made as corporate pandering to LGBTQ. I really do not like the direction this is going...  

Edited May 18, 2021 by Lego David

[UberCorp]

22 minutes ago, Lego David said:

The "Everyone is Awesome" Pride set just got leaked, clearly made as corporate pandering to LGBTQ. I really do not like the direction this is going...  

Gotta love that Rainbow Capitalism  Maybe if they donate proceeds to charity, but otherwise it’s just a shameless cash grab.

Edited May 18, 2021 by UberCorp

[dr_spock]

It could be an easy way to start a monochromatic minifigure collection without a lot of Bricklinking.

 

[Lego David]

1 hour ago, UberCorp said:

Gotta love that Rainbow Capitalism  Maybe if they donate proceeds to charity, but otherwise it’s just a shameless cash grab.

Exactly. I've been skeptical for years regarding the way TLG handles things, and this set only cements my belief that they're just like any other company, ready to do pretty much anything just for the sake of profit. 

[williejm]

1 hour ago, Lego David said:

The "Everyone is Awesome" Pride set just got leaked, clearly made as corporate pandering to LGBTQ. I really do not like the direction this is going...  

‘Pandering’ doing a lot of heavy lifting there. 

[Aanchir]

1 hour ago, Lego David said:

The "Everyone is Awesome" Pride set just got leaked, clearly made as corporate pandering to LGBTQ. I really do not like the direction this is going...  

Considering the apparent designer (Matthew Ashton, who has been dropping teasers in a Twitter thread for several days now) is openly gay, it feels disrespectful to dismiss this as corporate pandering or cash-grab. After all, this is a cause that is highly personal to him, and his influential position as TLG's Vice President of Design is a pretty clear sign that LEGO genuinely values this sort of diversity even in the behind-the-scenes parts of their operations that aren't obviously apparent in their products or marketing.

It's one thing to criticize pride-related products when if the companies making them don't actually support the LGBTQ+ commmunity, or if LGBTQ+ people didn't actually have any role in creating them, or if you are opposed tt the company on ethical grounds unrelated to their attitudes about LGBTQ+ people. But if you are this opposed to a brand of products you're already a fan of introducing even a single Pride-related product (particularly one designed by a gay man)…  needless to say, it starts to seem like you're more bothered by the LGBTQ+ aspect of the product than the corporate aspect.

I mean, I don't see anybody disparaging the Easter Bunny set as "corporate pandering to Christians", the NES as "corporate pandering to gamers", the Speed Champions theme as "corporate pandering to motorheads", or the Crocodile Locomotive as "corporate pandering to rail buffs". Why is this set any more objectionable?

21 minutes ago, Lego David said:

Exactly. I've been skeptical for years regarding the way TLG handles things, and this set only cements my belief that they're just like any other company, ready to do pretty much anything just for the sake of profit. 

So THAT's your claim, now? That they're only doing it for the money? Because in a previous comment, you suggested that LGBTQ+ content in LEGO sets or media would be a bad thing, and that it would hurt their "family friendly brand image" (and presumably, by extension, their sales and profits).

In the same comment, you complained about Netflix having too many LGBTQ+ characters in their shows. You've also made comments insisting that LEGO should re-release more 18+ sets based on classic themes (what one might describe as "pandering" to AFOLs) because they'd make so much money from it! And others criticizing LEGO for making themes that aren't profitable.

So which is it? Is LEGO too focused on profits, or not enough? Are products with LGBTQ+ content an obvious cash cow that LEGO only cares about for the money, or a foolish investment that will cost them dearly? Because it's starting to sound like you're more bothered by sets including LGBTQ+ content in general than you are about what LEGO stands to gain or lose from them, let alone why they'd be interested in making them.

If you're really bothered by the existence of people like me, or think we don't belong in LEGO products, then just say that instead of dancing around it. Because it feels a bit insulting for you to act like the only reason you object to a set that I, my wife, and a lot of my LGBTQ+ friends are excited about is that you don't actually think the manufacturer's heart is in it.

[2lazeetomakeaname]

7 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

 

I mean, I don't see anybody disparaging the Easter Bunny set as "corporate pandering to Christians", 

The easter bunny has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. 

 

[Aanchir]

32 minutes ago, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

The easter bunny has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.  

I mean, being a symbol of a Christian holiday (and having the name of the holiday in its name) doesn't strike me as "absolutely nothing".

That said, I'm well aware that rabbits were already a popular pagan symbol of springtime, fertility, and rebirth before Christians began using them, and that they remain a widely-understood secular symbol with essentially the same meanings. Almost like how rainbows are not exclusively a symbol of the LGBTQ+ community. Symbols are like that. They can have lots of different meanings depending on who's using them and what context they're used in.

Edited May 18, 2021 by Aanchir

[UberCorp]

48 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

Considering the apparent designer (Matthew Ashton, who has been dropping teasers in a Twitter thread for several days now) is openly gay,

I did not know about the designer, so that does alleviate some of my grievance with it.

For me, I just dislike how 90% of pride month is companies going “we slapped a rainbow on this. buy it.” It’s a practice that just feels disingenuous as a whole even when the intentions do happen to be good.

[2lazeetomakeaname]

3 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

I mean, being a symbol of a Christian holiday (and having the name of the holiday in its name) doesn't strike me as "absolutely nothing".

The Christian holiday and the holiday most people celebrate have become completely different. 

 

I've got a really unpopular opinion:

Figures having no leg printing is fine. Black legs look completely accurate enough for most figures

[danth]

58 minutes ago, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

The easter bunny has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity. 

 

Rainbow minifigs have nothing to do with gay people. So we're all good.

[Childish Goblino]

Honestly I agree that alot of stuff companies do during pride can feel pretty disingenuous but if Ashton personally had a hand in getting this set out and possibly developing it, I don't see how this is different than say a movie or album made by an LGBTQ+ person as a labour of love/passion that also happens to be sold for profit.

Also as much as I'm jaded to companies using pride imagery as a marketing gimmick it does feel nice to have one of the biggest toy brands in the world put out a product that directly references the colours of the Trans pride flag.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Childish Goblino

[zoth33]

@Aanchir Now the real question for me is if Lego is all in with this or is this just a one and done.  Will they include gay couples in sets and shows now too.  It will be interesting to see what they do from now on.  

[danth]

Man if you think gay pride sets are pandering, just wait till you see how they've been pandering to the straights! This has been going on since the 70's!

Look at this set simply called "Family":

A man, woman, and children. Implying that the man and woman had heterosexual relations! Totally disgusting.

[Lion King]

17 minutes ago, danth said:

Man if you think gay pride sets are pandering, just wait till you see how they've been pandering to the straights! This has been going on since the 70's!

Look at this set simply called "Family":

A man, woman, and children. Implying that the man and woman had heterosexual relations! Totally disgusting.

Eh, just replace man with woman or woman with man. There, same-sex parents. 

[ProfSrlojohn]

Unpopular opinion: lego sets have too many pieces and have too much detail as standard, and thus raise the price, thus potentially pricing people out.

If look at sets today so many of them are quite expensive, even on the low end. Yes, you get a lot of pieces, but that's still a high barrier to entry.

You see this issue in the 40k world. For a while the model company GW has had these "Start Collecting" boxes, which gave you a functioning army (Usually. *cough* orks *cough) for around 75-90 USD. However, they're slowly phasing them out with new "Combat Patrol" boxes. These new boxes do come with more models, and allow you to build an army at a higher level (40k has levels of army sizes with different bonuses and losses for each) but also cost around 140-160 USD. Sure you get more content out of the boxes, but someone who wanted to play but only has 90USD is out of luck, since that option is no longer available. It raises that barrier to entry.

I think Lego might be wandering into this territory as well. Their smallest sets are still 10USD+ (barring poly bags) when that price-point used to be reserved for mid-range sets with similar amount of pieces, but there were even smaller, cheaper sets down the line if you couldn't afford that. They still got you your set in your given theme, even if it's smaller down the line.

Mars mission for example: On the small end of the line were sets like the MX-11 Astro Fighter:

This set was only 5USD Retail, and as you went up to the 10USD bracket You got sets like the MT-21 Mobile Mining Unit:
 

This was your somewhat larger, mid-range set. And I'm excluding the mini-box sets that were under 5USD as well as polybags.

Ninjago 2020 on the other hand, the cheapest non poly-bag/non-minibox set is the Jungle Raider:

While it is the same amount of pieces as the other Mars-Mission 10USD sets, this is as low as you can go. You can't get any lower without hitting polybags and mini-boxes. Sure, you're getting your money's worth out of it, but if you don't have those 10USD to spend, you're out of luck. However, Lego can't put the price lower without sacrificing profit margins. It simply raises the barrier to entry. Obviously, the 40k example is more extreme, but I'm personally worried about Lego going down that route.

Edited May 18, 2021 by ProfSrlojohn

[Aanchir]

1 hour ago, zoth33 said:

@Aanchir Now the real question for me is if Lego is all in with this or is this just a one and done.  Will they include gay couples in sets and shows now too.  It will be interesting to see what they do from now on.  

Definitely something I would love to see! And all in all, it seems like the chances of LEGO taking that step have been getting better and better with each passing year. Certainly, they've made a lot of other great strides with diversity and inclusion lately: introducing more disabled characters and characters with afro-textured hairstyles in City and Friends sets, choosing Billy Porter to star in one of their "Rebuild the World" videos (in a gorgeous green dress, no less) and talk about the importance of creative self-expression, etc.

LGBTQ+ representation has also been dramatically improving in other kid-targeted media like books and cartoons lately, which likely helps pave the way for LEGO to take similar steps in their own toys or media.

1 hour ago, UberCorp said:

I did not know about the designer, so that does alleviate some of my grievance with it.

For me, I just dislike how 90% of pride month is companies going “we slapped a rainbow on this. buy it.” It’s a practice that just feels disingenuous as a whole even when the intentions do happen to be good.

I agree, those types of superficial, trend-driven marketing stunts feel really pitiful, whether it's for Pride Month, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Autism Awareness Month, Black History Month, Women's History Month, or some other event/celebration.

That said, I feel like LEGO has had a better track record with that type of thing (in part, perhaps, because they have a little more room to get creative with the actual content and message of their products than, say, facial tissue, breakfast cereal, or candy companies, which are pretty much just adhering to the same playbook they'd  use for color-coded Christmas and Halloween variants of their products). For instance, the designer of the rainbow-patterned LEGO Dots tiles, Diego Sancho, is also openly gay, and even had a pride flag sticker visible on his laptop in one of the original LEGO Dots designer videos.

I feel like a lot of the most positive advances we're seeing in LGBTQ+ representation even outside of LEGO are the ones that are driven by creative voices belonging to the LGBTQ+ community. The level of inclusive storytelling we've recently seen in shows like Netflix's She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Cartoon Network's Steven Universe, and Disney Channel's The Owl House didn't come about because some market analyst saw that those kinds of stories are popular, and pushed corporate executives to mandate that in all their new shows going forward, but because actual LGBTQ+ people on the crew of those shows pushed hard, negotiated carefully, and laid out elaborate plans in great detail to ensure those kinds of stories (the sort that they felt might have delighted and benefited them in their own childhoods) would make it into the finished product.

Now, needless to say, we still live in a world where not all LGBTQ+ creators are comfortable "coming out" to the general public, so it's not always possible to know which "representation" actually originates from members of the LGBTQ+ community. But I'm aware of enough LGBTQ+ creators working at LEGO (whether they're out to the general public or only to friends, family, and colleagues) that I feel like I can safely assume that most LGBTQ+ representation we've seen from LEGO comes from a place of honesty and sincerity.

And perhaps I'm unrealistically optimistic about this sort of thing, but I honestly even take some comfort in knowing that even shallow or cynical Pride-themed publicity stunts are a sign of how far society has come since my childhood, when most companies' fear of alienating homophobes and transphobes far outweighed any advantages they saw in marketing products or media of any sort to the LGBTQ+ community.

I certainly roll my eyes at more blatant examples of "rainbow capitalism" a lot of the time, and don't intend to heap praise on companies for doing the bare minimum to be inclusive. But in a world that often feels grim and overwhelming, thinking about how much more accepted people like me have become just over the course of my lifetime helps the future feel at least a little brighter.

[2lazeetomakeaname]

Unpopular opinions:

The UCS assault on Hoth set is a banger

Huge sets only having 2 figures (Star Destroyer) is fine, and honestly preferred, especially if they're detailed.

(the big one) Non-licensed themes are pretty much always bad and rarely produce a good set

 

[Lego David]

7 hours ago, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

I mean, being a symbol of a Christian holiday (and having the name of the holiday in its name) doesn't strike me as "absolutely nothing".

As a Christian myself, I can safely say that the "Easter Bunny" is 100% a secular thing. So for me personally, I can easily dismiss it as nothing. 

 

[jimmynick]

17 hours ago, Lego David said:

ready to do pretty much anything just for the sake of profit. 

How dare companies seek profit under capitalism, smh.

18 hours ago, dr_spock said:

It could be an easy way to start a monochromatic minifigure collection without a lot of Bricklinking.

 

Yeah, people love collecting monochrome minifigures... there's a thread in the custom minifig subforum here all about it. TBH I'd enjoy it as a way to kickstart my own monochrome fig collection.

15 hours ago, danth said:

Man if you think gay pride sets are pandering, just wait till you see how they've been pandering to the straights! This has been going on since the 70's!

Look at this set simply called "Family":

A man, woman, and children. Implying that the man and woman had heterosexual relations! Totally disgusting.

love it

[Flak Maniak]

11 hours ago, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

(the big one) Non-licensed themes are pretty much always bad and rarely produce a good set

Well, you're definitely living up to the title of the thread, so I can't really criticize you for producing a blood-boiling opinion like this one! Well done!

[Pinnacle]

Me too. At least the scale is better than the contemporary ones. But that is only my opinion.

Do you want a gay couple? Well, buy two sets and change the wife and husband. And make your own little story..

LEGO is all about your own imagination.

[Lego David]

2 hours ago, Flak Maniak said:

(the big one) Non-licensed themes are pretty much always bad and rarely produce a good set

My opinion is the complete opposite, most licensed themes are pure cash-grabs and LEGO rarely takes them seriously. They just know the IP will sell, and don't bother putting any real love or care into properly designing those sets. 

With un-licensed themes, by contrast, a lot more is at stake and LEGO is forced to be creative and come up with something nobody else has on the market. According to LEGO designers, designing a brand new un-licensed theme takes around 2-3 years, while new licensed themes (with only a few exceptions) only take around 6 mouths to design. 

From my perspective, that's saying a lot...