Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[MAB]

10 hours ago, Kim-Kwang-Seok said:

 

I think you did this thread a lot of justice

 

anyway: this. When I was a kid it was the coolest thing to put more stuff in my Millenium Falcon. A bed, a "shuttle", a toilet. And any gap was modified of course.

I never understood many of those influencers and other AFOLs keeping their sets EXACTLY the way their instructions tells them WHILE complaining. All sets are Lego making compromises to the market. They aren't holy. Isn't it the coolest thing that you can individualize them, make them better, change it over time, upgrade to modern standards..

 

Who is to say what the main function of LEGO is? The main function is different to different people, including the company itself.

There is an issue, especially if you put photographs or videos online, that other people will complain if you build something in the wrong way - even if you highlight it is a MOD of an official set and point out why you made the changes.

 

[The Brick Boss]

@MAB

5 hours ago, MAB said:

There is an issue, especially if you put photographs or videos online, that other people will complain if you build something in the wrong way - even if you highlight it is a MOD of an official set and point out why you made the changes.

My answer to those kinds of people is this.

"There's no wrong way to build your city. So let's grab some bricks and come build with me!" 

I'm a town builder. Thought I'd add some humor. 

[Lyichir]

19 hours ago, MAB said:

How aligned to you like them? I like mine not only straight but also aligned so there are equal gaps at the edges both left/right and top/bottom. It is a pain to have to spray and slide if you want them perfectly aligned. If prints aren't aligned it is not so noticeable but with stickers it is as you see the edges of the sticker.

Whereas I'm not bothered by moulding marks.

I like to have mine aligned too. But I've never really bothered "spraying and sliding"—I just try my best to apply them carefully starting at one edge and working my way across. The fact that the "margins" on most Lego stickers are similar helps a lot, especially with rectangular stickers with borders that line up neatly parallel to the edges of the part.

There are definitely stickers I'm less fond of or which give me more trouble, but ones like plaques that are printed on opaque paper, match the shape of the surface they're applied to exactly, and are large and easy to align before finishing applying them are some of the least challenging.

[Feuer Zug]

20 hours ago, Toastie said:

Generally, and to be quite honest, I never put up any stickers; too much light/temperature changes in my attic, way too much peeling observed (from past = 10+ years stickering). Never had/have issues with prints. 

Yeah, I'm with Toastie on this one. I have lots of sheets of stickers in a box. I prefer not to apply them for two reasons. One, is that mentioned above. Two, when (NOT if) I part it out, I would like to have all the parts reusable.

[MAB]

13 hours ago, Lyichir said:

I like to have mine aligned too. But I've never really bothered "spraying and sliding"—I just try my best to apply them carefully starting at one edge and working my way across. The fact that the "margins" on most Lego stickers are similar helps a lot, especially with rectangular stickers with borders that line up neatly parallel to the edges of the part.

There are definitely stickers I'm less fond of or which give me more trouble, but ones like plaques that are printed on opaque paper, match the shape of the surface they're applied to exactly, and are large and easy to align before finishing applying them are some of the least challenging.

It is good for you that you find aligning the largest of their stickers easy and the least challenge. Other people find it quite difficult to align them perfectly with equal margins first time without having to adjust them which can lead to creasing. I know a few people that have given LEGO feedback about it and one person that has had to request a replacement (for a UCS set) where they have been damaged on application.  Who knows if they are acting on that feedback, or if they continue to use stickers for the UCS sets.

[danth]

I don't even bother trying to get stickers on straight.

With a lot of effort, they're 95% straight with a couple air bubbles and a bunch of dust stuck around the edges, and will eventually peel and wear.

If I just slap them on, they're 80% straight with a couple air bubbles and a bunch of dust stuck around the edges, and will eventually peel and wear.

I don't think it's worth the effort to get mostly the same thing. Especially since I don't like stickers anyway.

[Khargeust]

I don't know if this opinion is shared by many AFOLs or not, but as for me, I don't like the black background of the LEGO box packaging at all. I know the idea is to target an adult audience with sober and "classy" marketing. I find the rendering to be generic, lazy and downright ugly. The photo of the set is simply placed on a black background, it feels really inauthentic. It gives a feeling of regression compared to the old designs which tried a bit to be creative with pictorial backgrounds related to the set. Although some had a dated side, I loved their old-fashioned charm !

What do you think about it ?

[Ondra]

I think lego sponsored reviews are just shilling, I rarely see reviews that pinpoint major problems like clutch problems, colour inconsistencies or pricing.

Also they dont make sense, it seems like they give sets to any media and these reviews feels like copy/paste...

[The_Fiery_Rooster]

Topical hot take, I don't really mind the new instruction booklet covers. Sure, they look less appealing than the box art does, but I do see a point in making them consistent across all themes. Also, making the cover an image of the set with a plain background makes it easier to tell what it is you're building exactly. Besides, they are instructions, it's not like I'm going to display them or anything.

I've heard people say it's "lazy", but if anything it's more work than before, since each cover includes a new render of the set rather than just the box art again. Speaking of the renders, I've heard people say they're "low quality", but it looks fine, just with plain lighting, which is understandable given the intention of giving a clear look at what the set is.

As long as the D2C and ideas instructions remain at the same quality they are, I don't mind the rest of these changing, and I really don't get the fuss.

10 hours ago, Khargeust said:

I don't know if this opinion is shared by many AFOLs or not, but as for me, I don't like the black background of the LEGO box packaging at all.

What do you think about it ?

I agree and disagree. I like the black boxes when it comes to large display items, like the globe or the Mario 64 question mark block. It makes sense to put the focus on the build itself as an appealing display piece.

But for sets with minifigs, it sucks. Minifigs give the set life, but the black background takes it away. This also applies for any set that is a 'part' of something, like the modular buildings, since the black background removes the context of the set. Imagine the daily bugle having an NYC skyline behind it, or the sonic set having green hill zone in the background, it would make those sets feel alive! Instead, they both look kind of dead, which is absolutely not the intention of the set itself.

 

[Aanchir]

12 hours ago, Khargeust said:

I don't know if this opinion is shared by many AFOLs or not, but as for me, I don't like the black background of the LEGO box packaging at all. I know the idea is to target an adult audience with sober and "classy" marketing. I find the rendering to be generic, lazy and downright ugly. The photo of the set is simply placed on a black background, it feels really inauthentic. It gives a feeling of regression compared to the old designs which tried a bit to be creative with pictorial backgrounds related to the set. Although some had a dated side, I loved their old-fashioned charm ! 

What do you think about it ?

From what I've seen you're not at all alone in this perspective! I've read quite a few complaints from other AFOLs about these black backdrops feeling sterile or generic compared to more traditional diorama-style scenery or matte paintings.

For my part, I don't mind the black backdrops too much, and in some cases I feel like the graphic designers honestly do a good job making up for the lack of a full backdrop using lighting and/or particle effects, without undermining that desire for minimalism. Examples include the warm glow and snow flurries decorating the box art for Santa's Visit, the trail of crackling electricity erupting from the Back to the Future Time Machine, and the cloudy, moonlit sky behind the 1989 Batwing. I can picture plenty of ways they could push the black 18+ box art further in the future if they choose to stick with it — for example, rainstorm textures, stenciled leaf/flower petal textures, or even glowy "grid lines" across the sky like in many 80s and 90s Space sets!

Of course, even these more creative examples of the black box art are not as exciting to me as the more detailed backdrops that we still get for more kid-targeted "play themes" like City, Friends, and Ninjago. Fully painted backdrops can not only be artworks in their own right, but they also often present opportunities for fun "easter eggs" or world-building details in the backdrop — consider how the box art for the Queen Dragon's Rescue from LEGO Elves features a painting of Ragana's Magic Shadow Castle in the distance.

But honestly, I'm pretty sure that this contrast between kid-targeted sets and 18+ sets is entirely deliberate, since buyers like me who are perfectly comfortable buying "kids' toys" for our own enjoyment aren't the ones who need extra convincing to feel like LEGO building can be truly "for them"! As such, it's likely just one of those areas where there's no way for LEGO to realistically please everyone. After all, I've seen a lot of AFOLs complain that the immersive painted environments from the box art of play themes like Ninjago and City can be misleading or even deceptive — making it unclear where the backdrop ends and the set begins, making large gaps/negative spaces less conspicuous on account of the bright, detailed backdrops behind them, or portraying painted roads, train tracks, or tramways in sets that contain no dedicated road or train track pieces.

Needless to say, I disagree with those perspectives — even in my KFOL years, I never felt the least bit confused or disappointing that the scenery from the box art of themes like Aquazone, Exploriens, Ninja, or Bionicle was not part of the sets themselves! But I also think it's understandable that there is a subset of buyers who prefer for the box art to show exactly what they're getting and what it will look like in a neutral, stand-alone display without a whole lot of additional decoration.

And it's not like I'm ever going to stop short of buying a set that I otherwise like and want because the box art feels a little plain or boring for my tastes, provided it still showcases all the aspects of the set itself that make it so enticing to me in the first place!

[Ondra]

I think lego shot itself with strict no gun policy in non licensed sets and no religion themed sets... Osprey fiasco made me twist my eyes...

There are so many beautiful cathedrals and churches, that can be pinnacle of architecture series. That theme is 18+ so I dont see problem in this.

 

I dont want from them Noe Arch set and wedding in church, like playmobil have...

 

[icm]

^ No pun intended?

[Aanchir]

4 hours ago, Ondra said:

I think lego shot itself with strict no gun policy in non licensed sets and no religion themed sets... Osprey fiasco made me twist my eyes...

There are so many beautiful cathedrals and churches, that can be pinnacle of architecture series. That theme is 18+ so I dont see problem in this.

There's not really a "no gun" policy for all non-licensed themes. LEGO City doesn't have guns, but other non-licensed themes like Pirates, Ninjago, Space, and the Collectable Minifigures have plenty of guns with varying degrees of realism.

For the most part, the "conflict and weapons" policy focuses specifically on avoiding weapons or violent conflicts in modern-day contexts. One reason for this is to avoid calling to mind traumatic situations that real-world kids have experienced. Thus, LEGO firefighting sets tend to focus on empty or condemned buildings rather than on houses and apartment buildings with people living there, LEGO police sets tend to focus on non-violent property crimes, and most violent conflicts in sets (licensed and non-licensed themes alike) tend to be limited to historical, fantasy, and sci-fi themes.

And even religious stuff isn't strictly out of bounds, at least not in the LEGO Architecture theme — a number of the landmarks from the Venice and Shanghai skyline sets are religious or spiritual in nature. I would not be too surprised if in the future they made even more architecture sets depicting religious buildings, or perhaps even focusing on them. I totally agree that there are a lot of gorgeous houses of worship with great historical and architectural significance (not to mention interesting shapes and details), such as Notre Dame Cathedral, Sagrada Familia, Sheikh Zayed Grand Mosque, Harmandir Sahib, and Lotus Temple. And I know that at least some of these have been depicted as 3D puzzles, model kits, or even "Miniland" sculptures at various LEGOLAND parks without generating any major controversy.

But religion is definitely an area where LEGO understandably tends to tread carefully and exercise a lot of discretion to avoid portraying anybody's faith in a way that might be seen as disrespectful or divisive. I suspect that even if LEGO were to introduce more sets depicting religious buildings and houses of worship, some particularly holy sites like the Great Mosque of Mecca or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem may be too deeply sacred to their respective faiths for any LEGO set of them to be in good taste.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Aanchir

[TeriXeri]

Unpopular maybe but I think it'd be nice if LEGO did some sets like the old 733: Universal Building Set, 7+

Mainly more basic parts, and only a few colors, but they still provided quite detailed scaled models considering 1980.

That set only had 533 parts, but the size of the models is quite large, and it's mostly very basic bricks and plates, with some specialized things like wheels, slopes, a dish, rotor or rope winch.

Also with the transparent material changed recently, maybe LEGO could bring back the 2x2x2 slope in transparent (but with the tube).

Even 3-in-1 is getting somewhat more specialized nowadays compared to earlier 2000s models.

Sets like 4997: Transport Ferry from 2006 had more basic parts but also bricks in large quantities.

Sure that set had nearly 1300 parts but was large too.

Might look too blocky for some people though, just like the old 70s/80s universal sets.

Parts count nowadays usually is partly taken up a lot of small plates, tiles etc.

 

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by TeriXeri

[Kim-Kwang-Seok]

Out of procrastination I was now checking sequel vs. OT vs. prequel sets on brickset:

 

Unlike the popular claim says, prequels have overall a similar amount of sets than the OT. Some even more. However:

- except for EPIII, most EPI + EPII sets are from the early years around the movie release dates.
- the biggest amount of sets though is dedicated to The Clone Wars - little OT influence, mostly prequel style designs or sets you could straight up use as EPII or EPIII!
- Rebels, Solo, RO and sequel sets tend to be very OT (not Legos fault though) which might give the impression of everything being OT/letter-wing ships.

It would be interesting to ask TLG officials why they don't release more prequel sets over 30-50 bucks. As kids and teens of 2015-2022+ didn't grew up with the prequels in the cinema or TCW in television I wonder if EPI+EPII just didn't work anymore with later generations.

Interesting as Harry Potter movies and books still seem to inspire new generations in a timeless manner.

[zoth33]

12 hours ago, Kim-Kwang-Seok said:

Out of procrastination I was now checking sequel vs. OT vs. prequel sets on brickset:

 

Unlike the popular claim says, prequels have overall a similar amount of sets than the OT. Some even more. However:

- except for EPIII, most EPI + EPII sets are from the early years around the movie release dates.
- the biggest amount of sets though is dedicated to The Clone Wars - little OT influence, mostly prequel style designs or sets you could straight up use as EPII or EPIII!
- Rebels, Solo, RO and sequel sets tend to be very OT (not Legos fault though) which might give the impression of everything being OT/letter-wing ships.

It would be interesting to ask TLG officials why they don't release more prequel sets over 30-50 bucks. As kids and teens of 2015-2022+ didn't grew up with the prequels in the cinema or TCW in television I wonder if EPI+EPII just didn't work anymore with later generations.

Interesting as Harry Potter movies and books still seem to inspire new generations in a timeless manner.

I think generations are still inspired by Star Wars.  My kids one is going to be 17 later this year and one is 12 both love Star wars.  They both really like the Mandalorian and Boba fett.  They also really liked the force awakens but were really disappointed with the rise of skywalker.  

[Kim-Kwang-Seok]

23 hours ago, zoth33 said:

I think generations are still inspired by Star Wars.  My kids one is going to be 17 later this year and one is 12 both love Star wars.  They both really like the Mandalorian and Boba fett.  They also really liked the force awakens but were really disappointed with the rise of skywalker.  

of course they are. But I wonder about the significant changes. Like shelves were full around the release of EPVII. In my perception they were also always well served during the run of TCW. Around the aftermath of TLJ I only saw SW shrink in proportion to other sets. Harry Potter though I saw even growing. But this is my perception in a few regions, doesn't have to be a trend at all.

[zoth33]

1 minute ago, Kim-Kwang-Seok said:

of course they are. But I wonder about the significant changes. Like shelves were full around the release of EPVII. In my perception they were also always well served during the run of TCW. Around the aftermath of TLJ I only saw SW shrink in proportion to other sets. Harry Potter though I saw even growing. But this is my perception in a few regions, doesn't have to be a trend at all.

Yeah but I think SW is more popular than HP.  I think it will be especially with Rowlings feelings and how people are reacting nowadays.  Even though HP is popular I don't think it will reach SW levels.   

[Kim-Kwang-Seok]

28 minutes ago, zoth33 said:

Yeah but I think SW is more popular than HP.  I think it will be especially with Rowlings feelings and how people are reacting nowadays.  Even though HP is popular I don't think it will reach SW levels.   

oh she still going crazy?

yeah, again not saying "the world is upside down now". But BEFORE SW made movies again I saw like 5 times the shelves full of SW toys. Again, there were many developements, there could be many other reasons for this. Just saying that I wonder if new SW is working with kids and teens the way OT and prequels did back at the release and if all of SW media is as timeless as Harry Potter or the OT is.

Therefore my initial question: wouldn't it be interesting to ask TLG folks WHY they don't release more/bigger prequel sets since around 7 years instead of just complaining that they don't? The answer could very well be that prequel stuff did not stay timeless (like OT or HP) and that after the end of TCW, prequels didn't really sell other than with the now older AFOL's and other fans of that time.

Maybe this hypothesis is wrong and the biggest factor is that everything we did get since EPVII outside of TCWS7 and BB is more OT style.

[MAB]

On 5/27/2022 at 7:52 AM, Khargeust said:

I don't know if this opinion is shared by many AFOLs or not, but as for me, I don't like the black background of the LEGO box packaging at all. I know the idea is to target an adult audience with sober and "classy" marketing. I find the rendering to be generic, lazy and downright ugly. The photo of the set is simply placed on a black background, it feels really inauthentic. It gives a feeling of regression compared to the old designs which tried a bit to be creative with pictorial backgrounds related to the set. Although some had a dated side, I loved their old-fashioned charm !

What do you think about it ?

I like the black boxes. I think the totally different design helps the adult sets stand out from kiddy sets.

On 5/27/2022 at 8:53 AM, Ondra said:

I think lego sponsored reviews are just shilling, I rarely see reviews that pinpoint major problems like clutch problems, colour inconsistencies or pricing.

Also they dont make sense, it seems like they give sets to any media and these reviews feels like copy/paste...

You probably read the wrong reviews. I've not found any clutch problems recently. The last one I remember was the princess hat in the CMF. Colour inconsistency is often discussed in reviews and fan forums. So is pricing, although this is highly subjective. What is expensive? What do you compare it against?

On 5/29/2022 at 12:57 AM, TeriXeri said:

That set only had 533 parts, but the size of the models is quite large, and it's mostly very basic bricks and plates, with some specialized things like wheels, slopes, a dish, rotor or rope winch.

Even 3-in-1 is getting somewhat more specialized nowadays compared to earlier 2000s models.

Personally, I think one of the best things lego has done in the past 40-50 years is to have more and smaller parts, allowing the creation of more detailed models than studs up, square block built designs of the past. Creator is still close to the old style, but of course also uses some modern designs. For anyone wanting an old school build experience, you just have to restrict your parts and colour palette. I've tried doing that in the past - as in what could I build if I only had parts available in / up to 1980. I found it quite frustrating to build like that, knowing there where now more modern parts that I could use to make it look better.

 

[Peppermint_M]

46 minutes ago, MAB said:

I've tried doing that in the past - as in what could I build if I only had parts available in / up to 1980. I found it quite frustrating to build like that, knowing there where now more modern parts that I could use to make it look better.

Oh I get that too. I was house-sitting and a box of mixed bricks and sets (nothing newer than 1993) was left out. 

I was able to build something, but it was maddening knowing that new parts would give a much better finish.

[BrickG]

LEGO has tried many times to "Minecraft" it's building onto the digital sphere via builders and video games. Minecraft works because it's almost entirely textured cubes or things that fit in cubes. You can never make LEGO work in the digital arena outside of the hardcore LEGO people who are willing to learn it.

LEGO has too many pieces.

LEGO has too many possibilities.

You don't just stack LEGO. So it'll absolutely never be a digitial toy that can reach anywhere near the numbers of other "builder" games like Minecraft. It's just too complex. It's great for a physical product where you just get a pile of pieces and put stuff together, but usually people don't constantly build (like in Minecraft where you juste KEEP building) because the truth is LEGO is horribly inefficient when it comes to building. A lot of people could build all day every day for years and pretty much do in Minecraft because it's so simplified and efficient.

I guess LEGO games don't ever focus on buidling these days, and any that do are destined to... maybe not fail, but never be that big. It's why LEGO games just don't have building most of the time! Which is odd since it's LEGO but it just doesn't work there.

In fact it's so inefficient in LEGO games most stuff isn't even built with LEGO. I thiiiiink the LEGO Movie game had a LEGO built world (correct me if I'm wrong) but can you imagine having to build EVERYTHING out of LEGO when it's so inefficient? City game with LEGO skyscrapers of all different kinds? Sounds like it would take 10x the work to make those 3d models.

 

 

Anyways, another opinion I have is that LEGO should focus on making LEGO more efficient. It's kind of connected. I'm not saying Minecraft levels of efficiency or anything but I do think that like 50% of LEGO parts shouldn't exist. I haven't bothered trying to organize my collection by piece/colour/etc in like 6 years because there's just too much and it's literally a multiple day task! Then if I build something I'm going to spend a lot more time reorganizing than the build actually takes.

[MAB]

1 hour ago, BrickG said:

Anyways, another opinion I have is that LEGO should focus on making LEGO more efficient. It's kind of connected. I'm not saying Minecraft levels of efficiency or anything but I do think that like 50% of LEGO parts shouldn't exist. I haven't bothered trying to organize my collection by piece/colour/etc in like 6 years because there's just too much and it's literally a multiple day task! Then if I build something I'm going to spend a lot more time reorganizing than the build actually takes.

There is a really simple solution to this. Don't use the parts that you think are superfluous. If you buy sets and have these parts then sell them on, or buy only the parts you want.

I do that with my parts, both part type and colours. For some colours, they don't have enough part variation in that colour, so I tend not to bother keeping any parts in that colour. Especially in the blues, where there are plenty of similar colours.

[Chedder_chandlure]

Might as well add my two cents to this thread although some of these might not be unpopular opinions, I'm not as active in the Lego Community as I wish to be.

. Minidolls suck

. brick built animals are better then animals that are just 4-6 Massive pieces (Ex: Jurassic park dinos)

. Most of the newer CMFs are still just as good as ever

. I like most costume CMF Minifigures

. Lege vidiyo wasn't that bad of a theme, it had a unique and fun vibe but unfortunately had a terrible gimmick.

[zoth33]

42 minutes ago, Chedder_chandlure said:

Might as well add my two cents to this thread although some of these might not be unpopular opinions, I'm not as active in the Lego Community as I wish to be.

. Minidolls suck

. brick built animals are better then animals that are just 4-6 Massive pieces (Ex: Jurassic park dinos)

. Most of the newer CMFs are still just as good as ever

. I like most costume CMF Minifigures

. Lege vidiyo wasn't that bad of a theme, it had a unique and fun vibe but unfortunately had a terrible gimmick.

I like larger scale brick built animals like dragons, wojira, large spiders or scorpions.  I do think molded animals are necessary like squirrels, birds, deer, sheep, cows, lions, snakes, bats, fish, etc.  

I'm not a fan of the minidolls either mainly becaus of articulation

I liked some of the vidiyo figs.  

I think the newer CMF's are fine just like the old ones. 

Some of the costume figs are neat though mainly it's just not what I collect.