40516 Everyone Is Awesome

[TeriXeri]

I already have some great ideas for this and minifig customization (purist).

Even with just 1 set, you could easily have 3 minifigs in the Transgender Flag colors with a combination of the hair/torso/legs.

Or make figures styled with colors of country flags or sports team etc if it has 3-4 different color at most.

Edited May 20, 2021 by TeriXeri

[2lazeetomakeaname]

2 hours ago, Bainter-ban said:

I don’t really get how acknowledging that people should be free to love whoever they want is «political». It’s a fundamental human right and a foundational part of human existence.

Probably because certain people who claim to support it have made it VERY political. I don't think it should be political either, but it is.

[lego_guyon02]

Looks like a pretty neat little set, feels a bit pricey but there are tons of great hairpieces and I love the monochrome figures! Personally not planning on getting it though, as there's a ton of other products coming out this year that will eat up my budget.

Not totally relevant to the thread but the amount of blatantly homophobic comments on LEGO's socials disgusts me. These homophobes will always make it their number one priority to complain when companies reveal/release products aimed at the LGBTQ+ community but never seem to realise that these products wouldn't exist in the first place if they would just accept people the way they are. Why is it such an issue that someone has a sexual preference different from "the norm"? Is it really that hard to just accept people the way they are?

[temes]

I'm so positively surprised about this! That designer interview is so heartwarming to see from a company like LEGO, which may have been a bit stereotypical and conservative in their man/woman representation especially in the past. 

Edited May 20, 2021 by temes

[Blondie-Wan]

20 hours ago, TheMainBricker said:

And then the question is why isn't there a BLM set?

That’s actually a great question. I’d love to see a BLM set.

LEGO is in a weird situation with regards to race, though, since outside of sets and themes depicting real people or licensed characters, they’ve typically depicted people in yellow, standing in for the entire range of human skin tones but which many people “read” as white by default.

Quote

Will Lego now have to make sets with identifiably LGBT minifigures?

Of course they won’t “have” to make anything, but I sincerely hope they do make sets with LGBTQIA+ minifigures.

Quote

Will there being a Gay Pride set every year?

Goodness, I sincerely hope so.

Quote

Will they make charitable donations, and if so disclose what charities it's going to? It's Pandora's box.

How? Why would making charitable donations and disclosing what they are be Pandora’s box? Don’t they already do that? Heck, don’t most companies do that? AFAICT, most companies seem to regard showing off what good corporate citizens they are as a marketing opportunity, and if they can do some actual good in doing so, that’s almost a bonus.

18 minutes ago, lego_guyon02 said:

Looks like a pretty neat little set, feels a bit pricey but there are tons of great hairpieces and I love the monochrome figures! Personally not planning on getting it though, as there's a ton of other products coming out this year that will eat up my budget.

I plan to get it myself, in large part specifically to support the message it sends. But as just a LEGO fan, I’m also excited about it simply as a parts pack.

18 minutes ago, lego_guyon02 said:

Not totally relevant to the thread but the amount of blatantly homophobic comments on LEGO's socials disgusts me. These homophobes will always make it their number one priority to complain when companies reveal/release products aimed at the LGBTQ+ community but never seem to realise that these products wouldn't exist in the first place if they would just accept people the way they are. Why is it such an issue that someone has a sexual preference different from "the norm"? Is it really that hard to just accept people the way they are?

Unfortunately, that’s our world. But that’s exactly why things like this are so necessary to begin with.

[Lion King]

It is really great to see this set as I saw that HD pic on Lego Shop website!

As a man with sexual fluid, I am really pleased with this set. 

However, one thing I am disappointed very very little - Since it’s “Everyoen is Awesoem”, I can see LGBT+ and People of Colors in this set. Where are the minifigures with disabiliies? I mean I am deaf-blind Lego fan. Surely, we already have wheelchair, guide dog, cochlear implant/hearing aid in City sets but still... this is a celebration for EVERYONE. That’s all I said. :) 

[MSY-MSP]

27 minutes ago, Blondie-Wan said:

That’s actually a great question. I’d love to see a BLM set.

 

I don't think we will see a BLM set at all.  That type of set is overtly political and also has a limited reach.  BLM is a response to a very specific issue that is unique to mostly North America  and the USA in particular where people of African decent have been and are targeted simply because of the color of their skin.  It stems from years of slavery, reconstruction, Jim Crow laws, segregation, and government responses to the Civil Rights legislation that has occurred over the past 200+ years.  It primarily is focused on the conception that law enforcement and the judicial system have it in for black people.  Yes it does focus on some of the other historical issues associated with them as well.  For example the push for reparations because of slavery.   However, at the end of the day, a BLM set would be an absolute hot potato for TLG.  A donation to a charity is one thing (and done by many companies around the world to show support for the cause) an actual product is a completely different thing.  

In contrast to a BLM set, this set relates to something that transcends race, religion, or national origin.  It has meaning to people across the world who can relate to it in their own way.  It doesn't matter if you live in Thailand, Dubai, Australia, Japan, Brazil, Denmark, or Mexico, if you associate yourself as LGBT+, know someone who is, or simply believes that everyone is free to be whomever they want to be then this set is built for you.  I applaud TLG for doing this and don't see it as a political statement at all.

Quote

LEGO is in a weird situation with regards to race, though, since outside of sets and themes depicting real people or licensed characters, they’ve typically depicted people in yellow, standing in for the entire range of human skin tones but which many people “read” as white by default.

Now this may be my very old memory coming out from something i read in the early 80's, but I seem to recall when Lego introduced the first figures and then minifigures that they intentionally chose yellow for head and hands, because no human was actually yellow.  In that way a child anywhere in the world could play with the toy and pretend the people are just like him/her.  If they had chosen colors that matched individual skin tones, they felt that the figures would no longer be inclusive.  In a sense this was an ideological decision not to offend any culture. 

[williejm]

23 minutes ago, DBlegonerd7 said:

It is really great to see this set as I saw that HD pic on Lego Shop website!

As a man with sexual fluid, I am really pleased with this set. 

However, one thing I am disappointed very very little - Since it’s “Everyoen is Awesoem”, I can see LGBT+ and People of Colors in this set. Where are the minifigures with disabiliies? I mean I am deaf-blind Lego fan. Surely, we already have wheelchair, guide dog, cochlear implant/hearing aid in City sets but still... this is a celebration for EVERYONE. That’s all I said. :) 

I hear ya. Thought the same thing about ‘why not one in a wheelchair?’ Then I spiralled into ‘not all disabled people are wheelchair users; what about X Y, Z ..’ ;) ... then I remembered that there’s no reason all of these figures don’t have a disability as it is!

I think they have the balance right here. They could have gone with hairless monochrome figures for simplicity, but I think the range of hairpieces is a nice touch. I also think that the ‘correct’ way to include minifigs with disabilities is the way they *are* doing it, randomly across a range of sets. 

might still put the red wheelchair to use though ;)
 

 

[Seehas]

First Day purchase for sure, it is awesome!

[HoMa]

Every Spaceman is Awesome

I love the idea and the set #40516 ... and couldn't wait to build a Spaceman version ;-))

 

[Lyichir]

1 hour ago, williejm said:

I hear ya. Thought the same thing about ‘why not one in a wheelchair?’ Then I spiralled into ‘not all disabled people are wheelchair users; what about X Y, Z ..’ ;) ... then I remembered that there’s no reason all of these figures don’t have a disability as it is!

I think they have the balance right here. They could have gone with hairless monochrome figures for simplicity, but I think the range of hairpieces is a nice touch. I also think that the ‘correct’ way to include minifigs with disabilities is the way they *are* doing it, randomly across a range of sets. 

might still put the red wheelchair to use though ;)
 

 

I've seen a couple people arguing for this but there's some decent reasons to not include that. The first is that, even if some of the marketing plays a little coy about it (possibly to get around bans in some more conservative countries), this is explicitly an LGBTQIA+ set. That's not to say a wheelchair would be inappropriate for that purpose (intersectionality between LGBT rights and disability rights is absolutely a thing), but it is tangential to the specific type of diversity this set is meant to celebrate. The second reason is that, for the specific aesthetic and layout this is going for, a wheelchair could present challenges. A fig in a wheelchair would sit at a different height than the other figs and require more space, breaking up the "rainbow" of figs and requiring the set as a whole to likely have to be made bigger and more spread out.

Since the figs in this set are faceless and don't represent specific people, I don't think the lack of a wheelchair is meant in any sort of exclusionary way. The figs here are more symbolic, I think (hence the similarity in height and lack of accessories, among other things). Despite symbolizing diversity abstractly, there's not really any presumption that they represent the entire breadth of human experience.

Edited May 20, 2021 by Lyichir

[eldiano]

36 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

I've seen a couple people arguing for this but there's some decent reasons to not include that. The first is that, even if some of the marketing plays a little coy about it (possibly to get around bans in some more conservative countries), this is explicitly an LGBTQIA+ set. That's not to say a wheelchair would be inappropriate for that purpose (intersectionality between LGBT rights and disability rights is absolutely a thing), but it is tangential to the specific type of diversity this set is meant to celebrate. The second reason is that, for the specific aesthetic and layout this is going for, a wheelchair could present challenges. A fig in a wheelchair would sit at a different height than the other figs and require more space, breaking up the "rainbow" of figs and requiring the set as a whole to likely have to be made bigger and more spread out.

Since the figs in this set are faceless and don't represent specific people, I don't think the lack of a wheelchair is meant in any sort of exclusionary way. The figs here are more symbolic, I think (hence the similarity in height and lack of accessories, among other things). Despite symbolizing diversity abstractly, there's not really any presumption that they represent the entire breadth of human experience.

This is exactly why you can’t please everybody, the biggest backlash I have seen on Lego Social media account is not transphobes but not including disabled mini figs.  Lego shot themselves on the foot with this set by saying “everyone” which of course made a lot of people feel left out, but this is exactly when things turn political.

I mean granted disability is not only physical but still mental also they want “wheelchairs” 

[Vindicare]

10 hours ago, danth said:

 

You can't have it both ways: if gay is political, then straight is political.

There are quite a few sets that have obviously heterosexual couples, many times with kids as well. Whatever you "decide", it's quite clear what Lego decided when designing those sets: they intended to depict straight couples. You can decide to ignore it, but the idea that "there’s zero distinction that X person is straight" is simply not true. This goes double for, say, Hermione and Ron minifigures who depict characters in heterosexual relationships.

I’ll address the first sentence...well, first. As sad as it is, yes, being gay is political, in a sense. If it weren’t places but like the Middle East wouldn’t be a thing. It shouldn’t be that way. But neither should be crosses in WV sets...yet we don’t see those. 

Now, the rest. Of course Ron & Hermione are depicted as such, because they have a set story attached to them. City, for example, does not have that story to back it up. I’ll use 60283 Holiday Camper Van as an example. It depicts a woman with a camera & baby bottle & a man holding a baby in a carrier on the box art. Back of the box shows the woman feeding baby while the man is in the RV, woman taking a nap while the man eats. Nothing there says couple. It could very well be brother & sister riding together while mom & dad/spouses are in another RV. It could be friends taking a trip together. They’re not seen sleeping together, or holding hands, or kissing. Nothing a coupe would do is shown on the box art. If you see a couple, that’s on you. 

[TeriXeri]

I think LEGO did the right thing keeping the characters with no faces, and monochrome.

Edited May 20, 2021 by TeriXeri
removed quoted part

[Vindicare]

12 hours ago, Robert8 said:

Ok that blue hairpiece looks very interesting. From that angle it looks nothing like Superman's hair

It doesnt look like from the upcoming Seinfield set. Maybe the Marvel CMFs? 

 

Who could it be for?

I don’t know...but it is fantastic! I can’t wait to see what it appears in. If it’s Licensed, I can’t place it. And the bowl cut in yellow has me excitedly too. 

[Aanchir]

8 hours ago, RichardGoring said:

And the designer video with Matthew Ashton is on YouTube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mC6H15Z8d6w

I'm honestly awestruck by how incredibly powerful and heartfelt this designer video is… it definitely shows just how personal the message was for him and how sincere he is about sending a message of support and acceptance to kids and adults with sets like this one.

My wife and I are definitely both VERY excited to add this set to our collection!

1 hour ago, Vindicare said:

Now, the rest. Of course Ron & Hermione are depicted as such, because they have a set story attached to them. City, for example, does not have that story to back it up. I’ll use 60283 Holiday Camper Van as an example. It depicts a woman with a camera & baby bottle & a man holding a baby in a carrier on the box art. Back of the box shows the woman feeding baby while the man is in the RV, woman taking a nap while the man eats. Nothing there says couple. It could very well be brother & sister riding together while mom & dad/spouses are in another RV. It could be friends taking a trip together. They’re not seen sleeping together, or holding hands, or kissing. Nothing a coupe would do is shown on the box art. If you see a couple, that’s on you. 

Okay, but even by this argument: why are there no Camper Van or Family House sets with two men and a child, or two women and a child? After all, even if they SEEM like a couple at first glance, there's nothigng stopping homophobes from pretending that they're just friends or siblings so that it doesn't challenge their prejudices.

Moreover, no matter how much you feign ignorance about the obvious intended roles of the figures in a set like 60283, the official set description on LEGO.com clearly and unambiguously identifies them as "mom and dad minifigures and a cute baby figure". Similarly, 10224 Town Hall's description clearly identifies the wedding minifiigures as a "bride and groom". You are free to ignore these descriptions if you like, just as you are free to ignore the storylines of licensed themes. But the official intent behind these characters — and the design decisions informed by that intent — are still every bit as undeniable as the intent for "Everyone is Awesome" to represent the LGBTQ+ community.

Also, the LEGO City Adventures TV series DOES have a storyline which clearly establishes some figures, like the mustached man and redheaded woman from 60271 Main Square, as an opposite-sex married couple. So there's that…

Edited May 20, 2021 by Aanchir

[Pdaitabird]

I don't believe that TLG should produce a set that celebrates sexual immorality of any kind.  I realize that many of you will interpret what I am about to say as "hate;" but I assure you, I wouldn't say this if I didn't love all of you enough to warn you.  If I saw someone running toward the edge of a cliff, would it be loving to remain silent? As mere mortals, we have no right to redefine the institution of marriage established by our Maker as the lifelong union of one man and one woman.  It is likewise an act of rebellion against the Creator to reject the gender he gave you.  I am just as deserving of God's judgment as anyone else - we have all rebelled against our Creator in various ways. We are all cosmic traitors worthy of eternal separation from God and can never be good enough to earn His favor.  But God, in His vast mercy, has sent His only Son Jesus Christ to live a life of perfect righteousness and die the death we all deserved.  He rose from the dead to prove that He could really save us.  Repent of your sins and cast yourself on the mercy of Jesus and you will be saved!

Mods, I understand that this post violates Eurobricks rules and will likely get me banned from the forum.  I would rather be banned than think that someone's soul might be lost because I kept silent.  As Martin Luther said, "Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me."

[Aanchir]

2 minutes ago, Pdaitabird said:

Mods, I understand that this post violates Eurobricks rules and will likely get me banned from the forum.  I would rather be banned than think that someone's soul might be lost because I kept silent.

Don't let the door hit you in the rear on your way out. I'll be sure to pray for you to be saved from your own hateful and decidedly un-Christlike ignorance.

[Blondie-Wan]

7 minutes ago, Pdaitabird said:

I don't believe that TLG should produce a set that celebrates sexual immorality of any kind.

I don’t believe that TLG does produce a set that celebrates sexual immorality of any kind. And I think you, TLG, and I all agree that they shouldn’t and won’t.

On the particulars of this set, though, I think we’re at loggerheads. If you think this set somehow promotes immorality, then I just don’t know what to tell you; on the contrary, I think this sets promotes a deeply moral view, one that accepts and celebrates the wondrous diversity of human beings, along with their expressions of love.

[Alexandrina]

I have to say it does sadden me that there is such prevalence of angry comments across the Internet. This set does two things: one, it provides plenty of useful minifigure parts at an affordable price, and two, it's a signal from Lego to its LGBTQ+ fans that we aren't forgotten. I don't see how either of these presents an issue. 

At risk of veering too far off course, I'll say that Lego was an important part of my life in the time when I was coming to terms with my own identity as a trans woman. The innate ability of these plastic blocks allowed me to "rebuild myself in my own image" (even if only my plastic avatar) and the wonder of Lego was an ever-present place I could go to escape. I never imagined Lego would release an official set in support of the LGBTQ+ community - but I only love them more for it 

[Robert8]

46 minutes ago, Vindicare said:

I don’t know...but it is fantastic! I can’t wait to see what it appears in. If it’s Licensed, I can’t place it. And the bowl cut in yellow has me excitedly too. 

Lets remember The Batman sets were supposed to come out this year.

So maybe...

[Lion King]

5 minutes ago, Robert8 said:

Lets remember The Batman sets were supposed to come out this year.

So maybe...

That hairpiece kinda look like Kenji’s from Jurassic World: Camp Cretaceous. Just saying. :)

[williejm]

32 minutes ago, Aanchir said:

Don't let the door hit you in the rear on your way out. I'll be sure to pray for you to be saved from your own hateful and decidedly un-Christlike ignorance.

Amen, sister 🙌🏼

[Vindicare]

1 hour ago, Aanchir said:

Okay, but even by this argument: why are there no Camper Van or Family House sets with two men and a child, or two women and a child? After all, even if they SEEM like a couple at first glance, there's nothigng stopping homophobes from pretending that they're just friends or siblings so that it doesn't challenge their prejudices.

Moreover, no matter how much you feign ignorance about the obvious intended roles of the figures in a set like 60283, the official set description on LEGO.com clearly and unambiguously identifies them as "mom and dad minifigures and a cute baby figure". Similarly, 10224 Town Hall's description clearly identifies the wedding minifiigures as a "bride and groom". You are free to ignore these descriptions if you like, just as you are free to ignore the storylines of licensed themes. But the official intent behind these characters — and the design decisions informed by that intent — are still every bit as undeniable as the intent for "Everyone is Awesome" to represent the LGBTQ+ community.

Also, the LEGO City Adventures TV series DOES have a storyline which clearly establishes some figures, like the mustached man and redheaded woman from 60271 Main Square, as an opposite-sex married couple. So there's that…

As to the question of no dads in sets, that’s something I have no idea about because I don’t work there. Maybe that’s their next step. Loving the insults & semantics in the rest of time comment. Differing views people have doesn’t mean they’re homophobes. You stating it that way makes it seem like everyone against this set is one.

I think the set itself is great. I don’t like the messaging behind purely because the company shies away from it. It’s the same reason we don’t have military themes or Christian symbols in WV sets. Because those are political & being the ire of folks  of they’re going to stay away from it, do it. Or, dive right in & make more of this to other groups. Equality, right? 

I’m not feigning ignorance at anything. Speaking for myself, I couldn’t care less what a description on their website says, I never bother reading them. I don’t have kids, but I’m going to assume that box art places a higher factor in what they want than a description on a website, but perhaps I’m giving kids too little credit. To the Town Hall, who’s to say that either one of them isn’t transgender? Trans people identify & want to be labeled as what they are, do they not? So would it not be accurate to state “bride & groom?” 

[jimmynick]

4 hours ago, williejm said:

I hear ya. Thought the same thing about ‘why not one in a wheelchair?’ Then I spiralled into ‘not all disabled people are wheelchair users; what about X Y, Z ..’ ;) ... then I remembered that there’s no reason all of these figures don’t have a disability as it is!

I think they have the balance right here. They could have gone with hairless monochrome figures for simplicity, but I think the range of hairpieces is a nice touch. I also think that the ‘correct’ way to include minifigs with disabilities is the way they *are* doing it, randomly across a range of sets. 

might still put the red wheelchair to use though ;)

I don't want to appear to be keeping score, because I'm not, but LEGO have made strides in recent years regarding including people with disabilities. There was a city set not too long ago (or it might have been a while, since I got out of tune with the releases) that featured a minifig in a brand-spanking-new wheelchair, and that stuck with me far more than the actual build. But have there been explicitly LGBTQ+ figures before? I truly don't know.

1 hour ago, Pdaitabird said:

sexual immorality

Can we cancel Star Wars because Anakin was born out of wedlock?