[REVIEW] 40516 - Everyone is Awesome

[Mister Phes]

11 minutes ago, makoy said:

LOL. I know this is oversimplification, but in the end it is likely what this set is going to be for me and my kids anyway. As I am not a monochrome collector as well, but this set will be a great parts donour.

Or you can completely ignore the set.

Remember, consumers vote with their money, and nothing sends a clearer message to corporations than products which fail to generate revenue.

[makoy]

2 minutes ago, Mister Phes said:

Or you can completely ignore the set.

Remember, consumers vote with their money, and nothing sends a clearer message to corporations than products which fail to generate revenue.

True. I get where you're coming from.

Besides, I can't even get the set locally. I'm not going to import this set, pay scalper or anything like that.

 

[jxu]

13 hours ago, Mister Phes said:

You say, "I've just bought some new LEGO. Now build whatever you like... Let your imagination run wild!"

"Why don't the Lego people have faces?"

[williejm]

14 hours ago, greenalfonzo said:

Pink should have been a more stereotypically "male" hairstyle.

The three colours on the trans flag represent different things. The hairpieces chosen reflect this. Similarly the two figures representing people of colour have hairpieces in keeping. 

pink = feminine 

white = non binary / neutral

blue = masculine 

 

that said - I’m sure we all have a broader understanding of how almost every hair piece can be used across genders and race. 

6 hours ago, Mister Phes said:

Or you can completely ignore the set.

Remember, consumers vote with their money, and nothing sends a clearer message to corporations than products which fail to generate revenue.

Big lols thinking this won’t be popular and sell well. 

Edited May 22, 2021 by williejm

[Mister Phes]

3 minutes ago, williejm said:

Big lols thinking this won’t be popular and sell well.  

I wasn't making a comment regarding the sales or popularity of this particular set, I was making a general statement about consumerism.

[JaBaCaDaBra]

Really LEGO?

No Bell V22 Osprey cause some weirdo's protested against it.
But a statement like this is acceptable?

Where are you going?
Shouldn't you be producing toys?

[williejm]

1 minute ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

No Bell V22 Osprey cause some weirdo's protested against it.
 

Weirdos? 

2 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:
But a statement like this is acceptable?

Where are you going?
Shouldn't you be producing toys?

Evidently.

Forward, more inclusively.

Lol - what do you think they’re producing with these decisions? Mind altering drugs? Weapons of mass destruction? 

[Alexandrina]

4 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

But a statement like this is acceptable?

A statement like what? "We respect your right to exist and be yourself, no matter who you are"? 

[Blondie-Wan]

6 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Really LEGO?

No Bell V22 Osprey cause some weirdo's protested against it.
But a statement like this is acceptable?

A statement like “people should be free to be themselves and enjoy equal rights and love who they want”? Yes, that statement is absolutely acceptable. Why wouldn’t it be?

6 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Where are you going?
Shouldn't you be producing toys?

Isn’t that exactly what they’re doing? What do you think this is, an aquarium filter?

[williejm]

1 hour ago, Blondie-Wan said:

A statement like “people should be free to be themselves and enjoy equal rights and love who they want”? Yes, that statement is absolutely acceptable. Why wouldn’t it be?

Isn’t that exactly what they’re doing? What do you think this is, an aquarium filter?

Lol, strange direction to go ...

[2lazeetomakeaname]

7 hours ago, williejm said:

Weirdos? 

I mean, they stood outside of a toy store to protest a toy company making a toy based off of a frickin rescue vehicle.

[Klaus-Dieter]

Thank you very much for the great review, @Bob De Quatre!

Like I already wrote over at the other topic: a great looking set with monochrome minifigs, but a bit a pity that Lego reduced here diversity to ony sexual orientation and didn't design a regular rainbow in order to celebrate diversity in general.

[Redhead1982]

I was sorting through my piles of minifigs this past week, and realized I can put together only 3 monochrome figs (pearl gold, white and lbg), and decided I should perhaps look into it to see if I can put any other color together (for a reasonable amount of money). That said, this set was announced on time for me. I really like the diversity of colors and figs, and the color background is simple enough to show off the colors. I think the price is reasonable for 11 figs, especially if you look up resellers of monochrome figs. I will order the set, mostly to display at home, but will also add the other colors to it. 

@Bob De Quatre Your review is missing one important detail. No sticker sheet! 

[jxu]

 

[Zarkan]

15 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Really LEGO?

No Bell V22 Osprey cause some weirdo's protested against it.
But a statement like this is acceptable?

Ah, yes, I remember when I too used to feel that LGBTQ+ representation was more offensive than officially licensed toys based on the US military's latest killing machines.

(Seriously, as has been pointed out, the branding of lego's V-22 as a non-existent rescue variation is meaningless, given that they still paid Boeing for the license. They could have easily avoided any controversy by making a genericized version with no licensing whatsoever, but apparently that's a no go for Technic these days.)

 

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Zarkan

[Stuartn]

16 hours ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Shouldn't you be producing toys?

It is also an 18+ set (don't know why, it doesn't look to hard to build and its message wouldn't really be necessary for adults who would assumedly already understand the issue and have their own views), it doesn't actually represent a 'toy' at all, nor was its purpose to be a toy, just like all of the other 18+ sets.

My main issue with the set is that it looks so plain and a black or grey base would've made such a huge aesthetic difference, and a printed tile or something at the bottom would've actually been great. Displayed on a shelf without a base this set would probably look quite drab when placed on a shelf as a display piece and if it is an 18+ set such details matter.

It is not a set I am going to buy but considering the importance of the message and the fact that it is going to cause controversy for whatever reason I think making the set perfect aesthetically is quite important. I do like the composition though, but I agree with other suggestions that had the segments been rearrangeable the set would've been much more useful.

 

Edited May 23, 2021 by Stuartn

[Blondie-Wan]

9 hours ago, williejm said:

Lol, strange direction to go ...

Yeah, I was initially going to ask whether they thought it was anything from this absurdly long list of things it clearly isn’t - a pizza, a bicycle, an electric fan, a gym membership enrollment form, a sack of potatoes, a boomerang, a ballpoint pen, etc., but decided against it, and opted for just “aquarium filter” as it seemed sufficiently ludicrous on its own.

[Merlict]

 

13 hours ago, Klaus-Dieter said:

Thank you very much for the great review, @Bob De Quatre!

Like I already wrote over at the other topic: a great looking set with monochrome minifigs, but a bit a pity that Lego reduced here diversity to ony sexual orientation and didn't design a regular rainbow in order to celebrate diversity in general.

I get where you're coming from but sometimes it's better to stick to one message and keep it clear. Heck a lot of people are confused by the colors of the flag already (Which is completely fine and shows that it's doing a job).

[Legochaek]

I think the reason why people are saying this set is political because this is Lego clearly taking a side in the trans culture war, on which there are varying opinions such as on self-ID and whether self-ID is a substitute for born sex. 

[Alexandrina]

2 minutes ago, Lego-fire said:

I think the reason why people are saying this set is political because this is Lego clearly taking a side in the trans culture war, on which there are varying opinions such as on self-ID and whether self-ID is a substitute for born sex. 

I don't think this is the case at all. What this set - and Lego's comments behind it - say is that they're acknowledging their LGBTQ+ fans and giving us some representation. That doesn't extend into a say in the political views and debates that exist as a result of our identities/the backlash against that. 

[Legochaek]

45 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

I don't think this is the case at all. What this set - and Lego's comments behind it - say is that they're acknowledging their LGBTQ+ fans and giving us some representation. That doesn't extend into a say in the political views and debates that exist as a result of our identities/the backlash against that. 

Maybe that’s what you think, but a heck of a lot of other people will see what Lego is really saying. 
Do you remember when JK said all women have periods and Lego replied with ‘we support diversity in all its forms etc etc’. That sure wasn’t supporting JK, and if you look at it cynically, it was supporting the other side. 
(Also: I respect you, and I don’t want you to feel I’m attacking you, I just want to have a discussion.)

[Alexandrina]

36 minutes ago, Lego-fire said:

Maybe that’s what you think, but a heck of a lot of other people will see what Lego is really saying. 
Do you remember when JK said all women have periods and Lego replied with ‘we support diversity in all its forms etc etc’. That sure wasn’t supporting JK, and if you look at it cynically, it was supporting the other side. 
(Also: I respect you, and I don’t want you to feel I’m attacking you, I just want to have a discussion.)

I don't want you to feel like I'm skirting around replying, so if you want to continue the discussion later on I'll happy answer you through DMs - but I'm worried that the ins and outs of trans discourse in the UK are a bit beyond the breadth of this topic 

That being said, I don't know what you mean by "what Lego is really saying", since the set in itself is merely an acknowledgement of the LGBTQ+ community. That in itself is not an inherently political statement. It's a fact that we exist, and that we're human beings, and Lego do not ascribe motive to the LGBTQ+ community or anybody outwith the community, either in the set itself or any official commentary around the set (that I've seen, feel free to link me if there's something I haven't seen).

As for JK Rowling, I'll touch on it briefly here, in this comment alone, because I don't want to get the topic out of hand. I haven't seen the interaction you refer to, so I don't know the specific wording used - but what you have JK Rowling saying is something which by extension denies the identity of the vast majority of trans women AND some cis women. Whatever someone's personal stance on JK Rowling as a whole, the specific statement that trans women are not women is something which frankly isn't deserving of support. I am a woman. Anybody saying that all women have periods is saying that I cannot be a woman - in short, they are saying something which is factually untrue about me. For Lego to endorse such a statement would be to take a decidedly political view that's in opposition to the existence of an estimated 2% of the population (153 million people, roughly).

Anyway, as I said at the beginning of the comment, I don't want to derail this thread any further with conversation about the LGBTQ+ community beyond how it's connected to Lego. But that being said I would be more than happy to continue this discussion privately if you wish, where we don't have to worry about getting way off topic.

One final note - which I almost didn't mention because I'm worried somebody (not saying you) will quote it later on and say it's moving the goalposts, so treat it is an ADDENDUM to the comment rather than the crux of my point. Statements made by Lego in the past being political does not mean that set 40516 is political, even if on the surface they're about the same issue. To that end, if Lego were to make an unambiguously political statement or comment somewhere in relation to set 40516 (by that, I don't mean saying that LGBTQ+ people exist or that we have the right to respect) I would then concede that the set was political. In the absence of such a statement, dredging up old Lego comments would at best prove that Lego have a stance on the issues related to LGBTQ+ people and that they have expressed that stance in the past. This would of course invite discussion on whether Lego's political neutrality exists, but that wouldn't be tied to the existence or otherwise of set 40516.

[claudio_ctc]

On 5/22/2021 at 1:04 AM, Mister Phes said:

Or you can completely ignore the set.

Remember, consumers vote with their money, and nothing sends a clearer message to corporations than products which fail to generate revenue.

Completely agree. I am not sure where LEGO is heading to with this kind of "toys".....Please stick to true toys as always.

[Mister Phes]

9 minutes ago, claudio_ctc said:

Completely agree.

But just remember, it also works the other way. Products which generate revenue also send a message.

[Alexandrina]

21 minutes ago, claudio_ctc said:

Completely agree. I am not sure where LEGO is heading to with this kind of "toys".....Please stick to true toys as always.

Is set 40516 not as true a toy as any Lego set? It's got plastic bricks that can be rebuilt in a variety of ways (no parts list yet afaik but it looks like there are some 1x2 bricks, which have been in about 5500 sets over the past sixty-seven years, as well as plenty of other parts in a variety of colours) - there's nothing about 40516 that suggests it isn't a Lego set just like any other construction set (in fact you could make the argument that it's more in keeping with Lego than constraction lines like Bionicle, since its pieces appear to be entirely system-compatible).

Or is it not a true toy because it's intended as a display piece? If so, it's nothing new. I have a Ship in a Bottle on the shelf behind me which is foremost a display set. Had Lego abandoned their true toys in 1978 when they released set 398 USS Constellation, complete with display stand and label? Or perhaps it was earlier than that? I don't know the early sets well enough to be sure that was the first display set.

Or is there anything else about set 40516 that you think makes it not a true toy?