10291 Queer Eye Apartment Set

[williejm]

2 hours ago, TheMainBricker said:

15 minutes ago, TheMainBricker said:

Mr Ashton on his social media makes it very clear he is a fan of this reality TV show, Lego needed convincing that it was worthwhile to do a set based off of something so niche and something that doesn't spell sales.

The interview talks about diversity and he basically centres it around these two sets. It seems a very narrow definition. Commercially it's no different to other companies (like Disney) who do a whole lot of rainbow products, but don't do anything for other groups etc. The Lego City citizens sets do have more diversity in them, but as far as I'm aware only Everyone is Awesome and Queer Eye are two sets explicitly about a protected characteristic, I'm not aware of a disabled minifigure set for example. The increase of colour diversity in licensed sets (because only licensed themes have natural skin tones) is more down to the diversity of the casting inside those films/shows. Sexual orientation isn't a visible trait, so technically Lego City sets have always featured gay people, it's down to the user's imagination.

I've seen a lot of people moaning that there hasn't been a The Office set, well you probably would've had it by now if Mr Ashton was a fan of the show. Perhaps Lego should start listening to a more diverse group of voices?

I mean - okay, you don’t like ‘Mr Ashton’ and what you perceive as gay sets. Nothing in that article said that inclusion and diversity meant only LGBT+ themes, that’s just your read. And the production of set or theme  X doesn’t need to be the reason set or theme Y doesn’t happen.

I said gender, not sexual orientation - the balance of female figures has definitely increased and become less tokenistic. Similarly, disability representation matters, even though we know that, like sexuality, most of that is invisible. Lastly - none of these things exist in isolation, intersectionality is a thing for all of us. 

Urgh, weird formatting glitch. Sorry. 

[Clone OPatra]

2 hours ago, TheMainBricker said:

It seems unlikely that we would see other diversity such as racial, cultural, disability etc in sets, which is disappointing.

This is patently false though. LEGO has been increasing representations of disabilities: wheelchair-bound figures in both everyday city settings and a sports setting (not to mention as a Barcelona fan in the GWP), a figure with a hearing aid, and overtly blind figures in both City and Friends.

Within Licensed themes, they have been looking to represent characters with a variety of skin tones whenever possible, and even when it isn't the most obvious choice - in Harry Potter this year they went so far as to make a figure of a completely background teacher just so that they could work in a black and female figure. That also partially informed the choice in the Marvel CMF to produce Monica Rambeau, a black female character for whom they made a wonderful, intricate new hair mould, and who again wasn't the most significant one they could've chosen from Wandavision.

I'm not inferring this stuff either; it was mentioned in interviews.

To your other cynical point about The Office, it's not like everything Ashton likes gets made. He said he wished they could've done Golden Girls, which reached the threshold on Ideas, but it didn't. There are numerous factors that go into what gets made.

[TheMainBricker]

38 minutes ago, williejm said:

Perceive as Gay Sets

You don't perceive a set based on the gay pride flag or a set called Queer Eye as gay?!?

Intersectionality. I have no idea what that means.

Licensed sets, I don't know how much of the representation is driven by the licence holders, but I have no problem with that. More so the opposite, in that I get fed up that sets always contain the same figures and not feature more characters.

My point about inclusivity is this, for nearly everything else Lego have done it in a naturistic way (including people in City citizens sets, more characters in licensed sets), but when it comes to gay inclusivity they are separate sets, single issue sets, separate is not equal.

You do wonder whether the general indifference that's been shown by the Lego community to the Queer Eye set (that will likely be reflected sales wise) will mean that Lego will put on hold similar projects. I believe Everyone is Awesome has been popular, probably because that's recognisable worldwide and 1/3 of the price, so they may pivot towards those sort of projects, rather than $100 sets based off shows that don't translate to non-English speaking countries.

[RedHoodPug]

54 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

This is patently false though. LEGO has been increasing representations of disabilities: wheelchair-bound figures in both everyday city settings and a sports setting (not to mention as a Barcelona fan in the GWP), a figure with a hearing aid, and overtly blind figures in both City and Friends.

Within Licensed themes, they have been looking to represent characters with a variety of skin tones whenever possible, and even when it isn't the most obvious choice - in Harry Potter this year they went so far as to make a figure of a completely background teacher just so that they could work in a black and female figure. That also partially informed the choice in the Marvel CMF to produce Monica Rambeau, a black female character for whom they made a wonderful, intricate new hair mould, and who again wasn't the most significant one they could've chosen from Wandavision.

Unless I’ve misread it I took it to mean that we are unlikely to get dedicated sets based upon race or disability, rather than their inclusion in licensed or in house sets. On their own diversity and inclusion page they only show the wheelchair bound minifigure from the City pack which came out five years ago, and a cartoon brick depicted in a wheelchair. On the same site are the EiA and QE sets, as well as various rainbow coloured figs. Additionally the title image depicts all able bodied yellow figures and the rainbow flag. Now as has been mentioned sexuality isn’t visible, and the issue of skin tone in non licensed sets is it’s own topic, and not all disabilities are visible, but many are. Lego has been making ye olde worlde disabled minifigures since the dawn of the Pirates theme, but there’s none here and they weren’t created because they were disabled or to show solidarity. You could argue that those in the image are all current era, but Redbeard was in the 2020 Ideas set. It’s a prison of Mr Ashton’s own device, as by creating these two sets on the bounce and by stating in an interview that the diversity he’s referring to is ultimately based upon where one sits under the LGBT+ umbrella, and not much else. So unless he’s got some sets based on racial identity and disability then he’s not being very inclusive.

https://www.lego.com/en-gb/sustainability/people/diversity-and-inclusion/

[williejm]

1 hour ago, TheMainBricker said:You do wonder whether the general indifference that's been shown by the Lego community to the Queer Eye set (that will likely be reflected sales wise) will mean that Lego will put on hold similar projects. I believe Everyone is Awesome has been popular, probably because that's recognisable worldwide and 1/3 of the price, so they may pivot towards those sort of projects, rather than $100 sets based off shows that don't translate to non-English speaking countries.

Again, this is nonsense. This set has already been well received and will bring many more people to Lego than it will put off. This site and other fora you may be in are not representative, and speaking as someone happy to identify as LGBTQI+ or queer, it’s not all that welcoming when we bring up any issues or talk about representation. 
 

 

18 minutes ago, RedHoodPug said:

 Lego has been making ye olde worlde disabled minifigures since the dawn of the Pirates theme, but there’s none here and they weren’t created because they were disabled or to show solidarity. You could argue that those in the image are all current era, but Redbeard was in the 2020 Ideas set. It’s a prison of Mr Ashton’s own device, as by creating these two sets on the bounce and by stating in an interview that the diversity he’s referring to is ultimately based upon where one sits under the LGBT+ umbrella, and not much else. So unless he’s got some sets based on racial identity and disability then he’s not being very inclusive.

I think you may have read it as you wanted to. The enemy of greater representation is not other underrepresented groups, nor specious arguments that we need everything or nothing.

I do hope no one is suggesting that a peg-legged, one-eyed, hook-handed pirate is a great cover-all or figurehead for people with disabilities … because that would be pretty er … 🙄

we don’t know that there are not sets based on ability or race or anything else - my reading implies there are, and has already been noted, that is an ongoing issue across the themes and the themes they choose to make, anyway. 
 

 

[RedHoodPug]

17 minutes ago, williejm said:

I think you may have read it as you wanted to. The enemy of greater representation is not other underrepresented groups, nor specious arguments that we need everything or nothing.

 

I do hope no one is suggesting that a peg-legged, one-eyed, hook-handed pirate is a great cover-all or figurehead for people with disabilities … because that would be pretty er … 🙄

we don’t know that there are not sets based on ability or race or anything else - my reading implies there are, and has already been noted, that is an ongoing issue across the themes and the themes they choose to make, anyway. 
 

 

I’m reading from this that you haven’t clicked that link. As someone with more than one invisible disability, I’m never going to be visually represented in minifigure form. I might not be a minority, but that hasn’t prevented me from experiencing discrimination, bullying or exclusion in my lifetime. Neither has my being white, straight and male. The D&I website is, at best, tokenistic towards disability, given that despite limited visual representation there is in fact no mention of disability. 
I’m not for one moment suggesting that certain pirates are a fair representation of disability (not that their capabilities on board ship are dismissible), but I’m covering the ground because I know that they have been used in the argument before. Are you saying that their malevolence negates their disability, that they don’t count because that would be stereotypical, or something else? They’ve been representative of me for over 30 years because what I have can’t be depicted in Lego form. 

[Lion King]

W2

20 hours ago, williejm said:

I think you may have read it as you wanted to. The enemy of greater representation is not other underrepresented groups, nor specious arguments that we need everything or nothing.

I do hope no one is suggesting that a peg-legged, one-eyed, hook-handed pirate is a great cover-all or figurehead for people with disabilities … because that would be pretty er … 🙄

we don’t know that there are not sets based on ability or race or anything else - my reading implies there are, and has already been noted, that is an ongoing issue across the themes and the themes they choose to make, anyway. 
 

I agree with Williejm. As a deaf-blind man speaking here, I don’t support peg-legged, one-eyed, hook-handed pirates because I don’t consider them as part of the minifiugres with disabilies. Sure, they have peg legs, hooks, and eyepatches but so what? It’s absolutely absurd and incredibly stupid - it IS a pirate sister stereotype…. It doesn’t represent me and folks with disabilies. 

We already have wheelchair-bound minifigure, a blind minifigure with guide dog, a minfigure with cochlear implant/hearing aid. They do represent me and other lego fans with disabilities. 

 

P.S. - I’m speaking to readers here - please do NOT call us “disabled”. Simply call us “people with disabilies”. 

[RedHoodPug]

5 hours ago, DBlegonerd7 said:

W2

I agree with Williejm. As a deaf-blind man speaking here, I don’t support peg-legged, one-eyed, hook-handed pirates because I don’t consider them as part of the minifiugres with disabilies. Sure, they have peg legs, hooks, and eyepatches but so what? It’s absolutely absurd and incredibly stupid - it IS a pirate sister stereotype…. It doesn’t represent me and folks with disabilies. 

We already have wheelchair-bound minifigure, a blind minifigure with guide dog, a minfigure with cochlear implant/hearing aid. They do represent me and other lego fans with disabilities. 

 

P.S. - I’m speaking to readers here - please do NOT call us “disabled”. Simply call us “people with disabilies”. 

As I said above, I brought the subject up because it has been used in this argument before and I felt it appropriate to cover my bases.

And likewise they don’t represent me because my disabilities are invisible.

I’m cool with being called disabled. Saying I’m someone with disabilities suggests that they can be taken away, and they cannot. However I’m not going to police how others refer to me as long as they are being cordial. Not everyone is the same, as this thread recently proved.

Anyway I’m bowing out of this as I initially felt it necessary to say that Lego’s stance on disabilities is not as forthright as it is on identity and expression, and it’s gone wildly off topic.

[MAB]

6 minutes ago, RedHoodPug said:

As I said above, I brought the subject up because it has been used in this argument before and I felt it appropriate to cover my bases.

And likewise they don’t represent me because my disabilities are invisible.

I’m cool with being called disabled. Saying I’m someone with disabilities suggests that they can be taken away, and they cannot. However I’m not going to police how others refer to me as long as they are being cordial. Not everyone is the same, as this thread recently proved.

Anyway I’m bowing out of this as I initially felt it necessary to say that Lego’s stance on disabilities is not as forthright as it is on identity and expression, and it’s gone wildly off topic.

Same here. I have a hidden disability so I feel represented by most minifigs, although including of other types of disability is great so long as it is done sensitively. I don't think I would want to see a disabled people minifigure pack, for example.  I much prefer them to have an occasional disabled figure in an appropriate set. Just like real life.

I'm also fine with being called disabled.

[TheMainBricker]

I think I like everyone else has been hoodwinked by Mr Ashton that this set exists as part of Lego's diversity drive. In another interview he makes it clear that Lego won't produce any other reality TV sets. All I really get from all of this is that Queer Eye is one of his favourite programmes (perhaps using a set as an excuse to meet the cast?), he persuaded Lego to make the set on the basis of "diversity and inclusion", and his justification to the public as to why he got one of his favourite TV shows made into an official set is because of "diversity and inclusion". It's not a good look when so many Ideas projects get rejected, that one man at company can just force his stuff through.

On 9/19/2021 at 4:45 PM, williejm said:

Again, this is nonsense. This set has already been well received and will bring many more people to Lego than it will put off. This site and other fora you may be in are not representative, and speaking as someone happy to identify as LGBTQI+ or queer, it’s not all that welcoming when we bring up any issues or talk about representation.

As someone who is also LGB, I'm not buying the "unwelcoming when discussing representation" particularly as it was a gay Lego designer who raised it in the first place!

In this other interview he admitted that the set is not going to be popular with Lego fans, but he expects "women" to buy it. Now I quote women because it such a generic group when you're discussing demographics (essentially half of the population). It just seems like a lame excuse. Women are the main demographic of reality TV, but it's typically they're likely to be mothers with young children, whose income when spent on toys would be for their children, not themselves (even if they did have an interest in merchandise of a TV show they casually watched).

When I go on non-English Lego sites, no one has a clue as to what this set is, many Lego fans don't either, and then we're expecting non-Lego fans will be happy to stump $100 for this set? It's not going to sell well at all.

[MAB]

7 hours ago, TheMainBricker said:

When I go on non-English Lego sites, no one has a clue as to what this set is, many Lego fans don't either, and then we're expecting non-Lego fans will be happy to stump $100 for this set? It's not going to sell well at all.

We don't know what the production run / sales target is. They may well have taken everything you say into account and gone for a smaller run targeting it into English speaking regions although available worldwide. What we do know is that this set has generated the press coverage it was seemingly designed to provoke.

[drewdotexe]

10 hours ago, TheMainBricker said:

I think I like everyone else has been hoodwinked by Mr Ashton that this set exists as part of Lego's diversity drive. In another interview he makes it clear that Lego won't produce any other reality TV sets. All I really get from all of this is that Queer Eye is one of his favourite programmes (perhaps using a set as an excuse to meet the cast?), he persuaded Lego to make the set on the basis of "diversity and inclusion", and his justification to the public as to why he got one of his favourite TV shows made into an official set is because of "diversity and inclusion". It's not a good look when so many Ideas projects get rejected, that one man at company can just force his stuff through.

As someone who is also LGB, I'm not buying the "unwelcoming when discussing representation" particularly as it was a gay Lego designer who raised it in the first place!

In this other interview he admitted that the set is not going to be popular with Lego fans, but he expects "women" to buy it. Now I quote women because it such a generic group when you're discussing demographics (essentially half of the population). It just seems like a lame excuse. Women are the main demographic of reality TV, but it's typically they're likely to be mothers with young children, whose income when spent on toys would be for their children, not themselves (even if they did have an interest in merchandise of a TV show they casually watched).

When I go on non-English Lego sites, no one has a clue as to what this set is, many Lego fans don't either, and then we're expecting non-Lego fans will be happy to stump $100 for this set? It's not going to sell well at all.

It's a shame really, I just have my opinion to go off but I don't think it will sell well unless Queer Eye fans pick it up. My boyfriend loves the show and it's his go-to comfort show (I gravitate to RuPaul or Kath & Kim), however even he feels like a set was wholly unnecessary but the minifigs are cool. He didn't understand that LEGO just don't produce licensed minifigs on their own unless in a CMF, which is a shame as I think if they were in some sort of CMF he may have tried to pick them up.

Now thinking about the power that a Pride CMF would have had and I'm angry lol

Edited September 21, 2021 by drewdotexe

[jimmynick]

17 hours ago, TheMainBricker said:

When I go on non-English Lego sites, no one has a clue as to what this set is, many Lego fans don't either, and then we're expecting non-Lego fans will be happy to stump $100 for this set? It's not going to sell well at all.

Well, this isn't really surprising. I've only heard of the show being popular in the USA — I don't think I know anyone here in the UK who watches it, even. As for getting non-LEGO fans to fork over the cash for this set? Of course it'll happen: time and time again we see sets made to cash in on a certain fandom. Friends and Big Bang Theory come to mind, as does the UCS Millennium Falcon. The Skyline sets over in Architecture aren't cheap but they sell well enough (in LEGO and non-LEGO shops) to justify the line's continued existence. Fret not on this front.

[Alexandrina]

18 hours ago, TheMainBricker said:

It's not a good look when so many Ideas projects get rejected, that one man at company can just force his stuff through.

Sorry, what sort of logic is this? OF COURSE somebody whose job is to design Lego sets has a higher chance of getting their set made than a fan via the Ideas programme (which is already a million times more fan involvement than most companies' product lines). Nobody moans that Spongebob or Avatar or Stranger Things got sets made, even though none of them are Ideas sets. 99% of all Lego's sets are someone at the company 'forcing' their stuff through rather than fans voting on products.

18 hours ago, TheMainBricker said:

Women are the main demographic of reality TV, but it's typically they're likely to be mothers with young children, whose income when spent on toys would be for their children, not themselves (even if they did have an interest in merchandise of a TV show they casually watched).

This is a whole chain of assumptions. Firstly, that mothers of young children won't ever spend money on their own stuff - sure, if they're struggling to make ends meet they'll prioritise their kid, but that's not a demographic that's affording £100 sets anyway. When I was growing up, I had to make do with sets of £20 or less, and my mum spent plenty of money on things for her too.

Secondly, that women who watch reality TV are likely to be mothers. Why? Plenty of women aren't mothers.

Thirdly, that Queer Eye viewers only casually watch the programme. Casual viewers who have it on in the background aren't going to be the target, any more than Star Wars sets are aimed at people who only casually put Star Wars on in the background. There'll be plenty of fans who don't just casually watch it, and that's who Lego will be targeting.

18 hours ago, TheMainBricker said:

As someone who is also LGB, I'm not buying the "unwelcoming when discussing representation" particularly as it was a gay Lego designer who raised it in the first place!

I'm willing to met you've misread @williejm there, and that he was referring to this forum being unwelcoming when discussing representation. And it is, which is why the Everyone Is Awesome threads got locked.

What is unwelcoming is the attitude that Lego having released a set from a licence you don't know/enjoy somehow means that Lego are kowtowing to one designer's agenda (my words, but inferred from your implication that Queer Eye is a bad licence only picked because of Mr Ashton's fandom, and that if he was a fan of The Office there'd be an Office set). We don't all like the same things. I've never watched Queer Eye, much like I've never watched Seinfeld, or the DC films, or many other licenses Lego have taken out. I won't decry Lego taking those licenses, because I'm just one girl, and I'm not the arbiter of what is or isn't a valid license.

(What is also unwelcoming for me personally, as a trans woman, is the phrase 'LGB' - because now I'm wondering why exactly you've chosen to remove the 'T', especially given that 'LGB' already has well-known anti-trans connotations. But this isn't Lego, so I'll say no more on the matter)

[MAB]

2 hours ago, jimmynick said:

As for getting non-LEGO fans to fork over the cash for this set? Of course it'll happen: time and time again we see sets made to cash in on a certain fandom. Friends and Big Bang Theory come to mind, as does the UCS Millennium Falcon.

I imagine the UCS MF is owned by many AFOLs that are Star Wars fans (or Star Wars fans that are AFOLs). These are not non-LEGO fans. Star Wars and LEGO have gone hand in hand for two decades. 

[williejm]

One more sleep! ✨

[Alexandrina]

23 minutes ago, williejm said:

One more sleep! ✨

Hang on, are Lego making a Leona Lewis set too? 

[williejm]

14 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

Hang on, are Lego making a Leona Lewis set too? 

Unlikely. Not gay enough 

[drewdotexe]

17 hours ago, williejm said:

One more sleep! ✨

@williejm Let us know your thoughts on the set when you have it, I personally will probably skip it but still interested in what people think :)

[Lion King]

On 9/30/2021 at 5:29 PM, Alexandrina said:

Hang on, are Lego making a Leona Lewis set too? 

No idea who she is. 

[williejm]

1 minute ago, DBlegonerd7 said:

No idea who she is. 

U.K. singer, who had a Christmas song called ‘one more sleep’ ;)

[Lion King]

11 minutes ago, williejm said:

U.K. singer, who had a Christmas song called ‘one more sleep’ ;)

Oh! Now I understand why Alexandrinina mentioend Leona’s name!

thanks pal!

Edited October 1, 2021 by DBlegonerd7

[Robert8]

LEGO is being sued for reproducing designer clothes in this set 

[Ondra]

Catastrophic job from business standpoint, really.

Set that is mostly full stock here, nobody knows this show, they are now getting sued for pieces so they probably take it from store shelfs till its resolved.

 

Maybe these piece will have resale value in future, who knows.

 

Im asking myself, will all this happen when they tried Mr Bean show set? :D . No, No and No!

[williejm]

1 minute ago, Ondra said:

Catastrophic job from business standpoint, really.

Set that is mostly full stock here, nobody knows this show, they are now getting sued for pieces so they probably take it from store shelfs till its resolved.

 

Plenty people know the show. It’s massive on Netflix and international. It was never designed or intended to be a flagship or best-seller set.

You are clearly not the target audience, though.