Would you be open to changes in the minifig to make it more poseable?

[BrickG]

Getting kind of sick of the limited range of motion of minifigures myself. I mean, there's so few options... But I wouldn't want them changing the look. I do wish though I could move those arms like... in more than 2 directions. And the legs.... I mean, some legs can't pose at all! Darn you short legs... you're why I can't buy Hobbit and LotR stuff!

Edited January 17, 2013 by Fugazi
title

[Jargo]

The only change i would make is to make the leg to torso attachment one pin rather than two so you could get a waist swivel. It wouldn't be a perfect solution but it would allow more poses. Most people are scared of change and altering the waist joint is the only change I can think of that wouldn't significantly alter how a minifig looks.

[Peppermint_M]

Swivel is a bit fail in MB figures though. Infact, from comparisons between varied types of MB figure, the poseability at that scale makes things rather flimsy at best and downright terrible at worst.

The original figures had ball joints in the arms to allow a range of movement, six out of twelve of my figures from this era have one or both arms missing due to the ball joint snapping from the stress of regular, even careful, play and use. The "second" generation Dragon version figures are a little more robust but were prone to losing hands in my experience. Then we move on to the Pirates, mainly the PotC figures. Their joints, ball and socket again, fall apart with ease but delicate manipulation can pose them.

Now we come the Halo figures and the Power Rangers figures. The Halo figs are Action Figures in miniature. They have overcome many of the issues present in the PotC gen figs but are still prone to "overclutch" in the hands which then become easy to remove. The Power Rangers figures are more classical styled, the main difference being a single peg at the waist which leads to clutch issues between torso and hips. Essentially if applied to a brick or plate, the legs seperate from the torso with ease over removal of the entire figure.

Lets just say that while the LEGO minifig may be constrained, it is the most safe, hardy and quality figure you can have at that scale. Extra poseability would compromise these qualities even if TLG managed to design something to satisfaction.

[Zaterdag]

I don't want them to change the minifigs at all. They're perfect the way they are now.

[Hrw-Amen]

I would like the arms to be able to swivel into more positions but I would not want to overall mini-fig to change in its appearance. So any changes they made would have to be done in such a way that was invisible when you place an old and new mini-fig next to one another in the standard standing pose. Not sure how easy that would be to do without compromising the integrity of the figure though? Other than that leave them be, they are small enough for it to not really matter.

[ShaydDeGrai]

I accept the current mini-figure as more of an abstraction than as an "action figure" so, in general, I'm okay with the limited range of motion. Posable short legs, however, is something I support even though the height really wouldn't change in the seated v. standing position and a partially raised leg would hit a stud if the other foot is anchored on a plate. It's not a practical modification, it adds a lot of expense and complexity for very little range of motion, but I think the little guys are getting short-changed (no pun intended) with the current slab-legs.

[Drock]

Don't mess with perfection.

[kibosh]

Getting kind of sick of the limited range of motion of minifigures myself. I mean, there's so few options... But I wouldn't want them changing the look. I do wish though I could move those arms like... in more than 2 directions. And the legs.... I mean, some legs can't pose at all! Darn you short legs... you're why I can't buy Hobbit and LotR stuff!

The short answer? No, don't change 'em. I don't want action figures. There are plenty of them on the market.

I don't want them to change the minifigs at all. They're perfect the way they are now.

For the most part, I agree with this.

I would like the arms to be able to swivel into more positions but I would not want to overall mini-fig to change in its appearance. So any changes they made would have to be done in such a way that was invisible when you place an old and new mini-fig next to one another in the standard standing pose. Not sure how easy that would be to do without compromising the integrity of the figure though? Other than that leave them be, they are small enough for it to not really matter.

I'd be fine with changes like this, and the swiveling hips that were mentioned, but ONLY if quality is not compromised. Meaning, I can pose a minfig today, and he'll stay like that until I move hime. Conversely, I can pose and repose a minifig hundreds of times, and he's just as solid as the day he was formed. If all the joints stayed nice and tight, and now outward changes were made in appearances, I would be fine with this.

I accept the current mini-figure as more of an abstraction than as an "action figure" so, in general, I'm okay with the limited range of motion. Posable short legs, however, is something I support even though the height really wouldn't change in the seated v. standing position and a partially raised leg would hit a stud if the other foot is anchored on a plate. It's not a practical modification, it adds a lot of expense and complexity for very little range of motion, but I think the little guys are getting short-changed (no pun intended) with the current slab-legs.

Totally agree with the idea of abstraction. The current minifig assembly allows you to let go of "what you know" for the most part. They exist in a fantasy world to a degree, and I find that liberating.

[cortman]

The short answer? No, don't change 'em. I don't want action figures. There are plenty of them on the market.

^ This. The figures aren't meant to be 100% lifelike- they're meant to look like LEGO minifigures. I saw some MB figures the other day, and was amazed at how ugly they are- knobby joints, large gaps where the legs join the torso, just ugly. LEGO minifigures are extremely precise, and I like them that way.

[BrickG]

Assuming the changes were quality and you don't risk breaking arms, and they're nearly invisible would you be more open to it?

Right now I'm thinking of doing something to the shoulders so they have more articulation, though making that 100% invisible would be pretty impossible. Making it mostly invisible could be done. A tiny bit more waist and leg articulation that's invisible might be possible without changing the minifigure's looks.

[Vindicare]

The saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That's my feelings on minifigures.

Edited January 14, 2013 by Legocrazy81

[TheLegoDr]

I agree. I would like more pose-ability with the arms (I've seen some flex tubing, which is neat), but overall I wouldn't want to change anything. I think they are working just fine, especially for the length of time the minifigure has been around.

I think it would be hit and miss with the arm joints losing their articulation. I have some minifigures from the last 3 decades and some are tight and some are loose, with and without playing with them. So I'm sure a ball-socket joint would be the same way. Might as well not mess with it.

And I recall as a kid just making the figures bounce around as if they were walking instead of making their individual legs move, so pose-able short legs wouldn't do much for me. But I can understand why some people would like it. And it's nice enough that they exist at all.

[AndyC]

I can't really see any practical way of altering the arms that wouldn't detract from the overall aesthetic of the minifig significantly. The only workable option I can see would be replaceable arms, but then you'd just run into the issue that the arm design you wanted wasn't available in the pose you were after. Generally I think we're much better off with them as they are.

[Joebot]

Back when I used to make Lego comics, I used to constantly curse the mini-fig's lack of posability. There are only so many "exciting, dyanmic poses" the little fellows can make. In particular, I always wanted elbows and ball-joint shoulders so they could realistically hold a bow.

But ... I think I agree with the general consensus here. They're intended as an abstraction of a human being, with unrealistic proprotions and limited posability, and they're just too damned adorable to mess with.

And then when you think about the reaction would be in the fan community if they actually DID change the mini-fig ... yikes. It would be like the grey/bley color change, but a billion times worse.

[Faefrost]

I think the only change I would consider would be to add one more joint at the shoulders to allow the fig to spread or raise its arms to the side. That would accommodate most posing needs without compromising the look or style.

[CMP]

The basic design I don't think they should change. But I wouldn't mind seeing different hands, legs, or arms that seem to be becoming more and more common. I don't want any of the new ones to become regular for minifigures, but I'm liking the unique variations they're coming out with nowadays.

[Vindicare]

I guess I'd be ok with the arms being able to pop in and out more. Say, between the arm we know and love and the new man bat arm(minus the wings) so there could be some more posing options for them.

[J.V.D.]

Oh, yes please.... and while they are on the go, maybe Lego can also start making the mouth of the figures out of some kind of flexible rubber or dough, so we can have more facial expresions too...

No, seriously.. I think the minifig is fine as it is now. The charm of it lays exactly in its blocky humanoid form. With all its restrictions.

Reason why lately I find Lego is already going to far detailing some (mainly SW) figures. Or reason why I sometimes shake my head reading discusions about how accurate, to big, out of shape e.g. a helmet is... or when I see the work of some customisers.

Dont get me wrong... those customisers are doing a great job, and sometimes I even like to use custom utensils or weapons Lego doesnt produce.

But I am not looking for to much detail in a Lego minifigure. I am happy when I see a recognizable representation of a movie, comic or real life character.

For realy accurate miniature representations there exist 1/35 scale models..

[kibosh]

A tiny bit more waist and leg articulation that's invisible might be possible without changing the minifigure's looks.

It's not just the looks I'd be concerned with. Right now, the minifig is pretty rock solid. They can take a lot of abuse and not break.

I agree. I would like more pose-ability with the arms (I've seen some flex tubing, which is neat), but overall I wouldn't want to change anything.

And I recall as a kid just making the figures bounce around as if they were walking instead of making their individual legs move, so pose-able short legs wouldn't do much for me. But I can understand why some people would like it. And it's nice enough that they exist at all.

I think the flex tube method would make them more fragile. If they made a change, and the minifig became less stable for kids (arms falling off during regular play), this would be disastrous for LEGO. The LEGO reputation is built on quality.

I played with my toys the same way. :-)

Back when I used to make Lego comics, I used to constantly curse the mini-fig's lack of posability. There are only so many "exciting, dyanmic poses" the little fellows can make. In particular, I always wanted elbows and ball-joint shoulders so they could realistically hold a bow.

I like this limitation. It makes me create within the confines of what is possible. And makes me push the boundaries of what I THINK is possible.

I think the only change I would consider would be to add one more joint at the shoulders to allow the fig to spread or raise its arms to the side. That would accommodate most posing needs without compromising the look or style.

This would be a welcome change if it could be accomplished properly.

[tedbeard]

Nope. Fine the way they are.

[Mr Copperhead]

No, please don't change them. They are so cool the way they are, I love their simplicity.

[badbob001]

When I saw the first (?) generation skeleton with shoulder ball-joints, I thought it would be a great idea to add more posing options. And then when I got my hands on one, I was extremely disappointed that it was all floppy.

I also thought about change to the minifigure when I saw the KRE-O figures, but it would probably require adding similarly large shoulders, which would definitely be met with resistance. But at least it would be possible to only require creating new arms and leave the rest of the minifigure unchanged, which allows one to 'upgrade' older figures.

This page has more details on the KRE-O figures: http://www.infiniteh...orponok-review/

And why no outcry regarding the flux of the poor duplo figure? Granted, I think it is definitely changing for the better. And at least Duplo children can properly sit.

And why can't minifigures have short sleeves like Cinderella? Why is every minifigure either in long sleeves or no sleeves? T-shirts are so NATURUAL that it's weird that it doesn't exist in minifigure form. I wonder if they ever attempted a short sleeve with printing.

Edited January 16, 2013 by badbob001

[Modulex Guy]

I can think of only two things that could improve the minifigure:

One thing I am waiting for TLG to do is to print short sleeves of minifig arms, well this is not a big modification, but it would be nice to see figs that don't either have no sleeves or long sleeves, with printing/molding technology that TLG has, this should be easy to do.

Two, Posable short legs, This would be cool to have the standard short legs, but that you can put the minifig in motion.

Other than these two, I would not change anything on the current minifig.

[badbob001]

Anyone else annoyed that minifigures with the dress piece are a little taller than others? I suppose I can explain that it's due to heels. Not sure if a custom shorter slope piece would be the most practical solution.

For the official Lego Wedding favor set, it looks like they try to fix the height issue with a four-piece dress. But now the woman seems disproportionately short. This is probably due to the printing not going all the way. Perhaps it's best we don't change anything or just add 1x1 plates / shoes to all non-dress wearing minifigs.

Edited January 16, 2013 by badbob001

[Bobsy]

Perhaps a more pertinent question would be "If minifigures had never existed, and were designed from scratch today, would they look the same?"

I don't think they would. I think there's a lot of room for improvement. And I think this is how LEGO feels as well.

LEGO have attempted to remake the minifigure twice at least, with the Jack Stone figs and the recent Friends minidolls. In both cases, but especially the latter, they've gone for a design which is not exactly more realistic in terms of articulation and poseability, but certainly with proportions. While minidolls keep the oversized heads, they have greater shape and definition, and the bodies, while perhaps over-idealised, are more aesthetically pleasing than the flat, blocky torsos and legs of the traditional minifigure. LEGO decided that one of the things keeping them from cracking the girls' market was that, to an outsider, minifigs just aren't all that nice to look at.

Also worth remembering is that when the body proportions of the first minifigs were decided on, they were created to represent children, not adults. The short legs and large heads are more in keeping with the body shape of young children, after all. When System themes like Town, Castle and Space rolled up they suddenly had to pull double-duty as adults as well, and I do wonder whether or not LEGO regret that in hindsight, since as the years went on it became harder and harder to rectify this, since a new shape of minifig would be simply incompatible with the minifigs and sets that children already owned. Toy Story's Woody doesn't fit through the doors in the Medieval Market Village, for example, thanks to his long legs which ironically give him more adult-like proportions. Had they been designed today, I think they would be better proportioned so to represent adults and children better.

Likewise, the only reason traditional minifigs STILL have yellow skin is that originally it was simply too expensive to add a brand new colour to the plastic palette (black, white, yellow, red, blue) that would only be used for hands and heads. Today LEGO seem to have little hesitation making all licenced themes use flesh tones, so while the cost may still be a factor, it certainly isn't a limiting factor any more. If minifigs were designed today, I'm pretty sure they'd all be flesh-coloured. They were in Friends, after all.

As fans, we should not be over-protective of something because we're used to it, because we grew up with it. Nostalgia's all well and good but it does not breed quality - by it's nature it just means producing more of the same, over and over. If the minifig has become a sacred cow, we should be ready to... well, perhaps not slaughter it, but at the very least examine it, be critical. Things aren't perfect just because they've been the same for 40 years.