LEGO Collectable Minifigures Series 13 Rumours and Discussion

[obsidianheart]

I was answering a question. That's what we do in threads like this, we talk about things.

Hey, thanks for explaining how forums work! You know, since I was asking a question. Which would also be what we do in threads like these.

I don't see the cyclops as being much more cartoony than the rest of the figures, but I don't share the same prioritization of mythology. All I'm saying is, there seems to be a lot of complaining about a design that is no more ridiculous than many of the other designs around it, because it is "Medieval Fantasy" or "Cartoony". Hey, that's cool, you're allowed not to like it. But I don't get this thing where you guys feel it is obligated to "make sense" or fall in line with your expectations. That's all.

[8BrickMario]

You know, I will defend the Lady Cyclops. I think she's a nice novelty character, and this is coming from a mythology nut. She's also a pretty clever color-swap of the first Cyclops. And for those who just can't take her seriously...that's the point. She was made to be silly. A cartoon show would have a brutish male and made-up female cyclops couple, so why shouldn't a cartoonishy-stylized group of toy figures? I don't care about it lacking a formidable appearance, (or mythological accuracy, which is really mythical in its own right) because I can see the humor. Were there the same level of complaints against the Alien Villainess?

HATED the awful Lady Robot, though. That one was truly lazy and much more offensively reaching. Those meters on the chest didn't help, nor did its lack of personality. And too much pink.

But all of you are allowed to love or hate whatever you please. I for one, don't care at all about HDG.

Edited November 28, 2014 by 8BrickMario

[fred67]

But I don't get this thing where you guys feel it is obligated to "make sense" or fall in line with your expectations. That's all.

That's fine... of course, nobody said anything like that whatsoever, so I don't get why it bothers you so much... the question was asked why people don't like it. I gave my reason why. TLG isn't obligated to do anything for anybody, and only in your head did you think anyone was implying otherwise.

[Oederland]

I find it a little confusing why people hate the fact the Lady Cyclops has lipstick, especially considering every other female figure in this series (and for that matter pretty much every female figure EVER, to my knowledge) has lipstick, as well.

Just speaking for myself, I don't need a cyclops at all. The cyclops from series 9 was thus useless for me, but I understand that others might like such a minifig, so I can accept that it was included. Now considering the new cyclops, first of all, it's a reuse of existing molds. Many people do not like that, independent of the specific minifig and its sex (good/evil robot, "male"/"female" clock robot, different skaters, ...). This is the first aspect. Concerning cyclops, usually one thinks of male cyclops, based on the descriptions in myths. Now we get a female version, which runs counter to these expectations. This might be the second aspect for some people, e.g. those who would like to create a "historical" diorama with a herd of cyclops, and well, they seem to be male in these myths. So the problem is not that it's female but rather that it is a creature thought to be male which is now presented as an "incorrect" version. Leaving this aside, we also rate minifigs based on the quality / level of detail. And here I have to admit that the new cyclops is a failure, not because it's female and also not because of her wearing lipsticks, but THE WAY she wears lipstick / THE WAY it is printed on the head. It's much too close to the eye IMO and thus ruins the minifig.

Uh. The female samurai has lipstick.

First of all, I don't really like these gender debates when it comes to toys. I often have the feeling that people like to complain just because it gives a good feeling to them, but they don't really want to change anything. Similar to watching political talkshows "yeah I'm engaged in politics", but when the TV is switched off you don't care any more. Concerning toys, when thinking back myself, I've been playing with LEGO for years and it was certainly not like "this MALE pirate is trying to attack this MALE soldier" or "the MALE street cleaner turns around the corner, bumps into the MALE pizza vendor, who calls the MALE policeman". However, I still grew up with mainly the 80ies smiley faces, meaning sex was not explicit in most of the cases (but it seems this led many people to conclude that they're male). When looking at the current sets, they have much more details, but this also means there is much less to imagine. An angry face implies an angry person, a face with lipstick points to a female (yeah, this is a preconception, but in the majority of cases it's just like that = most of the persons wearing lipstick are indeed female), a body with this "printed waist" seems to be female.

And here I have to criticise TLC - yes, to criticise, because they also tried to show off in a positive way with the female scientists set. Almost all the female minifigs wear lipstick and have visible eyelashes. Why do they have to? If TLC really wants to avoid transporting stereotypes with their toys, then stop combining female minifigs with lipstick-eyelash printings all the time. This should be very easy to achive. If there were more "neutral" bodies/faces, you could interpret them in your own way. I mean, what's the fuzz about the new samurai? It's a neutral minifig (it probably also has a female-style body printing, but we haven't seen it yet) with a neutral hearpiece (neutral in that context, as it has already been used on the sumo ringer and more or less corresponds to a haircut which could have been male or female at that time) plus our stereotyped lipstick face. Well, great... so instead of the biased sex ratio we at least have more females compared to the past, but we still have the issue with the stereotype "females have to be pretty and use make-up". Don't misunderstand me, I really don't care that much, but given the fact that we have these discussions and TLC tries to counteract by increasing the number of female minifigs (which is great of course), why not consider this aspect as well?

Edited November 28, 2014 by Oederland

[BrickOn]

I am not sure how I feel about the lipstick on the lady cyclops, unlike other standard "lady figures" you can't swap the headpiece out to remove the lipstick to change the look, limiting it use, whereas normally its easier to tweak the look to suit... although as others have said, one can always remove the offending lipstick, but to me, this will always feel a little bit wrong...

As a kid I always used to balance out my boy/girl ratio by putting girl wigs on neutral faces and making the lipstick faces wear baseball caps, doubling the intended number of girl figures, I am sure I am not the only one who did this and its nice to see a bit more variety in the figures nowadays, but they are still just models and will always be stylised in someway and thats the charm of lego... anyways

Have Lego ever attempted an overtly female dwarf, now that could lead to an interesting discussion!

But all this talk about the cyclops makes me think about the potential origin of the myth... fossilised mammoth skulls have a central hole for the trunk, but it's thought that maybe ancient greeks found these skulls and mistook them for one-eyed giants.

So I am imagining a scene where the palaeontologist is discovering an ancient mammoth fossil on some greek island, with a thought cloud above her imagining the ancient greeks thinking about the fearsome cyclops... that way the lipstick is just added whimsy created in her imagination and completely in keeping).

Edited November 28, 2014 by BrickOn

[obsidianheart]

I think, as I pointed out in the voting thread, the problem with the cyclops is that we can take all the previous mythological creatures "seriously." If you're going to take a B-movie robot and make it pink, that's one thing, but a lot of us like mythology and take it "seriously." The lady cyclops just ruins it... makes no sense, doesn't fit in with the other mythological creatures. Line it up next to the other cyclops, the minotaur, the Medusa... even if you include the non-Greek mythology and add in the mermaid, merman, and genie... put them all together, and the lady cyclops just looks like a bad joke.

Put it this way - imagine they made the female samurai the same as the male one, but with pink armor and lipstick - then line up all the historic fighting figures we've gotten and see which one doesn't belong. They managed to do that one right.

That's fine... of course, nobody said anything like that whatsoever, so I don't get why it bothers you so much... the question was asked why people don't like it. I gave my reason why. TLG isn't obligated to do anything for anybody, and only in your head did you think anyone was implying otherwise.

That top post is all in my head? The parts I bolded for emphasis were the only changes I made. I was just pointing out that you were using an example to illustrate your dissatisfaction with a figure that was not actually very comparable to the figures we're seeing here. The question about knowing you can skip stuff you don't like was for everyone, not just you, but you can have it. It's yours now.

You can have your echo chamber back. I'll stay out of your conversations. That's how forums work, right?

[fred67]

obsidianheart, I don't understand your damage... I stated what I thought in answer to a question... in what way does it make the assertion TLG is obligated to do something?

Edited November 28, 2014 by fred67

[MAB]

Have Lego ever attempted an overtly female dwarf, now that could lead to an interesting discussion!

Sure they could stick lipstick on a dwarf, but you wouldn't see it under her beard.

I'm not too bothered by the lipstick on the Cyclops. I think it looks stupid, but I'll still get two. Pull of the hands, the heads will make good eyes for larger monsters, mixel style, the body and legs will get reused somewhere and the headpiece will either get sold or wiped and again used as eyes for a monster.

[telaruhn]

Were there the same level of complaints against the Alien Villainess?

This is my sentiments exactly. I was so excited for this figure, and I think the lipstick adds charm and uniqueness.

The same can be said for the Lady Cyclops or even the Lady Robot, in my opinion. Before these were released, the concept of these figures never really crossed my mind, so seeing them as they were revealed was an interesting surprise. The day my mom bought me a series 11 mystery bag only to find the Lady Robot was at first disappointing, but now I love her. I've seen some "female" robots before (XJ9, Rosie the maid), so the concept in and of itself isn't outlandish. And her amount of pink is no more offensive than the Intergalactic Girl (who is a way worse figure in my opinion).

Anyway, it feels like a lot of discussion over printed lipstick, but it's something that's such a prevalent female identifier today that I couldn't see TLC not doing it. I doubt we would see a Lady Cyclops anywhere else other than as a CMF, so for that, I think it's a successful figure. It's not for the serious-at-heart.

Sure they could stick lipstick on a dwarf, but you wouldn't see it under her beard.

Would a female dwarf even have a beard? I'm not sure.

[Zarana-X]

I'd like to see a female Dwarf, akin to the Warcraft style, not the LOLZ lady dorfs have beards! stereotype

As far as these go, I'm definitely getting Burger King, Evil Wizard, lady samurai, and multiple goblins. I'l get the lady cyclops and see what I can do with the parts.

[MAB]

^^ In LOTR when Gimli is talking about dwarven culture, Aragorn makes the joke that men often think all dwarves are male, because of the female's beards.

Also I think I read somewhere that females wore beards and dressed like males when they left the mountains.

[Ardelon]

Dwarf females dont necessarily have to follow Tolkien or PJ versions.

I myself would take a female dwarf! Even i she came with a beard, I would simply remove it and use it on a male (assuming it would have bows or somesuch in it).

The lipstick, I see it as rather unnecessary, but still the number one way to distinguish between male and female minifigs. I myself would be content with the eyelashes as the sole distinguishing mark.

For that matter, lipstick is meant to represent the ideal of full and red female lips, so what if the "lipstick" is just that - naturally feminine lips? I never assumed the Islander princess wore lipstick, I just thought she had full lips, and maybe thats whats going on with todays female figs (except for strange colors like the CMF space heroine).

Edited November 28, 2014 by Ardelon

[Borador]

I didn't read this whole debate that has ensued over Lady Cyclops's lipstick, so I apologize if my opinion has been covered before, but...

I don't care that it isn't realistic.

I don't care that it doesn't make sense.

I simply think that it looks bad. I do not like it because it does not look good. Nothing else matters to me. Is it dumb and unrealistic? You could say that, but that isn't really important. If it had been done well, then I would not mind it, but it was done very poorly, in my opinion.

Thus, because I think it looks bad, I do not like it. My opinion. Think different if you wish, but nothing you can say will change what I think.

[orangecommander715]

man all of these look great but i think im only gonna get three fr sure from this series when do they come out again

[lightningtiger]

A lady cyclops with lipstick.....most of the chat has been about that......look at it this way how is that girl only to hook up with a male cyclops if she doesn't look pretty eh ?

[8BrickMario]

I am anticipating WhiteFang's review eagerly. It should be out in a few weeks, fortunately. Can't wait to see who gets double-sided faces and back printing. I'm guessing the Lady Cylops gets back printing or else there is literally nothing keeping her top on! While Medusa got away with it, I doubt LC will. The Galaxy Trooper probably has an alternate face without the HUD. I also want to see how much of the stand's space that Evil Wizard's cape takes up. And the unfolded King's cape...and really everything else. It's always nice to see the real figures.

We know how devious LEGO is. Can you see any similar pieces in this series that may trick you into thinking you have one figure, but there's another in the bag? (Like the Wizard and Fairytale Princess both having slope bricks and conical hats.) I'm guessing the afro and turban will be easy to confuse. Perhaps the khopesh and goblin sword could be confused, and the bar pieces in the Evil Wizard and Snake Charmer might not be a good guide for finding either one.

[Ardelon]

So, a good series IMO, but many of the great figs arent as great as they could have been.

- King: A cool fig; I see he has the Crusader colors of red, blue and yellow – I wonder whether „classic“ means this reference to classic Castle or simply a traditional image of a king. But Im not as thrilled about the crown as some here – the hair color and style will limit the universality of the piece. Otherwise, shame he doesnt have a sceptre, but good to see the gnome beard in a new color. I wonder if the back of the cape is all ermine, or if the pattern is only along the top or rim.

- Cyclops: The weakest link, because of the lipstick. I agree with those that say it detracts from the threatening image of a Cyclops. Much too caricaturish, and the lipstick doesnt even look well placed – it looks like it should contine lower onn the face.

- Samurai: Surprising, I was expecting a shogun or evil samurai. Never thought this would be the 5th female. The armor piece is great, but its all the more a shame we wont get a matching helmet. I dont mind the lipstick that much, but the biggest shame is the absence a naginata, either as a new piece, or the elvish blade in silver/gray. But a welcome fig.

- Egyptian soldier: Great headdress, and kudos to the designers for the shield shape/orientation and for not making the khopesh gray/silvery. Not sure about the shield charge, but thats minor. Very easy to repurpose as a civilian fig.

- Sheriff: Whats with sheriffs with mustaches? Is it a Wyatt Earp thing? But its a good fig, and again, its good to see the mustache in a new color. The wanted poster is a nice touch, but it doesnt reach the quality of the 96 version, which had actual text.

- Evil Wizard: A bit over the top, especially the cape (dont like the top), but nice. Could use a hat, hair or „grandpa“ bald headpiece.

- Snake Charmer: OK. Cobra is neat. The torso looks too modern for the Castle era, which is a bit disappointing, and while the turban is nice, it didnt seem necessary for it to get a new mold. And I cent believe were getting an unpriotned rod for a flute, since Harry Potter got a printed one like a decade ago? I expected a new print, if not a new mold. Could have been better.

- Paleontologist: Another nice fig. The highlight is the ammonite tile, but the face is also good. I hope the pith helmet will come in a „male“ version, with no or short hair.

- Disco Diva: Nice as well, but too monochrome with all the purple, would have preferred someting more colorful. Good to see the hair in a new color.

- Goblin: Nice again, great prints, but I would have preferred sand-green to go with the Fantasy Trolls. The sack is fine – I did expect a shield as per the Boudon design – and the sword was to be expected. The hood does seem made for the Green Goblin, but it fits here too, so clever on the designers part.

- Fencer: OK. Seems male from the FB pic. Could have done the rapier/foil in black or another color.

- Carpenter: Nicely done. We finally get a hand saw! The plank is also neat, as are the prints. More love for short sleeves. But I would have preferred the hat+hair mold to change colors for the hair rather than the hat. So far, only brown-haired figs have the privilege of wearing this mold.

- Galaxy Trooper: Could have been better. Not a fan of the visorless helmets, and I would have preferred the classic space logo. I would find it tough to integrate this guy with the previous space forces, I think they all look too different.

- Alien Trooper: Cool head, I dont find it cartoony at all. I wonder if its a solid mold (which seems to be the case) or if it goes over a minifig head. Thats about it for this fig – its all about the head.

- Hot Dog Guy: Funny, but not for me.

- Unicorn Girl: Not a fan of the costumed figs.

Huh, these posts of mine get longer each series...

Edited November 29, 2014 by Ardelon

[Robert8]

I wonder if the back of the cape is all ermine, or if the pattern is only along the top or rim.

I think the cape and the ermine are separate cloth pieces

[just2good]

I simply think that it looks bad. I do not like it because it does not look good. Nothing else matters to me. Is it dumb and unrealistic? You could say that, but that isn't really important. If it had been done well, then I would not mind it, but it was done very poorly, in my opinion.

Thus, because I think it looks bad, I do not like it. My opinion. Think different if you wish, but nothing you can say will change what I think.

Totally with you on this one. I think the Cyclops head mould is the reason it looks odd. The face print underneath is adorable, though.

[Yooha]

Maybe the female cyclops without the head mold, using some hair or helmet could work.

[MAB]

I am anticipating WhiteFang's review eagerly. It should be out in a few weeks, fortunately.

It is strange that Lego posted lots of high res images this time, before the reviewers get their complimentary sets and their reviews published. I wonder if they are trying out whether people will use theur own Facebook page and so on in place of initial reviews.

[AmperZand]

- Goblin: Nice again, great prints, but I would have preferred sand-green to go with the Fantasy Trolls. The sack is fine – I did expect a shield as per the Boudon design – and the sword was to be expected. The hood does seem made for the Green Goblin, but it fits here too, so clever on the designers.

Wait! The designers are repurposing a Green Goblin's hood/ears for a... goblin?? Don't get me wrong: I really like this minifigure, it's my favourite of the series. But clever re-use of the Green Goblin's hood/ears piece, it ain't.

I'm glad that TLG re-issues licensed parts in the CMF line such as the Princess Leia/forest maiden hair piece. It means you can get hold of those pieces without getting scalped on BrickLink or EBay.

- Carpenter: Nicely done. We finally get a hand saw!

If you don't mind third party parts, BrickForge have been doing a saw for a while. I've had a Castle era carpenter in my display collection for some time.

[Ardelon]

Wait! The designers are repurposing a Green Goblin's hood/ears for a... goblin?? Don't get me wrong: I really like this minifigure, it's my favourite of the series. But clever re-use of the Green Goblin's hood/ears piece, it ain't.

More like clever foresight or coordination to release the Goblin before potentially making the GG, so they wouldnt be stuck with a licensed GG headpiece they wouldnt be able to use anywhere else.

[Cagast]

Wait! The designers are repurposing a Green Goblin's hood/ears for a... goblin?? Don't get me wrong: I really like this minifigure, it's my favourite of the series. But clever re-use of the Green Goblin's hood/ears piece, it ain't.

No. This is the first time we get this piece and we don't know if this will be reused for green goblin.

[8BrickMario]

First appearance doesn't mean it was created exclusively fore this character. It could have been designed for future use on the Green Goblin, and they're just getting some extra usage of the element. At this point, we're only assuming, but the shape of the piece is remarkably like GG's hat in LEGO Marvel Superheroes.