Itaria No Shintaku

If LEGO did that peasant with black pig, I would be ruined. Excellent job as always. You rock. Now let me tell you yours are better than the Boudon's ones with all due respect to Boudon's nice work.

Thanks!!!

The pizza costume part of the pizza suit guy looks horrible. A pizza is not YELLOW in any kind of way. I was worried by the Low res quality and now I am even more. Too bad. Different pictures here: https://www.jb-spielwaren.de/minifiguren-serie-19/a-71025/?ReferrerID=15

There has always been a country selling those earlier. I remember them being Ireland or Romania. Will this happen again?

Thanks, hope more people is playing!

Sorry I was thinking I'm using internet (45% of the people in the world can't), and I'm buying expensive toys (90% of the people in the world can't) so I thought that everyone here is privileged. No exceptions. So I really feel there is no need to insert politics here, since we are all privileged.

I have been saying that since 1997

LMAO

You would be without avatar if you did.

Interesting people judging other people's opinion or experiences. I've never said to anybody in this forum when / how to put the keyboard down just because i don't feel entitled to. I think everybody has right to express their opinions until they do not offend anybody. And I weren't offensive in any part of my post.

This being a paradox. Well, it annoys me to no end people who want a certain minifigure to be female or male not for the use they're gonna or not gonna making out of it, but just for the sole concept of it. Like: LEGO has to make this male/female [put whatever minifig here] even if I'd never buy it. My objections on minifigures female knights is that if they come as an extra, that's no problem to me. If they steal a spot that could be of a new interesting male knight, which is historically more accurate, I'm quite disappointed. Moreover if they make it just because "people pressed them to make a female minifigure knight they aren't even going to buy". I will do spare you since you're a girl and I have been taught to be nice to girls. Not to boys. To girls expecially. Like keeping doors open for them, not hitting them even if they are menacing me, or the like. Achieving gender equality is the entire point of feminism, contrary to your persistent straw man arguments that feminism today is simply about female supremacy, manufactured outrage, or hating men masculinity. That's the same nonsense that opponents of feminist movements have spouted for as long as those movements have existed. I do not intend to debate something as basic as this, so please don't waste your time. I have multiple examples in my life, numerous experiences that say the entire opposite of what you're saying. So stick with your own opinions, I'll stick with mine. And I'll always prefere "gender equality" to "feminism" because representing less male evil characters is a concern of gender equality, not of feminism, for example. However since I've been reported to slow down/stop this, I'll do. This is leading nowhere. You have your point of view, I have mine, ours do not intersect in anything, so if you want you can pm me and keep debating about things that probably are of interest just of the two of us. I'd welcome that. But littering the topic is quite to no use.

Very much needs to be done but given the premises we did an excellent job.

We have the expression gender equality which is far more accurate.

Yes...

Actually girls have a theme completely dedicated to them (and already had more). Paradisa, DC Super Heroes girls, Elves, Friends, Scala, Belville are clearly girliesh themes. There is not any boyish theme. The ratio of masculine minidolls is ridicously low. Way lower than the ratio of female minifigures. But I don't see guys complaining about this fact. Or, you have a nice "Lady" tag. And you belong to a group called "Eurobricks ladies". There is no "Gentlemen" tag, no "Eurobricks gentlemen" group. And I don't see guys complaining about this fact. Or, I can always tell that there are a lot of "clumsy" or "goofy" male characters while the female characters are always "smart". Male scientists are "mad doctors" (From studios, Series 4, Series 14, Ninjago movie) while female scientists (as per S11 scientist, Women of Nasa, or Research Lab) are smart scientists. The ratio of minifigures being "evil" among male minifigures is absurdely higher than the females, as if EVIL is a characteristic of the male gender. Even in the minidolls, one of the very few male minidoll is one of the biggest villains in the Elves' theme. Ninjago villains are mainly men, so they were in Nexo Knights (notable exception of Ruina). In the LEGO movies, villains are: TLM - President Business, a male. TLM2 - Rex, a male. NINJAGO MOVIE - Garmadon, a male. BATMAN MOVIE - Joker, a male. Also, in these movies, the main male character looks stupid, clumsy, while the main female character (Being Lucy or Batgirl) looks terribly cool and smart. I would surely exchange the depicting of the male gender stereotype in minifigures, sets and movie that LEGO is making with a lower distribution of male minifigures. But times we live in are these, and after all after thousand years of male dominance, even if the males born in these years aren't guilty for their fathers' sins, is quite legit.

I'm just being ironic. I'm just pointing out the paradox. The ones complaining about how few female minifigure are in them, are doing this for feminism reasons (more girl power and these stuff). But, in the same time, are judging a minifigure to be "female" based on the fact "she" has eyelashes or lipstick. Which, using their standards, should be a very wrong and sexist way to depict a "female" (since females are not forced to wear lipstick). On the other hand if they allow "female" characters to be whatever they want to, so not forced to have a "feminine" face, they cannot complain about the "female" ratio among the minifigures, because whatever minifigure can be, in fact, a female, as much as earlier 1978-1988 minifigures had just a plain head so you couldn't make any difference. Hence, the paradox. Or, as someone said, don't caring at all about what is what because, well, it's LEGO and you can easily swap heads, is the right thing to do.

Actually you make a great point. I'm enlighted. Thus, associating a female to "has eyelashes / wears lipstick" becomes sexist, because actually girls aren't forced to be represented that way. I personally have two coworkers that looks what is uncorrectly defined "androgynous". Recently (alas, too recently) women have freed themselves from the burden of always looking "feminine" or "what the white caucasic male want them to look like". So, you make a great point because focusing on "what is male, what is female" separating the two only by looking if there's lipstick or eyelashes becomes actually quite discriminatory. This series has 7 females/males that like to look feminine and 9 more characters whose sex cannot be told. And this puts a period to the vexed discussion about sex representation in minifigures. A minifigure is the gender you want them to be. Period. After all even breast curves can indicate a transgender minifigure. Excellent catch @MAB.

However to me Firefighter Robot Programmer Fox Biker Old lady Mummy Dog Walker Make 7 and not 6. Plus the ghost face may be either masculine or feminine so it's 7 1/2 vs 8 1/2. Nuff said

Sorry... but no. To a person living in 2500 AD we Will look all the same in the very way you are naively saying this about your ancestors. Your opinion lacks knowledge of basic history. A 1500 artisan looked like another in the very same way an office worker today looks like any other even if their offices revolve about entirely different fields. Or most of factory workers. Or a lawyer and a politician and a salesman. Etc

I rarely have agreed less. Are you REALLY implying that nowadays you have more stereotypes than in the WHOLE HUMAN HISTORY AND FICTION? Come on. I probably am not getting your point this time because I cannot Think about a smart person like you said this.

The shower cap piece has already been released this year in the same color in the minifig pack.

You are still totally missing the point. The strangest fit I've seen in the last 10 years is a caveman in Capital City, as intended into a museum. For the rest, half of the minifigure of this series could easily fit a city whatever set. Many CMF fans rely upon the CMFs to have minifigure that cannot fit any other set/theme, so they are disappointed when you get a lot of cmfs in the same series that do not follow this expectation. And since TLG has abandoned castle, pirates, adventures, western and space, having only 4 minifigures that can fit these themes (with 0 for pirates). However, I wonder if you cannot think about the dog park worker fitting easily the fun in the park set or this years' miniifigure pack from the amusement park, or if you are just keeping the point. You are, again, missing totally the point. I'll try to explain... again. If I am fond of western, pirates, space and castle... you should be a little open-minded and understand that I don't go complaining on everything that comes out, but if I have ONE set (considering the CMF line being 3 set per years) in the whole year that can give me what I want from LEGO, can I have the right to feel extremely disappointed if they don't give me what I look for? No? I should say "oh everything is awesome" just because some guy from eurobricks want me to? You can forget about it. Have you seen me complaining about too many city sets, friends, technic, harry potter, star wars, jurassic world, super heroes and so on, apart from this single line comment? No, bet you didn't, because I didn't. I rely upon ONE set in the year, the non-licensed wave of minifigures, and if you fail to see why not only me but MANY people not only on EB are complaining about the vast majority of city-like characters, I think that you should spend some time trying to understand what's wrong. More. I can build MOCs with pieces, I don't get mad if I don't get a decent castle/pirates/etc theme per year. But new and exciting minifigure parts, these come only if LEGO makes new stuff. And if they do not make any castle/pirates/etc theme, where do people like me get the new parts? From the CMF line. So having a CMF with 0 pirate characters, 0 western characters, 1 castle characters and EIGHT CITY CHARACTERS is what I think a valid reason to feel unhappy and complain. I think you have zero rights to tell me how I should feel, how I shouldn't, what I should write (if written with respect for other people) and what I shouldn't. In fact, I wasn't quite making fun of that guy (sorry don't remember the username right now) that placed the pizza suit guy among his favourites. He likes? Good for him, because he gets it. But avoid telling me that I cannot express that the pizza suit guy is a lame character, badly realized, that a pizza slice hasn't that shape (mostly because a pizza is not a watermelon) and so on (plus you should maybe take into account that I am italian, so I have a little experience about what pizza is. If a Japanese guy tells me the "uramaki suit guy isn't accurate" I would listen to him instead of pontificate why he's wrong). I said I wanted to skip all this discussion, but I keep being sucked in and I hope now everything is clearer. People having already tons of city characters, city sets, and so on, could sometime say "well, it would be good that pirates and castle lovers have at least one source per year from which they can take new minifigure parts". Instead of saying "Oh yeah, we really needed this minifigure into the CMF line". Did we really need a dog walker in the CMF line? No, she could have easily appeared in various sets like fun in the park, fun at the theme park and so on. Did we really need ANOTHER firefighter in the CMF line which is a copy of the city ones? No we didn't. Did we really need a shower guy stealing a spot in the CMF line when all the pieces are available? No we didn't. Did we really need another gamer since we already had one in the CMF line? No we didn't. Did we really need a pizza suit guy in the CMF line? Perhaps. Done that way, no we didn't. (However a hot dog suit guy with a hot dog stand has been already released, so a pizza suit guy could fit a pizza stand in a city theme) Did we really need that lady with the flamingo being in the CMF line? Perhaps since how people is happy we needed the flamingo. But the lady? Couldn't that be in a city set? Did we really need that ugly bear? I dare you. Did we really need that biker girl in the CMF line? Couldn't she be in a city set? Did we really need that robot programmer girl? Couldn't she be in the new space sets or something like that? These are 9 minfiigures that could be in city sets this year, and they are in the CMF line, taking place for 9 minifigures (a la Monkey King) that couldn't fit any other theme. I'm not fond of the monkey king. I dislike the use of light flesh in the CMF line, the Ruyi Jingu Bang should have been done differently, but I don't say that he's stealing a spot in the CMF line. Roman Warriors, Spartan Warriors, Hun Warriors, and so on, if TLG doesn't make, like playmobil is, an "history" theme, they only can fit the CMF line. To end it: If we had three waves per year, I would have been quite less bothered. Now it's clear they plan to do only 1 per year. So when in January I get the new catalog and I hear that no castle/adventurers/pirates theme this year, all my hopes go on the only unlicensed CMF line. So, you and people who are fond of themes like city or friends, should understand if we have some rants when it all goes wrong for us. It's a form of respect from who gets all to who gets nothing (or nearly).

Sorry I won't reply. Your arguments seem a bit biased and schoolmarmished to me. I don't want to start a fight over the internet.

1989's pirates have the shirt only in front, not behind. It's stranger. As I said. Opinions. :)

Interesting opinions. The 2015 wasn't that crappy in my opinion.