davee123

I'm trying to scale up a complex 3D surface and render it in LEGO. I tried using LSculpt, which yields excellent results at a larger resolution, but not quite as smooth as I'd ideally like for a smaller-scale sculpture. Is there anything out there that can effectively rasterize a 3D surface using other elements like slopes, tiles, curved pieces? Specifically: I'm playing with making a crater baseplate for the 10497 Galaxy Explorer, scaled up to 48x48. Feeding in the LDraw file for the crater baseplate element into LSculpt yields a very recognizable shape, and looks alright, but it's kinda blocky, and doesn't quite get the smoothness that I'm looking for. It would be awesome if it tried to also use cheese slopes, 33-degree slopes, etc., to simulate the surface, since I think it would become smoother and more accurate. Doing that by hand might be my only option, but I'm crossing my fingers that there's another solution. DaveE

Hmm, that's been sort of an established fact for as long as I can remember-- probably since the early 2000s when LEGO Direct started communicating with LEGO hobbyists. Maybe even earlier? At the time, the design process was speeding up to be more reactionary. Specific sources, though? I'm not sure. The best sources would probably be Jens Nygaard Knudsen or Bjarne Tveskov. I took a quick look through the few online interviews that I could find, but didn't see anything directly. However, there is a photo from 1985 of a preliminary Blacktron design, which was released in the US in late 1987 (September, I think?)-- which is evidence that it's at least a 2 year cycle. We also know from an interview with Bjarne that Blacktron specifically was accelerated due to pressure from Tyco's "aggressive" 1986 lineup. So if 2 years is considered fast, it lines up with the cited 3 year cycle. But pretty sure we've heard the 3-year development cycle for many years. In fact, I seem to recall that people were still citing that fact in the early 2000s, which LEGO corrected us on, because they had since trimmed down the cycle to be quicker. I'm not sure when the transition to faster cycles happened, though. LEGO was becoming internally digital throughout the 80s and 90s. I know in the late 1990s, they were transitioning to digital instructions (source: LEGO Life Magazine), and in "ye olde days" the most expensive part of the process was the instructions (source: LEGO concept designer). They had to be photographed step-by-step, and then hand-drafted into instructions. And their digital database of parts starts at 1997, which indicates that some sort of transition was happening then. And 1998 was when Poul Plougmann started as COO (source: Brick by Brick), and probably when he was revamping the design process (he supposedly switched out a lot of designers in exchange for new ones who were from the general toy industry, rather than people who had worked for LEGO). So... I'd guess the transition to a faster design cycle was probably in the late 1990s or early 2000s. Sure-- Samsonite was notorious for doing it. In fact, there was a recent auction going for a Samsonite product that was more-or-less random minifigs who were surplus stock! But back to LEGO, they did it for the color change, definitely. For a while, sets were shipped with not only just old colors, but a mix of old and new gray. The more interesting one that I've heard suggested was for the 6018 Battle Dragon, and possibly for other Black Knight/Black Falcon sets that were in the same vicinity, but we've never gotten confirmation. It would certainly make sense, though-- LEGO started transitioning from "Crusaders vs Black Falcons" to "Crusaders vs Black Knights vs Forestmen" in 1987/1988, and they appeared to be phasing out the use of the Black Falcon torsos and shields. The assumption is that LEGO was trying to make the Crusaders the "good guys" and the Black Knights the "bad guys", and the Black Falcons didn't really have a place in there-- they were just going through stock. But that one's speculation. As was Time Cruisers in 1996, re-using things like Aquazone elements (although I'm less inclined to believe that one, since it was so close in launch date to the original Aquazone). I'm not sure why it makes no sense-- the parts between 8055 and 8054 are pretty distinct. But that doesn't really matter anyway-- I'm just throwing out a speculative explanation. I think the bottom line remains: I can't imagine it was some sort of surprise or rapid transition for LEGO from the 4.5v motors to the 9v ones, or that it wasn't planned out long in advance. I don't think LEGO developed a brand new electric system (which by 1991 was used universally in LEGOLAND, Technic, and Trains) and decided after-the-fact to incorporate it elsewhere. I think they knew from day 1 that it was the goal to replace all the other electric systems with the new one. I guess I don't see why that would strike you as doubtful. DaveE

I'm not sure that would have mattered all that much. The LEGO company back in the 80s and 90s was obsessed with quality. They would (for instance) go out of their way to use advanced printing techniques that other companies couldn't replicate, even though the kids didn't really care about the result. All to get a higher quality product! Also, we know the development chain took on average around 3 years back then. In fact, for some things (like new systems like 9v) it would take even longer, since it's not just new sets, it's totally new systems that have to comply with electronics standards in many countries. Much trickier to do. They almost assuredly knew that the 9v system was going to replace 12v and 4.5v by 1989, probably much earlier. Given how long it takes to develop a system like 9v, my guess is they probably started work on it in the early 80s, probably in the 1980-1984 ballpark. They probably sat down and thought about replacing ALL their motors with 9v motors-- the only question was how to roll it out. My guess would be that competition with Tyco forced their hand. The LEGO plan of attack back then was typically to come out with higher quality stuff in order to compete. And the place where the US market was most competitive was the LEGOLAND market (space/castle/town). LEGO probably set out to include their new-fangled electronics system in those sets first as a way of competing with Tyco early. Note that in 1986, when the 9v system launches, there's no wires, no motors, no wall-plugs, no "forwards/backwards" controllers for the battery boxes. Very basic stuff. The question is, then, what would've happened if Tyco hadn't pushed them? My guess would be that you'd see a faster transition to 9v. Tyco wasn't putting out train systems (to my knowledge), and trains weren't a big seller in the US. So it makes sense that it woudl get transitioned last. But if Tyco wasn't there, maybe 9v would've happened in the train system in 1989 rather than 1991? Who knows? But my guess is that rather than transition over the course of 6 years, it probably would've been a more condensed transition, but probably would've happened later. I guess I'm not really surprised by that either-- one of the other things that LEGO frequently seemed to do is flush out old inventory by putting old elements into sets. It wouldn't surprise me if they partially did that to clean out their inventory of 4.5v Technic motors and battery boxes. If LEGO was going to churn out the 9v system in 1990 for Technic (which they did), they DEFINITELY knew that they were going to do that in 1989. Probably much, much earlier, like 1987 or 1986, even. As above, I'd argue that it was likely in their plan all along to overhaul their electronics to all conform to a standard (which they did), as opposed to before where it was a mix of different connectors, battery boxes, and voltages. DaveE

For the upcoming BrickFair New England event, we had been discussing the possibility of having a Duplo train layout for the younger kids, but we realized that unfortunately there's an auto-power-off feature on the trains that turns them off after a couple of minutes. Does anyone know how to disable the shutoff and keep the trains running longer? DaveE

I would hope it would require being "official", only because creating new variants is incredibly easy (with VAST possibilities), and it'd be hard to prove that you did or didn't just create the un-official figures for the record. You likely wouldn't have documented all of your odd variants, even if you "had" them (and they might have been disassembled), so I'm not sure how anyone could trust that they weren't made just for the sake of breaking the record. A quick off-the-cuff calculation shows at least 72 sextillion possible combinations, not including many print variants, neckwear combinations, headgear accessories, or footwear. Granted, even if they had to be official, it'd be difficult to make sure each was an "official" figure or variant. You could likely invent variants and they'd never know. Even LEGO hobbyists might not notice if you said something like "Fireman keychain - LEGOLAND 1985" or "Baron Von Baron variant with red strap - Shell promo 2541". Chances are slim that people would make sure that the text matched a physical minifig and that the text matched up with an official figure. You'd need to have some reliable 3rd party submit some verification along with the documentation! DaveE

10,000 is pretty small potatoes if they're not unique. I've documented at least 6,500 in my collection, and I've probably got closer to 8,000-9,000. My wife's collection from when we merged is largely undocumented, and would boost mine up -- I'd guess another 2,000 or so minifigs from her-- we might even 10,000 if you count skeletons, R2-D2s, Belville, DUPLO, Scala, etc. And we could probably MAKE them all unique given all the possible combinations of heads, bodies, and so forth. It probably wouldn't even be all that hard to do. But I know we're nowhere close to whoever would hold the record. We have a big collection and all-- bigger than most AFOLs-- but it's that small percentage of AFOLs who are over-the-top who can still put our collection to shame by a LARGE margin numerically. I would guess that you've got army builders out there with 50,000 or even 100,000 minifigures-- just lots of repeats of the same ones. Some people LOVE collecting soldiers, and probably have gobs and gobs of Stormtroopers, Crown Knights, Redcoats, Orcs, etc. However, if you go with "official" minifigs that have been released by LEGO in sets (not counting things like business-card figs, etc), then 5,000 is pretty substantial. Heck, I think BrickLink only lists just shy of 8,900 minifigures, which means there probably haven't actually been 10,000 unique "official" figures yet! DaveE

Yeah, that's exactly why I was saying that it might not be a good system to implement universally at BL, since it might drive unrealistic expectations. But regardless, it'd occasionally help me in choosing someone, which is why I started record keeping. I won't personally hold it against someone if they break their trend, but if someone's consistently slow, and someone else is consistently fast, statistics will point me in a certain direction. DaveE

I counted minutes mostly because I was curious. I happened to have the data in my email, so I checked, and saved the info. I had the timestamps from when orders were placed, when they were invoiced, and when I paid via PayPal. I didn't always have an email regarding when orders were shipped, but I started grabbing that from BrickLink when possible, just so I'd have that data. In the end, this is exactly the type of metric that I wanted, I just don't have nearly enough data points. Personally, I'd love to see this data maintained for sellers and buyers for when I AM in a hurry. If I have a choice between 47 BrickLink stores, and I need to make sure that the parts arrive before the end of the week, it's difficult to send a message to ALL of them asking if they can make my deadline, and then sit around waiting for them to reply, only to THEN submit my order. Sometimes, I want to know not only who's reliable, but also who's got a good record for turnaround time. Ever since I started doing this, I've decided it's probably a good idea for me personally, just in case I want to use that data later to make such a determination. Also, it sets expectations, which is a good thing. For the one self-admitted "slow" seller, I had no idea if "slow" meant 1 week for an invoice, or 3 days for an invoice. Did it mean shipping would happen after 5 days or 15 days? When should I start worrying? Etc. I can't say whether or not it would be a good metric for BrickLink to enact on all sellers, or even voluntarily-- it might be regarded as too invasive-- plus, when you DO have a busy period, it may be misleading or discouraging. If you're 2 days slower than your average, will your buyer get angry due to certain expectations? Etc. But regardless, as a buyer, it's definitely something I'd like to use when evaluating potential sellers, even if it's flawed at a broader level. DaveE

Normal? Probably not. But it happens sometimes. I actually took some stats recently. For the last 10 bricklink orders with 10 different sellers, here's what my stats were: Time to invoice (them), time to mark as paid (not including time for Paypal/bank to process), time to mark as shipped (includes time to process payment). All times approximate to the nearest 10 minutes: Seller 1: 270 min, 20 min, 1040 min Seller 2: 150 min, 10 min, 290 min Seller 3: 3360 min, 40 min, 9700 min (this seller explicitly stated in their splash page that they were slow) Seller 4: 30 min, 20 min, 1190 min Seller 5: 10 min, 10 min, 860 min Seller 6: 410 min, 180 min, 240 min Seller 7: 1270 min, 10 min, 840 min Seller 8: 10 min, 930 min, 5570 min Seller 9: 40 min, 40 min, 6420 min Seller 10: 10 min, 590 min, 210 min Average: 9 hours, 16 minutes to invoice, 3 hours, 5 minutes to pay, 1 day, 19 hours, 56 minutes to mark as shipped. Most often, I think the ones who took longer to ship were waiting for payment to process through Paypal, which can take a few days. In your case, if it's been a few weeks since you marked as "paid", the payment's probably gone through, and it's something else going on. It could be that they shipped and forgot to mark it that way, or that they're busy, or that they found out they were missing something and are trying to correct the order before sending out. Or whatever. Check their splash page for any special considerations (sometimes people might take vacations or otherwise without notifying buyers, etc). If it's been more than a few days since your payment completed, and everything else is normal, send them a ping. Do that every couple of days until you get a response. The BrickLink website requires that it's been at least a week before doing anything drastic, but I'd probably wait a bit longer than a week just in case there's really a valid problem. (Once I actually tracked down a seller's phone number and called them, after they didn't reply to my messages!) Try and give the seller the benefit of the doubt! DaveE

Well, there's no legal problem as far as I'm aware, but there's similarly no legal problem with me selling my Event Support brick per se. But it DOES put my LUG's status as an RLUG in jeopardy, and if enough clubs do it, may make the entire program incur more restrictions or less benefit. If you're allowed to give free brick to someone else who can then sell them, then I don't think there's anything to prevent me from "giving" my free brick to someone else with free brick (who then gives theirs to me), and then we can both re-sell. It's certainly more forgivable if one or both of us are charitable organizations, but it's still muddy water. Basically, I'd try and refrain from it as much as possible. If you're going to give away your LEGO to a charity, the idea should be to give it to a charity who will use the bricks themselves rather than sell them for their cause. Or at least, such would be my stance unless I hear differently from the LEGO Company. If this type of thing happens here-and-there, it's probably fine. But the more it surfaces, the more at risk these programs get. However, in THIS case, we still don't really know how the elements got to the donator. It could be that they work for LEGO, and weren't any obligation not to sell them, or that they received the bags without any such restrictions. We don't really know. DaveE

Eh, I'd doubt it. If a game was in development, but then got cancelled, it never would have gotten as far as having elements molded for it. They'll only do runs on the parts once they know that it's going to be slated for production. Also, there are additional hints that the 1st bag was never intended for production, since it has a mix of both large and small elements (the small 1x2 cheese elements). Usually bags will have roughly similar sized elements, which I believe is due to their weighing methods. Bags with lots of small parts need more precise scales, and thus get weighed together in baggies, as opposed to larger elements that don't need such fine granularity. The pictured bag has some small parts and large parts, which is indicative of being a non-production bag. There's also a lot of repeated elements that seem... large. 1x8x2 arches, corner panel walls, and those orange 2x6 SNOT doodads. My guess is the two bags don't have anything to do with each other. The 1st bag seems to be roughly circa 2012 or so, given when the elements were in production. The 2x6 modified plates are 2012 or afterwards, and almost everything seems to have been in production in 2011 or 2012, except for the 4x4 round plate corners, which were in 2010. The 2nd bag has to be 2010, since that's when the set came out, which is probably about 2 years prior to the 1st bag. DaveE

That second bag is from 3851 Atlantis Treasure. Inventory here: http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItemInv.asp?G=3851 DaveE

I don't know formally, but this matches the style of a lot of the "bonus" bags that appear to be made from excess elements at LEGO. The contents are typically a bunch of repeated elements-- a bunch of blue 2x2 45 degree slopes (for instance), but no 1x2 or 2x4 45 degree slopes. Hundreds of left wings, but no matching right wings, etc. Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, we would see large boxes filled with similar breakdowns, which LEGO provided at events, or as rewards/incentives for various initiatives. They would occasionally give these out for free (or low cost) to events that were looking to incorporate LEGO in some way. My college (for instance) received about 6 cases of these back in the early 1990s, just because they asked. Early BrickFest events would get similar boxes of these through the Potomic Mills store for free-build brick. Internally, I've heard this kind of thing referred to as "play table brick". The guess is that this comes from the "end" of the packing cycles at LEGO. When a bunch of molded elements are extra, and won't fit in their bins, or if a bin is very close to running out (or even simply being retired), they dump them into big bins. They could throw them out (and it's likely that they used to do this quite a lot, given what I've heard), but instead, they just put them in big "random LEGO parts" boxes so that they can give them out. I believe that some of these elements are now making it into these small, sealed baggies like the one you have. I've received a bunch of these baggies, as well as large "extra brick" boxes (although it was never for me personally in those cases). Depending on how they were obtained, it's questionable that you were able to purchase the bag. For any such extra brick that I've received, it's come with very explicit instructions NOT to sell them. If these were given to an AFOL who sold them, they may have violated LEGO's conditions by selling it. However, as noted, you're in Denmark, where anything's possible. Sometimes, LEGO doesn't explicitly state such conditions, and it could be that the conditions were made clear, or have other reason to be ignored. DaveE

Well, LEGO has occasionally offered snow-globes with LEGO figures inside. The figures were typical ABS plastic, with printing on them, and all the ones I've seen have been in pretty good condition, even after many years. I think the big thing is probably exposure to "living stuff". Snow-globes are kept sealed, with no way in or out-- so you're not likely to get algae or mold, assuming that you start with clean, distilled water. But if you've got a large container like a fish tank, it's probably got a very big opening where "stuff" can get in, and muck up the water. It's likely to grow mold, and gradually muck up the water over time (same with living fish, obviously). If you do that, you're more likely to get a layer of slimy stuff on your LEGO, which might make it look faded or dull. It may affect the clutch power of the bricks, too, if you ever wanted to reclaim them for future MOCs, although I'm not really sure on whether or not ABS would absorb and retain any water. It might, but it might not. Hard to say. DaveE

A few minor nitpicks: * Ole actually worked with all his sons, not just Gotdfred. Godtfred was increasingly involved in the management of the company, and bought out his siblings around 1960, when he decided to stop making wooden toys (after the fire that destroyed the wooden toys division). Some of them has protested that making wooden toys was really the core of the company, and went into business for themselves under the name "Bilofix", with the money they got from Godtfred. * The Great Depression was actually what *caused* them to go into making toys. Sales of normal carpentry jobs were low, so they focused on smaller-ticket items like stepladders, stools, ironing boards, and... (in 1932) ... toys! * LEGO didn't really improve on the design of the Kiddicraft bricks until 1958-- for the first 9-or-so years, the Automatic Binding Bricks were essentially the exact same as Kiddicraft bricks. The only differences were that they were made metric, and the studs were made more flat on the top, but that's really about it. * Godtfred didn't really come up with the idea of a "system" of play for LEGO. The buyer he talked with was bemoaning the fact that nobody was really making "systems" of toys, and he (the buyer) was convinced that the idea would make toys be much more appealing. Godtfred was intrigued by the idea, and wondered if it could be applied to any of LEGO's lineup of toys, and realized that the building bricks were a great candidate. DaveE

The earliest versions had stickers instead of printed torsos, so it didn't actually matter-- the torsos were just blank, so they didn't need the neck printing. As for whether there was some interim period where they didn't have marks, but WERE printed, that's a good question. I assume they've always had the neck-marks if they had printing (except for the newest stuff)-- but I could be wrong. I wouldn't be totally surprised if there was a manual process involved in the early torso printings, considering they did manual work for other things like filling the plastic flip-up trays (and supposedly adding on the heads?). DaveE

I noticed this for the first time in tiles, not minifig torsos in 2003 from 4486. I got a few copies of the set, and while building them fresh out of the box, there were hairline cracks visible in the short-end of 1x2 tiles, when they were attached to hollow-studs. When they were sitting idle, there were no cracks, and I believe when attached to solid-studs instead of hollow ones, they similarly did not show cracks. Around that timeframe is when I first recall hearing of the issue via FBTB, although it hadn't happened to me in minifigs as of yet. Some people seemed to complain that it happened to them a LOT, and others it had never happened to at all. The suspicion was that possibly certain distribution chains went through extreme heat/cold/humidity/whatever, to account for the discrepancy, but we never found out anything terribly interesting. LEGO's suppliers in China use a different plastic-- we were explicitly told that they were required to do things differently in China, where the plastic had to be sourced from within the country. But in different discussions with different people, LEGO simultaneously said that the plastic used in China was from the same company. Hence, the guess is that the supplier operates in at least both China and Europe, with two different plastic types and qualities. Additionally, we heard that while LEGO used to only use a single source for their plastic, that they were concerned that this might create larger costs if that one supplier was more expensive. Hence, they began sourcing from MULTIPLE (possibly just 2, but maybe more) different plastic suppliers, in order to be competitive. We also know that the technique for molding has changed-- they supposedly now add the dyes when a part is molded, as opposed to before when the raw ABS granulate was purchased pre-colored. I think we heard about that in about 2007 (and it likely started earlier), which makes sense considering the internal re-structuring that started in earnest around 2005 (Jorgen essentially explicitly said that they intentionally lowered quality across the board, without much detail as to how). I believe this has been raised with LEGO many times already, although I don't think we've seen it get addressed. My advice wouldn't be to go through the ambassador network. They probably already know, and have discussed it on various occasions. Instead, call LEGO directly, or send them an email. (That's what we've been advised to do in the past to address quality concerns). DaveE

Pretty sure that's not true. You can show that it's not the case by looking at the un-printed torsos from years past. Older torsos came in various types, so you can show which torsos were made before roughly 1997 (ish) when they switched to the new "X" bottom torso design. Take a look at any of the old torso designs that are unprinted, and you'll notice that they don't have rectangles on the necks. And obviously, that's because they weren't printed, so there was no need to tell which side was forwards and backwards. If the printing was required to make the heads have additional friction, they would've printed those blank torsos as well. That being said, if you have an official source that says otherwise, please share. DaveE

I dunno, I haven't really seen that. I think a lot of people will take critique of things they like a little harshly, so mini-dolls are no exception. I think you made a few statements in the thread that were probably exaggerated, though, and that's the tricky part. You said (for instance): "Compared to minifigures they are the inferior figure (I don't think anyone can really argue this)" So, obviously, anyone that likes mini-dolls can argue that. I think if there's any reaction to you in particular, it's probably to statements like that, which are probably a bit harsher than you actually intend. And there's other statements (not from you) like: "... I think the minifigure is objectively superior ..." Which, again, is just incorrect, since it's definitely subjective rather than objective. So, some of it is just pointing out that other opinions are valid, since it looks like some others are implying that mini-dolls are universally hated, when clearly they're not. To be honest, I think a lot of people don't really understand why LEGO did what they did. Many people who complained about Friends in general (back when they were released in 2012) seemed to be living in an echo chamber of gender equality activists, who seemed to assume that girls would flock to the toys if they were truly gender neutral. So, I often try to explain a bit further what was going on at LEGO. In fact ... you said: "but why not give them figures instead of dolls? I'll never understand that." So, it almost seemed like you were actually asking for an explanation, although I don't know if you really were or not. I can't really say I'm a huge fan of the mini-dolls myself. They're ok, and they have their uses. They're yet-another-type-of-LEGO-figure to me, which I don't really view as overly positive or negative. I'd prefer to have minifigs, typically, but I can imagine some scenarios where I'd want mini-dolls. DaveE

In your blog post, you mention that you seem to be looking for consistent RGB/CMYK values, which, as you note, don't exist. The colors of the bricks themselves were probably determined initially without Pantone, since Pantone was fairly new when LEGO was switching to ABS back in the 1960s. But at some point (maybe the 70s, 80s, or 90s?), LEGO used Pantone for matching the colors of their physical bricks-- or, such is my understanding. It's possible that the Pantone given in the LEGO color palette was used explicitly for printed media that's printed using Pantone rather than intending to actually match the bricks themselves. As such, it COULD be that the colors of the bricks are actually a completely DIFFERENT value, although I don't actually know-- I would assume the Pantone would be for printing things like stickers, where it's intended to match the brick color exactly. However, CMYK for printing and RGB for viewing on monitors are different, so ... it's a little bit arbitrary as to what mechanism has been used to generate those values. But at some point, LEGO had to determine a standard for how they would print brick colors in instruction books, catalogs, magazines, etc, as well as how to show them on a customer's monitor. If I had to guess, I expect that this was done "properly" by one group printing instructions, and with a "best-guess" effort being done by other groups, like those printing (say) some LEGO stickers to be handed out at LEGOLAND. The same was probably true for RGB values-- the group developing the website probably did it differently than the group making the LEGO Island video game. So at some point, LEGO started putting together an "official" document for their color chart. And since the color palette changed every year, so did the official chart. But there was a group who was tasked with maintaining it, and establishing official values to use when printing in CMYK, when using Pantone, and when using RGB. In 2003, Jake McKee worked with LEGO's legal team and FINALLY (after many months of arguing) got them to agree to release the official document to the fan community. Hence, what you see on Peeron's "official" color chart is the chart that was given to Peeron in 2003. They used that as a basis for the rest of their Peeron color chart, which they attempted to map to BrickLink colors, LDraw colors, and Peeron colors, which often disagreed, because they were determined by hobbyists working independently. And (obviously), there have been a lot of colors introduced in later years, which Peeron has retro-fitted into their color chart (although the "Official" one still only lists the 2003 colors). However! Since that time, LEGO has changed how they print and display elements. I actually had a discussion about this with a LEGO designer, and passed on a couple documents to him (which went on to the print department, apparently). Some months later, I found out that this had stirred the pot a bit for a long-running disagreement between various parties within LEGO regarding things like whether or not to shade elements in instructions, and what color outlines should be used for various elements. Apparently, they've done a lot of research into how to print colors for various ages of kids. For example, here's an oddity: http://www.peeron.com/scans/8438-1/3/ Take a look at the black elements. The Technic pins are printed in "true black" with white splines, while the plates and bricks are printed in very-dark-gray with black splines, even though they're both black! Why not print them both the same way? Well, LEGO did some research, and found that younger kids were confused when seeing black parts with lighter-colored splines. Hence, "bricks and plates" were made such that young kids could understand them, whereas technic parts got white splines because they were easier to distinguish, and older kids didn't have a problem with them. But stepping back for a second, that means that LEGO used two DIFFERENT values of Pantone and/or CMYK (however they printed the instructions) for black, even within the SAME instruction booklet! (Actually, it's even more, because they did shading on the different faces of the bricks, and there are occasional lighter splines on bricks for certain circumstances). But this isn't really surprising. The instruction booklets are printed so that they're readable, not so that they match the colors of the bricks. You don't want kids confused about which colors go where, so it's all about perception of the reader. Suffice to say, LEGO's changed methods over time as well as even within the same year! So the "official" chart that we got in 2003 is no longer the same official chart that's used today. And these days, when LEGO releases its color chart, they seem to give us a PDF version, rather than the explicit values-- and I'm not sure what it's generated with. Is that a PDF for RGB colors, or CMYK? (Do they make PDFs for Pantone? I guess that might be a possibility too). So it all depends on what time in history you're looking at. Since there's no definitive way of establishing CMYK and RGB, there's never going to be a precise solution. DaveE

This is basically a false dilemma. It's sort of like trying to justify getting rid of DUPLO by asking whether LEGO would be more hurt by switching all System bricks to DUPLO or all DUPLO bricks to System. Each one serves a specific market, and that's why they each exist. Sure, most adult hobbyists don't care about DUPLO, but we're not angry at LEGO for making stuff for 2-year-olds. I think what's different is that a lot of people assume that "kids age 7-9" or even "girls age 7-9" is a complete demographic-- but it's not. There are a lot of smaller demographics of girls in various age ranges, each of whom like different things. Some of them like the existing LEGO products and minifigures. Some of them like art. Some like Barbie. Some love animals. Some like gymnastics. They're all over the place. And LEGO Friends is aimed at a particular demographic of girls, which happens to be one of LEGO's biggest successes in marketing to girls. LEGO very specifically mentioned that the girls they tested with preferred mini-dolls to minifigs. They simply weren't as enthusiastic about playing with the sets when minifigs were involved. So we KNOW that there's a demographic out there that prefers the mini-doll. What we DON'T know is how well the Friends lineup would do if it had similar minifigs rather than mini-dolls. If LEGO had the same theme focus ("friendships" rather than "playing house"), and the same color scheme, and the same building style, etc-- would the line still be a success? Or would it be a failure? I'm positive that LEGO analyzed this, and has data on it, but ultimately we don't know if it meant "not successful" or simply "less successful". All we know is that it's not what LEGO chose to do, and it proved very successful for them. And they've expanded mini-dolls into Disney Princess and Elves, so it's definitely working. Anyway, I kinda like the look of the mini-dolls, since they're more human-ish. I have about 90 mini-dolls at home, and it doesn't really feel like a good spread yet (I'm also hoping for more variety). But going forward, I could easily imagine myself using mini-dolls in place of minifigs if I wanted a scene to look more realistic. As they continue to produce different prints and molds, I'll try and keep picking them up here and there. At the moment, I think about 50-75% of mine are all wearing skirts or dresses-- very few long pants. And a lot of the others are feminine shorts or capris. So, it'll likely be a while before I'd consider using them as "people filler" in a MOC or something. But suffice to say, I don't hate them-- they have their uses. DaveE

Well, two reasons. Friends is about a core group of 5 characters (all girls), and their friends in Heartlake City. So nearly every Friends sets starts with at least one of the 5 main "Friends" by default. If there's a second character in the set, it's usually a "friend" of the core "Friend". But they've actually got a bunch of characters-- 42 named characters, 10 of which are male. But the other reason that we don't see MORE characters in the Friends lineup (which has more sets, but fewer characters than Ninjago, for instance) is that mini-dolls are more expensive to produce. That's why you get fewer of them in each set. Ninjago (again, for instance) averages about 2.5 minifigs in sets that have any named characters, while Friends averages about 1.5 mini-dolls in sets that contain mini-dolls (even fewer if you count sets that have NO mini-dolls!) So set designers don't have extra room to budget "bonus" characters, and have to use their allotment carefully. Well, that's due to LEGO's research into how different ages of children play. Younger kids (in the DUPLO age range) often focus on day-in-the-life play, mimicking what they see every day. Older kids are less inclined to do that. Most boys start exploring "exciting" things like firemen, cops 'n robbers, outer space, dinosaurs, castles, pirates, etc. Girls, however, are a little different. The ones that actually like fantasy (like the boys) will often already be interested in System LEGO. So LEGO already sells to them. But they're a small percentage. There's another market segment of girls who focus on the "exciting future" of high school, where they're not dependent on their parents and focus on their personal friendships (which they envision being mostly with girls). And that's where the LEGO Friends market is setting its sights. And there aren't many boys or parents or there, because girls in that demographic aren't as interested in that (or, so LEGO's research tells them). So, you can make the argument (as many gender-activists do) that this is CAUSED by societal pressure, and that really, both boys and girls would be just as happy to play with balanced genders. And the truth is probably somewhere in between, but we don't know. What we DO know is that if LEGO wants the lineup to be successful, the market research says they should do what they're doing. Again, market research. Plus, in the case of "Friends animals" with crazy hair accessories, I think in part they're doing it to expand the lineup without including costly mini-dolls. IE, they can produce small sets with cheaper parts (animals) that girls in their target demographic still like, but can offset the cost of pricier mini-doll sets. Actually, LEGO's done pigs, goats, and elephants in minifig sets already. I don't think they'e done geese, zebras, or lions (although there's a "Friends" version of a lion cub). They did a "giant" eagle (from LOTR), and you could argue that the falcons are eagles (they sorta look like generic predatory birds), but that's arguable. But yes, there's a laundry list of "minifig-size" animals that the hobbyist community would love, like deer, moose, sheep, beavers, ducks, geese, zebras, hippos, lions, rhinos, giraffes, etc. As for whether or not kids want them, I don't really know. I'd love to see a "duck pond" set, but I don't know if too many kids would like to play with it. So it's tricky to find that balance and setting that works from a sales perspective. I think it's due to cost and aesthetics. The mini-doll was designed to be more appealing to a particular market segment of girls (the ones who don't already like minifigures). They found that girls have a hard time identifying with blocky figures like minifigs, and found them to be ... "less pretty", basically. They wanted slender, more human-proportioned figures. That means that the waists, necks, arms, and legs have to be smaller, and therefore can't support doing things like "twisting wrists" (and probably use a different mixture of plastic). It's likely that the non-individual legs (and non-bending backwards) are a cost-saving measure to keep the already expensive mini-dolls a bit cheaper. Similarly, their heads were made to fit minifig headgear to save on making new molds for hair, hats, etc. And while, yes, girls WOULD want them to be more flexible and poseable, I think their research found that the aesthetic appeal of the figures was far more important (which is why these particular girls weren't as drawn to minifigures). Interestingly, the Friends sets aren't quite as pink as everyone seems to think they are. The top colors by weight (based on BrickLink data) are approximately: 19.00% - White 7.37% - Light Bluish Gray 6.66% - Tan 6.42% - Black 4.97% - Reddish Brown 4.07% - Magenta 3.82% - Medium Azure 3.56% - Bright Pink 3.46% - Red 3.20% - Lime 2.86% - Yellow 2.82% - Medium Lavender 2.80% - Bright Light Orange 2.79% - Green 2.31% - Dark Pink 2.24% - Trans-Clear 1.90% - Dark Purple 1.81% - Dark Bluish Gray 1.50% - Pearl Gold 1.48% - Trans-Light Blue 1.29% - Bright Green 1.07% - Medium Dark Flesh 1.06% - Trans-Yellow 11.53% - (Other stuff less than 1% each) So, mostly neutral colors of white/gray/black and tan/brown (about 52.25%). And about 10.77% "pink" (counting Magenta, Bright Pink, Dark Pink, Trans-Pink). Belville, by comparison, was about 19.46% "pink", and 34.36% neutral/brown. The Friends color palette is actually really neat-- it includes a lot of pastels (pink, bright light orange, med. lavender, lime), and a bunch of vibrant, rich colors (magenta, dark purple, medium azure). I actually find it disheartening to buy Friends sets for the colors, only to find that there are so few of the elements in those colors-- most of the parts are in more neutral colors. Speaking as a former young boy (some 30+ years ago), I very specifically remember finding social jobs deathly dull. I sometimes received "Town" LEGO sets, and had virtually zero interest in them. And I recall feeling utterly bored by Playmobil, which a few other kids played with-- I distinctly remember thinking they were "babyish". In fact, even as a grown man, I still kinda feel that way. I'm not terribly interested in making buildings for a LEGO town (although I do make them)-- but making spaceships and castles and fantasy creations still inspires me a lot more. I kinda think LEGO's on the money with what kids WANT. What might be interesting, however, is what parents want. In the US at least, parents are less and less involved in deciding what gifts to get for their kids. Children are increasingly making the decisions of what they want-- usually based on the media they absorb. And yes, kids really do WANT all those exciting things, I think. But I think what might be missing is that kids would probably still be perfectly happy to play with simpler, less exciting toys, which COULD be more educational and beneficial for them (and what parents might thereby prefer). Hence, is it a more responsible decision to make more day-in-the-life toys? Maybe. But I'll wager that LEGO's constantly fighting that battle between profitability and responsibility. Responsible companies run the risk of going out of business :( DaveE

Yeah, I'm often curious how that was handled, particularly for things like set names. Sometimes they were consistent, and sometimes not. And it always seemed like there was a slight preference in Europe for more literal English names like "knights with wagon". I always assumed this was thanks to being more direct translations (attempting to make the names work between languages), but I don't really know. That's the differentiation that I was aiming for-- some lineups seem to really target having very particular characters that were decided on at the design phase. That certainly felt like the case in things like Time Cruisers, but not so much in Fright Knights (for example). The first time this felt noticeable to me was Rock Raiders-- probably because they came out with a minifig set which was 100% characters, and not your typical "army-builder" set full of generic figures. Each Rock Raider had a very designed "look", and was unique. Actually-- I... think they were consistent with their names between regions? Although I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they planned to release video games that would have to match the character names. Adventurers was similar in terms of having a wide variety of "characters" (it seemed a lot more character-based to me), but it was definitely a mish-mash of character names regionally. Anyway, it's definitely some sort of sliding scale of weaker/stronger storylines and characters. Nexo Knights, Chima, etc, all have very strong characters and storylines, while things like Monster Fighters, Knight's Kingdom II, Pharaoh's Quest, etc, are sort of oddballs. They DO have stories and defined characters, but they're not as strongly advertised and pushed. And things like Adventurers and Time Cruisers had clear characters, but the particulars seemed like they didn't matter-- the genres were the selling points. And then there's of course things with SOME characters and storyline, but primarily generic, like Fantasy Era Castle and Alien Conquest. Comparing them is definitely difficult-- it seems a lot like apples and oranges in many respects. And figuring out what's what regionally is a challenge. Especially when a lot of the "official" data isn't available anymore, like the website for Life On Mars (for instance). DaveE

I basically tried to include everything where the majority of characters were named. I know Fright Knights named Willa and the Bat Lord, but I'm not aware of other characters having names. There are a few other themes here and there with named characters ("The Black Falcon", "Alpha Draconis", "Governor Broadsides", "Majisto", "Ann-Droid", "Robin Hood", "King Kahuka", etc), but those themes seemed to consist of mostly generic characters. The first Knight's Kingdom characters all had names, and there WAS a storyline, although I don't know much about it. For some reason, I remembered Cedric the Bull having once been Leo's most trusted knight, although I was never able to locate where I heard that retroactively. It had a computer game (not sure of the storyline), and a storybook ("Medieval Mischief and Mayhem"). There might be other qualifying themes (Life On Mars, maybe?), but these are the ones I'm aware of that were more character-based. DaveE

So, just to update with @Aanchir's numbers and a couple small corrections-- percentage of female characters out of "named" characters in various non-licensed narrative themes, out of actual figures produced: 76.2% - Friends (32/42) 70.0% - Evles (7/10) 25.0% - Knight's Kingdom I (2/8) 23.8% - Nexo Knights (5/21) 20.0% - Pharaoh's Quest (1/5) 19.0% - Adventurers (4/21) 18.2% - Alpha Team (2/11) 16.7% - Monster Fighters (1/6) 15.8% - Agents (3/19) 14.3% - Rock Raiders (1/7) 14.3% - Atlantis (1/7) 14.3% - Exo-Force (1/7) 13.9% - Chima (10/72) 13.6% - Ultra Agents (3/22) 12.5% - Galidor (1/8) 12.2% - Bionicle (1st Gen) (14/115) 11.8% - Bionicle (2nd Gen) (2/17) 10.7% - Ninjago (8/75) 6.3% - Hero Factory (2/32) 0.0% - Time Cruisers (0/4) 0.0% - Knight's Kingdom II (0/11) 0.0% - Mixels (0/81) Interesting that for about 15 different boy-targeted lineups, the percentage hovers between 10% and 25%. Oddly enough, I think the stand-out theme there is Knight's Kingdom II. It had a bunch of characters, but never (to my knowledge) ever had any females at all. Mixels are so genderless that they seem forgivable, and Time Cruisers had so few characters that it seems similarly acceptable. But where are all the girls in Morcia? ... I think I'm going to go ask one of the concept designers if he knows the answer to that... DaveE