Aanchir

Your comment is true; it IS the way things are to a great extent, and it IS evidenced by market research. That doesn't mean it's not a societal belief. Long ago, pink was considered a masculine color. So was purple, since it was associated with power and royalty. Pink didn't begin to be considered a "girl color" until the last century, but it is very heavily ingrained in society today. As I've said before, just because a belief isn't genetically ingrained in people doesn't mean it's not real. But on the flip side, just because gender preferences are real doesn't mean they're a genetic or biological trait. The society we grow up in is the source of many of our preconceived notions about gender. That's right. You can't socially force a kid to do anything. This isn't about "force". This is about much subtler influences. A girl who grows up in a society where pink is considered "for girls" will learn to associate those two ideas even if nobody's consciously teaching them to her. A girl in a remote tribal culture without as much influence from Western society will not develop those same preconceptions, but they will gain their own preconceptions based on their society. There's nothing wrong with that. It's entirely at a woman's discretion if she wants to place so much trust in a man's hands, just as it's at a man's discretion if he wants to place that same degree of trust in a woman's hands. We live in an enlightened society where male dominance is neither a societal nor a biological necessity. However, there's also nothing wrong with women who seek to be more independent, and it is a real problem if "damsel in distress" roles are the ONLY roles female characters get in toys or media, or even an overwhelming majority. Thankfully, we're moving away from that, both in LEGO and in society as a whole, but there's still a considerable imbalance that shouldn't be ignored. Yes, this is true. The roots of the trope are biological. However, at the same time, we no longer live in a society where women need "protection" from males. It is even possible for women to play a "protector" role for men if the need arises and the woman is prepared to take that opportunity. So in some respects, the "damsel in distress" role is no longer the universal truth it was once imagined to be, and toys and media should reflect that by giving female characters more diverse roles. Women are generally physically weaker, but it is entirely possible through strength training or training in skills that aren't based solely on physical brawn that a woman can be better-prepared for dangerous situations than a man. Even things like symptoms of a woman's period can be treated with certain medications to lessen their effects. If male physical dominance were a biological imperative in this day and age then I'd be screwed, because I am very thin and not very muscular. I would not be very confident at all in my ability to protect a woman from danger. Also, urbanized society today is at a point where physical strength doesn't matter that much. Rarely is it necessary for people to fight or struggle for their survival. More important to survival and success in this day and age are one's reasoning, creative, and decision-making abilities. These are things that do not depend on gender at all. And most people live in a lifestyle where being exhausted for one day a month will not severely impede their role in society. Overall, the idea that women CAN depend on men is not a terrible problem in and of itself. The idea that women HAVE to depend on men, though, has been reduced to a relic as far as urban society is concerned. That "always" thing is an issue here. Not all women have children. It's no longer an imperative in many societies, which have more than enough population growth to be self-sustaining. So women CAN choose their role, just as men can choose theirs. Prescribing male and female roles by what they would have been in an archaic society that had to physically struggle for survival does a disservice to both genders. Because the strongest man will generally be stronger than the strongest woman. That IS a biological trait. However, sports ARE a context where physical strength is often the determining factor in performance. Many other real-world skills have nothing to do with that. Wait, so does that mean that because I and an NFL quarterback are both men, we're "interchangeable puppets"? No? I didn't think so. So treating men and women as equal in contexts where neither has a biological advantage, or even acknowledging that women from one context can be superior within that context to men from another context, doesn't do anything of the sort. A female athlete or a woman working in a job that gets her a lot of strength training will almost certainly be physically more capable than a man who has a desk job and doesn't exercise. "Human nature" is that humans are versatile and adaptable. It is not a rigid constraint, but rather an opportunity for humans of either gender to shape their lives as they see fit. I'm... not even going to validate this conspiratorial cockamamie with a response. Yes. Which also means: not all women are the same. Not all men are the same. And treating all men, no matter what their upbringing and lifestyle as "protectors", and all women, no matter what their upbringing and lifestyle, as "people to be protected", flies in the face of that. Can't argue with that (except the whole "virtues and vices" thing; that sounds remarkably like casting an arbitrary double-standard and allowing men different "vices" than women). The important thing to remember is that in this day and age, gender hardly the most important factor that makes people unique. You can find a woman and a man who are almost equally capable at a certain task, but you could find two women or two men who are radically different from each other in their capabilities. So it's frustrating that so often in LEGO, men are given lead roles and women are giving supporting roles. Why aren't there more women in the LEGO City police force (some years don't have a single female police officer in any of the sets)? Why aren't any LEGO City convicts female? Why aren't there more female astronauts in themes like Galaxy Squad where the majority of conflict is based on lasers and vehicles rather than hand-to-hand fighting? Why on double-sided minifigure heads do smiling male faces tend to change to a scowl and smiling female faces tend to change to a scared expression? Why in Ninjago does Nya appear in so few sets, despite being established as just as capable a fighter as the Ninja? Why in a theme like Hero Factory, with characters who are not human or even organic creatures, are less than one-sixth of the characters identified as female and the remainder (including every single villain) identified as male? Why in the Super Heroes theme has the only female hero to appear, Wonder Woman, been portrayed as a damsel in distress for Superman rather than a "hero" in her own right? In most cases, the reason boils down to sales. Young boys are the core audience for the majority of LEGO themes, and those boys are not especially interested in buying sets starring female characters. But it has nothing to do with "biological imperatives" or anything of that sort. Those sorts of things are more or less irrelevant in this day and age, at least in families wealthy enough to buy LEGO. In conclusion, your argument is not only weak, but also disgustingly archaic. I do not know if it's even worth replying to future posts of yours because you seem firmly convinced that any argument against female subordinance flies in the face of human nature. It's these sorts of posts (and the fact that the first reply agrees with it wholeheartedly) that make me lose faith in the intelligence and virtue of the LEGO fan community. And sadly there's nothing the LEGO Group can do to eliminate the ignorance of its fans. I can only hope that LEGO Friends and similar campaigns will bring more girls into the hobby, and that eventually there will be enough female AFOLs to speak up and say they've had enough of this garbage.

I like the mountain climber as well. I can't think of any particular uses for his piton cable but I'm sure there are lots people could come up with. And great observation about his torso print! Here are my thoughts on the minifigures: Barbarian: Great "Conan" vibe. Historic and fantasy builders will probably find good uses for his parts. Two swords is also nice. Scarecrow: I've been waiting for a fig like this! Great use of the crow piece from "The Lone Ranger". Love his button eyes and stitched mouth. Bavarian Lady: Great printed skirt, and many useful parts to her outfit in general. The hair is new and I imagine it'll have braids in the back. It'd be nice to have an accessory other than a pretzel though. Evil Mech: Love the Blacktron vibe, though I personally prefer the Blacktron II insignia. The build is a bit redundant, but printed arms are a great detail. Tiki Warrior: His face looks nice and decorative, but I can't say I like him better than the classic Islanders. I guess that's nostalgia speaking. Nice that the mask is a neck accessory rather than headgear. Army-builder for Pirates MOCists. Gingerbread Man: This guy will probably not be well-liked by a lot of AFOLs. He's a great design, but being a non-traditional subject, he might not work too well except in layouts built around him. Sort of the same deal as the Crash Test Dummy in that regard. Elf: His hat makes a good placeholder for Link's hat in Legend of Zelda MOCs, though I don't know if it improves the odds of a Legend of Zelda minifigure on Cuusoo. Another teddy bear print is nice. His face could be great for figs of Alfred E. Neuman, the mascot of MAD Magazine. His outfit is nice and simple as well, which helps its versatility. He might be a reasonable army-builder for those building holiday displays and vignettes. Yeti: Adorable! The ice pop is a touch of humor and gives us another color for those besides Electric Pink and Radioactive Green (the only colors it's appeared in in recent years). I can't tell if his hands, toes, and face are Light Royal Blue (Bricklink's Bright Light Blue) or Medium Blue, but if they're the former they're a great new color for that part (The NRG Zane minifigure conspicuously used White hands instead of Light Royal Blue ones because at the time, Light Royal Blue hands did not exist). Mountain Climber: That helmet in red is nice, as it hasn't appeared in that color in a good long while. His pickaxe seems to have a black handle but it could be a rendering error. If it is, that makes that part nice and unique without making the old one obsolete. The rope's a nice part that could add detail to layouts — it'd fit just as well in a warehouse as it would alongside a stick of dynamite as a roll of fuse! Welder: Great acetylene torch and helmet. The tattered overalls could also be versatile for all kinds of tradesmen. Wonder what his face looks like. Scientist: The hair is repetitive, but the outfit is fairly unique, more female faces with glasses are never a bad thing, and the chemical bottles are BOTH unique colors. Also, as far as a concept for a fig is concerned, it's great to see a woman in this kind of field, and should please the feminist groups that helped support the "Female Minifigure Set" on LEGO Cuusoo. It will probably be a popular fig among girls with an interest in science, and hopefully boys with those kinds of interests won't be turned off by the fact that it's a woman. Jazz Musician: I foresee soooo many Blues Brothers MOCs in the future! The suit is not especially unique but it's a bit less formal than similar suits in previous figs — note that he only has his top button fastened on his jacket. The saxophone looks like a great piece, and will be much appreciated by people who create musical vignettes and layouts! The face is very unique. Diner Waitress: What a lovely and imaginative fig! Her stylish glasses and updo evoke the sort of Americana she represents. The colors look a bit suspect in this picture but I'm sure the actual fig will look great in that Cool Yellow (Bricklink's Bright Light Yellow) outfit. Here in the render it looks a bit oversaturated. Roller skates in a new color are awesome, as is a new color of tray. But I wish the ice cream were a new color, and it's going to be a bit hard to balance that glass on that tray in layouts when there's no stud on the tray and no anti-studs on her roller skates! Grandma: Very lovely fig. Her small eyes are an effective design choice, as it gives the impression she wears very thick lenses. Her gray perm is perfect for a lady of her age, and her sweater will work just as well for the elderly as for younger women with an interest in vintage chic. Legs in Aqua (Bricklink's Light Aqua) are new if I'm not mistaken. The new cat is remarkable. Stylistically, it's consistent with the Belville kitten, at least as printed ones have appeared most recently. It is larger, but not oversized. It is undoubtedly a LEGO critter, with its angular body and legs, but not lacking in detail. Of course, I wouldn't have minded a Friends cat with a new face print, but who can complain about more animal molds? Constable: A classic British bobby! Fantastic! Great uniform, great mustache, and great night-stick. Probably one of the more specialized figs this wave, but not a bad one by any means and probably a decent "army builder". Lady Robot: Very retro, and I love her little eyelashes. The gauges on her chest are a little suspect, though. Still a great counterpart to the Clockwork Robot, but with such a specialized design (ill-suited to "serious" sci-fi) she's going to be one of the less well-loved figs among AFOLs for sure. Overall, this is a great series! Very few "misses" here. Even if some figs are a little specialized, there are no significant repeats this time around, which should please many people who grew tired of sports figure repeats.

That'll depend on sales, I'm sure. The Minecraft set went on to become a continuing product line, so that offers a considerable amount of hope. Though I somewhat wonder what other BTTF sets they could release that would be anywhere near as distinctive and recognizable as the time machine itself. I suppose the 1955 version of the town hall would be quite familiar since that's one of the scenes that's become most recognizable.

I don't think The LEGO Group is planning to phase out textile elements entirely, because minifigure capes still are fabric-based, including all the new ones in the Legends of Chima theme. So if TLG is concerned that plastic sails will look cheaper or less authentic on pirate ships and the like, it's definitely in their power to keep using cloth ones. Personally, I can see the justification for using plastic sails instead of cloth ones for the tepee in The Lone Ranger, the sails of Jabba's Sail Barge, or the banners in the new Castle sets. When you need a 2D element like that to hold a particular shape, I'd think plastic film would be more reliable and would need less of a supporting structure underneath. Fabric is much more likely to "sag". At the same time, there are some applications where you'd WANT more organic flexibility for the element, such as pirate ship sails (which should "billow" to a certain extent) or minifigure capes (where a more rigid cape would have limited usefulness if, for instance, you needed to use it on a Chima figure where it has to fit over an additional neck accessory). So I think The LEGO Group will keep this consideration in mind. Now, there is a cost consideration as well, I'm sure. Textile elements are probably treated with some sort of solution to prevent fraying, which adds an additional stage to production. Plastic film elements, in contrast, can simply be die-cut from a single sheet and packaged immediately in sets. But if this worries you, keep in mind that the Pirate Ship Ambush set, another recently-released set, uses textile sails.

The elf hat/ears could maybe work for Link, but keep in mind that kind of thing is up to Nintendo as much as it is up to the LEGO Group. Often, companies will have very specific rules for how they want their characters depicted, to the extent that they will create "style guides" laying out those rules and providing example images of the characters as the company expects them to appear. If Nintendo were to feel that the use of that mold would be inauthentic, they could easily veto such a thing.

Some video game stores like GameStop carried the original Minecraft set, so it's already been established that they're not all LEGO exclusives. The enter/return key should work to create line breaks on this forum, and it looks like it worked just fine at one point in your post. But you have to hit it twice to get a proper break between paragraphs.

Kids won't make a huge fuss over it, but they also might be less likely to become repeat customers. LEGO doesn't just make their sets structurally sound and playable for AFOLs' sake. Kids care, even if they're not always as vocal and articulate about their expectations as AFOLs are.

They didn't bother because there doesn't exist a single type of cheese slope that would have worked for this hood. They're all way too steep. Even the slope the original model proposed to Cuusoo used is almost too steep. You could use cheese slopes to stagger the hood, but even that would have been a lot steeper than just using tiles like the final model does.

There's no reason Chima wouldn't be around at all. I've seen plenty of positive reaction to the Legends of Chima sets among parents of young kids, and the only indication we've seen that Chima isn't doing well (other than purely anecdotal accounts of what lingers on or flies off store shelves, which tend to be contradictory for plenty of themes no matter what their lifespan) is the free Speedorz set given out with orders of a certain size through shop.LEGO.com. Assuming that this IS in fact a response to poor Speedorz sales (and we don't know for certain that it is; could have been a planned marketing campaign), it still only tells us that Speedorz sales have not met expectations. Also, there's no reason to assume that free giveaway will not be effective at improving Speedorz sales. Now with all this in mind, look at the size of the Legends of Chima line. Currently, there are about 15 regular-issue sets, 16 Speedorz sets, and 6 Constraction sets. That doesn't include sets distributed through irregular channels like the Brickmaster book, polybags, and minifigure accessories set, but still it stands out as a BIG number. It's entirely possible that Legends of Chima will "fail to meet expectations" for 2013. But not every failure has to be a catastrophic one. If there is not enough of an audience for 37 Legends of Chima sets to be successful, that does not in any way mean that there is not enough of an audience for four to ten Legends of Chima sets to become successful. And it is very common for a large, expansive theme to get a smaller lineup as a final wave. It happened with BIONICLE, and with Exo-Force, and with Space Police III, and with Atlantis, and with Power Miners, among many other examples. Releasing a smaller wave like this allows the LEGO Group to capitalize on any remnants of the theme's popularity without a huge additional investment, and simultaneously it means they can potentially see more of a return on the theme's initial investment. Instead of all that theme's specialized new molds never getting used again, they can reuse them and stand a better chance of getting their money's worth out of them. So all things considered, I can't think of any reason Legends of Chima would not continue in 2013. But like most themes, there are no guarantees that it will continue at its full strength. Back on-topic, I think The LEGO Movie will likely have at least two waves of sets. But even if it does have multiple waves they will not necessarily be consecutive. Keep in mind that LEGO will have a vested interest in maintaining the hype for this movie not only through its time in theaters, but also into the time of its home release. But again, a second or third wave will likely be smaller than the first wave, as with most themes.

The Minifig Customization Indexes include many official decorations in addition to custom-designed decorations. They may not all be accurate since they are fan-made, but you can probably decide for yourself if the ones you need are available in acceptable quality. I also think that LDraw comes preloaded with many decorations, particularly classic ones. I'm not sure where in the program these are saved or in what format, but they may be compatible with LDD2PovRay.

Rufus's review definitely is very thorough and puts the FBTB review to shame. Usually, FBTB does a remarkable job being thorough in their reviews. As such, I'm used to their reviews being more negative than those on other sites — they never hesitate to point out if MOCs or previous LEGO versions of the subject in question manage to be more authentic to the source material. So it was a shocking disappointment that the FBTB review basically took for granted that an 8x6 slope was an inherently better solution than the tiles without so much as an image for comparison, and then proceeded to go through what felt more like a laundry list of "things I hate" than a review. Things like building techniques, the building experience, etc? Ignored almost entirely! Even comparisons to the actual DMC-12 are made offhand without providing reference photos for comparison. The FBTB review was also quite ignorant in some respects, stating that the box was "unlike any previous LEGO sets other than the Yoda Chronicles teaser promo set... suggesting that the builder has never owned or read a review of an Architecture set. I'm used to FBTB existing in a sort of licensed-themes bubble, and I don't fault them for that — after all, some of my preferred forums like BZPower exist in a bit of a "constraction themes bubble" and make similar errors that could have been corrected with simple research. But previous reviews on FBTB set me up to expect a lot more than what this amateurish review was able to deliver. Anyway, after reading Rufus's review I'm DEFINITELY going to be picking up this set. It seems like a fun build, a decent likeness of the original prop, and a model that fully meets The LEGO Group's high standards of quality. That isn't to say it doesn't have flaws (the interrupted black stripe on the side jumps out at me every time I look at the model from side or 3/4 view), but the whole idea of LEGO building is working with constraints, and I think the designers of this set made the right design decisions on the whole.

LEGO doesn't exercise direct authority at LEGOLAND Discovery Centers either. Merlin Entertainments Group does. I think his point was that many AFOLs are getting extremely offended by this policy when they let similar exclusionary policies slide because they work in their favor. And it's a bit of a fair point. AFOL conventions generally don't allow kids unless they're accompanied by a parent; LEGOLAND Discovery Centers work the other way around as well. In both cases, it's a matter of the event/attraction being designed with an audience of a particular age in mind, and concerns that having people outside that age group attend unaccompanied could be a distraction or a liability. The only difference is that kids will one day be adults, while adults will never be kids again. But this is not really a concern when these sorts of policies are being written. The goal is optimizing the experience for a certain audience in the here and now. Doesn't mean I like this policy. But some people seem to be crying "discrimination" as if to suggest it's a civil rights issue. And in actuality it's nothing of the sort — just an attraction optimizing its experience for a particular audience. Now, it's possible LEGOLAND Discovery Centers could institute different policies to achieve the same goal, but that doesn't mean the goal is not legitimate.

Thanks for this wonderful review. Seeing a side-by-side comparison of the original proposed version and the final released version makes me quite impressed with the final model. As far as authenticity is concerned, neither is perfect (I think one of the greatest flaws with the final version is how the black stripe on the sides begins and ends on the doors, rather than continuing along the sides like on the original), but the finalized version just looks better... less like a big box, more like a sports car. Furthermore, I have no doubt that the final model offers a more enjoyable building experience. So no, many of the changes from the original proposal probably weren't necessary, but they improve the model considerably, and with TLG's policy of "only the best is good enough", it would have been irresponsible to settle for a simpler build that sacrificed accuracy, building experience, and aesthetics. I will definitely be picking up this set!

He's called the Time Ninja. The creature on the left is called a Barracudox. The many-armed fellow in the center is Kirchonn the Invincible. They are just some of the colorful villains in Stone Cold, the seventh Ninjago graphic novel. I don't expect ANY of the characters in that book who have not already appeared in sets to appear in the future. They are simply a testament to Greg Farshtey's ability to dream up diverse villains and Jolyon Yates' uncanny ability to illustrate those characters with a set-like level of detail, without having physical models to work from. You can see other examples in this rendition of "A Christmas Carol" or these characters from the comic "Judge Dredd". We may end up seeing characters from 2014 sets in the next graphic novel, though, since it takes place between the 2013 and 2014 story arcs and as such would be an appropriate place to include a teaser for the 2014 line of sets.

Since the Emmet minifigure does not have white sparkles in his eyes (it always bothers me when people call them pupils; they don't resemble anything of the sort), I wouldn't really expect too many other figs to be heavily redesigned. Which is a mixed blessing IMO since many of those classic faces would be excellent if they weren't so incompatible with modern minifigures. Anyway, the set revealed so far excites me. I would not be displeased if this ends up being a sort of a "potpourri theme" like Time Cruisers, which my twin brother suggested to me as a possibility.

I agree with this notion to an extent, but to be fair some of the people who are complaining about the new set don't seem to care a lot about its stability, playability, or building experience and are chiefly interested in it as a display piece. And in that regard, it's easy to see how people might prefer the original MOCs as far as streamlining and authenticity are concerned. So it's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't like this set" from the pics alone. With that said, not liking a set is not reason to assume it will not be successful, as some people have done. The Minecraft set was heavily criticized by many AFOLs from the time the original project reached its support threshold well beyond the time the set was released. It was criticized as being too niche for many buyers, for being unimpressive visually, and for being perfectly redundant (since the gameplay in Minecraft is already very much like LEGO building). And that's far from the only set or theme AFOLs have lambasted and declared "dead on arrival" before they were released to a welcoming audience. Ninjago, BIONICLE, Hero Factory, Architecture, Friends... the list goes on. And particularly in this case, if the existence of a welcoming audience for a new product were something anyone could reliably predict, then there's no reason the Back to the Future license would have had to happen through LEGO Cuusoo in the first place! I'm only 22 years old currently, but I grew up on the Back to the Future films (though I somehow never managed to see the second one until this past year). They are frequently replayed on American television networks and appeal to a family demographic, despite unquestionably being products of the 80s. Also, we're at a point where 80s popular culture is heavily reinforced by the massive online presence of people from that generation. As kids and adults alike become more and more "wired", they become immersed in that generation's nostalgia through memes and cultural references. So I doubt that the audience for these will be nearly as narrow as some people seem to expect.

These sets look awesome, and it's awesome that a LEGO Cuusoo project has finally become a springboard for a full product line. Especially a project like Minecraft that several people thought was doomed to fail for any number of reasons! I'm not a Minecraft player so I don't fully recognize all the creatures or settings here. But they do an excellent job keeping to the Minecraft aesthetic while standing out from the previous set in the series.

Just because a set is designed to appeal to AFOLs doesn't mean it's designed ONLY to appeal to AFOLs. And furthermore, when you get right down to it, LEGO is a toy and that's the reason most AFOLs like it to begin with. There's a reason adult LEGO Space fans often celebrate sets for being "swooshable": with the LEGO brand comes the inherent expectation that the model have some capacity for play. Furthermore, I find it somewhat ironic that you're arguing LEGO should have used one specialized element for this task instead of several smaller elements and complex building techniques, which tends to go against the very design philosophy that most AFOL-oriented sets are celebrated for. Generally, achieving a task with small, simple elements is the sort of thing that AFOLs embrace, especially when it yields a more detailed model as a result. In this case, no, the hood isn't as streamlined as it would have been with a large tile or slope, but it also narrows towards the front in a way that is more visually interesting than the "tapered box" look a slope or tile would have yielded, and in a way that creates a more exciting building experience. Very awesome! Thanks for sharing!

The reason price per piece is so frequently used is that generally speaking, as far as MOCing is concerned, more parts equals more opportunities. For instance, four 1x4 bricks can be put together in far more unique combinations than two 1x4 bricks. Larger parts do typically yield more unique combinations than smaller parts, due to having more connection points, but with that advantage comes a disadvantage: larger parts are rather ineffective at making detailed models without the assistance of a copious amount of smaller parts. This is one reason why AFOLs complain about large wall panels and other parts they consider examples of "juniorization" — they are more difficult to use to create unique models than smaller parts that take up a similar amount of space when combined. Needless to say, price per piece is an abstraction of a set's real cost of production. But so is price per gram, to a great extent. Look at online Pick-A-Brick prices and you'll quickly see that their cost does not vary strictly according to size and weight. Printed parts are more costly than unprinted parts. Pre-assembled parts are more costly than single-piece ones. Complex molds are more costly than simple ones (as an example, headlight bricks cost two and a half times as much as regular 1x1 bricks, despite being lighter). Overall, what price per gram gives you is an estimate of the material cost and the shipping cost of a set, but there are so many other factors that define how costly production can be. Really, the reason why people cling to price-per-piece is that for the end user, it is the most objective way of assessing a set's value in parts. A person buying a set generally doesn't care how much the set cost to produce, but rather how much use they will get out of the pieces and how much building goes into the final model. And for this purpose, price per gram is a poor measure: a two-kilogram model made of 1000 pieces would have the same apparent value by that measure as a two-kilogram block of ABS with no usable connection points. Even if AFOLs wanted a truly objective measure of a set's production cost (and I can't imagine why they would as far as their purchasing decisions are concerned), there is no such measure available to AFOLs, because a set's production cost depends on a number of esoteric factors which the end user has no way of knowing.

I think it's a very nice piece, although it has some fairly difficult angles to match. It kind of feels like a revamp of this piece (though it's in fact smaller). If you felt that piece was too "childrenish", then I suppose you'd feel the same about the new one, but otherwise I don't see how one is decidedly more specialized than the other. 2507 is bigger and has no studs, but has somewhat friendlier angles. 92579, in contrast, has less friendly angles but is smaller and has far more versatile connection points.

I've updated my file of Collectible Minifigures right here. Notes: Parts from Series 1-8 that should be decorated but are not have been colored 294 Phosphorescent Green. This includes five parts for which the decorations are not available in LDD and one part that lacks decoration surfaces. Parts and surfaces that should be colored with gold paint or lacquer have been colored 310 Metalized Gold. Parts and surfaces that should be colored with silver paint or lacquer have been colored 298 Cool Silver, Drum Lacquered. Parts and surfaces that should be colored with copper paint or lacquer have been colored 139 Copper. All decorations from Series 9 and 10 have been omitted.

I haven't experienced this issue myself. I have a custom brick palette of Collectible Minifigure parts on my LDD, and the torsos and legs don't have any problem. I'm using a Mac, though, which might be different than the Windows version. If I had to hazard a guess as to why torsos and legs would have this issue but heads would not, I'd say it's because torsos and legs are pre-assembled, which means their definitions on LDD are formatted somewhat differently. On LDD, a piece you can pull from the brick tray is a "brick", and any pre-assembled sections of that piece are "parts". Decorations are defined as a characteristic of the "parts", not the "bricks". So that might have something to do with it. But I don't have enough technical knowledge to even imagine why that might be an issue for LDD.

Depends what you mean by "these types of promotions". From a production/distribution standpoint this is not much different than any other gift-with-purchase containing exclusive elements, like the Kendo Jay Ninjago booster pack (with an exclusive spinner crown), Hulk minifigure, or chrome TC-14 minifigure from last year. It is the first of its kind in the Hero Factory theme, and isn't exactly comparable to the previous Hero Factory promotional accessory packs (which lacked exclusive elements).

Shoot, I meant to bring my Speedorz model to a state of completion and submit it yesterday. Now it looks like I've missed the deadline. Ah, well, at least I got one measly submission done. So I have a chance, albeit one that is more or less negligible given how many far superior submissions there have been. Good luck to everyone who managed their time better than I did. EDIT: Actually, the first post is very vague. Does "Midnight of the 17th" mean the start of the day, or the end? If it's the end of the day, then here's my second submission: Constraction-Scale Speedorz.

Yeah, in general, it's easy to say sexism has nothing to do with who actually buys LEGO sets, but if you're making toys that neither boys nor girls are especially interested in, what good are you doing as far as social activism is concerned? TLG made their toys appeal more to boys because they were worried about losing the one audience that could reliably keep them afloat to other interests like cartoons and video games. They made toys that appeal more to girls because they recognized an audience they had NEVER been able to reach effectively with their traditional products. Furthermore, gender-targeted products and marketing are not inherently sexist. One observation feminists have made is that the current landscape of society doesn't give girls the same opportunities and role models as boys. That's an imbalance, and many have quite reasonably sought to correct this imbalance not by trying to homogenize the existing toy and media landscape but by creating girl-oriented products and media that help fill the vacuum on that side of the scale. Lauren Faust, creator of the latest generation of My Little Pony, is one person who has passionately followed this strategy. Finally, it's definitely true that there's no biological reason for girls not to buy building toys. But there are cultural obstacles, and those are no less real than biological ones. They're just more mutable in the long run, and overcoming that cultural prejudice is one of the central goals of LEGO Friends. It does no good to create a line for boys AND girls if girls are going to spend their pocket money on dolls instead. But by creating a product line they want and that doesn't alienate them from their parents and peers, LEGO makes meaningful steps towards a future where building toys are considered a legitimate interest for boys OR girls.