Aanchir

I think you're right that there are not many unambiguous, undeniable ways of representing a person being trans other than symbolism and/or narrative elements. But at the same time, I think there is also legitimate value in creating transgender characters even if on a visual level, any hints at their gender identity are subtle enough that they'd seem ambiguous or "open to interpretation". — particularly if there is ALSO narrative material or symbolism which helps to clear up that ambiguity. Believe me, I would be just as uncomfortable as you are if LEGO (or any toy/media brand) simply portrayed trans women like me as "women, but with facial hair". Because not only does that tend to evoke harmful stereotypes and caricatures of trans women as "men in dresses", but it also simply isn't a way I would want to see myself portrayed on a personal level. But in all honesty, I don't know why that would even need to enter into the conversation. For my part, I would not be at all unhappy if LEGO introduced characters with just enough ambiguous elements to their design to tell us that they MIGHT be trans, such as female minifigures with less pronounced curves or more pronounced facial lines than is typical of other female minifigures their age. In non-narrative-driven themes like Creator, that level of ambiguity would probably be plenty — enough non-normative design cues to ensure that transgender and cisgender fans who relate to those non-normative elements of the design feel seen and represented, but also FEW enough to avoid playing into the transphobic stereotype that there are categorical, unmistakable visual differences between transgender and cisgender women. More narrative-driven themes like Friends or Ninjago could then take additional steps to reinforce it in other aspects of their characterization — for instance, references to their past before "coming out" (including the character not being entirely comfortable talking about or sharing details with that part of their lives except with people they're close to), misgivings about going out in public alone, fears of being misgendered by strangers, preferences for less revealing styles of clothing and swimsuits, strong emotional connections to LGBTQ+ peers or role models, an interest in in-universe works of fiction with queer subtext, etc. A lot of subtle hints can go a long way to helping people feel seen, especially when you're in a demographic where even subtle hints like those are a much clearer reflection of your experiences than you're accustomed to seeing! If it helps, think also about the portrayal of the black-haired family in the Fun Fair People Pack. All three of them have black, tightly coiled hair and black eyebrows. The daughter has braids, the father has neatly groomed stubble, and the mother has clearly defined lips and a wide smile. From my perspective (and the perspective of various other fans I've spoken to), it seems pretty likely that they are intended to represent a black family — to the point that if this were a Duplo or Friends set instead of a City set, I would fully expect them to have a skin tone which reflects that. Of course, none of their hairstyles or facial features undeniably single them out as black! After all, people of various races and ethnicities can have features likecurly black hair, braids, and stubble. But together, these features provide strong enough hints that a black child would likely have an easier time seeing themselves and their family in these three minifigures than they would in other minifigures from that set (or previous ones from the City theme). And I don't think it'd be too great a stretch to assume this was the designers' intent, considering how many of these design cues are primarily associated with black characters in other themes. What is the likelihood that they'd employ all those same design cues for an entire family of non-black characters by sheer coincidence? That's basically how I think LEGO should approach representing any demographic that can't be singled out overtly or unambiguously due to limitations of that theme's narrative or design language. They should embrace whatever inclusive options they DO have, and count on fans to pick up the design cues that reflect particular aspects of their lived experience, no matter how subtle or ambiguous they might seem to people who DON'T share similar backgrounds or experiences. And if somebody who DOESN'T belong to the demographic the designer was aiming to represent ends up identifying with the character for any reason? All the better! In the long run, that's the sort of thing that will hopefully help people recognize that that we aren't as different from them as they might imagine. EDIT: One other thing I wanted to bring up that isn't directed at anybody in particular: Although I've been quite vocal about my desire for more LGBTQ+ representation, I think it's worth keeping in mind the various smaller ways we already have been acknowledged prior to this set. In fact, there have almost certainly have already been minifigures very deliberately designed to represent members of the LGBTQ+ community, even if we might've overlooked or disregarded some of them because we've been so conditioned to interpret anything LEGO produces through a heteronormative/cisnormative lens. It's not implausible that the Programmer's flannel shirt tied around her waist might be meant to reflect the popularity of flannel clothing among the lesbian community. Or that the Cabaret Singer might be meant to represent a drag queen. Not that long ago, folks were even discussing whether the Bear Costume Guy was intended as a reference or shout-out to the LGBTQ+ community or pride parades — and while I'm not certain to what extent it was or wasn't, the designers certainly must have anticipated some of us interpreting it that way, or even being drawn to it for that reason. Heck, for that matter, it's pretty widely known (and even alluded to in the LEGO Minifigures Character Encyclopedia) that the Lumberjack's design and embroidered name are a shout-out to Kel Henson, a Canadian (and openly gay) AFOL. And does anybody really think it's a coincidence that Unikitty, a character who exudes rainbows and positivity, and whose animated series adaptation has a fairly extensive amount of queer subtext, was another of Matthew Ashton's proudest and most famous LEGO creations of the past decade? Suffice to say, this "Everyone is Awesome" set is not LEGO's first time acknowledging or representing us, just their most obvious one… so far.

Yeah, I'd heard this, and I will definitely be watching attentively for news on whatever results from that casting. But we're definitely not seeing this sort of progress happening as widely or at the same pace in film as in other media formats like TV, comics, or video games. Ultimately, Disney and Pixar's efforts so far do not lend me a great deal of confidence, but I hope they manage to surpass my expectations.

Even in themes that don't tend to assign detailed names or identities to their characters, there are many ways to communicate that a character is trans! Like, a lot of skateboarders and guitarists in themes like City or the Collectable Minifigures have skateboards or guitars with uniquely printed or stickered graphics. It wouldn't be difficult at all to incorporate features like stripes in the colors of the trans pride flag, or the even less ambiguous ⚧ symbol.

Thank you for intervening. I know it can't be easy to moderate a site like Eurobricks that has users from so many different backgrounds, but you've done a good job cracking down on overt hostility and making sure that discussions like this can continue and remain civil and welcoming, even when some people seem determined to on turn the proverbial "marketplace of ideas" into a war zone. Honestly, I feel like this set's existence is a pretty strong sign that LEGO is no longer really concerned about that sort of "uproar", and are fully committed to standing up against any hate or criticisms they might receive for it. Plus, we live in a world where even major media entities like Cartoon Network, Disney Channel, Nickelodeon, Netflix, and Dreamworks have been taking similar courageous steps towards better LGBTQ+ representation, even in unambiguously kid-targeted series. To a certain extent, I think that can be taken as evidence that the opposition to this sort of positive, kid-friendly representation has become much smaller and weaker than the remaining opponents of this stuff would like to admit. That said, the lack of major strides like this in Disney or Dreamworks films shows that we still have a long way to go before kid-friendly portrayals of LGBTQ+ identities are normalized or accepted across all industries. It's hard to know where the toy industry really falls along that spectrum, or how willing LEGO is to go above and beyond the norms of that industry in their approach to LGBTQ+ representation. Only time will tell, I suppose. It certainly wouldn't be a huge imposition for them to do that sort of thing, since many of their existing seasonal items like vignettes, keychains, BrickHeadz, etc. tend to be impulse-priced items with relatively low production costs, relatively limited availability (mostly just online, in LEGO brand stores, or in other specialty stores), and relatively short shelf life. Plus, the schedule for a lot of those types of seasonal sets currently has a conspicuous gap between Spring/Easter related sets and Fall/Halloween related ones — Pride-related sets in the summer would fill that gap very nicely! Honestly, why would it even matter? I can't think of much reason to bring up the topic of abortion on a site like Eurobricks in the first place, particularly in a topic like this one. So far, the only reason it HAS come up in this topic is because of bad-faith efforts to try and conflate LGBTQ+ acceptance with entirely unrelated political debates. Which is just as ridiculous as bringing up your opinions on immigration policy in a topic about LEGO windmills. In other words, this isn't the "gotcha" you think it is. The fact that Eurobricks staff are willing to ban people who harass other users based on their gender and sexuality doesn't mean they're somehow obligated to encourage discussion of every political issue, let alone take sides on those issues. Yeah, there are all sorts of different in-universe interpretations, especially in light of the varied and complex attitudes towards gender presentation and gender norms we know of among real-life pirate crews. "Outlaw" subcultures in general can deviate pretty wildly from the dominant culture of their time, even if they're still informed by the dominant culture's prevailing norms on various levels. That said, I was told by the designer, Samuel Johnson, that there wasn't really any specific intended interpretation, and that it was really just for that they wanted more than one female pirate character with different outfits, so they decided to give one of them a torso a torso from a male pirate character from the classic sets, instead of just coming up with an entirely new character design from scratch without any "classic" precedent. So the most "official" explanation of Robin Loot's design is just as a minor "retcon" between two different generations of LEGO Pirates sets, like @Robert8 suggested in his post above. For my part, I prefer to imagine Robin as a trans woman, since that helps me relate to her on a more personal level. But in the grand scheme of things, there isn't really any right or wrong way to reconcile those differences between the Cross Bone Clipper set's cast of characters and the bios from from the Barracuda Bay instruction manual, and the designers I've spoken with have said they're designers are perfectly happy for fans to interpret those characters however they please. Heck, for those who'd prefer not to interpret the characters in either of those sets as anything other than the gender they appear to be, but DO want the two sets to share a consistent continuity, you can even just assume that the male crew member from the Cross Bone Clipper set died or jumped ship at some point, and the female crew member (who previously wore an outfit more like Lady Anne's) decided she didn't want such a fancy hat and vest to go to waste. In any case, I do hope we see more intentional trans representation in the future. Even if it's a character who doesn't have anything obviously identifying them as trans in their design, and is only identified as trans in supporting media or with a trans flag or related symbol appearing in another part of a set they appear in.

Yep! Similarly, an older version of a previous set's "child" character could be portrayed presenting as the opposite gender of their previous portrayal to show that they've transitioned in the years since. And there are all sorts of ways this sort of inclusivity can be achieved through graphic design: a decorative pride flag on a wall or desk in a character's bedroom, pride flag motifs or other LGBTQ+ symbols on a character's clothing or accessories, a family photo of a character and their same-sex partner or with two same-sex parents, graffiti with two same-sex characters' initials separated by a plus sign or heart, a bouquet of flowers in pride flag colors, etc. There's no limit to the number of possibilities out there, and for the most part, none of them are any more limiting from a creative standpoint than the various other sorts of easter eggs or symbols (including those unrelated to gender, sexuality, or relationships) that we're already used to seeing in all sorts of sets and themes.

Yeah, and while I realize a lot of LGBTQ+ people (including myself!) are still very eager to see more diverse representation in actual playsets/play themes (City, Friends, Creator, etc)… I don't think it's hard to recognize that this set was created more with more of a display purpose in mind, or to recognize how appealing it might be as a display piece. In fact, as Matthew Ashton stated in the designer interview, he created the original version of this model not as a set, but as a personal bit of office decor for his desk at work. It was only later, when designers came together to brainstorm ideas for a Pride-related set, that he presented it to his colleagues at that meeting as one possible approach they could take. Truth be told, I'm a bit curious whether this set was even the only outcome of that meeting, or whether there were other ideas brought up that might wind up appearing as sets in the future! Certainly we've already seen LGBTQ+ set designers and graphic designers make subtler gestures of support to the LGBTQ+ community: for example, Diego Sancho creating a rainbow-patterned heart tile for LEGO Dots, or Marcos Bessa advocating for the BrickHeadz Wedding Bride and Wedding Groom to be sold separately instead of as a two-pack so they could be used just as easily and affordably for either same-sex or opposite-sex couples. So one way or another, I doubt this will be the be-all and end-all of LEGO's efforts to represent LGBTQ+ people in their products. And honestly, anybody who's bothered by the prospect of minifigs being gay or trans can just pretend they AREN'T gay or trans, just like we've usually had to do to feel represented or included in previous sets and themes! Other AFOLs have been telling us for years that the minifig is a "blank slate", and that it can be whoever and whatever you want it to be, regardless of the designers' intent. I see no reason that minifigures created to represent the LGBTQ+ community would be any different!

Yeah, in general, when spoken it's pronounced "Christmas", regardless of how it's abbreviated… same as how "Mr." is pronounced "mister" and not "mrrrrrr" .

I mean, yes, that's one of the MANY ways that anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment is being pushed on the general public right now, but hardly the only one. If you look at comments on social media or in other places that are less civil or well moderated than Eurobricks, you'll see lots of people employing much older talking points: Claiming that kids can't possibly be LGBTQ+ or understand those aspects of their identities, despite ample evidence to the contrary. Treating support for LGBTQ+ kids as a way of "sexualizing/preying on/corrupting children", and comparing people with LGBTQ+ affirming viewpoints to child abusers or sex traffickers. Insisting that humans are only meant to be in opposite-sex relationships and that anything else is denying nature/God/reality. Accusing anybody who accept LGBTQ+ identities (including parents, teachers, medical professionals, and LEGO themselves) of "promoting mental illness". Describing LGBTQ+ identities as a form of "social contagion" or "degeneracy" that fundamentally weakens humanity and threatens the perpetuation of the species unless it's snuffed out (which has been a popular anti-LGBTQ+ talking point since the early days of the Nazi Party in the 1930s). Insinuating that their OWN freedom of speech or freedom of thought is threatened by LEGO advocating for their company values. This one tends to be paired with allusions to Nineteen Eighty-Four., generally overlooking the bits Arguing that "LGBTQ+ pride/rights/acceptance" are actually code for "LGBTQ+ supremacy", and that our end goal is somehow to completely rid the world of straight or cisgender people. …And so on. There's only so much of that sort of intolerance I can bear to read, let alone describe to others, before my stomach begins to turn. Moreover, nothing about this set even makes any sort of statement in favor of (or against) specific policies or legal measures involving the LGBTQ+ community. It simply encourages acceptance and support for the LGBTQ+ people around us. Surely even people opposed to specific policies aimed at protecting trans people (you know, the classic "I'm not transphobic, but…" ) should have no objection to the idea that trans people like me exist, or that we deserve respect and acceptance? Because that's the only trans-supporting message this set clearly expresses. I don't think that's cynical at all. Rowling made a statement that was wrong and hurtful, not only towards trans men (who DO menstruate) and trans women (who don't), but also towards post-menopausal women and other cisgender women who don't menstruate for various reasons. Not to mention the various other harmful things J.K. Rowling has said about trans women, which I don't have the mental or emotional fortitude to get into right now. So I don't think it's weird for LEGO to clarify that they don't support those statements. They likely would have made a similar statement if, say, Matt Groening had sparked a huge social media firestorm by spreading false and hurtful claims about some marginalized group back when LEGO was still making sets based on The Simpsons. While I genuinely believe LEGO does truly believe in supporting and affirming the identities trans folks like me (particularly since at least one set designer actually reached out to me on social media for help understanding trans folks' perspective when that whole fiasco went down), a brief, non-commital statement like the one LEGO made is basically just run-of-the-mill corporate damage control. Come on, now. LEGO is a Danish company. Viewpoints that would be considered liberal from a U.S. perspective are generally considered mainstream or even conservative by Danish standards. Plus, LEGO has been embracing other "liberal" causes like environmentalism, feminism, and multiculturalism, for years or even decades at this point. And they have numerous LGBTQ+ folks on their design team, including not just Matthew Ashton (the VP of Design responsible for designing this set), but also other designers who are responsible for a lot of the AFOL community's most beloved sets and themes. So why is their support of the LGBTQ+ community so surprising to you? Moreover, it's not as though their values are somehow a threat to your own. You can continue believing whatever sort of transphobic or homophobic drivel you please, no matter how many decent people you drive away in the process. A toy company can't somehow control your beliefs any more than you can control theirs. And you're entirely free to put your money towards toy companies that better reflect your own values (or even start your own!) if you truly find theirs so objectionable. I guess that's one thing we have in common — I don't care if you get banned any more than you do. In fact, I'm beginning to believe it might be a net positive for the site, since you clearly have a hard time showing basic respect for trans people. Regardless of what you believe about us, surely you realize that it'd be just as disrespectful to call me a man as it would be for me to call you a woman. It's the same as how I wouldn't call you by your real name if you asked me to use your screen name. It doesn't matter whether I consider your real name more "truthful" — referring to people by the terms they're most comfortable with is just basic etiquette.

I strongly doubt it, to be honest. I don't have any opposition to people "living their brand of Christianity". But we're talking about somebody who clearly has a deep dedication to the parts of that "brand" that involve condemning complete strangers for "rebelling against our Creator" because of entirely harmless aspects of their identity. So deep, in fact, that they're willing to risk severing every tie they have with their fellow AFOLs here on Eurobricks in order to proselytize to those complete strangers. I doubt they'd be very chummy with "cosmic traitors" like me and my wife if they encountered us offline, given that neither of us has any shame whatsoever about those supposed transgressions against our God-given nature. Particularly since I would not have any more patience with this sort of holier-than-thou proselytizing in person than I do online. Do you realize how easy it would have been to believe this sort of degrading drivel about people like me, without flaunting both the rules of this site and basic standards of decency to lecture us about it? No matter WHAT a person's faith dictates, it's unspeakably arrogant and patronizing to act like they know us better than we know ourselves, let alone to baseless accuse of us of rebelling against God and pretend they're somehow doing us a favor by doing so. And I don't think it's "bullying" to call somebody out on that when they've made it perfectly clear that they would rather permanently cut ties with this site than show even a modicum of consideration for the beliefs and dignity of others. This. I'm generally willing to acknowledge and respect polite, harmless "dissenting viewpoints". But I can't and won't pretend to respect comments that disparage my identity or the legitimacy of my lived existence as a trans woman and a lesbian. Maybe scoffing at a person's hate is an "improper response"… but comments like this do not DESERVE a "proper response". And if my unwillingness to take that sort of flagrant disrespect lying down reflects badly on me? Then so be it. I'm human, same as anyone, and I don't owe patience or deference to those who don't even have the decency to quietly tolerate my existence.

That's certainly something that would be interesting for them to consider, especially as a way of celebrating different cultures' architectural tradtions even in contexts with religious or spiritual connections. They have been willing to portray a few religious buildings in the Architecture theme, but mainly just as part of the larger "skyline" sets. And I have to admit that there are a lot of amazing churches, mosques, temples, and synagogues that would be amazing to see at a much higher level of detail than those sets allow for. I do think they are likely to continue to avoid many other types of religious representation, though truth be told, I often think that their concerns about that sort of thing is less to do with alienating people who DON'T share the particular faith being portrayed, and more about respecting particular sects or denominations of the actual faiths they wanted to represent, especially those that have strict stances about idolatry, or those that would simply be uncomfortable with foundational aspects of their faith being commercialized. After all, while I recognize that in some countries there is a very strong market for religious-themed products of all sorts, including toys, I also feel like a lot of groups (including certain Christian denominations) would be uncomfortable about their gods, prophets, and important religious figures, traditions, and writings reduced to something that resembles a child's plaything. Even more so if they feel it is exploiting those aspects of their culture/heritage for financial gain — think about the concerns we've seen from some people about THIS set and the possibility that LEGO isn't truly committed to the LGBTQ+ affirming values it represents, and multiply that by a hundredfold (since in the case of religious sets, critics from the very communities being represented might see them not just as corporate greed, but actual blasphemy). One way or another, if LEGO were to start exploring that sort of thing, I hope that they'd handle it with the same caution, sincerity, and sensitivity they demonstrated with this set — including, ideally, ensuring that designers who actually belong to the religious groups in question get to play a role in the development of those products.

Parts can definitely soften or warp if they're subjected to hot temperatures (like, say, a non-air-conditioned attic or a hot car) for prolonged lengths of time (months/years) It likely wouldn't be as big an issue for unopened sets as for opened or assembled ones, since they won't have a lot of weight or pressure on the individual parts that would cause them to deform (unlike, say, an assembled set sitting at the bottom of a large toy chest with lots of other toys piled on top of it). I don't have enough expertise to know if the temperatures you mention are likely to be a problem. But it is definitely a risk worth being aware of!

I think you're both right, in a way — LEGO is definitely taking a firm and supportive stance by insisting that this is not political, and I applaud them on that, but the reality is that more things are still politically divisive than a lot of people (including the LEGO Group) would like to admit. Let's not forget that less than a decade ago, a Cheerios ad got pulled off the air because of all the complaints about it having the audacity to (gasp) portray a multiracial family! This is an issue a lot of people even in the United States would like to believe was resolved after the Supreme Court ruling Loving v. Virginia struck down laws against interracial marriages and forced all states to grant equal recognition to those marriages. But legislative/judicial progress and actual societal progress don't always move at exactly the same pace, and there are many people who continue to oppose equality on personal grounds long after they've lost that battle on legal grounds. The inverse is also true — there are certainly plenty of parts in the world where legal challenges or obstacles to equality continue to spring up even long after those forms of equality achieve popular support among ordinary people. Even in places where government officials are chosen by popular vote in theory, that doesn't mean that their actions accurately reflect the viewpoints of their constituents in practice, particularly since even in ideal circumstances, it can be very difficult to completely snuff out the possibilities of bribery or corruption. Anyway, you're right that in reality, there's a LOT of stuff LEGO does that would be considered political in certain circles, and that remaining "politically neutral" on a lot of those issues is not really possible one way or another. So instead of hoping for them to "avoid" politics, it's more productive to hope that they make wise decisions about what stances they choose to take and what values they choose to embrace. In this case, I feel like they absolutely made the right call. In others, I think they still have room to improve.

Yep. And even without explaining any of the connections to pride flags, it's easy to discuss the broader idea of rainbows as a symbol for how much better and happier our world is because it includes so many different sorts of people! Even if you were from a more progressive family, that would probably be one of the easiest starting points for discussing a set like this with kids, before getting into the specific meanings of the different colors and what they represent. While that could have been an option, I think LEGO made a pretty respectable choice here, considering that the pink, white, and sky blue colors are specifically intended to represent trans women, nonbinary people, and trans men (well, there's a bit more nuance than that, but this is the simplest way of explaining it). Therefore, it makes sense that they opted for more feminine-coded, neutral, and masculine-coded hairstyles for those respective colors. Various other pride flags like the bisexual and lesbian pride flags also use colors like pink and magenta to represent femininity, in accordance with 20th-century Western tradition. It may seem stereotypical to you, but it's hard to assign specific meanings to colored stripes without leaning into stereotypes in one way or another. Similarly, the afro-textured hairstyles chosen for the black and brown stripes were chosen because those stripes on the Progress Pride Flag are intended to represent people of color. Rather than stereotyping, I feel that these hairstyle choices are a strong sign of respect and recognition for the meaning of these specific colored stripes. Anyway, good review, @Bob De Quatre! My wife and I are both very excited about this set and plan to get one to display in our home — I still have to ask her if she wants a second one for her office back when in-person teaching opens back up. It's a great way to visibly and publicly celebrate our pride, and also a very attractive and eye-catching bit of home/office decor in general. And while I hope that we see more LGBTQ+ representation in the future (which wouldn't be nearly as difficult or creatively stifling as a lot of straight and cisgender people tend to assume), this set's very existence sends a powerful message of open, sincere support and acceptance. While the LEGO Group has demonstrated these sorts of accepting values in the internal areas of their business for many years now, I can't tell you just how much it means to me that they are more and more willing to be open about those values to their customers and reflect them in their products, even if it might be controversial in some circles. And truth be told, I've seen WAY more positive feedback than negative feedback about this set, which says a lot about the positive strides that we've been seeing in society more broadly, and makes me very hopeful for the future (especially in light of how much less accepting the world tended to be throughout much of my childhood). Some critics have disparaged this set as "pandering", but I think it's more accurate to say that the lack of LEGO sets and media promoting this sort of acceptance was a way of "pandering" to customers with prejudices against the LGBTQ+ community — even if that meant effectively muzzling the many LEGO designers who are members of that community themselves (and who are responsible for a lot more "fan favorite" sets and themes than a lot of y'all might realize). Needless to say, just like Matthew Ashton himself, I know that many of these designers would have been thrilled at the opportunity to express those aspects of their identity through their creative work, and to send a profound message of support to children and adults of similar identities or backgrounds. And if anything, I think LEGO's willingness to introduce this set, and to firmly stand behind the values that it represents, bodes very well for the likelihood of seeing other LGBTQ+ representation in LEGO sets and media in the future. In the very least, it's going to be nice to finally be able to discuss future possibilities for more LGBTQ+ affirming content from LEGO now that sets that support the community this overtly are an unmistakable reality, not just a hypothetical dream scenario! Thank you both for reviewing this set, and for all the work that the Eurobricks administrators and moderators have been doing to keep the conversation around it civil and free of needless hostility towards the very people this set was designed for. Please know that while it can't be easy, your efforts are greatly appreciated!

Good review! I really like this design. The color scheme is somewhat reminiscent of the Heartlake High set from 2013, but with understated Medium Nougat bricks as the main material of the walls rather than the brighter Cool Yellow stucco in the original set. This set also opts for an architectural style with considerable Neo-Palladian influences, as exemplified by the white columns and decorative triangular pediment bearing the city's initials. It's yet another example of how sets since the theme's 2018 reboot have embraced more specific and authentic architectural styles than many earlier sets which featured a more generalized "Heartlake City" aesthetic. One especially interesting change in this set compared to earlier school sets is the inclusion of school uniforms for both boys and girls. At the same time, the dress code is clearly flexible enough to allow for trousers or skirts that reflect the individual characters' usual preferred colors and fashions — which is a nice way of ensuring that future mini-dolls in school uniforms will still be about as individualized as we've come to expect. Although it might be unlikely for cost reasons, it'd be interesting if future sets included a variant of the boys' uniform with a blazer and a variant of the girls' uniform without one, much like the many variations in Hogwarts uniforms that we've seen in recent Harry Potter sets. Besides the differences in architectural style, the interior and exterior features of this set and its predecessor are very similar. I am pleased that this set does a better job separating the cafeteria from the main hallway and lockers than the original Heartlake High, especially since that creates more room for even more lockers, as well as a water fountain and a display area for academic and athletic trophies! It's also neat that the large table in this set table is designed so it can be either used as a picnic table outside or attached inside to function as an ordinary cafeteria table. This set also one-ups the original by having separate classrooms for the visual arts and performing arts, although science and math classes still have to share a classroom unless you choose to modify the set with additional classrooms, and there are no history or language classrooms included either set. As with the new Heartlake Grand Hotel, I can't help but feel a bit bummed out about the lack of a modular design for this set, since that made it very simple to expand the original Heartlake High set to include more classrooms. However, I suppose that the consistent architectural style between rooms and floors still makes it fairly simple for people to customize this set like that if they choose to do so — it just might make it trickier to re-arrange the classrooms once they're assembled. The price of this set is somewhat higher than the original, but the difference in price is a lot less than I might have expected based on this set's size and the aforementioned improvements/expansions to its interior and the considerably higher piece count! All in all, I think the "grade" you gave it on its price is a little harsh, especially when compared to the price-per-piece of other 6+ sets in themes like Friends, City, and Disney. It would definitely be fairly underwhelming if this were a 7+ or 8+ set in a theme like Ninjago or Elves, but this seems quite impressive when compared to sets and themes with a similar building level. All in all, it's a very impressive set IMO, and a great addition to a Heartlake City layout!

I think you're mistaken. The lack of modern, real-world military themes IS a political statement, and is based on the LEGO Group's pacifist values. Whereas this is based on the LEGO Group's inclusive, pro-diversity values. There's nothing contradictory about those two stances. It's just choosing to create sets that reflect their values as a company instead of ones that oppose them Similarly, LEGO has made plenty of Duplo sets that promote multiculturalism, Friends sets that promote environmentalism, and Ideas sets that promote feminism. All of those are political movements as well, and extremely controversial ones in many right-wing circles! But they're values that LEGO is perfectly happy to stand behind and endorse. You're correct that LEGO tries to keep all of their sets secular. This set follows that rule to a T, and is not an endorsement or renunciation of any specific religion. Certainly, people of various faiths might have religious objections to LGBTQ+ themed sets like this. But likewise, many people might also have religious objections to sets based on supernatural/occult subject matter, or female figures wearing two-piece swimsuits or other midriff-baring outfits. That doesn't make it a religious statement for LEGO to include that sort of subject matter in their products. It would be, and there's no reason to assume either of them is or isn't trans. But they're still clearly intended as an opposite-sex couple. My point is that it'd be nice to see more recognition of same-sex couples in general, as well as more overt representation of trans characters in more story-driven themes. It's totally okay if you don't care about the official storylines or descriptions of sets or themes, or see any need for characters to have specific identities in the first place. But that doesn't mean nobody should care about that stuff — especially since a lot of my own favorite themes like Bionicle, Ninjago, Friends, and Elves tend to be among the more story-driven ones. It'd be easy for some future LEGO Friends set to have a gay or trans pride flag sticker decorating a character's desk, locker, or bedroom wall, providing some subtle recognition in the same way that sets featuring Emma often include small references to her Asian heritage. Or for a future LEGO City set to include a child with two moms or two dads. Or for a future LEGO Ninjago season to include a character with a crush on another character of the same sex. These are the sorts of small gestures LEGO could make that would have an extremely positive impact for a lot of kids. And I don't think it's too extreme to hope for that sort of thing, considering how many books, comics, TV shows, and video games aimed at kids are already taking these sorts of strides. It'd be a bit of a risk, maybe — but LEGO has shown with this set that they're not afraid to take some risks if it means standing by their values and sending an affirming message to their LGBTQ+ fans. So… I'm going to keep on hoping, and it's no skin off my back if you or others don't share those same hopes with me.

Don't let the door hit you in the rear on your way out. I'll be sure to pray for you to be saved from your own hateful and decidedly un-Christlike ignorance.

I'm honestly awestruck by how incredibly powerful and heartfelt this designer video is… it definitely shows just how personal the message was for him and how sincere he is about sending a message of support and acceptance to kids and adults with sets like this one. My wife and I are definitely both VERY excited to add this set to our collection! Okay, but even by this argument: why are there no Camper Van or Family House sets with two men and a child, or two women and a child? After all, even if they SEEM like a couple at first glance, there's nothigng stopping homophobes from pretending that they're just friends or siblings so that it doesn't challenge their prejudices. Moreover, no matter how much you feign ignorance about the obvious intended roles of the figures in a set like 60283, the official set description on LEGO.com clearly and unambiguously identifies them as "mom and dad minifigures and a cute baby figure". Similarly, 10224 Town Hall's description clearly identifies the wedding minifiigures as a "bride and groom". You are free to ignore these descriptions if you like, just as you are free to ignore the storylines of licensed themes. But the official intent behind these characters — and the design decisions informed by that intent — are still every bit as undeniable as the intent for "Everyone is Awesome" to represent the LGBTQ+ community. Also, the LEGO City Adventures TV series DOES have a storyline which clearly establishes some figures, like the mustached man and redheaded woman from 60271 Main Square, as an opposite-sex married couple. So there's that…

You're right, releasing a set like this one is a risk. And LEGO has decided it's a risk worth taking. Is that really such a bad thing? I strongly doubt that the existence of this one set will bring the entire company toppling down, even if a handful of parents decide this is something worth boycotting the company over (just as some did after LEGO made their BLM statement, after some of their previous Pride-related statements, after they cut ties with Shell, etc). For what it's worth, I haven't called you a bigot, and generally refrain from making that sort of accusation unless somebody is so persistently disrespectful that it becomes clear they're doing it deliberately. Even when people misgender me, I usually just offer a brief correction at the beginning of my reply, and then the person in question corrects their mistake, and then we move on. Easy-peasy. It's not, really. You're making a mountain out of a molehill here. In the future, LEGO certainly might start including more identifiably LGBTQ+ characters in sets — though it wouldn't necessarily have to be all that obvious in the character design, and could just as easily be communicated with things like a sticker showing a family photo or a pride flag decoration on a desk or bulletin board. And the LEGO Foundation (a separate entity from the LEGO Group, but also owned by the Kirk Kristiansen family) might start donating to LGBTQ+ related charities. If they did, they'd probably be ones specifically aimed at supporting LGBTQ+ children, since children's charities tend to be their more general focus. LEGO might even make a pride parade set in the future, although I don't have any idea why you think they'd make new ones annually unless it turned out to be a tremendous hit on the level of stuff like the Winter Village sets. But none of those possibilities really seem like they'd impose any sort of harm or burden. Most of them aren't even all that far removed from stuff that LEGO already does — like releasing seasonal sets, including married couples and disabled characters in City/Friends/Duplo sets, including romantic subplots and detailed character backstories in their more story-driven themes, supporting charitable causes via the LEGO Foundation, etc. There's no reason we can't belong to multiple categories and subcategories at the same time. I am a LEGO fan just like anybody else. But I'm also a female LEGO fan, a lesbian LEGO fan, a transgender LEGO fan, an American/Canadian LEGO fan (depending on whether you base that on where I was born and hold citizenship or where I'm currently living), an adult LEGO fan, and a disabled LEGO fan. And literally NONE of that stuff prevents me from being part of sites and groups like Eurobricks, Brickset, AFOLs of Facebook, and GayFOLs where most other members DON'T belong to all of the same sub-categories that I do. There's no reason I can't come together with other LEGO fans on a general level while also being open about the various demographics I belong to, bonding with other LEGO fans who have other stuff in common with me, and discuss the ways those other aspects of my life and identity affect my interest in LEGO (and vice-versa). These are all just different ways of engaging with the LEGO fan community, and none of them are mutually exclusive or require me to abandon the wider AFOL community in the process. I haven't heard any specifics at this point, but that seems like a pretty reasonable assumption.

It might've been Russia with the Crystal Skull sets! That could explain my confusion — I know there was also a lot of discussion about the lack of Nazi iconography in the sets being at least partly out of compliance with German hate speech regulations, so I suppose I must have gotten some of those various memories muddled in my head. It doesn't help that a lot of those discussions happened back when I was still just a "lurker" here, since I wasn't old enough to join Eurobricks until 2009 (and all the other LEGO fansites I was really active on before that were primarily Bionicle-focused). But in any case, apologies for the misinfo!

That was what i heard. I take it I was misinformed? Maybe it was only certain retailers that refused to carry it. Regardless, it certainly stands out as one of many themes that have generated political controversy over the years, and yet I suspect there aren't too many of us who feel that it was a mistake for LEGO to even take the risk of introducing it.

Definitely something I would love to see! And all in all, it seems like the chances of LEGO taking that step have been getting better and better with each passing year. Certainly, they've made a lot of other great strides with diversity and inclusion lately: introducing more disabled characters and characters with afro-textured hairstyles in City and Friends sets, choosing Billy Porter to star in one of their "Rebuild the World" videos (in a gorgeous green dress, no less) and talk about the importance of creative self-expression, etc. LGBTQ+ representation has also been dramatically improving in other kid-targeted media like books and cartoons lately, which likely helps pave the way for LEGO to take similar steps in their own toys or media. I agree, those types of superficial, trend-driven marketing stunts feel really pitiful, whether it's for Pride Month, Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Autism Awareness Month, Black History Month, Women's History Month, or some other event/celebration. That said, I feel like LEGO has had a better track record with that type of thing (in part, perhaps, because they have a little more room to get creative with the actual content and message of their products than, say, facial tissue, breakfast cereal, or candy companies, which are pretty much just adhering to the same playbook they'd use for color-coded Christmas and Halloween variants of their products). For instance, the designer of the rainbow-patterned LEGO Dots tiles, Diego Sancho, is also openly gay, and even had a pride flag sticker visible on his laptop in one of the original LEGO Dots designer videos. I feel like a lot of the most positive advances we're seeing in LGBTQ+ representation even outside of LEGO are the ones that are driven by creative voices belonging to the LGBTQ+ community. The level of inclusive storytelling we've recently seen in shows like Netflix's She-Ra and the Princesses of Power, Cartoon Network's Steven Universe, and Disney Channel's The Owl House didn't come about because some market analyst saw that those kinds of stories are popular, and pushed corporate executives to mandate that in all their new shows going forward, but because actual LGBTQ+ people on the crew of those shows pushed hard, negotiated carefully, and laid out elaborate plans in great detail to ensure those kinds of stories (the sort that they felt might have delighted and benefited them in their own childhoods) would make it into the finished product. Now, needless to say, we still live in a world where not all LGBTQ+ creators are comfortable "coming out" to the general public, so it's not always possible to know which "representation" actually originates from members of the LGBTQ+ community. But I'm aware of enough LGBTQ+ creators working at LEGO (whether they're out to the general public or only to friends, family, and colleagues) that I feel like I can safely assume that most LGBTQ+ representation we've seen from LEGO comes from a place of honesty and sincerity. And perhaps I'm unrealistically optimistic about this sort of thing, but I honestly even take some comfort in knowing that even shallow or cynical Pride-themed publicity stunts are a sign of how far society has come since my childhood, when most companies' fear of alienating homophobes and transphobes far outweighed any advantages they saw in marketing products or media of any sort to the LGBTQ+ community. I certainly roll my eyes at more blatant examples of "rainbow capitalism" a lot of the time, and don't intend to heap praise on companies for doing the bare minimum to be inclusive. But in a world that often feels grim and overwhelming, thinking about how much more accepted people like me have become just over the course of my lifetime helps the future feel at least a little brighter.

I can't say I'm entirely surprised myself, but I'm certainly impressed. Trying to discuss what is or isn't "political" is often a bit of a fool's errand since it's so subjective. After all, people have criticized past LEGO stuff for being "political" such as The LEGO Movie and its sequel, the Research institute and Women of NASA sets, pretty much any sets which present green energy as an alternative to fossil fuels, and even the updated LEGO Friends character designs. What's a lot less murky are the LEGO Group's own values of diversity and inclusion. For example, this set's designer, Matthew Ashton, is the LEGO Group's Vice President of Design. He's also openly gay. Various TLG offices have held internal pride celebrations for years, and in 2019 they went even further by becoming a sponsor of Pride in London and maintaining a booth during the festivities so that kids and adults could take a moment to express themselves using LEGO bricks and minifigures. And in all honesty, that sort of consistency in their values means way more to me than some nebulous objection to "politics", which can mean wildly different things to different people. Eurobricks itself has a rule against discussions about politics, but you and others clearly have no problem bringing political debate into a discussion of a generally harmless set with an uplifting message. People have opposing opinions about just about everything. Remember all the controversy about the Research Institute and Women of NASA sets? Or the Star Wars sequel trilogy and 2016 Ghostbusters movie? Or the Simpsons, Big Bang Theory, Stranger Things, and Overwatch licenses? Even Harry Potter is so controversial among some conservative Christians that The Entertainer, a major British toy brand, doesn't carry them or ANY sets or themes that they consider "occult". Beyond individual sets and IPs: "Green" technologies we've seen in a lot of recent City sets (windmills, solar panels, electric vehicles, etc) are highly controversial in many political circles, while fossil fuels are highly controversial in others. If LEGO is supposed to avoid political controversies, does that mean they shouldn't make sets that portray EITHER of those options? Also, in some cultures, it's still politically controversial for women to work outside the home, or for men to be their children's primary caregivers. Should LEGO omit working women or stay-at-home dads from all their sets as well? Needless to say, police have also been an extremely divisive, hot-button political issue in a lot of parts of the world lately. Yet, if anything, in most AFOL discussions I've seen, the consensus is that it would be "political" for LEGO not to make police sets. Why is that issue any different from this one? And if a country's truly so committed to homophobia or transphobia that they'd ban this set? Well, the entire LEGO Indiana Jones theme was banned in Germany, and that was at a time when Germany was still one of their biggest markets. Why would the prospect of a few countries banning a single set be a bigger deal breaker than that? All in all, I agree that a set like this will inevitably generate some backlash and controversy. But i think it speaks highly for the LEGO Group's values and sends a powerful message that they've chosen to release it anyway. For those who are that bothered by it? That's their loss, and perhaps an overdue wake-up call it's not the LEGO Group's responsibility to indulge their naive prejudices in every single set they produce.

I mean, being a symbol of a Christian holiday (and having the name of the holiday in its name) doesn't strike me as "absolutely nothing". That said, I'm well aware that rabbits were already a popular pagan symbol of springtime, fertility, and rebirth before Christians began using them, and that they remain a widely-understood secular symbol with essentially the same meanings. Almost like how rainbows are not exclusively a symbol of the LGBTQ+ community. Symbols are like that. They can have lots of different meanings depending on who's using them and what context they're used in.

Considering the apparent designer (Matthew Ashton, who has been dropping teasers in a Twitter thread for several days now) is openly gay, it feels disrespectful to dismiss this as corporate pandering or cash-grab. After all, this is a cause that is highly personal to him, and his influential position as TLG's Vice President of Design is a pretty clear sign that LEGO genuinely values this sort of diversity even in the behind-the-scenes parts of their operations that aren't obviously apparent in their products or marketing. It's one thing to criticize pride-related products when if the companies making them don't actually support the LGBTQ+ commmunity, or if LGBTQ+ people didn't actually have any role in creating them, or if you are opposed tt the company on ethical grounds unrelated to their attitudes about LGBTQ+ people. But if you are this opposed to a brand of products you're already a fan of introducing even a single Pride-related product (particularly one designed by a gay man)… needless to say, it starts to seem like you're more bothered by the LGBTQ+ aspect of the product than the corporate aspect. I mean, I don't see anybody disparaging the Easter Bunny set as "corporate pandering to Christians", the NES as "corporate pandering to gamers", the Speed Champions theme as "corporate pandering to motorheads", or the Crocodile Locomotive as "corporate pandering to rail buffs". Why is this set any more objectionable? So THAT's your claim, now? That they're only doing it for the money? Because in a previous comment, you suggested that LGBTQ+ content in LEGO sets or media would be a bad thing, and that it would hurt their "family friendly brand image" (and presumably, by extension, their sales and profits). In the same comment, you complained about Netflix having too many LGBTQ+ characters in their shows. You've also made comments insisting that LEGO should re-release more 18+ sets based on classic themes (what one might describe as "pandering" to AFOLs) because they'd make so much money from it! And others criticizing LEGO for making themes that aren't profitable. So which is it? Is LEGO too focused on profits, or not enough? Are products with LGBTQ+ content an obvious cash cow that LEGO only cares about for the money, or a foolish investment that will cost them dearly? Because it's starting to sound like you're more bothered by sets including LGBTQ+ content in general than you are about what LEGO stands to gain or lose from them, let alone why they'd be interested in making them. If you're really bothered by the existence of people like me, or think we don't belong in LEGO products, then just say that instead of dancing around it. Because it feels a bit insulting for you to act like the only reason you object to a set that I, my wife, and a lot of my LGBTQ+ friends are excited about is that you don't actually think the manufacturer's heart is in it.

Good review! I don't think the gap above the revolving door is really a flaw — I suspect it was probably included to minimize the friction between the door and the surface above it. This way, I suspect it might be easier to give the doors a quick push or flick to start them spinning (sort of like a spinner for a board game or a propeller on a LEGO plane or helicopter), instead of coming to a stop as soon as you remove your hands from them. This is mostly just speculation based on other stuff I've built in the past, though — you're in a better position to test it out yourself and determine how freely it spins in the official build compared to if you raise the tile one plate higher. I find this design a big improvement on the original in a lot of ways. For one thing, although the old HGH's architecture and color scheme were very effective at conveying a ritzy atmosphere, it also carried connotations of gaudy indulgence due to its pastiche of different architectural styles and elements. By contrast, this hotel's color palette is a little more understated (with more pastels, but less gold), and the more unified Second Empire inspired architectural style helps it to feel like it could be a genuine historic landmark in Heartlake City rather than a cheap modern building that's merely adorned with the trappings of hat sort of palatial luxury. Although this new Grand Hotel conspicuously lacks some features of the original like its elevator and taxi, it makes up for that by including not two but THREE one-bed/one-bath suites (including a penthouse suite), and a peaceful, tree-covered outdoor dining area in place of the original set's more basic-looking breakfast bar and patio furniture. Even some of the smaller builds like the fountain and luggage cart feel fantastically authentic! And the seasonal decor is a fantastic way to soup up the set's play value, display presence, and creative potential, even while keeping it at a lower price than its predecessor. That said, there are a few contents of this set that I find a bit more awkward or questionable. First and foremost, the penthouse suite's rooftop spa feels somewhat humble for a set this large and luxurious, and although I recognize that a larger pool would have obstructed the door to the penthouse suite, I think it would be a lot more effective (especially in "winter" mode) if it were designed to resemble a modern hot tub/whirlpool tub rather than a traditional claw-foot bathtub. Additionally, it's sort of a bummer that this set doesn't feature modular rooms/floors like the original, since not only is that a fun play feature/gimmick, but it also provides the option for builders to expand the hotel with additional suites if they so choose. I understand, of course, that it might've been tricky to pull that off (especially due to the shared hallway between the two suites), or required changes that might detract from the set's aesthetic. So it's not as though I don't respect the designers' choice here. But I can't help but wish that it were possible for this set to have all the same visual appeal and a modular, expansion-friendly design.