Aanchir

Of course not. Modern-day Space sets have been coming out pretty much every four or five years since the early 90s, across themes like Town, Discovery Kids, Creator Expert, Creator 3-in-1, and City. Their existence today hardly means that they're somehow taking the place of far future space themes. And there's no shortage of futuristic science fiction and science fantasy stuff in other recent themes like Ninjago, Nexo Knights, or Hidden Side. The fact that it isn't space themed hardly means the designers creating those sets lack imagination. If anything, I think it's wonderfully creative that LEGO has been dabbling in so many forms of science fiction and fantasy such as weird fiction (Hidden Side), medieval futurism (Nexo Knights), and sentai (Ninjago), as opposed to sticking exclusively to bog-standard space opera subject matter like spaceships, spacesuits, aliens, robots, and ray guns which so many people think of when they hear the words "science fiction". Not to mention all the blatant space stuff in The LEGO Movie 2… especially with that in mind, it's bizarre to hear LEGO Space talked about as though it's in the midst of some long absence that might never end.

Um, I definitely accept that minifigures can be whatever you want. I also understand that that doesn't somehow negate the value of designing minifigures with particular identities in mind. A minifigure of Jay from LEGO Ninjago can definitely represent whoever or whatever you please. But that minifigure ALSO represents Jay Walker, a specific character with established personality traits and relationships to other characters. Jay is the biological son of Cliff Gordon and the previous Elemental Master of Lighting, and the adopted son of Ed and Edna Walker. He has a close friendship with Cole and is in love with Nya. He loves tinkering with gadgets and playing video games. He frequently becomes flustered, and uses his sense of humor to compensate for his insecurities. Even if not all of these things are part of the figure's physical appearance, they are sometimes alluded to in various ways by the sets he appears in. And whether or not they're made apparent in the sets themselves, his identity is a big part of why many fans love the character and are attracted to sets he appears in. I've already stated several ways to include LGBTQ+ representation in sets without having to rely on heteronormative/cisnormative stereotyping — including similar ways to how opposite-sex relationships or background information on characters unrelated to their gender identities are already portrayed in various sets. But I guess you just decided to ignore all that? Not sure it makes sense to say they'd SAVE money by not doing licenses. Usually most of what they owe on licensed is royalty payments, which are calculated as a fraction of the revenue the sets for those licenses bring in. For a licensed set or theme to actually LOSE money, it has to sell so poorly that it fails to earn back the costs of developing, producing, distributing and marketing it, same as would be the case for a non-licensed theme. Even if we assume LEGO continued to make as much revenue on exclusively non-licensed stuff as they do on a mix of licensed and non-licensed, developing original set and theme concepts isn't without its own costs. And giving up licensing practically amounts to handing all those popular IPs over to competing building toy brands on a silver platter. But hopefully to swing this back a little closer to the topic of representation, I do think the question you posed is interesting. The amount of flak LEGO gets over a lack of figures with darker skin tones could only be expected to increase if they had no licensed sets, and thus no darker human skin tones in themes that use traditional minifigures. Right now, licensed themes are also pretty much the only unambiguous source of LGBTQ+ representation in official LEGO sets, thanks to the LGBTQ+ characters in some of the IPs LEGO has obtained licenses for (79 figures and counting!): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ZnlICkoUU66QIwy-F90HNATiY2sPh8DyXkN3X3x4n-o/edit?usp=sharing Still kind of frustrated that this discussion continues to veer off on bizarre tangents like debating whether LEGO characters have any kind of, or even whether they SHOULD have any kind of identities. Thank you so much for such a refreshingly on-topic and sensible response! Truthfully, I think LEGO's heart is in this in more ways than some other companies, particularly since (as mentioned on the previous page) they have a pretty good track record of supporting their LGBTQ+ fans and employees without trying to leverage it into any sort of marketing campaign.

Setting aside your unnecessary belligerence, I'm perplexed at why you think I don't like or can't afford LEGO? I mean, my twin brother and I own over 400 sets from the past decade. Since becoming an AFOL in March 2008 I've enthusiastically collected Bionicle, Agents, Space Police, Atlantis, Hero Factory, Ninjago, Elves, and Creator Expert Modular Building sets… to say nothing of the many themes I've bought more sparingly. I have multiple shelves' worth of LEGO books, have attended LEGO fan conventions for over a decade, have written numerous news articles and reviews for LEGO fansites and fan magazines, and have made over 10,000 posts here on Eurobricks. And you think I must actually dislike LEGO because I… enjoy applying stickers to the sets I collect? Whatever makes it easier to make-believe you speak for all LEGO fans, I guess… I love this Xtra pack and hope to see more like it in the future! It's awesome how many references it makes not only to existing LEGO City brands, but even to classic sets and themes ("Paradisa Beach"; the burger sign; the Octan, transit, cargo, and utility company logos; etc). I can see it being a great source of inspiration for City builders. Easter eggs like this are another mark in the "plus" column for sticker sheets, IMO. It's so cool to see little set-specific details that help to draw connections between LEGO sets, themes, and media, and sticker sheets tend to provide far more of those kinds of delightful little details than printing could ever be expected to. I mean, Ninjago City has 56 different stickers in addition to at least eight new set-specific printed elements. And it has definitely never been realistic to find 60+ brand-new uniquely printed parts in a single set at any point in my lifetime…

I mean, I like stickers, so you're kinda showing your own ignorance and narrow-mindedness right from the get-go. Back when I was a kid, my dad preferred to apply them for me since my dexterity wasn't the greatest, and also because back then a lot of them were STAMPs (Stickers Across Multiple Pieces). I will fully agree STAMPs are awful since they limit rebuilding potential (unless, like my dad, you're particularly skillful with a hobby knife). But at the same time, stickers often also added fascinating play value and visual appeal that prints could not, like the hologram stickers in Exploriens sets, or the mirror-finish stickers in Paradisa sets, or the heat-sensitive stickers in UFO sets, or the magnetic stickers in Insectoids sets. My dad even used his digital label maker to create custom stickers for my brother and me to put our names on the back of our two Cabin Cruiser sets. By 2006, when I was 15, I felt confident enough to apply the stickers to my Exo-Force sets on my own (by this point, I'd already started collecting Beyblades, a toy which comes with lots of stickers that are WAY more fiddly to apply). It was like a rite of passage and it made me feel really proud and "grown-up". It also added a different sort of challenge to spice up the building experience I'd become used to, almost like being introduced to a new move in a video game or a new yo-yo or skateboard trick. Nowadays, I get downright excited when building a set and getting to a step where I get to add a sticker. It's an opportunity to sharpen a different sort of skill that requires careful attention and patience. From what the set designers I've met have told me, stickers are genuinely pretty popular with kids as well, and sometimes I'm pretty impressed to see posts from other AFOLs on social media whose kids are great at applying stickers even at a much younger age than I was when I first felt ready to take on that challenge! If you're willing to go without stickers whether or not LEGO can afford to replace them with prints, can't you just… not apply them? I mean, what difference does it make if you'd be willing to accept the same bricks without patterns anyhow? It's not like this is at all a new phenomenon. Stickers have been in LEGO sets for even longer than minifigures have. Set 375/6075, literally the first Castle set ever came with a sheet of 45 stickers — back then it was the norm for stickers to be used to decorate minifigures' torsos, shields, and armor/clothing! Many classic train sets had huge sticker sheets with authentic branding for various European railways. Suffice to say, stickers have been a part of LEGO for longer than I've been a LEGO fan. Even LEGO club memberships in the 1980s and LEGO idea books in the 80s and 90s, despite having no bricks to decorate, offered LEGO sticker sheets as an actual perk/selling point… and you're suggesting LEGO went to this effort they had no need to, just to offer something "nobody likes"?

To me, a reuse of a City jacket print but with gloved hands suggests to me that it might be either for the rumored City ski lodge or for a not-yet-announced seasonal promo item (like the Black Friday gift-with-purchase sets we've seen in previous years). After all, both jackets and gloves tend to be clothing associated with winter weather. EDIT: @Robert8 beat me to it!

True, but considering it was done as a limited release/store exclusive set and LEGO hasn't released any other such houses since, I wonder if perhaps it didn't appeal to as many customers under City branding as similar-sized house sets have under Creator or Friends branding. I definitely think there's room for LEGO City to have house or apartment sets again, but I think that maybe it might need some kind of special hook that helps to justify releasing it as part of the City theme (presumably, as part of the Town subtheme like like 8403 was) rather than in another theme that appeals more to fans of house sets. For example, it could have some connection to a character or storyline from the LEGO City Adventures TV series, or some elements to tie it together with other types of more job-focused forms of City play (like, say, a firefighter rescuing a cat from a tree, or an electrical utility company worker repairing power lines out by the sidewalk, or a bus stop and bus, or a pizza delivery guy and their car delivering dinner for the family). On a side note, it's kind of surprising in hindsight that with the LEGO City theme's big focus on vehicles, the one family house set in the theme didn't have an attached carport or garage like so many Creator houses have had.

Not quite! Don't forget, the Town Hall had a uniquely printed shield resembling Billund's coat-of-arms, and Pet Shop had the cat and dog with what were at that time brand-new colors and printed patterns for those molds. The Pet Shop's dog and cat prints were subsequently reused in other sets, but the Town Hall's shield print has remained unique to that set. I don't think it's strictly about price or cost-cutting in Palace Cinema's case. I think it had more to do with wanting to be able to print details that they wouldn't be able to print directly on the parts themselves. LEGO prints their actual bricks using pad printing, a lithographic technique. Their printing machines print in twelve stages. One stage = one coat of one color on one surface. Shades, tints, tones, and intermediate colors each need to be printed as a separate stage, hence why printed parts in the early 2000s featuring gradients or intermediate colors often had to rely on unsightly stipple effects (e.g. https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=973pb0348 or https://www.bricklink.com/v2/catalog/catalogitem.page?P=973pb0326c01). As far as I know, LEGO prints their sticker sheets via laser printing, which means they have no more restrictions in the number of tints, tones, shades, or hues they can print than you would on a home computer printer. That allows for stuff like the detailed shading, gradients, and old-timey film grain effects on the Palace Cinema's movie posters and movie screen. That's not to say there's no cost benefit, but when there is it's mostly from an inventory standpoint — LEGO has to store each printed piece in a set as a separate element, whereas a sticker sheet can apply patterns to numerous pieces while only introducing one new element. In many big, expensive sets, the reason for using a sticker sheet is if the entire budget the designers were given for new elements in that set is already being used for new molds, recolors, and even other printed parts (especially minifigure parts — a lot of people don't think about the sheer number of those when they accuse LEGO of being too "cheap" to print as many parts as they used to). In these cases, only using printed pieces wouldn't mean turning all the stickered patterns into printed bricks, but omitting those patterns entirely. And at that point, customers who dislike stickers can get the same effect the designers would be able to achieve by buying the set (sticker sheet and all) and just choosing not to apply the stickers at all. But I don't think this was what happened in Palace Cinema's case, since its stickers only include seven different patterns — a far lower number than how many new elements appear in other modular buildings and Creator Expert sets.

Well, the "idea" in question isn't just building a T. Rex, which any MOCist could do — it's coming up with a way to turn that build into a LEGO set that people will be interested in buying. Even if LEGO almost inevitably makes changes to the specific building techniques used in LEGO Ideas projects, they still try to maintain as much of what people liked about the original project as possible while making improvements where they deem necessary. The T. Rex in question isn't a great supporting argument for your point, because if the set had been based on the Ideas project at all, then it probably would have been much more similar to that project in terms of scale and the way it's presented (e.g. as a playset instead of more of a UCS-type sculpture with accompanying vignettes). But when you compare actual Ideas sets like Voltron or Flintstones or the Ecto-1 or the Pop-Up Book, a lot of stuff like the scale, character selections, and play features remain more or less similar — LEGO just tries to improve the model either in of stability, accuracy, or ability to manufacture. That last consideration MIGHT have been a critical issue for the T. Rex either during review or if it had been chosen to be developed into a set, as I haven't really found any indication of whether senteosan ever built his T. Rex as a physical model…. All the pics of the Ideas project are renders, which among other things use lots of bricks in colors they don't appear in IRL, and give no indication of how well/how long the Rex can hold the asymmetrical pose it's shown in in every image it appears in. Even so, none of that would be reason for the designers to increase its overall size to as massive a scale as the non-Ideas-inspired T. Rex set ended up being… particularly when the tendency with past Ideas sets has generally been for designers to make them SMALLER and more affordable to make them accessible to the largest possible audience. So I don't think it makes sense to assume that an eventual set version of the Ideas project would have disappointed you in the same ways that the eventual T. Rex set did… but that's not to say it wouldn't have been changed in other ways.

In answer to some of your questions, the earthquakes were caused by the Rock Monsters eating and digesting the energy crystals. The Power Miners had gone underground to investigate the cause of the earthquakes and stop them. They ended up deciding to capture some of the Rock Monsters for study while also gathering up as many crystals as possible to keep the monsters from eating them. Nothing in the story ever suggested that they ever stooped to genocide or anything like that — frankly, the theme had much less violence than Rock Raiders, who actually destroyed attacking monsters in the video game that the theme's main story was told through. Power Miners, by comparison, was mostly a game of cat and mouse, with the rock monsters trying to snatch back the crystals taken by the miners or sabotage the miners' mission, and the miners in turn trying to fend off or capture attacking rock monsters and keep them away from the crystals. Both themes' rock monsters had a similar territorial behavior and possessive attitude towards the energy crystals. However, Power Miners started out with smaller monsters who were mostly gremlin-like pranksters and saboteurs. As the Power Miners continued to dig, they encountered larger, more vicious monsters, and eventually their drilling woke up the Rock Monsters' leader, the Crystal King. The battle with the Crystal King trapped the miners in the lava caverns even deeper underground, which were populated by fiery lava monsters. But the overall objective didn't change aside from the miners now needing to use water and heatproof suits and vehicles to keep the monsters at bay. All in all, neither theme has a particularly complex plot… the miners in each simply continuing to pursue the same objective — retrieving enough crystals to power the LMS Explorer in Rock Raiders' case, or retrieving the crystals to keep the monsters from eating them in the Power Miners' case — for the duration of their respective storylines. And while a lot of people tend to associate Rock Raiders with a grittier tone due to its more dire survival-driven storyline and darker color palette, the Rock Raiders comics and video game cutscenes in fact had a tone just as goofy and lighthearted as a lot of the Power Miners theme's supporting media. Truth be told, I wish more AFOLs were more open to this possibility, instead of so many being convinced that the only themes LEGO should bother considering are revivals or updates of old ones. It's frustrating how many instances there are where all the hate directed towards *insert new thing here* boils down to it NOT being *insert old thing here*. Even if what's now considered "old" used to be considered "new" and was rejected in the same fashion at that time.

Often I just have a hard time finding the right way to put my point into words without it coming out wrong… EDIT: Turns out yesterday LEGO shared this video that they shot while at London Pride! Great to see how much this meant to their employees and fans alike! https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6555378162828660736

I wish I could. I'm terrible at expressing what I want to say concisely and when I try it comes out all wrong. I hate how long it takes me to say what's on my mind but I still haven't figured out how to fix that.

To be honest, the idea that yellow minifigures are racially neutral is a nice idea in theory, but one that I am a little skeptical of in practice — bright yellow more closely approximates lighter skin tones than darker ones, as LEGO themselves demonstrated in some pre-minifigure sets and idea books that used black or red bricks to represent darker skin tones. I think it's telling that most of the complaints or questions I've heard about LEGO's lack of racial diversity come from black people struggling to find minifigure parts that resemble themselves and their families rather than white people struggling with the same task. Furthermore, I can't say I care for the idea that minifigures should all be able to represent anyone of any identity. After all, as you mention yourself in your later post, certain outfits, facial features, and hairstyles (swim trunks, bikinis, wedding dresses, miniskirts, glasses, dark skin, beards, mustaches, wrinkles, gray hair, afro-textured hair, etc) are closely associated with certain real-world identities, whether in terms of age, race, or gender. To keep ANY minifigures from being coded according to ANY specific identity, you'd have to omit those traits from LEGO entirely. And even then, that creates some nasty implications, as though glasses, afro-textured hair, facial hair or old age are aberrations from a "normal" state of existence and thus not appropriate for a kids' toy. Plus, one of the main sources of play inherent to the minifigure is the ability to mix and match parts to make your own unique figures. Limiting minifigures to generic, featureless faces, unisex outfits, and a limited range of hair colors and hairstyles in the name of "universality" ultimately reduces that play potential. The page you linked to also seems to make a pretty woefully ignorant statement by treating "ethnicity" as a synonym for race or skin color and saying that non-licensed characters lack ethnicity. It goes without saying that the Tribal Chief, Maraca Man, Kimono Girl, Constable, Bagpiper, Island Warrior, and Lederhosen Guy all reflect specific ethnicities, regardless of their skin color. And in fact, this brings to light yet another reason it's folly to act as if minifigures are racially neutral — frankly, it's less offensive to simply acknowledge that the Tribal Chief is Native American/First Nations, that the Island Warrior is Polynesian, or that the Kimono Girl is Japanese than that they are people of other races playing a grotesquely disrespectful game of dress-up. Yeah… in all honesty, printed curves, cleavage, and lipstick all ultimately have their roots in the classic 1989 Pirates sets, which were pretty much the origin of character-specific/gender-specific minifig faces and outfits in general. Previously, hair was the sole feature expressly identifying minifigures' gender, which was itself a far from ideal scenario given how the idea of hairstyles being gendered is even more archaic than the idea of particular outfits or body shapes being gendered. But I likewise don't mind printed curves on outfits they make sense for. Those early Pirates minifigures used them for corsets, for instance. I tend to feel like these traits make sense for many sorts of women's outfits that are fitted to show off the shape of the body. And yes, this includes fitted or scoop-neck T-shirts, so I can't say I agree with the idea that clothes like T-shirts should ALL be as purposely generic as possible. That said, it goes without saying that these traits would look out-of-place on outfits that are not revealing or form-fitting (like fire suits or hazmat suits). I could go on about how some of the feminine-coded traits on minifigures could be interpreted in part as compensation for how the minifigure's original design appears to blatantly disregard how well it would resonate with girls, but I've already discussed that at length here, and this is all really tangential to the topic at hand anyway. Getting back to the topic of LGBTQ+ support/inclusivity: I'm not sure what you're trying to convince me of here. I'm not in some way convinced that the lack of LGBTQ+ representation in sets is for no reason at all, or because of some prejudice on LEGO's part. I'm well aware that it stems from a desire to avoid alienating a customer base whose tastes are informed by the heteronormative society we live in. That said, it's ridiculous to act as though this somehow precludes having even a single set featuring a family that's different than a typical LEGO buyer's. Consider this year's "Mia's House" set from LEGO Friends, for instance. Mia's entire family is made up of redheads, even though redheads make up only one to two percent of the global population. Obviously, this wasn't reason enough not to make a set like this. Kids who aren't redheads can still enjoy a set that doesn't revolve around their firsthand experience. Why should same-sex couples be so different? They are not an alien concept to kids. It's no mystery why it hasn't happened in sets so far, but that's no reason to act as though LGBTQ+ representation in LEGO sets and themes is destined to remain a remote, fanciful possibility, even as LGBTQ+ representation in other areas of culture like books, comics, TV, movies, etc. has been visibly increasing. To be honest, sensationalized tabloid stories based on a handful of tweets from random people are not a great indication of real, substantive controversy. Considering how many TV shows have gotten widespread praise for including any sort of LGBTQ+ rep, regardless of whether they break down every possible barrier at once, it's silly to think that the outcome for LEGO would be any different. The notion that groups seeking wider representation are fundamentally at odds with one another, and will perceive any victory for another group as a slap in the face to their own cause, is itself a lazy stereotype of "progressives" as people who find any excuse to get offended, and often touted as a feeble excuse for ignoring marginalized voices entirely. In reality, a lot of people seeking more diverse representation in toys and media quite reasonably see any advances on that front as progress, even if it's representation for groups they don't personally belong to. It's not as though only wheelchair users were happy to see LEGO introduce a wheelchair piece. Of course, that doesn't mean that there AREN'T frequent complaints about representation from both people who think it's unnecessary and people who think it's superficial or poorly handled. That's because human beings are not a hive mind and will invariably respond to things in different ways no matter what demographics they belong to or where they stand politically. It's not somehow an indication that decisions that might upset some people can never possibly be worthwhile. If I'm being honest, it's fairly tiresome how you keep suggesting that gay or transgender stereotypes are one of the most logical ways for LEGO to depict LGBTQ+ representation. In particular, these examples of gender stereotypes you see in LEGO are hardly as offensive as the "man in a dress" or "bearded lady" stereotypes that a transgender character made simply by mixing and matching male and female minifigure parts might reinforce. In fact, I've seen quite a few cringeworthy instances of AFOLs making jokes about either official or unofficial minifigures being "gay" or "transgender" because they feature a mix of traditionally male or female molds or printing — even if it's a male minifigure with a hair piece originally designed for female characters, or a female minifigure using a torso print with no printed curves. All the worse if it's a figure obtained second-hand or from Build-A-Mini with a "female" torso and beard or "male" torso and lipstick. Comments equating LGBTQ+ identity with failure to uphold stereotypical male or female beauty standards are not only transphobic and homophobic, but also sexist, since men and women shouldn't need to have comic book superhero physiques or hairstyles stereotypical of their gender just to avoid having their gender identity or sexuality called into question. Certainly, some harmless gay stereotypes (particularly those widely embraced by the community itself) could certainly find a place in LEGO minifigures. Arguably, many already have, whether it's intended to reflect the characters' actual identity or not. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if some of LEGO's designers have introduced character designs that resemble LGBTQ+ stereotypes and subcultures (or are otherwise gender nonconforming) as a wink and nod to a community they support, but that the company might be reluctant to represent more conspicuously out of fear of a PR backlash. Professor JB from Hidden Side notably has short lavender hair and wears a carabiner, two traits that are not really stereotypical of scientists, ghost hunters, or paranormal investigators — but ARE fairly well established as fashion statements that many lesbians have used to signal their identities to one another. That said, it should be obvious that stereotypes only scrape the surface of what actual representation entails. And while LEGO tends to employ archetypes and stereotypes in various facets of their product designs, it's not the be-all and end-all of how LEGO assigns identities to their characters. Designers find numerous ways to show in Friends sets that Emma loves the fine arts, Andrea loves the performing arts, Stephanie loves sports, Mia loves animals and the outdoors, and Olivia loves science and technology. Why would it be so hard to show in ways that aren't offensive or stereotypical that a girl character loves other girls or a boy character loves other boys? Even something as simple as a sticker or print like the "E+P" (Emma + Prankzy) heart graffiti in sets like 41365 or 41379 or the "E+L 4EVER" cross stitch in 70831 can show attraction between two characters even without extensive supporting media to contextualize it. And graphics like the stickers of Emily's grandmother and Skyra in 41078, of Cronan and his mother in 41188, or of younger versions of Lumia and the elemental creatures in 41196 can illustrate details of a character's backstory — potentially including things like a "coming out" party or a time before they presented as their authentic gender. It boggles the mind how many excuses people come up with to make it sound absurdly difficult to depict characters' LGBTQ+ identities without either resorting to stereotypes or kid-unfriendly subject matter… Now you're just being naive. We have seen plenty of racial diversity in LEGO Friends for over seven years, and in LEGO Duplo for three whole decades. I certainly don't ever see people complaining these themes are racist — even though parents and toy industry commentators have generally expected LEGO Duplo and LEGO Friends to meet far higher standards in terms of what skills, interests, and values they promote than themes with generic yellow minifigs like City, Ninjago, Nexo Knights, Castle, or Pirates. If anything, the racial diversity in LEGO Friends and LEGO Duplo tends to be something I tend to see praise for in comparison to the classic minifigure, even amidst criticism of their other shortcomings. And anyhow, with LEGO increasingly working to expand their presence in Asia and the Middle East, acting as the only reasonable way for them portray race would be in exact proportion to typical demographics in broadly defined "Western markets" is laughable. As I mentioned earlier, even the relative proportion of different hair colors in LEGO sets is far from accurate to real-world population breakdowns. It's not as though we ever see anybody complaining that LEGO has "too many" redheaded characters. Most folks seem happy as long as hairstyle options in any one color (or color options for any one hairstyle) remain reasonably varied. So clearly, there's no reason depicting any form of human diversity must entail some dogmatic adherence to population statistics. The important thing about diverse representation is ensuring that as many kids as possible are — in SOME capacity — able to find connections between the various parts of their identity and the toys and media they enjoy. It's telling that people touting the idea that many LEGO characters are "whatever you want them to be" generally stop short of suggesting that existing characters without any established sexuality could "come out" more visibly in future sets or media. Certainly that's the obvious way to create more LGBTQ+ representation in LEGO themes without introducing stereotypes. What if Lloyd or Cole from LEGO Ninjago were to get a boyfriend, or Olivia from LEGO Friends were to get a girlfriend? What if Cole's dad Lou married another man, or Dottie and Hazel from LEGO Friends married each other? What if Jay from Ninjago decided to come out as a trans girl, or Jack from LEGO Hidden Side turned out to be a trans boy who wears a chest binder? What if two nameless City characters of the same sex are shown on a romantic dinner date in a future restaurant set? I can't help but feel like the failure of these comments to even acknowledge this possibility carries the unfortunate insinuation that existing LEGO characters can be IMAGINED to be gay or straight, cis or trans — but that unlike cisgender or heterosexual identities which are often either established or implied in existing sets and media, LGBTQ+ identities are "problematic" if they show up on any level outside of buyers' imaginations. And there's something insidious about how discussions like this often lead to overdramatic rebuttals that frame either the desire for or existence of more diverse representation in LEGO as some huge can of worms that would have been better off avoided by reverting to character designs with NO identitifying features other than unisex work uniforms. It's reminiscent of how after racially segregated schools were outlawed in the 1950s and 1960s some racists suggested abolishing public schools entirely, or how some government workers have attempted to fight against the legalization of gay marriage by not issuing marriage licenses to anyone; or how some schools have decided to cancel school dances or proms altogether instead of allowing gay or lesbian couples to participate. Hardly any of these people had made any complaints about the value of public education or state-sanctioned marriage or school dances before they were called out for their discrimination — but decided that it was better for NOBODY to benefit from them than for people different from themselves to share in the benefits. Similarly, nothing about a topic that acknowledges LEGO for actions supporting diversity/inclusivity and hoping to see more in the future should kick off a debate about whether or not LEGO characters should have any defined identities in the first place. But somehow, it ALWAYS does. When LEGO Friends came out, even many people who'd never seemed bothered by the many hyper-masculine sets and themes that preceded it began arguing insistently that LEGO sets and themes should never be anything other than "gender-neutral". When LEGO Friends updated its main character designs last year to make them more visibly racially diverse (instead of just nebulously light or dark skinned), people seized the opportunity to rant about how race is a "political" issue that has no business being in toys in any form. And of course, any discussion touching on the LEGO Group's attitudes towards same-sex relationships or transgender identities eventually results in people lamenting LEGO characters even HAVING any sort of sex/gender signifiers. I dunno what if anything can be done about this irritating tendency… I'm just tired of it at this point.

In the past these sets have typically included alternate hair colors for the minifigures included, so it's not as though that's an issue that LEGO has no precedent for dealing with. Really, making a wedding set that was LGBTQ+ inclusive could be as simple as including alternate faces and outfits instead of just alternate hair. It's true that LEGO could never create a set like this that would represent EVERY potential buyer (with options for glasses, sunglasses, freckles, wheelchairs, canes/walkers, facial deformities, prosthetic arms, etc). The human condition is just too varied for that. But it's silly to act as though not being able to be 100% inclusive means any attempts at becoming more inclusive are pointless. In general I find this a feeble argument for not bothering to improve representation in sets. It's the same nonsense as "why does LEGO need so many sets when they could just make bulk brick buckets that let you build whatever you like?" It ignores how much more there is to LEGO play than wholly open-ended, unscripted creativity. How many themes do you really think there are these days which are so open-ended that no characters have any obvious relationships with one another? Because even in LEGO City, it's common sense that the unnamed man and woman minifigures in 60182 or 31069 or 10835 are meant to be understood as the parents of the child in each of those sets. To say nothing of sets featuring named characters with established identities and relationships like 70627 or 41369 ! The ability to disregard intent does not somehow make the intent insignificant to how the set is most likely to be played with. And if it did? Well, then, by the same argument, LEGO could make a set with two dads and their child, and kids and adults who prefer not to think of them that way or don't consider that possibility could use their imaginations to say that one of the dads is the child's uncle, or cousin, or older sibling, or family friend, or mother who happens to have an androgynous fashion sense. You seem to believe that this "anybody can be anything" argument proves that including more gay or lesbian representation in sets is entirely unnecessary. But in fact, if we humor this notion that what a set's figures are intended to represent is meaningless, then it follows that there's no reason whatsoever for sets NOT to depict less heteronormative familial or romantic relationships. On another note, the idea that making transgender characters is just a matter of swapping heads and body parts around — as if transgender people are simply some kind of jumble of "mannish" or "womanly" features like the "bearded ladies" at old-timey carnival side-shows — is exactly the kind of clueless transphobic stereotype that folks earlier in the thread were suggesting LEGO ought to try and steer clear of. It's tremendously naive to propose that as a substitute for real, purposeful transgender representation. And what of LEGO's value as a tool to educate kids about the world around them — a position often cited by people who think modern-day and historical themes should go back to their less overtly fantastical roots? Now, personally, I would question how significant this purpose is in a lot of cases, since themes like Castle, Pirates, and Western have never been particularly historically accurate, and their primary purpose from the beginning has seemingly been to entertain or to teach creative skills rather than subjects like history or geography. Even so, educational value is unmistakably a core part of the Duplo theme's design, and City and Friends at least adopt the trappings of educational toys with how many of their more science-oriented sets are advertised. So if LGBTQ+ issues are so far outside younger kids' firsthand experience as some comments here seem to suggest, wouldn't it be tremendously valuable to illustrate to these kids that two people of the same sex can be parents or romantic interests? Or that a person can be a different gender than the one they were raised as if it doesn't seem true to who they are? Believe it or not, these are not concepts that are likely to be entirely alien to today's kids or to have no bearing on their childhood experiences. At least, not those who would be aware of Pride in London at all. After all, same sex marriage has been legal in all of Great Britain (albeit not in Northern Ireland) since 2014, and same-sex civil partnerships granting the same property rights and rights to parenthood as are granted to married couples have been legal since 2005. Great Britain has likewise legally recognized the gender of transgender men and women since 2005, although that right is not extended to nonbinary genders or people who have not lived openly as their gender for two years. So most British kids under the age of 12 probably do not even remember a time before same-sex couples could live in the same house and raise children together, or when transgender people lacked legal recognition. Frankly, a lot of the bigoted voices trying to stoke fears about the dangers of LGBTQ+ equality rely upon a fabricated notion that these identities are some kind of uncharted waters which present a host of unforeseen dangers, as opposed to identities that have been legally acknowledged for well over a decade without any of the sorts of nightmare scenarios they paint a picture of coming to pass. It's the same sort of deceptive fearmongering employed by opponents of childhood vaccinations, or of sex education in schools, or of other advances in society that have demonstrated many years of effectiveness at this point, and little to no evidence for the severe and unacknowledged dangers that those regressive and ignorant voices are so quick to attribute to them. In that regard, things have changed vastly from the childhood experiences of many of us old enough to be part of the AFOL community, particularly in countries where the rights of LGBTQ+ people have not been legally recognized for as long. And while that progress towards equality is not always linear, it has advanced considerably even on a global basis. I suspect we will see LEGO continue to expand their recognition and support for LGBTQ+ equality in turn, although not necessarily as quickly as they ought to.

Truthfully, I wouldn't be surprised to see this, seeing as the 2013 Castle sets also dabbled in this somewhat with the Gatehouse Raid set that could combine with the main castle. Adding to this, I think something I would like to see moving forward is more castles that have Technic pins/axles to expand them, but also hinges (similar to Black Monarch's Castle back in the day, or the Fortrex as you mentioned). After all, one of the biggest advantages of the shift we've seen towards smaller plates rather than full-size or raised baseplates is that it allows sets to break free of a rectangular grid layout. While not necessary, I also think it would be impressive if a future LEGO castle had modularity on a vertical level rather than just horizontal — similar to how many Creator 3-in-1, City, and Friends buildings (as well as classic Harry Potter buildings) could be stacked in different vertical layouts.

I don't see why it's "just a technicality". If that were the case you'd expect people to be panicking about LEGO overextending themselves by trying to run: their own offshore wind farms in the UK and Germany random non-LEGO real estate properties in Denmark, London, and Switzerland the 29.6% share of Merlin Entertainments that Kirkbi already owned But in fact, there's a big difference between actually running those properties and running a holding company that owns them. Plus, if LEGO and Kirkbi were effectively one and the same, what difference would it have made for Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen to step down as CEO and hand the reins to Jørgen Vig Knudstorp — or more recently, for Jørgen to step down and hand his title to Bali Padda? In each case, the departing CEO remained involved in a leadership position within Kirkbi, either as owner in Kjeld's case, or as chairman of the LEGO Brand Group in Jørgen's case. I wouldn't be surprised if the latter were part of the preparations for this very acquisition of the remaining shares of Merlin Entertainments, creating an entity outside of The LEGO Group that would help maintain synergy between it and other companies like Merlin with major impacts on the reputation of the LEGO brand, regardless of what percentage of each company is owned by the Kirk Kristiansens.

Barbara Gordon's hair from The LEGO Batman Movie, I think.

I mean, there's a lot of ways to include LGBTQ+ rep in products without negative stereotyping. The simplest by far would be for a family in a theme like LEGO City, Friends, Duplo, Creator, etc. to have two parents of the same sex. Similarly, future wedding or Valentines Day sets could include various minifigure part options depending on whether the person building them wants two male minifigures, two female minifigures, or one of each. Printed or stickered elements in a theme that hint at a relationship between two characters (e.g. a photograph of or letter from a character's significant other with a heart drawn on, or a photo of their family) offer a similar opportunity to show less heteronormative relationships. And of course there's always the option of featuring specific symbols created and embraced by LGBTQ+ people, such as pride flags or variations on the Mars and Venus symbols. For transgender characters, it's often not quite as easy to depict them in an unambiguous, non-stereotyped, non-fetishized way using just visuals without a supporting narrative. But there are a lot of ways that LEGO has communicated narrative elements in sets even when they lack strong media support, such as graphical easter eggs or shared/re-imagined minifigures that suggest a narrative connection between two sets or themes. Just consider how the mother, father, and child from Fun in the Park conspicuously reappear in Pickup & Caravan, how Dr. Brains from LEGO Power Miners makes a guest appearance (with a new face print) in the LEGO Atlantis Deep Sea Raider, or how a much older version of Solomon Blaze from LEGO Galaxy Squad reappears as the leader of the LEGO Ultra Agents. It's not hard to imagine stuff like that being used to express a transgender narrative, such as taking a LEGO character (named or unnamed) who has previously been identified or depicted as male, and putting an unambiguously female redesign of the same character in a later set. On a more general level, yeah, corporate Pride sponsorships are easy to see more as cynical marketing campaigns than real, substantive support. In this case, though, I think LEGO has demonstrated a bit more commitment (even in less visible ways) than the companies that put up a rainbow-colored profile pictures and ads on social media for a month and then forget about it. According to some accounts from employees, the in-house Pride celebrations at LEGO's London hub are not a new thing LEGO is doing this year; it's just that this is the first year they have shown the same support for Pride more publicly on sites like Twitter or LinkedIn. Furthermore, it's important to remember that many companies (even ones with very positive attitudes towards diversity or very diverse workforces internally) have remained silent about Pride for reasons just as cynical as the reasons companies are now making big public statements about how much they (purportedly) support the LGBTQ+ community. Make no mistake — there's nothing courageous or remarkable about waiting to visibly show support for a cause until you've determined it won't hurt your brand's reputation. But showing support isn't inherently any less sincere than refraining from doing so. As the cliche goes, actions speak louder than words. Some companies, like Google or show superficial support for pride as a marketing stunt for just a few weeks of the year, and spend the rest of the year donating to anti-LGBTQ+ causes or discriminating against their own gay or transgender employees and customers when it serves their bottom line or keeps them out of political hot water. LEGO, on the other hand, has a fairly strong track record of quietly supporting those customers and employees, despite making no previous attempts to leverage those actions for marketing purposes. For example, providing a free second bride or groom minifigure upon request for buyers of the wedding decoration sets, or maintaining workplaces that even former employees praise for how inclusive and accepting it was in their experience. I agree, particularly considering that some people like RuPaul who have established themselves as icons for the gay community have also made comments that reinforce transphobic stereotypes and language, whether intentionally or not — with some examples described here. LGBTQ+ identities may not be inappropriate for kids or otherwise unwholesome on their own, but that's far different from saying that all celebrities within that community have equal standing or credibility as all-ages role models.

Something else to keep in mind is that a LOT of AFOLs are drawn back into the fan community after a “dark age” due to a desire to relive something special from their childhoods. So in those cases, even a set with just as interesting or enjoyable a building experience as the themes or licensed brands they enjoyed as kids might not have any value in terms of what THEY seek from the LEGO brand: an opportunity to rekindle an old or familiar interest, not to experience new and unfamiliar ones. We AFOLs young enough to have experienced constraction themes as kids often haven’t had a lengthy dark age. So being part of this community today isn’t an effect of a mid-life crisis that compels us to seek out our childhood interests as an emotional anchor, but rather a more continuous awareness of LEGO as a potential source for new experiences. That’s a pretty different perspective! Growing up in a time of much more rapid change for The LEGO Group probably also prepared us for it in a way that the smaller and more consistent portfolio of themes in the 80s did not so much for that era’s KFOLs. Another complication is that any theme that’s massively popular with kids tends to flood the aftermarket and depress aftermarket prices as kids, whether by choice or necessity, part with childhood toys to prepare for a more independent adult life. It’s easy for an AFOL today to look at BrickLink prices for Bionicle parts and sets compared to other discontinued items that were less popular with kids and more popular with AFOLs (Santa age Super Chief, Orient Expedition sets, etc) and think Bionicle is cheap stuff nobody wants, even if it’s just a normal thing that happens with lots of other kid-preferred themes.

Haven’t seen any chatter about this on Eurobricks, but LEGO will have a space at Pride in London tomorrow (Saturday, June 6) where they’ll be providing Duplo bricks for kids to build with and minifigure parts so kids and their families can add figures of themselves as part of a minifig-scale pride parade that will be on display there! It’s great to see LEGO making a more visible effort to support the LGBTQ+ community, particularly considering how many of their employees (including designers with strong standing in both the company and the AFOL community, like Matthew Ashton and Marcos Bessa) are out and proud! LEGO also made a post last month on LinkedIn sharing some of their in-house Pride Month festivities: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6547457915375099904 Hopefully this foreshadows even more positive LGBTQ+ representation from the LEGO Group in the years to come!

There are definitely exceptions to that, though! One in particular that springs to mind is Wes Talbott, who has a rich portfolio of fantasy illustrations, but also worked on LEGO concepts and illustrations (including two Legend of Zelda projects for LEGO Ideas) before joining the LEGO Group as a designer who has worked on 19 sets from themes such as LEGO Elves, LEGO Ideas, The LEGO Movie 2, and LEGO Friends!

For the most part, measurements in official LEGO set descriptions aren't 100% accurate, but rather rounded down to the nearest whole number. In this case it is saying that each side measures over 25 centimeters and over 9 inches. To give you a more precise measurement, a single LEGO "module" (e.g. "one stud" in length/width) is 8 millimeters. All road plates are 32x32 modules/studs, so that means they are 25.6 centimeters in length and width. That's equivalent to 10.07874 (or about 10 and 1/16) inches.

Truth be told, you're probably not much worse off than people in many parts of the United States in that regard. It's only a few hours by road from the Netherlands to the LEGO stores in Essen, Germany or Wijnegem, Belgium. By comparison, for as many LEGO stores as the United States has, most are concentrated near large urban centers, and with our country being as ridiculously spread out as it is (especially in the states further from the coast), many areas of the country might be six hours or more from any LEGO store. Granted, driving long distances is a much bigger part of United States culture than European culture (much to my frustration as somebody who doesn't drive). But even so, that sort of distance is a lot further than most people would ever drive for non-business reasons unless they planned to make a whole vacation out of it. And with much of Europe being more densely populated than a lot of America's western states, I think you might have a better chance of having LEGO stores open up in your area in the years to come than people in, say, Montana or South Dakota. Fortunately, if these exclusive parts end up anything like some of these earlier PAB exclusive pieces like the CMF Spider Lady gown and torso with magenta web patterns, CMF Wacky Witch head with magenta makeup, Dark Green Mrs. Claus gown, or red CMF Holiday Elf hat, aftermarket prices should be fairly affordable even without a whole lot of sellers offering them. Perhaps that's one advantage to these sorts of parts not being heavily advertised the way other types of exclusive minifigures (like ones released as gift-with-purchase sets, DK guide book promos, or event promos) would be. Particularly since while they broadly fit themes like City or Castle, they don't specifically complement a particular theme/subtheme/faction that people would already be collecting or "army building".

I think there were quite a few Nexo Knights parts that were very useful for historic and fantasy contexts: 1x1x2/3 pyramids (22388/35343/35344) 2x3 pentagon tiles (22385/35339/35341) The new book pieces (24093/24324/28684/29167), which are much more minifig compatible than the old books originally designed for Belville. The new ponytail (22411) The new spike/steeple/spear tip (24482) Visor/face shield neck accessory (22495) Straight sword blade (23860) Lightning bolt (27256) 2x2 rock texture slope (27261) Recolored beard and wig with crown from King Halbert (6145153/6183763) Lots of fantasy-friendly figure and accessory pieces (prints, molds, and recolors alike) from the monsters and the builds associated with them. The main parts that were more specifically sci-fi in appearance were the printed elements and new minifigure accessory molds… but then, considering how much griping I see even about the graphic designs in the 2013 Castle sets and the graphics/molds/colors from Knights' Kingdom 2, I'm not sure sets without the sci-fi twist would have had a surer chance of pleasing Castle fans with very particular tastes. And while that sci-fi or brightly-colored stuff may have understandably reduced the Nexo Knights' value to historic builders as parts packs, there were plenty of other sets which reused the same parts with a much more historic-friendly brick assortment, like the Disney castle, Ninjago dragons, and Harry Potter sets. I hope a lot find use in the next take on LEGO Castle as well!

Since the concept is dated to 1994 it would have come several years after the Pirates theme launched. So a lot of the similarities to Pirates in terms of the Bluecoat figure designs were probably just because the prototypes in this photo hadn't yet been developed to a point that entirely new printed graphics would have been created for them. But as mentioned, some of the ideas that the designers were apparently exploring worked their way into subsequent themes, and while the majority of the builds shown here don't have any obvious parallels with post-1994 sets (at least, none that they didn't have with earlier Castle and Pirates sets), I strongly suspect that the carriage on the far left was eventually modified to become the stagecoach that appears in 6765. Not only the build of the model but also the colors (aside from the brown wheels) seem largely identical, with the main changes being the addition of a dollar sign graphic to the side and a rifle being attached in place of the lantern from the Europa 1700 prototype image. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the choice not to develop Europa further might have stemmed from an internal decision between pursuing further development on either it or the Western theme, since the latter was less similar to the existing Castle and Pirates themes than Europa 1700, but likewise expanded the LEGO portfolio to a setting perhaps a bit slightly closer to the modern day than either of those themes. There are also some molds that show up in the Europa 1700 photo that would make their eventual debut in post-1994 sets, albeit in different contexts: for example, 30100, which made its official debut in the 1997 Fright Knights sets as an expansion to the existing system of castle wall and window panels. I definitely feel like its use in the castle in the Europa 1700 picture is more impressive than its eventual appearance ended up being. Another example is 30156 (introduced officially to sets in the Adventurers and Ninja themes of 1998), which interestingly shows up here both with equivalent inside and outside corner slope panels (never released), but also used in conjunction with 6121 (introduced in 1993). Those two parts were never used together in actual sets or even released in matching colors, so it never occurred to me that those two elements had the same angle and were probably intended to complement one another!

Here's a Halloween minifig 3-pack from last year with exclusive recolors (either with the part color, the print colors, or both altered from the original). Later in the year there was also this Christmas minifig 3-pack sold in Build-A-Mini packaging, and found pre-built at some stores or loose in the Build-A-Mini bins at others. A thread in the Brickset forums from this post onward showcases some other Build-A-Mini exclusive finds like recolored CMF wizard robes, or more recently the shield mentioned in this thread as well as a unique "CHAMPS" baseball jersey with a baseball-headed mascot pictured on it. It's a recent phenomenon and hasn't been reported as widely as a lot of set releases due to the inconsistent method of distribution and lack of a set name or number to identify these figure collections by. But it's definitely something we're seeing more and more of since figures like this first began showing up last year.