A mini-doll rant by a mini-doll fan

[Aanchir]

I basically tried to include everything where the majority of characters were named. I know Fright Knights named Willa and the Bat Lord, but I'm not aware of other characters having names. There are a few other themes here and there with named characters ("The Black Falcon", "Alpha Draconis", "Governor Broadsides", "Majisto", "Ann-Droid", "Robin Hood", "King Kahuka", etc), but those themes seemed to consist of mostly generic characters.

The first Knight's Kingdom characters all had names, and there WAS a storyline, although I don't know much about it. For some reason, I remembered Cedric the Bull having once been Leo's most trusted knight, although I was never able to locate where I heard that retroactively. It had a computer game (not sure of the storyline), and a storybook ("Medieval Mischief and Mayhem").

There might be other qualifying themes (Life On Mars, maybe?), but these are the ones I'm aware of that were more character-based.

DaveE

It's tough to compare 90s themes with later, more fully-realized IPs, since a lot of the time the stories and character names in the 90s varied by region. So for example, the American marketing materials for Insectoids said they were "led by their clever queen, Gypsy Moth". In the UK she is merely "Insector 2, the female member of the reconnaissance crew". The story also fundamentally varies from region to region: in the European story, the Insectoids are spacefaring refugees who settle on a distant planet (called Armeron in the UK) populated by giant insects, and that they use their insect-shaped vehicles to blend in so they can harvest Voltstones. But the American LEGO Mania Magazine just says that "no place in space wanted these part-robot, part-insect aliens" and that they're "on a mission of intergalactic mayhem and mischief".

It wasn't until the early 2000s that LEGO really started to standardize character names, set names, and storylines from region to region instead of just passing that duty to regional marketing teams. Incidentally, this is why so many Adventurers character names appeared to change around the Dino Island arc — some characters' American names became their new worldwide names (like Johnny Thunder and Harry Cane), while other characters took their new worldwide names from other regions (like Dr. Kilroy and Pippin Reed).

Of course, the determination of characters' sex/gender usually happens on the design end of things, not the marketing end, but even so the lack of consistent marketing for those early themes, and the poor records of the marketing in some regions, can make it tricky to even pin down which figures qualify as named characters and which are mere stock characters.

[davee123]

It's tough to compare 90s themes with later, more fully-realized IPs, since a lot of the time the stories and character names in the 90s varied by region.

Yeah, I'm often curious how that was handled, particularly for things like set names. Sometimes they were consistent, and sometimes not. And it always seemed like there was a slight preference in Europe for more literal English names like "knights with wagon". I always assumed this was thanks to being more direct translations (attempting to make the names work between languages), but I don't really know.

Of course, the determination of characters' sex/gender usually happens on the design end of things, not the marketing end, but even so the lack of consistent marketing for those early themes, and the poor records of the marketing in some regions, can make it tricky to even pin down which figures qualify as named characters and which are mere stock characters.

That's the differentiation that I was aiming for-- some lineups seem to really target having very particular characters that were decided on at the design phase. That certainly felt like the case in things like Time Cruisers, but not so much in Fright Knights (for example).

The first time this felt noticeable to me was Rock Raiders-- probably because they came out with a minifig set which was 100% characters, and not your typical "army-builder" set full of generic figures. Each Rock Raider had a very designed "look", and was unique. Actually-- I... think they were consistent with their names between regions? Although I wonder if that has anything to do with the fact that they planned to release video games that would have to match the character names. Adventurers was similar in terms of having a wide variety of "characters" (it seemed a lot more character-based to me), but it was definitely a mish-mash of character names regionally.

Anyway, it's definitely some sort of sliding scale of weaker/stronger storylines and characters. Nexo Knights, Chima, etc, all have very strong characters and storylines, while things like Monster Fighters, Knight's Kingdom II, Pharaoh's Quest, etc, are sort of oddballs. They DO have stories and defined characters, but they're not as strongly advertised and pushed. And things like Adventurers and Time Cruisers had clear characters, but the particulars seemed like they didn't matter-- the genres were the selling points. And then there's of course things with SOME characters and storyline, but primarily generic, like Fantasy Era Castle and Alien Conquest.

Comparing them is definitely difficult-- it seems a lot like apples and oranges in many respects. And figuring out what's what regionally is a challenge. Especially when a lot of the "official" data isn't available anymore, like the website for Life On Mars (for instance).

DaveE

[SweetiePie88]

On a slightly unrelated note, I'd love LEGO to create a completely gender balanced theme.

So basically a lego city but if they started doing a better variety of stuff and not basically nothing but the police and fire dominated theme? I would love that. As much as i despise lego friends and elves for being basically separated into its own little girls world, i am finding myself more and more drawn to it since they actually are doing a variety of buildings and neat looking stuff. On top of that, Friends has the better printed stuff, a ton of animals, and both Elves and Friends seem to use a bunch of unprinted minifigure heads. That alone is a major draw for me since that is one of my favorite parts.

When it comes to the 2017 stuff, lego elves and friends stand tied at #2 on the list, only being beaten out by Lego MineCraft.

[Brickadier General]

I sympathize with some of your points, mainly the lack of variety. Friends minidolls currently don't lend themselves very well to MOCing. I made a Friends diorama set in the early 1900s and set about to use stock Friends parts. Making the figures look period correct was not very easy with the given Friends parts. I also felt like there aren't many male figures (or at least male figures I could use for my MOC).

I like the minidolls but wish they had more points of articulation. I'm assuming these were left out for quality reasons. Still, it would be nice to have more posing options.

[gamejutzu]

So basically a lego city but if they started doing a better variety of stuff and not basically nothing but the police and fire dominated theme? I would love that. As much as i despise lego friends and elves for being basically separated into its own little girls world, i am finding myself more and more drawn to it since they actually are doing a variety of buildings and neat looking stuff.

Pretty much. My life would basically be complete if that happened, especially if it was an action or Adventurers theme.

What i'd like to reboot into this sort of thing, is either Exo-Force (since I doubt there was really a grounded, established universe anyway), or even better, Adventurers. We could even have Thunder as an old guy with a cane and everything.

I also agree that it really seemed like the minidoll franchises seem to split off from Lego as it's own thing, it's a stark contrast from other themes in my opinion. But besides this, I really do have hopes in minidolls. Imagine when they make figurines of licensed franchises, like anime and... Mcdonald?? (He's perfect for a minidoll ) But yeah, I feel like they really need to step up their game with minidolls, right now it's really limited.

Edited September 2, 2016 by gamejutzu

[eve nightfall]

My daughter (getting 5 in some weeks) plays with Duplo (lot of sets with many figures) and started to play now with her first Lego Set the "Belle castle" (I think you put them to Friends?). She also has the Creator Lighthouse and the Minifigures from Series 15 and 16 and the Disney set. She is a role player since she is 1,5 year old and we started to build Duplo sceneries for her)

From this Point of view I see that it is very important for her to have FEMALE and MALE figures to play with. She needs both of them to play family themes, friend themes (she plays with boys in kindergarten, why not at home with Lego), the princess need princes to play and for dancing. Also when she plays movies she knows (most of them are Disney, a small number because we have no TV and only watch DVD) or books she needs male figures. I don't understand why the friend series are so "small minded" and have such little character number. It is kind of weird that the Duplo figures are so "open" (in age and character) in every direction and then at age 5/6 it comes to just this girly friends? Where are the grandparents, the brothers and sisters? The friends to join the fun in the theme parks?

I didn't like the series till now ... when it comes to the point to create a colorful world with lots of different stones (even my husband likes them) and animals. I don't know why Lego doesn't build more animals. Duplo is so full of them and then suddenly only horses, some cats and dogs, parrots and owls. Weird animals with hairclips? This is were Lego loses children to other brands (like Playmobil or Schleich). Some don't want to build them but need them in Minifigurescale to fit into the role play scenery they did build. There are so many different dragons (I like them) but no sheep, pig, goose, goat or eagle, elefant, zebra or lion. I think the minifigures with animals are so much wanted because of them.

I am buying elves, friends, princess sets now (because I don't want to pay secondary market prices in 2-3 years when she wants some special ones or disney themes she is to young now for) because of the nice, different colors not the characters (except for the Disney princess). She loves to mix all the pieces and creates new minifigures, new characters. I think she would love to have just a box full of different torsos, heads and hair and create new ones. As far as I have seen she prefers the Belle and the Beast minidolls becaus they don't break so easily like the minifigures. Perhaps that is the reason they made them less moveable.

The colors my daughter likes are depending on what she is building. All shades of blue are needed for an underwater or ice palace, another castle is more pink because of the extra parts she got from the princess sets. She doesn't prefer them because they are pink but because of their shape. The balconies and towers etc. could be grey or brown and she would use them to build, too. I used lot of the new "wooden" looking blocks to create the upper part of a Rapunzel tower (Duplo Moc). And I think it would be better to make such sets not that much gendered (castle for boys dark grey, for girls pink).

Sometimes I think that the creators of toys underestimate the fantasy of children. I think there should be a series like the buildings of creator (Livinghouse, Lighthouse, Bike- and Toyshop and all the other stores) with more minifigures and animals and more daylife themes. School, zoo, hospital, doctor (dentist, etc), circus, theatre, cinema, dancing, nature places, ...

Poor boys who only can be pirates, knights and superheros. Poor girls who can only go shopping, riding and be a superstar. Where are the social jobs, the doctors, the nurses, the scientists and creators of toys? I think the friends series could do much better for boys if there were more of them in it (the rollercoaster etc. would have been an great intro for the friends of the girls).

[gamejutzu]

My daughter (getting 5 in some weeks) plays with Duplo (lot of sets with many figures) and started to play now with her first Lego Set the "Belle castle" (I think you put them to Friends?). She also has the Creator Lighthouse and the Minifigures from Series 15 and 16 and the Disney set. She is a role player since she is 1,5 year old and we started to build Duplo sceneries for her)

From this Point of view I see that it is very important for her to have FEMALE and MALE figures to play with. She needs both of them to play family themes, friend themes (she plays with boys in kindergarten, why not at home with Lego), the princess need princes to play and for dancing. Also when she plays movies she knows (most of them are Disney, a small number because we have no TV and only watch DVD) or books she needs male figures. I don't understand why the friend series are so "small minded" and have such little character number. It is kind of weird that the Duplo figures are so "open" (in age and character) in every direction and then at age 5/6 it comes to just this girly friends? Where are the grandparents, the brothers and sisters? The friends to join the fun in the theme parks?

I didn't like the series till now ... when it comes to the point to create a colorful world with lots of different stones (even my husband likes them) and animals. I don't know why Lego doesn't build more animals. Duplo is so full of them and then suddenly only horses, some cats and dogs, parrots and owls. Weird animals with hairclips? This is were Lego loses children to other brands (like Playmobil or Schleich). Some don't want to build them but need them in Minifigurescale to fit into the role play scenery they did build. There are so many different dragons (I like them) but no sheep, pig, goose, goat or eagle, elefant, zebra or lion. I think the minifigures with animals are so much wanted because of them.

I am buying elves, friends, princess sets now (because I don't want to pay secondary market prices in 2-3 years when she wants some special ones or disney themes she is to young now for) because of the nice, different colors not the characters (except for the Disney princess). She loves to mix all the pieces and creates new minifigures, new characters. I think she would love to have just a box full of different torsos, heads and hair and create new ones. As far as I have seen she prefers the Belle and the Beast minidolls becaus they don't break so easily like the minifigures. Perhaps that is the reason they made them less moveable.

The colors my daughter likes are depending on what she is building. All shades of blue are needed for an underwater or ice palace, another castle is more pink because of the extra parts she got from the princess sets. She doesn't prefer them because they are pink but because of their shape. The balconies and towers etc. could be grey or brown and she would use them to build, too. I used lot of the new "wooden" looking blocks to create the upper part of a Rapunzel tower (Duplo Moc). And I think it would be better to make such sets not that much gendered (castle for boys dark grey, for girls pink).

Sometimes I think that the creators of toys underestimate the fantasy of children. I think there should be a series like the buildings of creator (Livinghouse, Lighthouse, Bike- and Toyshop and all the other stores) with more minifigures and animals and more daylife themes. School, zoo, hospital, doctor (dentist, etc), circus, theatre, cinema, dancing, nature places, ...

Poor boys who only can be pirates, knights and superheros. Poor girls who can only go shopping, riding and be a superstar. Where are the social jobs, the doctors, the nurses, the scientists and creators of toys? I think the friends series could do much better for boys if there were more of them in it (the rollercoaster etc. would have been an great intro for the friends of the girls).

Well I personally think the crisis falls for people that are 5-8 or haven't reached 5th and 4th grade (end of elementary/primary school). This is the time when they are most active with "boy" things and "girl" things before they are introduced to mixed themes and begin to have a better tolerance for them. Granted it's the industry that makes kids like this, but i'm just saying what I observed.

Kids have the choice to transition to Lego City when they are old enough, which as someone said, has a healthy number of both genders. And Lego City offers social jobs, like doctors and airport employees. Other than this theme, things aren't looking very balanced.

Also, the minidoll sets generally lack characters. Some can complain that mostly females are included in these sets, but I think it's worse that there isn't a healthy number of minidolls in the sets anyway.

Edited September 4, 2016 by gamejutzu

[Soupperson1]

Poor boys who only can be pirates, knights and superheros. Poor girls who can only go shopping, riding and be a superstar. Where are the social jobs, the doctors, the nurses, the scientists and creators of toys? I think the friends series could do much better for boys if there were more of them in it (the rollercoaster etc. would have been an great intro for the friends of the girls).

Well that's the reason they have DC girls coming out next year and dong forget Elves. Even Friends has a skatepark, Olivia's science themed car, jungle rescue sets and camp sets. Boys can go shopping to in Creator.

To second what gamejitzu is saying the reason why there's little male mini dolls is because there's a lack of mini dolls in general. I honestly think lately Friends has been very balanced with genders there's been about two-three male mini dolls per wave, not bad for a "girls" theme! Besides the roller coaster did have Matthew.

[rodiziorobs]

To second what gamejitzu is saying the reason why there's little male mini dolls is because there's a lack of mini dolls in general.

I second this. It is probably because the 'dolls are more specialized--particularly in the Elves, where they have distinct skirts and intricate printing--and so take up more than their fair share of a given set's budget, at least compared to minifigs. I expect as the themes have more longevity that those special parts will see more reuse, and we'll see more of them.

[MAB]

I don't understand why the friend series are so "small minded" and have such little character number.

It is because Friends is mainly based on a group of five friends. Hence the number of characters is quite small as they get repeated a lot.

[SweetiePie88]

While it focuses on 5 friends, they also live in a city so it seems like there should be a variety of other people that reside in the town

[davee123]

She needs both of them to play family themes, friend themes [...] I don't understand why the friend series are so "small minded" and have such little character number.

Well, two reasons. Friends is about a core group of 5 characters (all girls), and their friends in Heartlake City. So nearly every Friends sets starts with at least one of the 5 main "Friends" by default. If there's a second character in the set, it's usually a "friend" of the core "Friend". But they've actually got a bunch of characters-- 42 named characters, 10 of which are male.

But the other reason that we don't see MORE characters in the Friends lineup (which has more sets, but fewer characters than Ninjago, for instance) is that mini-dolls are more expensive to produce. That's why you get fewer of them in each set. Ninjago (again, for instance) averages about 2.5 minifigs in sets that have any named characters, while Friends averages about 1.5 mini-dolls in sets that contain mini-dolls (even fewer if you count sets that have NO mini-dolls!) So set designers don't have extra room to budget "bonus" characters, and have to use their allotment carefully.

It is kind of weird that the Duplo figures are so "open" (in age and character) in every direction and then at age 5/6 it comes to just this girly friends? Where are the grandparents, the brothers and sisters? The friends to join the fun in the theme parks?

Well, that's due to LEGO's research into how different ages of children play. Younger kids (in the DUPLO age range) often focus on day-in-the-life play, mimicking what they see every day. Older kids are less inclined to do that. Most boys start exploring "exciting" things like firemen, cops 'n robbers, outer space, dinosaurs, castles, pirates, etc.

Girls, however, are a little different. The ones that actually like fantasy (like the boys) will often already be interested in System LEGO. So LEGO already sells to them. But they're a small percentage. There's another market segment of girls who focus on the "exciting future" of high school, where they're not dependent on their parents and focus on their personal friendships (which they envision being mostly with girls). And that's where the LEGO Friends market is setting its sights. And there aren't many boys or parents or there, because girls in that demographic aren't as interested in that (or, so LEGO's research tells them).

So, you can make the argument (as many gender-activists do) that this is CAUSED by societal pressure, and that really, both boys and girls would be just as happy to play with balanced genders. And the truth is probably somewhere in between, but we don't know. What we DO know is that if LEGO wants the lineup to be successful, the market research says they should do what they're doing.

I don't know why Lego doesn't build more animals. Duplo is so full of them and then suddenly only horses, some cats and dogs, parrots and owls. Weird animals with hairclips? This is were Lego loses children to other brands (like Playmobil or Schleich).

Again, market research. Plus, in the case of "Friends animals" with crazy hair accessories, I think in part they're doing it to expand the lineup without including costly mini-dolls. IE, they can produce small sets with cheaper parts (animals) that girls in their target demographic still like, but can offset the cost of pricier mini-doll sets.

There are so many different dragons (I like them) but no sheep, pig, goose, goat or eagle, elefant, zebra or lion. I think the minifigures with animals are so much wanted because of them.

Actually, LEGO's done pigs, goats, and elephants in minifig sets already. I don't think they'e done geese, zebras, or lions (although there's a "Friends" version of a lion cub). They did a "giant" eagle (from LOTR), and you could argue that the falcons are eagles (they sorta look like generic predatory birds), but that's arguable. But yes, there's a laundry list of "minifig-size" animals that the hobbyist community would love, like deer, moose, sheep, beavers, ducks, geese, zebras, hippos, lions, rhinos, giraffes, etc.

As for whether or not kids want them, I don't really know. I'd love to see a "duck pond" set, but I don't know if too many kids would like to play with it. So it's tricky to find that balance and setting that works from a sales perspective.

As far as I have seen she prefers the Belle and the Beast minidolls becaus they don't break so easily like the minifigures. Perhaps that is the reason they made them less moveable.

I think it's due to cost and aesthetics. The mini-doll was designed to be more appealing to a particular market segment of girls (the ones who don't already like minifigures). They found that girls have a hard time identifying with blocky figures like minifigs, and found them to be ... "less pretty", basically. They wanted slender, more human-proportioned figures. That means that the waists, necks, arms, and legs have to be smaller, and therefore can't support doing things like "twisting wrists" (and probably use a different mixture of plastic). It's likely that the non-individual legs (and non-bending backwards) are a cost-saving measure to keep the already expensive mini-dolls a bit cheaper. Similarly, their heads were made to fit minifig headgear to save on making new molds for hair, hats, etc.

And while, yes, girls WOULD want them to be more flexible and poseable, I think their research found that the aesthetic appeal of the figures was far more important (which is why these particular girls weren't as drawn to minifigures).

And I think it would be better to make such sets not that much gendered (castle for boys dark grey, for girls pink).

Interestingly, the Friends sets aren't quite as pink as everyone seems to think they are. The top colors by weight (based on BrickLink data) are approximately:

19.00% - White

7.37% - Light Bluish Gray

6.66% - Tan

6.42% - Black

4.97% - Reddish Brown

4.07% - Magenta

3.82% - Medium Azure

3.56% - Bright Pink

3.46% - Red

3.20% - Lime

2.86% - Yellow

2.82% - Medium Lavender

2.80% - Bright Light Orange

2.79% - Green

2.31% - Dark Pink

2.24% - Trans-Clear

1.90% - Dark Purple

1.81% - Dark Bluish Gray

1.50% - Pearl Gold

1.48% - Trans-Light Blue

1.29% - Bright Green

1.07% - Medium Dark Flesh

1.06% - Trans-Yellow

11.53% - (Other stuff less than 1% each)

So, mostly neutral colors of white/gray/black and tan/brown (about 52.25%). And about 10.77% "pink" (counting Magenta, Bright Pink, Dark Pink, Trans-Pink). Belville, by comparison, was about 19.46% "pink", and 34.36% neutral/brown.

The Friends color palette is actually really neat-- it includes a lot of pastels (pink, bright light orange, med. lavender, lime), and a bunch of vibrant, rich colors (magenta, dark purple, medium azure). I actually find it disheartening to buy Friends sets for the colors, only to find that there are so few of the elements in those colors-- most of the parts are in more neutral colors.

Poor boys who only can be pirates, knights and superheros. Poor girls who can only go shopping, riding and be a superstar. Where are the social jobs, the doctors, the nurses, the scientists and creators of toys?

Speaking as a former young boy (some 30+ years ago), I very specifically remember finding social jobs deathly dull. I sometimes received "Town" LEGO sets, and had virtually zero interest in them. And I recall feeling utterly bored by Playmobil, which a few other kids played with-- I distinctly remember thinking they were "babyish". In fact, even as a grown man, I still kinda feel that way. I'm not terribly interested in making buildings for a LEGO town (although I do make them)-- but making spaceships and castles and fantasy creations still inspires me a lot more.

I kinda think LEGO's on the money with what kids WANT. What might be interesting, however, is what parents want. In the US at least, parents are less and less involved in deciding what gifts to get for their kids. Children are increasingly making the decisions of what they want-- usually based on the media they absorb. And yes, kids really do WANT all those exciting things, I think. But I think what might be missing is that kids would probably still be perfectly happy to play with simpler, less exciting toys, which COULD be more educational and beneficial for them (and what parents might thereby prefer).

Hence, is it a more responsible decision to make more day-in-the-life toys? Maybe. But I'll wager that LEGO's constantly fighting that battle between profitability and responsibility. Responsible companies run the risk of going out of business :(

DaveE

[SweetiePie88]

Actually, LEGO's done pigs, goats, and elephants in minifig sets already

But when it comes to pigs, they are far and few between. Latest 1 was 1 pig w/ the CMF farmer, b4 that was 2014, and b4 that was 2011.

Goat only exists in the 2011 MVR set. Post market sale price is VERY expensive at about 20 bucks each.

Elephant status is last seen in 2003 post market price of 30-40+ bucks each when complete, partially complete seems to be 20-25 ish.

[Captain Pirate Man]

I realize that clearly the minidolls have found a market and are successful, but having said that I dislike them. My daughter does as well. She "liked" them for about a year, but it didn't last. She likes minifigures better, by a long shot. I have no problem with Lego making specialized sets geared more towards girls, but why not give them figures instead of dolls? I'll never understand that. Honestly I don't feel the minidolls will have the long term appeal that minifigures do, I really can't see them still being around 20 years from now, but I could be wrong.

As a father of a daughter, I find the whole minidoll thing to be an example of sexism to a certain degree. Compared to minifigures they are the inferior figure (I don't think anyone can really argue this). So girls get their own Lego lines that are different and inferior to the "male" alternatives. I'm not saying it's this terrible injustice, just pointing out the elephant in the room.

I'm not saying minidolls are awful, or don't serve a purpose. I do think they are quite popular amounts the younger 6-9 crowd. But the problem is that's about it. Once girls get to be 10 or so, they want adventures, not playing house anymore. Obviously the Elves line is a step in the right direction, but again it would have been MUCH better with minifigures. To quote my daughter "minidolls look dumb when holding things like swords and bows. Their arms are straight, and the wrists don't turn." you can't argue with her logic, because it's true. Who holds a sword or a bow with their arms fully extended? Lets be honest and call a spade a spade, they are intended for more playing dress up, not adventures. Obviously girls like my daughter could just move onto non minidoll sets, and she did. But the thing is, the Elves line would REALLY be up her ally, but she won't even look at them because of the dolls. I'm sure she would love to have a line tailored to Her interest. Her friends all feel the same way as well, as a matter of fact we will be selling all of her minidolls in our Bricklink store.

Again I'm not disputing that minidolls have been popular in the demographic they were marketed towards, but I DO feel they would have still got that demographic and MORE with minifigures.

[Aanchir]

As a father of a daughter, I find the whole minidoll thing to be an example of sexism to a certain degree. Compared to minifigures they are the inferior figure (I don't think anyone can really argue this).

Really? I think it's quite easy. "Inferior" or "Superior" are value judgments that depend entirely on what is important to you in a figure. For some people, more lifelike shapes and proportions are a huge advantage even if it means a couple less points of articulation. The mini-doll's authenticity can make it easier for some people to understand it as an extension of themselves and not a cartoon caricature.

The mini-doll has some functional advantages too. It's much easier to fit two mini-dolls side by side in a six-stud-wide vehicle than two minifigures, since their narrower shoulders allow them to sit side-by-side without a stud separating them. And minifigure skirts are either a printed pattern with no dimension to it, or a slope brick or textile element that prevents the character from sitting down. Mini-dolls generally can sit down just fine even if they're wearing skirts or full gowns — the only exception is Belle's hoop skirt from this year's Disney Princess sets. Mini-dolls with long hair can generally still turn their heads a considerable amount, whereas minifigures with long hair often can't due to their bulky torsos and shoulders obstructing the hair's rotation.

Compared to that, minifigures have what? Individually moving wrists and legs? When developing the mini-doll, LEGO tested versions of it with articulated wrists, and girls didn't like it. A longer backlog of accessories? That has more to do with how long the minifigure's been around than any kind of functional advantages. A blockier shape? Hardly a discrete advantage.

Personally, I find the Elves characters have much stronger designs as mini-dolls than they ever could have as minifigures. Their designs are authentic to the series' beautiful, slightly animesque art direction (somewhere that the Exo-Force theme fell short, with stubby noseless yellow characters in the sets and more believably human characters in its comics and media). They have details that would've been difficult or impossible to achieve on minifigures, like detailed printed shoes and distinctive skirt and trouser styles. Their varied skin and eye colors give them a sense of diversity that non-licensed minifigures often lack. And of course, as the LEGO Group has found, most girls greatly prefer mini-dolls over minifigures.

I'm sorry your daughter doesn't enjoy the mini-dolls, and even more sorry that the type of figure is a deal-breaker for her when it comes to the Elves sets, because they truly are outstanding models, and many of them would be even if they didn't include any figures. Your daughter's not wrong for disliking the mini-doll, as ultimately that's just a matter of personal preference. However, it's probably not fair to generalize and assume no girls will ever have more than a fleeting interest in the mini-doll, and it's certainly wrong to call them the "inferior figure" as if that could ever be anything more than a subjective assessment.

[Captain Pirate Man]

I don't disagree that it a matter of taste about which figure is "better". But let me ask you this, how would Lego fair if ALL minifigures were replaced by minidolls vs replacing minidoll sets with minifigures? Lego would NEVER dream of going full on minidoll, why is that? Because they know it would have massive ramifications. They would drop drastically in popularity. In the other hand, if they replaced minidolls with minifigures, yes there would be a certain level of frustration. But overall I don't think it would effect the sales of those sets all that much, at least not in the long term. Maybe for a year or two, yes, but eventually new kids would find their way to those themes and the minidolls would be forgotten.

So while whichever figure you prefer is subjective, majority rules can not be so easily brushed aside. Meaning if 100 people say something is "better" it doesn't mean that it is indeed better, but it does mean that it is "better" to those 100 people. So yes to the majority, yes the minifigure is the superior figure. Its like arguing that you favorite local artist is better than Leonardo Da Vinci. Sure YOU might like them better, but not many people are going to agree with you.

But beyond all of that, I'm not saying YOU indeed do this, but I have noticed that many Lego fans Will defend their every move. Which I am a huge Lego fan as well, but I also will criticize things I don't agree with or like. It doesn't make it wrong, it's just MY opinion. It just seems like many folks don't like that, they believe if Lego made a decision that it must be the correct one, and as a fan, they will defend that decision. Again I'm not saying that's YOU, but I have felt some people do indeed do that.

As to your pint about me "generalizing" what girls like and dislike, or leaving minidolls behind as they age. Im saying that Because I have noticed many young girls, as they become 9, 10, etc, they "turn" on the whole Disney princess type of mentality that is shoved down their throats. These are young 21st century girls, not the girls of yesterday. They don't want to play house, have an easy bake oven, and they sure as heck DONT want to be a princess. I do believe girls are trending more towards similiar interests to what boys like, with certain exceptions. Yes girls like the "traditional" things when they are 5 or 6 and younger, I'm speaking as they age. Its not just my daughter I witnessed this change in, it's all of her friends as well. Its literally EVERY young girl I know has turned on the "traditional" ideology as they get older.

So that is why I do feel the appropriate move would have been to make sets with minifigures. Minifigures would extend the interest girls have in these themes, I really believe that. If Lego is ok selling to just 5, 6, and 7 year olds than that's fine. But those same 5, 6, and 7 year olds would also buy them with minifigures, as would you 9, 10, and 11 year olds.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Captain Pirate Man

[Lyichir]

I don't disagree that it a matter of taste about which figure is "better". But let me ask you this, how would Lego fair if ALL minifigures were replaced by minidolls vs replacing minidoll sets with minifigures? Lego would NEVER dream of going full on minidoll, why is that? Because they know it would have massive ramifications. They would drop drastically in popularity. In the other hand, if they replaced minidolls with minifigures, yes there would be a certain level of frustration. But overall I don't think it would effect the sales of those sets all that much, at least not in the long term. Maybe for a year or two, yes, but eventually new kids would find their way to those themes and the minidolls would be forgotten.

So while whichever figure you prefer is subjective, majority rules can not be so easily brushed aside. Meaning if 100 people say something is "better" it doesn't mean that it is indeed better, but it does mean that it is "better" to those 100 people. So yes to the majority, yes the minifigure is the superior figure. Its like arguing that you favorite local artist is better than Leonardo Da Vinci. Sure YOU might like them better, but not many people are going to agree with you.

But beyond all of that, I'm not saying YOU indeed do this, but I have noticed that many Lego fans Will defend their every move. Which I am a huge Lego fan as well, but I also will criticize things I don't agree with or like. It doesn't make it wrong, it's just MY opinion. It just seems like many folks don't like that, they believe if Lego made a decision that it must be the correct one, and as a fan, they will defend that decision. Again I'm not saying that's YOU, but I have felt some people do indeed do that.

As to your pint about me "generalizing" what girls like and dislike, or leaving minidolls behind as they age. Im saying that Because I have noticed many young girls, as they become 9, 10, etc, they "turn" on the whole Disney princess type of mentality that is shoved down their throats. These are young 21st century girls, not the girls of yesterday. They don't want to play house, have an easy bake oven, and they sure as heck DONT want to be a princess. I do believe girls are trending more towards similiar interests to what boys like, with certain exceptions. Yes girls like the "traditional" things when they are 5 or 6 and younger, I'm speaking as they age. Its not just my daughter I witnessed this change in, it's all of her friends as well. Its literally EVERY young girl I know has turned on the "traditional" ideology as they get older.

So that is why I do feel the appropriate move would have been to make sets with minifigures. Minifigures would extend the interest girls have in these themes, I really believe that. If Lego is ok selling to just 5, 6, and 7 year olds than that's fine. But those same 5, 6, and 7 year olds would also buy them with minifigures, as would you 9, 10, and 11 year olds.

Lego would probably take a huge hit if they switched all minifigures to mini-dolls. They'd also take a hit if they switched all mini-dolls to minifigures, considering how successful the mini-dolls have made themes like Friends and Elves. Luckily, they're not planning to do either.

The idea that all Lego figures have to or should be designed for some "majority" is ridiculous, since the whole point of Lego having themes in the first place is to have different things catering to different interests. And it's especially absurd when you consider that that "majority" was primarily male before Lego Friends started to bring more girls into Lego's consumer base. Lego Friends found its success in appealing to a market that previously WASN'T interested in Lego, and the new figures played a huge role in that.

[MAB]

While it focuses on 5 friends, they also live in a city so it seems like there should be a variety of other people that reside in the town

But if you missed the first sets, then you wouldn't be able to get the main focus of the theme - the five friends. So they have to repeat the figures. They do introduce further characters in both the series and the sets.

I don't disagree that it a matter of taste about which figure is "better". But let me ask you this, how would Lego fair if ALL minifigures were replaced by minidolls vs replacing minidoll sets with minifigures? Lego would NEVER dream of going full on minidoll, why is that? Because they know it would have massive ramifications. They would drop drastically in popularity. In the other hand, if they replaced minidolls with minifigures, yes there would be a certain level of frustration. But overall I don't think it would effect the sales of those sets all that much, at least not in the long term. Maybe for a year or two, yes, but eventually new kids would find their way to those themes and the minidolls would be forgotten.

That is partly historical and because of what people are used to. People (especially AFOLS) often have large collections of lego, including minifigures. If they suddenly stopped making minifigures and replaced them with something else, then there would be outrage. Not becuase minifigures are better but because that is what people already have. Their old collections no longer fit with the new stuff. They already did this before with colours. The old greys and browns were replaced and some people were furious. Yet somehow they got by. Were the old colours superior to the new? If they could go back in time and could come up with more detailed minifigures that were better articulated, more realistic shapes, more variable in heights, etc but still had them with modular / swappable parts and they put them in all the sets that came out in the past then I'd probably prefer they went along the more detailed route. As an AFOL, I don't mix minidolls and minifigures, and wouldn't if they went all minidoll.

Yet it is funny to see kids play. They care much less about such things. Mine mix minifigs and minidolls. But then they also mix in playmobil characters, my old Kenner SW characters, figurines that were free with comics, etc.

[SweetiePie88]

In the other hand, if they replaced minidolls with minifigures, yes there would be a certain level of frustration. But overall I don't think it would effect the sales of those sets all that much, at least not in the long term. Maybe for a year or two, yes, but eventually new kids would find their way to those themes and the minidolls would be forgotten.

I'd be way happier with Minifigures. At this point the minidolls i have, not including some boxed stuff and stuff that hasn't made its way to the container, are currently stuck in a 3 section snap tray. Can't use them b/c they look horrible next to minifigures, can't swipe the hair b/c they look horrible on minifigures, yet can't trade them off since I like the prints too much.

They'd also take a hit if they switched all mini-dolls to minifigures, considering how successful the mini-dolls have made themes like Friends and Elves.

Um... people like friends and elves b/c of the great parts, animals, set design, and the fact friends has a variety of city designs. The minidolls have been a hated product since the theme was announced and was hated on just as much, if not more, then the first line and the stereotypical girly theme problems.

But if you missed the first sets, then you wouldn't be able to get the main focus of the theme - the five friends. So they have to repeat the figures. They do introduce further characters in both the series and the sets.

But there's problems with there being a lack of males which is a reverse issue of normal lego sets and lack of new designs for the main 5 clothes. If there'd be a better variety people could at least have better options of mixing and matching parts

[Captain Pirate Man]

I'd be way happier with Minifigures. At this point the minidolls i have, not including some boxed stuff and stuff that hasn't made its way to the container, are currently stuck in a 3 section snap tray. Can't use them b/c they look horrible next to minifigures, can't swipe the hair b/c they look horrible on minifigures, yet can't trade them off since I like the prints too much.

Um... people like friends and elves b/c of the great parts, animals, set design, and the fact friends has a variety of city designs. The minidolls have been a hated product since the theme was announced and was hated on just as much, if not more, then the first line and the stereotypical girly theme problems.

But there's problems with there being a lack of males which is a reverse issue of normal lego sets and lack of new designs for the main 5 clothes. If there'd be a better variety people could at least have better options of mixing and matching parts

Good post

[MAB]

I'd be way happier with Minifigures. At this point the minidolls i have, not including some boxed stuff and stuff that hasn't made its way to the container, are currently stuck in a 3 section snap tray. Can't use them b/c they look horrible next to minifigures, can't swipe the hair b/c they look horrible on minifigures, yet can't trade them off since I like the prints too much.

So you don't like them enough to use them, but you like them enough not to trade them?

Um... people like friends and elves b/c of the great parts, animals, set design, and the fact friends has a variety of city designs. The minidolls have been a hated product since the theme was announced and was hated on just as much, if not more, then the first line and the stereotypical girly theme problems.

Hated by you maybe, but not by everybody. Some people like the minidolls. My daughter (who falls in the 5-12 year old age range on many of the Friends and Elves boxes) prefers them to minifigures. Some of her friends are not really fans of traditional lego, but they like the Friends sets. Lego did their job very well when coming up with the minidolls. They managed to appeal to people that were not playing with lego.

[Sarah]

Hated by you maybe, but not by everybody. Some people like the minidolls. My daughter (who falls in the 5-12 year old age range on many of the Friends and Elves boxes) prefers them to minifigures. Some of her friends are not really fans of traditional lego, but they like the Friends sets. Lego did their job very well when coming up with the minidolls. They managed to appeal to people that were not playing with lego.

Agreed. I see a lot of hate here, in the AFOL community. But not in the intended audience.

[Aanchir]

Um... people like friends and elves b/c of the great parts, animals, set design, and the fact friends has a variety of city designs. The minidolls have been a hated product since the theme was announced and was hated on just as much, if not more, then the first line and the stereotypical girly theme problems.

I guess by "people" you mean "adults", because young girls (i.e. the users who are actually responsible for these themes' incredible success) generally prefer the mini-doll to the minifigure. Adults are outliers, kids are the core audience. The set designs are outstanding too, but it's hard to believe that kids would buy enough of a theme they despised the figures of to make it one of the top five LEGO themes year after year.

In 2012, the LEGO Group sold twice as many LEGO Friends sets as they expected to. They had to increase production to meet demand for the sets in the run-up to the Christmas period. They still weren't able to meet demand. Olivia's House was the top-selling LEGO product that year out of all themes, and LEGO Friends was their fourth best-selling product line after City, Star Wars, and Ninjago, successfully tripling the number of girls playing with LEGO bricks in the U.S. market. In 2013, Friends experienced double-digit growth, and it and Legends of Chima together contributed the most to the company's overall 11% sales growth that year. In 2014 it was one of their best selling themes, and accounted for four of the ten best-selling sets. In 2015, Friends remained one of their top five themes. That year the LEGO Disney Princess set Elsa's Sparkling Ice Castle was their best-selling set that year, and the LEGO Friends Heartlake Grand Hotel was their fifth best selling set.

Overall, I don't see how anybody can look at this evidence and assume that most LEGO Friends buyers do so with some kind of half-hearted reluctance. And AFOLs alone could never dream of commanding this kind of sales performance — clearly, girls have responded better to LEGO Friends than they have to just about any other LEGO product line in history. Couple that with the four years of research and development that went into LEGO Friends, and it starts to seem kind of silly to assume that the LEGO Group just somehow stumbled into this kind of success with a losing strategy, let alone that LEGO Friends would have somehow been a more monumental hit than it already is if the LEGO Group had ignored or rejected the results of their extensive research.

Edited September 8, 2016 by Aanchir

[davee123]

how would Lego fair if ALL minifigures were replaced by minidolls vs replacing minidoll sets with minifigures? Lego would NEVER dream of going full on minidoll, why is that? Because they know it would have massive ramifications.

This is basically a false dilemma. It's sort of like trying to justify getting rid of DUPLO by asking whether LEGO would be more hurt by switching all System bricks to DUPLO or all DUPLO bricks to System. Each one serves a specific market, and that's why they each exist. Sure, most adult hobbyists don't care about DUPLO, but we're not angry at LEGO for making stuff for 2-year-olds.

I think what's different is that a lot of people assume that "kids age 7-9" or even "girls age 7-9" is a complete demographic-- but it's not. There are a lot of smaller demographics of girls in various age ranges, each of whom like different things. Some of them like the existing LEGO products and minifigures. Some of them like art. Some like Barbie. Some love animals. Some like gymnastics. They're all over the place. And LEGO Friends is aimed at a particular demographic of girls, which happens to be one of LEGO's biggest successes in marketing to girls.

LEGO very specifically mentioned that the girls they tested with preferred mini-dolls to minifigs. They simply weren't as enthusiastic about playing with the sets when minifigs were involved. So we KNOW that there's a demographic out there that prefers the mini-doll.

What we DON'T know is how well the Friends lineup would do if it had similar minifigs rather than mini-dolls. If LEGO had the same theme focus ("friendships" rather than "playing house"), and the same color scheme, and the same building style, etc-- would the line still be a success? Or would it be a failure? I'm positive that LEGO analyzed this, and has data on it, but ultimately we don't know if it meant "not successful" or simply "less successful". All we know is that it's not what LEGO chose to do, and it proved very successful for them. And they've expanded mini-dolls into Disney Princess and Elves, so it's definitely working.

Anyway, I kinda like the look of the mini-dolls, since they're more human-ish. I have about 90 mini-dolls at home, and it doesn't really feel like a good spread yet (I'm also hoping for more variety). But going forward, I could easily imagine myself using mini-dolls in place of minifigs if I wanted a scene to look more realistic. As they continue to produce different prints and molds, I'll try and keep picking them up here and there. At the moment, I think about 50-75% of mine are all wearing skirts or dresses-- very few long pants. And a lot of the others are feminine shorts or capris. So, it'll likely be a while before I'd consider using them as "people filler" in a MOC or something. But suffice to say, I don't hate them-- they have their uses.

DaveE

Edited September 8, 2016 by davee123

[makoy]

As someone who collected the first 5 original Friends minidolls in their first outfit, I don't have any strong opinion against minidolls. While I understand people complaining about the lack of function, I think form takes precedence here when TLG decided to make the minidolls more human-like first. So what if it has not much articulation? Have you seen the grandfather of all the minifigs? It's laughable now but if we lookback in the LEGO history the minifigs had transformed over several iterations and until today, minifigs are still getting better. TLG is dedicated to make minifigs better -- dual moulded plastic, more advanced printing, better graphic design, and so on and so forth....

Minidolls have been around for only 4 years so who knows if in the future more articulations will be introduced?