Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

[Wolfpackfan99]

50 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

Personally I saw no redeeming qualities of the Jack Stone sets (which is a normal, popular opinion), but I did like aspects of the 4+ Pirates sets. Fantastic accessories in cool colours, for instance.

Obviously they were a let down for fans waiting for the resurgence of a true pirates line, but they had cool stuff going for them.

I didn’t know that the 4+ theme had a pirate sub theme, although I will admit, those 4+ Spider man sets were cool!

[Clone OPatra]

9 minutes ago, Wolfpackfan99 said:

I didn’t know that the 4+ theme had a pirate sub theme, although I will admit, those 4+ Spider man sets were cool!

Yep. They do look pretty bad but I stand by thinking there are some good aspects: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=S&catString=516.61

[Wolfpackfan99]

9 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

Yep. They do look pretty bad but I stand by thinking there are some good aspects: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=S&catString=516.61

Yep. Well I’m not sleeping tonight. 

[Feuer Zug]

55 minutes ago, Wolfpackfan99 said:

Yep. Well I’m not sleeping tonight. 

And my work here is done.

The ship hull was interesting and horrific. The few redeeming qualities of anything associated with Jack Stone and that size of figure are few and far between.

[Wolfpackfan99]

Just now, Feuer Zug said:

And my work here is done.

The ship hull was interesting and horrific. The few redeeming qualities of anything associated with Jack Stone and that size of figure are few and far between.

Curse you Jack Stone!!!!! Until we meet again! Remind me to erase that one from time…

[Aanchir]

On 2/14/2022 at 7:58 PM, Clone OPatra said:

Yep. They do look pretty bad but I stand by thinking there are some good aspects: https://www.bricklink.com/catalogList.asp?catType=S&catString=516.61

One aspect of those sets that I find especially nifty is that they had two clearly-defined rival pirate factions, rather than focusing on a conflict between pirates and soldiers. On one side, Captain Redbeard wore a fancy coat and cravat. His ships and crew sported a red, white, and green color palette and sailed under a fairly traditional "skull and crossbones" with an eyepatch. On the opposing side, Captain Kragg and his crew had a more disheveled look, with bare arms and/or chests and often numerous battle scars. His ships and crew were decked out in a blue and black color scheme, and flew under sails marked with a skull holding a dagger in its mouth.

Some German LEGO Pirates media of the 90s played around with this sort of storytelling by establishing "Captain Roger" and "Captain Ironhook" as rival pirate captains (portraying the former as a greedy but likable antihero, and the latter as an out-and-out villain who used slave labor to achieve his ends). But that wasn't especially apparent in the sets, since both captains' fleets used the same flags and near-identical crew members, and the captains themselves had matching hats and faces. For that matter, UK marketing materials presented the two pirate captains treated Roger and Ironhook as friends/allies, doing away with their contrasting characterization, while US marketing materials simply treated both of them as the same "Captain Redbeard" character in different costumes.

I can't help thinking it could be interesting for a future iteration of the Pirates theme to give this "Pirate vs. Pirate" narrative approach another go. It'd certainly be a change of pace from the 2009 or 2015 Pirates sets, and I feel like a lot of kids tend to be much more interested in pirates and pirate ships than in colonial-era soldiers and warships. LEGO themes these days also allow for a lot more colors and much more detailed graphic designs, which would make it much easier to differentiate rival captains, crews, and fleets while still maintaining a reasonable level of realism.

That said, I certainly don't mind the Pirates theme's usual "Soldiers vs. Pirates" approach — especially since it's one of the few themes that doesn't default to presenting the "lawful" faction as the "good guys". That distinction opens the door to much more nuanced storytelling than we often see with Town/City Police sets, Space Police sets, etc. And given the sorts of actions that were sanctioned by colonial powers during that period of history — imperialist conquests, naval impressment, the slave trade, etc — this nuance is very appropriate, even if these narratives still favor a romanticized portrayal of the "Golden Age of Piracy" over strict historical realism.

On 2/14/2022 at 9:06 PM, Feuer Zug said:

The ship hull was interesting and horrific. The few redeeming qualities of anything associated with Jack Stone and that size of figure are few and far between.

Honestly, the hull is one of the aspects of those sets that I don't find too much fault with, since thanks to its size and design, it's the only System pirate ship hull in LEGO's history that actually floats! I definitely prefer more standard LEGO pirate ship hulls for their greater customization potential and the larger amount of space they allow below deck, but the actual floating functionality definitely helps justify those shortcomings of the 4+ hull's design. It's also nice that in spite of the specialized shaping of the hull segments, the sloped portions "above deck" line up with standard LEGO slopes.

[Peppermint_M]

This was the Pirates I was initially able to access, so I have a small soft spot for it. I still love my sail with the blue stripes and pirate skull. 

It is only a matter of time until the AFOLs who had Jack Stone and the rest as their first non-Duplo LEGO, and there will be a love for it like there was/is a love for Fabuland!

I still sit here and feel old when AFOLs can legitimately be AFOLs and have Power Miners as their childhood favourite (My baby brother is 19! The not quite baby is 21!!) 

[Maple]

On 2/14/2022 at 6:56 PM, Clone OPatra said:

Personally I saw no redeeming qualities of the Jack Stone sets (which is a normal, popular opinion), but I did like aspects of the 4+ Pirates sets. Fantastic accessories in cool colours, for instance.

Obviously they were a let down for fans waiting for the resurgence of a true pirates line, but they had cool stuff going for them.

The 4+ Pirates are the best of those horrible minifigure things. It's kinf of like Elves are the best minidolls every made.

[Alexandrina]

50 minutes ago, Peppermint_M said:

It is only a matter of time until the AFOLs who had Jack Stone and the rest as their first non-Duplo LEGO, and there will be a love for it like there was/is a love for Fabuland!

Not even that! I'm 25 and Jack Stone figures are among the first I had (Max and Tina were the only figures of any description I had at my Nan's for a good decade, so they starred in pleny of adventures)

[MAB]

On 2/14/2022 at 4:27 PM, Ondra said:

Lego store timed exclusivity of adult sets are pointless. They are here only to maximize profit for lego.

If I wait for few months, I get nice sale of these sets in regular online stores. That sale is better than any gift given...

You do realise that there is a really simple solution to that. Don't buy early, and instead just wait a few months.

[Ondra]

1 minute ago, MAB said:

You do realise that there is a really simple solution to that. Don't buy early, and instead just wait a few months.

Thats what Im doing, but it still dont get sense to me.

I never experienced this in any other companies market strategy.

[MAB]

21 minutes ago, Ondra said:

Thats what Im doing, but it still dont get sense to me.

I never experienced this in any other companies market strategy.

The sense of it is really quite simple. Their production capacity is low compared to demand, partly because of the huge range of sets they make these days and partly due to the massive increase in the number of adults buying LEGO. It is better for them to sell the sets direct to customers at the start as that means all those full RRP purchases are direct from LEGO rather than another store. It also means they have full sales statistics (speed of sales, best locations, number of sales without a promo compared to number of sales when done with a GWP, etc).

Some people want sets as early as they can possibly get them. Those people will end up paying full price for them (or higher if they buy from a reseller) and they will get them from the first batches produced. LEGO continue to make the sets so supply increases and as people buy them, the demand lowers. When supply and demand are more balanced, it makes sense for them to be sold through more outlets.

[Lyichir]

I might've mentioned this here before but one unpopular opinion I hold that I feel is becoming more and more relevant is that Lego should end the Harry Potter/Wizarding World theme due to J.K. Rowling's increasing anti-transgender radicalization. When the creator of the series regularly associates with bigots and hate groups, targets critics with legal action as well as harassment from increasingly radical followers, and is cited by bigoted politicians internationally to give credibility to their goal of oppressing a vulnerable minority, a company like Lego continuing to license her work sends a message—and not a positive one. That's on top of the increasingly poor critical reception as well as box-office performance of Harry Potter-related movies, making the long-term sustainability of the franchise (and its associated merchandise) dubious. But personally, I'd really rather Lego take a stand sooner rather than waiting for the cash cow to run completely dry or for Rowling's increasingly volatile followers to get somebody killed in her name.

[The Island Chronicles]

17 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

I might've mentioned this here before but one unpopular opinion I hold that I feel is becoming more and more relevant is that Lego should end the Harry Potter/Wizarding World theme due to J.K. Rowling's increasing anti-transgender radicalization. When the creator of the series regularly associates with bigots and hate groups, targets critics with legal action as well as harassment from increasingly radical followers, and is cited by bigoted politicians internationally to give credibility to their goal of oppressing a vulnerable minority, a company like Lego continuing to license her work sends a message—and not a positive one. That's on top of the increasingly poor critical reception as well as box-office performance of Harry Potter-related movies, making the long-term sustainability of the franchise (and its associated merchandise) dubious. But personally, I'd really rather Lego take a stand sooner rather than waiting for the cash cow to run completely dry or for Rowling's increasingly volatile followers to get somebody killed in her name.

You don't have to care for a person to show appreciation for their work. Lego does Harry Potter because despite its final movie being over ages ago, it's still a popular franchise. Lego may just respect the franchise itself. Not the person who made it. 

[Wolfpackfan99]

17 minutes ago, Lyichir said:

I might've mentioned this here before but one unpopular opinion I hold that I feel is becoming more and more relevant is that Lego should end the Harry Potter/Wizarding World theme due to J.K. Rowling's increasing anti-transgender radicalization. When the creator of the series regularly associates with bigots and hate groups, targets critics with legal action as well as harassment from increasingly radical followers, and is cited by bigoted politicians internationally to give credibility to their goal of oppressing a vulnerable minority, a company like Lego continuing to license her work sends a message—and not a positive one. That's on top of the increasingly poor critical reception as well as box-office performance of Harry Potter-related movies, making the long-term sustainability of the franchise (and its associated merchandise) dubious. But personally, I'd really rather Lego take a stand sooner rather than waiting for the cash cow to run completely dry or for Rowling's increasingly volatile followers to get somebody killed in her name.

 Yeah I totally agree. TLG should end the license before things get really out of hand, which would definitely leave a mar on the company, as well as being associated with hate speech, which is not good for a toy company who’s main demographic is children.

[williejm]

3 hours ago, Lyichir said:

I might've mentioned this here before but one unpopular opinion I hold that I feel is becoming more and more relevant is that Lego should end the Harry Potter/Wizarding World theme due to J.K. Rowling's increasing anti-transgender radicalization. When the creator of the series regularly associates with bigots and hate groups, targets critics with legal action as well as harassment from increasingly radical followers, and is cited by bigoted politicians internationally to give credibility to their goal of oppressing a vulnerable minority, a company like Lego continuing to license her work sends a message—and not a positive one. That's on top of the increasingly poor critical reception as well as box-office performance of Harry Potter-related movies, making the long-term sustainability of the franchise (and its associated merchandise) dubious. But personally, I'd really rather Lego take a stand sooner rather than waiting for the cash cow to run completely dry or for Rowling's increasingly volatile followers to get somebody killed in her name.

Yes. 

[Toastie]

4 hours ago, Lyichir said:

but one unpopular opinion I hold that I feel is becoming more and more relevant is that Lego should end the Harry Potter/Wizarding World theme due to J.K. Rowling's increasing anti-transgender radicalization.

Wrong forum: This not an unpopular opinion, it is exactly that: True.

Best,
Thorsten

[MAB]

I think the opposite. Harry Potter is just as popular as ever with kids and therefore a key theme. You only need to see the queues of people waiting to have their photo taken at Platform 9 3/4 at Kings Cross station, or the hoards of tourists queuing at shops in The Shambles in York to see the continued popularity. And yet none of them are shouting anti-trans slogans. Most people either don't know or don't care about her views or they can distance her views from the movie series that the LEGO bases the sets on.

If they start pulling out the HP license because of JK Rowling's views, then I doubt there are many movie based franchises that they could use without being hypocritical, given that most franchises will be associated somehow with at least one person that has different but perfectly legal viewpoints to someone else.

People can always take a personal stance, if you hate JK Rowling and her views to such an extreme, then don't buy LEGO sets based on the movies that based on the books written by her.

My opinion (I don't know whether it is unpopular or not, and I couldn't really care): there is no need to keep bringing it up and it does not need to be mentioned every time  new HP set comes out.

Edited March 16, 2022 by MAB

[The Island Chronicles]

@MAB I agree with everything you said. Personally, I blame it on the fact that we are living in the age of cancel culture and its huge influence on society along with the members of Generation Z that are promoting it. Thanks to cancel culture, a lot of things that bring back memories have been destroyed in our world all because of the people who were behind them. 

[Alexandrina]

23 hours ago, Lyichir said:

I might've mentioned this here before but one unpopular opinion I hold that I feel is becoming more and more relevant is that Lego should end the Harry Potter/Wizarding World theme due to J.K. Rowling's increasing anti-transgender radicalization. When the creator of the series regularly associates with bigots and hate groups, targets critics with legal action as well as harassment from increasingly radical followers, and is cited by bigoted politicians internationally to give credibility to their goal of oppressing a vulnerable minority, a company like Lego continuing to license her work sends a message—and not a positive one. That's on top of the increasingly poor critical reception as well as box-office performance of Harry Potter-related movies, making the long-term sustainability of the franchise (and its associated merchandise) dubious. But personally, I'd really rather Lego take a stand sooner rather than waiting for the cash cow to run completely dry or for Rowling's increasingly volatile followers to get somebody killed in her name.

This is an interesting one, imo, because the bottom line is that Rowling as an individual is dangerous and getting more so. In that regard, she is not a good individual for Lego to be promoting.

The other hand of the argument is that the license is with Warner Bros. and pertains to the films, rather than the books - and the films are collaborative projects which owe a lot of their success to the cast and crew. I'm not aware of any major cast members who rank anywhere close to Rowling in degrees of transphobia, and indeed a lot of the core cast - Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Bonnie Wright, Evanna Lynch, Eddie Redmayne, Miriam Margolyes and more besides - are outspoken in support of trans people. The films' success affords them the status to publicly challenge Rowling's views (and the UK press certainly aren't, so someone has to!)

So I don't know how I feel. I personally buy some of the sets because I refuse to let Rowling's bigotry interfere with what I choose to spend my money on, and she's rich enough that the proceeds from the sets I buy are barely going to make a notch in her finances - but I completely see why others would feel strongly about boycotting the entire line, and if it were to be ended today I'd probably shrug and go "yeah, you know what, that's totally fair".

[MAB]

I can fully understand people not wanting a minifigure honouring her. That would be a step too far for LEGO especially given how few real people have been made into minifigures, making it look like they support her.

2 hours ago, Poodabricks said:

@MAB I agree with everything you said. Personally, I blame it on the fact that we are living in the age of cancel culture and its huge influence on society along with the members of Generation Z that are promoting it. Thanks to cancel culture, a lot of things that bring back memories have been destroyed in our world all because of the people who were behind them. 

I don't think it is just Gen Z. People of all ages call for cancellations of things they don't like or agree with these days.

Even though lots of old TV shows get edited or pulled from streaming services, they can't edit old DVDs. The joy of physical media!

[williejm]

49 minutes ago, Alexandrina said:

This is an interesting one, imo, because the bottom line is that Rowling as an individual is dangerous and getting more so. In that regard, she is not a good individual for Lego to be promoting.

The other hand of the argument is that the license is with Warner Bros. and pertains to the films, rather than the books - and the films are collaborative projects which owe a lot of their success to the cast and crew. I'm not aware of any major cast members who rank anywhere close to Rowling in degrees of transphobia, and indeed a lot of the core cast - Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint, Bonnie Wright, Evanna Lynch, Eddie Redmayne, Miriam Margolyes and more besides - are outspoken in support of trans people. The films' success affords them the status to publicly challenge Rowling's views (and the UK press certainly aren't, so someone has to!)

So I don't know how I feel. I personally buy some of the sets because I refuse to let Rowling's bigotry interfere with what I choose to spend my money on, and she's rich enough that the proceeds from the sets I buy are barely going to make a notch in her finances - but I completely see why others would feel strongly about boycotting the entire line, and if it were to be ended today I'd probably shrug and go "yeah, you know what, that's totally fair".

Thanks. Value your perspective on this, as ever. I do think there’s a difference between a ‘historic’ creator or artist, and one who is not only still around, but legit getting worse and ever more problematic. I don’t have the answer, but I know she makes many peoples’ daily lives incessantly miserable and anguished, and that’s not okay. It’s also not offset by those who are happy fans. The ‘debate’ here is not a fair one, and silence is complicity.

Here in Scotland (and the wider U.K.) the political ‘debate’ is utterly horrible and toxic for all LGBTQ+ folks, and anyone who is an ally. The same tropes I grew up with as anti-gay are now being used against trans people, and the safety of the whole LGBTQ+ community is suffering. The idea that it’s not well-known or relevant to many people is also bunk as there are almost daily articles online, in mainstream media print, and toxic pile-ons on social media. Heck, did people see the way the U.K. media treated Emma Watson this week for daring to make a coded clap-back during an awards speech? 

I have stopped buying HP stuff, either for me or as gifts, and I really struggle with the notion that this shouldn’t keep being brought up … yes it should, as long as the behaviour continues and the toxic fire is being stoked. 

Lastly, I just don’t think a head-in-sand approach by Lego is consistent or good enough given their stated commitments to LGBTQ+ representation and inclusion. Something has to change. 

[Wolfpackfan99]

Here’s another unpopular opinion (apologies for personal bias, my username basically sums it up):

The Wolfpack Renegades were, and are still, the best Castle faction ever. 
 

 WHOOOOO!!!! GO WOLFPACK!!! 

[timemail]

15 hours ago, williejm said:

Lastly, I just don’t think a head-in-sand approach by Lego is consistent or good enough given their stated commitments to LGBTQ+ representation and inclusion. Something has to change. 

This is the key for me. Personally I don't think an entire line should be removed because of the one person who created that line. There is plenty of good that has come to people because of Harry Potter, and the bad hasn't been due to the property itself, but the person behind it. My apologies if I am not getting the whole story on this - it is not something I have followed in any real depth and I may be mistaken in my view.

Lego however are positioning themselves as committed to LGBTQIA+ and no matter what they go forward and do, the fact that they keep Harry Potter makes it all seem like lip-service. We want to look like we are allies, as long as it doesn't hit our bottom line too hard. It seems more like what they are doing is trying to get some quick commercial gains through positioning as an ally while not actually taking any real stand (not that I would expect anything else from any commercial entity). Any other company I would say they should leave it. Lego I say it should go and they should remove it if they really want to gain any credibility for their social responsibility.

[The Island Chronicles]

I don't think Lego should get rid of Harry Potter just because of who is behind it. That's just idiotic. I say love the franchise. Dislike the person behind it.