Things that changed Lego forever

[David Thomsen]

Lego is of course continuously evolving in minor ways, introducing new parts and new colours and that sort of things, but several times there have been huge changes that mark turning points in the direction of the toy. These include:

• Introducing new faces to the minifigs other than the standard smiley face
  
• Introducing eyebrows and white dots in the eyes of minifigs
  
• changing grey to bluish grey, and brown to reddish brown
  
• changing the basic shape of technic pieces so they no longer have studs
  
• fleshies
  

Depending on when you started collecting, these changes and other have been either good or bad. I came out of my 'dark age' after bluish grey and reddish brown were introduced, so it didn't affect my collection and I actually prefer the new colours to the old ones.

Now that I have a reasonably large collection, I can't help worrying about what the next change will be that makes subsequent lego sets incompatible or inconsistent with the ones I already have. I don't want to replace my old parts, or somehow segregate old parts from new ones.

Alternatively, I look forward to new innovations that will enhance the toy, like skirt pieces for female minifigs that don't make them taller than other minifigs, or hair pieces with holes in them (like the medieval queen with her tiara) that you can fit hats onto.

I think Lego is perfect the way it is now, but hypothetically, what changes are left to make that can improve the toy but make everything before it incompatible in some way?

[RoryoCox]

I think that lego is only changing for the good. The fleshy minifigures are only for licensed themes to give a more accurate appearance of the character which can only be good. Also, the change in faces to include white dots is a step forwards. Yes, it may not fit in with other faces but they look good.

I have to say one change I love is the grey to bley and brown to reddish brown. I couldn't stand the old colours but the new ones are much nicer and have a better colour.

So to sum up, yes these things changed lego forever but not totally. There is still plenty of non-white dot heads, old coloured bricks and yellow heads out there. Nothing that will stop a true lego fan.

[Marckeyh]

I like the variety of faces they got now, just the standard grin was not good enough.

What I don't like is the increased size of boxes, and the lack of nice plastic inner trays.

[Big Cam]

I think the biggest thing was the change to different faces besides the standard smile. Flesh comes in a close second in my opinion.

[Davey]

I agree that LEGO is evolving as "play" evolves in general. The fleshies was a great way to distinguish licensed properties from non-licensed. And the color change was a necessary fix to improve overall color consistency. It's a change that I think has made the product better overall. Studless building is certainly an evolved building technique and is just another step forward in my opinion.

For me, the "Cafe Corner" standard of building was a massive evolution for Town, much like the "Emerald Night" was a big step forward for Train fans. While LEGO has kept the core product lines intact, they are doing a great job of evolving those lines with the times. In addition, they now realize that the TFOL and AFOL communities are a whole other demographic that they never saw before and they are actively marketing to these two groups. That is another major shift in the business philosophy of LEGO Systems A/S.

I don't think that LEGO will ever innovate (again) to a point where they get away from the core of the system of play. My understanding is that any evolution now will be related in some way to the system of play. The core value that LEGO Systems A/S holds dear is the idea of a system of play where everything is compatible over the range of product. I think we will see this continue for many, many years.

-Davey

[Walter Kovacs]

I think the biggest thing was the change to different faces besides the standard smile. Flesh comes in a close second in my opinion.

Really? I think those are minor changes in the grand scheme of things. Not that I'm complaining. I love having more expressive faces than the standard smileys. It never made sense for my spacemen to go into a pitched space battle wearing a big grin. It always made them seem psychopathic.

The biggest change I've seen in the last 15 years or so has been the proliferation of SNOT techniques, and with it the increased use of Technic pieces in system sets. LEGO used SNOT before, but the techniques used recently (and I use that term loosely) have allowed for some amazing designs.

[CorneliusMurdock]

The only change you listed that still irks me is the Fleshies. I buy non-licensed and licensed themes but still want to mix the parts for custom minifigs. I understand why they did it but I'm still not happy about it. The only minifgs that fit in less than regular fleshies are the Clone Wars fleshies and possibly the NBA players from a few years back.

[Big Cam]

Really? I think those are minor changes in the grand scheme of things. Not that I'm complaining. I love having more expressive faces than the standard smileys. It never made sense for my spacemen to go into a pitched space battle wearing a big grin. It always made them seem psychopathic.

The biggest change I've seen in the last 15 years or so has been the proliferation of SNOT techniques, and with it the increased use of Technic pieces in system sets. LEGO used SNOT before, but the techniques used recently (and I use that term loosely) have allowed for some amazing designs.

That's an interesting take. I feel the facial designs and flesh tones are so significant because lego has used the standard smile and yellow color for decades, until just this decade, where as new colors, pieces, and techniques come and go. Did anyone think the trans colors of blacktron was a game changer?, not likely, as it was just a new color.

I personally think if you showed a non lego fan, meaning just someone who is aware of lego but not a collector or even a regular user, some sets from the 70's, 80's, and 90's and then sets from this year, I think the biggest thing they would notice is the use of faces other than smiles.

[petero]

All interesting points, but I'm going to step back and look at the big picture. If I'm looking for really major changes that have caused the continued existence of LEGO, here are a few biggies:

1) The adoption of plastic bricks

2) Creating pre-packaged sets that build a specific item, rather than random bricks

3) The minifigure

Back in the 60s, when I grew up with LEGO, there were no sets or minifigures, just containers of bricks. The biggest advance I recall from then was 2x4 bricks with wheels. (And what a manufacturing nightmare those early wheels and axle bricks must have been!)

Take away any of the three points above, and I believe LEGO would not have survived. The rest are just minor details

Peter

[fred67]

I agree with the minifigures perhaps being one of the bigger changes.

I would add: the slow but continuous trend towards licensed themes (now with POTC actually displacing a non-licensed one).

Gray to Bley... I think this was more of an indication of TLG's cost cutting evolution, as are the so-called "inferior" Chinese parts.

I think the biggest change I've seen, and it's certainly a "for the better," is the complexity and advanced building techniques. For me it started with Medieval Market Village and the modular building sets.

It's true, Big Cam, that people might notice the difference between minifigures first, but show them a typical LEGO building from the 70s and compare it to, say, Green Grocer.

[Aanchir]

I agree with the minifigures perhaps being one of the bigger changes.

I would add: the slow but continuous trend towards licensed themes (now with POTC actually displacing a non-licensed one).

Gray to Bley... I think this was more of an indication of TLG's cost cutting evolution, as are the so-called "inferior" Chinese parts.

I think the biggest change I've seen, and it's certainly a "for the better," is the complexity and advanced building techniques. For me it started with Medieval Market Village and the modular building sets.

It's true, Big Cam, that people might notice the difference between minifigures first, but show them a typical LEGO building from the 70s and compare it to, say, Green Grocer.

Gray to Bley had nothing to do with cost-cutting. In the early 2000s LEGO was making a lot of changes, and one of them was getting "dingier"-looking colors like gray and brown to look brighter. So by adding blue or red, the colors were made more on-par with the bright, bold aesthetic typical of LEGO's other colors. This is also presumably why Light Yellow was replaced with Cool Yellow (BL's Bright Light Yellow).

At least, this is how I heard it during the Q&A session at Brickfair. I've heard the claim that it was a cost-cutting measure before online, but never with any evidence to back it up except the assumption that red and blue dye are cheaper than brown or gray dye, so mixing them would reduce the cost of brown and gray pieces. And since I have never found anything authoritative suggesting this to be the case, I have doubts in this cost-based explanation.

I'd say something that changed LEGO forever was the introduction of BIONICLE. For starters, the first extremely story-driven LEGO line (besides, of course, LEGO Star Wars). While previous themes in the 90s (Adventurers is a good example) had included named characters, clear objectives, and points of conflict, these details sometimes varied by country or media appearance. And there was no clearly-established "plot"-- there might have been individual comic adventures in instruction booklets, websites, or magazines, but there was no explicit "canon" of what happened when. BIONICLE changed that-- although in its first year the story varied slightly from media appearance to media appearance, it was a decidedly more cohesive plot than those of, for instance, Adventurers and Alpha Team.

Additionally, BIONICLE was LEGO's first foray into the collectibles market that they heavily promoted. BIONICLE's forerunners, Throwbots/Slizers and RoboRiders, had a collectible component, but the availability of "collectible packs" was scarce (in the US, anyway) and they were given only tenuous story explanations. For all intents and purposes, getting a different collectible would just mean getting a different picture or pattern-- there was no difference in functionality until BIONICLE introduced Kanohi masks. While collectible components of that sort disappeared from BIONICLE as the years went on, their legacy can be seen in today's collectible minifigure packs-- which, as far as I know, are seeing much more success in terms of sales.

Also, BIONICLE was the first constraction theme to be extremely, extremely successful. Throwbots and Roboriders each ran for one or two years, which is in itself a fair accomplishment. But BIONICLE ran for nine or ten years, much longer than any other constraction theme. If BIONICLE had not been so successful, would we still have constraction themes today? And yes, I know some AFOLs wish we didn't.

Overall, BIONICLE changed LEGO in ways it probably would have changed anyway if the theme hadn't come around, but it was the "proving-ground" for those changes, so I suppose it deserves some credit for playing host to those changes.

[Brickdoctor]

For me the biggest ones are:

3) Chrome to metallic

-I understand the cost thing, but chrome is so much...shinier.

2) Fleshies

-I don't mind the fleshiness of the minifigs itself, it's more of the fact that the yellows have better face prints and the fleshies are incompatible.

1) Pupilization/CW-ification

-Hate this one. Not only do the faces not match their predecessors and are incompatible, they're ugly.

I think the next big change I'd like to see would be change all the CW-ified faces back to classic yellow or flesh. It would make all the CW faces incompatible, and I won't even look back.

Okay, so as far as serious changes that LEGO themselves might consider, I honestly can't think of any. LEGO seems overall to be taking a turn for the better, and for us Star Wars fans, other than the switch away from OT, the new minifigs are pouring in. I guess maybe I'd like to see more of the new molds focus on critical gaps in the curre t parts lineup, not totally new genres of parts. We don't need a fancy curvy multi-colored part with one use; we need inverted cheese and 1 x 5 tiles and corner cheese and a 1 x 1 with studs on two adjacent sides...

[Churchill]

I have to go with Peter on this- I'm going back to the early 70's. The minifigure, hands down. For that matter, just hands... it made it so much more playable just to have the figures. Arms, legs, printed faces! We didn't have printed faces.... I sound like an old man!

[Walter Kovacs]

That's an interesting take. I feel the facial designs and flesh tones are so significant because lego has used the standard smile and yellow color for decades, until just this decade, where as new colors, pieces, and techniques come and go. Did anyone think the trans colors of blacktron was a game changer?, not likely, as it was just a new color.

I personally think if you showed a non lego fan, meaning just someone who is aware of lego but not a collector or even a regular user, some sets from the 70's, 80's, and 90's and then sets from this year, I think the biggest thing they would notice is the use of faces other than smiles.

A fair arguement, Cam. I didn't mean to say that the switch from yellow to flesh is trivial; it certainly has had an effect. It's just that other changes I feel had bigger impacts.

Petero brings up some very good points that I didn't even think of. Probably because I started collecting in the late '70s, after the advent of single model sets and minifigs.

One change for the worse is the lack of alternative models in the more recent sets. It's not a huge change, but I do miss seeing those alt builds in the instructions, and trying to figure out how to make them without the entire thing falling apart (not an easy task, sometimes).

[Churchill]

All of this makes me wonder- the increased detail, specific parts, etc; I wonder if we're losing a bit of the imagination that makes Lego so great. Licensing has alot to do with this, I know. Are innovations always a good thing? I'm not saying they aren't- I love all of the incredible new sets and minifigs. But sometimes I think it's taking less and less imagination to play with/build with Lego.

[vexorian]

I don't mind pupils, as in at all. I don't even think they are incompatible with old minifigs. I've seen pupil figs next to the old ones and they don't look out of place.

What is starting to bug me are teeth. Yeah, that's right, teeth. It is mostly because in collectable minifigs they are seriously overusing teeth. And the largest problem is that people don't stay teeth-smiling all day long. A happy face makes more sense for something that is permanent. For example, the Space man's grin looks out of place when doing common activities like turning a engine off...

But what has really hurt my sensibilities is the mime's smiling face. The mime minifig is perfect in all senses except that its happier expression overuses teeth. Google for happy mime and you will rarely find images of mimes showing teeth. This is the reason my mime has stayed with a sad face for long. If you compare the sad face with the grinning face, the sad face actually looks like a mime. The grinning face is more useful for a Joker's clone...

Oh, and death to the fleshies!

Besides of the fleshies and the overuse of teeth I think the other changes mentioned in the thread are positive. The new studless technic bricks are a lot more flexible if you will and the generic happy face gets old after the 10th or 15th fig you get with that face.

[Rick]

One of the first definitely was the introduction of the minifig in 1978. I'm happy this occurred right after I was born, because it's a big factor in my love of LEGO.

Then 1989 saw TLG introducing printed faces in the Pirates line. Actually seemed like forever until they introduced those, but it was only 11 years after the introduction of the minifig and it's almost ancient history now.

The extensive use of SNOT-building definitely is a major change that happened gradually over the past decade, in part fueled by (or the other way around perhaps)...

... the release of sets specifically targeted to AFOLs. The exclusives line and the specific focus on AFOLs definitely has been the biggest change of the past decade.

[fred67]

All of this makes me wonder- the increased detail, specific parts, etc; I wonder if we're losing a bit of the imagination that makes Lego so great.

Well, there was a time in the 90s, maybe late 80s, where we were getting these large specific pieces that almost seemed directly contrary to what LEGO is all about... those were "specific," but I'm not understanding what you mean by "specific" pieces now.

What it seems like now is we have a wider variety of pieces, including (and especially) greebles that give us a wider range of flexibility, they are not limiting at all... and people are using those pieces in amazing and creative ways.

I would suggest that rather than losing creativity and imagination, that those aspects have actually grown along with the availability of all the new parts. Certainly it's hard to use a boat hull or airplane fuselage as anything else, but those days seem to be long past, with those larger pieces now being ones you can use in any manner of ways.

I have to admit, though, I am disappointed at some of the newer trains for just that reason, but by and large I think the greater availability of parts has only allowed for more creativity, not less.

[Churchill]

Well put, Fred67. I wasn't, and am still not, sure what the right answer is, but the new stuff does allow for alot more creativity.

I guess by specific I meant, for example, how many different Han Solos do we need? Ep 3, Hoth, Cloud City, carbonite, Hoth, etc, etc.

[prateek]

Skipping minifigs altogether, I'd have to say the biggest change is the different types of builds Lego is coming out with. There are painstakingly easy build, and there are awesomely complicated builds. I'm not saying this is a perfect scenario, as I've noticed a lot of sets, more specifically City sets, are becoming more and more simplistic, with larger parts, and higher prices.

One thing I'd like to see in the future is the complicated builds enter the lower priced sets. It's annoying for me, a student with a very low budget for Lego, to see them release awesome sets that I can't afford, and me getting stuck with the cheap sets that take 5 minutes and no effort to build. Lego should have at least one set in each theme that is relatively inexpensive, and in their age range of 14+ or 16+.

Edited December 21, 2010 by prateek

[The Soup Nazi]

Skipping minifigs altogether, I'd have to say the biggest change is the different types of builds Lego is coming out with. There are painstakingly easy build, and there are awesomely complicated builds. I'm not saying this is a perfect scenario, as I've noticed a lot of sets, more specifically City sets, are becoming more and more simplistic, with larger parts, and higher prices.

One thing I'd like to see in the future is the complicated builds enter the lower priced sets. It's annoying for me, a student with a very low budget for Lego, to see them release awesome sets that I can't afford, and me getting stuck with the cheap sets that take 5 minutes and no effort to build. Lego should have at least one set in each theme that is relatively inexpensive, and in their age range of 14+ or 16+.

I have to agree with Prateek. I too have a low budget for LEGO, and the stuff I get, well, has common parts. But then again, those are the sets who family's budget has to be low to afford food, pay taxes, etc.

[desultor]

I may be biased, as a LEGO fanboy since the 80s, but I'm pretty sure the simple reason that complicated builds are more expensive is because they have more parts. Plus we've gotta remember that <insert that tiresome argument> sets are designed for Junior. Though I know we do, most ten-year-olds don't want to spend an hour brick-building their castle walls before they can role-play with 'em.

What's a change that I think would rock the AFOL community? Discontinuing yellow heads.

Would TLG dare? I'd guess the basic yellow smiley is so iconic, so much a part of the LEGO brand, that they'll always keep it around. But in my opinion all-fleshy would be alright. I honestly thought long and hard before buying the Imperial Flagship, knowing that Pirates of the Caribbean was coming. To me, lemon-heads look so... sickly, by comparison.

I don't mean to hijack this thread (so please don't rant), but what if TLG swapped all yellow heads to a mix of nougats, to correspond better to the world's diversity of skin tone? I think it would change LEGO forever. Would it be for the better?

[Brickdoctor]

Like you said, the yellow skin is iconic. I remember reading that TLG did a poll when they were designing the minifig, and kids voted for yellow skin.

[JimBee]

Definitely the change from wooden toys to building blocks.

Okay, more on the Lego we love today, the biggest change for me was the introduction of licensed themes. So many more possibilities were made possible, my favorites being HP, IJ, and SW.

3) Chrome to metallic

-I understand the cost thing, but chrome is so much...shinier.

Actually chrome Lego still exists, and wasn't replaced by metallic/ pearl. It's just the lightsaber hilts that were changed from chrome to light bley in 2007, and later metallic silver in 2009. Although chrome is rarer nowadays, with promos like Chrome Vader and the like.

[Brickdoctor]

Actually chrome Lego still exists, and wasn't replaced by metallic/ pearl. It's just the lightsaber hilts that were changed from chrome to light bley in 2007, and later metallic silver in 2009. Although chrome is rarer nowadays, with promos like Chrome Vader and the like.

But it's been mostly phased out, like with chrome exhaust pipes and gold 1 x 2 tiles; and some pieces like those in the UCS Naboo Starfighter have never been seen again. Granted, they haven't really been needed, but there's a lot less chrome nowadays.

That's what I meant; sorry, should have been more specific.