2012 Friends Discussion Thread

[Klaus-Dieter]

Thank you very much for this information, Anachir!

That's really interesting.

Fascinating stuff, and I think you're on to something. I have a hard time imagining a bright purple house in the middle of my city...

That's not that bad, Mr. Elijah Timms.

Today houses are painted in every color.

Having houses always only in white, yellow, red and blue gets imo from time to time boring. So some more color varietey is welcome. Although I of course must admit that I'd prefer a non-pink color, too.

Klaus-Dieter

Edited June 22, 2011 by Klaus-Dieter

[Aanchir]

Fascinating stuff, and I think you're on to something. I have a hard time imagining a bright purple house in the middle of my city...

Keep in mind that using a lot of pink, purple, and other "girly" colors does not mean that it will necessarily be overloaded with them. Paradisa's color scheme was distinguished by the inclusion of pink, but looking back at the sets most of them included very few pink parts. The main construction was generally based on grey and white parts. Hopefully a new girls' theme will be at least a little heavier on these new colors so that they're not as boring-- after all, white and grey on their own can be pretty boring without accent colors like red to spruce them up-- but it demonstrates that a theme with "girly" colors will not necessarily overuse those colors.

One thing I do expect, of course, is that baseplates (or regular plates, which may be more likely) might be in 326 Spring Yellowish Green, which would be a disappointment for me. My family actually owned several Paradisa sets, and one of the things that bothered me most was that the color of the grass (6 Light Green) was inconsistent with all of my other baseplates and road plates. I'm hoping that Spring Yellowish Green will be more of an accent color for certain plants and that baseplates will be in a less garish color like Bright Green, but given how girls' themes in the past have liked using pastel green colors for grass I'm not really confident that we'll be free of that trend.

[Sandy]

I'm quite certain that we will see a Disney Princess theme next year. Let's just say that the stars are aligned in such a way...

That doesn't mean City could be more involving to both genders, and introduce more civilian sets without any conflict in them. The Town House was a great step in that direction, and I think it sold well (haven't seen it in any stores anymore, unlike the big Farm set). Now bring some more houses, shops and a hospital into the theme as well, TLG!

[Gregorovich]

I'm quite certain that we will see a Disney Princess theme next year. Let's just say that the stars are aligned in such a way...

That doesn't mean City could be more involving to both genders, and introduce more civilian sets without any conflict in them. The Town House was a great step in that direction, and I think it sold well (haven't seen it in any stores anymore, unlike the big Farm set). Now bring some more houses, shops and a hospital into the theme as well, TLG!

Oh really? What makes you say that there's going to be a Disney Princess theme next year? Personally I'd love a Princess theme (new printed dress slopes, big Fantasy castles, new animals), but I'm not so sure well get one soon. But you seem to know what your talking about, would you care to share with us how you know about such a thing?

I completely agree with you about the houses. I love LEGO houses, so I was very happy abbot last years house. I hope to see a lot more in future.

[Sandy]

Oh really? What makes you say that there's going to be a Disney Princess theme next year? Personally I'd love a Princess theme (new printed dress slopes, big Fantasy castles, new animals), but I'm not so sure well get one soon. But you seem to know what your talking about, would you care to share with us how you know about such a thing?

Haha, don't take my word for it. I've just heard rumors...

[Aanchir]

Haha, don't take my word for it. I've just heard rumors...

I think TLG would likely try to make a successful non-licensed girls' theme before either LEGO or Disney is willing to take a gamble with a licensed theme marketed towards girls. While TLG has had some licensed themes that have been successful with girls (for instance, the Harry Potter theme), they haven't recently been able to demonstrate that a market of primarily female buyers can support a building toy theme. The most successful girls' theme so far, Belville, recently ended, suggesting that that theme's market strategy (a dollhouse-style theme with large articulated figures) was not sustainable, and there has not been any comparably successful minifigure-based theme to date.

[Peppermint_M]

The most successful girls' theme so far, Belville, recently ended, suggesting that that theme's market strategy (a dollhouse-style theme with large articulated figures) was not sustainable, and there has not been any comparably successful minifigure-based theme to date.

Or is being removed from the line up as it is potential competition? TLG themselves have admitted that mostly it is their own themes competing against each other on shop shelves.

Why devide an already small market when you can take away one of the products, leaving the new one as the only choice?

[Aanchir]

Or is being removed from the line up as it is potential competition? TLG themselves have admitted that mostly it is their own themes competing against each other on shop shelves.

Why devide an already small market when you can take away one of the products, leaving the new one as the only choice?

That is a good point. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what happened with LEGO Pirates.

At the same time, though, new Belville sets stopped coming out after 2008, and last we heard the new girls' theme isn't coming out until next year. Four years is a long time to go without any sets for that market just to prevent the themes from stealing each others' sales. And it's far longer than the gap between Pirates sets (Pirates had no sets for regular stores in 2010, but then Pirates of the Caribbean came out just two years later)

[linc1129]

i just had an interesting conversation with my daughter (7) and son (4) about xmas presents this year - son is easy but Mia is more problematic - she already has every house, car & boat that would be reasonaby interesting to a 7 year old girl (she IS quite open minded) so what now? the xmas post office looks promissing but what she really wants is:

*an amusment park with lots of children minifigs and rides - LEGOLAND would be best

*a city park/playground with swings/slides/monkey bars and lots of greenery etc

*a bakery/sweet/ice cream shop with LOTS of food

*a school (look at this years playmobil offer)

*a hospital (no surprise there we all want one)

PINK was NOT requested at all but rather more city that girls can enjoy alongside their brothers (who will always play with the police/fire/garage etc bits)

always more children minifig

always more utensils especially food

and my comment as a mum that buys all this and helps build it if necessary, which is not often these days - in the last 12 month my daugter asked me to make her an ice cream shop, a red double decker bus, a burger place, a park and a shop - this is what SHE though was missing from the LEGO shelves.

Edited July 1, 2011 by linc1129

[Gregorovich]

Your daughter's ideas are actually very good, linc1129. I'd love to see most of those turn into sets.

I'm actually kind of surprised that your daughter didn't want any pink. My 8 year old sister loves anything and everything pink. Even if the thing isn't aimed at girls or isn't something she's interested in, shed want it if it had pink on it. I suppose everyone's different, though!

I hope we hear news about this theme sometime soon, as I'm anxious to hear what they're going to do with it. I don't mind a little bit of pink (I have hardly any pink parts), but I hope they don't go overboard.

[iElkie]

linc1129, I totally follow your daughter's reasoning. Clever girl!

I don't like to admit it, but I think Playmobil does a better job at creating sets for girls. They have a lot of sets that depict daily life such as the zoo, the school, animal clinic, hospital, pony ranch, vacation plus their impulse sets like a mom and a toddler, girl with baby goats, woman on mountain bike,...

And I think that's exactly what girls like: reality, something that they are familiar with. After all girls play 'mommy' with their dolls (reality) while boys play 'sword fighting adventurer' (not so much reality). I'm exaggerating a bit of course, but I hope you know what I mean...

Personally, if I could choose a subtheme for girls, I would go for a Lego circus.

[tafkatb]

As much as it goes against my feminist conscience to exploit the whole women-be-shoppin' trope, I really think a series of small cafes and storefronts could make a great line, especially if they could be combined modular-style to make a sort of mall. And by giving each shop a distinct style, they could incorporate a lot of the new colors without it being overbearing (even though I would love to add a bunch pink and lavender bricks to my own collection).

[linc1129]

As much as it goes against my feminist conscience to exploit the whole women-be-shoppin' trope, I really think a series of small cafes and storefronts could make a great line, especially if they could be combined modular-style to make a sort of mall. And by giving each shop a distinct style, they could incorporate a lot of the new colors without it being overbearing (even though I would love to add a bunch pink and lavender bricks to my own collection).

I totally agree with you there - this summer's request from my kids is a marina with lots of shops, cafes + a beach etc (far more detailed and family firendly than what lego released). the kids already made all the current boats + some 'own' design ones and i'm on the beach - i can already tell it will be well played with this summer

as for pink, pink is always good with girls but so is variety; Mia continues to make rainbow houses - she never made anything just pink even though i did stock up of 3 shades of pink for her

[Pingles]

For my daughter I'd love to see some houses with more play utility.

Perhaps even an elaborate, multi-storied doll house.

Most Lego buildings have very little internal space and even that is usually sectioned up for show, not play utility.

If my daughter can't fit a multi-minifigure tea party in there she's gonna be disappointed. :)

[ryanfitton]

I'm hoping they bring some sets that are similar to the sidewalk cafe as seen in the Paradisa them :)

Edited July 3, 2011 by ryanfitton

[Tamamono]

While I am happy that the theme is city-oriented (instead of a fairytale theme or a Disney princess theme), the news about the weird doll-like figures is quite disappointing. Although my main reason for being excited about this theme is the (hopefully) town-themed buildings such as cafes and theaters, it would have been nice to get a new female hairpiece or torso/face print. Can't say I'm surprised though, as most 'girl' sub-themes don't contain real minifigures (Belville, Clickits, Scala).

[tafkatb]

I really hope you're wrong about this too. While I'm generally a little wary about having a separate girls' theme to begin with - it creates an unnecessary dichotomy in what should be a toy for any gender - I'm well aware of the need to have a sort of gateway to LEGO for girls who have been brought up with an onslaught of hyperfeminine pink toys. But where TLG constantly gets their approach wrong is the scaling, rendering the "girly" themes incompatible with other LEGO sets and giving no real incentive to expand into other themes further down the road. Making an effort to bring LEGO to more girls is one thing, but treating them like some kind of niche market demographic instead of, you know, half the population of potential consumers just has the effect of girls being left to their own special little corner and told to either stay there or abandon LEGO entirely.

[MCNwakeboard]

I'm also a little disappointed about the non-minifigure scale as I am always trying to expand my female Lego population. I agree that the non-minifigure scale makes current Lego fans less likely to collect because it is not compatible with the current system.

I fear that that non-minifigure scale will mean we have less enclosed buildings/walls and more of the sets that have open shops, furniture and accessories.

One less theme to collect, but I'll wait to see the pictures.

[Gregorovich]

Out if curiosity, have you actually seen these, or have you just got a description?

I have a few questions: do these figures come apart (like minifigures), or are they stuck together (like Duplo)? And when you say their heads are bigger, how big do you mean?

As much as I'm disappointed, I'd just like to thank you for this info.

Edited July 3, 2011 by Gregorovich

[meyerc13]

Well... if this is true, bad news indeed. My daughter is three, and she loves playing LEGO with her slightly older brother. She loves minifigs. I will not buy LEGO sets that aren't minifig scale. I don't buy Belleville now and won't buy this theme if it isn't minifig based. I guess I'll have to stick to the harbor theme, Creator houses, and collectible minifigs for my daughter.

I don't understand what LEGO is thinking.

I think this thread should be moved to the Special themes section, because if this news is true, clearly it isn't City.

[vexorian]

Meh, I hope that the 1% of uncertainty debunks this theory. I would like to believe TLG have finally learned their lesson after the Jack Stone and Belvile failures, they won't keep making the same mistakes over and over again, will they?

The other day I got my hands in a paradisa bulk and buy was it a useful bunch of pieces and minifigs, I don't get why would TLG not try something like that again, and was very hopeful they would do it again with this rumored girls theme.

Edited July 3, 2011 by vexorian

[Aanchir]

I really hope you're wrong about this too. While I'm generally a little wary about having a separate girls' theme to begin with - it creates an unnecessary dichotomy in what should be a toy for any gender - I'm well aware of the need to have a sort of gateway to LEGO for girls who have been brought up with an onslaught of hyperfeminine pink toys. But where TLG constantly gets their approach wrong is the scaling, rendering the "girly" themes incompatible with other LEGO sets and giving no real incentive to expand into other themes further down the road. Making an effort to bring LEGO to more girls is one thing, but treating them like some kind of niche market demographic instead of, you know, half the population of potential consumers just has the effect of girls being left to their own special little corner and told to either stay there or abandon LEGO entirely.

Well, there are a couple problems with this.

• TLG already has plenty of what would seem like non-gender-specific toys. And in general, girls don't want to buy them. If they did TLG would have no reason to even try making a separate girls' theme-- as it is, though, both parents and girls themselves overlook even the least gender-specific sets.
  Frankly, a lot of people come in here talking about how girl-specific themes are a bad idea that discriminates against girls. But what they fail to realize is considering how girls don't buy most LEGO sets, this essentially means that those sets are unintentionally "boy-specific". TLG has two options to counter this imbalance: they can either create niche products for girls, which is a low-risk decision, or they can change their already successful "boys' themes" to make them less gender-specific-- a considerably higher risk considering that that means potentially alienating some of their best buyers.
  
• The assumption that girls' LEGO products are only valid as a gateway to other products is a really awful one. For one thing, it assumes that girls should like the average LEGO products like fire engines, pirate ships, and spaceships, and that they shouldn't like more stereotypically "girly" things like dollhouses and riding stables. And while you can say all you like about the effect of girls' toys on society, but the fact remains that these are things that girls often like, not just because they're pressured into buying them but because these are the toys they legitimately enjoy.
  Think of it this way: train sets are stereotypically a boys' toy. Does this mean LEGO trains should only exist as a "gateway" to less gender-specific themes like Castle, City, and Harry Potter? You might argue that trains are different, because both boys and girls can enjoy them, and only girls can enjoy dollhouses. But in fact this is untrue-- trains are the same as dollhouses because both girls and boys can enjoy them, but they appeal primarily to one gender over the other.
  
• Your assumption that different scaling makes sets incompatible is laughable. All LEGO is compatible. If different scales are such a big problem, then Duplo and Technic should both be discontinued for being incompatible with regular minifigure-based LEGO themes. And Fabuland should be reviled for creating a group of fans who never went on to become regular LEGO fans. Only wait! It didn't. People who are fans of one of these themes regularly become fans of other themes.
  As a child, I was primarily a fan of Duplo. I moved from that to regular LEGO System without the least bit of hassle. As I got older I began collecting Technic not instead of, but alongside, System sets. And then I moved from Technic to BIONICLE, and most recently from BIONICLE to Hero Factory. Not one of these transitions made my parts incompatible with other sets (besides arguably the Duplo-System transition, since I never mixed parts from those two themes), nor was it difficult to move into sets with a larger or smaller scale than I was used to. The only "incentive" I needed was my own curiosity.
  
• Furthermore, you call the different scaling of girls' themes a bad thing without considering basic history. Paradisa was a minifigure-based girls' theme running from 1992-1997-- a total of six years of sets. Belville was a doll-based theme running from 1994-2008-- a total of 15 years of sets. Between 1994 and 1997, both themes were running simultaneously. Belville existed after 1997 because it was successful where Paradisa was not. Your misguided notion that doll-based themes are a bad business decision is one a lot of AFOLs share, but there's no evidence for it and a lot against it.
  Frankly, there already exist plenty of minifigure-based themes that girls are perfectly free to buy. However, Paradisa and Belville demonstrated that even when a minifigure-based theme exists that's custom-tailored to the interests of female buyers, girls still prefer a doll-based theme. And TLG, by releasing sets that buyers simply don't want, would be doing both itself and its audience a disservice.
  Personally, I think that as a toy company it's not TLG's responsibility to create social change. There are a lot more influential toy companies that would be working counter to that purpose anyway. But at the same time, something that has to be acknowledged is that if TLG continues releasing sets that girls tend to ignore, they're not helping girls grow up without gender stereotypes, or creating equality, or any of those things. All they're doing is perpetuating their reputation as a boys' toy and their feebleness at getting girls older than five years old to even care.

Now here's my own perspective on this revelation, if it turns out to be true. I may very easily ignore this theme when it comes out if the minifigures are terribly incompatible with regular LEGO ones. At the same time, my little brother was a fan of Jack Stone sets in the early 2000s, and I didn't make fun of the sets at all. Instead, I was a bit of a fan myself. They were not minifigure scale, but they were LEGO and Technic-based sets that still encouraged creative building and role-play, just for a younger audience. If I jumped on the hate-train for this theme like a lot of AFOLs are so ready to, then I'd be a hypocrite, because I'd be imposing my own values on LEGO sets clearly not aimed at 20-year-old men like myself.

Even the most obstinate AFOL isn't likely to complain about Duplo sets being "too <insert that tiresome argument>", so complaining about girls' sets being "too girly" is just as illogical. TLG has put a lot of time and effort into market research trying to find what sells, so the best thing we can do is hope that their time and effort pays off rather than trying to claim that our own armchair psychology explains girls better than actual research by a company that has actual money at stake if the theme is not successful.

At the same time, it's way too early to pretend we know anything for certain about these sets. Our first information about the Ninjago theme, from someone who had seen pictures of the sets himself, led us to expect ninjas in improbable colors like purple and orange, when in fact the final theme's ninjas were all in colors that had been seen in sets over ten years previously. I don't doubt the information itself in this case, but drawing conclusions about whether it's good or bad involves making a lot of huge and often baseless assumptions based on a couple sentences (most of which apply just as much to fan-favorite theme Fabuland as they do to this new girls' theme, by the way).

[lightningtiger]

Oh, no....not mini-Belville people....goodness where do Lego do there product research....VENUS !

Reading between the lines, and applying a diagnostic brain to it....these minifig-ish characters I say made in China and will not be able to be pulled apart. But why, girls would want to change torso's and bottom's....right, girls are clothes horses, they love clothes and changing them often.

I won't be able to find out for myself at least until late August (don't ask who, can't say - someone directly connected at the Lego company itself).

The buildings have to be City/Creator style.....but the name 'Friend's' brings to mind the TV series and does that mean male as well as female characters ?

Let's hope Lego has put more thought into this than they did with Speed Racer and Ben10 !

Brick On everyone !

[tafkatb]

"Incompatible" was a poor word choice since obviously pieces from all the different themes can technically be combined, I just meant you can't really put together fully-built sets from differently-scaled themes. I had some Paradisa sets as a kid and liked that they could be easily incorporated into a town layout (with the exception of the differently colored baseplates) but never got into Belville because everything was oversized and while there were useful parts, the sets as-built couldn't really go with anything else. I thought Paradisa was great, but I guess it just didn't sell well and from that point on I largely ignored the "girl" sets and themes because they all felt, to varying degrees, like LEGO was trying to be something they were not, like they were trying to make their own version of Barbie or something. (I also never liked Barbie very much, can you tell? )

And I'm not saying all girls need a "gateway" to LEGO; keep in mind I just said it was those who already have a certain idea of what girls' toys should look like. And that doesn't mean they've been overtly "pressured" into it, but nor does it mean that girls are somehow inherently attracted to certain themes of play - that would be ignoring the very complex realities of the social construction of gender. I don't like it, obviously, but I know TLG has to work within those realities and I'm under no delusions that I have the right answers.

[lightningtiger]

I have a little tale to tell you all, I was at a toy store, actually a Toyworld....a father had just paid for a lighting truck, tow truck and police car and his child carried them to the family car with a huge smile on HER face. You see Lego, girls build CITY....they are all not into Brat's dolls !

My son swaps minifigs with a girl, in fact my wife likes the houses (she loves the winter toy shop actually).

But maybe we are all in a panic for nothing, lets wait until we get more information and even better....images.

So to then to quote a famous line from a TV series.......DON'T PANIC !