2012 Friends Discussion Thread

[Darkdragon]

I dunno, that could actually be useful (depending what the whole figure looks like) to have taller figures. Instead of adding a 1x1 plate under each foot for a tall man, I could use these new figures and put regular minifig heads on them. Of course, we'll have to see what it looks like. Sounds almost like they might be similar to Fabuland figs

Either way I hope there are new animals!

[meyerc13]

I often hear that Belville must have been more successful than Paradisa because it was around longer. What's the source for that assumption? Without a source for that I think it's just as likely that LEGO ran a manufacturing production run of the original Belville pieces and has been releasing sets for so long just to use up what they originally produced.

I've never seen Belville outside of a Toys R Us store, and I've never seen anyone buy a set or even look at a set. My wife worked for a time at a Toys R Us, I should ask some of her former co-workers if they've ever sold a set.

I honestly wonder where LEGO gets their focus groups, are they purposely ignoring parents who buy LEGOs already? Because I think most of us would love to have more options to buy for our girls. They've shown with the Farm, Harbor, City House, and recent Kingdoms Mill Village Raid that they can make sets that appeal to both boys and girls. Why they can't do a Circus, Veterinarian, Zoo, etc. I don't understand. Instant appeal to *all* kids, boys and girls.

Making a girl specific theme that isn't minifig compatible is likely to turn off a big chunk of those who are most likely to buy this, parents with both a boy and a girl who already have a large investment in LEGO.

As for the comments that these will still be LEGO and still compatible, while that's true it is also true that for certain themes like Belville, the price per piece is much higher than on a typical LEGO set (easily 2x normal), no doubt due to the oversized figures and animals. So while it is true that I could buy Belville or this new theme for my daughter and it would still be LEGO, I won't because I'd have to be crazy to pay those kinds of prices for bricks, when the figures would go in the trash.

[weeble1688]

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 !

I have to agree. As a female employee of Lego Brand Retail in America, I have girls, relatives of girls, adult women and even a few female teenagers ask me "the question" -- where are the girl sets? To that I say, "Any set can be a 'girl' set. We do have the pink buckets and Belville over there, but many girls like City, Star Wars, Kingdoms, Cars, Harry Potter, PotC, Creator, or Hero Factory sets. Here, let me show you." Basically, it's similar to helping a boy find what he wants, except he probably came in knowing what he wants and very possibly where it is located. A girl may need some help finding what *more specifically* it is she's interested in ... and how to break it to her parent(s) that yes, she does want Lego stuff - just maybe not the pink pieces everyone wants to give her. I try to explain that Lego is not a boys' toy but a people toy, and that playing with Lego sets is okay for a girl to do. I can definitely say that there are times the girls around the Build-A-Mini area outnumber the boys, and that both the boys and girls are looking for the female faces, torsos, and wigs - though the girls are the ones who ask about skirts.

As a female AFOL, I collect sets from virtually every theme Lego has put out in recent years, including Star Wars, Belville, Cars, Creator, Exclusives, City, etc. - and I grew up collecting Lego Classic Space. I doubt I would have asked for Paradisa as a youngster, but now I would like the variety it would lend to City if it were to re-emerge in a new way. Thankfully, when I was young every minifig had a smiley face (and a helmet), so they could be anyone I wanted them to be. Now, there needs to be a better balance - and TLG is getting closer but could go further without alienating the boys, in my opinion.

Lego doesn't need a "pink" theme as much as it needs to keep going with sets like City Corner, the Medieval Market Village, the Log Cabin, and the discontinued 4WD with Horse Trailer. The minifigs included with the newer Creator sets are also going in the right direction as far as girls are concerned. They like the fact that these sets are now populated. As both a female customer and employee of Lego, I would like to see various City shops, maybe a restaurant or a post office, and more houses - for the girls who come in not wanting pink, just more sets that aren't conflict- or emergency-oriented. And more female minifigs, so they don't have to continually build their own from the Build-A-Mini ... because we keep running out!

[vexorian]

[*]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.

Everything is "compatible". but taller minifigs are an athrocity. Jack Stone was a flop. Technic minifigs got rightly sent to extinction. Etc. Fabuland on the other hand is awesomely loved and AFOLs even get to use Fabuland figs as sigs and in MoCs and vignettes. What's the main difference? I would say that Fabuland figs although different in many things to normal minifigs at least kept the scale, which allows you to keep them as part of the LEGO world (ie: Other minifigs). With the Jack Stone giberish, that is not possible. Then we have the height, when minifigs are taller, that greatly limits your MoCing, you would have to use more bricks for no reason. Minifigs not close to real minifig scale just don't work.

You may be able to put pieces together and call them "compatible". But there is such thing as visual incompatibility. You cannot just put Galidor heads in your system MoCs. There are ways to make them fit, but they won't "fit" visually. It is simple as that.

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.

Considering basic history is one thing, but jumping to conclusions is another thing. You assume that Belvile lasted for more years because it was more successful economically than Paradisa. I cannot find anything that backs this claim. For starters, neither of the themes seems to have been a particular "hit". Only thing that would back the assumption is that they overlapped but Belvile survived. Though themes overlap all the time. Space police III overlapped with Bionicle and outlived it, that does not mean it was more popualr than Bionicle. We do not know exactly what was in the minds of TLG business strategists when making the decision to stop producing Paradisa and move to Belvile. Note that the decision happened in 1997. We are talking about a period of time in which many terrible decisions that led TLG to neigh bankruptcy were taken. It must be telling that the strategists that chose Belvile over Paradisa may have been the ones that almost destroyed LEGO in the pre-2000s :/ I can offer an alternative theory to Belvile being more popular: TLG was starting to go through economical issues so they thought that it was better to scrap one of the two very unsuccessful girl themes and the heads at TLG chose belville because that theme had the better chance to allow them to 'innovate' through the use of big molds to replace the construction toys idea.

Even if we assumed that Belvile was indeed more profitable than Paradisa. We shouldn't rush to assumptions on the reason it was more popular. Is it for the terrible scale? Or is it for the dolls being more like dolls? Or perhaps it is related to marketing? Lack of male figs?

[Aanchir]

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 !

You're immediately jumping to the worst case scenario. You've heard nothing that even hints at Chinese-made figs, non-detachable minifigure parts, etc. In fact, some of that stuff would be nearly impossible to tell from a picture anyway, so there's no need to worry about such things until the sets are out.

Also, "Friends" reminded me less of the TV show and more of the computer game which was apparently tied to the Scala theme.

Everything is "compatible". but taller minifigs are an athrocity. Jack Stone was a flop. Technic minifigs got rightly sent to extinction. Etc. Fabuland on the other hand is awesomely loved and AFOLs even get to use Fabuland figs as sigs and in MoCs and vignettes. What's the main difference? I would say that Fabuland figs although different in many things to normal minifigs at least kept the scale, which allows you to keep them as part of the LEGO world (ie: Other minifigs). With the Jack Stone giberish, that is not possible. Then we have the height, when minifigs are taller, that greatly limits your MoCing, you would have to use more bricks for no reason. Minifigs not close to real minifig scale just don't work.

Fabuland figs didn't keep the scale, though. They're considerably taller than minifigures, with longer arms and legs and much larger heads. From what's been described, the figs in this upcoming theme may be as close to the classic minifigure as Fabuland figs were, if not more.

And furthermore, all I'm hearing from you in this paragraph is a lot of subjectivity, nothing with any facts behind it. Jack Stone lasted three years, which is not at all a "flop", and furthermore the style of minifigure lasted a full year longer in the 4-Juniors theme. The Jack Stone theme ended not because that style of figure was a complete flop, but rather because the character-driven sets in that theme just weren't as effective as the same figures without character-specific ties to that theme. If we assume that any theme that didn't last at least four years was a "flop", Fantasy-Era Castle, classic Ninja, and Power Miners were all "flops" as well.

Jack Stone minifigures were just as compatible with regular LEGO as Fabuland minifigures. The only difference is that AFOLs currently like Fabuland and dislike Jack Stone, which is meaningless to how successful either theme was during its lifespan (since AFOLs are about as far from the target audience of these themes as you could get). Meanwhile, every description we've heard of this new girls' theme so far has made it seem far more like Fabuland than Jack Stone, using characters with oversized heads at a scale not much taller than the average minifigure.

And again, I have to bring up Belville, which people ignorantly continue pushing under the rug despite it having had the most evidence for success out of any girls' theme. It lasted for fifteen years of sets. That's more than BIONICLE, more than classic Pirates, far more than Exo-Force, more than Alpha Team, and more than Space Police III. For four years it was being released alongside a minifigure-based girls' theme, Paradisa. Paradisa was cancelled, Belville was not. However, since Belville was eventually discontinued like most themes, it makes a lot of AFOLs happy to pretend it was not successful, indulging in a fantasy they've probably entertained since the theme began.

You may be able to put pieces together and call them "compatible". But there is such thing as visual incompatibility. You cannot just put Galidor heads in your system MoCs. There are ways to make them fit, but they won't "fit" visually. It is simple as that.

I agree completely. However, this is unrelated to the point that Tragic Banjo was even making. His argument was that by making figures in a different scale than regular minifigures, TLG was making it hard for girls to transition into regular minifigure-based themes. My argument was that it would be just as easy to transition between these themes as it would have been to transition between any two themes that are incompatible in scale.

Some girls may want to make this transition, and others will not. But the reality is that most children appreciate LEGO primarily as a building toy regardless of scale, and if they enjoy building then many will not hesitate to move to other themes where their bricks, completely regardless of the size of the minifigures, are compatible.

Considering basic history is one thing, but jumping to conclusions is another thing. You assume that Belvile lasted for more years because it was more successful economically than Paradisa. I cannot find anything that backs this claim. For starters, neither of the themes seems to have been a particular "hit". Only thing that would back the assumption is that they overlapped but Belvile survived. Though themes overlap all the time. Space police III overlapped with Bionicle and outlived it, that does not mean it was more popualr than Bionicle. We do not know exactly what was in the minds of TLG business strategists when making the decision to stop producing Paradisa and move to Belvile. Note that the decision happened in 1997. We are talking about a period of time in which many terrible decisions that led TLG to neigh bankruptcy were taken. It must be telling that the strategists that chose Belvile over Paradisa may have been the ones that almost destroyed LEGO in the pre-2000s :/ I can offer an alternative theory to Belvile being more popular: TLG was starting to go through economical issues so they thought that it was better to scrap one of the two very unsuccessful girl themes and the heads at TLG chose belville because that theme had the better chance to allow them to 'innovate' through the use of big molds to replace the construction toys idea.

I'd like to make a correction: this was not a time when terrible decisions led TLG to the brink of bankruptcy, but rather a time when terrible decisions failed to stop TLG from reaching the brink of bankruptcy. Most decisions TLG made within this time period were not huge monetary investments compared to the ones that ended up saving the company, and TLG hadn't changed many of their business practices at all. The biggest business decisions they've made which I know of have all been to undo the damage that they had already sustained.

I'm just calling Belville a success based on what's available. Other people, on the other hand, are ignoring the analysis to indulge in their own delusions that Belville was a failure of a theme. Space Police did outlive BIONICLE, and you're right that that doesn't mean one theme was more profitable. But here's the thing: BIONICLE was profitable enough to last ten years. Space Police III was profitable enough to last two years. The only reason the four-year overlap is at all relevant is because it ties the market together. It means the two themes had to be popular with a similar pool of children to survive. A comparison of themes that don't overlap at all based on how long they lasted is less valid because they were probably trying to appeal to two completely different generations of kids who were likely to have completely different interests-- so saying that TLG should bring back Classic Space because it was more successful than Space Police III wouldn't make sense at all.

As for your alternative explanation, my point isn't that Belville was an overwhelming success. But even in your scenario, featuring as it does caricatures of well-meaning executives who made several good decisions within that same time period, you seem to be assuming that given two unsuccessful girls' themes, these executives would have seen more potential in the weaker-selling of the two themes and cancelled its more successful (and without a doubt, cheaper-to-produce) counterpart. There may have been bad decisions in the late 90s, but assuming that Belville was not more successful than Paradisa at the time of Paradisa's cancellation would seem to require decision-making intended to run the company into the ground.

Even if we assumed that Belvile was indeed more profitable than Paradisa. We shouldn't rush to assumptions on the reason it was more popular. Is it for the terrible scale? Or is it for the dolls being more like dolls? Or perhaps it is related to marketing? Lack of male figs?

I'm not trying to rush to assumptions (although the dolls being more like dolls is because of the scale you continue to denigrate, and would not have been possible without it). In the very least, I do at least some research before making a post, whereas you seem to believe there aren't male figures in Belville. Based on a quick Bricklink search, there were 31 male Belville figures (17%) and 148 female Belville figures (83%), plus 30 babies/fairies who probably tilt the ratio a bit further towards female. Male figures in Belville were around pretty consistently from the theme's beginning to its end, too. The genders were more balanced in Paradisa, but there was still a majority of female figs over male-- 31 female figs (61%) and 16 male figs (31%). The numbers in that case don't add up to 100% because there are four figs that are too gender-ambiguous for me to really include.

Certainly, the ratio of male to female could have affected sales, but on the other hand, keep in mind that the easiest solution in that case would be to make new sets with a more uneven ratio, not to cancel the Paradisa theme in general. Success can be measured in a number of ways, but if you're going to suggest that Belville was not the most successful girls' theme by far, I'd like to know what was, and what evidence you have that's stronger than a fifteen-year lifespan. I loved Paradisa, but I'm not going to claim it was a success compared to Belville when I have no evidence to support this (even though it was still moderately successful to last as long as it did).

[autobrick]

I really hope this rumour about a new line of figures for the new girls theme is false (but since it has popped up twice, I am not so optimistic).

I find it strange that TLC would create another set of figures for a couple of reasons:

1. Creating new molds are expensive; why invest (risk!) money by creating a new set of figures when minifigures have a strong, proven track record?
2. Minifigs parts (such as headgear, torsos & legs) likely won't be compatible, which decreases the pool of swappable parts. (Hate to stereotype, but girls do like to play dress-up).
3. They likely won't be visually congruent with minifigs and thus will look strange when put side by side. This will bother AFOLs more than kids, but still an issue.

Of course, I will reserve final judgment until we get more information, but this has really dampened my enthusiasm.

[Solitary Dark]

My daughter is six and her favourite set is the 4WD with the Horsebox from a couple of years ago.

She raids my box for all the horses. I'm sure a Horse/farm realated extension to City would be perfect (She also has the red tractor)

She gave me her Pink brick bucket - Just didnt do it for her.

Look at my competition entry for the recent Collectible Minifigure contest - I had a request to build Rapunzel's tower from 'Tangled' from her - So I know she would absolutely devour Disney Princess themed sets - And I personally would buy a 'Beauty and the Beast' castle quite happily....

[Zarkan]

Jack Stone minifigures were just as compatible with regular LEGO as Fabuland minifigures. The only difference is that AFOLs currently like Fabuland and dislike Jack Stone, which is meaningless to how successful either theme was during its lifespan (since AFOLs are about as far from the target audience of these themes as you could get). Meanwhile, every description we've heard of this new girls' theme so far has made it seem far more like Fabuland than Jack Stone, using characters with oversized heads at a scale not much taller than the average minifigure.

If I may speculate, I think the biggest reason why Jack Stone is hated while Fabuland is loved has to do with how much each of them innovated. Fabuland was unlike anything TLC had ever done before, or has ever done again - combining a rather interesting gimmick of animal themed characters with sets that were incredibly bright, colorful, and non-violent. Jack Stone, on the other hand, was basically a more simplistic version of TLC's City Center theme, taking the juniorzation in post 1997 Town sets to an incredibly ridiculous level. Jack stone's unique figures are the most blatant example of this, combining one piece, non-customizable molds with an asthetic that many probably saw as far less charming than standard minifigures. Fabuland figures had the benefit of being totally unique with their animal heads, and unlike Jack Stone figures were customizable to a certain degree. When you really look at it, it is kind of hard to compare the two themes, which really share nothing in common apart from lying outisde the System banner.

Personally, I would rather TLC release a girl-centric theme that still features traditional minifigures, but until pictures come out of this new theme, there's no reason for me to assume that this decision will be a bad thing. If the figures are in any ways compatible with System figures, while providing a different scale of parts, then this might actually be a good thing in the long run. This goes doubly for the possibility that this theme introduces some great new molds. There's a reason why AFOLS have sometimes bought Belvile or Scala sets even though they usually despise the maxi-figures - because the kits themselves are often loaded with unique acessories and rare colors.

[horizon]

Hi,

I think LEGO should do a girl theme with the normal minifigs. Easy as that. Girls like that. Swapable hair pieces, different legs etc etc all cool.

Lego is daft for not doing that regarding a girl theme.

For the one who said it: chinese plastic is not worse then other lego plastic. They have better hair/hood fit anyway.

My daughter (just 7) favourite sets are the Ninjago Turbo Shredder and Dojo. Her fave minifigs Nya and a a girly minifig from early nineties (iirc).

There was a horse thing back them. My sister had it. With minifigs.

Edited July 6, 2011 by horizon

[Pingles]

These discussions always get a bit heated.

Bottom line is that trying to cater to any one group is not only tough but also very much a moving target.

My daughter is pretty ambiguous when it comes to toys. She loves Trains (Thomas) yet she will sometimes take all of her engines and have a tea party with them.

But I have certainly met plenty of super-foofy girls who just want pink unicorns and dolls with hair to comb.

I wouldn't want that marketing job.

[SilvaShado]

I think it'd be fantastic if they could partner with Disney to do all the Princesses. Then, they couldn't mess up the colors because they'd just have to pick out scenes from the movies and all the colors would already be chosen. As long as they do minifigure scale, it'd sell like hotcakes.

In more realistic view, I think doing city sets that focus on non-conflict or emergency would work great. A hair salon would be a lot of fun along with restaurants and other stores.

Personally, I'd love a fairy-tale theme, but that'd probably involve a lot more new molds for minifigures. But all the fairy tales are public domain so as long as they stick to the stories, I don't think they could go wrong with them.

Can only wait and see what LEGO does. Hopefully, it's minifigure scale, whatever it is, and opens up the color palette a bit more.

[Delta 38]

Hmm, this new update is interesting. I was hoping for a minifigure theme and a move away from stereotypes. This already sounds excessively "girly" if minifigures aren't actually present in the theme.

Assuming the information is right, the attitude towards this is wrong. A subtheme of City with pastel colours (but applied sparingly) and with more female minifigures would have been fine, and it would also be somewhat unisex as it's another expansion to City, but just slightly more girl-orientated.

Disappointing news, but I hope new pieces or colours would probably make up for it.

[PhysicsCaptain]

I was really looking forward to this theme, but now I'm not so sure. I loved the Paradisa sets when I was little, but they had hardly any pink in them so I don't know why everyone's so worried about the colour scheme. Non-minifigure figures is what I'm concerned about.

[Legoist]

If I may speculate, I think the biggest reason why Jack Stone is hated while Fabuland is loved has to do with how much each of them innovated. Fabuland was unlike anything TLC had ever done before, or has ever done again - combining a rather interesting gimmick of animal themed characters with sets that were incredibly bright, colorful, and non-violent. Jack Stone, on the other hand, was basically a more simplistic version of TLC's City Center theme, taking the juniorzation in post 1997 Town sets to an incredibly ridiculous level. Jack stone's unique figures are the most blatant example of this, combining one piece, non-customizable molds with an asthetic that many probably saw as far less charming than standard minifigures. Fabuland figures had the benefit of being totally unique with their animal heads, and unlike Jack Stone figures were customizable to a certain degree. When you really look at it, it is kind of hard to compare the two themes, which really share nothing in common apart from lying outisde the System banner.

I have no idea about the sales figures of those theme, but personally I just think that the biggest reason is the one you mentioned later on: aesthetic.

Simply put, Fabuland figures looked nice and friendly, Jack Stone figures looked like crap.

[Aanchir]

I have no idea about the sales figures of those theme, but personally I just think that the biggest reason is the one you mentioned later on: aesthetic.

Simply put, Fabuland figures looked nice and friendly, Jack Stone figures looked like crap.

I liked Jack Stone figures.

Anyway, to keep this on topic, I'm so far not convinced that the theme has lost its principal sales potential by not using minifigures. Something to keep in mind is that yes, some girls are perfectly happy with City sets that use regular minifigures. But this theme is largely targeted at girls whom LEGO's existing product lines don't appeal to, and so looking at it from the perspective of how well it fits your LEGO collection doesn't really take into account the purpose of the theme.

It would be like criticizing Duplo or Hero Factory because they don't have regular minifigures. Both are offshoots of the LEGO system that aren't meant to serve quite the same purpose: Duplo sets are for preschoolers and toddlers, while Hero Factory sets are buildable action figures. In Duplo's case, there's hardly any compatibility with regular LEGO, and nobody bats an eye. The only difference between Duplo and this girls' theme is that rather than targeting an audience that can't play with regular LEGO, it's targeting girls who, for whatever reason, simply choose not to. I'm personally hoping this theme proves successful, but like Hero Factory its success doesn't ride upon compatibility between its minifigures and those in classic themes.

[Blondie-Wan]

While I, too, am disappointed that this new theme won't be a new minifigure subtheme a la Paradisa, I'm still curious and awaiting the specifics, and I have to say Aanchir's arguments are extremely well-reasoned.

I often hear that Belville must have been more successful than Paradisa because it was around longer. What's the source for that assumption? Without a source for that I think it's just as likely that LEGO ran a manufacturing production run of the original Belville pieces and has been releasing sets for so long just to use up what they originally produced.

To be honest, I think that's completely preposterous. There's no way they produced a fifteen-year overstock on elements (most of which are still regular bricks, after all, when all is said and done). Note also that sets introduced over the course of the theme's life included new colors (not much grey of any sort in Belville, true, but the reddish-browns very much are) and new elements (for example, I believe the first appearance of the minifigure R2 leg in black in any set was not in the Star Wars theme for which the piece was designed, but in Belville, where it served as part of a TV camera stand in Pop Studio). They continued to design new figures and other elements for years.

If you absolutely insist that the theme must have been unsuccessful, a more plausible argument to account for its longevity might be that TLG subsidized the theme, carrying it despite it making a loss specifically in order to pull what girls in that it could. But I think it's very unlikely - a year or two, perhaps, but a decade and a half? No, this theme has to have sold some sets - perhaps not in spectacular numbers, perhaps just at a point where it was hovering close to the break-even point, but it has to have done some business, above and beyond whatever business TLG's inarguable flops did, to have lasted so long.

I've never seen Belville outside of a Toys R Us store, and I've never seen anyone buy a set or even look at a set. My wife worked for a time at a Toys R Us, I should ask some of her former co-workers if they've ever sold a set.

Yes, it's true it never had substantial distribution, but it's not as though Toys 'R' Us isn't a pretty noteworthy retailer all by itself.

FWIW, I've seen Belville sets in LEGO's own stores (of course), Toys 'R' Us, and Tuesday Morning (a clearance / remainder chain - which doesn't help support an argument for Belville's popularity, I realize, but at the same time they had Belville they also had Bionicle and other popular stuff; this was in the mid-2000s. I haven't seen any LEGO of any sort there in a few years, though).

I honestly wonder where LEGO gets their focus groups, are they purposely ignoring parents who buy LEGOs already? Because I think most of us would love to have more options to buy for our girls. They've shown with the Farm, Harbor, City House, and recent Kingdoms Mill Village Raid that they can make sets that appeal to both boys and girls. Why they can't do a Circus, Veterinarian, Zoo, etc. I don't understand. Instant appeal to *all* kids, boys and girls.

Well, why don't you ask them? I know they sometimes misjudge markets and so on as does any company (which is why they can sometimes overestimate the market for something like Galidor, say, or underestimate the one for Minifigures), but they are a huge, multibillion-dollar, global company, and they do lots and lots of market research, which most people like ourselves outside the company never get to see. I'm sure you're right that they don't always get perfect results with their research, but I think it's safe to assume they're not just taking wild guesses with no backing whatsoever.

Making a girl specific theme that isn't minifig compatible is likely to turn off a big chunk of those who are most likely to buy this, parents with both a boy and a girl who already have a large investment in LEGO.

As for the comments that these will still be LEGO and still compatible, while that's true it is also true that for certain themes like Belville, the price per piece is much higher than on a typical LEGO set (easily 2x normal), no doubt due to the oversized figures and animals. So while it is true that I could buy Belville or this new theme for my daughter and it would still be LEGO, I won't because I'd have to be crazy to pay those kinds of prices for bricks, when the figures would go in the trash.

Well, sure, if you really see no use for them whatsoever. But they're not sold with that expectation, obviously. The figures are part of a set, just as the minifigures in any minifigure set are part of it, and not included simply to be thrown away.

(meyerc13, I hope you don't think I'm picking on you just because I argued with your entire post while ignoring everyone else's; it's just that yours had pretty much everything I wanted to respond to concentrated in one handy, easily-quoted post, and it was easier to just quote your one post than a bunch of different people to make the same points. )

Edited July 13, 2011 by Blondie-Wan

[Pingles]

I am intrigued. My daughter has no interest in Duplo but is a bit too little for regular Lego. I have been reinforcing sets so her young hands can play with them without ending up with a handful of pieces each time.

She currently plays with my Lego trains and trucks but would love to see how she reacts to more "girly" sets.

[Aanchir]

Well, I'm glad to hear it's a big theme. That means it's probably a big deal for TLG, so it'll hopefully be treated with the same level of importance as Ninjago was this year.

As for the figures, they sound interesting. I'm not sure how having less posability than regular minifigures will go over with girls, but I'm sure the greater interchangeability might be more popular with AFOLs, and I can see some AFOLs buying a few for unusual MOCs kind of like they currently do with Knights' Kingdom or Galidor pieces, and more rarely with Belville.

The colors I'm hearing about seem to support my suspicions that the theme will make heavy use of the six new colors added to the color palette this year. Which is good, because so far they have been really sparsely used in mainstream themes and I'd hate for them to end up removed from the palette like so many other sparsely-used colors have been.

One thing we haven't heard much about so far is the quality of the building experience, something which we likely will not know about until pics emerge. Belville, being at a considerably larger scale than LEGO, used a lot of parts AFOLs would consider "<insert that tiresome argument>", and this theme may be similar (even though given the similar scale of the sets to regular minifigure sets, the juniorization shouldn't be much different than in some of System sets' "low periods". And since those parts ended up being at least useable in more advanced MOCs, I'm sure people will find some uses for these parts. I look forward to pictures of these sets emerging!

[Sandy]

This is so wrong! The theme and the sets sound wonderful, and will surely be a hit among little girls, but why why why make it out of minifig scale?! Why terminate Belville just to make another theme just like it, anyway?

I imagine it'll be aimed for slightly younger girls than the age range of the system sets, but still. Do they really think minifigs are too small for girls? And the "dolls" have little to no posability? Can they even sit?

I simply cannot understand what has went on in the minds of the development team...

[Aanchir]

This is so wrong! The theme and the sets sound wonderful, and will surely be a hit among little girls, but why why why make it out of minifig scale?! Why terminate Belville just to make another theme just like it, anyway?

I imagine it'll be aimed for slightly younger girls than the age range of the system sets, but still. Do they really think minifigs are too small for girls? And the "dolls" have little to no posability? Can they even sit?

I simply cannot understand what has went on in the minds of the development team...

Emphasis mine. Is being outside of minifig scale the only thing that makes Belville unique? In that case, there were several themes "just like Belville" that existed at the same time: for example, Scala, Technic, Jack Stone, and Galidor. As it is, TLG obviously has reason to believe that girls will prefer sets with these figures to sets with standard minifigures. Since no pictures of the sets have even surfaced online, how can we have any evidence to the contrary? Lots of people are just assuming that all LEGO customers would be happiest with standard minifigure sets, ignoring the relative success of themes like Fabuland, BIONICLE, and Belville that lack standard minifigures entirely.

[Sandy]

As it is, TLG obviously has reason to believe that girls will prefer sets with these figures to sets with standard minifigures. Since no pictures of the sets have even surfaced online, how can we have any evidence to the contrary? Lots of people are just assuming that all LEGO customers would be happiest with standard minifigure sets, ignoring the relative success of themes like Fabuland, BIONICLE, and Belville that lack standard minifigures entirely.

Again, I'm not doubting that the theme will be popular. I just think it would be more popular (at least among AFOLs) if it were in minifig scale, because of the compatibility factor. With a different set of figures (and assumably a different scale) for this theme, people will be restricted to only those sets if they want to create a coherent world.

Fabuland was alright on it's own, but from an adult's perspective the figures just don't fit a minifigure world (although that hasn't stopped certain admins from trying ). It's the same case here. In the near future a girl may have a beauty parlor, but if they want to have the minifigs from their farm set come over for a visit, tough luck. Kids are imaginative for sure, but at a certain age they start to imitate the real world in their playing. Minifigs might find a place in the new theme as kids or babies, but if the scale is off then the two types of figs won't fit into the same play as equals.

And considering what the option would've been, that's a darn shame.

[Aanchir]

Again, I'm not doubting that the theme will be popular. I just think it would be more popular (at least among AFOLs) if it were in minifig scale, because of the compatibility factor. With a different set of figures (and assumably a different scale) for this theme, people will be restricted to only those sets if they want to create a coherent world.

Fabuland was alright on it's own, but from an adult's perspective the figures just don't fit a minifigure world (although that hasn't stopped certain admins from trying ). It's the same case here. In the near future a girl may have a beauty parlor, but if they want to have the minifigs from their farm set come over for a visit, tough luck. Kids are imaginative for sure, but at a certain age they start to imitate the real world in their playing. Minifigs might find a place in the new theme as kids or babies, but if the scale is off then the two types of figs won't fit into the same play as equals.

And considering what the option would've been, that's a darn shame.

Very good point. My little brother started off with Jack Stone sets and transitioned to minifigure sets, but rarely mixed the two categories except occasionally building System models using Jack Stone parts. So from a role-play perspective the incompatibility could be a problem. From a building perspective, we still can't be sure what to expect. Will the pieces be the extremely large sort used in Jack Stone or Belville, or will they be the more versatile (but of course still too <insert that tiresome argument> for some people who prefer simpler bricks) used so often in today's City sets? I don't by any means expect the level of building seen in D2C sets like the modular buildings, but I am hoping that the parts will be usable for MOCs without basing the whole MOC around the parts.

Of course, we're not totally sure about the scale of the figures-- last I read, they're only maybe one or two plates taller than minifigures, although conflicting info may have surfaced since then without me noticing. The AFOL community obviously won't latch onto the theme the same way that they latch onto any minifigure theme, but at the same time there is a considerable BIONICLE fan presence in the AFOL community these days, so I doubt the theme will be as thoroughly rejected as Belville was before it.

The fact that the figures is customizable is interesting, because this hasn't really applied to any figures (ignoring Galidor and other action figure themes for the moment) other than the classic minifigure in the past couple decades. True, you can take Fabuland, Technic, and Belville figures apart and switch parts around, but it was never encouraged, and the figures always came in the sets pre-assembled. So there's really nothing to tell us how the LEGO fan community will react to non-compatible minifigures which are equally customizable, but only with parts from that particular theme.

Out of curiosity, what's the deal with outfits? If there are five lead characters but around 23 sets, I'm hoping that the characters don't have the same outfits in every set. Are there any cloth-based outfits like in the Belville or Scala themes, or is everything plastic-based? These sorts of things could be interesting factors in whether the theme is of interest to AFOLs. If the figures are close enough to minifigure scale, then a "miniskirt" for this theme's figures could possibly act as a full skirt for a minifigure, depending on how it attaches. Since some MOCists already customize their minifigures beyond what's traditional, occasionally adding longer legs or making custom legs using existing bricks, they might not be opposed to using this theme's figure parts as long as they're physically compatible with classic minifigures in some way.

[lightningtiger]

Oh, dear....the figures - legs don't move ? How smegging useless is that !

The only good news is new accessories , new animals (fingers crossed for a zoo everyone right ) and more bricks/plates/tiles in new, fresh and different colours - a MOC builder's dream come true.

But we'll be back into the same old same old - minifigs vs girly figures.....it proves who is at Lego sometimes does have there brains switched on - girls prefer minifigs as they are !

I'm sitting on the fence on this, I want pictures like everyone else, except I want to show them to some children and get their opinions - with those maybe Lego will read them and hear what their customers have to say !

Brick On !

[SilvaShado]

I feel a bit more optimistic with the new information, but still holding my opinion until I see the minifigures.

Honestly, I wonder if LEGO tests market their products with LEGO fans at all? It would seem a good idea, to me, to see if girls like playing with the minifigures in the doll-like settings or whether LEGO is somehow correct that girls only like playing with overs-sized dolls.

Maybe it has to do with how mannish little girls' hands are.

[UsernameMDM]

The news makes me sad. I was hoping for normal minifigs and not Belville reboots. My 4 yr old girl loves girl minifigs, especially the collectible ones, so I was really hoping to get these set for her. Not so much not that they don't have proper minifigs.