|
Sexual Lorax posted:Further feedback is...how the hell did you attach the binoculars to the sides? Merchant of Death fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Jan 4, 2012 |
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 01:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
Tighclops posted:UUUGGH I wish people wouldn't completely miss the point of the article and then post nonsense. The only thing Lego forgot was how to make good products in the late 90s. See the juniorized town sets posted above. They were on the verge of bankruptcy and chose a strategy that marketed more aggressively to boys with emphasis on Bionicle and Star Wars. I'm not trying to claim these things have to have some sort of single gender appeal, just that I think they were designed and marketed more in that direction. This ultimately saved the company and now every year for the last 5 has been Lego's best financially. With their rough patch behind them, they're as you say, going to try and 'claim the demographic' again. They conducted a lot of research into boys' and girls' play habits and wants, and found them different enough to warrant a different sort of set. I don't see Lego trying to impose their sense of morality on anyone. They're just trying to get their stuff into more homes based on what they believe people want. Travis343 posted:Like that article said Lego is leaning heavily on the research they did so when Lego Friends inevitably bombs in a year (like every other pink and purple princess Lego line in the past) they can shake their heads and say "GIRLS JUST DON'T LIKE LEGO, I GUESS" and go back to ignoring them entirely. Wait, so you're implying Lego spent ~40 million on R and D to fail deliberately because... they just hate girls or something?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
When do the "January 1st 2012" kits start hitting shelves? I want to get the 9493 X-Wing (Jek Porkins!) with the intention of both building the kit and using it / the instructions to find out exactly what my older X-Wing kit is missing so I can repair it. Bricklink claims it's release date is the 1st, but Target, Amazon and even the Lego online store don't have any listing for it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
djfooboo posted:No I didn't miss the point of the article. You just can't convince me that it is LEGO or any other "girl" toymakers fault that they have researched and found that girls like to play certain things. Get a group of girls together and they play house, pretending to have domestic partnerships and everything. Put two boys together and they crash matchbox cars into one another. That isn't to say that there cannot be cross-pollonization, but there is an obvious preference. The market research shows that girls like to play certain things because toymakers have made it a large part of their business to sell girls on the idea that they're supposed to play those things. I mean yeah there are probably some gender-based predilections involved, but for the most part kids' preferences are what society has imposed on them. I worked doing janitorial/maintenance work for a preschool for a couple of years, and if you ever watch a bunch of 3- and 4-year-olds left to their own devices they just give no fucks about gender norms in their play. It's only through socialization that they come to understand the toys they're "supposed" to like over the next several years of early childhood development, or earlier if their parents are shitheads (thankfully the preschool teachers were really nice and didn't yell at kids for doing stuff like playing with "wrong" gendered toys.) But this is all actually beside the point. I mean, okay, for
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:14
|
|
|
The friends set's are actually well built lego with a softer set of colours. Price per piece is fair and the part selections in most of the sets are nice and broad getting the colours out there and able to be used for a wide variety of stuff. You can't move the minidolls legs and the only boy is in the biggest set much like how back in the day the female minifigs were always in the biggest sets. Hell even alien conquest did it last summer. Ville Valo posted:When do the "January 1st 2012" kits start hitting shelves? I want to get the 9493 X-Wing (Jek Porkins!) with the intention of both building the kit and using it / the instructions to find out exactly what my older X-Wing kit is missing so I can repair it. Bricklink claims it's release date is the 1st, but Target, Amazon and even the Lego online store don't have any listing for it. Depends on the retailer, I haven't seen them yet in canada but S&H is saying january 30th for ship date on preorders.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:15
|
|
|
Ville Valo posted:When do the "January 1st 2012" kits start hitting shelves? I want to get the 9493 X-Wing (Jek Porkins!) with the intention of both building the kit and using it / the instructions to find out exactly what my older X-Wing kit is missing so I can repair it. Bricklink claims it's release date is the 1st, but Target, Amazon and even the Lego online store don't have any listing for it. My S@H catalog says January 1 for preorder and will ship January 30. I don't much go for Star Wars anymore cause pink Lego is cooler, but I'll probably pick that one up. Seriously though, every effing SW set is grey.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:17
|
|
|
Shuppiluliumas posted:
Not at all. It's like you said, they're trying to get their stuff into more homes based on what they believe people want. I'm arguing that what they believe people want is an inherently flawed concept that is a hideous intersection of gender and advertising that infects literally every facet of society. Focus groups are a cross-section of society and as such are going to be subject to the gender biases that are socialized onto us from birth onward. I don't really expect Lego to be able to rise above it honestly, I just find it kind of baffling that their million-dollar research told them that apparently girls would really love the exact same kind of sets they tried with the previous Lego for Girls lines that failed miserably, and nobody thought twice about it. They said "Huh, according to this girls love this poo poo," and didn't bother to ask the obvious question, "Well then why the hell didn't they buy any of the other pretty pony/hair salon sets we made?" I mean the past is littered with failed girl Lego lines, and they're not all from the late 90s. They all feature the same poo poo: non-standard, more doll-like minifigs, pink and purple bricks, horseback sets, cafe sets, hair salons, etc. It's really confusing to me why they're acting like this time is going to be so different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Do you ever stop to think why parents don't let their kids play with toys that are "for" the opposite gender? It's because those parents assume that there are "obvious preferences", just like you did right there. These "obvious preferences" are socialized into you from birth onward. If the idea of a kid being told she can't play with "boy toys" actually does bug you, try thinking beyond the stereotypes you've been sold your entire life. Get any group of kids together and without any outside influence you might be surprised who likes to play cars and who likes to play house. Most kids are gonna want to do both or neither depending on what mood they're in. A ten-year-old me would have loved the Friends sets. This is purely my opinion, of course, and I do not condone the separation of toys for each gender, but I think that if you're a parent, regardless of your child's gender, you might as well make the best of it and buy Friends sets along with sets from other lines and integrate them to set an example that the gender norms of society don't need to be followed. Friends is much closer to Paradisa than Belville, so the sets should mix well. Anyway, when I was growing up, I inherited my first bricks from my brother, but this was the first set that was just for me:  I was so excited I built it in the car on the way home. I still love the design when I look at it today. I'll have to see if I can reconstruct it, though I think my solid blue canopy piece has not survived the ages intact.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:34
|
|
|
Hey, let's compromise, and make it acceptable for boys to play with toys that come in pink boxes, and I'd be happy. Oh and get rid of the doll figures. Minifig supremacy, in perpituity, throughout the universe. I will not budge on this point.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
Shuppiluliumas posted:My S@H catalog says January 1 for preorder and will ship January 30. I don't much go for Star Wars anymore cause pink Lego is cooler, but I'll probably pick that one up. Silhouette > Color!  Thanks for the info everyone, I'll keep an eye out for it next month. I want Gold Leader's Y-Wing too, but then I'd be dangerously close to having a bigger Rebel fleet than my Imperials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Ville Valo posted:When do the "January 1st 2012" kits start hitting shelves? I want to get the 9493 X-Wing (Jek Porkins!) with the intention of both building the kit and using it / the instructions to find out exactly what my older X-Wing kit is missing so I can repair it. Bricklink claims it's release date is the 1st, but Target, Amazon and even the Lego online store don't have any listing for it. You should be able to find the instructions for your older x-wing here http://letsbuilditagain.com/free-lego-instructions.php?q=6212 The new kit doesn't seem to be much different to 6212 (just like there was no real difference between the ARC Starfighters), so I'm going to give that one a miss
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:Not at all. It's like you said, they're trying to get their stuff into more homes based on what they believe people want. I'm arguing that what they believe people want is an inherently flawed concept that is a hideous intersection of gender and advertising that infects literally every facet of society. Focus groups are a cross-section of society and as such are going to be subject to the gender biases that are socialized onto us from birth onward. I don't really expect Lego to be able to rise above it honestly, I just find it kind of baffling that their million-dollar research told them that apparently girls would really love the exact same kind of sets they tried with the previous Lego for Girls lines that failed miserably, and nobody thought twice about it. They said "Huh, according to this girls love this poo poo," and didn't bother to ask the obvious question, "Well then why the hell didn't they buy any of the other pretty pony/hair salon sets we made?" I don't guess I need any convincing that the assumptions underlying it all are flawed and harmful, but I do think they exist and, as far as Lego's involvement, I think "overcome" is key. Lego is, historically, a lot more egalitarian than most toymakers, and it is a shame that they have pushed their product into gender molds more and more over the years. For better or worse, though, I'm pretty sure their strategy saved them, as I said. Unfortunately, it's certainly not in any one company's best interests to try to rock the boat too hard, and I don't see Lego redesigning everything from the ground up to eliminate the biases in their lines. I still think there are some, possibly small, differences between Friends and older girl-focused lines. The problem with Belville was the scale. Too much like Barbie, and everyone knows who barbie is. If you want to get your kid a doll, you get Barbie or whatever. Nobody knows who Pamela or Jennifer is (I had to look up some Belville sets for that). The large size also meant that regular Lego brick construction was out of the question, so the big, stupid modular panels came into play. I always hated this because it implied girls weren't up to the task of 'normal' building. Clickits was barely even Lego at all (though those beads are drat useful) and I don't know before that. Paradisa was just part of Town back in the 90s. Town but pink. I think Friends is a bit more of a hybrid. The sets are better designed than City has been in years, IMO, and the colors, even the pink, really pop. Construction-wise, they're not any different than regular sets, and that's a big plus for me. Whether the dolls were a good idea or not, I don't know. I'm honestly not against a new type of figure. Minifigs are sort of cultural icons now and, by virtue of their being thousands of different types, there are a lot of possibilities, but their design is over 30 years old, and Lego has changed quite a bit since then. I don't see the dolls as inherently being any more girl-centric than the figures. Obviously these specific dolls are meant to be that way. If they were heralds of a new figure type, though (which I honestly doubt, but theoretically) they would just be seen as different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:47
|
|
|
I honestly don't know why they felt like they needed a new minifig style. Couldn't they just do standard LEGO sets and include more female-styled minifigs? Have they done that? I don't even remember.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:52
|
|
|
rickiep00h posted:I honestly don't know why they felt like they needed a new minifig style. Couldn't they just do standard LEGO sets and include more female-styled minifigs? Have they done that? I don't even remember. In addition to being pink, any toy for girls must have boobs on it somewhere. It is the law of toy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:54
|
|
|
Paradisa had regular minifigs, and it was sort of geared towards girls - there was a lot of pastel colors and no conflict to be had whatsoever, but then it was a pretty 80's line so pastel colors don't necessarily mean they're aiming it at girls. Friends is definitely an improvement over past girl-aimed lines, yeah, but I honestly believe that the use of a non-standard minifigure is what's going to kill it. That right there says the line is aimed at people, girls or otherwise, who don't already have a lot of Lego, because people who have armies of little yellow men on their shelves aren't going to want to mix in a bunch of people who don't look anything like them. Hell just look through this thread for examples of people who refuse to integrate realistic flesh-toned figures from the licensed sets into their collections. Lego blogs are praising Friends for all the new colors but in the same reviews they're already asking if anybody has any idea what to do with the awful new "dollfigs".
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 02:58
|
|
|
Ambiguatron posted:In addition to being pink, any toy for girls must have boobs on it somewhere. It is the law of toy. Sorry my five-year-old girl referred to regular minifigs as "he" until she got an obviously female one. v  v
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
rickiep00h posted:Sorry my five-year-old girl referred to regular minifigs as "he" until she got an obviously female one. v This right here is a great example of the "boys are people, girls are girls" phenomenon in action.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:08
|
|
|
rickiep00h posted:Sorry my five-year-old girl referred to regular minifigs as "he" until she got an obviously female one. v Drawn boobs are still boobs. I, too, always thought of minifigs as genderless people-things, rather than male or female. When I first saw the piece that makes up the dress of the captains' daughter or whatever in the Imperial Flagship set, I thought it was to use for curtains in the cabin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:10
|
|
|
I kind of don't understand why people are getting mad at Lego for wanting to tap into a 'new' group of customers. They obviously want to appeal to those parents who already only buy 'girly' toys for their daughters, and/or hopefully appeal to girls that only enjoy girly toys. I agree there aren't enough female minifigs in normal sets, but at the same time I think that there are already going to be a lot of women out there that buy the other themes because they already enjoy Lego. Is Lego pandering to gender stereotypes? Or are they sneaking a great toy into the hands of girls that would otherwise never touch Lego because of those stereotypes? I guess it's up to the individual to decide.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:14
|
|
|
InfinEight posted:I kind of don't understand why people are getting mad at Lego for wanting to tap into a 'new' group of customers. They obviously want to appeal to those parents who already only buy 'girly' toys for their daughters, and/or hopefully appeal to girls that only enjoy girly toys. I agree there aren't enough female minifigs in normal sets, but at the same time I think that there are already going to be a lot of women out there that buy the other themes because they already enjoy Lego. They're definitely pandering. There shouldn't be a reason that girls prefer "girly" sets like the Friends sets. What you can argue is whether Lego (and other companies) is at fault, at least partially, for something like this. It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem, IMO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:30
|
|
|
Travis343 posted:That right there says the line is aimed at people, girls or otherwise, who don't already have a lot of Lego, because people who have armies of little yellow men on their shelves aren't going to want to mix in a bunch of people who don't look anything like them. Speak for yourself, if I had been born 20 years later I'd totally be stealing my little sister's legos (well, more of them) so that I could have actual female figures.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:34
|
|
|
I see nothing wrong with the Friends sets. However I hate the "Minidolls." Not because of any feminism reasoning, they just seem to be entirely less functional and plain worse aesthetically than normal minifigs, and for what purpose?
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:40
|
|
|
You guys keep saying that in the past, Lego was genderless. I just don't see original castle, pirates, and space as genderless. Yes, certainly more genderless than star wars, but still more of a "boys toy". What about the Harry Potter line? To me, Harry Potter is only a step below the Twilight series, and I don't know any boys who would be excited to play with a Harry Potter set. Did that line ever take off with girls? The Harry Potter series strikes me as a female series in the traditional Lego sense, until you get to the obviously female like Friends and Belville.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:45
|
|
|
InfinEight posted:I kind of don't understand why people are getting mad at Lego for wanting to tap into a 'new' group of customers. They obviously want to appeal to those parents who already only buy 'girly' toys for their daughters, and/or hopefully appeal to girls that only enjoy girly toys. I agree there aren't enough female minifigs in normal sets, but at the same time I think that there are already going to be a lot of women out there that buy the other themes because they already enjoy Lego. I think part of it is that for a long time LEGO has been seen as an ungendered toy (despite numerous 'girl' themes) due to the nature of the product along with that ad from the 80s. Some of it may be romanticizing LEGO. People feel that LEGO should be above creating gendered products and pandering to a single gender.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:55
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:You guys keep saying that in the past, Lego was genderless. I just don't see original castle, pirates, and space as genderless. Yes, certainly more genderless than star wars, but still more of a "boys toy". Because boys and girls both like pirates, space, and castles.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 03:56
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:You guys keep saying that in the past, Lego was genderless. I just don't see original castle, pirates, and space as genderless. Yes, certainly more genderless than star wars, but still more of a "boys toy". I'm a male and I like to play with my harry Potter sets.   
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
Sexual Lorax posted:Further feedback is...how the hell did you attach the binoculars to the sides? Merchant of Death posted:Looks like he used this http://www.bricklink.com/catalogItem.asp?P=87087 to attach the bino's, you cant use the classic 1x1 headlight brick you have to use the one without a lip. It is more stable if you use a 1x1 stud on the headlight to attach the bino's so it doesnt press against the side of the fighter but you have to push the flashlight out further Nope, I used a lamp holder and a 1x1 plate with holder. Here have an exploded view. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:36
|
|
|
Cmdr. Shepard posted:What about the Harry Potter line? To me, Harry Potter is only a step below the Twilight series, and I don't know any boys who would be excited to play with a Harry Potter set. Did that line ever take off with girls? The Harry Potter series strikes me as a female series in the traditional Lego sense, until you get to the obviously female like Friends and Belville. I know that Harry Potter sets are some of the few sets that my wife is interested in. My 3-year-old daugher has enjoyed playing with Harry Potter, Toy Story, winter village toy shop and the creator log cabin. I think that the creator houses are very girl-friendly, and probably less interesting for boys (particularly when the can play with space ships, dragons, ninjas, etc). Then again, the first thing my daughter built when she got her very first LEGO set this Christmas (a bucket of DUPLO) was a dinosaur. (Surely this means I should get all the 2012 dino sets, right?)
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
I think the Friends line is a bad idea because what it does, other toys already do better. If you want big poseable figures who have accessories and changes of clothes, you get Bratz or Barbie. If you want to build only houses, by the time you're what, 7 or 8?, you can play Sims and have even more options. Lego shouldn't be trying to get second- or third-best in categories that other toys are winning. Lego should be doing what it does well, which I think is all kinds of free-form construction and characters. Girl who loved Paradisa (but didn't think it was girly) and Kingdom and Pirates and and and...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 04:51
|
|
i like nice words
|
So I'm not going to drop $1000 on Corner Cafe and I don't much care for Market Street but $450 for Green Grocer might just be cheap enough to justify (especially because I love the set). Don't want to Brickset it because I might want to sell if I get bored with it, and a used version with box and manual is only $50 cheaper. Tell me I'm crazy for spending $450 on a model grocery store.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:16
|
|
|
Interlude posted:Tell me I'm crazy for spending $450 on a model grocery store. Totally crazy! My kind of crazy though, I don't think I will ever have enough. I need to move out of my apartment and get a house again.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:23
|
|
|
Interlude posted:So I'm not going to drop $1000 on Corner Cafe and I don't much care for Market Street but $450 for Green Grocer might just be cheap enough to justify (especially because I love the set). Don't want to Brickset it because I might want to sell if I get bored with it, and a used version with box and manual is only $50 cheaper. I own three of them, so I have no business calling anyone else crazy, though admittedly the total there was ~$350. IMO it's the best of the series.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 05:27
|
|
|
 derp figured it out
djfooboo fucked around with this message at 06:19 on Jan 4, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:06
|
|
|
Christmas! Roommate got me  and my ex-girlfriend got me  gently caress, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 06:20
|
|
|
I went out and bought a bunch of Friends stuff today. I got the big house, the two impulse sets, and each of the 5 $10 sets. None of these had the TRU tax on them, while the convertible, vet, and cafe all did. They were out of Treehouses. The colors are great and I can already imagine someone cobbling together a Friends Vic Viper or some microscale ships using the tools and accessories. I'm a bit surprised that there's so much printed--the inventor chalkboard, the milk carton, umbrella, dress design board, ruler, cell phone, stereo, even the marquee board. The house does have a sticker sheet, though. I'm generally okay with the concept of the Friendfig, but I really wish they hadn't sacrificed standard fig features like the separate legs, the stud holes in the butt, and rotating wrists.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 07:18
|
|
|
The lack of versatility in the figs is really my big issue with them. As for Friends starfighters, stay tuned...
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 07:20
|
|
|
This is the first one I've seen: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nannanz/6621053469/in/photostream Looks like there's some decent parts to use in the new colors, even if you primarily build spaceships to swoosh around like an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 07:52
|
|
|
John Carstairs posted:This is the first one I've seen: http://www.flickr.com/photos/nannanz/6621053469/in/photostream I don't think I've ever wanted to hug a starship before 
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 08:13
|
|
|
as the consumer services guy in charge of the Friends line, i've gotten the opportunity to build the entire lineup. they're really the same complexity as City or any other theme in the same age range. the figures are weird, and yeah they can't be plugged rear end-first onto a brick, but they do grow on you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 08:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 21:48 |
|
|
vrunt posted:as the consumer services guy in charge of the Friends line, i've gotten the opportunity to build the entire lineup. they're really the same complexity as City or any other theme in the same age range. the figures are weird, and yeah they can't be plugged rear end-first onto a brick, but they do grow on you. I do like the way they look, and their proportions are much more human. Well, apart from their giants heads, but height:width:depth is quite a bit better than minifigs. The proportions are probably why they don't have rotating wrists...their arms are very thin. I just don't understand why the legs aren't separated. It doesn't seem like it would have taken much re-engineering to make it work. Even using the same style pelvis as the minifig should have worked fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 4, 2012 09:39
|
|