Unpopular Opinions about LEGO

Aye, though this isn’t a LEGO Group unique problem - it is industry wide. Obviously, fellow titans like Hasbro and Mattel are doing the same but it’s not just the titans and their dozens of subsidiaries (be it literal or effectively so via contract/relations). And I do suggest one pays attention to the wider world of things like this as all companies, private and public, are still forced to respond to the same stimuli.

Though if everyone doesn’t mind an anecdotal tale, I did attend a panel at this past San Diego Comic Con called, “How to become a Toy Designer.” It had three industry veterans who have been in the business for decades who got in by various means, plus a related person from Netflix as the moderator. When it came to the Q&A portion, someone asked the elephant question about how toys seems to be more for adults than children and their thoughts on it.

According to the panel, that is the main discussion in the toy industry (and beyond) for the last however many years and still today. The LEGO Group has used different terms for it but the panel called them “kidults” (kid+adult). For decades, while the industry has largely focused on children (and their parents by extension), they have also long had a focus on collectors as well. Companies have known about the niche collector market and have catered to them. If you ever wondered what the big expensive playsets and other super expensive toys were for, it was very rich families and collectors. Not every collector product is directly called out as such.

Kidults are not traditional collectors. Just like in the same way Lego has separated out Lego Fans and Fans of Lego, kidults aren’t collecting things for the sake of it. No, the primary trend is that this growing demographic of normies have stopped seeing toys as childish items and more like art pieces. But what about toy art that appeals to kidults is not the same thing as children or traditional collectors. As largely proven by Funko, what appeals to kidults is, in my words, normie slop.

That said, according to the panelists, everyone in the industry expects this trend to die. When? Who knows, but most are prepping for when they’ll need to lessen production on design for kidults and refocus on kids. This is why kid-focused products haven’t been abandoned entirely in favor of kidults, which has proven massively profitable so far. . . There’s just a smaller child demographic right now and this is how they’re all going to keep afloat until that changes.

All that to say we might see Lego be more like a toy again (believe it or not but SmartBrick is part of the more toy-like move). . . It just might be a few decades is all.

9 Likes

This makes me think: did anyone do any kind of studies to figure out what precisely influences this? I’ve heard conflicting opinions from various people regarding the shThis text will be blurredift in demographics, ranging from smart devices being a culprit to toy companies themselves intentionally promoting overpriced items from pure greed (which I wouldn’t say is an industry-wide trend tbh), but none of them were from an industry perspective, just individual IPs and companies.

2 Likes

…Ah. To clarify, it’s smaller because there are fewer children in the world than anticipated. A lack of interest in toys in newer generations is not the primary factor for them being a smaller target base. Though believe me, there are studies for both and more angles on it. How many of them are public and/or available for purchase and not internal studies? Can’t say for certain but there is definitely more studies being done than we can currently access.

4 Likes

Yeah, I agree with this whole line of thought tbh.

3 Likes

1.) I prefer the Av-Matoran’s dual-pin axle connection over the one-pin + one-cross-axle method of the elemental creatures from G2.
The former just feels way more secure and sturdier than the latter from my experiences.

2.) Lego should really expand Technic’s lineup beyond real-life vehicle models, like maybe doing animals or even fictional machines, like the various ships & droids of SW, IMO.

7 Likes

Okay, my turn- Ninjago has less in common with Ninja than Naruto did when giant Kaiju were throwing nukes at zombies with god-like powers. LEGO just keeps pushing mechs, orcs, steampunk machines, ghosts and other stuff that should belong to the separate themes, because the company is too lazy to create new successful ip. Because of that, we won’t get any solid theme until LEGO will finally end the Ninjago.

7 Likes

Apparently it’s pretty popular here on the Boards :thinking:

It is a lot sturdier, but those things are a royal pain to disconnect. Plus, the technic piece has a 50% chance to come off with the Av-Matoran, which Greg didn’t explain in lore so there’s no canon reason for it :sob:

I mean… :cold_face:

Droids I can get behind, but real-life animals? Out of Technic?

3 Likes

I can see this working as a function-heavy line (which is what Technic is supposed to be all about). Even from a visual aspect, I can see the possibility of Technic animals having a distinct “Technic-y” style that still looks good.

7 Likes

Evidence that someone didn’t read my Technic rant (:pensive:) and didn’t see existing examples just on Lego Ideas. :stuck_out_tongue:

2 Likes

Gonna be real, these don’t look great. I can see the clownfish sorta working, but the size it would need to be in order to look passable is way too much for a model that has a simple fin function and nothing else. It’s not too surprising they all expired.

As for the rant, your first two images were hosted on discord and deleted themselves so I’m lacking context :cry:

If Lego can spend thousands on marketing them “going green” with waxed paper bags while advertising their $250 Ferrari and Porsche Technic sets, surely having some environmentally-themed set in that line would make them seem a bit more sincere, right?

6 Likes

While we are on the topic of unpopular opinions about Technic, I really think LEGO should bring back the Technic figures, and create more sets that would scale with them. Some people may be surprised to learn that those figures were first introduced all the way back in 1986 and remained in production all the way until 2001… that’s a whomping 15 years in which those figures were actually an integral part of Technic’s identity, I even would go so far as to argue almost to the same extent as the minifigures are for System. I really don’t understand why they discontinued them so suddenly in 2001 of all times (right in the middle of the time when they were producing the most specialzied molds), just as they were beginning to expand their custimizablity even more by introducing all sorts of helmet and armor pieces in the Competition line, and even selling them separately on their own without any larger builds. It just feels so odd to me that they discontinued them, it feels like they just sort of forget about them and then never bothered to look back.
It just feels kind of bland to me that all Technic vehicles are just empty vehicles without any sort of figures to pilot them. In my opinion, bringing back the Technic figures would definitely help bring more variety to the line and spice things up a bit more.

6 Likes

The Kakapo got rejected.

Sooo…

1 Like

If you’re talking about LEGO Ideas, yes, but they probably just thought it was too niche, seeing as they liked it enough to make it for Bricklink Designer Program, which is owned by LEGO…

And buyers liked it more than Sokoda’s project… :pensive_face:

3 Likes

Not surprising but you don’t like the frogs? They look good shaping wise and even have functions.

…I also could have sworn I had used other links for those images. I’ll need to fix them later.

My Mom gets so angry every time she sees a Technic vehicle with a very clear spot that would fit a decent figure inside and there’s nothing. I would love it if they brought them back or made some modern version of them. And there is a small but growing niche that would love for them to return.

Though I’m pretty sure part of the reason for their retirement was Bionicle. Once constraction started, and even after Bionicle became its own dedicated line, most of Technic’s budget and set releases were still going to Bionicle. And any notable amount of Technic sets being released only really started near G1’s final years. Only recovering to a healthy release cycle in the 2010’s. And by then, Technic had moved on from being largely brick-based to the studless beams, which weren’t as compatible with the figures. Also potential legal reasons, but that’s another nightmare.

That said, even when they were around, they got what, maybe three set waves/years were they were a big focus? A lot of the time they appeared in smaller sets or were supplementary to the sets (and thus literally sold separately). I imagine they were seen by Lego as introductory sets or an attraction feature for younger kids to get into their advance model kits. A spot constraction took over even well after Bionicle’s end.

Plus I imagine there was a desire to return to form with Technic in that age. Moving away from the more playset focus that figures required and back to realistic vehicle models. And then it went back to the fight Technic has had since its inception - form or function. Technic bricks were initially created to allow designers the ability build much larger vehicle models, but they did also have the desire of realistic functions as well. Functions, more than form, won for awhile (with form going to Model Team and many other lines later) but now form is the current champion.

And these days, I doubt they see a need to add figures. There are plenty of die-cast vehicle replicas without people. Kids loved those fine without them, even when they had functioning doors and the like. Plus, with so many City sets being more Technic than Technic in functions, which already have the more popular Minifig…We’re cooked.

5 Likes

Legal reasons? How so? I am not familiar at all with what you are referencing, could you please explain that to me?

2 Likes

TBF, I definitely get why you’re against the idea, but still, why not?

It’s not like the larger Creator animal models are any different when it comes to accurate depictions of real-life creatures:




Sure, they’re all well built and pretty recognizable for what they’re meant to depict, but they’re still very cartoonish and “bricky.”

Also, it’s not like the Technic cars & vehicles in general are that accurate to their real-life counterparts:


**

**
All Technic model replicas, even the largest ones, are full of gaps and small but noticeable design cheats, since Lego can’t realistically recapture the exact same looks within the limitations of the Technic system.

As @ajtzat has stated & shown with those ideas’ submissions linked above, a hypothetical line of the Technic animal (Technimals) models doesn’t have to be a perfect 1:1 match of looks to be convincing or appealing.
They only need to be recognizable enough to be appealing and have well thought out and executed functions.

Hopefully, Lego will, one day, recognize all the potential a line like this has and, at the very least, take a try with it.

5 Likes

Have you ever wondered why the LEGO Group so rarely calls Bionicle, Hero Factory, etc. action figures? To my memory (which might be in error, since I haven’t looked at packaging and advertisements in awhile), the only time the LEGO Group directly called them action figures was Galidor. The closest outside of that is referring to them as buildable figures.

This is a result of tariffs, taxes, and other trade agreements. Different toys have different laws and, again it has been awhile since I looked at the laws directly, action figures are among the highest taxed. And why many toy companies try to convince courts that their products are dolls rather than action figures. And the LEGO Group tries to avoid it entirely by saying they’re all building/construction toys.

That said, as far as some nations’ laws are concerned (like USA), Minifigures are action figures. Unlike what the rest of us might think, what defines an action figure has more to do with the number and type of articulated points of a figure than anything else. Minifigures got two shoulder/arm points, two wrist, two hip/leg, and a neck. And also have vague human-likeness but that importance is debatable. So despite needing to put them together, as far as the law is concerned, they are an action figure if, and it’s a big if, they’re sold standalone/separately from a playset or another product.

Quick side note, yes, that might be one of the reasons why Minidolls are designed that way. Less articulation means doll. As always, I highly recommend looking at the wider industry and learning what other forces they’re dealing with than just customers. It can help explain way more than you think for their actions.

This did become a problem in the 90’s and early 2000’s when the LEGO Group was selling dedicated Minifigure packs. No extra builds, just some Minifigs, maybe a stand, and maybe some character cards. Hasbro, which has exclusivity rights for Star Wars figures, had something to say about this when the LEGO Group sold these packs with Star Wars Minifigs. And though it was mainly an issue only with Star Wars, they stopped doing it entirely across all lines.

Now there were some loopholes the LEGO Group used for this, which kept changing as legal complaints arose. Keychains couldn’t secretly be real Minifigs, magnets had to be glued or have the same fate as the keychains, and ultimately can’t be purchased under normal retail circumstances. Hence polybags and the later GWP. Yes, that’s right, some of those GWPs (and Insider Rewards) aren’t just to squeeze more money out of people (though make no mistake, they are also that), sometimes those are the only way the LEGO Group can legally give those sort of products to their customers. And also why GWP have become more substantial over time.

If you’re wondering what does that mean for the Collectible Minifigures, I imagine they try getting around some of the legal stuff via them being collectibles and blind boxes, which are handled differently. Though unless toy licenses change, we’re unlikely to see any CMF for Star Wars.

Which brings us back to ye old Technic Figures. . . That aren’t really buildable and to the average person (and definitely the law) are more like action figures. Especially in Arctic Action and CyberSlam/Competition, their two main subthemes, the sets were made to enhance the play of those figures and not the other way around.

This is why I define action figures (and thus constraction) by what kind of play they’re encouraging or enhancing. An Exo-Force mech or a City’s car is not enhancing the play or imagination of the Minifig, it’s the inverse. The Minifig enhances the play and imagination of the mech or car. Whereas the Exo-Toa is enhancing the play and imagination of the Toa Mata. Technic Figures have done both roles depending on the set and/or set wave.

5 Likes

It’s not accuracy that’s really the issue here.

Technic as a system is much better geared towards mechanical things as the numerous gaps littered across any of the models are always hand-waived away due to the nature of the subject matter. This changes when it’s an animal you’re building.

There’s gaps on the System models, to be sure, but they’re far less numerous and are in places most often excused as a sacrifice for articulation purposes. Brick-built models also have a decidedly cute factor in most of the sets that appear, LEGO-fied animals rather than LEGO depictions of animals, that I really doubt would maintain across Technic.

Exactly.

Now picture a LEGO cat with all those same gaps and cheats.

They, uh, did:

It was so universally ignored (society was not yet ready for cheap gimmick sets of this nature) that it sold next to nothing and the line vanished from memory. It also sidestepped the typical Technic building system for the eye-catching part of the model because, probably, it didn’t look very good otherwise.

4 Likes

Lego Forma, how I miss you. I bought one of the highest tiers to help support that and answered every survey.

4 Likes