Unpopular LEGO Opinions

stlux

Tkatt said:

^It's easy to get around the "juniorization" as well. Just open all the bags and pour them into a pile. Then while building only look at the odd numbered steps. Or for a bigger challenge only use the pages in the instruction book that are divisible by 5. 

I've been building Lego since the 80's, but each time I build a pre-2012(?) set I'm grateful for the current instructions, and especially the numbered bags. I buy Lego for the building experience, not to spend 50% of my time hunting for pieces.

In addition: the only reason older Lego instructions have so few steps, is simply because of the technical limitations at the time. Each step had to be photographed, and then penciled over on paper. 24 film rolls and the manual effort were driving this, not "we don't want dumb kids to play with our product".

The_Rancor

Covi said:

• Constraction figures are the worst ever. Don't get why they even started with them.

Ben 10, Hero Factory and most of the Star Wars constraction figures yes...

...But Bionicle - blasphemy!

bandit778

I don't care about boxes, and except the Ideas ones they all get recycled.
I liked classic space at the time but would rather modern build equivalents of a similer theme rather than the the same thing rehashed.
I like a lot of the builds that have come out of the Friends theme but really don't like the colours they come in so tend not to bother getting them.
I also don't much care for standard yellow headed minifigures and have been known to not even bother to build them from a set.

SirBrickalotOfLego

Thought of another;

I absolutely can't stand it when reviewers don't put stickers on a model. If you're going to go to the trouble of reviewing it you should show it how it is intended to be made. The best thing to do would be to take a pic of the model without stickers and then apply them. I understand some prefer not to 'spoil' the pieces, but for review purposes I think they should be applied.

Tkatt

SirBrickalotOfLego said:

Thought of another;

I absolutely can't stand it when reviewers don't put stickers on a model. If you're going to go to the trouble of reviewing it you should show it how it is intended to be made. The best thing to do would be to take a pic of the model without stickers and then apply them. I understand some prefer not to 'spoil' the pieces, but for review purposes I think they should be applied.

This belongs in the "Reasonable Opinions" thread.

autolycus

Apparently I have another unpopular opinion: 

I like the 18+ box design.

lkliment2

I’ve mentioned it before, but personally I liked SW construction figures. I thought they were a lot of fun to build and nice display pieces. On the other hand, even though they were big when I was growing up, I never liked Bionicle.

Cymbeline

@Covi You mean the yellow spaceman is not a nudist with a moon tattoo??? 

oldtodd33

My most unpopular opinion judging by the above comments is that Market Street IS a modular. Mostly because Lego says it is. Although it is not the prettiest modular, I've always thought of it as some European styling that looks good in the town that it's in but I'm not used to seeing that type of a building because I don't live in Europe. 

legobod

I want to see less steps in the instructions to save paper

1.


2.

SumoLego

Cymbeline said:

@Covi You mean the yellow spaceman is not a nudist with a moon tattoo??? 

Only if he doesn't have a helmet and air tank.  If not, he's totally naked.

Fauch

I'm not super fan of classic space, star wars and nasa sets. I don't dislike them and will still get some of them, but they aren't among my favourite themes.

Lego_Lord_Mayorca

CapnRex101 said:

Sorry to those who want the Star Wars theme to conclude but the press release for #75275 A-wing Starfighter included the following comment: "LEGO Star Wars is its [LEGO's] most successful theme". That seemed an unusual way to reveal such notable information so I checked with the LEGO Star Wars design team and it is accurate. Star Wars overtook City as the best-selling theme during 2018 and remained on top last year.

I'm not sorry... :o)

I wonder if now with 2020 being the first year since 2014 to not be a Star Wars "movie year", we'll see a dip in those sales for LEGO. And since 2021 won't be a movie year, either, it might dip more. That said, by 2021, we'll have two seasons of "The Mandalorian" out, and the first season showed the series had as much (if not more) appeal and reach to Star Wars consumers as a regular film does. In that case, there might not be a dip in LEGO's sales this year or even next year.

I suppose if the theme must endure, let it endure. But come on, LEGO! If Star Wars is your top seller two years' running now, let loose and experiment with released sets now! Let's get another 2003 Clone Wars set like we did in 2015 with Anakin's Custom Jedi Starfighter. Perhaps a Clone Lance Trooper battle pack (possibly with a fully-armored Kenobi on a speederbike)? Or going back to the films, maybe a Mos Eisley Cantina-style set for the Outlander Club on Coruscant so we can get a Zam Wessell figure again and maybe Elan Sleezebaggano? OK, that last minifigure was a stretch, but I think this kind of stuff would go a long way to "refreshing" the theme now that Star Wars is the top dog at LEGO and the movies are done for a couple of years.

560Heliport

What does "best-selling" mean? Highest in revenue? Number of sets sold? Profit margin? 

CCC

It means whatever it needs to mean so Lego can say what they want to say. They often bend truths in press statements, how many firsts have we had for the Chinese New Year.

The_Rancor

^ That’s probably partially true - remember what people thought when Rey was somewhat pitched as “the first female Jedi” by Disney. *Ahem* Ahsoka et al.

autolycus

The_Rancor said:

^ That’s probably partially true - remember what people thought when Rey was somewhat pitched as “the first female Jedi” by Disney. *Ahem* Ahsoka et al.

Umm... Yaddle!

560Heliport

Satele Shan, Luminara Unduli, Barriss Offee, Shaak Ti, Aayla Secura, Stass Allie. And these are just female Jedi that have LEGO minifigs! 

Bumblepants

My seemingly unpopular opinion, there is no reason to get worked up about Jrs/Trolls/Angry Birds/Chima etc. if you don't like them. Lego has a ton of product lines and it is silly to expect them all to be tailored to yourself. Just write another impassioned blog post about how Ideas should have picked the 13,000 piece modular you saw and move on.

jnscoelho

Elves was one of the best themes LEGO had in recent years, build- and colour-wise, and LEGO shouldn't have killed it/substituted it with licensed themes like Trolls.
(but I do understand that story-wise it may have been hard for the theme to continue)

klinton

jnscoelho said:

Elves was one of the best themes LEGO had in recent years, build- and colour-wise, and LEGO shouldn't have killed it/substituted it with licensed themes like Trolls.
(but I do understand that story-wise it may have been hard for the theme to continue)

I don't really see Trolls as a substitute for anything? It's it's own wacky little aberration, off in it's own corner, tripping balls on psychedelic caterpillar busses and creepy grinning mushrooms. I own exactly zero Elves sets, but I eagerly bought up the Trolls theme and can't freaking wait for the Vibe City set in September! :)

The_Rancor

Lest we forget that unpopular opinions on Brickset’s front page comments, the forum here, or the wider AFOL community could all be very different!

I just thought of another one from me which is probably fairly ‘unpopular’ based on the kind of purchasing I see, regarding CMFs. I don’t like it when people casually say or boast that they’re buying up one or multiple whole sealed boxes and they’re going to sell off the duplicates they don’t want.

I’ve gone through many a store with low or no stock levels because cashiers tell me AFOLs have gone in and said “I’ll bUy YoUr EnTiRe StOcK!” which is also exacerbated when more are bought online. This opinion is somewhat outdated because it’s hard to go into stores and feel bags in the current climate but if you only want one of each, can’t you just find/buy those ones and not remove minifigs from the market that could also be enjoyed by kids for pocket money? I’m not going to stop anyone doing it because it no doubt makes it easier to get what you want though.

I’ve found an independent retailer since a few CMF series ago that will feel the packets for me so the argument is somewhat hypocritical, but i’ve NEVER knowingly bought CMF duplicates, which is probably the key unpopular opinion here. (Ok maybe the Spartan from Series 2 is the exception)

pxchris

The_Rancor said:

Covi said:

• Constraction figures are the worst ever. Don't get why they even started with them.

Ben 10, Hero Factory and most of the Star Wars constraction figures yes...

...But Bionicle - blasphemy!

I've been reading this thread for days, and while I've agreed with some people's unpopular opinions, I've been trying to think if I have any additional unpopular opinions of my own... and @The_Rancor helped me out with this comment.

My unpopular opinion - I've never understood the appeal of Bionicle. I understand that it's a very big nostalgia item for many people, but I've just never gotten it, at all.

560Heliport

"LEGO is getting more and more expensive!" Well, yes, that's inflation. But I think a set today is cheaper than the equivalent from years ago. An example: in 1980 I paid $6.77 for #6690 Snorkel Pumper. (I still have the front of the box with the price tag.) It was from an independent toy store, so I think RRP was $5.99. Adjusted for inflation, that's $19.74. What City sets are about $20 in 2020? #60253 Ice-Cream Truck and #60257 Safari Off-Roader. You get a lot more for the money. (The "Elite Police" sets, #60272, #60273, and #60274 are also to be $20, I believe.) 

560Heliport

^Perhaps I should clarify: LEGO getting more expensive seems to be the popular opinion; I disagree.

8BrickMario

Indeed. $20 sets in particular have steadily increased in value. Now there's usually a minimum three figures in them, when I know it used to be two, and looking at models from the late 200s-early 2010s to now makes the prices look ridiculously high for some of them given the detail and display value sets at the same price point tend to have now.

Collectable Minifigures, though...I cannot justify the change $5 for each when it used to be about $2. Even as I continue to buy them.

CCC

Chris writes better reviews than Huw.


:-)

karrit

I agree with the "I just don't get the love for Bionicles".  I purchased quite a few when they first came out not long before one of my dark ages.  I put them together & thought just why did I buy these ugly things.  I eventually ended up gifting them to my brother's godson who is in college now.  I could probably have gotten a fortune for them today.  I should have just bought more Pirate, Castle & Space sets with the money I wasted on them.

KungFuKenny

^ I suspect Bionicle is much like Ninjago- if you really immerse yourself in the storyline associated with the sets (i.e. watch the shows and play the video games) then you develop an emotional attachment that may be unrelated to the design or perceived quality of the sets themselves... I shudder to think of all the Ninjago vehicles I have bought after seeing them in action on the screen!

ReesesPieces

One I really disagree with is how people like to calculate value based on price per piece.  When I was selling a brick bounty on ebay at retail price, a person complained that it was a horrible deal based on price per piece, not understanding the size of each boat haul piece.

Fauch

560Heliport said:

^Perhaps I should clarify: LEGO getting more expensive seems to be the popular opinion; I disagree.

I think, since I restarted buying sets back in 2013, taking discounts into account, I tend to get increasingly favorable price per pieces, buying only new from amazon and lego.com now.

MrShinyAndNew

I didn't like Forma but didn't care that they made it.

SumoLego

560Heliport said:

What does "best-selling" mean? Highest in revenue? Number of sets sold? Profit margin? 

Nobody knows - they don't release sales figures.  We have no idea as to profitability, units, what sells through current production - nada!

SumoLego

Bumblepants said:

...impassioned blog post about how Ideas should have picked the 13,000 piece modular...

...And that's why the 13,000 piece police precinct/train station/Rivendell set...

Dang nabbit!

SumoLego

pxchris said:
...but I've just never gotten it...

Psst... don't tell anyone they're constractables.

Modeltrainman

LEGO should allow Bible related sets.

8BrickMario

Modeltrainman said:

LEGO should allow Bible related sets.

Yeah, that's probably a pretty unpopular opinion, but I want to respond without stepping into inappropriate discourse.

Biblical LEGO sets could be technically harmless depending on the subject matter, and it'd probably appease the religious toy sellers who don't carry fantasy LEGO, but I agree with LEGO's goals to be neutral and apolitical to make themselves accessible to as many people as possible, and I think they've done well. LEGO has never been interested in being too serious, so religious sets would be out of tone.

However, we have seen a brand do this. Playmobil's mostly neutral but has made Christian products and it's almost impossible to call them offensive because they're tame and positive celebrations of Christianity's icons. But Playmobil have always had religious products, so they have the advantage of a history with the material and a base who accepts it from them. LEGO introducing it now all of a sudden would find themselves surrounded by controversy because the base expects them to be neutral, and so do I. Making Bible sets also invites questions about why other modern religions and mythologies aren't being represented, and it creates a mess that isn't necessary for a building toy. Playmobil's Christian products aren't offensive in content, but they only represent one religion in a corner of a otherwise non-religious brand, which may seem odd. But it's not even about the actual religion. It's about marketing and precedent. People would feel confused and alienated by the sudden appearance of that kind of material in LEGO after coming to know it as a universally appealing brand that doesn't involve itself in politics or religion, and I think it’d backfire if they tried to start. 

But that's why LEGO is so appealing. All you need to do to get what you want from it is to make it yourself, and that way, your beliefs are in your hands. When it comes to religious LEGO, it should be up to you, not the company. 

Fizyx

8BrickMario said:

Modeltrainman said:

LEGO should allow Bible related sets.

Yeah, that's probably a pretty unpopular opinion, but I want to respond without stepping into inappropriate discourse.

Biblical LEGO sets could be technically harmless depending on the subject matter, and it'd probably appease the religious toy sellers who don't carry fantasy LEGO, but I agree with LEGO's goals to be neutral and apolitical to make themselves accessible to as many people as possible, and I think they've done well. LEGO has never been interested in being too serious, so religious sets would be out of tone.

However, we have seen a brand do this. Playmobil's mostly neutral but has made Christian products and it's almost impossible to call them offensive because they're tame and positive celebrations of Christianity's icons. But Playmobil have always had religious products, so they have the advantage of a history with the material and a base who accepts it from them. LEGO introducing it now all of a sudden would find themselves surrounded by controversy because the base expects them to be neutral, and so do I. Making Bible sets also invites questions about why other modern religions and mythologies aren't being represented, and it creates a mess that isn't necessary for a building toy. Playmobil's Christian products aren't offensive in content, but they only represent one religion in a corner of a otherwise non-religious brand, which may seem odd. But it's not even about the actual religion. It's about marketing and precedent. People would feel confused and alienated by the sudden appearance of that kind of material in LEGO after coming to know it as a universally appealing brand that doesn't involve itself in politics or religion, and I think it’d backfire if they tried to start. 

But that's why LEGO is so appealing. All you need to do to get what you want from it is to make it yourself, and that way, your beliefs are in your hands. When it comes to religious LEGO, it should be up to you, not the company. 

I think this is a pretty good rundown of the topic overall.

The one thing that I will say is that I think that LEGO could change its mind on in this area without causing much, if any, ruckus against it would be if they started to include certain historically significant and iconic houses of worship or religious monuments in their Architecture lines.  Obviously we could get some really neat buildings like Notre Dame, or Saint Basil's Cathedral, but they could also easily expand into other cultural areas, including potentially places like Dome of the Rock, Chichen Itza, Kinkaku-ji Temple (Japan), Paro Taktsang (Bhutan), or the Lotus Temple (India), as well as many, many more.  Now, I think there would likely still need to be stricter guidelines in place for how these locations are chosen than for a 'normal' set, and I do think they would want to make sure they didn't overwhelm the existing Architecture theme.  But even among staunchly non-religious fans I feel like having such building wouldn't be an issue, especially if 1.) They remained inside that theme, and 2.) They were not all, or potentially even majority, Christian.

(To be clear, I could see such sets being an issue when they were first announced/released if people were worried about them 'spreading' to other themes, but I think as long as LEGO was very careful to follow rules 1 and 2 the furor would die down pretty quickly.)

Cyberdragon

Fizyx said:

Obviously we could get some really neat buildings like Notre Dame

Nah, I don't feel like messing with all those fiddly little flame pieces...

8BrickMario

Cyberdragon said:

Fizyx said:

Obviously we could get some really neat buildings like Notre Dame

Nah, I don't feel like messing with all those fiddly little flame pieces...

That gets a low whistle from me. Kudos.

Modeltrainman

@8BrickMario , which is why I'm working on my own Bible-based stuff. :) They DID do a church in 1957, too.

CCC

Historical religious sets could be interesting. More Romans and maybe arms that stick out sideways. Better still if licensed and so in flesh based colours, although there would be the debate about too light skin tones like a lot of European art.

Toc13

I first read Kinkaku-ji as Kinkajou & thought 'that could be an interesting temple'

SilverLove

My unpopular opinion is I want a grocery store, because I missed out on KwikEMart and green grocer. (Ive never complained about Lego-prices on current sets, but feel the right to say I wont pay the prices demanded for older sets, i think they are outrageous. Im also not saying that its outrageous that people buy several sets to resell later, to each their own. I can understand doing that to sponsor future Leo buys. Just saying I wont pay for prices like that.)

Despite no MOCing skills, Im considering building a simple building to house some kind of groceries-butcher-fishvendor shop and can copy shopping carts etc from Tiago (guy on youtube). Really want my MFs to be able to enjoy home cooked food as alternative do dining out. But I would prefer an official set, since the result would without a doubt be more pleasing to the eyes.

Since we recently got the Newbury High I suppose a (less run down) school is out of question, but my Lego city is becoming populated by more and more MFs with short legs... 

I also would like a farm with animals, not just crops, a return of the goats, my MFs are envious of my minidolls for getting so many animals...

KungFuKenny

Fizyx said:

Obviously we could get some really neat buildings like Notre Dame, or Saint Basil's Cathedral, but they could also easily expand into other cultural areas, including potentially places like Dome of the Rock, Chichen Itza, Kinkaku-ji Temple (Japan), Paro Taktsang (Bhutan), or the Lotus Temple (India), as well as many, many more. 

I would like some of these as Architecture sets, but I don’t think Lego has the stomach for it.  I mean, look what happened when they tried to make a Palace for Jabba the Hutt! :-)

CCC

SilverLove said:

My unpopular opinion is I want a grocery store, because I missed out on KwikEMart and green grocer. (Ive never complained about Lego-prices on current sets, but feel the right to say I wont pay the prices demanded for older sets, i think they are outrageous. Im also not saying that its outrageous that people buy several sets to resell later, to each their own. I can understand doing that to sponsor future Leo buys. Just saying I wont pay for prices like that.)

Friends has had two supermarkets in the past five years, plus there have been some smaller store fronts in Creator. Alternatively, just get some crates to fill with fruits and a few cereal boxes or similar to put on shelves and a till, and you can easily convert any building into a grocery.

klinton

SilverLove said:

Since we recently got the Newbury High I suppose a (less run down) school is out of question, but my Lego city is becoming populated by more and more MFs with short legs... 

I also would like a farm with animals, not just crops, a return of the goats, my MFs are envious of my minidolls for getting so many animals...

If Newbury High isn't to your liking, maybe keep an eye on the Friends line. They've done some nice schools over the years, so hopefully they'll revisit that. I doubt we'll ever see a school as nice as Newbury High again anytime soon though. Or there's always Hogwarts, if you want to send your Lego kids off to magical prep school.

I'll def agree on the farm! A Lego farm would be brilliant! They could release it gradually, with each set hilighting different aspects of a farm (like a dairy, chicken coop, etc). A Lego barn and silo build would be freaking amazing! :)

Fizyx

KungFuKenny said:

Fizyx said:

Obviously we could get some really neat buildings like Notre Dame, or Saint Basil's Cathedral, but they could also easily expand into other cultural areas, including potentially places like Dome of the Rock, Chichen Itza, Kinkaku-ji Temple (Japan), Paro Taktsang (Bhutan), or the Lotus Temple (India), as well as many, many more. 

I would like some of these as Architecture sets, but I don’t think Lego has the stomach for it.  I mean, look what happened when they tried to make a Palace for Jabba the Hutt! :-)

Ha, definitely a fair comment!  Although I do THINK there may be a different response to a set that is faithfully recreating a historic building with no other attachments to it, I could very much see the Jabba's Palace debacle closing down any thought at all at LEGO of ever doing such sets :P

benbacardi

SilverLove said:

I'm considering building a simple building to house some kind of groceries-butcher-fishvendor shop and can copy shopping carts etc from Tiago (guy on youtube).

You mean that "guy on YouTube" that's currently doing a whole load of tutorials for the Brickset main site? 😉 

https://brickset.com/news/category-Building-tutorial/author-Catarino

Bumblepants

SumoLego said:

Bumblepants said:

...impassioned blog post about how Ideas should have picked the 13,000 piece modular...

...And that's why the 13,000 piece police precinct/train station/Rivendell set...

Dang nabbit!

I hope all the critical design elements are created around parts that have been out of production since the early '90s! Maybe some Aquazone columns to offset some space window panels? Bonus points for rendering them in colors that never existed.