Unpopular LEGO Opinions

Bumblepants

The_Rancor said:

I enjoyed Avatar and look forward to the Lego sets and second film. There, I said it ;)

I too enjoyed Pocahontas In Space. I'm not over eager for more films though. The Lego could be fun if it has good parts and goes on sale for a nice price.

karrit

I'm only interested for new & interesting parts which unfortunately will most likely fall under licensed parts and therefore not be available for purchase on BnP.  Watched Avatar once and I can't even tell you what it was about except there are Navi & a wounded soldier.  Of course some of what I know comes from having ridden Flights of Passage at Disneyworld multiple times.  I know nothing about Last Airbender but the mocs I've seen on Ideas look like a giant slug creature with legs, Uggg!  Not something I have any desire to build.

SumoLego

daewoo said:

Either allow all religious inspired builds or none of them.  

Is the Greek or Roman (or Norse) polytheistic system really a serious world religion?  More to the point, I think this policy is in-line with their military theme policy - this is a child's toy and LEGO would prefer to stick with the creative aspects of play.  

And if you want to buy a bucketload of tan bricks and build Jerusalem - go for it.  I will say that LEGO can set whatever policy for IDEAS that they like.  No religion, no politics, no war... that is fine by me.

SumoLego

Bumblepants said:

I too enjoyed Pocahontas In Space.

If it has well-written characters and a good plot, I'll like it.  If it's a blatantly transparent piece of environmentalist propaganda with cardboard characters and a garbage story, I probably won't.

If it's Ferngully 2, I probably won't be impressed.  If's it's Godfather 2, I'll like it more.

Casper_vd_Korf

SumoLego said:

Is the Greek or Roman (or Norse) polytheistic system really a serious world religion?

After a quick google, as far as I understand it mythology is a collection of stories, and religion consists of mythology, but also has rituals, morality etc. So, I think that the Iliad and Noah's ark are myths, and the Vestal Virgins and something like choosing the pope is religion. Also, if the myths lose their connection to religion and evolve, it becomes folklore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_mythology

Folklore has been in quite some lego sets, such as the popup book or the red riding hood cmf. Myths have also been seen, such as a war goddess, which just is Athena, and a faun. Also, Thor, Loki, Fenris wolf and valkyrie have been in marvel sets, which adds a complete other layer of complexity. Religion is not as obvious, but there are some christmas angels, and christmas trees are a combination of christian and yule (I think) traditions. Monkie kid, Ninjago, and the chinese celebration sets have aspects of all three as far as I know, but I'm not familiar enough with the culture to comment on that.

I would be fine with sets based on religion and myths personally. Monkie kid has been great, and I hope something like that will happen for other cultures.

Brickchap

@SumoLego

I agree with @daewoo that Lego really needs to fix it's double standards.

As far as religions are concerned, I would still count Greek, Roman and Norse as serious religions. Sure, they may not necessarily have many followers, but they still meet the criteria for a proper set of religious beliefs. Therefore, if Lego is going to say NO RELIGION then they should adhere to that.

In saying that, I don't think Lego should start making religious sets and don't have a problem with a no religion policy as long as its clear.

As far as their military policy, that really needs to be reassesed. Lego has broken it's NO MILITARY rules SOOOO many times and this new Avatar theme will only increase that.

Now you are absolutely correct that Lego should be able to set whatever policies they choose, and I also agree Lego is a children's toy and often sticking to the creative play part is best.

My issue (as indeed many others agree) is Lego being like politicians:

Lego says it doesn't do military stuff, yet time and time again has done just that, even when not necessary (eg jets in city sets that are clearly based on modern fighter jets and often quite new designs at that).

Instead of denying it does military stuff Lego should just come forward and clarify what is okay and what isn't. Acknowledge the fact that in the past Lego HAS made military stuff and continues to do so.

Furthermore, unless they choose to go with a strictly no military policy, then Lego should acknowledge that military stuff and conflict play is an inevitable part of toys thesedays, especially if you want to cater to an American audience and therefore just make military stuff when it is applicable, eg licensed themes, and continue to make civilian versions of military aircraft and vehicles (eg Creator, City) without pretending they are not doing that.

To clarify my point I'm not saying Lego should start making a full military theme like COBI, just stop acting like it's fake news when they make military equipment or realistic guns in sets (licensed or otherwise), and hiding behind a very ambiguous 'no military' policy.

Gibbo1959

Surely on the basis that Jedi is now considered to be a legit religion for census purposes, LEGO must immediately stop selling anything related to Star Wars. Can’t see that being a problem.

Brickchap

@Gibbo1959 That's a good example. It's literally star WARS, has a officially recognised religion, multiple brutal deaths, war crimes, whole planets getting destroyed, people choked to death, and it's clearly based on WW2 with very Nazi-esque bad guys eg First Order (literally looks like the Nuremburg rallies). But SW is okay? Red Skull is legit an actual Nazi and he's okay too.

But no Indy sets because it's got Nazis, the majority of which are just German soldiers not necessarily Nazis, and all of which are entirely fictional, especially the plot lines.

Brickchap

@Gibbo1959 That's a good example. It's literally star WARS, has a officially recognised religion, multiple brutal deaths, war crimes, whole planets getting destroyed, people choked to death, and it's clearly based on WW2 with very Nazi-esque bad guys eg First Order (literally looks like the Nuremburg rallies). But SW is okay? Red Skull is legit an actual Nazi and he's okay too.

But no Indy sets because it's got Nazis, the majority of which are just German soldiers not necessarily Nazis, and all of which are entirely fictional, especially the plot lines.

So in this case I'm not saying ban Star Wars because it has religion, I'm saying Lego should come out and say well Star Wars has religion in it but we are accepting that for these reasons. Indeed, perhaps Lego policy should be "No contemporary religion in realistic settings" which clarifies that ancient religions are acceptable (eg Greek mythology) and futuristic religions are also acceptable.

Brickchap

Sorry it wouldn't let me add stuff to my post and now I can't even delete my first post. Not trying to spam the group here.

blokey9

lowlead said:

James Cameron is a pompous douche and I don't care about Avatar LEGO...ooof, I'm a Saltine Cracker today =oD

Despite his talent as a film maker, I could barely sit through a recent 'revisit' of the technical timeline of the Titanic disaster:  A bunch of millionaire Oak Island types in a roundtable circle jerk waxing philosophically in front of a scale model longer than a tour bus.  Eye-rolling, narcissistic and insufferable.

...but thanks for Aliens ;) 

i felt the same way about the show with all the directors of the Mandalorian.

SumoLego

I think there is a significant amount of nuance missing in all of these assertions.  Red Skull is a comic book character, not an actual Nazi.  

LEGO isn't under any obligation to promulgate edicts regarding their products.  What should be clear is that LEGO is controversy-adverse, but simultaneously revenue-attracted.  Navigating away from what creates controversy but also continues to fill the coffers is the balancing act.

Star Wars is fantasy.  Comic Book Heroes are fantasy.  LEGO is in the business of fantasy, no matter what other parallels may be drawn between fantasy and reality.  

Is there any point to some empty declaration that LEGO's policies are hypocritical or inconsistent?  Wonderful.  They're selling toys, not offering absolution, a moral code to follow or anything of the sort.  

They're not making military toys, they're not doing co-marketing with Shell.  I'm still buying their product and helping push them to remain the World's leading toy manufacturer.

KungFuKenny

The_Rancor said:

I enjoyed Avatar and look forward to the Lego sets and second film. There, I said it ;)

I second this- after riding the Avatar rides at Disney I re-watched the movies...I think there could be some seriously good builds re-creating the world of Pandora...




I just hope we get a Banshee as well...

blokey9

i forgave them the 4 hour wait in line after this ride. it is one of the best rides at Disneyworld.

andhe

Bumblepants said:

The_Rancor said:

I enjoyed Avatar and look forward to the Lego sets and second film. There, I said it ;)

I too enjoyed Pocahontas In Space. I'm not over eager for more films though. The Lego could be fun if it has good parts and goes on sale for a nice price.

These sequels have been delayed and delayed so will be interesting to see what releases first, the sets or the films they are meant to be based on. As we see repeatedly in hollywood plans and sequels can soon be dropped if films underperform (though I had read they were filming a number of these sequels back-to-back, so in that case a lot of the money is already invested...).

Treehouses, colourful creatures, VTOL aircraft and mechs... I can see why lego would get onboard. With the Jurassic movies taking a pause I can see them wanting to fill that 'giant creature and vehicle' product gap.

I enjoyed the first movie in the cinema, but more for the 3D spectacle than any originality in the storyline. I keep almost watching it again on Disney+ so be interesting to see whether it holds any interest without the 3D experience, perhaps that sort of movie that makes enjoyable 'background watching'.

The_Rancor

I’ve got a new perhaps unpopular opinion to add - I’m not a fan of people that just stick a ton of clone trooper/battle droid/Imperial army mini figs onto baseplates, hold them up or just sit them on the floor and then share a photo to boast how many they’ve got. 

Sure, it makes sense if you’re creating a large scale MOC of a battlefield to populate it effectively with minifigs, but just standing them on a baseplate in formation and doing nothing else to embellish them doesn’t really do anything for me.

I also still get infuriated when I see dislocated arms and legs on minifigs pulled out of their sockets to achieve unnatural photo positions. It never seems to go away.

pxchris

^ I feel the EXACT same way about the Pirate/Soldier armies I see stacked on baseplates. Everytime someone posts one on any of the pirate groups I'm in I just roll my eyes.

Sethro3

I'm always impressed by seeing large scale armies, even if it is in a boring set up like that. Now, I do usually question why they went so cray on buying so many. But army building was always fun as a kid for me, so I guess that carried over to adulthood. But I just toss my figures in a bag and put it in the closet, so why do I army build? I like wasting money I guess...

Brickchap

I agree and disagree with above. Army pictures like that do look very cool in formation, but yes, it is rather boring especially when they are just stuck on a baseplate.

 I'd much rather see a diorama for example the Battle of Waterloo and have all your red coats on one side and blue coats on the other, with maybe a small group of custom 'green coats' (Prussian cavalry), coming along. Have some cannons firing, terrain and you've got a really cool set up!

Not everyone could afford that of course, but even if you just take a photo of all your knights for example in formation, and then use them to populate your castle (perhaps with a small formation gathered in the courtyard) that's a lot better than just 'look how much money I can spend purely on the exact same minifig 300 times over!'

SumoLego

pxchris said:

^...I see stacked on baseplates...

What?!?  Nobody impressed with my 500 2x2 red bricks lined up in straight rows?

It's almost like it takes no talent to line up minifigs on a baseplate.  

andhe

When I first got back into lego you could pick up vintage castle and pirate figures pretty cheap on ebay (£1-2). I ended up selling a lot off as realised I didn't have much need for 30+ figures per faction. Just kept enough to complete the sets and a handful of extras.
I now see vintage collectors with 100-200+ black falcons, lion knights lined up on a baseplate etc and it's no wonder fig prices are £4+ for a 'common' figure.
Each to his own I guess, some spend £500 on a grey star wars spaceship that sits on a shelf, some spend that on a parade of vintage figures. It's just not for me. 

Brickchap

I do think Lego should release more battle pack sets for things like knights and Imperial soldiers (as well as other themes).

It's really annoying when you can't even properly defend your castle/fort (eg Creator 3 in 1 Castle with only 2 knights....). My Kingdoms King's Castle had a decent amount of troops although a handful more would have been better. My current medieval display uses almost all of my collection of knights to create a tiny battle scene with about 6 pairs of fighting knights, with some mercenaries chucked in here and there (various CMF knights).

I was lucky enough to come across an original Black Falcons knight one day (a rather boring torso print to be honest), but I've been able to borrow his shield for the front of the Creator Castle and therefore give both my new Black Falcons shields.

It is particularly annoying in my pirate display as for years I only had one Redcoat, just one! Even with the entire 2015 line worth of blue coats (except for the couple in Brickbeard's Bounty, I would have loved to have gotten that wig piece), I still had a very, very small amount to defend my Imperial fort.

Thankfully I got a bunch of Classic Imperials, both red and blue coats, so I now have a small group of Austrian Army soldiers (classic red coats), led by the one 2009 red coat in a tricorn defending my fort, while my converted Black Seas Barracuda (now the Princess Rahel of the Austrian Navy), is populated by all of my 2015 bluecoats as Marines, the classic blue coats as officers, and the pirate torso with the blue jacket and brown belt, and red banana for the sailors.

Nevertheless, to return to my original point it is ridiculous that you can buy every set in the entire wave of sets and still have barely enough soldiers to defend a fort, let alone anything else.

(just to clarify, the fort in my display is the 2015 fort and outpost put together, plus some walls I built, but even the 2015 fort and outpost alone still requires more soldiers then are provided, especially if you want to have some in rowboats or just shooting at the pirates)

Aanchir

daewoo said:

Modeltrainman said:

I have one that'll top @SumoLego and @Bumblepants , and give both a chance to run: If LEGO IDEAS allows Greek mythology,(which, has religion in it), we should be allowed to build Biblical stuff for IDEAS. I get that it's divisive, but accepting Zeus and disallowing Jesus seems unfair. If people can build Greek,Roman temples, don't block it if I want to build Noah's Ark. Otherwise, no temples of any kind should be allowed.

If one type of religion is allowed, then disallowing another kind of religion is discriminatory, as I see it.  Either allow all religious inspired builds or none of them.  

I think there should be a pretty obvious difference between religions with widespread followings in the modern day and religions that died out long ago (regardless of attempts by neo-pagan groups to revive some of them).

Outside of LEGO Ideas, there have been plenty of depictions of Egyptian deities in the Adventurers and Pharaoh's Quest themes, not to mention all the more heavily fictionalized portrayals of mythological deities in themes like Marvel Super Heroes and Monkie Kid.

One unpopular opinion I have about religious stuff in LEGO: LEGO's reluctance to making sets based on Christian religious figures isn't just about respecting non-Christians, but also about respecting Christians who would consider it offensive or insensitive for a secular global corporation to sell depictions of Jesus and other Christian religious figures as a consumer product. Certain branches of Christianity and Islam (such as Jehovah's Witnesses or Salafis) would likely even see it as a form of idolatry.

Even if you see LEGO's willingness to portray ancient mythological figures as some kind of hypocrisy, you can surely understand why LEGO has plenty of reasons for not opening that can of worms.

Brickchap said:

As far as their military policy, that really needs to be reassesed. Lego has broken it's NO MILITARY rules SOOOO many times and this new Avatar theme will only increase that.

Now you are absolutely correct that Lego should be able to set whatever policies they choose, and I also agree Lego is a children's toy and often sticking to the creative play part is best.

My issue (as indeed many others agree) is Lego being like politicians:

Lego says it doesn't do military stuff, yet time and time again has done just that, even when not necessary (eg jets in city sets that are clearly based on modern fighter jets and often quite new designs at that).

Instead of denying it does military stuff Lego should just come forward and clarify what is okay and what isn't. Acknowledge the fact that in the past Lego HAS made military stuff and continues to do so.

Furthermore, unless they choose to go with a strictly no military policy, then Lego should acknowledge that military stuff and conflict play is an inevitable part of toys thesedays, especially if you want to cater to an American audience and therefore just make military stuff when it is applicable, eg licensed themes, and continue to make civilian versions of military aircraft and vehicles (eg Creator, City) without pretending they are not doing that.

To clarify my point I'm not saying Lego should start making a full military theme like COBI, just stop acting like it's fake news when they make military equipment or realistic guns in sets (licensed or otherwise), and hiding behind a very ambiguous 'no military' policy.

What you're suggesting is literally spelled out in the "Guideline for Conflict and Weapons" that was codified in 2010, as expressed in their 2010 Progress Report:

A large number of LEGO minifigures use weapons, and are – assumedly – regularly being charged by each others’ weapons as part of children’s role play. In the LEGO Group, we acknowledge that conflict in play is especially prevalent among 4-9-year-old boys. An inner drive and a need to experiment with their own aggressive feelings in order to learn about other people’s aggressions exist in most children. This in turn enables them to handle and recognize conflict in non-play scenarios. As such, the LEGO Group sees conflict play as perfectly acceptable, and an integral part of children’s development.

We also acknowledge children’s well-proven ability to tell play from reality. however, to make sure to maintain the right balance between play and conflict, we have adhered to a set of unwritten rules for several years. In 2010, we have formalized these rules in a guideline for the use of conflict and weapons in LEGO products. The basic aim is to avoid realistic weapons and military equipment that children may recognize from hot spots around the world and to refrain from showing violent or frightening situations when communicating about LEGO products. At the same time, the purpose is for the LEGO brand not to be associated with issues that glorify conflicts and unethical or harmful behavior.

The guidelines in question are also paraphrased here, in a form that I've seen repeated by a number of LEGO pages and publications over the years:

Today the LEGO Group recognizes that conflict between good and evil often forms an important part of children’s play as it teaches children about their own – and other people’s – aggression. It helps children to recognize and handle disputes in other situations. However, the LEGO Group has no intention of glorifying war or encouraging violence, and therefore refuses to produce realistic weapons and military equipment with the risk of children recognizing these types of weapons from hostilities around the world. Instead, the LEGO Group supports children, stimulating their imagination by launching only historical and fantasy weapons. With the aim of toning down the conflict element, a good dose of humor is incorporated in the models and the storytelling around the play themes.

Certainly, these guidelines can still be a little fuzzy in some cases, like how far particular types of vehicles have to be from their real-world origins to avoid "the risk of children recognizing these types of weapons from hostilities around the world". But realistically, no policy would ever be able to cover every possible edge case, so there will ALWAYS have to be some discretion on the part of LEGO designers and their higher-ups about how this policy should be interpreted and carried out.

And in the very least, there is an extremely clear exception in this policy for fantasy and sci-fi conflicts. As such, most pop-culture themes like like Star Wars don't even come close to violating this policy in its current form, and it's bewildering to me how many times I encounter people who don't recognize that distinction.

The Indiana Jones theme arguably comes closer to running afoul of that policy than most other licensed themes. But that's to be expected — before 2010, LEGO's objection to "war toys" was merely an unwritten rule, and was enforced very inconsistently depending on the feelings of whoever was making the final judgment call at any given time. It's entirely possible that some of those sets would not be approved if they were released today.

And while a lot of LEGO City and Creator aircraft are indeed based on vehicles designed for military use, I think LEGO has done a pretty good job distancing them from the sort of imagery that kids would actually associate with war zones.

After all, we'd have heard about it if sets like #31020 and #60021 were ever the subject of organized protests like #42113 was! Evidently, orange accents and "Rescue" decals on a mostly grey vehicle were not enough to distance it from the ones used in war zones, at least not when the set is branded with the name of the real-world military contractor that manufactures them.

Brickchap

@Aanchir You make a good argument. A little late to the debate but still valid of course!

Nevertheless I would still argue Avatar is at a minimum in a grey zone as although it's fantasy, the human tech could definitely be considered reminiscent of current (and very near future) U.S army tech. They have modern (current, non fantasy) uniforms, more or less contemporary guns and those helicopter things look an awful lot like Apaches with twin rotors. Now to by honest I actually don't have a problem with that, but considering Lego won't make Spitfires or even bolt action rifles for fictional settings (or for example a Creator 3 in 1 Spitfire) yet is happy to make modern military tech that (fantasy or not) would definitely be recognisable in relation to current conflicts, I would question that.

Interestingly all of the statements Lego has come out with say "from hostilities around the world", "realistic weapons and military equipment that children may recognize from hot spots around the world" or words to that effect. Now from a legal perspective (regardless of thoughts on Lego, military toys etc.) I would interpret that to mean contemporary conflicts. So for example a Ninjago tank clearly based on the tanks the Russians are using in Ukraine would be a big no no (which makes sense and I agree with). Furthermore, I would extend that 'contemporary' time period to the Gulf War for example, as while it is 30 years ago, the technology and weapons used haven't changed much and would still be recognised  by children who weren't even alive during the Gulf War as modern military stuff.

On the other hand, I would then argue that conflicts roughly from the 1950s backwards should be acceptable subject matter (within reason). I'm not at all advocating for COBI style full military sets, or anything like Nazis, tanks, gas, Stuka dive bombers, flamethrowers etc. What I mean is that armed biplanes should be okay, as well as aircraft such as the Spitfire or any WW2 plane as well, again within reason (pretty much any well known WW2 German plane would be synonymous with the Nazis and therefore not recommended). I wouldn't suggest tanks but things like staff cars, general equipment, trucks, halftracks, even something like a Universal Carrier should be acceptable (and remember that most situations where such ideas would be used they wouldn't need guns anyway).

1950s fighter jets, MiG 17s, Sioux helicopters (there's a couple of Korean War era helicopters, one is shaped like a sideways pear and the other is called a Shawnee/Workhouse helicopter.) are other examples of tech I would consider historic and therefore acceptable. (They wouldn't have Soviet or American markings of course)

Just on tanks, even a Great War tank is so old fashioned now I would consider it separate to modern conflict (and frankly I doubt many kids would be interested in it anyway). Now of course I dont think Lego should make any tanks but if they made the Indy tank for example (which itself is technically made up), I would argue it's over a century old so it shouldn't count as 'a realistic weapon or military equipment that children may recognize from hot spots around the world'.

And I would say the same for some WW2 tanks (obviously something like a Tiger or a T 34 is out), but say the Adventurers had an M3 Stuart or an M8 Greyhound for example, I would consider that again not falling under the category of modern warfare Lego clearly restricts. Should Lego Adventurers have realistic style tanks? No, not necessarily, it is merely an example.

In the past Lego has been accepting of things like WW1 era biplanes and generic halftracks (they even included a 50. cal style MG on the halftrack in Pharaohs Quest) so I would encourage them to continue that trend and extend it a little further like the examples I give above.

And just to clarify I'm not saying Lego should now go and make all these old military stuff, simply that if the situation arises (whether that be in a licensed theme like Indiana Jones or simply a new idea for a Creator set or vehicle/weapon in a City set or other non-licensed theme) they should be acceptable.

560Heliport

@Brickchap
Or LEGO could just avoid (mostly) anything close to modern military equipment and warfare, and just make all kinds of other stuff. Why invite controversy by drawing a line, then getting right up to that line? Some people won't get the nuances of when, for instance, a particular tank was in service and will call LEGO hypocritical for making it. 

Brickchap

@560Heliport Well that was literally the point of my first argument LOL.

Either Lego does the approach like I outline above, or does no military-like sets at all, as you rightly argue and I previously wrote about.

Myself and others previously listed various examples of where lego has done military things, like the Sopwith Camel, halftrack and biplane in Pharaohs Quest, various modern fighter jets in City (sure they are multi coloured but they are no different to a recoloured Spitfire or Sherman tank) and I called them hypocritical (especially with the clearly modern military tech used in Avatar, which is 'acceptable' because its fantasy, yet Indiana Jones is also completely fictional with supernatural elements and yet it is considered 'unacceptable'), only for others to disagree and say lego should just do what they want.

Ultimately it is Lego's choice, but as I have already argued previously that if they are going to set boundaries only to go right up to, or even break, those boundaries, then they should just ban all military style products as a whole, including the increasingly militarised City police (those trucks are looking more and more like Bushmasters and U.S army trucks from Afghanistan).

560Heliport

We don't yet know what the sets from Avatar are going to be, do we? They might be only the navi and Avatar wildlife. (Although this seems unlikely.)

Brickchap

@560Heliport Definitely a fair point, although to make Avatar sets without the humans and their vehicles would be like Star Wars without Darth Vader and the Death Star. Maybe I'll be proven wrong (or they will include humans and their tech but to an absolute minimum), in which case I would question the point of creating the theme in the first place if they are uncomfortable with a such huge part of the storyline.

daewoo

So I absolutely hate that Lego stopped including the set number on instruction manuals in some new sets....looking at you Ideas and 18+.  

Mr_Cross

Definitely tell them via the online survey thingy!

FollowsClosely

daewoo said:

So I absolutely hate that Lego stopped including the set number on instruction manuals in some new sets....looking at you Ideas and 18+.  

Yes this is so annoying, not sure its unpopular.

autolycus

daewoo said:

So I absolutely hate that Lego stopped including the set number on instruction manuals in some new sets....looking at you Ideas and 18+.  

Not sure that's unpopular. I suspect most of us dislike it! It really messes with my filing system both when filing and even more so when looking for a book!

560Heliport

I don't like smooth, studless builds. Where am I supposed to put all the neat printed DOTS tiles? 

560Heliport

Aquazone is the best LEGO theme. Yes, I said it!

Modeltrainman

@560Heliport Toy Story is the best licensed theme, then!

Charmiefcb

Aquazone, Ice Planet then Western.

Brickchap

@Charmiefcb Those are all great themes.

I wonder what Huwbot would rank as best themes. 1.  Clikits, 2. Scala 3 Dots?

LOL Remember when poor Huwbot called fake news where he put up graphs of how many of each set he shows for the RSOTD and Clikits wasn't actually the most common?

leo3344

My unpopular opinion is that I wish Lego would release more City sets every season and more modular buildings every year, look like they tend to release one only every year.