Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

I politely request for you to respect peoples' decision to hate Minidolls.

2»

Comments

  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,823
    edited October 2016
    I don't remotely think people who dislike the mini-doll have nothing to be disappointed about. However, I also don't think that justifies the kind of outright hate or disgust that sometimes springs up. There are ways to express dislike or disappointment without tearing down things other people enjoy or adopting an "us vs. them" mentality.

    And believe me, I get just as irritated about this kind of "us vs. them" mentality when it's held by people who SHARE my enjoyment of certain themes. I can't tell you how many times I've seen Bionicle fans or Ninjago fans viciously attack other themes that they see as inferior or as a threat to the themes they enjoy.

    Star Wars and other licensed themes tend to get a lot of heat from fans of non-licensed themes who see them as unimaginative monoliths that stifle the growth and development of original themes. I'm entirely with them when it comes to preferring original themes to licensed ones, and yet at the same time, I can't pretend that licensed themes are without their merits, or that other people's enjoyment of licensed themes is any less legitimate than my enjoyment of original ones.

    I know "why can't we all just get along?" is a tremendous cliche, and that disagreements are inevitable. But I don't think anything productive comes from making hateful, abrasive posts about LEGO products we dislike when there are usually ways to express one's dislike that are more respectful of those who might genuinely enjoy those products.
    dougtscatwranglerKingAlanIJern92Lyichirsnowhitie
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    edited October 2016
    I don't think anyone has a problem with people who want to be anti-minidoll. The problem is that some of these anti-minidoll people wade into articles and threads about minidoll themes to specifically complain about minidolls!  it's absurd. if you don't care about the minidoll themes - don't read those articles or threads.  if you want to rant about minidolls, open up a thread (like this one), or revive the one from 5 years ago. But to go to someone's house then complain that you don't like their furniture - that's just rude.  It would be like opening and article about the new Star Wars wave, and doing nothing but saying how much you hate LEGO Star Wars and that they shouldn't make SW sets any more.
    stluxdatsunrobbieSumoLegocatwranglerKingAlanIJern92snowhitie
  • AyliffeAyliffe the UK innit?Member Posts: 307
    catwranglermr.pigglesJern92
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,142
    ^^^ No, I don't think there is a capacity problem. A set goes out of stock in one country, but comes back in reasonably quickly. There are plenty of that set available in other countries suggesting they have produced them but shipped them where demand is lower. That is more of an unbalanced stock / supply issue than a capacity issue. They are not great at judging demand for what turn out to be really popular sets in some places and not others. Plus there are loads of other Lego sets for sale at the same time, so manufacturing capacity is not an issue, judging and managing the demand is.

    If there was a capacity problem, shelves would be bare. They aren't.
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 12,349
    dougts said:
    But to go to someone's house then complain that you don't like their furniture - that's just rude.
    You should get a new couch.  Make it a double-decker couch - I hear they are all the rage in Bricksburg.
    catwranglerdougts
  • sklambsklamb speaker of American EnglishMember Posts: 489

    The main shortage I can see, at least at [email protected] in the US, is Cinderella's Castle, which is a huge and very expensive set--I can see why TLG might have underestimated how many people would want it at once. (OTOH, they knew the October 2x points period was coming up, when many people buy their year's supply of huge, expensive sets, so it shouldn't have been terribly surprising that the Castle would be in demand then.)

    Not necessarily a supply problem as an allocation problem, perhaps?

    And minifigs and minidolls each have their virtues. We should all just get along....

  • mr.pigglesmr.piggles Snow FortMember Posts: 326
    In my world, minifigs and minidolls coexist peacefully. Elsa and Admiral Ackbar are totally an item. The minidolls have taken over Market Street and snazzed up the place into their model colony. The Fire Brigade helped get a cat out of a tree at Emma's house. ~What a wonderful world it would be... ~
    catwranglerbookmumAllBricksnowhitieBrickfan50sklamb
  • TheBigLegoskiTheBigLegoski Amsterdam, NederlandMember Posts: 1,399
    Every time I check the forum and see this topic with arguably the most ridiculous title ever to have been posted here crawl to the top of the recent discussions, I can't help but roll my eyes, frown, sigh, and facepalm.

    Oooh and for your information I don't have any minidolls, but I think they are super cute!!!

    BTW, thanks to those Lego minidoll themes, the Lego minifigs too, now have a bigger variety of hairpieces and other props/items specifically made to be put in their hands such as scissors, baby milkbottles, cutlery, kitchen utensils etc. popular with girl oriented play themes. So win win! Plus lots of new colours, which is nice for MOC'ers.
    mr.pigglescatwranglerdougtsstluxklatu003AllBricksnowhitie
  • KingAlanIKingAlanI Rochester, NYMember Posts: 1,922
    At least this thread is being civil about how some people aren't being civil about minidolls.
    A lot of the other stuff I might have said has already been said.
    catwrangler
  • willobee498willobee498 CanadalandMember Posts: 349
    I'm all for criticism, but my parents always taught me if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
    Jern92starwars4ever
  • DontcopythatfloppyDontcopythatfloppy 'MuricaMember Posts: 43
    CCC said:

    For example, how is this...

    any more juniorized than this...





    I mean, and I know this probably isn't a popular opinion given that literally no one else has voiced it, but to be fair the first time I saw the Batwing I legitimately thought it was a submarine. I mean, can you at least see a bit of a design flaw here?
    gmonkey76
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 12,349
    I'm all for criticism, but my parents always taught me if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all.
    Except on the internet, where you opinion matters.
  • AyliffeAyliffe the UK innit?Member Posts: 307
    I mean, and I know this probably isn't a popular opinion given that literally no one else has voiced it, but to be fair the first time I saw the Batwing I legitimately thought it was a submarine. I mean, can you at least see a bit of a design flaw here?
    To be fair, submarines are pretty much underwater jet planes anyways... :)
    KingAlanI
  • KingAlanIKingAlanI Rochester, NYMember Posts: 1,922
    Ayliffe said:
    I mean, and I know this probably isn't a popular opinion given that literally no one else has voiced it, but to be fair the first time I saw the Batwing I legitimately thought it was a submarine. I mean, can you at least see a bit of a design flaw here?
    To be fair, submarines are pretty much underwater jet planes anyways... :)
    I had the wings come off a fighter plane model and it looked kind of like a sub, apparently I'm not crazy. Probably because of aerodynamics having similarity to hydrodynamics in suggesting a general shape. (The model was a clone brand, but I don't think it was particularly fragile, mainly getting banged around in storage)

    catwrangler
  • BumblepantsBumblepants DFWMember Posts: 6,036
    Ayliffe said:
    I mean, and I know this probably isn't a popular opinion given that literally no one else has voiced it, but to be fair the first time I saw the Batwing I legitimately thought it was a submarine. I mean, can you at least see a bit of a design flaw here?
    To be fair, submarines are pretty much underwater jet planes anyways... :)

    Also Lego is basing this line off an existing IP. They are not coming up with these designs, that was done by the cartoon creators. Lego is just translating them to brick form.

    catwrangler
  • davee123davee123 USAMember Posts: 810
    Also Lego is basing this line off an existing IP. They are not coming up with these designs, that was done by the cartoon creators. Lego is just translating them to brick form.
    Just for the sake of reference, here's what the cartoon version of Batgirl's Bat-Jet looks like:



    It's relatively similar, although it does look like they made it more lavender than purple near the cockpit.  And of course it's much smaller than in the show (where it looks like it can fit a dozen-or-so people).

    DaveE
    catwrangler
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    davee123 said:
    I admit, I'm still trying to find your point of view.  If I understand your concern, then, as others have pointed out, you're largely incorrect.  But maybe I misunderstand.

    If I understand correctly, you think that LEGO has a capacity problem, and that mini-doll-based sets are taking up some portion of that capacity, which could otherwise be filled with minifig-based sets.
    I think the fact you say "my concern" is in itself telling, I don't have a concern, because I don't really care - if TLG don't produce any sets I want, I don't buy any sets, if they produce sets I like I buy them, beyond that I simply don't care. I have many other things I can spend my money on and entertain myself with, whether it's video games or scuba gear, or any number of other things. I'm not a one hobby kind of person so my life doesn't revolve around it to the degree I'm going to throw a shit fit because of some new product line.

    But some people apparently do care, and do have concerns, given that there's apparently been some argument on these forums about it, and that's merely what I'm commenting on. You say you haven't understood my point, yet apparently you have, because you've described the production issues TLG has perfectly - the commercial reality, the scale of reduction it causes to other sets doesn't matter, the point is you've accepted in your description the situation TLG are in, and whilst you may think any issues arising from that are inconsequential, you haven't accept that others disagree.

    So beyond that understanding of the issues TLG faces, what you perhaps haven't understood about my point is that the description you provide creates a situation where some people will perceived there to be a threat to the product line you enjoy, you may well be right that that perception is unfounded and the lines they enjoy are protected enough and not impacted, but you may also be wrong and their product lines may be effected - whoever is right on that doesn't matter, what matters is that some people will perceive a new line, or new set of figures as a problem, even if some don't.

    You haven't understood this latter nuance, because you're focussed on me, because you've become entrenched in a battle between two sides of a discussion in which neither is willing to back down, and that's where your ability to understand has failed you. This isn't Hillary vs. Trump, this isn't you vs. them, this is a forum where people discuss things, and sometimes people will have different views. So again, if you disagree with their views, that's absolutely fine, but don't expect to change them with mere counter-speculation and at least try and understand why they may be concerned, even if you personally are not. Do that and you'll spend less time having to try and make it personal. This applies to me too - if people still don't get this, different argument, then that's fine, that's their loss if they want to continue getting enraged about a post suggesting they not get enraged by other people's posts and instead try at least understanding and respecting other's sides of the argument, even if they don't agree.

    I'm not rooting for arguments against mini-dolls, that's what you need to understand, as I say, I really couldn't care about them - I wouldn't buy them myself, but I don't personally feel inconvenienced by their prescence either precisely because as I say above I've got ample things to do to fill my time (in fact, I frankly find I never have enough time to do the things I want no matter how many hobbies may grind to a halt). What I am saying is in the  vein of the original post in this thread, that different people have different opinions, and there's nothing provably wrong with those with concerns about mini-dolls, only how some of those people have apparently gone about it (I don't know, I haven't read those posts - I do know given the responses to me here, in this discussion, that other people on the other side of the argument though appear to be unwilling to be particularly rational on the topic given their paradoxical arguments and instant assumptions of side-taking however).
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 2,653
    edited October 2016

    Actually, I've just taken @willobee498's advice...

    LostInTranslationShibXefanstlux
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,142
    edited October 2016
    ^^ So which hard to purchase set would this hate that they have for minidolls be based on? The Disney Castle, in the US only? Blaming the lack of stock of any other set on the existence of minidolls is pretty much unfounded, since no other sets have been hard to buy. And even the Disney Castle has been in stock for reasonable periods in the US.

    Of course, if someone wants to hate the existence of minidolls as they think it stops larger production of the sets they want, then that is up to them. But the view itself seems completely wrong based on existing set availability.

    There is also no evidence that they would make more variety in the other sets if they got rid of Friends. For example, a look at the number of sets first available since Friends came out (2012) for both City and SW:



    The data shows that they are making more sets in both themes since 2012 when Friends appeared. So not only is the target market for the Friends sets getting more than it used to (which was essentially zero), the minifigure only fans are also getting more sets than they were previously. Lego have grown variety in City and SW themes since 2012. I doubt they could push that growth much further without cannibalizing their existing sales in the same ranges.

    The only anti-minidoll view I can really understand is that if they didn't do minidolls and still wanted to appeal to girls, then they might produce more girl focused minifigure sets. So sets like the pink suitcase, Friends style but with minifigs instead of dolls. That would give minifigure fans more variety in minifigures (ie. more females). Although the CMF line has been producing a good number of female minifigures in good outfits for Lego City civilians, so again there is much better variety than there used to be.
    SW.png 101.1K
    stluxTheBigLegoskidougtscatwrangler
  • davee123davee123 USAMember Posts: 810
    Xefan said:
    [...] the description you provide creates a situation where some people will perceived there to be a threat to the product line you enjoy [...] what matters is that some people will perceive a new line, or new set of figures as a problem, even if some don't.
    Ok, that's fair enough, but it's similarly speculation on your part if you're not actually vocalizing your own opinion on the matter.

    If that's the case, I would probably drop the point about production capacity, because it's largely unfounded.  While it might theoretically be true in a very minor capacity, I think it's pretty clear that in general, it's not an issue.

    However, it sounds like your point is more about a perception of loss of focus.  And that's a perfectly valid point-- IE, that it's a perception, and that it's possibly drawing attention away from what they like.  But of course, since you don't actually feel that way, and (to my knowledge) nobody's voiced that particular concern, it sounds like speculation on your part.  A perfectly logical speculation, mind you, but not more than that, unless you're speaking on behalf of someone who's voiced this opinion to you explicitly.
    Xefan said:
    [...] you've become entrenched in a battle between two sides of a discussion in which neither is willing to back down, and that's where your ability to understand has failed you.[...]
    Wait, what?  Me, specifically?  What did I personally say that made you think I was entrenched, or unwilling to back down?  I explicitly asked for clarification, explained why the production aspect wasn't really a worthwhile argument, and then, when you explained your actual point further, agreed with it.

    I suspect you're feeling rather on the defensive here, and are grouping me in with an "us vs. them" mentality, as opposed to genuinely wanting to explore the situation.

    Personally, that's what I'm interested in-- I want to understand the viewpoints.  And if I think they're unfounded, I'll try to explain why I think so.  But otherwise, if it's purely subjective, I want to find out what specifically people find objectionable, because it helps me understand what's going on.

    I'm mostly ambivalent to mini-dolls myself, although I do think there are some uses for them-- which is why I own a bunch of them (as well as DUPLO, Belville, Scala, Galidor, Fabuland, Clikits, Bionicle, Jack Stone, etc).  And if people want to hate them, I guess that's fine and all, but I'm kind of confused by that voracity, and I want to get a better picture of why.

    Personally, I'd speculate that it's caused primarily by different reasons than lack of focus, but hey, that's one of the purposes of this thread-- to discuss why people feel the way they do.

    DaveE
    stluxTheBigLegoskiShibdougtscatwrangler
  • XefanXefan Member Posts: 1,149
    CCC said:
    ^^ So which hard to purchase set would this hate that they have for minidolls be based on? The Disney Castle, in the US only? Blaming the lack of stock of any other set on the existence of minidolls is pretty much unfounded, since no other sets have been hard to buy. And even the Disney Castle has been in stock for reasonable periods in the US.
    Given that your entire existence on Brickset revolves around insisting you're right about everything on every topic ever, then I realise that you're not likely to be swayed by the idea of accepting other people's thoughts, you're not capable of it, never have been and probably never will be, I don't expect anything I or anyone posts to ever change that. I do however feel that it's probably worth someone pointing this out to you so that maybe you're aware that no matter how much you insist you're correct about everything ever, you should probably realise that it's not an effective method of getting anyone on the opposing side of your argument to listen to your point, it never has been, and never will be, no matter how many years you dedicate of your life to it. If you could at least produce logically consistent arguments it might be a start.

    Pretending completely arbitrary numbers such as number of sets that include things like microfighters somehow mitigates the complete lack of worthwhile UCS sets this year is a fine example of why you're just not worth responding to most of the time. The only person you're convincing is yourself and those who already agree with you anyway. Arbitrarily picking one statistic like quantity of a single line, tells us absolutely nothing about the overall set of products, nor other factors such as quality. This is basic statistics, barely even high school stuff. The fact remains that unless you can do a drastically fuller study than this then you're merely speculating and insisting your speculation is established fact, the fact you do that is precisely why you're entirely unable to comprehend the concept of someone holding an opposing viewpoint in good faith.
    davee123 said:
    If that's the case, I would probably drop the point about production capacity, because it's largely unfounded.
    Except it's not, because once again, it's something that's been admitted by Lego on numerous occasions (I've already provided one source), and that you yourself admitted is present. You merely pointed out that you believe the problem was small, verging on negligible - the fact that there's any inkling of the issue existing is still sufficient for people to have concern, no matter how much you may try and insist they should believe otherwise. For people to not have that concern there has to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a new line isn't going to have any impact on Lego's ability to continue to churn out existing lines in sufficient quantity and quality, that's not a doubt anyone here can absolutely remove given TLG's past comments on the issue, no matter how much they may wish to pretend they can.
    davee123 said:
    Wait, what?  Me, specifically?  What did I personally say that made you think I was entrenched, or unwilling to back down?
    The simple fact that you wrote a very long post largely agreeing with me, whilst being unwilling to just say "I agree, but I'm not sure people should be concerned it's a bit enough problem to matter" instead basically saying "I don't agree" despite posting to the contrary was a pretty good pointer. That's what people always do when they were so hasty to reply they missed the fact they weren't actually too far removed in viewpoint from the person they're purportedly arguing against, but are so entrenched that they can't face giving even an inch in a discussion so completely miss that fact. If you weren't so defensively entrenched in your viewpoint, it would've been pretty obvious that you weren't really disagreeing with me on particularly very much at all despite proclaiming otherwise.
    davee123 said:
    Personally, that's what I'm interested in-- I want to understand the viewpoints.  And if I think they're unfounded, I'll try to explain why I think so.  But otherwise, if it's purely subjective, I want to find out what specifically people find objectionable, because it helps me understand what's going on.
    Well good luck with that, if someone like myself who doesn't really sit on one side of the debate or the other can't come and try and explain why some people may be pissed off, and similarly point out why I can see that people who love mini-dolls are happy then you have shit all luck about getting that out of someone that really is pissed off about the situation. No one who really is pissed off about it is likely to jump into such a discussion where they'll get shouted down in an instant for daring to dissent. I recall a survey on Brickset a couple of years back with a non-negligible number of people stating people don't like participating in the forums or similar because of precisely this kind of attitude. Is it really any wonder why they gave that feedback? It hasn't changed, that much is clear.

    All you're all really creating here is an echo chamber where you just agree with each other and can't accept even the slightest amount of dissenting viewpoint, that's fine if that's what you want, but stop pretending it's about creating anything other than that if that's the case. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the OP's post where they were asking people to respect each others opinions, and it certainly doesn't give those arguing here on the pro mini-doll side of the argument the moral high ground they've so far been proclaiming that they have.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    edited October 2016
    Again, to put this as simply as possible:

    If someone is going to assert that LEGO releasing minidoll themes negatively impacts minifig themes in either (or both) of the following ways, they should be provide specific credible data that backs up these claims:
    1. the production of minidoll themes has led to less minifig sets/themes being produced
    2. the production of minidoll themes has led to minifig sets/themes being unavailable to people 

    If people (the so called "anti-minidoll" people) think one or both of these things is happening because minidoll themes exist, then they need to be able to back that up with data - or at least meaningful anecdotal examples.  Otherwise, it's just irrational fear of the bogeyman.

    People are welcome to "hate minidolls".  they aren't welcome to just make up facts to try and back up their stated reasons for doing so.  If one wants to say "I hate minidolls because I just don't like the way they look/function.", then cool - no one will argue against their right.  But if they say "I hate minidolls because they are preventing me from getting more minifigs", then they better be prepared to be have that assertion challenged, and they better be able to back it up.  That hasn't happened yet, despite many people asking.
    stluxLyichirAanchirSumoLego
  • davee123davee123 USAMember Posts: 810
    Xefan said:
    Except it's not, because once again, it's something that's been admitted by Lego on numerous occasions (I've already provided one source), and that you yourself admitted is present. You merely pointed out that you believe the problem was small, verging on negligible
    Exactly-- my suspicion is that if you sat someone down who hates mini-dolls voraciously, they wouldn't cite LEGO's capacity issues as a reason, unless maybe you brought it up first.

    My guess is that people who despise mini-dolls do so for other reasons primarily, and might cite "lack of focus" as maybe a secondary reason.  But production capacity probably wouldn't show up at all-- or maybe it might be tertiary.  And once they understand the details of the production chain better, they'd probably drop it all together-- But they'd continue disliking mini-dolls, which (I think) is evidence that another set of reasons are primary factors.

    Anyway, if you're speculating on that, I'd be eager to see any evidence that someone who holds that position shares your proposed concern, as well as the priority of that issue.  Otherwise, I'll probably pass it off as theory that you personally hold, that I'll disagree with (because I haven't seen it argued ever, except by you, and you admittedly don't even have that opinion).

    Xefan said:
    The simple fact that you wrote a very long post largely agreeing with me, whilst being unwilling to just say "I agree, but I'm not sure people should be concerned it's a bit enough problem to matter" instead basically saying "I don't agree" despite posting to the contrary was a pretty good pointer.
    I have a habit of being very long-winded :)

    I wrote a post trying to explain why LEGO's production capacity shouldn't really create a contention between mini-doll and minifig sets-- largely because I didn't think it had been explained quite clearly enough at that point in this discussion.  I had a little tiny bit at the top and at the end where I said I didn't think it was a valid concern, but openly asked for clarification from you.
    Xefan said:
    Well good luck with that, if someone like myself who doesn't really sit on one side of the debate or the other can't come and try and explain why some people may be pissed off, and similarly point out why I can see that people who love mini-dolls are happy then you have shit all luck about getting that out of someone that really is pissed off about the situation. No one who really is pissed off about it is likely to jump into such a discussion where they'll get shouted down in an instant for daring to dissent.
    Well, I definitely agree, but not because of anything I think *I* did.  Again, I think you're apparently equating me with a lot of your perceived sentiment in the forum.

    If I had to speculate about why people hate mini-dolls, I'd speculate the following:

    Primary reasons:
    1) A change from an established norm (IE, "What's wrong with minifigs?")
    2) Perceived sexual bias pandering to "girls" with stereotypical figures
    3) Lack of equal functionality (no wrist movement, single-piece legs, no "butt-studs")

    Secondary reasons:
    4) Concern for competition with minifigs (as in, LEGO might consider a mini-doll "castle" theme as competing with a minifig "castle" theme, and thus defer a particular minifig theme)
    5) General dislike aesthetically of the figures, since they look "too human" but not human enough (or some other aspect, like their slender arms or something)
    6) Lack of being "In System" -- the waists are a new connection, but could have used some existing connection.  Similarly, their feet "hang over" a stud edge

    I think the reason that you brought up would most closely fall under #4 in my list, although it's kind of its own thing, since it's specifically referring to capacity rather than product offering.

    So, of all the reasons above, I think #4 is the only one I can really discount as "you probably shouldn't be concerned about that".  It might still be a concern for someone, but I would probably try and explain why I think it's not something to worry about all that much.

    For the OTHER reasons (except maybe #5), I think we fall into a trap.  LEGO had very solid reasons for designing the figures the way they did, and we're aware of many of those considerations.  So, when someone who hates mini-dolls says "What's wrong with minifigs?", we (the informed community) will often try and provide LEGO's rationale.  But it doesn't really do anything to alleviate their negative opinion.  If someone doesn't like them because their wrists don't move, explaining WHY they don't move won't suddenly make them move and be suddenly compatible with, say, riding a minifig bike while holding the handlebars.

    Anyway, I think that explanation often comes across as being dismissive and inconsiderate of a subjective viewpoint.  And that's too bad, because I think it's important to understand what LEGO was trying to do, even if you don't agree with the decision.

    DaveE
    stluxTheBigLegoskicatwranglerBumblepants
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,142
    Xefan said:
    CCC said:
    ^^ So which hard to purchase set would this hate that they have for minidolls be based on? The Disney Castle, in the US only? Blaming the lack of stock of any other set on the existence of minidolls is pretty much unfounded, since no other sets have been hard to buy. And even the Disney Castle has been in stock for reasonable periods in the US.
    Given that your entire existence on Brickset revolves around insisting you're right about everything on every topic ever, then I realise that you're not likely to be swayed by the idea of accepting other people's thoughts, you're not capable of it, never have been and probably never will be, I don't expect anything I or anyone posts to ever change that. I do however feel that it's probably worth someone pointing this out to you so that maybe you're aware that no matter how much you insist you're correct about everything ever, you should probably realise that it's not an effective method of getting anyone on the opposing side of your argument to listen to your point, it never has been, and never will be, no matter how many years you dedicate of your life to it. If you could at least produce logically consistent arguments it might be a start.

    Pretending completely arbitrary numbers such as number of sets that include things like microfighters somehow mitigates the complete lack of worthwhile UCS sets this year is a fine example of why you're just not worth responding to most of the time. The only person you're convincing is yourself and those who already agree with you anyway. Arbitrarily picking one statistic like quantity of a single line, tells us absolutely nothing about the overall set of products, nor other factors such as quality. This is basic statistics, barely even high school stuff. The fact remains that unless you can do a drastically fuller study than this then you're merely speculating and insisting your speculation is established fact, the fact you do that is precisely why you're entirely unable to comprehend the concept of someone holding an opposing viewpoint in good faith.
    davee123 said:
    If that's the case, I would probably drop the point about production capacity, because it's largely unfounded.
    Except it's not, because once again, it's something that's been admitted by Lego on numerous occasions (I've already provided one source), and that you yourself admitted is present. You merely pointed out that you believe the problem was small, verging on negligible - the fact that there's any inkling of the issue existing is still sufficient for people to have concern, no matter how much you may try and insist they should believe otherwise. For people to not have that concern there has to be absolutely no doubt whatsoever that a new line isn't going to have any impact on Lego's ability to continue to churn out existing lines in sufficient quantity and quality, that's not a doubt anyone here can absolutely remove given TLG's past comments on the issue, no matter how much they may wish to pretend they can.
    davee123 said:
    Wait, what?  Me, specifically?  What did I personally say that made you think I was entrenched, or unwilling to back down?
    The simple fact that you wrote a very long post largely agreeing with me, whilst being unwilling to just say "I agree, but I'm not sure people should be concerned it's a bit enough problem to matter" instead basically saying "I don't agree" despite posting to the contrary was a pretty good pointer. That's what people always do when they were so hasty to reply they missed the fact they weren't actually too far removed in viewpoint from the person they're purportedly arguing against, but are so entrenched that they can't face giving even an inch in a discussion so completely miss that fact. If you weren't so defensively entrenched in your viewpoint, it would've been pretty obvious that you weren't really disagreeing with me on particularly very much at all despite proclaiming otherwise.
    davee123 said:
    Personally, that's what I'm interested in-- I want to understand the viewpoints.  And if I think they're unfounded, I'll try to explain why I think so.  But otherwise, if it's purely subjective, I want to find out what specifically people find objectionable, because it helps me understand what's going on.
    Well good luck with that, if someone like myself who doesn't really sit on one side of the debate or the other can't come and try and explain why some people may be pissed off, and similarly point out why I can see that people who love mini-dolls are happy then you have shit all luck about getting that out of someone that really is pissed off about the situation. No one who really is pissed off about it is likely to jump into such a discussion where they'll get shouted down in an instant for daring to dissent. I recall a survey on Brickset a couple of years back with a non-negligible number of people stating people don't like participating in the forums or similar because of precisely this kind of attitude. Is it really any wonder why they gave that feedback? It hasn't changed, that much is clear.

    All you're all really creating here is an echo chamber where you just agree with each other and can't accept even the slightest amount of dissenting viewpoint, that's fine if that's what you want, but stop pretending it's about creating anything other than that if that's the case. That doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the OP's post where they were asking people to respect each others opinions, and it certainly doesn't give those arguing here on the pro mini-doll side of the argument the moral high ground they've so far been proclaiming that they have.
    Who is making it personal now? Attack the view and back it with data. That is how arguments are non personal. Yet you have clearly taken the opposite approach. If you want to go through the data I posted and decide that certain sets don't count, that's fine. Yet for every micro fighters set you remove, a friends animals set could be removed from the count of sets that are taking away from the production of minifigure sets.
    TheBigLegoskistlux
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,142
    I'll also add that if microfighters and similar sets are so meaningless, then it is probably those sets that UCS fans should be against, not minidolls. After all, those are the sets are padding out the SW line, taking up SW shelf space.
  • TheBigLegoskiTheBigLegoski Amsterdam, NederlandMember Posts: 1,399
    Wow, this topic has all of a sudden taken a vitriolic turn for the worse!
    Jern92
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    Xefan said:
    For anyone wanting decent Star Wars or Super Heroes UCS or UCS scale sets this year it's been a complete flop. 

    I think even the Disney Castle was a dissappointment, when you compare it side by side against the GBHQ the GBHQ is a drastically better set with drastically better value for money.

    These are subjective opinions that not everyone will agree with.  Personally, I agree with you in regards to SW and Super Heroes UCS sets, but disagree on GBHQ vs Disney castle.

    On topic, even if we decide these opinions are shared by a majority of people what do they have to do with minidoll themes?  There is no causal relationship between producing minidoll sets and then subsequently producing what some consider to be lackluster large D2C sets. There isn't a shared designer pool, or production SKU slots being diverted.  This would be like saying your dinner last night was bad because your neighbor ate breakfast.  There is no relationship between the two things.
    stlux
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    Xefan said:
    but similarly I also sympathise with those who are disappointed.

    People will still have legitimate reasons to dislike this move whether you wish to accept it or not. As I say I'm glad some people have a cool new thing to play with - it's always a nice feeling, but I also feel for those who are disappointed too. Even if you disagree, telling people they shouldn't be disappointed because you're right and that's that isn't going to magically stop them being disappointed, so it's a fools errand regardless.
    In order to have legitimacy to such disappointment, there has to be something that was "lost".  What did minifig fans lose because Super Hero Girls (the comment sections that started all this) was produced?  These would never have been produced as MiniFig sets under any scenario, nor has the introduction of this theme result in few DC Superhero MiniFig sets (7 in 2013, 7 in 2014, 8 in 2015, 15 in 2016). Nor are those 15 sets difficult to acquire in the marketplace, so capacity is not an issue.

    I can be disappointed that the sun isn't Green, but that would be pretty irrational wouldn't it?  If people go through life being disappointed because they had an irrational and unrealistic expectation to begin with, that's on them.
    stlux
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    Xefan said:

    the scale of reduction it causes to other sets doesn't matter, the point is you've accepted in your description the situation TLG are in, and whilst you may think any issues arising from that are inconsequential, you haven't accept that others disagree.
    If others want to disagree by making these assertions, then they need to produce evidence that supports these claims if they want to be taken seriously. We still haven't seen any such evidence produced. Until then, it just comes across as unfounded fear of some hypothetical thing that might happen but hasn't yet.
    Xefan said:


    but you may also be wrong and their product lines may be effected - whoever is right on that doesn't matter, what matters is that some people will perceive a new line, or new set of figures as a problem, even if some don't.
    I can perceive that the sun is green. it doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong I suppose.
    Xefan said:


    different people have different opinions, and there's nothing provably wrong with those with concerns about mini-dolls
    Actually, it is pretty easy to prove whether or not the presence of minidoll themes has had an impact on the number of minifig sets released and/or the general availability of those sets. Thus far, all available evidence suggests there has been no negative impact to minifig themes. Design quality is a different argument, and a largely subjective one, so I would agree with you that that point cannot be "proven" either way.
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,823
    CCC said:

    The only anti-minidoll view I can really understand is that if they didn't do minidolls and still wanted to appeal to girls, then they might produce more girl focused minifigure sets. So sets like the pink suitcase, Friends style but with minifigs instead of dolls. That would give minifigure fans more variety in minifigures (ie. more females). Although the CMF line has been producing a good number of female minifigures in good outfits for Lego City civilians, so again there is much better variety than there used to be.
    Yep, the number of female characters in actual City sets has also substantially increased since Friends came out, which is probably comforting to people who worried that Friends and other girl-oriented themes would be used as an excuse for making the gender ratios in boy-oriented themes even more out-of-balance.
    dougtsstluxcatwrangler
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,142
    ^ Yes, and it is pleasing to see they are not just cops but robbers too, not always dressed in pink but also gardeners and painters like in Fun in the Park, etc.
    AanchirstluxcatwranglerDontcopythatfloppy
  • datsunrobbiedatsunrobbie West Haven , CTMember Posts: 1,505
    Unless someone is actually privy to the decision-making process at LEGO corporate they can do nothing more than speculate about it. Chima, Bionicle, and Mixels are either gone or on their way out, and new sets will take their place.
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 12,349
    @dougts ate my lunch.  Therefore his couch is old.  Minidolls come from recycled My Little Ponies that @Pitfall69 has used up from over-sniffing.
    dougtsBumblepantscatwranglerTheOriginalSimonB
  • davee123davee123 USAMember Posts: 810
    Aanchir said:
    Yep, the number of female characters in actual City sets has also substantially increased since Friends came out, which is probably comforting to people who worried that Friends and other girl-oriented themes would be used as an excuse for making the gender ratios in boy-oriented themes even more out-of-balance.
    I know I was also curious whether or not Friends sets would impact City sets back when they launched, or the Creator sets that had just started featuring houses with minifigs (which were much more day-in-the-life than City stuff, and more on par with Friends).

    But since then, it seems like we may have actually gotten more stuff from the Creator lineup that could be seen as competing with Friends, like (say) the Corner Deli.  Apparently LEGO seems to view them as totally distinct, which I guess is a relief!

    I do sorta wonder whether they'll continue to put out occasional female DC Super Heroes as minifigs, now that they've got mini-doll versions.  Will those be seen as competing, or will they just go ahead and make both lineups co-exist with the same characters in both formats?  (I guess they sorta did that with some of the Disney Princesses in the Collectible Figures)

    Anyway, so far I've been pretty pleasantly surprised with their offerings as far as they relate to mini-dolls.

    DaveE
    stlux
  • BumblepantsBumblepants DFWMember Posts: 6,036
    In the upcoming Batman movie line we have already seen Barbara Gordon, Harleen Quinzel, Bat Girl, Poison Ivy, Kabuki Twins, and Catwoman as minifigs. Once the remaining sets and CMF line are revealed that list will almost certainly be much longer. The 2017 wave of DC female minfigures is going to greatly exceed any previous year and it won't even be close. These will be launching at pretty much the same time as the DC minidolls line. 
    stluxdougtscatwrangler
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 18,142
    davee123 said:

    I do sorta wonder whether they'll continue to put out occasional female DC Super Heroes as minifigs, now that they've got mini-doll versions.  Will those be seen as competing, or will they just go ahead and make both lineups co-exist with the same characters in both formats?

    I don't see why they wouldn't put female characters in DC SH as minifigures, where it makes sense. After all, they are characters in DC Comics and they should absolutely be there. And they are also characters in the DC Super Heroes Girls series (aimed at a different market to DC Comics) and so should be in those sets.

    DC doesn't remove them from the DC storylines just because they are in DC SH Girls, so lego shouldn't either.
    stluxcatwranglerdougtsDontcopythatfloppy
  • RedbullgivesuwindRedbullgivesuwind Brickset's Secret HeadquatersMember Posts: 1,805
    Wow, this topic has all of a sudden taken a vitriolic turn for the worse!

    Nah, it is just the sexual tension between CCC and Xefan
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.