Please refrain from posting animated GIFs, memes, joke videos and so on in discussions other than those in the off topic area.

Dismiss this message to confirm your acceptance of this additional forum term of use.
You must be 16 or over to participate in the Brickset Forum. Please read the announcements and rules before you join.

Your pet peeves that most people love

The premise of this thread is: What trends in Lego's design seem to be popular and well-liked, but you personally dislike?

I'll go first: I really don't like when a minifigure's print goes from torso to hips to legs. I love Lego for its modularity, and so I want legs and torsos that are individually complete and cohesive, so I can mix and match at liberty. But if you have a longcoat that crosses over, suddenly neither part is very usable outside the context of the other. They may look nice, but if they only work in one combination, they're not all that useful to me.

What does Lego do as a matter of course these days, that is popular but displeases you?
Bumblepantssnowhitiecatwrangler
«1

Comments

  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,101
    Mine is the same as yours. I was complaining about this five years ago!

    http://bricksetforum.com/discussion/comment/112534#Comment_112534

    Also, some of the prints don't align to well. I think I went through four or five Saruman dress slopes until I got one that aligned well with the creases in the robes in the torso.
  • OldfanOldfan Chicagoland, IL, USAMember Posts: 568
    I'm going to get lots of disagreement with this one, but here goes:

    Too much "individuality" in minifigures.

    I get it for licensed themes like Star Wars and super heroes; you want the minis to look like the characters they're modeling, so by all means have individual faces, hair pieces, etc. But for the common themes like City, etc., why does every mini in every set seem to need a new face print, hair piece, torso, etc.?  Looking back through history, the same 20 torsos, 15 legs, and 10 hair pieces/hats could be used to create many many different figures while still avoiding the appearance of the same clone figure used over and over (a la Classic Space--not that there's anything wrong with that...).  Now over the past 5 years or so, it seems it's hard to find a single part that's been used more than 5 times, as all the new sets seem to need new hair pieces, new facial prints, new torsos, etc.

    I'm the old guy in the room who though it was just fine to have the generic smiley-face minifigures populating my town.  And I know it was my beloved SW license (and others) that opened the gates for a wider variety of prints, hair styles, etc.  I just think it's getting out of hand, and I have to believe it contributes (however slightly) to the costs of producing the sets (and thus to RRP).  And of course, identifying and classifying individual minifig parts is now much more difficult as the number of printed variants increases exponentially from year to year.

    That said, as a fan of certain lego-based webcomics, I admit it's nice to have the various facial expressions available for the authors.  But even then, clever positioning and camera angles can be used to deal with a limited amount of facial diversity (and those same comics do that, too!).  And really, the differences only matter if you're viewing your little guys/gals close-up or in pictures; if you display your Lego sets in real life, the larger the display, the farther away from your minis you will be, and the less important miniscule facial expression differences become to the audience of that display.

    I'm probably in the minority, but that's what this thread is all about!  Thanks for the opportunity to rant a little...
    CCCmak0137sid3windrmadforLEGOcatwranglerGame_onbildaScogali
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,101
    ^ I'm in part agreement with you. I like the fact that we get variation and a little bit more realism (I'm not a fan of the classic smily face) but it is near impossible to sort out heads if you want to sell them, especially those from CMFs, if they have been removed from the correct torsos. Having maybe 20 different yellow heads for each of males and females would be ideal as a regular palette of faces. Then when they are meant to be unique, make them truly unique but where they are so similar to an existnig one just use a standard palette one.

    I'd also like to see a lot of the existing torso designs reappear but in different colours. That gives some consistency while allowing for variation. So we have things like the green outfit for the CMF actor, re-done in dk red for Shakespeare, why not redo it in other colours too. This gives variation between groups or factions while keeping them in the same type of uniform or outfit.

    And while I am at that, I'm not fan of nametags on City folk, especially prevalent in the CMF. Who cares if the Diner Waitress is called Tara or the Constable is no 1337 or Galaxy Patrol is called Luiz. These small details prevent reuse of multiple torsos with different heads and hair.

    And a major bugbear of mine, the use of yellow or fleshie printing on torsos where it is not really needed. So that constable CMF really doesn't need the tiniest piece of yellow on his neck line (he should have a white shirt on anyway), as the torso cannot be used for a fleshie figure. Loads have this sort of unecessary detail on, removing it wouldn't detract from the figure. Obviouly if it is a shirtless figure or a dress has a plunging neckline it is necessary to show the flesh colour, but when it is so tiny, don't do it LEGO!
    BumblepantsOldfancatwranglerbilda
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,313
    I guess my big one is that I'm not a big fan of traditional baseplates, let alone raised ones. I feel like they're needlessly specialized and encourage builders to construct things in a rather formulaic grid layout with straight edges, which works for some builds like modern cities but can look boring or even downright awkward for things like a medieval village.

    Many other AFOLs seem bothered by the way some modern sets might have be built on separate plates that "float" independently, but I find that this is very freeing and makes it easier to display models in an aesthetically pleasing way. Some great examples are #10193, #10217, and #41176. I've seen all of these sets forced into parallel or perpendicular arrangements, and it never looks nearly as nice as the more freeform arrangements on the box art. As far as rebuilding is concerned, normal plates are much more intuitive to use for parts of a build other than a base, their less flexible shape makes parts less likely to pop up when moving a build from one place to another, and having connections both on top and underneath makes it much easier to reinforce a model that spans multiple plates.

    While a lot of AFOLs yearn for baseplates to come back in more sets, I'd actually like to see the shift towards regular plates go further, perhaps with the introduction of a newer and more versatile road system that liberates cities from flat, repetitive 16x16 grid layouts.
    SirBrickalotOfLegoCCCbeemocatwrangler
  • AanchirAanchir United StatesMember Posts: 2,313
    Oh, a side note about that which I forgot to mention… I don't know if I'll ever understand why so many AFOLs seem to hate BURPs/mountain bricks and wall panels but love raised baseplates. I guess a big part of it is pure nostalgia, but even so, there's so much more that you can DO with mountain bricks! Most mountain bricks are fully studded, making them more versatile than the smooth slopes of a raised baseplate, and have a considerable advantage over even identical rock faces made from basic bricks in that they have more usable space behind the cliff face. With raised baseplates, on the other hand, most of the negative space behind the cliff face is wasted on big empty air pockets underneath the base, where there are no connection points. While a big rock wall of just mountain bricks doesn't tend to look good, even actual sets tend to use them a lot more creatively than that.

    It will always be bewildering to me how many AFOLs decry "juniorization" in modern sets, yet admire sets like #6276 where one giant, super-specialized piece made up what must be around 30% of the set's overall volume!
    SirBrickalotOfLegoBumblepantsCCCsid3windrbeemoCaptainLegoTechnicNickcatwranglerbilda
  • DB361DB361 UKMember Posts: 90
    Another minifig one for me, and already slightly touched upon but for me specifically it's flesh minifigs. There was absolutely nothing wrong with just yellow - even in a lot of the licenced sets (e.g. the early Harry Potter) yellow worked fine. I can understand the difficulties and the sensitivity of the topic when it comes to race, but lets be honest, lego coped for donkeys years with only yellow minifigs, why then go and introduce ones that just don't go with them?
    datsunrobbiebilda
  • ShibShib UKMember Posts: 4,294
    edited October 26
    ^Lando Calrissian - as soon as they established that yellow minifigs didn’t work for everyone there wasn’t much choice when the whole point was meant to be yellow to avoid portraying a specific race.
    CCCAanchirOldfanBumblepants
  • Toc13Toc13 Member Posts: 541
    Batman in everything. Superhero sets? Batman. Batman movie sets? Batman (unsurprisingly), CMFs? Batman.
    Interesting enough character but there really isn't a need for 53 variations.
    It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't for the fact that the time & money could be spent on characters that haven't yet appeared
    tallblocktooCaptainPirateMan
  • flakmaniakflakmaniak Member Posts: 50
    Mmm, that baseplate post is the kind of spicy opinion I started this thread for!

    I think you're actually right, even though I'm nostalgic for the raised baseplates of yore. (In fact, I'm ordering some of the ramp/pit ones right now.)

    Baseplates in general are a tough sell for me. Thing is, regardless of whether baseplates exist, we're gonna have big plates for various layers of buildings, etc. So given that we will have big plates anyway (even if only up to 16x16, which are easy enough to add together into even bigger formations), why should we have baseplates as well, an additional and incompatible standard?

    Because let's face it, if you have a model on a baseplate, and one on regular plates, you aren't going to put those next to one another. You would want their bases to match in terms of height, not to be offset by that less-than-a-plate amount.

    So in the "baseplates exist" world, we have two different standards running around, each lowering the number of the other that get produced. They're competing for production/set space. Where clearly we should want one unified standard that gets all the support and attention. I would trade away all the regular, non-raised baseplates for equivalent area of 16x16 plates. (Well, easy for me to say since I'm not a city-builder and thus have no attachment to road plates.)

    And yes, I think it's fair to call the old raised baseplates "juniorized". I like them, but I won't dispute that characterization.

    (As for the issue of large rock pieces... I like those AND raised baseplates, so at least I'm not a hypocrite on this issue, even if I will admit that both are stupid in some ways, while very nice in others.)
    catwrangler
  • ShibShib UKMember Posts: 4,294
    I wouldn’t so much call this a pet peeve but definitely an opinion I often feel goes against the AFOL norm... Bigger sets are not always better.

    I often get told that I’d be better off buying one modular than the dozen smaller sets for the same price but I just don’t see it that way. I’m not saying that the modulate aren’t impressive or don’t have interesting build techniques, it’s just they are wrapped up in so much more straight stacking of bricks than smaller sets.

    Also because it’s easier to get bigger discounts on smaller sets I find it so much better value having more smaller sets.


    One thing that definitely is a pet peeve with the LEGO world...when people use price per piece as the baseline for value. It’s such a bad measure of the value of a LEGO set and just frequently doesn’t work on so many levels but when a new set is announced it’s often one of the first comments.
    Brikkyy13catwrangler
  • willobee498willobee498 CanadalandMember Posts: 281
    Definitely agree on smaller sets often having better value as a whole. I love modulars, but the sets in the $20 to $40 dollar range are often a better overall package for the price.
    CaptainLego
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,101

    Baseplates in general are a tough sell for me. Thing is, regardless of whether baseplates exist, we're gonna have big plates for various layers of buildings, etc. So given that we will have big plates anyway (even if only up to 16x16, which are easy enough to add together into even bigger formations), why should we have baseplates as well, an additional and incompatible standard?

    Same for me. Baseplates are for making mosaics. For any real builds, I use plates. That way, I can make them any shape I like (as noted in @Aanchir's post). Using square plates with angled plates gives you almost completely free form shapes. Much better than the regular squares / rectangles that baseplates provide and cannot be added to at the same thickness.

    Shib said:
    I wouldn’t so much call this a pet peeve but definitely an opinion I often feel goes against the AFOL norm... Bigger sets are not always better.

    Another agreement :-) For example, while Helm's Deep was a fun build in LOTR, and Orthanc is very impressive, I quite like Gandalf Arrives and the Wizard Battle. And at the prices I paid for them (£6 and £5 respectively) they were bargains.
  • LegoFan1970LegoFan1970 Member Posts: 55
    Pet Peeves - any adds that includes the words "Lego Compatible" on sites like eBay
    sid3windrPeteMToc13M_BossTyresOFlaherty
  • scottdd2scottdd2 ADELAIDEMember Posts: 18

    For me it's the increasing size of wheels on some vehicles. They have 4x4s with bigger wheels than trucks.

    On the base plate issue, I have thought a base plates that is the thickness of standard plates would be good, you could still have varied sizes but I do like the multiple of 8 standard.


    sid3windrcatwranglerrdflego
  • flakmaniakflakmaniak Member Posts: 50
    Re: Smaller sets, I think compact models are often very good, but I wish I could get small models with the complexity/techniques of big sets. I remember when I was a kid I saw in a catalogue this tiny car thingy in some giant train set, and it looked awesome, way better than any small set of that size. Its techniques and part uses were much fancier. I didn't care for the train, but that little vehicle was really cool.

    Of course, "sets should be more complicated and use fancier building techniques" is not a controversial opinion here, and so perhaps it is not for this thread. :P
  • colaycolay OxfordshireMember Posts: 9
    Pet peeve. Ive loved Lego for a long time, but only recently started to do more with it and get involved with sites like this and YouTube. I came across a video of  lego fan, mocking youtube making videos of how ppl made videos or did their lego, like he was the Lego god and things must be done how he says. He also mocked ppl for sharing tips about things that may well have been known in Lego circles for years. But, guess what arrogant genius, some people may be new to lego and making their own MOCs etc and might not know stuff, so whats wrong with them sharing thier views/ideas/thoughts on what they didnt know, with others? So, my peeve is ppl who try to tell others how their lego should be used, displayed, played with, made, video'd etc etc. Of course, all feedback and comments an opinions are the right of the individual, but I always thought, if you dont like someone elses view/video/opinion, stop watching or listening, or you're only there to be argumentative! :)

    Hope that makes sense
    beemoAddicted2OxygenMaffyDTechnicNickcatwrangler
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,101
    ^ Some of them can be quite funny and are fairly obvious jokes. Like these ones:





    Sometimes people do go on and on about how they discovered something new and awesome, like using the stud on the side of a SNOT brick to build sideways (I think that is joked about in one of the above videos), because no-one ever thought of it and lego didn't even realise either and that they have turned this annoying brick that had an odd stud on the side into something useful.
  • mak0137mak0137 VirginiaMember Posts: 82
    Lego using two pieces where one can be used in various sets.
  • CyberdragonCyberdragon Maryland, U.S.AMember Posts: 64
    mak0137 said:
    Lego using two pieces where one can be used in various sets.
    I think they do this on purpose sometimes, such as in the Saturn V where they want exactly 1969 pieces.
  • Bludchylde1Bludchylde1 Member Posts: 22
    Shib said:
    One thing that definitely is a pet peeve with the LEGO world...when people use price per piece as the baseline for value. It’s such a bad measure of the value of a LEGO set and just frequently doesn’t work on so many levels but when a new set is announced it’s often one of the first comments.
    This. This is my Lego pet peeve. I as an adult play with my Lego. I don't have means to display anything at the moment because my 2 year old can reach any shelves I have available, but I can still build and play with the sets a bit and disassemble them when the kids are in bed.

    To me, whether it looks like I would enjoy building and playing with the set are what is important to me. Couldn't care about potential resale value, how rare the set is or what the price per piece is. The other problem I have with price per piece, is that if you take 2 sets side by side, similar price, similar parts count but one set has more larger pieces than the other (BURPs, doors, wall pieces). Technically the price per piece works out to be roughly the same, but which set really has more value per piece?
    MattPetersenToc13catwrangler
  • YodaliciousYodalicious DagobahMember Posts: 1,278
    I’m not much of a Technic fan, so when there’s an abundance of Technic in a standard set, it bugs me. I completely understand it’s for structural integrity and some sets just wouldn’t work without it, but it’s just not my thing. It’s also where my son quickly becomes disinterested when building. Of course, he’s only 5. 

    (This all said by someone who owns almost all of the Star Wars buildable characters. Not technically Technic, but close enough.)
    Tkatt
  • MeganLMeganL California, USAMember Posts: 48
    CM4S said:
    Wow, nobody?

    Alright, I'll say it.

    Complaining about stickers. 

    I just do not care when people complain about stickers. They're really not an issue. I try to put one on the best I can and if it's a little misaligned, oh well. Darn. Next step! Don't care if they're in the Falcon, Cloud City, or flippin Death Star, I don't care. 
    Oddly enough, this is somewhat of a relief for me to read.  I don't mind stickers (except when there's too many).  When I build a set for review that includes stickers, I feel some kind of pressure to make sure they're on properly because I'll be taking pictures of it later.  My own perspective is that I try my best, but don't sweat it if they're not perfect.

    But I have been known to try to reapply stickers a time or two....
    CM4Sbeemo
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,101
    CM4S said:
    Wow, nobody?

    Alright, I'll say it.

    Complaining about stickers. 

    I just do not care when people complain about stickers. They're really not an issue. I try to put one on the best I can and if it's a little misaligned, oh well. Darn. Next step! Don't care if they're in the Falcon, Cloud City, or flippin Death Star, I don't care. 
    What if LEGO decide not to print any more parts? Instead of printed minifigures, you just get torso stickers. No more printed parts, just stickers.

    The other problem I have with price per piece, is that if you take 2 sets side by side, similar price, similar parts count but one set has more larger pieces than the other (BURPs, doors, wall pieces). Technically the price per piece works out to be roughly the same, but which set really has more value per piece?
    The answer to the last question is that it depends on the person. BURPS, doors and wall pieces (panels?) are completely useless and thus little value to some people if they prefer to use only smaller parts for their builds. Whereas to a child or someone wanting to build an expanse quickly, they may be more useful and hence better value than a small part.

    I don't think may people really use just the price per part as a decider when buying a set. If they did, the only to sets that sold would be the bucket style classic sets.
    CaptainLego
  • CaptainLegoCaptainLego FloridaMember Posts: 149
    My pet peeve? When people say that the new Lego isn’t Lego-like because of the more specialized pieces like fenders or because it’s not simple anymore. This is mainly related to Town stuff. I have not seen this sentiment on here, but, I have seen it on both Reddit and especially YouTube. I haven’t actually seen fenders mentioned, but, I’m going to use it as my example.

    Look, I get it. A lot of people have fond memories of classic Lego. I myself wish Lego would bring back Space and Adventures as seperate themes and would “modernize” Classic Town sets in City, but, take off the nostalgia goggles, and I think you’ll be able to see how silly such statements are. How is a fender or cockpit piece not Lego-like when in the late 90s, the Town stuff was becoming extremely simple with that one piece chassis with the axles? At least those newer pieces add to the astethics, but, that Creator shuttle does show that Lego designers can still do a great job without that cockpit piece. Furthermore, simple=/=better. There are still sets that qualify as simple. Not every set is a modular or a Technic Porsche 911.

    Lego is still Lego. Kids still enjoy them. Adults still enjoy them. There were great sets back then. There are great sets now. All of them still offer a genuine building experience. This is why I like Jang. He still has nostalgia, but, he can also see when something older doesn’t look as good as something newer.




    CM4SBumblepantsstluxsid3windrLostInTranslationAanchircatwranglerdutchlegofan50
  • CM4SCM4S United StatesMember Posts: 1,137
    Oh and how could I forget :P


    “Where is Classic Space? When will we get more classic castle?? Where are my cowboys!!!”

    It’s been now proven that they don’t sell well with kids as much as they used to. It’s not the 80s anymore, those days are over!! They’re not coming back. Monorails too. Kids these days love technology and stuff.
    ShibBumblepantsstluxCapnRex101LostInTranslationSirBrickalotOfLegoCaptainLego
  • CaptainLegoCaptainLego FloridaMember Posts: 149
    Honestly, I think a new space theme would do rather well if done right. It doesn’t have to be exactly like Classic Space to be good.
  • willobee498willobee498 CanadalandMember Posts: 281
    ^ Unfortunately the most recent space theme, Galaxy Squad, didn't seem to do too well, based on how sets have hung around for so long.
  • thedoctor46thedoctor46 UKMember Posts: 161
    When people refer to Lego as Legos 
    bookmumOldfanMaffyDLostInTranslationMAGNINOMINISUMBRAcatwranglergmonkey76
  • Mr_HobblesMr_Hobbles LondonMember Posts: 74
    All the Lego Super Heroes sets. They're all terrible. The minifigures are fine (even if I don't care much for most of the subjects) as I get they have value to both kids and collectors, but the builds are legitimately terrible.

    Examples: #76078, #76084, #76046.

    I look at these sets and laugh. The builds are comically bad. A mix of huge specialised parts and models that looks like...nothing whatsoever?!

    So yeah, Super Heroes sets are my pet peeve. :) Waste of talented design resources in my opinion.
    CM4STechnicNickJern92
  • dmcc0dmcc0 Nae far fae AberdeenMember Posts: 190
    Honestly, I think a new space theme would do rather well if done right. It doesn’t have to be exactly like Classic Space to be good.
    But Lego already has a classic space theme - it's called Star Wars!

    Seriously though, I think a homegrown Lego space theme these days probably wouldn't do well when up against Star Wars sets simply for the fact the ship/vehicles/characters are already familiar to most kids.  Which set would your sci fi loving 10-year-old self pick up in store? The generic spaceship with generic characters/aliens or the latest Star Wars set with vehicles and minifigs you recognise from the movie you just saw?

    This is probably the main reason that many of the recent Lego themes have had an accompanying TV show; so that kids can become familiar with the characters and will want the sets with characters/location/vehicles they recognise rather than just some generic theme.  I doubt Lego can produce a space theme/TV show to compete with the popularity of Star Wars and, to be honest, I doubt they'd want to as it would surely cannibalize sales of existing Star Wars sets.
    Toc13catwrangler
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,101
    I think a space theme designed now would have sold better than classic space sets if it was released in the 1980s.
    Shibcatwrangler
  • Speedman29Speedman29 Brickswell CloseMember Posts: 658
    When people refer to Lego as Legos 
    Surely thats just a peeve, I can't think of anyone that actually loves the word LEGOS !
    thedoctor46
  • CaptainLegoCaptainLego FloridaMember Posts: 149
    edited October 31
    dmcc0 said:
    Honestly, I think a new space theme would do rather well if done right. It doesn’t have to be exactly like Classic Space to be good.
    But Lego already has a classic space theme - it's called Star Wars!

    Seriously though, I think a homegrown Lego space theme these days probably wouldn't do well when up against Star Wars sets simply for the fact the ship/vehicles/characters are already familiar to most kids.  Which set would your sci fi loving 10-year-old self pick up in store? The generic spaceship with generic characters/aliens or the latest Star Wars set with vehicles and minifigs you recognise from the movie you just saw?

    This is probably the main reason that many of the recent Lego themes have had an accompanying TV show; so that kids can become familiar with the characters and will want the sets with characters/location/vehicles they recognise rather than just some generic theme.  I doubt Lego can produce a space theme/TV show to compete with the popularity of Star Wars and, to be honest, I doubt they'd want to as it would surely cannibalize sales of existing Star Wars sets.
    You think another Adventurers like theme is possible? I would love to see one, especially because the vintage style vehicles look really cool.

    I also wish Lego would release a set like Hot Rod Club in City. If not too expensive, I’d buy it. If there is one thing from Classic Town I would want to see, it would be some of those sets “modernized”. I really like a lot of the concepts behind those old sets. Heck, a new Diesel Daredevil would make for a great $10 set.
    catwrangler
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 1,808
    All the Lego Super Heroes sets. They're all terrible. The minifigures are fine (even if I don't care much for most of the subjects) as I get they have value to both kids and collectors, but the builds are legitimately terrible.

    Examples: #76078, #76084, #76046.

    I look at these sets and laugh. The builds are comically bad. A mix of huge specialised parts and models that looks like...nothing whatsoever?!

    So yeah, Super Heroes sets are my pet peeve. :) Waste of talented design resources in my opinion.


    Well... I agree with you somewhat, but you've only chosen one I'd agree with. The Hulk dune buggy set is ridiculous when you think about how fast the Hulk can run or jump compared to being in a car. And yes, I understand that She-hulk needs to keep up with him somehow, but an oversized quad bike is not the answer. Same for the Red versions.

    However, the other two sets recreate vehicles and scenes of movies that the sets are tied into. If you're not bothered by the movies, then I can see why they don't appeal to you, but they do look like their on-screen counterparts and I like the idea that I could have a collection of superhero vehicles that match the ones on the films I love. That the build is uninspired is arguably subjective, IMO.

    If you want really bad superhero sets, look to these:

    #76009 -  Superman: Black Zero Escape (minifigs, part of a spaceship and a pod)

    #76085 -  Battle of Atlantis (minifigs and 3 stacks of blocks - I own this one, just for the Aquaman minifig)

    #76002 -  Superman Metropolis Showdown (minifigs, a roadster and a bit of a roof - I own this one too, for Superman)

    #76008 -  Iron Man vs. The Mandarin: Ultimate Showdown (minifigs and some kind of tank - I own this one too... for... reasons...)

    #76041 -  The Hydra Fortress Smash (minifigs, the Hulk, an ATV and a bit of a castle - the only draw is Quicksilver, and even I didn't feel like getting the entire set just for him)

    #76037 -  Rhino and Sandman Super Villain Team-up (minifigs and some flimsy construction stuff)

    #76088 -  Thor vs. Hulk: Arena Clash (minifigs and a wall)

    #76082 -  ATM Heist Battle (minifigs and an ATM, yes really)

    You're welcome.

    stluxCaptainLegobandit778catwrangler
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 1,808
    ^^ Space theme coming next year for The Lego Movie Sequel - or so I heard.
    catwrangler
  • CyberdragonCyberdragon Maryland, U.S.AMember Posts: 64
    When people refer to Lego as Legos 
    Surely thats just a peeve, I can't think of anyone that actually loves the word LEGOS !
    Those of us that say "legos" can't help ourselves. It's a speech impediment inherited from our parents that said "legos". In fact, I'll return fire with my own peeve.

    Unopened box collectors! Yes, I know the box has value, but that doesn't mean you can't build the Lego! Unless you have already build that set before you're missing out on the experience! If the Lego inside had feelings it would feel unloved and neglected becuase no one wants to build it! So, yes, keep the box, but if you have the space, build the Lego!
    CaptainLegoSpeedman29Addicted2Oxygen
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,101
    Quite a few sealed box collectors buy two. One to build and one to retain as a sealed set.

    Or three, with the spare to sell. Or more, with all the spares to sell.

    MAGNINOMINISUMBRA
  • dmcc0dmcc0 Nae far fae AberdeenMember Posts: 190
    dmcc0 said:
    You think another Adventurers like theme is possible? I would love to see one, especially because the vintage style vehicles look really cool.

    The city sub-themes like Arctic, Jungle etc are almost a modern version of the Adventures theme, at least as far as the exploration element goes. Wouldn't surprise me to see a desert city sub-theme at some point in the future, would be ideal for the usual off road vehicles and treasure hunting that seem to be the norm in these themes.
    CaptainLegocatwrangler
  • CM4SCM4S United StatesMember Posts: 1,137
    Thanks for proving my point. :) 
    SirBrickalotOfLego
  • CaptainLegoCaptainLego FloridaMember Posts: 149
    dmcc0 said:
    dmcc0 said:
    You think another Adventurers like theme is possible? I would love to see one, especially because the vintage style vehicles look really cool.

    The city sub-themes like Arctic, Jungle etc are almost a modern version of the Adventures theme, at least as far as the exploration element goes. Wouldn't surprise me to see a desert city sub-theme at some point in the future, would be ideal for the usual off road vehicles and treasure hunting that seem to be the norm in these themes.
    Desert would be very fitting. Lots of real life cities have deserts around it.
    Aanchir
  • ecmo47ecmo47 North CarolinaMember Posts: 1,903
    The glee and delight that some fans have when the perceive that "evil re-sellers" and "scalpers" are getting their due (Taj re-release).  They completely do not understand the price of any object is set by the buyer, not the seller and that Lego is a luxury item, not a loaf of bread.  
    BumblepantsCCCdmcc0
  • bookmumbookmum londonMember Posts: 957
    Well I suppose I should say it - my peeve is those who say mini dolls are awful and the 'pink sets' are sexist. There we go. Let the debate begin..... 
    Addicted2OxygenstluxMaffyDAanchirToc13catwranglerrdflego
  • Jern92Jern92 MalaysiaMember Posts: 517
    ecmo47 said:
    The glee and delight that some fans have when the perceive that "evil re-sellers" and "scalpers" are getting their due (Taj re-release).  They completely do not understand the price of any object is set by the buyer, not the seller and that Lego is a luxury item, not a loaf of bread.  
    Ummm, how exactly are prices set by buyers? I can't exactly walk up to someone holding the Taj Mahal and offer to buy it for a dollar. Most sales of these items aren't auctions anyway; they're fixed offers.
    MattPetersen
  • YodaliciousYodalicious DagobahMember Posts: 1,278
    ^ Because the buyer makes the ultimate decision. The seller initially sets the price, but it doesn’t mean anyone’s has to buy it at that price. The buyer has to actually pay that amount. 

    You can definitely offer someone $1. They don’t have to take it, but you also don’t have to pay them whatever price they want. A set isn’t “worth” X dollars unless someone actually pays X dollars. 
    CCCBumblepantsbandit778dmcc0stluxAanchir
  • ShibShib UKMember Posts: 4,294
    The price is set by both the seller and the buyer- if the seller can’t get the price they want they don’t have to sell, if the buyer can’t get the price they want they don’t have to buy.

    The complication is that buyer and seller are both plural - which then gets into supply and demand, which makes neither feel like they have the power.
    catwrangler
  • PeteMPeteM Gallifrey (near Bristol)Member Posts: 304
    Minifigs - or more accurately the elevation of the minifigs over the actual Lego bricks!

    I get that they are an important part of the set, especially within licenced themes, but when a review of the set has four paragraphs listing every detail of each minifig and then basically ends with "and there were some bricks included too", it's just a jarring reminder that not everyone sees Lego the same way...

    This is exacerbated by some particularly poor sets from Lego (the Superhero sets mentioned above), but if the builds and parts are unexciting then I don't get how anyone can be bothered with them, no matter what characters are included (cf a lot of the LOTR/Hobbit 'bits of walls' sets).
    MaffyDTechnicNickLostInTranslationcatwrangler
  • YodaliciousYodalicious DagobahMember Posts: 1,278
    bookmum said:
    Well I suppose I should say it - my peeve is those who say mini dolls are awful and the 'pink sets' are sexist. There we go. Let the debate begin..... 
    I think mini dolls are awful, but not for any reasons that have anything to do with sexism. I just don’t like them. For me, it’s because of my love for the minifig. The minifig design has been around for my entire life and has been a big part of it. I love that all of these years later, my minifigs fit right in with my sons’ minifigs. I collect minifigs first and foremost. I have no problem with LEGO offering something different, but...to me...the mini doll isn’t different enough. It still it meant for standard LEGO bricks and pieces. The hands, head pieces, etc. So as a minifig person, I’ve always felt Friends, Elves, etc. could have also gone with minifigs. I get that they wanted to do something different and don’t necessarily have a problem with it overall, but I’m just not a fan. The one mini doll I have...Wonder Woman...is only in my collection because I wanted the invisible motorcycle, which my minifig Wonder Woman proudly rides.

    To me, mini dolls aren’t awful because of some bigger meaning; they’re just awful because I don’t like them compared to minifigs.
    arathemisBrickByBrickcatwrangler
  • CCCCCC UKMember Posts: 15,101
    PeteM said:

    This is exacerbated by some particularly poor sets from Lego (the Superhero sets mentioned above), but if the builds and parts are unexciting then I don't get how anyone can be bothered with them, no matter what characters are included (cf a lot of the LOTR/Hobbit 'bits of walls' sets).
    It isn't obvious to me, are you saying the "bits of walls" sets are bad or good, by saying to compare unexciting sets to them?

    I think these sets were mainly good sets. Uruk-Hai army - sold as an "army" pack hence the number of and focus on minifigures, still had a reasonably good piece of wall which is useful for anyone wanting to extend Helm's Deep in a simple way and a not too bad attack vehicle. Mirkwood Elf Army - again clearly an "army" pack from the name so the focus was going to be on the minifigures, with a reasonable bit of forest. The tree could have been better, but it is simple to add more leaves. Dol Guldur Ambush - the build was small, but no worse than many small city sets. I don't know if you include the two Laketown sets, Battle of Five Armies and Lonely Mountain in the "bits of walls" sets, same with Mines of Moria and even Helm's Deep. If so, these are not just walls. They are a backdrop that give an idea about location, but without making the set 5000+ parts pushing it out of the price range for many. Obviously being licensed with a film with a large key cast, they had to do all the company of dwarves, and many of the baddies too, so the focus has to be on the minifigures but I think they gave us decent scenery too but within reasonable set sizes to fit with price bands. There would have been outrage if they had only made half the dwarves but more detailed sets, for example. The sets are easy to extend / amend yourself if you want something more detailed. But if they missed out key characters, these are no so easy to make yourself.  Possibly the worst bit of wall set was the Battle of Five Armies. But there, I think people actually wanted less build and more battle. And five armies.


«1
Sign In or Register to comment.
Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy