LEGO and me (aka. Why am I writing this?)
I am a big LEGO fan, and have been since I was two years old, when I got my very first LEGO set, the little 6643 “Fire Chief’s Truck”. (I had had some Duplo before, but I don’t remember it that much for obvious reasons)
That was in 1991. From that moment my LEGO collection grew constantly, ranging from the classic LEGOLAND city theme, later to Ice Planet 2002 (I know, it sounds funny now in 2006), Aquanauts, of course some pirates, trains, … Later I got into Technic, and on Christmas of 2001 I received my first Mindstorms robot, followed quickly by another one on my birthday.
All this time I have been following the evolution of LEGO. And I must say I’ve definitely seen an evolution, but mostly not for good.
Next, I list some of the aspects that I think have led to a decrease of popularity and profit of The LEGO Company (we all know it has had some economical problems) and of which I feel we would be better off without them.
Simplification and specialization
Remember LEGO sets a few years ago. You had bricks and plates in lots of sizes and colors, but all followed a very concise scheme. There were some special parts as windows, hinges, steering wheels,… but everything was clear. They were suitable for any kid beyond the Duplo phase and anything was possible.
Some time later (around 1997) a group of sets appeared named “modular building”, and together with these systems came a new kind of bricks. They were huge bricks that had more or less defined functions. There were plates which already hat two wheel axles attached, very large windows, etc. This also was cool because you could create much more stylish buildings and vehicles (just look at the pictures), and build them a lot faster, too.
But when I first saw the new car chassis of the 6554 “Blaze Brigade” (2nd picture of fire station) I noticed something was wrong. I instantly hated the way the wheels where attached. They looked totally out of place. And the tiny bridges between the modules looked more than flimsy. Later models look more solid, but the new chassis might not be everyone’s favorite. And all those new bricks with predefined functions allow less flexibility when designing invented models. And exactly that problem, parts specialization, is what is affecting newer models more and more. They look great when building the model from the instruction booklet, but often, nothing more can be built with them; look at the 7893 airplane for example. And in my opinion that goes against the philosophy of LEGO and what makes it so special.
Less studs and more rounded corners
It became too apparent on the new Mindstorms NXT systems, but it already was there long before: studless building is being employed more and more in newer Technic models. Again, this might not be a bad thing. It does have advantages over normal Technic beams (especially when using gears) and is very robust, but it is much harder to master than “normal” stud-on-stud building, and might scare or frustrate especially younger [potential] LEGO maniacs.
Of course the trend towards studless Technic building, can also be seen not as a departure of LEGO standards, but as an evolution of those very standards. This is a subjective opinion that depends on every reader. I myself still feel more comfortable using studs, but I also hope I’ll be able to experiment a little more with studless building soon.
Another thing that struck me when seeing some newer developments from LEGO was the use of rounded corners (look at the comparison pictures between old and new light sensors). Using that specific example: It is easy to see that the new sensor is much harder to integrate into any model. The old one can be used as a standard LEGO brick (because that’s what it is) and can be integrated into Technic constructions (be it stud or studless constructions) with ease. Not just the NXT robots, but all the new vehicles, buildings, … look much sleeker but basically once again, these factors make LEGO look less and less like LEGO.
Harry Potter, Star Wars, NBA & Co.
I basically like the idea that LEGO combines, say, its LEGO Studio line with Spider Man and that it uses the great success of Star Wars to sell, but it’s the way they do it I don’t agree with completely. First, and adding this to the “specialization” aspect, they have created a separate minifig face for each character, sometimes even hairstyles etc. (LEGO has been increasing the number of minifig faces every year, remember the times where all guys and girls looked the same, with the “standard grin pattern”?) I can still understand it when kids like to replay scenes from the movies or play with the hero of their favorite series (Bob the Builder,…). But that’s not all…
What really shocked me was when they introduced PINK minifigs for these commercial themes. I bet nothing deprives LEGO of its own personality more than losing the yellow little guys that have accompanied us for so long. This reminds me of MEGA BLOKS and others of the kind... How many skin tones do you think LEGO will create to stay “politically correct”? Please help me!!
The sports themes are another questionable thing (for me). I don’t imagine many people actually playing soccer, basketball or snowboarding with them, using some transparent sticks or shooters holding the minifigs. And even this is being transformed to “real life” stuff with real NBA players getting their own custom minifig, etc.
Pink worlds
I’m a guy, so I can’t entirely judge this, but why does even LEGO have to make everything pink to make it attractive to girls? Does it really have such an effect on them? In my opinion they could just as well build houses, and all the other things we see in Belville, Scala, … in the same way they build them “for boys”, because these are actually very neutral (except maybe for the large percentage of male population in LEGO cities; I don’t know much about LEGO demographics. But this could be fixed very easily).
Then come the levels of LEGOsity of these themes. The old Paradisa still employed normal minifigs and was 100% compatible with everything else. The next step was Belville, introducing larger figs with more moving parts, and very similar to other doll houses around. Scala completely got rid of LEGO studs and anything recognizable, it could just as well pass as a “normal” toy. Same with ClickIts, which do not deserve any more space in this review.
Collecting is everything: Bionicle Actually, this was not the first LEGO line inspired by the thought. The 1999 Throwbots/Slizers were 8 (later even more) models that ruled a fictitious bizarre world of weird monsters and whose only purpose was to compete against each other. The RoboRiders followed, and the collection craze reached its peak with the introduction of Bionicle, with those interchangeable masks that (apparently) have changed the world. A quick search at peeron.com (LEGO inventories) for “Bionicle” returned 183 sets as a result. Do you see any real difference between the models? Any improvement, or some sense whatsoever to these creatures? I don’t. And I can’t believe they’ve made three movies about this. OK, the ball-joints are a nice thing, but other than that…
Other things
Some other things I consider complete disasters for LEGO are the Jack Stone and Dino themes. Argh! At least Jack Stone is gone now (what kind of Minifigs where those, anyway?)… I’ve never liked the “Thomas and Friends” talking trains either, but that is, again, my own opinion.
What this article is intended to do
It is easier to say what it is NOT intended to do.
I am not trying to create a comprehensive history of The LEGO Company, or analyze every possible aspect of it. It’s not supposed to be a 100% objective essay on LEGO. It includes the aspects I consider most important on the negative evolution of LEGO. I am not saying everything is horrible and I hate LEGO. In fact, I love LEGO and think there have been a lot of great developments (think “click-hinges”, Mindstorms, …) and I respect LEGO for that.
The article is merely to express my personal concern on some aspects of this toy. I hope I am not the only one who thinks this way, but I am sure there are people who don’t. Some may find I am too nostalgic, “old-school”, pessimistic and not open for new stuff. That is not true, but this article focuses on that nostalgic and pessimistic side I have.
If you would like to say something about this article, you have a number of options. Just click here!
I am open for both positive and negative comments, as long as they're useful in some way. It is no use saying “I hate you and your article and everything about it”. You should at least explain why. Thank you. :-)
It became too apparent on the new Mindstorms NXT systems, but it already was there long before: studless building is being employed more and more in newer Technic models. Again, this might not be a bad thing. It does have advantages over normal Technic beams (especially when using gears) and is very robust, but it is much harder to master than “normal” stud-on-stud building, and might scare or frustrate especially younger [potential] LEGO maniacs.
Another thing that struck me when seeing some newer developments from LEGO was the use of rounded corners (look at the comparison pictures between old and new light sensors). Using that specific example: It is easy to see that the new sensor is much harder to integrate into any model. The old one can be used as a standard LEGO brick (because that’s what it is) and can be integrated into Technic constructions (be it stud or studless constructions) with ease. Not just the NXT robots, but all the new vehicles, buildings, … look much sleeker but basically once again, these factors make LEGO look less and less like LEGO.
I basically like the idea that LEGO combines, say, its LEGO Studio line with Spider Man and that it uses the great success of Star Wars to sell, but it’s the way they do it I don’t agree with completely. First, and adding this to the “specialization” aspect, they have created a separate minifig face for each character, sometimes even hairstyles etc. (LEGO has been increasing the number of minifig faces every year, remember the times where all guys and girls looked the same, with the “standard grin pattern”?) I can still understand it when kids like to replay scenes from the movies or play with the hero of their favorite series (Bob the Builder,…). But that’s not all…
What really shocked me was when they introduced PINK minifigs for these commercial themes. I bet nothing deprives LEGO of its own personality more than losing the yellow little guys that have accompanied us for so long. This reminds me of MEGA BLOKS and others of the kind... How many skin tones do you think LEGO will create to stay “politically correct”? Please help me!!
Actually, this was not the first LEGO line inspired by the thought. The 1999 Throwbots/Slizers were 8 (later even more) models that ruled a fictitious bizarre world of weird monsters and whose only purpose was to compete against each other. The RoboRiders followed, and the collection craze reached its peak with the introduction of Bionicle, with those interchangeable masks that (apparently) have changed the world. A quick search at peeron.com (LEGO inventories) for “Bionicle” returned 183 sets as a result. Do you see any real difference between the models? Any improvement, or some sense whatsoever to these creatures? I don’t. And I can’t believe they’ve made three movies about this. OK, the ball-joints are a nice thing, but other than that…
Some other things I consider complete disasters for LEGO are the Jack Stone and Dino themes. Argh! At least Jack Stone is gone now (what kind of Minifigs where those, anyway?)… I’ve never liked the “Thomas and Friends” talking trains either, but that is, again, my own opinion.
Red