Review: 40640 Nutcracker
Posted by Huw,
LEGO has made nutcracker figures that mimic the traditional carved wood ones in various sizes over the years, from the minifigure in series 23 collectable minifigures, to a huge Technic version given as a gift to employees in 2017 to celebrate the theme's 40th anniversary.
40640 Nutcracker is the latest one, which is now available at LEGO.com in Europe and will be released in North America on 1st October.
Summary
40640 LEGO Nutcracker, 208 pieces.
£10.99 / $12.99 / €12.99 | 5.3p/6.2c/6.2c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
A faithful LEGO reporoduction of the traditional nutcracker figure
- Two heads to choose from
- Female head doesn't look very feminine
- Blocky
The figure, which stands about 16cm tall, is attired in typical Nutcracker garb of ceremonial military uniform and top hat. The arms are attached by non-friction pins at the shoulder so can be moved, but not posed.
Like its wooden counterparts It has a lever at the back for opening its jaw.
You might just about be able to squash a peanut in it!
Instructions are provided for making two heads, one with sideburns and open eyes, and one with a different hairstyle and closed eyes.
I did not realise until I read the description at LEGO.com that this one is supposed to be female.
I think it looks a bit daft with closed eyes but of course you can swap them over.
Nutcrackers are not particularly popular or prevalent in the UK, but I suspect that in countries that they are this set will be well-received. At £10.99 / $12.99 it's reasonably priced, and a lot cheaper than some of the hand-carved wooden ones you can buy in Käthe Wohlfahrt.
76 likes
50 comments on this article
Maybe it's me but I don't like the look of this. It seems odd.
So I won't buy it and hope there's some better christmas sets coming this year.
Creepy as f*.
This just seems pretty significantly below the usual standard from Lego on these sets. Can't put my finger on it, it just seems rather...indiscernible.
That dark nougat looks odd for the skin color... Doesn't look very attractive at all.
Odd mismatch of standard and technic pieces. In fact its just an odd looking set, full stop.
Weird. The Brickheadz Nutcracker was much better looking, while still operational!
The shaping of the head, and to some extent the body, is too boxy. These are usually more cylindrical. And it should have been a white head to match the hands, or better still a much paler pink tone like a traditional one. Or if they wanted it to be darker skin, replace the white hands with dark nougat.
I love me a good nußknacker. Unfortunately this isn’t one.
@IgelCampus said:
"Definitely made for the Nightmare Edition. And good to know that even wooden christmas decoration is woke enough to have a switchable gender.
"
People like you go straight on my block list. Thanks Brickset for providing the functionality to block comments from certain users..
Just in time for Halloween, it appears.
So, does it crack any nuts?
(Screams)
There's kind of a standardized stereotype of nutcrackers in the U.S.: white hair, black hat, sort of looks like a British redcoat from the late 18th century. Of course nutcrackers are incredibly variable, but my brain is just thrown by how much this does *not* look like a one as I've grown up with it. The Brickheadz Nutcracker from a few years ago was much closer in style, even if the scale was way off.
Let it be said, that today, this very Ten and Eighth of Septembre be forever known as creepy LEGO figure day
Is this supposed to be a Christmas set, or something for Halloween?
The GWP version of roughly the same size from a couple of years ago (40254) looks much better imho.
Definitely not my favorite form of Lego Christmas Nutcracker--mostly because the mouth is far too narrow to accommodate most nuts, I think. Also, I'd much prefer black boots. I rather like the wrist ruffles and the hairstyle, but--this is not the nutcracker I am looking for.
+ For once the visible non-friction pins are in the correct colour.
- Arms could have easily been ajusted to hold at least hold a nut
Use https://brickset.com/parts/design-32039 for the hand and than https://brickset.com/parts/design-31838
I think the problem with this model is the combination of skin and hair color. If Lego is going for inclusivity in giving this model a different skin tone, that's fine and even desirable to me. But the hair color is a bizarre choice. Black hair might have been more effective, in my opinion.
@legoluver777 said:
"That dark nougat looks odd for the skin color... Doesn't look very attractive at all."
Interesting to point out that you don't find this toy's skin tone 'attractive'... Especially after having seen its face. Yikes! ':-)
"40640 Nutcracker is the latest one, which is now available at LEGO.com."
Ummm... no it's not.
A scary nutcracker is part of the spice necessary for a good Xmas. Nice price. I can see getting this.
That is an Owl-Man
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @legoluver777 said:
"That dark nougat looks odd for the skin color... Doesn't look very attractive at all."
Interesting to point out that you don't find this toy's skin tone 'attractive'... Especially after having seen its face. Yikes! ':-)"
For real. The mods delete comments about even the ethics of buying LEGO Harry Potter on the grounds of “politics” yet they haven’t deleted that literal racist statement.
Judging by the time of year, I think this Halloween-set was mislabeled.
@MrBedhead said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"Definitely made for the Nightmare Edition. And good to know that even wooden christmas decoration is woke enough to have a switchable gender.
"
People like you go straight on my block list. Thanks Brickset for providing the functionality to block comments from certain users.."
So you don't think it's scary looking?
It's inexpensive, but otherwise....
LEGO has never had much luck with these nutcrackers. 40254 was pretty fugly too, but arguably better than this one.
Some things don't translate themselves well to LEGO at a reasonable size/cost. They should give up.
@Trigger_ said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @legoluver777 said:
"That dark nougat looks odd for the skin color... Doesn't look very attractive at all."
Interesting to point out that you don't find this toy's skin tone 'attractive'... Especially after having seen its face. Yikes! ':-)"
For real. The mods delete comments about even the ethics of buying LEGO Harry Potter on the grounds of “politics” yet they haven’t deleted that literal racist statement."
Loud shouting "Rowling is good/bad" is not allowed.
This still counts as discussing the build.
@Glacier_Phoenix said:
""40640 Nutcracker is the latest one, which is now available at LEGO.com."
Ummm... no it's not."
Thanks -- it seems that those of you in NA have to wait until 1st October.
I have every functional nutcracker (except for the employee gift, for obvious reasons), so while I'll agree with other commenters that 40254 was superior, I'll probably still get this one. "I think it looks a bit daft with closed eyes but of course you can swap them over." Or just swap one over. "Why is it winking at me?!"
@CCC said:
"Or if they wanted it to be darker skin, replace the white hands with dark nougat."
I'm pretty sure those are supposed to be gloves.
@watcher21: While I agree with you about the pin (in fact, I wonder if that's the reason they used a non-friction one) you'd still need some way to attach the two pieces together.
@woosterlegos: Yes, more contrast is called for. Either make the skin lighter, like the aforementioned 40254 or the hair darker. Or heck, make the hair much lighter, again like 40254.
"I did not realise until I read the description at LEGO.com that this one is supposed to be female."
Going back and forth between the two pictures, you can kind of see it. If you had one of each side-by-side, it might be more obvious.
@IgelCampus said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"Definitely made for the Nightmare Edition. And good to know that even wooden christmas decoration is woke enough to have a switchable gender."
People like you go straight on my block list. Thanks Brickset for providing the functionality to block comments from certain users.."
So you don't think it's scary looking?"
It's usage of the word "woke" that does it. I too find that anyone who uses that word can be blocked and I know I won't miss anything valuable.
Sticking with my Brickheadz version. I like nutcrackers but this just doesn’t cut it.
@TheOtherMike said:
"
I'm pretty sure those are supposed to be gloves.
"
Try googling for traditional Christmas nutcracker images, the balls on the end of the arms are nearly always the same colour as the face, as in hands and not gloves.
If only there were something obvious about this nutcracker that sets it apart from the other versions that would explain a bunch of people in these comments saying, “I don’t like it at all!”
Man…what could that be? It’ll come to me.
@Trigger_ said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @legoluver777 said:
"That dark nougat looks odd for the skin color... Doesn't look very attractive at all."
Interesting to point out that you don't find this toy's skin tone 'attractive'... Especially after having seen its face. Yikes! ':-)"
For real. The mods delete comments about even the ethics of buying LEGO Harry Potter on the grounds of “politics” yet they haven’t deleted that literal racist statement."
There are many, many comments on Gringotts that are undeleted, over half of the comments were not about the model or Lego at all. I can tell some were deleted due to some replies lacking context, but it's impossible to not see the discussion derailing after scrolling down a ways.
I find nutcrackers truly horrifying regardless of the medium, but this seems like a reasonable enough recreation of one.
Who signed this off ?! Easily one of the poorest Lego nutcrackers we’ve seen. Easy pass for me.
@JtheMonk: Considering the general reaction in these comments, I don't think many people will be willing to test your theory.
@CCC: I searched as you recommended, and most did seem to have hands and face the same color, but a good few didn't (even among Lego renditions it's not 100% consistent), so I stand by my theory.
@Ridgeheart: Totally with you on the term "woke." Some friends of the family that we almost never meet in person were visiting recently, and the husband asked, "What is 'woke/'" I immediately replied, "It's bad grammar."
This looks terrible. I don’t know if the scale is off or what, but it just doesn’t look right. Also the coloring is more Halloween/Thanksgiving. These are fall colors, and Nutcrackers are usually Christmas/Winter themed.
I like it. Perfect to go with 40205 and 40206. Older looking blocky builds have a certain charm.
@Ridgeheart said:
" @bananaworld said:
" @IgelCampus said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"Definitely made for the Nightmare Edition. And good to know that even wooden christmas decoration is woke enough to have a switchable gender."
People like you go straight on my block list. Thanks Brickset for providing the functionality to block comments from certain users.."
So you don't think it's scary looking?"
It's usage of the word "woke" that does it. I too find that anyone who uses that word can be blocked and I know I won't miss anything valuable.
"
And yet, "Woke from Dreaming" is one of the Delgados' best songs, I feel.
But I agree. It's an infuriating word. It's "awake", or "awakened"! You have forgotten the faces of your English teachers. They turn their backs at you, and rightly so.
What's that saying again? "There's no woke without ire"?"
You can hate the term all you want, but that doesn’t stop the movement itself.
@gsmayes said:
"I like it. Perfect to go with 40205 and 40206. Older looking blocky builds have a certain charm."
Yes, agree completely. But those 3 figures are all white *and* male. So nothing for these guys to whine about.
@TheOtherMike said:
" @woosterlegos : Yes, more contrast is called for. Either make the skin lighter, like the aforementioned 40254 or the hair darker. Or heck, make the hair much lighter, again like 40254."
I think you voiced what was throwing me off. There is certainly a lack of contrast. I like the darker skin tone, because it reminds of my grandmother's old wooden nutcracker, but the hair blends in too much.
I just looked at the images again, and the male version is the only one that looks bad. The female one is okay because her hair and skin, aside from the eyebrows, are colorblocked.
@Ridgeheart said:
" @bananaworld said:
" @IgelCampus said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"Definitely made for the Nightmare Edition. And good to know that even wooden christmas decoration is woke enough to have a switchable gender."
People like you go straight on my block list. Thanks Brickset for providing the functionality to block comments from certain users.."
So you don't think it's scary looking?"
It's usage of the word "woke" that does it. I too find that anyone who uses that word can be blocked and I know I won't miss anything valuable.
"
And yet, "Woke from Dreaming" is one of the Delgados' best songs, I feel.
But I agree. It's an infuriating word. It's "awake", or "awakened"! You have forgotten the faces of your English teachers. They turn their backs at you, and rightly so.
What's that saying again? "There's no woke without ire"?"
@TheOtherMike said:
" @Ridgeheart : Totally with you on the term "woke." Some friends of the family that we almost never meet in person were visiting recently, and the husband asked, "What is 'woke/'" I immediately replied, "It's bad grammar.""
Pardon?! I hate to be pedantic, but you're inviting it.
I believe you meant to say, 'poor grammar.'
The thing about language is that by definition it is a balance. Its living, growing, and changing aspect allows adaptation to life. This is combined with its aspect of stability in order to ensure efficient communication between different people.
Thus, people who complain about new changes are attacking one-half of the idea of language by advocating for 'rules' of grammar.
Personally, I like the old traditions, but do not shun new changes, especially when the old rules are used to unreasonably exclude others.
Those HP comments are insane. I do not know what BS will do moving forward as they have abandoned their prior position. I refuse to be drawn into that melee... again!
@Ridgeheart: Doubleplusungood, in fact.
@PhantomBricks said:
" @TheOtherMike said:
" @woosterlegos : Yes, more contrast is called for. Either make the skin lighter, like the aforementioned 40254 or the hair darker. Or heck, make the hair much lighter, again like 40254."
I think you voiced what was throwing me off. There is certainly a lack of contrast. I like the darker skin tone, because it reminds of my grandmother's old wooden nutcracker, but the hair blends in too much.
I just looked at the images again, and the male version is the only one that looks bad. The female one is okay because her hair and skin, aside from the eyebrows, are colorblocked."
Actually, looking closely at it again (as well as at several of the earlier nutcrackers) I find I rather like it after all. I was never bothered by the face color, because -- like @PhantomBricks -- I thought it looked like wood, or by the white "hands" because I took them for gloved. The narrow mouth still bothers me, but it's a common fault with Lego Nutcrackers. Replacing the male hair with black equivalents might improve it somewhat, but I think all it really needs are black boots--an easy enough fix. And I like the ability to play with the hair style and the eyes--although I think I prefer the "female" hairdo. Maybe the sideburns etc make the "male" head look over-complicated?
@Trigger_ said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @legoluver777 said:
"That dark nougat looks odd for the skin color... Doesn't look very attractive at all."
Interesting to point out that you don't find this toy's skin tone 'attractive'... Especially after having seen its face. Yikes! ':-)"
For real. The mods delete comments about even the ethics of buying LEGO Harry Potter on the grounds of “politics” yet they haven’t deleted that literal racist statement."
I don't know if @legoluver777 is even remotely aware that their comment comes off the way it does -- perhaps they were just commenting on the build's color usage without taking ethnicity in consideration. Either way, it comes across as terribly insensitive and offensive.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @Trigger_ said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @legoluver777 said:
"That dark nougat looks odd for the skin color... Doesn't look very attractive at all."
Interesting to point out that you don't find this toy's skin tone 'attractive'... Especially after having seen its face. Yikes! ':-)"
For real. The mods delete comments about even the ethics of buying LEGO Harry Potter on the grounds of “politics” yet they haven’t deleted that literal racist statement."
I don't know if @legoluver777 is even remotely aware that their comment comes off the way it does -- perhaps they were just commenting on the build's color usage without taking ethnicity in consideration. Either way, it comes across as terribly insensitive and offensive."
I'd say it only comes across that way if you choose to interpret it like that.
Perhaps it would be better to assume that they didn't mean it in a bad way and just move on.
Regarding the set itself, I think other commenters hit the nail on the head when they suggested that the issue is the lack of contrast between the hair and the head.
@M_Jibril said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @Trigger_ said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @legoluver777 said:
"That dark nougat looks odd for the skin color... Doesn't look very attractive at all."
Interesting to point out that you don't find this toy's skin tone 'attractive'... Especially after having seen its face. Yikes! ':-)"
For real. The mods delete comments about even the ethics of buying LEGO Harry Potter on the grounds of “politics” yet they haven’t deleted that literal racist statement."
I don't know if @legoluver777 is even remotely aware that their comment comes off the way it does -- perhaps they were just commenting on the build's color usage without taking ethnicity in consideration. Either way, it comes across as terribly insensitive and offensive."
I'd say it only comes across that way if you choose to interpret it like that.
Perhaps it would be better to assume that they didn't mean it in a bad way and just move on.
Regarding the set itself, I think other commenters hit the nail on the head when they suggested that the issue is the lack of contrast between the hair and the head."
Regardless of how you interpret it, it's an unfortunate way of wording. But yeah, let's assume there was no bad intent.
I agree on the contrast. But the thing doesn't look good to me as a whole. LEGO can do way better -- as they did with a previous nutcracker. This looks bad.