Review: 11202 Bluey's Beach & Family Car Trip
Posted by benbacardi,
The Australian animated series Bluey debuted in 2018, and has since taken the world by storm, exploding in popularity as it expanded overseas. The show follows the antics of two young sisters, Bluey and Bingo, and their parents Chilli and Bandit as they navigate family life. It's a show that's as popular with parents as it is with children, and I can speak from experience how it captured not just my own children's attention but also my own!
Back in January, LEGO announced the upcoming release of a series of Bluey-themed sets, available from June the 1st. We've got the full suite for review, comprising three 4+ sets and two Duplo, so let's dive in and see how the brick versions compare with the lovable Heeler family, starting with 11202 Bluey's Beach & Family Car Trip.
Summary
11202 Bluey's Beach & Family Car Trip, 133 pieces.
£24.99 / $29.99 / €29.99 | 18.8p/22.5c/22.5c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
A fun beach and car build, faithful to the show with lots of potential for play—but those minifigures will take some getting used to!
- Build well targeted to the age range
- Nice nods to the show
- It's Bluey!
- There's just something not quite right about the minifigure design!
- Where's Bandit?
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
This episode of Brickset is called… Bluey!
When LEGO first teased the theme, the question on everybody's lips was "how are they going to do the minifigures?" The Heeler family are very distinctive, with large snouts, pointed ears, and big bushy tails.
Like with many other figures, LEGO have opted to use standard minifigure legs and torso, with a large moulded head. For Bluey and Bingo, the poseable mid-sized legs have been used, which arguably makes them too tall in proportion to the adults, but does afford greater playability as they can actually sit down.
The colours are perfect, with printing on the feet representing Bluey's pale paws and toes, and different coloured hands replicating the same. Her head is dual-moulded, with a yellow snout, and printed details for the darker fur, ears, eyebrows, eyes, and nose. She has no mouth.
Her distinctive fluffy tail, used so expressively throughout the animated series, has been reduced to a printed representation on her back, along with her spots of darker fur. At first I was surprised, and a little disappointed that a tail like that in 71025 Fox Costume Girl wasn't used, but on further thought this offers much more opportunity for play, as the tail won't get in the way of the figure sitting down.
From the side, we can see the full scale of the large moulded head. The animated characters have the benefit of always being 2D, and any 3D rendering seems to always have something slightly off about it. This "not-quite-right" feeling is exacerbated by the flatness of the traditional minifigure body, though I don't think a custom torso or legs would have helped much!
Mum!
Bluey is joined in this set by her mum, Chilli, and her younger sister, Bingo. The dad, Bandit, will have to wait for another review I'm afraid!
The Heeler family are Australian cattle dogs, also known as either "blue heelers" or "red heelers" depending on their colouring. Chilli and Bingo are firmly in the red category, with Bluey and Bandit on the blue side. The printing on their legs and torsos are the same design as Bluey's, just in a different colour. You can see the disproportionate height difference here, although not even the short legs would bring them close to the correct sizes.
Chilli and Bingo look very similar, and are difficult to pick apart quickly. They differ in subtle ways—Chilli's fur on her head is flecked with light brown, and Bingo's is lighter overall. On the back of her torso, Chilli has multiple dots of a lighter colour (pairing with Bluey's back), whereas Bingo only has one, darker, patch.
The three heads all use the same new mould, and three have a small hole in the top of their heads, like those on Friends minidoll hairpieces. A couple of sunglasses are included, but I can't imagine many other accessories making sense in that position.
The Family Car
With the minifigures out of the way, let's take a look at the build. The set is based on the Heeler's trips to the beach, from episodes such as The Beach and Stickbird, and includes car and a section of the beach.
The Heeler's orange car is the first to be built. Let's review the source material:
The vehicle is a squat, orange, Jeep-style family car, with chunky tyres, a spare on the back, roof bars, and absolutely no rear boot space to speak of! The LEGO version recreates this all pretty faithfully within the limited complexity constraints. As a 4+ set, the car is built around a single main chassis piece. The wheels are each a single piece, tyres and all, and the front grille and license plate (419HLR) are printed on a tile.
The Heelers have taken two surfboards to the beach, transported on their roof bars, and there's a small amount of luggage space in the back, behind the spare wheel (albeit a very flat spare wheel, represented only by a 2x2 round tile). The steering wheel is on the correct side for Australia!
There are no doors to open—instead, the roof hinges up to allow easy access to the seating inside. There's room for all four family members (although Bandit is not included in the set).
The two rows of seats use a part that I haven't come across before—please correct me if it's actually common and I just can't find it! With a 6x3 footprint, it has two low seats moulded into it with a pair of studs for the back of minifigure legs—almost like two of the normal seat pieces joined together, but with a much lower back. It suits this particular car perfectly.
The Beach
With the car built, it's on to the beach itself. This is split across two small instruction manuals, and comprises a short section of beach with a parasol, a sun lounger, and a palm tree, a large sand castle, and a stream running through it to the water.
During the episode The Beach, Bandit builds a sandcastle while Bluey's legs get buried in sand and decorated like a mermaid. Half the sandcastle is represented, although with some nice details like the sticks in the towers, and shell decorations.
Bluey's mermaid legs are also included, with a printed wedge tile, raised high enough on wedge plates to leave room for children to slide the Bluey minifigure inside, completely hiding her legs. I appreciate play possibilities, though the resulting structure is fairly blocky and the gaps on the sides rather unsightly.
A bottle of all-important factor 50 sunscreen is included, along with a refreshing drink for Chilli as she relaxes in the shade of the parasol on the sun lounger.
Stickbird
The Heelers have brought a cooler with them to beach, containing an ice lolly (or "icy pole", as I'm informed Australians call them) and a banana (do bananas need to be kept cold?), along with a spade. There's a small mini build that comes straight from another episode, Stickbird, where Bingo finds a stick that looks a little like a bird's head, and build a sand version.
My son recognised it straight away, which means I think LEGO did a pretty good job with only a handful of parts!
Verdict
Diving into a much-loved franchise is always a tricky thing to get right. Fans will either love the LEGO recreations, or hate them, and this is especially true when you have unusually-shaped characters to represent in minifigure form. The 4+ age range for the sets also doesn't allow for large, complex builds brimming with detail—but for Bluey, it was definitely the right choice. I'm sure children will be clamouring for their parents to buy them the sets when they see them on the shelves.
I'm not convinced they've hit the right spot with the minifigures, though. There's just something off about them that I can't put my finger on—but neither can I think how else they could have been created! This just shows the difficult line to walk with these kinds of licenced sets.
As for 11202 Bluey's Beach & Family Car Trip itself, I think it's actually a great little set. The build was simple, as a 4+ set, but not overly so—my son is almost twice that age and very much enjoyed putting it together. There's a lot of playability in a small set, especially the fact that all three family members (and Bandit, if you get him with another set!) fit into the car with ease, and there's good variety to the beach scene.
I love the small nods to the show, and I think there will be many others across the rest of the range. I don't see a long dog anywhere, though! I've now spotted it, thanks to NHBrickworks in the comments! Not sure how I missed it to be honest…
11202 Bluey's Beach & Family Car Trip will be available at LEGO.com from June 1st for £24.99 / $29.99 / €29.99.
86 likes
67 comments on this article
"This is not a toy, it's a highly sophisticated interlocking brick system."
"The box for this one said Ages 4+!"
"That's just a suggestion. They have to put that on there."
That's a new seat piece in the car. That looks like it could work well in things like bus stops or for arena seating.
At least the figures are better than the Duplo Peppa Pig figures.
Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny.
One of the fastest ways to separate parents from non-parents these days is to toss out a Bluey reference and see who catches it.
So yeah, I dunno Bluey from Adam. Set seems fine, reminds me a lot of ANIMAL CROSSING sets in construction, play features and slight "You Can't Say No to Your Kids" Tax that sets aimed at 0-10 ages often have.
Minifigs seem fine! Sculpted tails would look better but I get removing them since the focus of the set is for play.
is the roof of the car also new? 6x6 with 4x bar hinge
I think it's the straight ahead pupils and closed mouths. A little too robotic for the Heelers outside of some games, and even then Bluey and Bingo would be giggling before long.
Pretty cute though! The cooler chest is great. Perfect play adaptation for their car too. My kids would like this.
@WokePope said:
"One of the fastest ways to separate parents from non-parents these days is to toss out a Bluey reference and see who catches it."
Make that "parents of small kids". I have two daughters, but they don't know Bluey anymore, having outgrown that target demographic age.
Honestly I think if they had printed mouths onto the heads, rather than just having them molded, it would've taken the figures at least a few steps out of the uncanny valley. I do love how well the printed tails fit the iconic Bluey artstyle though! Really hoping we get more sets with more characters!
If you want to get really down with the Aussie lingo, we’d call that an esky, not a cooler!
@WokePope said:
"One of the fastest ways to separate parents from non-parents these days is to toss out a Bluey reference and see who catches it.
So yeah, I dunno Bluey from Adam. Set seems fine, reminds me a lot of ANIMAL CROSSING sets in construction, play features and slight "You Can't Say No to Your Kids" Tax that sets aimed at 0-10 ages often have.
Minifigs seem fine! Sculpted tails would look better but I get removing them since the focus of the set is for play."
As for the minifigs, I agree. I'm not very versed in the characters but from all the images I've seen, these look fairly accurate for printing, especially with no tail piece.
As for the parents/non-parents, I don't know. At least in online communities (more specifically the terminally online Reddit world), it feels like a lot of adults who don't even have kids are enamored with the show and watch it. It's probably just a (sizable) minority, but who knows.
After seeing not approved Lego Ideas proposition - I find these version of minifigures not accurate enough.
https://beta.ideas.lego.com/product-ideas/3cfc3c25-03b4-48b2-83dd-32a636999be4
As a huge fan of the show, I am not disappointed by these sets. I know a lot of adults think these sets are lacking, but you have to remember the target audience which is children. Also I love the hidden long dog on the mermaid legs!
Okay, I'll admit I've never seen the show before but I was still VERY surprised when I read that Bluey's a girl.
@NHBrickworks said:
"Also I love the hidden long dog on the mermaid legs!"
You found it!! I spent far too long looking…! How did I miss that?!
@GirlWoman said:
"Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny."
The Simpsons and The Flintstones look fine to me. As do Mickey Mouse, Peter Pan, etc.
Wackadoo!
@KotZ said:
" @WokePope said:
"One of the fastest ways to separate parents from non-parents these days is to toss out a Bluey reference and see who catches it.
So yeah, I dunno Bluey from Adam. Set seems fine, reminds me a lot of ANIMAL CROSSING sets in construction, play features and slight "You Can't Say No to Your Kids" Tax that sets aimed at 0-10 ages often have.
Minifigs seem fine! Sculpted tails would look better but I get removing them since the focus of the set is for play."
As for the minifigs, I agree. I'm not very versed in the characters but from all the images I've seen, these look fairly accurate for printing, especially with no tail piece.
As for the parents/non-parents, I don't know. At least in online communities (more specifically the terminally online Reddit world), it feels like a lot of adults who don't even have kids are enamored with the show and watch it. It's probably just a (sizable) minority, but who knows."
I'm a parent and have never watched Bluey. I doubt many people with kids older than pre-school watch TV with their kids and so would not get Bluey references.
I feel like a better move for this set would have been to replace Bluey with Bandit, as Bluey is available on her own in the playground set. That way you could get a complete Heeler family without having to purchase an entire house to get it.
@CCC said:
" @KotZ said:
" @WokePope said:
"One of the fastest ways to separate parents from non-parents these days is to toss out a Bluey reference and see who catches it.
So yeah, I dunno Bluey from Adam. Set seems fine, reminds me a lot of ANIMAL CROSSING sets in construction, play features and slight "You Can't Say No to Your Kids" Tax that sets aimed at 0-10 ages often have.
Minifigs seem fine! Sculpted tails would look better but I get removing them since the focus of the set is for play."
As for the minifigs, I agree. I'm not very versed in the characters but from all the images I've seen, these look fairly accurate for printing, especially with no tail piece.
As for the parents/non-parents, I don't know. At least in online communities (more specifically the terminally online Reddit world), it feels like a lot of adults who don't even have kids are enamored with the show and watch it. It's probably just a (sizable) minority, but who knows."
I'm a parent and have never watched Bluey. I doubt many people with kids older than pre-school watch TV with their kids and so would not get Bluey references."
Our kids are 9 and 7. They love Bluey (so do I), and we watch it and other shows together fairly regularly. Some favorites other than Bluey include Hilda, Duck Tales and The Clone Wars/Bad Batch. Cheers!
@CCC said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny."
The Simpsons and The Flintstones look fine to me. As do Mickey Mouse, Peter Pan, etc."
Thank you for providing more examples. Also the Snow White dwarves are incredibly cursed.
Given the age range of the target audience for the show, I think the complexity/detail level of the set and the design of the minifigures are both spot-on.
LEGO should've either gone with the brick-built characters or created new molds for them like they did with the Minions or Power Miners rock critters. The minifigs just look like people cosplaying as the characters!
I've thought the same thing about the minifigs, there's just something "off" about them
But then, it would be impossible to get right without coming up with a completely new minifig body
I think they are passable
The set looks fun overall
Bluey is important to our family, as when we adopted our daughters they were the same ages as Bluey and Bingo and the show helped us all bond as a family.
We have a set of Bluey figures in front of our TV
I was excited when LEGO got the license.
The sets aren't made for AFOL, so I keep that in mind when looking at them. My kids are now a little old for the 4+ sets, but will still grab at least this and try for a Bandit to complete the family
I like the way Bluey and her family look a whole lot more than I like the Simpsons minifigs, personally. (I told my partner about the new Krusty Burger set by saying “Lego have decided to expand their range of eldritch horrors.”) Lego feels like a pretty good fit for the Bluey style, height differences aside - it helps that the animation is pretty boxy. I think they’re cute.
(I’d’ve liked tails, because I like Lego minifig tails in general, but I agree it was probably better to print them when the intention is a playset and not display - it would’ve made including and using the mermaid tail impossible without dismantling Bluey to remove her tail every time. Not ideal for a child’s play session.)
I’ve been generally quite impressed with 4+ sets. They’re usually fun to build even for an adult - if anything, the increased emphasis on bricks over plates often feels quite nostalgic and a welcome novelty - and they’re getting better and better at disguising any compromises when it comes to the final visual appearance. The only problem is those big moulded pieces can make them a bit pricy.
@Buford4 said:
"LEGO should've either gone with the brick-built characters or created new molds for them like they did with the Minions or Power Miners rock critters. The minifigs just look like people cosplaying as the characters! "
Honestly, I feel like minifigs were the best pick for this, even if they involved some compromises. This way they can sit or stand, turn their heads freely, wear neck accessories like backpacks and life jackets, and use standard chairs, door frames, etc. Even if more specialized molds might've looked more screen-accurate, they'd have inevitably required compromises in a lot of these other areas.
Personally, I suspect Bluey and Bingo would have looked more accurate with the short legs instead of the mid-length legs, but I think kids in the young target audience would understandably be disappointed if the child characters (including the title character) had less articulation than the grown-ups.
That new car seat piece is definitely interesting — when I was young, it often bothered me that so few LEGO cars had enough seats for two parents and two kids, and this piece makes that viable even in sets aimed at some of the youngest builders. I do kind of wonder why they made it a 3x6 piece instead of splitting it into two 3x3 pieces, though. It definitely seems very useful even as-is (besides cars, it could be great for porch swings, benches, booth-style restaurant seating, etc) but it would have been even more versatile as a single seat.
The car chassis and roof pieces are also new, and I can imagine the latter will have a lot of utility even outside of 4+ sets, since it provides a sturdy base with a lot of hinge points. For example, with two tiles attached via hinges and folded into a triangle, it'd make a nice tent, and it could also be great for constructing ramps, sloped roofs, storage container lids, folding tables, etc.
Good review overall! Obviously sets like this have to keep things relatively simple for beginner builders, but even so, I'm sure these sets will make a lot of young kids (and quite a few of their parents) very happy.
@vizzitor said:
"That's a new seat piece in the car. That looks like it could work well in things like bus stops or for arena seating."
or for new Adventurers / 1930s vehicles! The old 6x5x2 two-seat cockpit was last used a while ago (four years), so it could be a replacement part if that was retired.
Also, I'm still mad the brick-built ideas project of the Bluey house was rejected four times in favor of this minifigure cosplay-thing.
"A couple of sunglasses are included, but I can't imagine many other accessories making sense in that position." Hey, that's the fun of Lego. It doesn't have to make sense!
"(albeit a very flat spare wheel, represented only by a 2x2 round tile)" The target audience will probably be less annoyed by that than 77012's target audience was.
I like these minifigures. I'd personally prefer them with real tails, but like many of the other commentators, I understand why printed tails were used instead, and approve of the decision. Other than that I think the figures represent the animation quite well and are as endearing as they should be. I also think the new parts for the 4+ car build are well-designed and very useful. Does seem to mix nicely with the Animal Crossing minifigures as well. Even though I'm trying hard to reduce my Lego purchases, this set is fighting hard for a place on my wishlist!
I think they should have made their heads like the Gamorrean guards where they overlap the torso.
Also the kids should've had tiny legs not midi. But then sitting down in cars or chairs would be trickier, so maybe this was the right call???
@dudebrick said:
"I think it's the straight ahead pupils and closed mouths. A little too robotic for the Heelers outside of some games, and even then Bluey and Bingo would be giggling before long."
That's the issue for me as well. I'm not familiar at all with the show, but just from looking at the few screengrabs in this review, it's clear the characters have very animated eyes. The images of the minifigs reclining on a lounger or in the sand look really wrong just from the fact they're staring at the sun like zombies or deactivated robots.
Not bad. I don't mind how they handled the minifigs. The sandy area reminds me of several Friends play areas that are also built on 3-4 plates connected together. It wouldn't be hard to imagine some Friends minidolls coming to join them with their ubiquitous animals. (Do sloths fit under that mermaid tail? What if a couple more plates are added? What does a mersloth look like?) Maybe sometime there will be more call for baseplates, or at least more larger plates, like an 8x24 here.
@mstchmshrms said:
"I think they should have made their heads like the Gamorrean guards where they overlap the torso."
Exactly what I thought when I first saw them, too! I know it would have sacrificed neck articulation, which is kinda important for play characters (although toys I've seen of the characters from other brands also don't include neck articulation so it doesn't seem essential in this case), but it would definitely have achieved the silhouette of the characters more accurately - particularly for Bluey and Bingo whose mouths are level with their shoulders in the show.
That said, pretty neat set overall! While I'm not personally a fan of how the car looks with the big chunky base, I'm sure that wouldn't bother the target audience at all; and I love all the episode references :D
@Mister_Jonny said:
"I feel like a better move for this set would have been to replace Bluey with Bandit, as Bluey is available on her own in the playground set. That way you could get a complete Heeler family without having to purchase an entire house to get it."
I can just picture the team of the LEGO marketing department reading your comment, looking at each other, and bursting into diabolical laughter. Kind of like this:
https://youtu.be/7edeOEuXdMU?si=k47IkxfphkBX_5dS
;-)
@AustinPowers said:
" @Mister_Jonny said:
"I feel like a better move for this set would have been to replace Bluey with Bandit, as Bluey is available on her own in the playground set. That way you could get a complete Heeler family without having to purchase an entire house to get it."
I can just picture the team of the LEGO marketing department reading your comment, looking at each other, and bursting into diabolical laughter. Kind of like this:
https://youtu.be/7edeOEuXdMU?si=k47IkxfphkBX_5dS
;-) "
Sadly yes. When have they ever put every major character into a single inexpensive set? "Collect them all!" without such naive transparency. Next up: introduce variants, so even if you have one of each character, you don't have every version of each character. Gotta catch 'em all! (Oops, wrong license.)
@ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @CCC said:
" @KotZ said:
" @WokePope said:
"One of the fastest ways to separate parents from non-parents these days is to toss out a Bluey reference and see who catches it.
So yeah, I dunno Bluey from Adam. Set seems fine, reminds me a lot of ANIMAL CROSSING sets in construction, play features and slight "You Can't Say No to Your Kids" Tax that sets aimed at 0-10 ages often have.
Minifigs seem fine! Sculpted tails would look better but I get removing them since the focus of the set is for play."
As for the minifigs, I agree. I'm not very versed in the characters but from all the images I've seen, these look fairly accurate for printing, especially with no tail piece.
As for the parents/non-parents, I don't know. At least in online communities (more specifically the terminally online Reddit world), it feels like a lot of adults who don't even have kids are enamored with the show and watch it. It's probably just a (sizable) minority, but who knows."
I'm a parent and have never watched Bluey. I doubt many people with kids older than pre-school watch TV with their kids and so would not get Bluey references."
Our kids are 9 and 7. They love Bluey (so do I), and we watch it and other shows together fairly regularly. Some favorites other than Bluey include Hilda, Duck Tales and The Clone Wars/Bad Batch. Cheers!"
Ditto. We have family TV night every Sunday, and, for several months now, four times out of five both our 6-yo and 9-yo choose Bluey. All four of us love it.
I don't see what the problem is with the minifigs frankly. They look pretty good to me. If we know one thing about TLG it's that they will 100% have sat children down with different variations on the characters and seen which ones they liked best.
Also I didn't realise how good a blue and white chest would look as a cool box. I hope this finds its way to Lego City at some point.
@tne328 said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @Mister_Jonny said:
"I feel like a better move for this set would have been to replace Bluey with Bandit, as Bluey is available on her own in the playground set. That way you could get a complete Heeler family without having to purchase an entire house to get it."
I can just picture the team of the LEGO marketing department reading your comment, looking at each other, and bursting into diabolical laughter. Kind of like this:
https://youtu.be/7edeOEuXdMU?si=k47IkxfphkBX_5dS
;-) "
Sadly yes. When have they ever put every major character into a single inexpensive set? "Collect them all!" without such naive transparency. Next up: introduce variants, so even if you have one of each character, you don't have every version of each character. Gotta catch 'em all! (Oops, wrong license.)"
LEGO probably saw this license's potential for variants / spreading the family around and rubbed it's greedy hands together with dollars signs over it's eyes.
'...But she's got a NEW hat!' (When did Waylon Smithers go to work at LEGO?)
@mstchmshrms said:
"I think they should have made their heads like the Gamorrean guards where they overlap the torso.
Also the kids should've had tiny legs not midi. But then sitting down in cars or chairs would be trickier, so maybe this was the right call???"
Sandwich board-style torsos would cause the same problems with seating that physical tails would.
@tne328 said:"(Do sloths fit under that mermaid tail? What if a couple more plates are added? What does a mersloth look like?)"
I don't know the answer to either question, but I'm sure @MeganL would love to find out!
I might pick that sand print slope from Bricklink sometime. That looks quite useful.
Bluey is a girl??
I've never seen the show but I like unique minifigures with molded heads and the builds here look great for a 4+ set! Might pick up a set or at least just the minifigures.
When enough money is involved, TLG is perfectly capable of making correctly designed animated characters;
-Angry Birds
-Minions
-Trolls
The Bluey characters should have at least have had dual-molded legs, since all the characters have 'socks'.
@AustinPowers said:
" @Mister_Jonny said:
"I feel like a better move for this set would have been to replace Bluey with Bandit, as Bluey is available on her own in the playground set. That way you could get a complete Heeler family without having to purchase an entire house to get it."
I can just picture the team of the LEGO marketing department reading your comment, looking at each other, and bursting into diabolical laughter. Kind of like this:
https://youtu.be/7edeOEuXdMU?si=k47IkxfphkBX_5dS
;-) "
Pretty sure Bluey is her own theme’s answer to Batman or Kai from Ninjago: if she’s not going to be in every single set, it’ll be pretty close.
Will sell like hot chips, er I mean cakes!
I'll point out, Australians also refer to them as "ice blocks."
A visiting American friend of mine heard that expression, once, and was gobsmacked because he thought that, parents were buying literal large blocks of ice for their kids as dessert treats.
"Icy pole" is an actual brand (and they're delicious. After a recent hospital visit, I woke up in the recovery ward after surgery, and the first thing the nurse did was give me an icy pole) so "ice block" is going to a fairly common term for them in general.
@GirlWoman said:
"Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny."
I hear you, but TMNT, Powerpuff Girls, Spongebob, Teen Titans, all Disney characters I can think of, and The Simpsons were done beautifully.
Totally agree with the minifigure designs being off ; the eyes are too small and too far apart, for example.
A quick image search seems to suggest that another company may have beaten Lego in obtaining the license and minifigure design rights first.
I don't want to promote the other brand so won't post the link there.
Everyone who thinks the minifigures don’t look right is correct. Star Wars style sandwich board pieces and rubber tails would do a good job.
But the figures we are getting are best for little kids to play with. They can sit in regular Lego seats, stand, wear things and hold things. Important for the “littlies” (another Australianism)
FYI the Heelers car is called Bobo…an important detail I feel is missing :-P
Great review, although that's not a cooler, it's an esky!
Random fun fact there's an Australian men's choir who sing Soviet/Russian/Ukrainian folk and Soviet era songs who called themselves DustyEsky as in a dusty esky and a reference to the Russian writer.
As for Bluey, Aussie Aussie Aussie! About time Lego recognised that Australia exists.
While I'm not a fan of the show, I am really proud of how internationally popular it has become. That's really good that children recognise the references.
Im okay with the car and the beach, though Im not sure how I feel about the seats. They are a great idea in principle but I dont like how far forward the 'bench' goes. If it was shorter where the legs go I think it would work better for benches, bus stops, stadiums and such as other commentors have suggested.
It's a shame about the minifigures. I wouldnt say they are 'good' or 'bad', they just arent quite right. The Simpsons for example worked much better.
I almost wonder if brick built similar to Super Mario Yoshi and other characters wouldve been an improvement?
@ShilohCyan said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny."
I hear you, but TMNT, Powerpuff Girls, Spongebob, Teen Titans, all Disney characters I can think of, and The Simpsons were done beautifully. "
The Simpsons minifigures are creepy (the heads can never get in the cheated angle they’re supposed to have), I agree on everything else, though.
I don't like the proportions of the minifigs. Characters in Bluey are essentially cylinders with limbs and eyes/ears. They could have used the Minion minifig parts. I wonder if the designers considered it, and if so, why was that idea put aside?
Non-Lego related comment : if you're a parent, whatever age are your children, and even if they have children of their own do watch Bluey. It's the masterpiece on parenthood we never knew we needed. Sometimes you laugh, sometimes you cry, but you always see the struggles, small victories and hard choices of being a parent. It's not just a kid show (it is mainly), it's much more than that.
Minifigures need to be more blocky like Spongebob.
@Georchy said:
"Totally agree with the minifigure designs being off ; the eyes are too small and too far apart, for example.
A quick image search seems to suggest that another company may have beaten Lego in obtaining the license and minifigure design rights first.
I don't want to promote the other brand so won't post the link there."
The fact that LEGO is producing and selling them at the same time suggests there is not one definitive (as in "the") licence, but multiple non-exclusive deals. There are multiple companies already producing small (and large) toys for this series.
@Brickchap said:"About time Lego recognised that Australia exists."
Ahem. https://brickset.com/sets/tag-Australia Thirty-one sets, including the Bluey ones. Sure, some of those are maps of the world, but most are things that are recognizably Australian. Even leaving aside the Outback subtheme of town, the oldest set on the list is from 2012.
Easy to see that the eyes are off. They are too far away from each other, while they should have been closer. The black printing of the pupils is also too big. The figures look like they are in a trance.
Or else the proportion of head and body are quite good.
@ShilohCyan said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny."
I hear you, but TMNT, Powerpuff Girls, Spongebob, Teen Titans, all Disney characters I can think of, and The Simpsons were done beautifully. "
It always requires very very very specialized parts. I agree with some of those but the round and bubbly simpsons characters I do not think were capture sufficiently in Lego form. Or as mentioned above the weird face prints for the seven dwarves. And many more.
@GirlWoman said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny."
I hear you, but TMNT, Powerpuff Girls, Spongebob, Teen Titans, all Disney characters I can think of, and The Simpsons were done beautifully. "
It always requires very very very specialized parts. I agree with some of those but the round and bubbly simpsons characters I do not think were capture sufficiently in Lego form. Or as mentioned above the weird face prints for the seven dwarves. And many more."
Whereas other people are perfectly happy with how they did The Simpsons. Nobody forces you to buy LEGO so if you don't like animated characters being done, then don't buy them. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean everyone feels the same way.
@CCC said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny."
I hear you, but TMNT, Powerpuff Girls, Spongebob, Teen Titans, all Disney characters I can think of, and The Simpsons were done beautifully. "
It always requires very very very specialized parts. I agree with some of those but the round and bubbly simpsons characters I do not think were capture sufficiently in Lego form. Or as mentioned above the weird face prints for the seven dwarves. And many more."
Whereas other people are perfectly happy with how they did The Simpsons. Nobody forces you to buy LEGO so if you don't like animated characters being done, then don't buy them. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean everyone feels the same way."
Such a weird mindset. I thought this was a forum to discuss Lego? Some of you just aren't ready to talk about these children's toys like adults. I knew this take was controversial before but I wasn't expecting such hostile responses. Do you want me to apologize for my opinion?
@GirlWoman said:
" @CCC said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny."
I hear you, but TMNT, Powerpuff Girls, Spongebob, Teen Titans, all Disney characters I can think of, and The Simpsons were done beautifully. "
It always requires very very very specialized parts. I agree with some of those but the round and bubbly simpsons characters I do not think were capture sufficiently in Lego form. Or as mentioned above the weird face prints for the seven dwarves. And many more."
Whereas other people are perfectly happy with how they did The Simpsons. Nobody forces you to buy LEGO so if you don't like animated characters being done, then don't buy them. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean everyone feels the same way."
Such a weird mindset. I thought this was a forum to discuss Lego? Some of you just aren't ready to talk about these children's toys like adults. I knew this take was controversial before but I wasn't expecting such hostile responses. Do you want me to apologize for my opinion?"
I have a suspicion the tetchiness is largely about the perception that you’re advocating for something they like to be taken away from them - opening with “Lego should stay away from” - since no-one else expressing dislike has had similar responses. Which as an emotional response it isn’t all that surprising, if unpleasant to receive.
I don't know who needs to hear this, but:
Every Lego set will always be a caricature of the thing it represents. Whether it's "wrong" sized tires on an F1 car, or "something off" about minifigs from animated characters, or "unsightly gaps" in curved panels.
Hmmmmmm…. Would have liked the Minifigs to be more accurate to animation look. :( these are pretty far from the look.
@Hiratha said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @CCC said:
" @GirlWoman said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @GirlWoman said:
"Controversial take: Lego should stay away from any animated property. Animated characters always have such distinct and unique and unrealistic and un-human-like proportions and silhouettes (which is fine that is what the medium requires) - but Lego minifigures are such approximations of the human form, that can never capture the look of any animated character. They rarely look right. No matter if Inside Out, Incredibles, Toy Story, Trolls, the minifigures are always so uncanny."
I hear you, but TMNT, Powerpuff Girls, Spongebob, Teen Titans, all Disney characters I can think of, and The Simpsons were done beautifully. "
It always requires very very very specialized parts. I agree with some of those but the round and bubbly simpsons characters I do not think were capture sufficiently in Lego form. Or as mentioned above the weird face prints for the seven dwarves. And many more."
Whereas other people are perfectly happy with how they did The Simpsons. Nobody forces you to buy LEGO so if you don't like animated characters being done, then don't buy them. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean everyone feels the same way."
Such a weird mindset. I thought this was a forum to discuss Lego? Some of you just aren't ready to talk about these children's toys like adults. I knew this take was controversial before but I wasn't expecting such hostile responses. Do you want me to apologize for my opinion?"
I have a suspicion the tetchiness is largely about the perception that you’re advocating for something they like to be taken away from them - opening with “Lego should stay away from” - since no-one else expressing dislike has had similar responses. Which as an emotional response it isn’t all that surprising, if unpleasant to receive."
It isn't tetchiness, or that it is something I like, it is more a case of finding these opinions that "I don't like it so they shouldn't do this or anything else like it" pathetic. This was a call not to do ANY themes based on animations. Absolutely pathetic. It is clearly wrong too, as there are animations based on human or human-like characters that work fine as minifigures.
Fortunately the ignore feature exists and their pathetic opinions have now disappeared for me forever.
To be honest I never heard of Bluey. But maybe it's because I am not the target audience.
I ADORE that new seat piece.
They actually have two different head moulds. The mother's ears curve closer inward!