Review: 43021 Nike Dunk Trickshot
Posted by Huw,
LEGO's partnership with Nike has so far yielded a variety of LEGO-branded Nike bags and apparel, and three Nike-themed LEGO sets, of which 43021 Nike Dunk Trickshot is one of two that'll be released next week.
Although designed primarily for display, it does have a 'dunking' mechanism built into it for added play value.
Summary
43021 Nike Dunk Trickshot, 454 pieces.
£34.99 / $39.99 / €39.99 | 7.7p/8.8c/8.8c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
A good looking display model with a dunking mechanism to add some fun
- Other than the clumsy side strap, the shoe looks great
- Dunking is fun for five minutes
- Stickers
- Dunking is fun for only five minutes
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
The model comprises a red-and-white Nike trainer mounted on a Technic mechanism which is built into a studs-sideways plinth measuring about 18x11cm. The plinth has been finished off neatly around its edges with tiles and curved slopes, and a pair of stickers decorate the area under the heel of the shoe.
A basketball net provides a target for dunking, and a colourful backdrop which includes two printed 6x6 round tiles adds visual interest.
The shoe has a hole underneath which connects it to the mechanism. With the shoe removed, its operation can be examined, and it's quite simple. Pressing down on the angled beam at the back causes the arm holding the shoe to tilt forwards. The rubber piece in the plinth prevents the shoe from flying into the net if excessive force is used. It's not spring-loaded, which allows the shoe to be displayed in any position, but also means that you need to return it to its initial position manually.
As well as providing a way of slam-dunking with the minifigure in the shoe, which of course does not actually throw the ball, you can also attempt to do so with the basketball by resting it between the black pieces at the end of the arm. Try as I might, I could not get it in the net...
The shoe incorporates some clever building techniques involving bars and clips to angle the tongue and the sides, and overall I think the shape is very good considering how small it is, although the red 2x4 tiles on the sides look a bit clumsy.
All the decorations on it are stickers.
It's about 12cm long, so is dwarfed by the Dunk High trainer in 43008 Nike Dunk.
The unique minifigure is attired in a Nike-branded hoodie with the hood up and a Nike baseball cap underneath. Two heads, male and female, are provided.
Although this is the cheapest set in the Nike collection I think it works both as a display model and something that'll provide five minutes of fun with its built-in slam dunk mechanism.
The market LEGO hopes to capture with these Nike sets are kids that think they are too old for LEGO and have started caring about other things, like the shoes they wear. I think this set might just do so, and at a price which is not beyond reach.
65 likes
59 comments on this article
John "Shoecheater" Cheatshoe and his cheating-shoe got dunked on. John and his shoe got what they deserved.
Not a big fan of those product placement sets, what is the target audience for that?
I miss the Lego basketball minifigures with the spring loaded legs, I’m sure I’ve managed to score at least a two-pointer with one of those.
@darthnorman said:
"Not a big fan of those product placement sets, what is the target audience for that?"
Did you read the review, or skip directly to the comments?
“The market LEGO hopes to capture with these Nike sets are kids that think they are too old for LEGO and have started caring about other things, like the shoes they wear. I think this set might just do so, and at a price which is not beyond reach.”
@Mister_Jonny said:
"I miss the Lego basketball minifigures with the spring loaded legs, I’m sure I’ve managed to score at least a two-pointer with one of those."
Oh man, I'd love to have an NBA minifig but they're crazy expensive now, especially Kobe Bryant's 3500! I was wondering if Lego would've brought them back for their Nike sets but alas no. I can't help but wonder how this very set would have turned out if they managed to incorporate an alternative 'shooting' mechanism like from 3428 or 3430.
As a Nike fan and Lego fan, it seems as in terms of target audience it's a bullseye! I'll definitely be getting this (but i have 71050-0 and 72046 on top of my list first).
@darthnorman said: "Not a big fan of those product placement sets, what is the target audience for that?"
I'm reliably-informed that the people who collect sneakers are just as passionate about their hobby as the people who collect Lego sets.
In all honesty, I tend to agree. I don't get it, personally. But a brand is a brand.
And you know, I'd still love a copy of B'Ball Head, because I think he's so creepy and sinister that he'd make a great supervillain for my Lego rogues gallery.
@Zordboy said:
" @darthnorman said: "Not a big fan of those product placement sets, what is the target audience for that?"
I'm reliably-informed that the people who collect sneakers are just as passionate about their hobby as the people who collect Lego sets.
In all honesty, I tend to agree. I don't get it, personally. But a brand is a brand.
And you know, I'd still love a copy of B'Ball Head, because I think he's so creepy and sinister that he'd make a great supervillain for my Lego rogues gallery."
https://youtu.be/LKco3wcwKyE?t=7
@Mister_Jonny said:
"I miss the Lego basketball minifigures with the spring loaded legs, I’m sure I’ve managed to score at least a two-pointer with one of those."
Just reminds me I have a lot of those sat in a drawer waiting for sorting and ebaying (when I figure out how selling on ebay works)
Think I have most of the collections of 3 with the stands, but no back cards
@Euroseb11 said:
" @Mister_Jonny said:
"I miss the Lego basketball minifigures with the spring loaded legs, I’m sure I’ve managed to score at least a two-pointer with one of those."
Oh man, I'd love to have an NBA minifig but they're crazy expensive now, especially Kobe Bryant's 3500! I was wondering if Lego would've brought them back for their Nike sets but alas no. I can't help but wonder how this very set would have turned out if they managed to incorporate an alternative 'shooting' mechanism like from 3428 or 3430.
As a Nike fan and Lego fan, it seems as in terms of target audience it's a bullseye! I'll definitely be getting this (but i have 71050-0 and 72046 on top of my list first). "
Wonder why single Kobe Bryant is more valuable than when paired with two others in 3563
@chrisaw said:
" @darthnorman said:
"Not a big fan of those product placement sets, what is the target audience for that?"
Did you read the review, or skip directly to the comments?
“The market LEGO hopes to capture with these Nike sets are kids that think they are too old for LEGO and have started caring about other things, like the shoes they wear. I think this set might just do so, and at a price which is not beyond reach.”"
Also, this is not product placement. It's just another licensed set... Like all those Star Wars sets, which I assume is something that someone with 'Darth' in their username might like. :'-)
Really can't stand the mindset of: "I don't like this, so why does this exist?" Just stop it already.
The set looks good, though. Nice minifig too.
@darthnorman said:
"Not a big fan of those product placement sets, what is the target audience for that?"
Apparently quite a few people are excited for this set. Fans of Nike and shoe collectors, just like other licenses really. Not necessarily existing fans of LEGO although there will be some overlap in fanbases. I think they could have squeezed an extra £5 / $10 onto the price and still attracted Nike fans.
@Euroseb11 said:
" Oh man, I'd love to have an NBA minifig but they're crazy expensive now, especially Kobe Bryant's 3500! I was wondering if Lego would've brought them back for their Nike sets but alas no. I can't help but wonder how this very set would have turned out if they managed to incorporate an alternative 'shooting' mechanism like from 3428 or 3430. "
Bryant and Shaq are expensive because of who they are, but I occasionally see the other named ones for about £5-8 here, and the unnamed generic ones for about £2.
@bnic99 said:
" Wonder why single Kobe Bryant is more valuable than when paired with two others in 3563"
He isn't. It is just that price guides become unreliable when so few sales are made and so few are available. There is also the effect of the minifigure using the actual name, whereas the set uses a generic name without Bryant's name in it.
If LEGO and Nike had instead built a shoe spaceship or shoe castle, I’d suspect a much better response from most LEGO fans. That being said, this still feels destined for the BTS, Foosball, QE, etc heavy discount bin.
Upon closer examination, this set has a lot of great space parts in it.
I might have to see if I can find it on a good sale at some point.
@Euroseb11 said:
" @Mister_Jonny said:
"I miss the Lego basketball minifigures with the spring loaded legs, I’m sure I’ve managed to score at least a two-pointer with one of those."
Oh man, I'd love to have an NBA minifig but they're crazy expensive now, especially Kobe Bryant's 3500! I was wondering if Lego would've brought them back for their Nike sets but alas no. I can't help but wonder how this very set would have turned out if they managed to incorporate an alternative 'shooting' mechanism like from 3428 or 3430.
As a Nike fan and Lego fan, it seems as in terms of target audience it's a bullseye! I'll definitely be getting this (but i have 71050-0 and 72046 on top of my list first). "
I’ve got the 2v2 street basketball set; I don’t follow basketball per se, so it’s an ideal addition to my marvel New York scene.
@darthnorman said:
"Not a big fan of those product placement sets"
Something tells me otherwise, Darth Norman.
@yellowcastle said:
"If LEGO and Nike had instead built a shoe spaceship or shoe castle, I’d suspect a much better response from most LEGO fans. That being said, this still feels destined for the BTS, Foosball, QE, etc heavy discount bin."
I think I can speak for most on here that you have now given the next two Ideas/Bricklink sets to be approved.
Space shoe mafia and castle shoe mafia for the win!!
I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off.
It's really not surprising that guy's shoe is falling off when he tries to dunk--it appears to be quite a bit too large for him.
@Euroseb11 said:
" @Mister_Jonny said:
"I miss the Lego basketball minifigures with the spring loaded legs, I’m sure I’ve managed to score at least a two-pointer with one of those."
Oh man, I'd love to have an NBA minifig but they're crazy expensive now, especially Kobe Bryant's 3500! I was wondering if Lego would've brought them back for their Nike sets but alas no."
Sorry, bud. Nothing is bringing Kobe back. RIP.
With the Adidas shoe 40486 at least I was able to score four of them to put on my 75288 AT-AT.
I don't anticipate trying that with this item.
@bnic99 said:
"ust reminds me I have a lot of those sat in a drawer waiting for sorting and ebaying (when I figure out how selling on ebay works)
Think I have most of the collections of 3 with the stands, but no back cards"
You might look into Bricklink--the fees are a lot more reasonable.
@PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
While I agree there's something to be said about the overall ethics of Nike as a company, I fail to see how this is worse than LEGO licensing property from F1, FIFA, Disney, Warner, or any other major company. To me this isn't any more cynical than for Disney to release yet another Marvel or Star Wars movie with the main intention to squeeze out a bunch of merch, specifically toys, including LEGO sets aimed at 4-year olds. And if possible Duplo too, so they can reel in kids as young as 2 or 3. At least this is a 10+ set, so it's in the older age range. But if your concern is that kids might get corrupted by corporate greed through toys, which is a very valid concern, then this surely isn't the worst offender.
@Rimefang said:
"With the Adidas shoe 40486 at least I was able to score four of them to put on my 75288 AT-AT.
I don't anticipate trying that with this item."
That is simply awesome. :o)
@yellowcastle said:
" @Rimefang said:
"With the Adidas shoe 40486 at least I was able to score four of them to put on my 75288 AT-AT.
I don't anticipate trying that with this item."
That is simply awesome. :o)"
Well of course not. Everyone knows AT-ATs are pants when it comes to dunking.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
While I agree there's something to be said about the overall ethics of Nike as a company, I fail to see how this is worse than LEGO licensing property from F1, FIFA, Disney, Warner, or any other major company. To me this isn't any more cynical than for Disney to release yet another Marvel or Star Wars movie with the main intention to squeeze out a bunch of merch, specifically toys, including LEGO sets aimed at 4-year olds. And if possible Duplo too, so they can reel in kids as young as 2 or 3. At least this is a 10+ set, so it's in the older age range. But if your concern is that kids might get corrupted by corporate greed through toys, which is a very valid concern, then this surely isn't the worst offender."
That is a good point. Maybe the reason these seem to rub people the wrong way is because it feels more like an advertisement because Nike is moreso a product while licenses on movies and such at least have some story to them?
At the end of the day, no one is making me buy the set. I do like the little basketball guy they have as a mascot, though. Reminds me of something from the 2000s in the best way.
I’m seeing a lot of “meh” round this set, but it was to be expected seeing as AFOLs were definitely not the targeted audience. Having said that, I think this is a great set! PPP is quite good (especially for a licensed set), there are printed pieces (and for that size, pretty good for a $40 set), and a great working mechanism. By great working mechanism I mean a cool tabletop basketball game, if you subtract the shoe part. Surprisingly, this also works as a nice parts pack! There’s a nice grey base, some fairly good quantities of rarer and unusual colors, and some cool recolors to round it all out.
I will definitely pick this set up at some point, and maybe two if it hits the clearance bin like it’s projected to. I’ll have a nice minifigure, a fun dunking mechanism, and a neatly sized shoe to go with 40486! Seems like a pretty great deal nowadays for only $40!
@PixelTheDragon said:
"I do like the little basketball guy they have as a mascot, though. Reminds me of something from the 2000s in the best way. "
It reminds me of more modern characters from Hidden Side or Dreamzzz, like Jack Davids.
@PixelTheDragon said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
While I agree there's something to be said about the overall ethics of Nike as a company, I fail to see how this is worse than LEGO licensing property from F1, FIFA, Disney, Warner, or any other major company. To me this isn't any more cynical than for Disney to release yet another Marvel or Star Wars movie with the main intention to squeeze out a bunch of merch, specifically toys, including LEGO sets aimed at 4-year olds. And if possible Duplo too, so they can reel in kids as young as 2 or 3. At least this is a 10+ set, so it's in the older age range. But if your concern is that kids might get corrupted by corporate greed through toys, which is a very valid concern, then this surely isn't the worst offender."
That is a good point. Maybe the reason these seem to rub people the wrong way is because it feels more like an advertisement because Nike is moreso a product while licenses on movies and such at least have some story to them?
At the end of the day, no one is making me buy the set. I do like the little basketball guy they have as a mascot, though. Reminds me of something from the 2000s in the best way. "
If you've recently saw any Marvel movie you'll know that storylines don't really matter there as well. :'-)
And yes, licensed products in essence are advertisements -- like how LEGO Spider-Man sets are advertisements for Spider-Man movies and, even more so (!), vice versa. Is there a new Star Wars or Transformers movie coming out? Gotta make sure all the toy stores are plastered with action figures and building sets and whatnot, because it's all one big marketing push. The stories are secondary to all of it.
The advertisement is really much more blatant with most other licensed sets than with this single Nike LEGO set. I really don't think Nike will sell many extra shoes because of it. It's more about cross-promotion and extending brand identity beyond already established markets, even if I doubt there are still people in the world unaware that Nike makes sneakers.
@PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
Sorry to have to break it to you, but LEGO of today is in now way better or trustworthy or your friendly company buddy you might want them to be than Nike or any other greedy corporate behemoth.
Long gone are the days when LEGO was a comparatively small Danish family business with a rather compact product catalogue and products that oozed originality and inventiveness, not reliant on countless licences to sell ever more mediocre products. Back then the biggest licence partners were companies that used to bring a little bit of realism to LEGOLAND Town sets, like Shell, Exxon or Maersk.
I'm talking Seventies up to mid Nineties here.
"WHO EVEN WANTS THIS SET WHO IS THE TARGET MARKET???"
- The guy who hasn't read the review
"IT'S CLEARLY AND OBVIOUSLY THE SUPER SMALL AND NICHE SUBSET OF PEOPLE WHO ARE GUARANTEED TO BUY THIS SET!"
- The guy who missed the point of the review
This isn't really a set for me, but I'm not the type to insist that Lego only release sets tailored to my interests, so I'm just going to say that I love it when a review has the same thing (more or less) under Pros and Cons.
@CCC said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I do like the little basketball guy they have as a mascot, though. Reminds me of something from the 2000s in the best way. "
It reminds me of more modern characters from Hidden Side or Dreamzzz, like Jack Davids."
Pretty sure Pixel was talking about https://brickset.com/minifigs/nike001/b-ball-head, not the figure in this set. Or at least that's what I thought of when I read the words "little basketball guy."
@ohrmazd said:
" @yellowcastle said:
" @Rimefang said:
"With the Adidas shoe 40486 at least I was able to score four of them to put on my 75288 AT-AT.
I don't anticipate trying that with this item."
That is simply awesome. :o)"
Well of course not. Everyone knows AT-ATs are pants when it comes to dunking. "
Yeah, but they play defense like a brick wall.
Dang, now I feel like I need another copy of that shoe. I thought I already had three copies too many. Thanks a lot!
These are great spaceships
@AustinPowers said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
Sorry to have to break it to you, but LEGO of today is in now way better or trustworthy or your friendly company buddy you might want them to be than Nike or any other greedy corporate behemoth.
Long gone are the days when LEGO was a comparatively small Danish family business with a rather compact product catalogue and products that oozed originality and inventiveness, not reliant on countless licences to sell ever more mediocre products. Back then the biggest licence partners were companies that used to bring a little bit of realism to LEGOLAND Town sets, like Shell, Exxon or Maersk.
I'm talking Seventies up to mid Nineties here. "
Shell and Exxon are far worse than Nike. Not even a competition.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
Sorry to have to break it to you, but LEGO of today is in now way better or trustworthy or your friendly company buddy you might want them to be than Nike or any other greedy corporate behemoth.
Long gone are the days when LEGO was a comparatively small Danish family business with a rather compact product catalogue and products that oozed originality and inventiveness, not reliant on countless licences to sell ever more mediocre products. Back then the biggest licence partners were companies that used to bring a little bit of realism to LEGOLAND Town sets, like Shell, Exxon or Maersk.
I'm talking Seventies up to mid Nineties here. "
Shell and Exxon are far worse than Nike. Not even a competition."
This could be the next Brickset-poll. @Huw, are you feeling it?
At first I thought there would be a mechanism where the minifig raises up on the blue cloud as the shoe lifts, but maybe too complicated unless their is a genius out there who can figure out how to do this?
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
Sorry to have to break it to you, but LEGO of today is in now way better or trustworthy or your friendly company buddy you might want them to be than Nike or any other greedy corporate behemoth.
Long gone are the days when LEGO was a comparatively small Danish family business with a rather compact product catalogue and products that oozed originality and inventiveness, not reliant on countless licences to sell ever more mediocre products. Back then the biggest licence partners were companies that used to bring a little bit of realism to LEGOLAND Town sets, like Shell, Exxon or Maersk.
I'm talking Seventies up to mid Nineties here. "
Shell and Exxon are far worse than Nike. Not even a competition."
My point was not that those would be better than Nike, but only that back then there were hardly any licenses used at all.
>2025
>Supporting Nike
https://www.reddit.com/r/running/comments/ynlhuc/opinion_even_if_their_products_are_objectively/
Lego. WTF????
It's too bad Lego has ended their previous well-established pattern of only working with ethnically pure licensors that have never done anything to harm people.
Oh, I just got an email promoting the big Harry Potter sale.
Are they trying to get Lego collectors to collect sneakers, or sneakers collectors to collect Lego?
@AustinPowers said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
Sorry to have to break it to you, but LEGO of today is in now way better or trustworthy or your friendly company buddy you might want them to be than Nike or any other greedy corporate behemoth.
Long gone are the days when LEGO was a comparatively small Danish family business with a rather compact product catalogue and products that oozed originality and inventiveness, not reliant on countless licences to sell ever more mediocre products. Back then the biggest licence partners were companies that used to bring a little bit of realism to LEGOLAND Town sets, like Shell, Exxon or Maersk.
I'm talking Seventies up to mid Nineties here. "
Shell and Exxon are far worse than Nike. Not even a competition."
My point was not that those would be better than Nike, but only that back then there were hardly any licenses used at all. "
But the few licensors there were at the time had a terrible track record. Licensing in and of itself isn't a bad thing. I like a fair chunk of the licensed sets myself, partially thanks to heavy deregulation of advertising to kids during my childhood. Licensing has become part of our (popular) culture, and it's not going to stop anytime soon -- if at all. So just brace yourselves for some odd ball licensing deals and crossovers coming up. It already heavily infected the action figure isles, and I wouldn't be surprised if LEGO's next (technically they already did that with the LEGO Movie, so not a stretch at all).
@Andrusi said:
"It's too bad Lego has ended their previous well-established pattern of only working with ethnically pure licensors that have never done anything to harm people.
Oh, I just got an email promoting the big Harry Potter sale."
I’m going to assume ethnically pure was not what you were going for here. :o)
We love HP but that’s all I’ll say on that. As far as the olden days of LEGO yor, let’s not assume anything. Octan knows where I am when it’s ready to apologize.
@yellowcastle said:
" @Andrusi said:
"It's too bad Lego has ended their previous well-established pattern of only working with ethnically pure licensors that have never done anything to harm people.
Oh, I just got an email promoting the big Harry Potter sale."
I’m going to assume ethnically pure was not what you were going for here. :o)
We love HP but that’s all I’ll say on that. As far as the olden days of LEGO yor, let’s not assume anything. Octan knows where I am when it’s ready to apologize.
"
*Ethically* pure. Autocorrect can go die in an inescapably comedic accident.
@ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
Sorry to have to break it to you, but LEGO of today is in now way better or trustworthy or your friendly company buddy you might want them to be than Nike or any other greedy corporate behemoth.
Long gone are the days when LEGO was a comparatively small Danish family business with a rather compact product catalogue and products that oozed originality and inventiveness, not reliant on countless licences to sell ever more mediocre products. Back then the biggest licence partners were companies that used to bring a little bit of realism to LEGOLAND Town sets, like Shell, Exxon or Maersk.
I'm talking Seventies up to mid Nineties here. "
Shell and Exxon are far worse than Nike. Not even a competition."
My point was not that those would be better than Nike, but only that back then there were hardly any licenses used at all. "
But the few licensors there were at the time had a terrible track record. Licensing in and of itself isn't a bad thing. I like a fair chunk of the licensed sets myself, partially thanks to heavy deregulation of advertising to kids during my childhood. Licensing has become part of our (popular) culture, and it's not going to stop anytime soon -- if at all. So just brace yourselves for some odd ball licensing deals and crossovers coming up. It already heavily infected the action figure isles, and I wouldn't be surprised if LEGO's next (technically they already did that with the LEGO Movie, so not a stretch at all)."
You still don't get my point.
I don't give a smeg about how people perceive the ethicality of certain companies or properties LEGO does business with.
My point is that licenses in general are a bad thing these days when it comes to LEGO - purely because they often add cost but no value. Particularly when it comes to Technic sets, my pet pieve. Things like 42215, the worst Technic set of the last decade.
@biffuz said:
"Are they trying to get Lego collectors to collect sneakers, or sneakers collectors to collect Lego?"
Depends on whether you ask Lego or Nike.
I'm starting to think Mr. Powers might not like 42215. Anyone else get that impression?
The only argument i would make about that is that LEGO licensing Star Wars saved the company. After repeated line-failures (Belleville, Scala, Clickits, ZNAP, etc) LEGO was almost bankrupt but the Star Wars license, then a series of licensed products (Spider-man, Batman, HP, LOTR) created the juggernaut they are now in 25 somewhat short years. Number one toy company in the world, such that now they have their formerly closest competition and previous number one toy company in the world, whose own line of interlocking brick system failed pretty miserably, working WITH LEGO on their own licensed toys (Hasbro and Transformers.)
Licensed things can be bad, such as the degree that LEGO sure appears extra-greedy with their finances, but don't forget that they wouldnt be in business now without it. And licenses allow them to create the super-niche products that come from Ideas or Bricklink.
@AustinPowers said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
Sorry to have to break it to you, but LEGO of today is in now way better or trustworthy or your friendly company buddy you might want them to be than Nike or any other greedy corporate behemoth.
Long gone are the days when LEGO was a comparatively small Danish family business with a rather compact product catalogue and products that oozed originality and inventiveness, not reliant on countless licences to sell ever more mediocre products. Back then the biggest licence partners were companies that used to bring a little bit of realism to LEGOLAND Town sets, like Shell, Exxon or Maersk.
I'm talking Seventies up to mid Nineties here. "
Shell and Exxon are far worse than Nike. Not even a competition."
My point was not that those would be better than Nike, but only that back then there were hardly any licenses used at all. "
Looking through the Brickset database, it appears that 1955 was the first year of licensed sets. Out of 37 sets listed, at least 10 of them were licensed. That's over 25% which is not insignificant.
Of course, let's not let facts get in the way of your narrative.
@sotwuser said:
"Looking through the Brickset database, it appears that 1955 was the first year of licensed sets. Out of 37 sets listed, at least 10 of them were licensed. That's over 25% which is not insignificant.
Of course, let's not let facts get in the way of your narrative."
First of all, I was talking about the Eighties, because I wasn't around in 1955.
Secondly, most of the "sets" you mentioned weren't sets at all, but vehicle accessories to populate ones Town layout. Some of those were printed with Esso and the like, some weren't. Plus they cost the same whether printed (and/or licensed) or not.
And even though I don't know the details of the deals back then, I am absolutely certain that LEGO will not have had to pay a lot for something like using the Esso name. Esso will have been quite happy to see their name get wide brand recognition through a children's toy, priming future customers for their brand. After all, if you had positive memories playing with your Esso service station as a kid, wouldn't you be likely to use the services of said company as an adult too?
I know I had a Shell service station (6371, plus the tanker lorry 671) and Shell was my preferred brand of choice in the early years of my motoring as well. Go figure.
That's something completely different to today, where a generic set costs X Euro while one with a license by slapped on stickers costs X plus 50% Euro or whatever insane surcharge LEGO decides to call reasonable.
@AustinPowers said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I just don’t like Nike as a company or a brand. These sets make it feel like LEGO kissing up to them. There is something very cynical about a toy brand that is generally aimed at kids shilling it.
Yes, I know there is LEGO for adults and older audiences, but something about this just feels off."
Sorry to have to break it to you, but LEGO of today is in now way better or trustworthy or your friendly company buddy you might want them to be than Nike or any other greedy corporate behemoth.
Long gone are the days when LEGO was a comparatively small Danish family business with a rather compact product catalogue and products that oozed originality and inventiveness, not reliant on countless licences to sell ever more mediocre products. Back then the biggest licence partners were companies that used to bring a little bit of realism to LEGOLAND Town sets, like Shell, Exxon or Maersk.
I'm talking Seventies up to mid Nineties here. "
Shell and Exxon are far worse than Nike. Not even a competition."
My point was not that those would be better than Nike, but only that back then there were hardly any licenses used at all. "
But the few licensors there were at the time had a terrible track record. Licensing in and of itself isn't a bad thing. I like a fair chunk of the licensed sets myself, partially thanks to heavy deregulation of advertising to kids during my childhood. Licensing has become part of our (popular) culture, and it's not going to stop anytime soon -- if at all. So just brace yourselves for some odd ball licensing deals and crossovers coming up. It already heavily infected the action figure isles, and I wouldn't be surprised if LEGO's next (technically they already did that with the LEGO Movie, so not a stretch at all)."
You still don't get my point.
I don't give a smeg about how people perceive the ethicality of certain companies or properties LEGO does business with.
My point is that licenses in general are a bad thing these days when it comes to LEGO - purely because they often add cost but no value. Particularly when it comes to Technic sets, my pet pieve. Things like 42215, the worst Technic set of the last decade."
Believe me, I got your point. You've been repeating it over and over, after all. ;-)
@AustinPowers said:
" @sotwuser said:
"Looking through the Brickset database, it appears that 1955 was the first year of licensed sets. Out of 37 sets listed, at least 10 of them were licensed. That's over 25% which is not insignificant.
Of course, let's not let facts get in the way of your narrative."
First of all, I was talking about the Eighties, because I wasn't around in 1955.
Secondly, most of the "sets" you mentioned weren't sets at all, but vehicle accessories to populate ones Town layout. Some of those were printed with Esso and the like, some weren't. Plus they cost the same whether printed (and/or licensed) or not.
And even though I don't know the details of the deals back then, I am absolutely certain that LEGO will not have had to pay a lot for something like using the Esso name. Esso will have been quite happy to see their name get wide brand recognition through a children's toy, priming future customers for their brand. After all, if you had positive memories playing with your Esso service station as a kid, wouldn't you be likely to use the services of said company as an adult too?
I know I had a Shell service station ( 6371 , plus the tanker lorry 671 ) and Shell was my preferred brand of choice in the early years of my motoring as well. Go figure.
That's something completely different to today, where a generic set costs X Euro while one with a license by slapped on stickers costs X plus 50% Euro or whatever insane surcharge LEGO decides to call reasonable. "
You're quite obviously viewing this through very rose-tinted nostalgia goggles. Which is fine, but it has no use to keep comparing how things used to be in the supposed 'golden years' of LEGO as opposed to how it is now. Let's face it: without licensed sets we'd have no LEGO today. Star Wars and Harry Potter pretty much saved the company from bankruptcy, because -- GUES WHAT? -- kids like licensed set. Sales figures generally reflect this, same for many 18+ sets.
As @sotwuser rightfully pointed out, there has always been some kind of licensing and trust me, you always have to pay to use another company's name, logo, or other IP. LEGO wasn't the big name brand in 1955 it is now. During the 1980s and 1990s LEGO partnered up with Shell in various Town sets. Granted, the licensing was nowhere near as omnipresent as it is today, but there were also far fewer LEGO sets released on an annual basis. You may not like many of the set today, as you keep pointing out, but the variety is far greater than it ever was, mostly because of licensing. The issue of quality is a different story, of course, but I think only a minority of customers really care about that to the extend that you do. Otherwise it would reflect in sales numbers -- yet the profits keep rising.
@ToysFromTheAttic : most of your points are spot on of course, but I don't have to like it.
I am so glad that I grew up when I did and I am also glad that my kids grew up when they did and that they are now not interested in LEGO anymore.
There's no way I would buy them as many sets today as I did when they were into LEGO.
I pity kids that are in LEGO age these days that have to make do with what's available nowadays. And I pity their parents even more who have to fork out ever more money for ever less value.
Just imagine your kid was into Star Wars and would like a Republic Juggernaut...
@ToysFromTheAttic said:"Let's face it: without licensed sets we'd have no LEGO today. Star Wars and Harry Potter pretty much saved the company from bankruptcy,..."
Bionicle had a hand in it, too.
@TheOtherMike said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic said:"Let's face it: without licensed sets we'd have no LEGO today. Star Wars and Harry Potter pretty much saved the company from bankruptcy,..."
Bionicle had a hand in it, too."
Some even say that Bionicle was the bigger factor, and that the Star Wars licensing deal was a gamble like all the others they took back then, and was by no means meant to save the company but just an experiment that happened to pay off big time.
@AustinPowers said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic : most of your points are spot on of course, but I don't have to like it.
I am so glad that I grew up when I did and I am also glad that my kids grew up when they did and that they are now not interested in LEGO anymore.
There's no way I would buy them as many sets today as I did when they were into LEGO.
I pity kids that are in LEGO age these days that have to make do with what's available nowadays. And I pity their parents even more who have to fork out ever more money for ever less value.
Just imagine your kid was into Star Wars and would like a Republic Juggernaut... "
I'm sure that the kids who are into LEGO now love their sets just as much as you loved yours back in the day, and they'll probably look back at those sets with the same kind of nostalgia in 30 to 40 years time, saying 'it was the best era for LEGO', just because they grew up with it. That's simply how nostalgia works, as it really skews your views with a sentiment for a time when things were supposedly 'better'.
The value for money argument is another sentiment that is heavily tied into that nostalgia, but it's a given that prices go up because currency loses value over time. You may remember what you paid for a LEGO set in 1995, and compare it to what you're getting for that same amount of money now, but that's an unfair comparison. If you take inflation into account, LEGO really hasn't gotten that more expensive. Comparatively, it has actually gotten a little bit cheaper -- but it has always been expensive to most people, as many A-brand toys have been.
A good comparison are the recently reissued Ninja Turtles action figures from the late 1980s and early 1990s. When I first saw the price tags, I thought: "Wow, that's expensive!" But throwing the original retail price in a currency converter shows that they were actually a little more expensive back then in terms of what money was worth in 1990. I know facts aren't going the change the way you feel about things, which is understandable to a degree, but being blinded by nostalgia isn't necessarily a good thing either.
@ToysFromTheAttic : while I won't argue that nostalgia will certainly influence feelings, there are also facts that don't have anything to do with nostalgia or rose tinted glasses.
And those pertain to the quality issues we have today, plus the shrinkflation that can't be denied with sets like the aforementioned Republic Juggernaut, or especially when it comes to Technic, like when you compare 8043 and 42215 as just one example.
Sure, kids of today won't see this as they have no comparison. But I bet you they wouldn't be so happy if they knew what they could have gotten, either for a comparable amount of money, or way less, even factoring in inflation.
Or to be precise:
8043 cost 200 Euro RRP in 2010. Going by the inflation calculator for Germany that is just shy of 275 Euro in 2025 money.
That got you 1,123 pieces, among them
1 Power Functions Battery Box
2 PF Remote Controls
2 PF Receiver Units
4 PF M Motors
Also you got a sturdy box with lift up lid
Plus a very good B-model, including full paper instructions.
42215 otoh costs 400 Euro or 45% more than 8043 in today's money.
While it has more pieces overall at 2,359, among those you get
1 Powered Up Battery Box
0 Remote Controls
0 Receiver Units
1 Powered Up L Motor
Also you get a thin cardboard box without lift up lid.
And no B-model. Not even PDF instructions for one.
But yeah, you get a couple of Volvo stickers to slap on the model, even though it looks very little like the source material and could just as well be a generic Excavator like 8043.
And let's not even mention the execution of both models, the lack in functionality in the new one and the snail pace movement of the available functions that kill any play value that might have been left.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that this is just my nostalgia talking?
@AustinPowers said:
" @ToysFromTheAttic : while I won't argue that nostalgia will certainly influence feelings, there are also facts that don't have anything to do with nostalgia or rose tinted glasses.
And those pertain to the quality issues we have today, plus the shrinkflation that can't be denied with sets like the aforementioned Republic Juggernaut, or especially when it comes to Technic, like when you compare 8043 and 42215 as just one example.
Sure, kids of today won't see this as they have no comparison. But I bet you they wouldn't be so happy if they knew what they could have gotten, either for a comparable amount of money, or way less, even factoring in inflation.
Or to be precise:
8043 cost 200 Euro RRP in 2010. Going by the inflation calculator for Germany that is just shy of 275 Euro in 2025 money.
That got you 1,123 pieces, among them
1 Power Functions Battery Box
2 PF Remote Controls
2 PF Receiver Units
4 PF M Motors
Also you got a sturdy box with lift up lid
Plus a very good B-model, including full paper instructions.
42215 otoh costs 400 Euro or 45% more than 8043 in today's money.
While it has more pieces overall at 2,359, among those you get
1 Powered Up Battery Box
0 Remote Controls
0 Receiver Units
1 Powered Up L Motor
Also you get a thin cardboard box without lift up lid.
And no B-model. Not even PDF instructions for one.
But yeah, you get a couple of Volvo stickers to slap on the model, even though it looks very little like the source material and could just as well be a generic Excavator like 8043 .
And let's not even mention the execution of both models, the lack in functionality in the new one and the snail pace movement of the available functions that kill any play value that might have been left.
Are you seriously trying to tell me that this is just my nostalgia talking? "
I know you hate 42215 with a passion. :-)
Yes, 42215 is 45% more expensive if you only look at the retail price itself, but it also has over twice as many pieces. If we were to look at PPP, which some love to do, 8043 costs a little over 24 cents per piece (in today's money), while 42215 comes in at 17 cents per piece. So, looking purely at that statistic 42215 is actually about 30 percent cheaper than 8043.
Now, I'm aware that isn't entirely fair, because remote controls and receiver units are obviously more expensive than simple bricks and pins, although you'd have to calculate the exact costs of those to do an even comparison. But even then you can't just pin it down to LEGO being greedy or the fashionable term of shrinkflation, because I imagine that there are electrical parts involved which LEGO may not (entirely) produce themselves, or at least buys parts for.
Costs of those parts have risen as well, as have labour costs. So, the more that goes into the manufacturing of a set with complicated functions the more it will cost to produce it. I can imagine some function might be left out for this specific reason: because it otherwise would've been too expensive to bring to market.
Again, I'm not saying that LEGO isn't happily raking in money from their consumer base or that some sets aren't overpriced (because they are), and I'm also not saying that the quality may have dropped in some departments, but you can't just pin the rising prices on LEGO alone. Partially, definitely, but you need to look at the wider world for context as well. The only thing I can say I'm sure of is that LEGO sets continue to get more expensive.
Just look at the numbers LEGO posted recently, and you can cast aside any doubt about the greed argument.
And while it is true that 42215 may be the LEGO set I hate the most, lots of sets in recent years, especially Technic sets, suffer from the same deficiencies.
As for comparing prices, yes, the new one has far more pieces, but one would need to compare the weight and types of pieces to make a fair judgment. But just looking at review videos and seeing how flimsy and hollow the new one is while the old one is jam packed full to the brim, and the new one has two electronic components while the old one has nine, the old one clearly is a much better deal, especially at the much lower price.
And again, let's not forget how well all those many functions work on the old versus how crappy the (very few) functions work on the new one - plus that designers worked out a superb B-model for the old one that also means value that is just not provided with the new one.
You can try to rationalize the mediocre sets we get today all you like, the fact remains that previous generations of LEGO customers were far better off. And that's not nostalgia talking, it's hard facts.
As for the selection of sets being far larger today than it ever was, I myself prefer quality over quantity. But maybe that's just me.