Galidor: was it all bad?

Posted by ,

Recently I had cause to dig out the two Galidor sets I have from storage because DK wanted to photograph one of them, 8312 Jens, for a forthcoming book.

The twenty Galidor sets LEGO produced in 2002, in case you need reminding, are generally considered to be the worst sets that the company has ever made. Officially, they were not sold outside of the USA, because the TV show wasn't aired anywhere else. However, because US sales were so low, many of the sets were parallel imported into the UK and elsewhere so could be picked up in the likes of Pound$tretcher a year or so later for a few pounds each. Even at that price they were not appealing although I did buy Jens, the subject of this review, and 8318 Ooni. Parts of that model are made from a rubbery plastic which has perished badly in the intervening years so it's not fit to photograph.

So, are Galidor sets unfairly maligned, or are they in fact complete and utter rubbish?

While researching for this review, I found an article published a couple of years ago at Wired.co.uk entitled Building success: how thinking 'inside the brick' saved Lego that provides background information about the theme:

"A third example of how LEGO lost its way is Galidor. Galidor was one of the company's attempts to develop a full spectrum of innovation -- a family of complementary new products that reinforce and support each other. It featured a Power Rangers-like line of action figures that came with its own ecosystem of branded accompaniments. The toys themselves were intended to take LEGO into new aisles of the toy store; a risky journey, as only one in five action figures ends up a success. But the toys were only the beginning of Galidor's intended cross-pollination. There would also be Galidor Happy Meals at McDonalds, Galidor video games and Galidor DVDs. To cap it all, there would be that ultimate in toy marketing: a TV show serving as an extended commercial for the Galidor line.

"But when trying to fill an entire spectrum, it doesn't help if there's a gaping hole in the middle. The TV show that was supposed to be the foundation of the line's appeal turned out to be so bad that, in the words of Niels Milan Pedersen, one of Galidor's designers, top executives were "gobsmacked with disgust." Lacking an effective vehicle to publicise the toys, LEGO watched as sales essentially went nowhere. Less than a year after it was launched, Galidor was gone."

--

It would appear then that LEGO invested heavily but the TV show producers let them down badly.

Jens is some sort of 4-armed robotic character who stands about 23cm tall. His parts are moulded from old dark and light grey, with orange accents and spray-painted silver areas on the torso and head.

The arms and legs have elbow and knee joints as well as shoulder and hip joints which allows for a high degree of articulation although I found it difficult to pose him naturally.

Jens' second pair of arms, which sprout from his rib cage can be rotated and twisted but are otherwise fixed.

8312 Jens

There's a good level of detail on most of the parts although none of them are recogisable as LEGO elements and none of them provide any possibility to connect to other LEGO parts other than at the joints which I will discuss later.

8312 Jens

Perhaps surprisingly, Jens is not provided with a weapon. However he does have an interchangeable right arm which, from what I can tell from the packaging, is a flame thrower.

His head can be tilted and twisted enabling him to look left, right, up and down

8312 Jens

The joints are the only aspect of the parts that are recognisable as LEGO although at the time, these rotatable click hinges were new. They were reused in 2004 in the buildable Knights' Kingdom knights and a similar mechanism has been used in more versatile pieces since.

8312 Jens

Here are all 13-parts of the set, mostly deconstructed.The feet are on ball joints and can't be detached from the leg.

8312 Jens

One selling point of the sets was that the limbs were interchangeable so if you had more than one set, you could come up with some weird and whacky creatures but that, as far as versatility and reuse goes, was it.

As action figures go I guess it is pretty good given its made from a high quality plastic and is infinitely posable, but as LEGO, well, I have to agree with the majority, it's rubbish.

The only redeeming feature is the joint system which formed the basis of future action figure parts but even they have been superseded now by the ball-and-socket system of the Creature and Character Building System (CCBS).

Unsurprisingly a MISB Jens can be purchased on BrickLink for less than it cost in 2002; there can't be many 14-year old LEGO sets that can claim that accolade :)

 

Sponsored content

55 comments on this article

Gravatar
By in United States,

Galidor.... I think I've said enough.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I first heard of this series only yesterday (I think). I have to say: That's not Lego! :/

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

As awful as the theme is I can see a few of the parts from this particular set being used for Space/Sci-fi mocs...it's take a lot of work and a very creative approach though!

Gravatar
By in Canada,

Never heard of this Theme or cartoon; they look like action figures. Looking at the sets I have to agree with "the Wrights"; this just isn't Lego to me. Granted as Huw mentioned you can interchange limbs across other sets in the theme, which is great. However; there just is no really re-usability with pieces with other themes which kind of goes against the what Lego is all about.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

In fact, complete and utter rubbish.

Gravatar
By in Italy,

I'd love to see how the rubber perished! Could you share a picture? :)

I don't think this products should be judged as if they were any other Lego, becouse they were not. They were not ment to be mixed with Lego bricks. They should be judge as action figures, compared to many others like Masters of the Universe, etc. Maybe they still fare bad in that field, but it's not honest to say they were "as Lego they were rubbish". My fridge is also rubbish as Lego. But it's a fine fridge. I like it. It currently even have some beer inside.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I remember not liking them at the time, but that also comes from having only so much money to spend on Lego, so these were not at the top of the list. I think though, to discredit them entirely is a lack of imagination, as I remember a while back (year or more) someone making some amazing models with parts from these sets.

I don't remember these examples being what I was thinking of, exactly, but they stand to show that someone thought of ways to use them. http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/galidor,moc/Interesting

Gravatar
By in United States,

I must be one of the only people who thought the show was good... Then again, I watched is as a kid and it's probably been clouded by nostalgia... Great review anyway! Unfortunately (or fortunately), I don't seem to have gotten any of the toys, but there's Always Bricklink in case I want to own a piece of Lego history...

Gravatar
By in United States,

Hey, the GBA game was good.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Some of the arm and leg sections have been quite useful to me, and I LOVE when other AFOLs ask what they are! To see their faces when I tell them, "Oh, that's a Galidor part..." If you try hard enough every LEGO piece is useful, but I agree, as a LEGO SET, Galidor was ridiculous.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I have to agree with the outcome of this review... pretty solid action figure; shoddy building set.

In general, the late 90s and early naughts were a period where LEGO let their innovations get out of control. Instead of continuing to refine what they were good at, they started stepping outside their comfort zone and doing things they had no real experience with. In some cases, like Mindstorms and BIONICLE, they pulled it off quite nicely, creating new categories of toys that still fit with the LEGO spirit of creativity. And those successes helped serve as a road map for future innovations. But in other cases, like Galidor or Explore, they lost sight of what made the LEGO brand more than just a particularly expensive line of plastic toys.

I only ever saw a few episodes of the TV show. It was OK, but not good enough for me to commit to watching it at an early-morning timeslot on a channel that I didn't even watch normally. It had a bit of a Doctor Who flavor, what with its rubbery aliens and inter-dimensional adventures. I feel like I ought to re-watch it sometime. The episodes are all on YouTube.

Brickset treats Galidor as a licensed theme, but in reality it was more of a co-developed series kind of like Mixels. Some of the people credited as character designers for the TV show also have BIONICLE set design credits under their belts. It's a bit funny in hindsight how LEGO's Danish origins helped inform the story, what with so many character names like "Bluetooth", "Jens", and "Gorm".

Gravatar
By in United States,

Galidor defeated the entire purpose of Lego. They are meant to be a universal product meaning that all pieces can be used together.

Gravatar
By in United States,

"Galidor Factory" confirmed for 2015 everyone!

Gravatar
By in Czech Republic,

I wanted only that men figure for my car creations as kid.I know it was lego, so I thought that it is like technic figures.

If you ask me today, Im happy that I did not buy it.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

^^ I missed a trick not revealing a Galidor rebooted theme yesterday, didn't I :)

Gravatar
By in Germany,

"Parts of that model are made from a rubbery plastic which has perished badly in the intervening years so it's not fit to photograph.
So, are Galidor sets unfairly maligned or are they, in fact, complete and utter rubbish?"
These two consecutive sentences made my day. ^^

Gravatar
By in Belgium,

Never heard of Galidor before now. To be honest, if this was a new range being released by Lego, I'd be wondering what all involved had been smoking.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Can we see the perished rubbery bits? That would be an excellent summary of Galidor's crappiness in one photo...

Gravatar
By in United States,

A CCBS-based Galidor revivial could actually be pretty interesting, given that Lego now knows what works and what doesn't. At its heart Galidor was a good attempt, but in the end it proved too far out to work within the brand. I am glad they were able to reuse the ratcheting system later as well, as it has worked beautifully.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I honestly do not know why lego would make a theme from a bad tv show
@aleydita I don't know either, but those involved must have a great dealer ;)

Gravatar
By in United States,

@fenderbender336: You have to remember that Galidor came out at a time when LEGO was in crisis. The majority of their themes were failing and they were becoming increasingly desperate to catch up with other toy-makers. At that time, they believed the childish and old-fashioned reputation of the LEGO brand might be more of a liability than an asset with kids and teens. That's part of why Galidor and BIONICLE did not use the LEGO logo next to the theme name like most other themes did, and instead shoved it towards the bottom of the packaging. LEGO hoped to carve out a new brand category with these themes. BIONICLE, to its credit, was able to. But today, with the LEGO brand stronger than ever, even BIONICLE sets are branded as "LEGO Bionicle".

@TheDesuComplex: A minifigure-based Galidor revival could even be pretty cool! http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=429341 But it would never happen. Galidor doesn't have much of a reputation, but what reputation it has is overwhelmingly negative, not only among LEGO fans but also among people from the toy and TV industries. This wouldn't be like bringing back something like Howard the Duck, which was successful in one medium and then a disaster when it got adapted to a different medium. Nor is it like reviving something that performed poorly on release but became a cult classic. Galidor has a weak business case in general. The toys failed, the TV show failed, the video games failed. And nowadays it is hardly ever mentioned in any sort of positive context.

I've contemplated trying to put a minifigure-scale TDN module on LEGO Ideas (because that was a cool ship, all things considered), but let's be real — LEGO would never go for it. Especially since it would involve reviving long-dead partnerships with other companies who are probably no more anxious to see it return than LEGO is.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

OMG! How have you not mentioned the Kek Poweriser #8316!! An awesome dude with his LCD screen and interchangeable heads and games that reacted with the TV shows! I have one :-) he's my most prized Galidor figure....

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Looking at the success of TLG today, it's so easy to forget that it wasn't that long ago the company was in dire straits and heading for the gutter. And yet, with some of the new themes and refocus on single-use or low-use parts, I fear it might start heading back there.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@bob123: Because they helped fund and create the TV show. It isn't something that existed prior to their involvement. Again, one of the things that exacerbated their financial state in the early naughts was getting involved in things that they had little to no experience with.

The book "Brick by Brick" by David C. Robertson is a fantastic read that goes over the mistakes LEGO made during this era and the ways they corrected those mistakes going forward. Google Books has a preview of the book — Galidor's development is explained on pages 57–59 (books.google.com/books?id=4YgAjv9bdT0C&pg=PA57). LEGO started by developing its building system for an open-ended creature-building concept they called LEGO Beings, which was never produced. Then to capitalize on a surge in the popularity of action figures, they adapted that building system into a more character-driven theme, which became Galidor. It wasn't until they had that concept that they hired Thomas Lynch to develop it into a TV series.

Pages 85–86 of the book (http://books.google.com/books?id=4YgAjv9bdT0C&pg=PA85) explain where Galidor went wrong. Investing so heavily in an original TV series on such short notice was a huge risk, and the main reason LEGO went through with it was they were still riding high from the success of Bionicle, which had itself been an original sci-fi buildable action figure franchise.

Obviously, nowadays, LEGO has multiple successful TV series and years of success from buildable action figure lines. It's not either of those things that killed the theme. Rather, it's that "Instead of allowing designers to spend more time developing, focus-testing, and getting Galidor right, LEGO pushed the line out into the market as soon as it saw Bionicle was an unequivocal success."

@CortezTheKiller: Unlikely. LEGO today is hardly anything like LEGO in the late 90s and early naughts. Instead of assuming (wrongly) that kids today want nothing more than instant gratification, they work to ensure a quality building experience in all their themes (even Juniors involves a lot more building than previous "preschool themes" like Fabuland and Jack Stone).

And LEGO no longer uses nearly so many bulky, hyper-specialized parts as they used to. Just look at this year's BIONICLE sets. They use the same system of basic, modular shells and beams that's been used for all constraction sets (and even some System sets) since 2011. That's a far cry from Galidor where pretty much every character used unique, pre-assembled limb pieces.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

Ben 10 Copy? The sets do not look bad - for action figures. Not Lego. Lego Bricks. Kids have something to build.

Gravatar
By in Poland,

Lego will never learn...People want just LEGO sets, not spinners, not flyers, not Speedorz,nostatic dolls/action figures.
I bet if they made normal sets with such cool minifig characters it would be succesfull line.
And I recently saw some episodes. They were filled with 90' charm.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

"Galidor: was it all bad?"

In a word? Yes.

Gravatar
By in Norway,

I say No.
Because Lego is a 'Toy' company, not an building block company.
Most Lego products is about stuff you can disassemble and reconfigure to your own toy.
And this is an series of action figures, that you can disassemble and reconfigure to your own figure.
Not all Lego series need to be connected with other Lego series nor blocks.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@lordofdragonss Well, good thing LEGO will never learn those things, because they are falsehoods. You're operating under the misguided assumption that only the things you think of as "LEGO sets" can be LEGO sets. In fact, many of those types of sets you describe were extremely successful because they taught people new ways to play with LEGO.

I loved the Ninjago spinners, for instance. Didn't buy a lot of the spinner sets because of how expensive they were, but it was great seeing what I could build onto the spinners to alter their performance, what types of minifigures would spin best, what kinds of headgear would work best when using the spinner upside-down, etc. This was, for me, an intensely creative activity, thinking of LEGO figures and parts in ways I had never needed to think about them before.

What's more, I feel like the Ninjago spinners are to this date the best integration of a structured game with a LEGO toy. The cards were not just distractions from the physical play — they demonstrated new ways to use the physical toy, like building different parts onto the spinners, placing cards as obstacles to spin around, and even introducing entirely different spinner challenges with the "scroll cards". And likewise, the physical bricks were not just a distraction from the card game. It was integral — no matter what stats were on your character card or how strategic your deck was, the spinners and the bricks you built onto them defined the gameplay.

And as for action figure sets, well, Galidor was definitely the weakest theme in that category. But the constraction category has been an undeniable blessing for LEGO. It's one thing to build worlds for generic LEGO characters and creatures to inhabit. But it's another thing entirely to build fully-articulated characters and creatures with unique proportions, colors, and functions to give them a personality that is all their own.

It is possible to build large-scale LEGO characters and creatures from System, of course, but they are usually either blocky, lacking in articulation, or unable to hold up to the kind of action play that people expect from an action figure. Even if it had a few bumps along the road (Galidor included), the constraction category gave people the same freedom to create posable, playable action figures that System allowed for buildings, vehicles, and sculptures. And LEGO would not be here without it.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Was Galidor rubbish? Yes. :P

However, it does have one redeeming quality. It was the great grandfather of modern day constraction sets. It helped (along with Bionicle) to pioneer the use of locking joints. Now it's almost impossible to find a brick-built constraction set without those joints, which remain the same to this day.

Gravatar
By in United States,

My main issue with the popular opinion of Galidor is that like, most people who continue the "galidor is the worst thing lego ever did" sentiment where super elitist Lego fans who considered liking BIONICLE to be some sort of sin. That's been carried so heavily into the Lego community that I've seen kids younger than Galidor springing to say how bad it is, never even having one of the sets to make that judgement from.

Now, judging by compatibility, Galidor was rubbish. The parts didn't work well with other things and were very exclusive, yes, but Galidor wasn't made to be used freely in other Lego models. Galidor sets were made to be more like action figures that could be taken apart and swapped. One of the main reasons that people disliked it was because it didn't fit their strict definition of what Lego was. Everyone is entitled to their opinions and I know this, but I feel a large amount of people never even touched a Galidor set before they talk about how bad it was.

Honestly though, the worst thing about Galidor was the sets. The TV was actually very good (having rewatched it earlier this year) and the show did well and had fair ratings. The sets were poor adaptations of the characters and weren't done very well in general. I'm kind of bias when I say this, but I enjoyed Galidor heavily when it came out. I was around 4-5 years old, so I was the target audience for it really. I bought all the sets (at a heavy discount, since they were just trying to get rid of them) and played with them for years. In fact, some of the actors have come forward and said it was the poor sales of the Lego sets that shut down the franchise.

Again, I don't want to be saying that not liking Galidor is a bad thing (and its understandable, unless you really like it I can't imagine buying them), but people are far too harsh on it without real reason.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I feel sort of bad for anyone who bought and kept sets for resale. In about a month I bought the entire line again (except Tager and Aquart obviously, I'd be willing to buy if anyone's selling....) sealed for no more than $50. It's actually more expensive to buy out of box sets (esp with the inflated Bricklink prices, sheesh). It's oddly easy to buy sealed sets, not as much for used sets.

tl;dr: Galidor wasn't as bad as people say, though there is a large amount of criticism the sets should receive. Jens was by far one of the best of the line (Nick Deluxe and the TDM coming in close second), and I feel like a lot of people who talk Galidor don't seem to know much about it, which is odd to me. Not saying I know all about it, but tbh the Lego community tends to do stuff like this a lot.

Gravatar
By in United States,

No. They are just as bad as everyone says.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Galidor is true garbage.

Gravatar
By in Australia,

Galidor sets did pop up in Australia. I'm sure I remember seeing a couple of sets in K-mart, back in the early 00s or so.

I didn't buy any of them, because they frankly looked awful.

Gravatar
By in United States,

I have to say that if I came across one of these at a garage sale I'd be hard-pressed to recognize it as something from TLG. The joints are the only thing LEGO-ish about them.

Honestly if a photo of the Galidor figure had been posted a day earlier, claiming that it came from The LEGO Group, I would have assumed it was an April Fool's joke.

I definitely would not be interested in picking up any of these action figures.

Gravatar
By in United States,

Jens is actually the one Galidor figure I wish I'd bought. His limb parts look useful, and I do like his look, sort of like a cycloptic, four-armed C-3P0.

Gravatar
By in Japan,

Though the series was a failure, the Jens model was pretty good. I have used it in a couple stop motion animations and found it to be a great character because it is easy to pose, fairly stiff joints make it easy to balance and little details like the extending hair give it personality. I didn't like the villains in the series and the weird hip joints made the human figure too strange, but this little droid is pretty cool. I picked up a pair of them at a shopping mall close-out toy store for less than half price.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@Dr-Dave-Watford: That was going to be my comment. The easy summary... Just two words describe it well: EPIC FAIL.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

@TBOC
It's nice to hear an opinion from someone who liked the toys.

Gravatar
By in Norway,

I have never seen this and only heard a lot of bad things about it.
It could be that i was in my Lego slumber when they appeard or that they never got released here i norway.
By the look of it, i think it was nothing for me.
I have to agree that they look bad.

Gravatar
By in Germany,

where is the difference to Ben 10 ? all the same for me, useless dolls.
my 2 year old nephew is allowed to play with my lego collection with stuff from '72 onwards.
when he picks bionicles from the boxes, after a moment he throwes them right back in the box with disgust, but he picks always the most sold and highest rated stuff from every year.
what does it prove?
kids minds will never change!
when they don't know it from a tv show, they will always pick stuff they recognize from their daily life.
If you find action-figures years later not knowing in what story or context they've been to each other that's like digging up little pieces of a lost religion, because you can only guess from the dolls but you'll never have a clue without the story.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

I remember watching the show on CBBC as a child and it was alright. But I can see why the toys weren't popular, I own the McDonald's Jens and its the odd ball in my box of unused LEGO parts with no way it could be adapted into proper LEGO builds, surely this is dark alleyway for LEGO that both the company and us fans would prefer remain hidden away in the list of sets on here only to stumble across and forget afterwards.

Gravatar
By in United States,

That was the time of Lego Soccer too! I miss those over this theme, hope they bring Lego Soccer back one day.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@ MXTP. The difference is that Ben 10 could actually combine with Bionicle or Hero Factory parts. Galidor is almost completely restricted to itself.
Ben 10 also tried to fix the breaking-joint problem Bionicle had, though that didn't work very well.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@mxtp: Well, the Ben 10 constraction sets had far more connection points, and most of their pieces were designed with multiple figures in mind, unlike Galidor where only a handful of pieces were reused (like some of Jens's parts on the Kek Powerizer and the Ooni). The textures in the Ben 10 sets tended to be simpler and the shapes more geometric, like you would expect from LEGO parts. Ben 10 parts generally weren't pre-assembled (except for the heads), and most of the sets had greater articulation than Galidor sets. In a lot of ways, the Ben 10 sets' pieces were precursors to the CCBS, the system LEGO has been using for all constraction sets since 2011.

Also, your assumption about kids not enjoying action figure sets unless they know the story doesn't entirely hold water, because there are actually a lot of BIONICLE fans who have never followed that theme's story intently. All they needed were the context clues in the set designs to give them some idea what's what. It's easy to assume (more or less correctly) that Tahu ( http://brickset.com/sets/70787-1/Tahu-Master-of-Fire ) is a heroic red fire robot who specializes in surfing and swordfighting, or that Nui-Jaga ( http://brickset.com/sets/8548-1/Nui-Jaga ) is a giant robotic scorpion monster, and that their masks (which are designed to come off easily) are their weak points. And kids are innovative — if they don't know all the story details they can make up their own details to fill in the gaps.

It's also important to remember that themes like BIONICLE are not and have never been aimed at 2-year-olds. It's perfectly understandable that a younger kid would seek out familiarity in his toys — that's one reason Duplo has never really had a sci-fi theme. Older kids, on the other hand, are often more drawn to fantasy or sci-fi toys that kick-start their imaginations. Why do you think LEGO Friends and LEGO City are aimed at ages five and up while LEGO Elves and LEGO Legends of Chima are aimed at ages seven and up?

Gravatar
By in Poland,

@Aanchir
Ok, you got me. I loved spinners because you could battle using yours minifigures, and I agree how cards, gimmlick base + bricks were united.

But I wanted to say they need to push "MODIFY IT" a little Harder. They barrely touched modding speedors both in advertisment and show and that's quite a shame because they were more Lego- vechicles than Ninjago spinners. (That's why I love them)
They could just put them in sets normaly as a piece of set. Ok we had Eagle spear, but that was a turnament set. I'm thinking more like... Speedorz Pit stop/garage. Don't you agree?

Gravatar
By in Germany,

@Anachir A child can't know these technical differences before he gets it in his hands.
It appeals to the same kind of child. I was never playing with action-figures, and never really cared for the minifigs, I used them mostly to check dimensions of my constructions as a child.
But younger cousins and other kids played and wanted action-figures, something i never understood. And of course it's not aimed at such young kids, i understand that.
If you have something to read you came across for those not getting the appeal of figures, give me a link

Gravatar
By in United States,

I remember when I got the catalogue announcing Galidor. I thought, "What in blue blazes are they doing? This is going to crash so hard."

See, I'm one of the few that remember the other interactive TV toy action figure line, from the 80s. It was also a colossal flop for many of the same reasons.

Gravatar
By in United States,

@lordofdragonss: Yeah, in general I was not impressed with the Speedorz. Mastering the function had too much of a learning curve for me (unlike the Ninjago spinners which were quite easy to figure out), the card game element wasn't too creative or well-integrated, and there was little incentive to modify your Speedor since it was hard to tell how much the add-ons even affected their performance. Perhaps before the Ninjago spinners I would have enjoyed them, but after the spinners the whole execution just felt a bit lacking.

@mxtp: I understand. Not every theme is going to appeal to everybody. Not sure if there's anything I could share that would help you understand the appeal of buildable figures if it doesn't come naturally to you. I just wanted to make it clear that there are a lot of kids who are drawn to action figure play and building, even without ties to a storyline they're passionate about.

I've actually never been too interested in non-buildable action figures myself. As a kid, I was fascinated with robots, and dreamed of building working robotic people and creatures one day. I dabbled in LEGO Mindstorms a bit when that came out, but discovered I was more interested in the artistic side of building robots than the technical side. The ball joints of themes like BIONICLE helped satisfy that craving, because I could create models that had realistic movement in their joints, even if they weren't actually motorized.

The fact that BIONICLE had a compelling story helped its appeal with me, but it wasn't the deciding factor — after all, before BIONICLE, I was a huge fan of the Throwbots sets, and in the United States those barely had any story besides "these are element-themed robots that throw disks". But that didn't stop me from making up stories about the official characters or building new characters of my own design.

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

There is demand for Galidor parts, I've tried on a number of occasions to buy parts on eBay, always getting outbid

Gravatar
By in United States,

This is totally NOT the Lego way. How can you even call this a Lego set.

Gravatar
By in Spain,

My thinking on this line've already made at the thread of the review of Ooni, this perhaps the first that caught my attention for its metal parts

Huw Very good review, but I think you forgot to mention a gadget for me at least funny, if you turn the "ear" will grow "hair" and zooms with eye
XD XD XD

thanks for reading and sorry for my English (blame the google translator) XD XD XD

See You ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡

Gravatar
By in United Kingdom,

Does it! I didn't know that -- thanks!

Gravatar
By in Australia,

Two words-Oh Dear

View more reviews »
Return to home page »