DC Super Heroes Girls announced; LEGO sets to follow next year

Super Hero Girls? Shouldn't that be Super Heroines?

It is sad to think girls don't want to buy DC superheroes but will probably buy this just because it has only female figures and feminine colours.

@Zander - actually there's a lot of movement to start using gender Super Hero as gender neutral - same goes for actor instead of actress etc, the thought being that there is no need to define the occupation by the person/character's gender.

Great - they look fantastic.

Wow, I was about to customize some DC Super Heroine minidolls for my little girls. Now, I don't have to!

@Shib I wonder what will happen to languages that use gender even for inanimate objects once the politically correct movement reaches them. With any luck people will come back to the obvious reality that men and women do, generally speaking, have innate differences and will once again embrace those differences instead of trying to deny them for the sake of "equality." Heroines it is for me. I'm surprised someone isn't complaining about the use of the word "girls" instead of "women." Better yet, how about simply DC Super Persons! Wait, that discriminates against non-persons. DC Super Beings it is! Wait, that might hurt the feelings of those that have inferiority complexes. It's settled then: DC Beings. Hahaha...

There's a somewhat over-looked (if perhaps under-presented) project along those lines on LEGO Ideas that's about to vanish (not mine):
https://ideas.lego.com/projects/15435
It seems Friends ideas are even less popular there than bringing back Space...

@Shib, By using Super Hero Girls, the sex of the individuals has already been defined so why not use the more succinct Super Heroines? English (and indeed most other languages) favours precision and brevity. If a single word exists to describe something, that's the one to use. Substituting a single word with two or more may be politically expedient, but it defeats the purpose of language which is to communicate, not indoctrinate.

I think we should, rather than gender politics, focus on the larger problem at hand:

If these figures are going to be minidolls, does that mean characters such as Power Girl, Cheetah, etc. no longer have a chance to be produced in minifigure form?

If so, this announcement is NOT my cup of tea.

Seriously people I was offering an explanation for why those words were chosen, not stating that you can't or shouldn't use the word Heroine - it's a branding choice, if you don't like it then don't buy into the product.

I saw this comment on another website from another user and felt the need to post it here.

"...action figures aren't gender specific... You don't need to target them to girls, make action figures, make them of characters they see in the media they enjoy."

Also, I echo gingerlad's thoughts.

@Shib - was about to say the same thing; you were giving an explanation, not saying you agreed with the choice.

As others have said, as long as this new branding doesn't affect the inclusion of female characters in minifigure form in the regular DC theme, then I think it sounds interesting.

I wish the date was April 1st... Still, I guess I can take it or leave it. Who knows - it might even follow the path of Friends and Elves by giving us new parts and new or rare part colors!

Does it bother anyone else that LEGO is trying to market their products at boys and girls separately? What's wrong with just including the female superheroes in regular "DC" sets?

What's next- separating Star Wars into "boys" and "girls" toys?

It's also worth keeping in mind that this is not LEGO's marketing, this is WB creating a wide franchise line, like Disney with the Princesses line.

This concept was a long time coming. I had considered posting such projects to Ideas but as many of you know, I prefer to render and the Minidolls are not in LDD....what is up with that LEGO?

I am especially thrilled because my Daughter (3 years old) loves Super Heroes and the Minidolls but I will continue to get her the standard line in addition to this one.

Was I the only one who thought...Arrggghhh, more!

@Pez, nope, I just thought the same thing. =( I don't think this is a good idea.

What I find interesting is that this is a partnership with Mattell - who own Mega Blocks.

So will this be Lego exclusive? Or does this mean more Mega Blocks lines will be turned into Lego?

Disappointed that these will almost certainly be minidolls. I'd be happy to have all of these characters and sets as minifigs, just don't like the dolls.

I don't agree with the marketing separately to boy and girl but for manufacturers it is cheaper and more predictable to market to a target demographic then to mix the two. You won't be able to tell "why" low selling items are doing poorly in a "collection" of releases if the demo is mixed. PLUS, when you are buying advertising spreads, you need to focus on a specific demo: Friends commercials run during My Little Pony, Ninjago runs during Adventure Time with Finn and Jake, City runs during Sponge Bob (a mixed demo)

As a separate thought, I'm always disappointed to see villains given the "family friendly" treatment. I know it's an inevitability when you're talking such huge brands, but I still feel it undermines the struggles these characters represent. Du-yukk! That Harley Quinn is such a goofball! (Just forget about the themes of manipulative coercion, domestic abuse, criminal worship. These things are even in her original animated appearances, but shhh.... "family friendly")

This doesn't apply to all villains, notably say Nintendo or Disney franchises, but for something like this it's a little disappointing)

My qualm would be minidolls vs minifigures, ONLY because I also would like female heroines in my collection in minifigure form. Also, my daughter actually prefers the minifigure form over the minidoll. So these may be a huge hit for the market, but at the same time as long as they continue to put female heroines in the "boys" sets, we'll be all good.

Although it will be nice to have multiple female heroines in one set instead of one per wave basically...

All this means is more money toward my daughter's LEGO and less to my own. Boo hoo, woe is me.

My guess is they will be in minidoll form. If not, then these sets would basically be Super Hero theme.
It would be strange to mention LEGO participating in this when they already have Super Hero theme unless LEGO was doing something different.

So long as we get more female characters, I'm on board with this... if they're minidolls, I'm going to be upset. Not only will it not fit into my mini-Justice League, they're not going to look LEGO. Most of those girls in the top picture actually look like minidolls, if you know what I mean...

I don't get why so many people are worrying about female characters disappearing from the regular DC Super Heroes range because of this. People raised the same hubbub when LEGO Friends came out — "oh no, what if LEGO uses this as an excuse to include fewer female characters in LEGO City?" Yeah... that didn't happen. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, gender ratios in LEGO City have actually improved somewhat since 2011.

Anyway, I'm not as excited about this as I might be about a new non-licensed girl-oriented theme, but still pretty excited. Always good to see the range of options targeted at girls expand. If the figures are mini-dolls, all the better! A lot of girls love the mini-doll, for good reason. It is truly a fantastic figure design, with a less blocky and abstract design than the classic minifigure but still a very LEGO-like level of simplicity.

Maybe one day we might even reach a point where there is true gender equality among LEGO fans, instead of the community so often being such a "boys' club". I can always dream...

@aanchir

Not to stray from topic, but I think that the adult lego community is more of a 'boys club' (which is a pretty reductive term as it stands, but whatever) due to the gimmicky nature of girls' sets. Over the years, the separation has been obvious: Belleville, Scala, Clikits, Friends and now this - they all derivate from the LEGO system in some way or another with their deliberate 'girliness' bordering on patronising.

It's the company that ends up segregating genders where the lego product is concerned, not the community.

Exciting in theory, but I hope that it doesn't preclude great female DC Comics characters being released as true minifigures. They should be compatible with all of the other characters and sets.

I'm more excited than not.
IMHO, building with Lego is an extremely important introduction to STEM learning—an area for which the female, school-age population is seriously underserved.
Personally, I would prefer minifigs but I'm excited for my 4yo daughter, whose head almost exploded when she got both the mermaid *and* human versions of Ariel. She's also a superhero fan, so I'll have to make sure she's sitting down when I give her these sets.
And while I don't like them patronized to, ultimately, Friends and other "girlie" things have, to varying degrees, introduced and encouraged my three daughters to get into building with Lego and reading more.

I do hope, however, that these sets are as well-designed as the Friends sets we have, which show an abundance of creativity with a bevy of great building techniques.

@Fargodeep

"It's the company that ends up segregating genders where the lego product is concerned, not the community."

I have to disagree. It is the community segregating genders that leads to TLG trying to find ways to make more money by developing and marketing products to those gender stereotypes that society has created.

@Fargodeep: If the "LEGO System" is defined by a figure that boys generally like and girls generally DON'T like, then the LEGO Group has every reason to "deviate" in order to get more girls into LEGO. But of course, the most meaningful aspects of the LEGO System, like the scale of its bricks, have nothing to do with the type of figure it uses at all.

I'm not going to try and defend themes like Belville or Scala that reduced the actual building process to just about a preschool level, but Friends, Elves, and the like don't have that problem at all. Their building process is every bit as in-depth, technical, and challenging as what you'd find in comparable themes like LEGO City or LEGO Ninjago. And their color palettes are just as diverse as any other theme, not simply awash in pink like so many stereotypical products of the "girl aisle".

The community has a way bigger problem with gender equality than the company. LEGO Friends has quickly become the third best selling LEGO theme, but you'd never know it by visiting an adult LEGO fan event or convention. Many AFOLs speak just as dismissively of the mini-doll as they used to speak of BIONICLE. When it's pointed out that many girls love LEGO Friends or other girl-oriented themes, they question how many of those girls will ever move onto other themes, as if they consider Friends nothing more than a stepping stone to "real LEGO", rather than "real LEGO" in its own right.

I think there's a lot more the LEGO fan community could and should be doing to keep female fans of LEGO from feeling marginalized. LEGO has made great strides in getting more girls into building. So what have we as a community done? Grudgingly acknowledging the themes that do the most to get girls into LEGO isn't going to be enough in the long run if we want to correct the gender imbalance among our own ranks.

@aanchir

Putting my own dislike of the minidoll aside, your argument that the 'girl themes' are not heavily gendered in terms of colour seems to me a mite foolish. Yes, they are not as garishly awash with pink as the average piece of Barbie merchandise nowadays - but pink, purple and pastelle colours are featured heavily, as they are softer colours which have been chosen specifically by the corporation to draw girls in.

Furthermore, while items ostensibly labelled 'for boys' contain swashbuckling high adventure, the Friends sets contain a trip to the mall, or a hot air balloon ride. Elves in part remedies this, but gone are the days, it seems, when a girl character can face down any kind of antagonism. Not all sets (for either gender) have to be war-torn vignettes, but gone is the witch of Belleville days because it's not 'pretty' (the reason, I suspect, we have not seen any Disney villains in minidoll form). Why were there no poachers in the jungle Friends sets?

I'll concede straight-up and without question that the builds themselves are entirely on-par with other themes (some of the Elves stuff is really nice), and their colour schemes have variety and produce some nice, usable pieces. But you can't say that there's nothing backward about them. Given the discourse of feminism over the 20th century, one can't help but raise an eyebrow at a 'Magical Bakery' in a fantasy theme aimed at girls.

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with the adult lego community (which I don't normally actively partake in; I just buy and enjoy the stuff), but to consider the problem rooted in the adult fans rather than the adults coldly calculating demographic from behind office chairs is naïve, in my opinion.

Aanchir... I think what this "community" you speak of is essentially saying that girls should be able to enjoy whatever LEGO they want- especially considering that's what LEGO should be in the first place, something open to everybody- rather than only be marketed to for a few specific themes. I feel like this intended "theme segregation" is way more marginalizing than the way the AFOL community responds to it.

Like Fargodeep said (second paragraph of the above comment), why can't these themes at least offer as much as the other themes do? I'm sure that doesn't help with peoples' opinions of the theme, if they're viewed as not offering as much in terms of content variety (and by that, I don't mean "go to the mall," "go to the beach," "go into town," "go to friend's house," etc.).

Overall, though, I don't think this is directly LEGO's problem- they are merely guilty of going along with everybody else instead of forging their own path, so to say- considering that the divide between "toys for boys" and "toys for girls" has been going on in our society for a very, very long time.

@Fargodeep

That "step backward" stereotypical bakery in the Elves theme is run by a MALE baker.

@Dragon_Master_48 and Fargodeep

Swashbuckling high adventure? I guess Pirates and Ninjago contain this.

An antagonist need not be a character, but can also include a situation or event. Why must a poacher be fought when using the vehicles and terrain (and zip lines!) in the jungle sets to rescue an animal make it a high adventure on its own? The Friends farm sets allowed the Friends to tend to horses and crops, harvest them, and set up a produce business. That "go to the mall" set also included a runway for a fashion show, true that, one of the many in Heartlake City that can also be used for pet shows or music concerts. These may not be "swashbuckling" adventures, but they are adventures. I suppose Friends sets should include pit bulls and robbers to make them worthwhile?

@ericjohn

You are essentially arguing against expanding the range of ideas and story topics covered in a theme to make it more interesting, are you not? Sure, the act of rescuing an animal could be an adventure in and of itself, but that's not the way they're portraying it. By presenting such a situation as the ONLY idea of an "adventure" for a girl, you are limiting creativity and applying a strict set of societal "standards" children must follow (like Fargodeep said, "gone are the days, it seems, when a girl character can face down any kind of antagonism"). Why not have both in a theme?

If they used minidolls they certainly won't be able to look like the picture with stiff molded together legs and arms sticking out to the side that don't twist. Would be hard to fight off bad guys or bad girls hopping to the fight and then swinging up and down in a predictable manner.

Yeah, it's a nice idea, but I'll echo what everybody else has said. If the female superheroes all end up just as minidolls? Not cool, Lego. Not cool.

Please, please Lego, no minidolls, we want minifigs, boys and girls alike.

Bring it on.......
Who cares mini dolls vs mini figures.

My daughters and I love both types. I actually bought elves for myself, daughers quickly claimed them. They love the regular mini figures too....

Kids will play with either, it's usually the adults who have the issues.

Ah, I'm guessing this theme is gonna fit into the usual "Minidoll Cycle"...

>Line first announced by Lego, most fans criticize it for using Minidolls and scream that they won't be buying the sets on various forums.

>Set images start to appear, people who hated the sets before start noticing all the new pieces and colours, but still are against buying the sets.

>Theme is released, haters end up buying ALL the sets and loving them.

>Rinse and repeat.

@Dragon Master

Yes, TLG is portraying the Friends theme as an adventure through the characters, books, videos, box art, and set descriptions. This is very so easy to see with the Jungle sub theme. It has been argued that Friends play is frivilous; I am just stating that the term "adventure" can have a much wider definition than most folks will allow that is causing some themes (minidolls) to be seen as "lesser" LEGO products.

Why is it not being argued to expand the "swashbuckling" themes with shops and pets and leisure activities? Friends is already catering to both levels of play: leisure through swimming, shopping, and dining and adventure through animal rescue and care, and staging fashion, pet, and musical events.

@disneywizard
And the minifigures look just like the pictures of Superheroes? Also, does it really matter that minifigures have separated legs when a child is playing with them? I have always just hopped my minifigures around when I played with and my children do the same. Yes, for displaying, the legs of the minifigure are great, but LEGO figures are toys to play with. I have never had an issue playing with a minidoll because his or her legs didn't move freely of each other.

I hope to all things holy they don't use minidolls and set the color scheme to lavender. But they will, of course, because they think they have to. I hated them when they came out and I have only hated them more from there.

Brickset news forum April 2020:
"Lego Releases Minidoll Version Of Every Set Currently In Production, Whole Countries In Revolt"

Yes yes yes! Thrilled by the news, made my day. I’ve been a long time DC fan and the New 52 was… Well, painful. Comic dark age did boost my Lego funds significantly though!
Can’t wait for these mini-dolls, they’ll be just as loveable as the Elves and some of those Princess Figs, I’ve no doubt. Excellent to see some DC girls that aren’t hypersexualised… If they do this Harley as a Mini-Doll I may require some double set buys. (fingers crossed for a Catwoman one day for some Gotham City Siren goodness!)

I miss the days of LEGO figs representing EVERYONE as a little yellow figure with different hair pieces, and they did not have to be larger 'curvy' figures (at least compared to a LEGO Minifig) made especially for girls.

What is stink, like others have noted, is if many of these characters only appear as minidolls instead of minifigures.

a) The word superhero is a gender neutral term and has been for many, many years. Looking it up in 3 dictionaries yesterday, not once did it say 'a male' or 'a many/boy'. Everything I looked up said 'character', 'being', 'individual'. Now, the word super heroine can refer to a super hero that is female, but it really is not used much. The generic term used is super hero. Go to any elementary school and ask a kid who Wonder Woman is, and kids are not going to respond that she is a super heroine. Even when I was a kid we used super hero for male OR female.

b) The issue is that not all 'girl targeted items need to be without a person than is an adversary, just as all 'boy targeted items' do not need to have an adversary. Jungle would have been a great gender neutral theme for all kids. Switch it up once in a while instead of presuming boys only play with X and girls only play with X.
The WB press release mentioned DC villains, so I am hoping this means that they will include adversaries in this new girl-targeted line.

@ericjohn
What you're describing ("why can't adventures be non-antagonizing"?) is LITERALLY the gender branding divide. It's been selling fantastically for decades and Lego is continuing that legacy to a T. Really the best way to serve a gender blind product would be to either have a) genderless characters, b) an even split of male/female or c) intentionally gender reversed stereotypes. All Friends and Elves have done is take baby steps away from stereotypical gendered toys, and only barely.

Elves features a "creative workspace" (arts and crafts room), a spa, a ship, a bakery, a treehouse, a magic crystal tree, a royal carriage and a castle. And the main character's adventure is to meet new friends! How can you in any way say this is not just the same-old same-old patronizing of girls?

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with these products, but they do nothing but maintain the status quo.

What would actually shake this up would be to have a boys-themed product where the characters essentially "play house" and a girls-themed product where the characters combat an enemy (violently). These tend to be unsuccessful, though. Your best bet is probably the gender split or the reverse stereotype.

Also on the issue of why you never hear anything but hate for "girl" product lines and mini dolls? Because little girls don't run websites. Any no one is under any obligation to serve a demographic who doesn't need serving. After all, it's the 3rd best selling line, right? So it's doing fine, it doesn't need online representation. And if you want to know what the online fan community thinks, you've got your answer.

@ericjohn

Because there are already themes which do both- just look at City, for example (you could even cite Creator and the more recent Speed Champions as more peaceful examples)! One set is Cops vs. Robbers, while another is Firefighters vs. Fire, and another is construction, space, diving, or some other voyage. Even action-oriented themes, like Ninjago, have featured a few sets that incline away from action (although it's a bit of a stretch to include the polybag sets, a few early sets had to do with training activities rather than directly fighting enemies).

There is no reason not to have BOTH when the option is logically available. Maybe they'd attract even more potential customers that way?

Main thing is great to hear of more female characters and role models. Hopefully some great backdrops as well.

Hey, has anyone actually asked the target range how they would feel about this?

...

I didn't think so. My little sister is a huge fan of Marvel movies and old DC TV shows, and she was thrilled to get a Batman set for Christmas a little while back, regardless of there being no girls in it and perfectly normal minifigs. If it's Superheroes, she would happily spend hours playing with it.

@ Aanchir
> I don't get why so many people are worrying about female characters disappearing from the regular DC Super Heroes range because of this.
> they question how many of those girls will ever move onto other themes, as if they consider Friends nothing more than a stepping stone to "real LEGO", rather than "real LEGO" in its own right

I agree with these points alot. Just based on the franchise itself, the main concern I have is that, Super Heroes Girls to Superheroes could be similiar with Disney Princess to major Disney/Pixar themes. I don't doubt that girls would be initially attracted to these heroine characters, but the question is whether girls would be redirected to the whole universes of these franchises. As for me, I'd also like to see girls do teamwork with guys in more major films beside a series specifically for girls

As for the figure type issue, suppose we'll really get Super Heroes Girls minidolls, the difference for this case is that, unlike Disney series, we already get some of the minifigures from DC franchise, and luckily some of them have been represnted in major LEGO product lines and media works like TLM/Dimensions. But the reason could be very contradictory at the same time. If SH minifigure line couldn't attract girls so LEGO introduce SH minidoll line, why don't they also do Friends/Disney minifigure line to attract other consumers in the reverse way? If LEGO could notice this, the alternative figure idea should be applied to more licensed/non-licensed themes.

Also, suppose that LEGO wouldn't get all these characters available in both minidoll and minifigure range, girls' would be unable to call some of their favorite male heroes into the minidoll world for help (duh, unless the targeted girls are all radical feminists). And I'm not sure if the huge LEGO DC fanbase would accept to get the exclusive characters as minidolls.

An interesting point could be that whether minidoll supervillains would be eventually introduced, considering that Disney sets failed to do it in the two waves so far.