Not a bad set, considering the target market and time of release.

Printed lights, doors that don’t open. If it didn’t have wheel arches I’d date it to around 1999.

I wish Lego made still old cars like this :( As in 1920s-1940s era cars in minifig scale.

I have several unprinted versions of that radiator piece in different colors, and I've always wondered why it was created in the first place. I bet this is it.

Got this for my birthday as a kid and still have it. Loved it then and love it now!

Lots and lots of specialty parts, but it's totally compatible with other Lego system. Great theme for the little guys.

You'd think it was another bonk set from the comments alone.

I'm not sure if I ever played with Fabuland, even though I'm just about old enough for the theme to have been available when I was small. It is cute, and actually a Fabuland street or similar would be a fun AFOL set, but I'm guessing that the moulds might not be available for some of the essential pieces that make Fabuland look like Fabuland.

If you compare this to 4+ sets of today, the modern 'LEGO for DUPLO graduates' is more complex, with more parts and much more compatibility with the sets for older children by using the same scale.

@Paperdaisy said:
"If you compare this to 4+ sets of today, the modern 'LEGO for DUPLO graduates' is more complex, with more parts and much more compatibility with the sets for older children by using the same scale."

While that's mostly true, 4+ sets are basically just simplified versions of existing regular sets/themes, with no unique qualities aside from serving as a stepping stone for young children. I doubt many, if any, AFOLs collect them for this reason. Fabuland on the other hand is entirely its own thing.

Those eyes...those cold dead eyes...

Why everybody pickin' on Fabuland? Those animal creatures were wonderful! And the builds are colorful and totally perfect for its target audience. Back in the day, sometime around 1986 (?) i owned the fabuland fairground, including this bear! In my language he was called 'Valeer de wasbeer', which rhymes ;) Must have been my very very first substantial LEGO-set (before i even knew it was called LEGO, lol). And i adored everything it was and always will be. No matter what times we live in now, and how sophisticated building techniques have gotten.

@TomKazutara said:
" @Brickalili said:
"Those eyes...those cold dead eyes..."

Oh come on, at least this figures have a personality,
unlike Funko POPs and Breakheadz. They look actually dead."
Gonna level with you, I don’t really see a difference

@Nick said:
" @Paperdaisy said:
"If you compare this to 4+ sets of today, the modern 'LEGO for DUPLO graduates' is more complex, with more parts and much more compatibility with the sets for older children by using the same scale."

While that's mostly true, 4+ sets are basically just simplified versions of existing regular sets/themes, with no unique qualities aside from serving as a stepping stone for young children. I doubt many, if any, AFOLs collect them for this reason. Fabuland on the other hand is entirely its own thing."

True, it is it's own world (and very charming for that) and also has the advantage of not being implicitly gender segregated like many of today's 4+ sets.

I guess there's maybe an element of kids wanting to be more grown up and play with 'big kid LEGO' that makes 4+ sets in existing themes the current trend.

I actually do own one 4+ set, 41397 because I have a collection of food trucks and I liked the big pineapple. It goes well with the City ice cream van's giant ice lolly and the Friends hot dog truck in the shape of a hot dog.

Was I the only one who thought Barney, THAT Barney cwas made as a LEGO set?

It was the Fabuland television series that got me hooked as a kid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keJua4D2Ymg

Fabuland really should have been included in the 90th anniversary vote, such a really special theme!

For some reason, I can't shake the feeling that a pink bunny with a bass drum is about to roll through the shot...

This set is called Barney Bear but in the instructions, the last page mentions that this is Bruno (the English and Spanish name for this character - somehow this name has been translated to Justin in French!)

@Kynareth said:
"Printed lights, doors that don’t open. If it didn’t have wheel arches I’d date it to around 1999."
As has been said, the doors do of course open. Back in the day, opening doors were the norm.

@Sparky_Ham said:
"It was the Fabuland television series that got me hooked as a kid: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=keJua4D2Ymg"

I had NO IDEA that this existed!

I buy 4+ sets for our 3-year-old, and I sometimes “harvest” the unique pieces and prints. Not gonna lie, I am a fan.

@Merlict said:
" @GSR_MataNui said:
"The figures' always looked too hodgepodged in their colors to me and the builds used to many giant juniorized parts.

Guess it just goes to show how big a difference a generational divide can make. "

I'm far too young to be nostalgic for Fabuland but this is complete rubbish. It's all still very System compatible, and the bright colors match the Lego palette for all sets at the time- bright colors everywhere, and 'natural' greens and browns are rare.
"

Me and my brother regularly combined Technic and Fabuland as kids. I guess I'm too old to be nostalgic for Bionicle...
Edit: or is it "I and my brother..."?

@Wrecknbuild:
You always put yourself last in a group, so it should always be "and I" or "and me". Conventional wisdom says that it should always be "and I", but that's not true. To determine which is appropriate, try the sentence with just "I" or "me". In this case, it would be:

I regularly combined Technic and Fabuland.
Me regularly combined Technic and Fabuland.

The second sounds like Bizarro, while the former sounds right, so the proper form would then be, "My brother and I regularly combined Technic and Fabuland as kids."