Another set teased on social media

This will most likely be a cute set (the show is very feel-good), but I personally don’t care too much for sets based on tv-series.

Its about time this was announced, my (adult) daughter loves this show, and I mentioned it to before, and she, and I quote, "this is one Lego set I will buy for myself"

I hope it won’t be sitcom style with cameras type of set rather a cool building with loads of detail (open back or not)

I don't watch the show, but all of the hosts I know to be kind people. I have a lot of friends who adore the show, so maybe they'll be making their first (adulthood) LEGO purchases! I've really admired LEGO this year for their inclusive releases. :)

Recently got into this show on Netflix, looking forward to seeing the set.

That hair piece was in blue in the Everyone is Awesome set, people said back then that it very much looked like Tan's hair from Queer Eye

My friend group has been trying to get me to watch this show for a hot minute now, I ought to give it a try, really, maybe this'll be the thing to finally drag me in haha.

I want to be clear that not every set needs to be for every customer, and I've got no problem with things like this or Everything is Awesome. At best, they bring some new pieces and interesting techniques. At worst, they're shelfwarmers and we can eventually get them at a discount. Full speed ahead!

That being said,

This seems like such an interesting choice. Other licensing agreements notwithstanding, The Office has come through the Ideas review process probably 3-5 times at this point. There are also a handful of other shows that most people will have heard of, and I'd posit that Queer Eye isn't on that list. I guess this is meant to target a specific market, rather than cast a very large net of appeal. Or perhaps Queer Eye approached Lego, who knows. But if we're looking to continue the set-based-on-a-show theme, it seems like there is a near-bounty of shows that would have much, much more appeal than this. I'm no marketing guru but I feel like you'd want to use the buckshot before the sniper

Never seen the show, but that avocado sticker looks useful!

I have to say I am very curious to see how well this does. It looks like an extremely odd choice. I've never thought of the LEGO fandom and the Reality TV fandom as intersecting in any way.

Oh boy. Cue the right wing outrage.

The Fab 5? The ones from Tracy Island that pilot the thunderbirds?!

Japes aside though, not a show I'm familar with but could lead to a neato set - looking forward to seeing how it looks whenever the pics drop!

I don't know about this. I get movies, TV shows and video games but reality TV seems like a stretch to me. Next thing you know LEGO is doing sets based on cooking shows.

Never heard of the show, but hopefully it sells well enough to justify its production. If Lego are taking suggestions for future tv show sets then I'd suggest Firefly :)

@Ayliffe said:
"The Fab 5? The ones from Tracy Island that pilot the thunderbirds?!"
Now that's a set I would buy like a shot!

@Henry_D said:
"Well since Winnie the pooh and Santa stuff is for adults now, a show of “gay professionals” make sence, kids would love that. I wonder how parents would react."

We get it, you don’t like the 18+ branding

Ladies and gentlemen, buckle up. These comments sections are about to get interesting!

@Mr__Thrawn said:
" @Henry_D said:
"Well since Winnie the pooh and Santa stuff is for adults now, a show of “gay professionals” make sence, kids would love that. I wonder how parents would react."

We get it, you don’t like the 18+ branding"

See it's all about the long game, if he makes enough comments about it on unrelated articles on this fansite, Lego will be forced to change it back. Way more effective than actually submitting your feedback directly to Lego. No, harping on about it here is definitely the way to go

What's next, sets based on Love Island, Big Brother or Gogglebox!!!!

Assume that it was cheap to get licensing due to Netflix deals in place? Good idea to open up Lego to fans of the show that wouldn’t otherwise think about buying sets.
Never seen the show since it was rebooted on Netflix, used to watch the original with my mum but have a million other sets that I expect will stay ahead of this on my wanted list.

Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism. We've become obsessed with blatantly pointing out each others differences, then wonder why we struggle to find common ground. I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children. Once a company prides themselves on bias, I reflexively retract. It's not about openly homosexual people being in a TV show, but that Hollywood points out their sexual orientation for the sake of controversy and profit. For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states. Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents.

It's not the obvious choice for Lego to go with, but then neither were Portal 2, Tron Legacy or Stranger Things. Predicting what's Lego-friendly is a bit of a fool's game nowadays, and that's not a bad thing.

@jondenial said:
"Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism. We've become obsessed with blatantly pointing out each others differences, then wonder why we struggle to find common ground. I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children. Once a company prides themselves on bias, I reflexively retract. It's not about openly homosexual people being in a TV show, but that Hollywood points out their sexual orientation for the sake of controversy and profit. For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states. Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents. "

I could explain why you're wrong but I don't owe you that and I don't think we should do that here.

I have a big problem with this. I thought there was a rule from Lego that they wouldn't make sets or figures on still living real people. with as reason, that if they do something bad in the future, Lego doesn't want to represent them.

@Mister_Jonny said:
"It's not the obvious choice for Lego to go with, but then neither were Portal 2, Tron Legacy or Stranger Things. Predicting what's Lego-friendly is a bit of a fool's game nowadays, and that's not a bad thing."

I mean, Portal 2 got a $30 Dimensions pack since WB pushed as many licenses into that game as they could, Tron: Legacy was an Ideas set which meant at least 10K thumbs up, and Stranger Things was a worldwide phenomenon by 2019. I wouldn't group those three together, and I don't think I'd compare any of them to the Queer Eye set

@KDNX said:
" @jondenial said:
"Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism. We've become obsessed with blatantly pointing out each others differences, then wonder why we struggle to find common ground. I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children. Once a company prides themselves on bias, I reflexively retract. It's not about openly homosexual people being in a TV show, but that Hollywood points out their sexual orientation for the sake of controversy and profit. For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states. Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents. "

I could explain why you're wrong but I don't owe you that and I don't think we should do that here."

People like you end up yelling and changing the subject everytime your glass of Kool-aid is empty. I'd love to educate you but some people just can't be reasoned with.

So I’m a straight middle aged white guy (obviously the most evil thing in the whole of creation!) and I LOVE this show, I would urge anyone to watch it, the positive upbeat messages it puts out around inclusion and being true to yourself are amazing. I for one will be buying this set D1M1

@fakespacesquid said:
"This seems like such an interesting choice. Other licensing agreements notwithstanding, The Office has come through the Ideas review process probably 3-5 times at this point. There are also a handful of other shows that most people will have heard of, and I'd posit that Queer Eye isn't on that list. I guess this is meant to target a specific market, rather than cast a very large net of appeal. Or perhaps Queer Eye approached Lego, who knows. But if we're looking to continue the set-based-on-a-show theme, it seems like there is a near-bounty of shows that would have much, much more appeal than this. I'm no marketing guru but I feel like you'd want to use the buckshot before the sniper"

Aside from any number of reasons an Office license might have not gone through, Queer Eye provides a new audience with a connection to Lego. Representation is incredibly important.

@jondenial I think it's worth pointing out that until fairly recently, portraying queer people at all in popular media was an extremely fraught business (read about the Hays Code to see for yourself). It's not some kind of contradiction or double standard to portray queer people in positive situations, or indeed portray them at all. Indeed, I'd argue it goes some way to highlighting an important truth—that in many respects, queer people aren't so different to their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts, and are entitled to the same happiness and rights to self-expression as anyone else. Provided they aren't harming anyone else, which most expressions of queer identity do not.

When you argue Lego should make 'neutral' toys for children, I'm guessing you want them to make toys that don't make any kind of political statement. A hypothetical Queer Eye set might be a little more overt in its messaging than Lego's typical product offering, but make no mistake: all of Lego's products make overt or covert political statements, and they always have. It's very difficult to make something that has nothing to say about the world surrounding it, and if you're bemoaning a perceived loss of neutrality, you're really bemoaning the fact your preconceptions about the world are being challenged.

There's a discussion to be had about the way queer people are portrayed in culture more broadly (and let's be clear: a Lego Queer Eye set is a business decision rather than an ethical or progressive one). But that's not a reason to trot out the same tedious arguments about queer people whenever our existence is so much as acknowledged.

@jondenial said:
"Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism. We've become obsessed with blatantly pointing out each others differences, then wonder why we struggle to find common ground. I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children. Once a company prides themselves on bias, I reflexively retract. It's not about openly homosexual people being in a TV show, but that Hollywood points out their sexual orientation for the sake of controversy and profit. For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states. Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents. "

Well, the values of the LEGO Group do not align with what you're saying. A set like this fits with what the company believes, and thus it is an appropriate set to produce.

Speaking personally, as a queer employee of the LEGO company, I'm 100% thrilled to be releasing this set, even if it is slightly more niche than other exclusives. The company is wildly supportive and generous towards its queer employees, and we're glad that they so openly show it.

Any chance this show takes place in a classic castle or space setting? Maybe in a pirate ship?

@jondenial said:
"Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism. We've become obsessed with blatantly pointing out each others differences, then wonder why we struggle to find common ground. I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children. Once a company prides themselves on bias, I reflexively retract. It's not about openly homosexual people being in a TV show, but that Hollywood points out their sexual orientation for the sake of controversy and profit. For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states. Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents. "

Rest assured that the word "queer" has been thoroughly reclaimed and redefined as a meaningful and affirmational term by queer people. I doubt if many Millennials have any association with that word as a slur, and certainly nobody younger than that would. This is thanks to decades of work and sacrifice by activists, most of whom would likely be happy to be referred to as queer activists in 2021. I say this sitting in a workspace where the queer employees have posted a "Queers work here" banner on the union board.

@Chardee_MacDennis said:
"I don't know about this. I get movies, TV shows and video games but reality TV seems like a stretch to me. Next thing you know LEGO is doing sets based on cooking shows."
A great British bake off set would be great

@Mister_Jonny said:
" @jondenial I think it's worth pointing out that until fairly recently, portraying queer people at all in popular media was an extremely fraught business (read about the Hays Code to see for yourself). It's not some kind of contradiction or double standard to portray queer people in positive situations, or indeed portray them at all. Indeed, I'd argue it goes some way to highlighting an important truth—that in many respects, queer people aren't so different to their cisgender, heterosexual counterparts, and are entitled to the same happiness and rights to self-expression as anyone else. Provided they aren't harming anyone else, which most expressions of queer identity do not.

When you argue Lego should make 'neutral' toys for children, I'm guessing you want them to make toys that don't make any kind of political statement. A hypothetical Queer Eye set might be a little more overt in its messaging than Lego's typical product offering, but make no mistake: all of Lego's products make overt or covert political statements, and they always have. It's very difficult to make something that has nothing to say about the world surrounding it, and if you're bemoaning a perceived loss of neutrality, you're really bemoaning the fact your preconceptions about the world are being challenged.

There's a discussion to be had about the way queer people are portrayed in culture more broadly (and let's be clear: a Lego Queer Eye set is a business decision rather than an ethical or progressive one). But that's not a reason to trot out the same tedious arguments about queer people whenever our existence is so much as acknowledged.
"

Very well said. It isn't progressive, or political - it's just a set. Representation matters so much. As a middle-aged white guy that never had to worry about that, I'm increasingly more aware as I get older. More of this please!

@jondenial said:
"Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism."

Not sure what’s hard to understand about representation of historically marginalized people. No double standard necessary.

"I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children."

Almost everything produced by people has some political impetus. Police sets reveal our cultural attitudes towards criminals and the law. Construction sets and their largely male dominated makeup reveal our preference for male builders. Many space sets include American flags which portrays an Americentric perspective. There’s bias to be found in the most innocuous of things, it’s just that the bias represents the status quo and so is viewed neutrally by the less politically savvy.

"For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states."

‘Queer’ has not always been a slur, historically. Though it was used that way in the past, the LGBTQ+ community has made a conscious effort to reclaim the term. Words have usages and change meaning.

"Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents. "

Sounds like the ‘free market’ at work to me.

After literally minutes of exhaustive internet research, I've decided this is a good move on Lego's part. The TV show seems really positive and life-affirming, which in my book makes it a smart partnership for Lego.

I might even buy the set if it's good value, has great parts and figures, and is 30+% off RRP at some point (I think this is my standard criteria for every Lego set ever made...)

@SpiderMana said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
"This seems like such an interesting choice. Other licensing agreements notwithstanding, The Office has come through the Ideas review process probably 3-5 times at this point. There are also a handful of other shows that most people will have heard of, and I'd posit that Queer Eye isn't on that list. I guess this is meant to target a specific market, rather than cast a very large net of appeal. Or perhaps Queer Eye approached Lego, who knows. But if we're looking to continue the set-based-on-a-show theme, it seems like there is a near-bounty of shows that would have much, much more appeal than this. I'm no marketing guru but I feel like you'd want to use the buckshot before the sniper"

Aside from any number of reasons an Office license might have not gone through, Queer Eye provides a new audience with a connection to Lego. Representation is incredibly important."

In terms of audience, the audience brought in by an Office (or another Doctor Who, Muppet Show, Mr. Rogers, Fresh Price, heck, even a Red Dwarf) set would unquestionably dwarf the audience brought in by a Queer Eye set. I'd wager even Ru Paul's drag race is more well-known.

The level of importance is irrelevant to my point. "Representation" is in its own basket, and shouldn't be used as an out for poor choices. If Lego chose to focus on representation and make an Empire set, well that would be a weird decision. There are plenty of other shows focused on POC with a wider appeal. That is my point.

How about a Happy Days set - could include Fonz jumping the shark (Something Lego have just done).

@woosterlegos said:
"Any chance this show takes place in a classic castle or space setting? Maybe in a pirate ship?"

LOL

@ALEGOMan said:
"Welp, I guess I'm boycotting lego(dead serious), this is the final straw, after all the garbage sets released this year. Everyone is awesome was one thing, now this? a Netflix series in which team of gay professionals? are you actually serious? Why has LEGO just gone completely political? IT'S A COMPANY THAT SELLS TOYS FOR KIDS"

There really is nothing inherently political about gay people, they're normal people just like straight people

@ALEGOMan said:
"Welp, I guess I'm boycotting lego(dead serious), this is the final straw, after all the garbage sets released this year. Everyone is awesome was one thing, now this? a Netflix series in which team of gay professionals? are you actually serious? Why has LEGO just gone completely political? IT'S A COMPANY THAT SELLS TOYS FOR KIDS"

Just say you hate gay people and move on, jeez.

@Mister_Jonny said:
" @fakespacesquid I highlighted those three things pretty arbitrarily because while their source material enjoyed varying levels of popularity, each of them were unusual choices for Lego to make products of. And while Lego has been branching out into more mature audiences that's still a relatively recent thing for them to do in the way that they have.

Portal 2 was four years old by the time Lego Dimensions released, (and a licence in a game aimed largely at children, which Portal 2 very much isn't). Tron Legacy was a box office success, but it's hardly Disney's biggest hit, or something that's inspired a massive following after the fact. Stranger Things' age rating skews a little higher than Lego is typically comfortable with; it was popular, sure, but that alone isn't a reason for Lego to license it.

It wasn't about making a direct comparison to Queer eye, per se. It was about pointing out that there was no real precedent for releasing those particular products at the time, and they were rather pleasant surprises as a result."

Is Portal 2 supposed to be mature? It seems like it's rated 10+ and I've never heard of anything risque in it. Dimensions also gave us sets based on Goonies, an arcade cabinet, Gremlins, E.T., and a handful of other very old and somewhat niche licenses because WB had them to include. Portal 2 fits right in.

Tron: Legacy wasn't super popular, but it was popular enough to reach 10K on Ideas and pass the review. Searching "queer" turns up 0 results on Ideas, and searching "queer eye" brings up a project based on The Twilight Zone. The demonstrated levels of popularity are not the same. I haven't seen anyone ask for a Queer Eye set, and 10,000 people asked for a Tron: Legacy set.

Stranger Things is definitely a tad more mature, but the year before that set was released we got the James Bond Aston Martin. Those made it clear that Lego is willing to make sets out of unquestionably popular, if dicey, subject material. Queer Eye isn't unquestionably popular, and overall I wouldn't say it's dicey.

And the key with all of those is that they made sense. Portal 2 was a video game reference in a video game product, and it was likely easy to acquire since they were licensing everything under WB's sun. Tron: Legacy went through the specific route that Lego has for people to request products. Stranger Things has so many awards that the set got an award. Queer Eye is a niche within a niche within a niche. Again, I don't have anything against the idea of this set, but it just seems like a weird choice.

I’m mostly just interested in what the set will be; since it’s a show based around makeover type things, I’m curious how it will be constructed. I wouldn’t think they’d go with the sitcom approach with lights and cameras, but maybe they will.

And I won’t touch @ALEGOMan’s comment, as it deserves no attention.

We can't even manage to watch all the shows on Amazon Prime that interest us. Therefore we haven't got any other streaming subscriptions. Never heard of the show, but must admit the premise doesn't sound too interesting to me. But hey, not every set has to appeal to everyone.

It has avocados? Do. Not. Want.

@ALEGOMan said:
"Welp, I guess I'm boycotting lego(dead serious), this is the final straw, after all the garbage sets released this year. Everyone is awesome was one thing, now this? a Netflix series in which team of gay professionals? are you actually serious? Why has LEGO just gone completely political? IT'S A COMPANY THAT SELLS TOYS FOR KIDS"

KFC just added Popcorn Chicken to their Zinger range here in the UK. I like KFC food, especially the Zinger range, but Popcorn Chicken is lame.

Do I continue eating the KFC products I enjoy, or do I tear up my loyalty card and delete them from my speed dial?

@ALEGOMan Nope, it's a company that sells toys within certain parameters to whoever they think will buy them. If a company can sell to a new audience without compromising their old one, why would they not do that?

Lego isn't exactly alone in this; a lot of companies will pursue progressivism (or at least the appearance of it) if they think it'll boost their profits. Look at Disney introducing characters like Raya and Moana in their animated movies, or all the companies adopting rainbow logos for Pride Month. At some point, somebody in those companies calculated that at least paying lip service to diversity makes more money that avoiding discussion or portrayal of it. And maybe some people will complain about this new direction, but they're presumably dwarfed by the people receptive to it.

And that's what Lego is doing; in expanding into products for adults, they presumably concluded they had to make products that appealed to adults' interests. If Lego are making a Queer Eye set, it's because they believe that a) they can sell enough and b) these people will outweigh people who have no interest in it. That calculation probably underpins everything Lego sells, regardless of who they're aiming it at.

@GlassBoxTesting said:
"Seems an odd choice to me, but I guess american television is the 'in' thing at the moment and 18+ display sets is a pretty untapped market outside Star Wars UCS sets so why not? Not interested in the set or the show but at least it's something currently broadcasting and not some poorly-aged sitcom, might bag it a few more buys and on the other side seeing the set in shops might push new people to check out the show, so win-win for everyone involved"

I think calling Seinfeld and Friends Poorly aged is a bit harsh. I watched some of the former recently, and it’s still pretty funny!

@fakespacesquid said:
"Stranger Things has so many awards that the set got an award. Queer Eye is a niche within a niche within a niche. Again, I don't have anything against the idea of this set, but it just seems like a weird choice. "

Queer Eye is pretty mainstream, they've appeared in Taylor Swift and Lizzo music videos for Pride, and their show does pretty well on Netflix. This is Lego trying to reach an audience that doesn't have a real foundation in Lego fandom again, I'm interested to see how this one does though. Reality TV doesn't usually do "merch" like this aside from a product used in/related to the show.

(I tried watching Queer Eye a couple years ago but wasn't able to get into it lol, maybe I should give it another shot.)

@ALEGOMan said:
"Welp, I guess I'm boycotting lego(dead serious), this is the final straw, after all the garbage sets released this year. Everyone is awesome was one thing, now this? a Netflix series in which team of gay professionals? are you actually serious? Why has LEGO just gone completely political? IT'S A COMPANY THAT SELLS TOYS FOR KIDS"

I can't imagine clutching my pearls so tightly that I would feel compelled to write a comment like this.

The cast of Friends all represented straight characters. Is that political?

The cast of Seinfeld all represented pretty terrible characters, who all happened to be straight. Is that political?

TLG releasing a set highlighting a show about positivity, inclusion and acceptance is incredible. I think it's wildly ironic that THIS is what has set you off. Remember, you're screaming about a kid's toy, but you're likely an adult commenting on a website about that kid's toy.

I have zero interest in this set.

@fakespacesquid said:
" @SpiderMana said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
"This seems like such an interesting choice. Other licensing agreements notwithstanding, The Office has come through the Ideas review process probably 3-5 times at this point. There are also a handful of other shows that most people will have heard of, and I'd posit that Queer Eye isn't on that list. I guess this is meant to target a specific market, rather than cast a very large net of appeal. Or perhaps Queer Eye approached Lego, who knows. But if we're looking to continue the set-based-on-a-show theme, it seems like there is a near-bounty of shows that would have much, much more appeal than this. I'm no marketing guru but I feel like you'd want to use the buckshot before the sniper"

Aside from any number of reasons an Office license might have not gone through, Queer Eye provides a new audience with a connection to Lego. Representation is incredibly important."

In terms of audience, the audience brought in by an Office (or another Doctor Who, Muppet Show, Mr. Rogers, Fresh Price, heck, even a Red Dwarf) set would unquestionably dwarf the audience brought in by a Queer Eye set. I'd wager even Ru Paul's drag race is more well-known.

The level of importance is irrelevant to my point. "Representation" is in its own basket, and shouldn't be used as an out for poor choices. If Lego chose to focus on representation and make an Empire set, well that would be a weird decision. There are plenty of other shows focused on POC with a wider appeal. That is my point. "

Keep in mind that the designer of this set is again Matthew Ashton, TLG’s VP of Design, who also designed Everyone Is Awesome. So just like with
40516, expect a personal connection.
From his social media posts, Matthew seems to be a fan of the show. He will undoubtedly tell us later this week why he selected this show in particular for a set, once the set has been announced.

@kingalbino said:
"What's next, sets based on Love Island, Big Brother or Gogglebox!!!!"
Naked Attraction?! :~O

I’m joking :~P

@ComfySofa said:
" @ALEGOMan said:
"Welp, I guess I'm boycotting lego(dead serious), this is the final straw, after all the garbage sets released this year. Everyone is awesome was one thing, now this? a Netflix series in which team of gay professionals? are you actually serious? Why has LEGO just gone completely political? IT'S A COMPANY THAT SELLS TOYS FOR KIDS"

KFC just added Popcorn Chicken to their Zinger range here in the UK. I like KFC food, especially the Zinger range, but Popcorn Chicken is lame.

Do I continue eating the KFC products I enjoy, or do I tear up my loyalty card and delete them from my speed dial?"
@ComfySofa , I totally agree. I’m not a fan of political didacticism when it’s a choice between that and not consuming a product/service. But in this case (and in the case of Everyone is Awesome), the message is compartmentalised. If you agree with this set, buy it. If you don’t, don’t. (Of course there are other reasons why you may not want to: not fitting the theme of your collection, lack of space, insufficient budget etc).

The new version of the show is pretty boring but anything that makes right-wingers cry and bray like the absolute babies they are is a plus in my book.

I am very interested to see what they do with the set and whether it might have other uses or really interesting parts and minifigs. As a fan of the original and having never watched to reboot, I really don't care about this set other than that.

As a Proud LEGO fanatic who also just happens to be gay, I am rather NOT interested in how you are going to boycott LEGO now because they are now making Gay sets and minifigures. I am 48 years old and have been collecting LEGO since I was 14 (and been gay that whole time), and it really does matter that LEGO makes these decisions. I finally feel supported and valued by the company that I have valued and supported for over 30 years.

If you don't like it, then just ignore it. You don't have to post a comment to try to make other people feel "less than" because that is truly the intent behind comments like that. And I know it's possible to ignore things that you don't like because I have spent decades ignoring your nasty comments and judgement.

There are some awfully disgusting comments above and if this is the final straw for anyone...see ya. Don't come back. Don't post another comment going forward and go find another hobby.

@fakespacesquid said:
"I'd wager even Ru Paul's drag race is more well-known."

Now I want a RuPaul CMF series for real!

I'm not sure this will be a build that interests me, but the subject matter is perfectly wholesome and befitting.

@Chardee_MacDennis said:
"I don't know about this. I get movies, TV shows and video games but reality TV seems like a stretch to me. Next thing you know LEGO is doing sets based on cooking shows."

Iron Chef and Kitchen Stadium would be a fantastic set!

@legoverslinder said:
"I have a big problem with this. I thought there was a rule from Lego that they wouldn't make sets or figures on still living real people. with as reason, that if they do something bad in the future, Lego doesn't want to represent them. "

When was this ever a rule? Lego has made plenty of sets with still-living real people. A few examples:
-3401 from 2000 contains Zinedine Zidane
-There was a whole series of NBA players in 2003
-The 2000s saw several sets with real Ferrari drivers
-2016 saw an entire collectible minifigure series based on the DFB team, as well as a set with the Beatles (based on a fictionalized portrayal of them, but still tied to the fab four themselves), two of whom are still alive
-Margaret Hamilton and Mae Jemison are still alive, and Nancy G. Roman was alive when the set featuring her came out

@jondenial said:
"Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism. We've become obsessed with blatantly pointing out each others differences, then wonder why we struggle to find common ground. I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children. Once a company prides themselves on bias, I reflexively retract. It's not about openly homosexual people being in a TV show, but that Hollywood points out their sexual orientation for the sake of controversy and profit. For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states. Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents. "

Absolutely agree and it upsets me that this isn't a more popular opinion. If we want an equal, liberal society we should be striving for common humanity, not splitting people up into shallow identity categories and viewing them based on whatever category has been forced upon them.

I'd hate to be an accomplished gay person and be celebrated for my sexual preferences rather than the actual merit of my accomplishments. There are more LGBT people who share this perspective than many think.

@person_that_uses_brickset said:
" @Chardee_MacDennis said:
"I don't know about this. I get movies, TV shows and video games but reality TV seems like a stretch to me. Next thing you know LEGO is doing sets based on cooking shows."
A great British bake off set would be great

"

You know about 41393 right?

@Ladondorf said:
" @jondenial said:
"Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism. We've become obsessed with blatantly pointing out each others differences, then wonder why we struggle to find common ground. I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children. Once a company prides themselves on bias, I reflexively retract. It's not about openly homosexual people being in a TV show, but that Hollywood points out their sexual orientation for the sake of controversy and profit. For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states. Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents. "

Absolutely agree and it upsets me that this isn't a more popular opinion. If we want an equal, liberal society we should be striving for common humanity, not splitting people up into shallow identity categories and viewing them based on whatever category has been forced upon them.

I'd hate to be an accomplished gay person and be celebrated for my sexual preferences rather than the actual merit of my accomplishments. There are more LGBT people who share this perspective than many think."

This "opinion" is a form of erasure. The goal is to live in a society where preference does not matter however until we get there, LGBT people maintain visibility by identifying as queer. As a straight person, your opinion on this is completely irrelevant.

@Huw said:
"Please keep the discussion respectful to others and note that homophobic comments will be deleted and result in the poster being banned from commenting."

So why is the offending comment still there? I removed my response in respect to your comments, but I had assumed the original comment had been removed.

@CDM said:
" @Ladondorf said:
" @jondenial said:
"Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism. We've become obsessed with blatantly pointing out each others differences, then wonder why we struggle to find common ground. I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children. Once a company prides themselves on bias, I reflexively retract. It's not about openly homosexual people being in a TV show, but that Hollywood points out their sexual orientation for the sake of controversy and profit. For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states. Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents. "

Absolutely agree and it upsets me that this isn't a more popular opinion. If we want an equal, liberal society we should be striving for common humanity, not splitting people up into shallow identity categories and viewing them based on whatever category has been forced upon them.

I'd hate to be an accomplished gay person and be celebrated for my sexual preferences rather than the actual merit of my accomplishments. There are more LGBT people who share this perspective than many think."

This "opinion" is a form of erasure. The goal is to live in a society where preference does not matter however until we get there, LGBT people maintain visibility by identifying as queer. As a straight person, your opinion on this is completely irrelevant. "

We will get to a society where preference does not matter when we stop celebrating people's preferences, and when we stop dismissing people's arguments based solely on those preferences, as you have just done.

Furthermore, I said there are LGBT people who share my opinion, which I personally know to be true, so how are you not the one committing erasure of them, by dismissing it as just my irrelevant "straight" opinion?

@ALEGOMan said:
"Welp, I guess I'm boycotting lego(dead serious), this is the final straw, after all the garbage sets released this year. Everyone is awesome was one thing, now this? a Netflix series in which team of gay professionals? are you actually serious? Why has LEGO just gone completely political? IT'S A COMPANY THAT SELLS TOYS FOR KIDS"

See ya. Missing you already. It sadens me how readily negativity like this is posted on a hobby site that wants to be a happy, inclusive positive space.

@Mister_Jonny said:
"I think it's worth pointing out that until fairly recently, portraying queer people at all in popular media was an extremely fraught business (read about the Hays Code to see for yourself). "

The Hays Code ended in 1968. There have been queer characters on TV with little controversy for over 30 years now, and more than a few popular gay lead shows in the last decade.

The real issue now is moving away from token or stereotype characters. Being positive, interesting people is what matters. I've never watched the show but based on other comments it sounds like the hosts of this show managed to do that. I hope that they are successful for that reason and not simply for the labels they have.

@fakespacesquid said:
"In terms of audience, the audience brought in by an Office (or another Doctor Who, Muppet Show, Mr. Rogers, Fresh Price, heck, even a Red Dwarf) set would unquestionably dwarf the audience brought in by a Queer Eye set. I'd wager even Ru Paul's drag race is more well-known. "

As a Red Dwarf fan I've come to accept that as popular as the show is with people I know, it is just far too niche to the world at large to ever become a real set.

I think there are many sitcoms and reality TV shows that people have the same bias towards. Very very few older media properties have the cultural cache to justify the development cost of a Lego set.

I want to believe that Lego has done its homework and that there is a market for this set but after the recent string of very niche sets (Adidas trainer....), I am not sure.

AFAIK, Friends was the best selling Ideas set by an order of magnitude, and Seinfield is also doing very well, especially with those who have never bought a Lego set before.

Ultimately that's what Lego wants, to sell sets to as many new customers as possible. I'm just not sure that those people keep buying as much as TLG hopes, or that these niche sets reaches many people as they believe.

@Ladondorf said:
" We will get to a society where preference does not matter when we stop celebrating people's preferences, and when we stop dismissing people's arguments based solely on those preferences, as you have just done.

Furthermore, I said there are LGBT people who share my opinion, which I personally know to be true, so how are you not the one committing erasure of them, by dismissing it as just my irrelevant "straight" opinion?"

I said nothing about your anecdotally gay friends and their opinions. Straight people, such as myself, have no right to dictate how the LGBT community choose to identify themselves. Those who choose to be visible don't do it for our benefit. It's not about us.

Seems like a rather obscure series to make a set for, but then again I don't have Netflix and I don't watch fashion/makeover shows

Also, these comments are so annoying. Talk about the Lego, not your political opinions PLEASE. It wasn't political until you made it political.

I haven't watched this how. I never even heard of it until the rumors started up on Eurobricks when the Everything is Awesome set came to be.

However, with that said, new pieces? I'm in. New set designs with new techniques? I'm in. New figures with neat prints? I'm in.

Now I'm just hoping for a decent price.

@Huw said:
"I did remove the original comment earlier but given dozens of others quote it I would have to delete them as well, so I reinstated it. In any case I do not consider it to be offensive to anyone and while I do not agree with his views he's entitled to voice them."

That's a bit disappointing. Feel free to delete my replies to the offending posts as a byproduct of removing the negative comments. This section would be a lot more tolerable without so many thinly-veiled anti LGBTQ+ comments.

Remarks about what parents would think or how an openly gay LEGO VP "has too much say" serve *no* positive purpose.

I'm just going to throw my hat in the ring on this set being made at all.
Am I bothered by a set being made of this show? It's... complicated.

The biggest reason I get ticked off with sets like Everyone is Awesome or maybe this one is because it feels so much like a marketing stunt rather than inclusion. Let's be real, LEGO is not your friend. They are a company, and they want to make money. Can they do a lot of good in the process? Absolutely! But when it comes to LGBT+ representation, it's a fine line between being inclusive and feeling like a marketing tactic.

What I mean by feeling like a marketing tactic is that the inclusivity is used mostly to make a dollar, then discarded otherwise. It's the same reason I get annoyed with rainbow-colored Mickey toys. When we're talking about products to be sold, a company better make absolutely sure they aren't just adding diversity for the sake of a quick dollar. LGBT+ is a serious part of many people's identities, and exploiting that just isn't cool. However, LGBT+ is also a controversial topic among many circles. I personally think the topic is one that needs to be seriously discussed without a corporation butting in to try and sell you something.

In regards to Queer Eye, let's be honest. This show isn't the biggest thing around. The only reason I ever heard of it was because there was a quick joke in the Animaniacs reboot about it along with this set. It's not exactly a show that's widely known or has widespread appeal. So, along with Everyone is Awesome, it certainly feels like LEGO is trying to tap into the LGBT+ marketplace.

And let me make one thing clear. Everyone is welcome to LEGO. Drawing that crowd to LEGO isn't a negative thing in and of itself. What I do take an issue with is LEGO viewing and treating that crowd like another source of income. Would that really make them any different from other large companies out there?

@MainBricker said:
" @tremendo said:
" Remarks about what parents would think or how an openly gay LEGO VP "has too much say" serve *no* positive purpose."

I'm sorry, but you simply cannot consider comments that are negative about this set as "homophobic".

I make my comments about Matthew Ashton on the basis that he is vice president of design (so has considerable say over the sets that are made), people have long noted that he is a fan of this reality TV show. Due to the lack of popularity of this TV show, and it being a reality TV show, it doesn't strike me as something Lego would duo purely for commercial reasons, I have a feeling he's pushed it through, even though potential sales figures don't look great. He designed this particular set. He could push another random TV show that he likes (such as Selling Sunset or Tidying Up), my response would be the same.

I personally do not think Lego should make sets on reality TV shows. But apparently people consider that homophobic."

First: I didn't use the term, "homophobic". I don't think people are scared of the LGBTQ+ community, but I do think they are stretching to find a reason to dislike this set (that we haven't even seen yet!)

Second: You're begging the question. Why do you assume the show isn't popular? It seems like a real stretch to say this got made because the public face of TLG's diversity & inclusion efforts is a fan of the show.

We're not going to convince each other of our points, but at least you didn't say it's a political set.

I'm reading a lot of opinions based on assumptions here.
Why not wait for the set to actually be revealed before passing judgment?

While I personally don't care much for the subject matter, I may still buy the set if it piques my interest in any other way, be it building techniques, part selection or whatever.
It wouldn't be the first time either.

@MainBricker said:
"Lego making a set based on a trashy reality TV show?"

You misspelled’Emmy award winning’

@PixelTheDragon said:
"I'm just going to throw my hat in the ring on this set being made at all.
Am I bothered by a set being made of this show? It's... complicated.

The biggest reason I get ticked off with sets like Everyone is Awesome or maybe this one is because it feels so much like a marketing stunt rather than inclusion. Let's be real, LEGO is not your friend. They are a company, and they want to make money. Can they do a lot of good in the process? Absolutely! But when it comes to LGBT+ representation, it's a fine line between being inclusive and feeling like a marketing tactic.

What I mean by feeling like a marketing tactic is that the inclusivity is used mostly to make a dollar, then discarded otherwise. It's the same reason I get annoyed with rainbow-colored Mickey toys. When we're talking about products to be sold, a company better make absolutely sure they aren't just adding diversity for the sake of a quick dollar. LGBT+ is a serious part of many people's identities, and exploiting that just isn't cool. However, LGBT+ is also a controversial topic among many circles. I personally think the topic is one that needs to be seriously discussed without a corporation butting in to try and sell you something.

In regards to Queer Eye, let's be honest. This show isn't the biggest thing around. The only reason I ever heard of it was because there was a quick joke in the Animaniacs reboot about it along with this set. It's not exactly a show that's widely known or has widespread appeal. So, along with Everyone is Awesome, it certainly feels like LEGO is trying to tap into the LGBT+ marketplace.

And let me make one thing clear. Everyone is welcome to LEGO. Drawing that crowd to LEGO isn't a negative thing in and of itself. What I do take an issue with is LEGO viewing and treating that crowd like another source of income. Would that really make them any different from other large companies out there?
"

Well said, PixelTheDragon. It's a precarious topic to wade through, and I think you've carefully spelled out what the backlash might be. Is this representative of LGBQ+ inclusion or is it a marketing ploy? Or is it both? (Or, is it, as other commentators have pointed, a possible pet project of a VP within LEGO's echelons.)

I suppose, for lack of a better explanation, what we're seeing might be some sort of "commercialism of LGBTQ+ representation" (since we've already had decades of the commercialism of Christmas, as Charlie Brown famously observed some 50 years ago). I, like others, have heard the backlash from some LGBTQ+ colleagues and friends that some companies and online shopping websites are commercializing on their feelings, their community, and even their state of being. This was particularly evident during last June's pride month.

@Ladondorf said:
" @CDM said:
" @Ladondorf said:
" @jondenial said:
"Isn't this exactly as if they called it "Straightfeld" or "White F.R.I.E.N.D.S." I'll never understand the double standard of progressivism. We've become obsessed with blatantly pointing out each others differences, then wonder why we struggle to find common ground. I wish Lego would just shut up and stick to making neutral toys for children. Once a company prides themselves on bias, I reflexively retract. It's not about openly homosexual people being in a TV show, but that Hollywood points out their sexual orientation for the sake of controversy and profit. For anyone too young or otherwise ignorant, "Queer" has ALWAYS been a derogatory and offensive term here in the states. Now that Hollywood has found a way to profit from it, we're supposed to be ok with it being plastered everywhere, even on Lego? Just my 2 cents. "

Absolutely agree and it upsets me that this isn't a more popular opinion. If we want an equal, liberal society we should be striving for common humanity, not splitting people up into shallow identity categories and viewing them based on whatever category has been forced upon them.

I'd hate to be an accomplished gay person and be celebrated for my sexual preferences rather than the actual merit of my accomplishments. There are more LGBT people who share this perspective than many think."

This "opinion" is a form of erasure. The goal is to live in a society where preference does not matter however until we get there, LGBT people maintain visibility by identifying as queer. As a straight person, your opinion on this is completely irrelevant. "

We will get to a society where preference does not matter when we stop celebrating people's preferences, and when we stop dismissing people's arguments based solely on those preferences, as you have just done.

Furthermore, I said there are LGBT people who share my opinion, which I personally know to be true, so how are you not the one committing erasure of them, by dismissing it as just my irrelevant "straight" opinion?"

CDM is not dismissing your opinion because you are straight, they dismissed it on the basis of the opinion itself - no need to grasp at victimhood

Your idea that ‘preference’ shouldn’t matter is a nice ideal, but we are not there yet. We don’t get there by ignoring difference as you suggest. If we did that we’d end up with some bland homogenous grey society. We get to the place where sexual and gender identity don’t matter by celebrating and embracing diversity. Representation of minorities is a vital part of that.

“When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”

@Henry_D said:
"Well since Winnie the pooh and Santa stuff is for adults now, a show of “gay professionals” make sence, kids would love that. I wonder how parents would react."

If they've got any sense, it'll be a non-issue. The show features gay professional stylists but there's no adult content. Kids can't catch gay from TV shows or LEGO sets.

@Henry_D said:
"Well since Winnie the pooh and Santa stuff is for adults now, a show of “gay professionals” make sence, kids would love that. I wonder how parents would react."

As a parent, I would have no issue with my children meeting the 5 "gay professionals" in this series. Im not sure what exactly you mean by gay professional but actually I think this is something I might add to my CV too since I am also a gay professional, I am very good at being gay. In fact, Im very professional at it as I have been gay since....well as long as I can remember. I'm also a gay mummy so maybe that is another layer of 'gay professionalism' to consider.

Anyway, Im a huge fan of the show. The initial concept of 'Queer Eye for the Straight Guy' was much more about these 5 gay guys entering and helping a straight guy to see himself and his world differently to support positive change. There was a clear reason for dropping the "for the straight guy' part of the title as times change and it became less about the differing view of Queer to Straight and more about 5 awesome guys helping someone to make some real positive changes in their life.

I love the show and I love LEGO. I'll be intrigued to see what happens when the two come together... @Huw if you need a gay professional to review the set then Im your gay ;-)

It's an odd topic for a Lego set, but I guess, okay?

They have made some ... interesting decisions lately in terms of set themes.

At least it's not related to a music video app.

LEGO really needs to decide if they want to be political or not, and they need to stick with it. I would love to get a CMF series based off US presidents. I also think a D2C Noah's Ark set would be fantastic. But nope, those are considered too "political." I don't want to be hated for saying this, but this is just my opinion. If LEGO is going the political route, I wish they would stick with that, and produce more historical or religious sets, because if they're delving this deep into politics, they should at least be consistent and give us Christians what we want. If you wanna hate me for this, be my guest, but know that I'm not trying to offend anyone. This whole comment section has become a mad house, which stinks, because people have the right to have their own opinions.

@MainBricker said:
"The market research for this set points to it not being a good idea, so how has it got to actually becoming a set?"

You keep claiming that. Apart from your guess work on what do you base this opinion?

Reading all these comments about people threatening to boycott the company I feel I have to chime in again and ask "are you serious?"

I mean, I am definitely not gay, but I know and am friends with people who are. It is part of life and has been for centuries, quite likely since the dawn of civilization. I had Latin in school and literature from that era was filled with stories about gay people and it seemed to be considered quite normal back then. And that was about two thousand years ago!

As far as LEGO is concerned, to me it comes down to a simple question each and every time: is the set any good imho? To me that means does the quality match the price I am asked to pay for it. Does it have enough positive aspects to warrant a purchase.

There are plenty of sets currently available where the answer to the above question(s) to me is "no". You know what? I simply don't buy these sets and move on.
Sure, I would love to see a Classic Space or Castle revival theme more than something like Vidiyo or a set based on a (to me) obscure TV show, but hey, I don't threaten to boycott the entire rest of the lineup because of it. (I even bought quite a few of the Vidiyo stage sets as dirt cheap parts packs when they were available on Amazon recently for between 60 and 80 percent off - could never resist a good bargain... ).

Thanks to the abundance of alternative manufacturers nowadays I can get almost everything I want, and still find plenty of enticing stuff from LEGO themselves.

Lighten up everyone! Life is too short and precious to waste time getting angry and worked up about so little.

Just going to add my voice to the “I’m glad this exists, even if only for the positive affirmation of the queer community” chorus, and I’m always surprised and disappointed when I see that something as positive and inclusive as LEGO can somehow have cruel-hearted people claim to be “fans”. Hatred has no place in the LEGO community.

@whw_iv said:
"I don't watch the show, but all of the hosts I know to be kind people."

I mean it’s basically ninjago, helping people reach their true potential ;)

Okay guys, grow up.

If you don't like the set, DON'T BUY IT. It's not worth arguing about with strangers on the internet.

If you like the set, good for you, I hope you enjoy your copy.

PLEASE, I want to have one last thing without politics laced into it.

Thank you.

I’ve never even heard of the show, probably won’t buy the set unless it’s got something really interesting going on. Hopefully fans of the show like it enough.

But yeah, I agree that this is probably a bad idea for a set. Something more recognisable like The Office was probably more deserving, and this is coming from someone who loathes that show. I agree with other commenters, putting all the focus on someone’s sexual preference completely detracts from their actual accomplishments. People saying this isn’t the place to talk about it, they’re releasing a set with “queer” in the name this is exactly the place to talk about it. I’m bi, there’s so much more to my personality than that but in situations like this all people want to do is “celebrate being LGBT”, and it seems like most of them aren’t even LGBT they just call themselves “allies”. I don’t need a $60 LEGO set with some rainbow minifigures to be comfortable with who I am (and on that note, wouldn’t a proper figure pack with a diverse set of skin tones with male and female prints be far more deserving of the name “everyone is awesome”? That would’ve been more inclusive than the set we got IMO). All this talk about being “inclusive” but people are being split up into all these different groups.

I hate the way Lego has become a 'lifestye' brand

@Rob42 said:
"Another set solidly in the category of "Huh. Well, I suppose."

I was vaguely aware of the show and its premise, but I don't think it would have ever come to mind as a candidate for a Lego release. Still, interested to see what the set will actually look like."

You know what would be funny - if it had fashion makeover before and after minifigs and a transformation box with a rotating wall

@CDM said:
"There are some awfully disgusting comments above and if this is the final straw for anyone...see ya. Don't come back. Don't post another comment going forward and go find another hobby. "

I totally agree. We are fans of Lego. This is not a platform for hate speech or abuse of others because they hold a different view to your own.

@ALEGOMan said:
"Welp, I guess I'm boycotting lego(dead serious), this is the final straw, after all the garbage sets released this year. Everyone is awesome was one thing, now this? a Netflix series in which team of gay professionals? are you actually serious? Why has LEGO just gone completely political? IT'S A COMPANY THAT SELLS TOYS FOR KIDS"

Lego has not gone political. The queer community is simply living their lives. It's the policing of, and refusal to acknowledge their existence in public spaces that has become politicized. Also Lego has proven that it is more than just a "toy for kids" I'm sure this will be branded under their Adults Welcome branding and will be advertised as such.

Not everything is for everyone, if you don't appreciate it move on. But it's clear that Lego will continue to create sets that celebrate diversity in all forms and I appreciate that.

I've seen people criticize Lego and other companies for capitalizing on the existence of the LGBTQ+ community and there's a whole discussion to be had on the nature of capitalism and how good/bad it is, but regardless of how you cut it, a capitalist system marketing to the LGBTQ+ community is perhaps the greatest form of validation you can ask for. In a backwards sort of way, it is both an acknowledgement of existence, validity, and a great enough share of the market to be worth marketing to.

Whether you like it or not, it's still a good thing, even if it's not as sincere as you would like. Lego does donate to and works with LGBTQ+ charities, and the Lego fandom is very inclusive, aside from the trolls touting thinly veiled anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment and hiding behind the false pretense of politics.

Make no mistake, this is a good thing, even if the capitalistic nature of it leaves a sour taste in your mouth sometimes.

Just my 2 cents on the subject. I can't give any additional opinions on a set I haven't seen yet.

I’m all onboard for LEGO’s moves towards inclusion. As a Christian I’m under represented in LEGO sets. I would like to see TLG include Christian themed sets. Think about the number of medieval European church’s or the Vatican, that would be Awesone!

@OriginalJK555 said:
"Problem for religious people is they are bound by their values and tend to protest in silence rather than making their voice heard."

I’m sorry, you live in America and believe that Christians are a silent majority. Turn on the news once in a while

"People who make their identity the central focus of their lives are doomed to a life of desire and disappointment because nothing will ever be satisfactory."

I feel sorry for you that your identity means so little to you or that it is so uninteresting as to not be worth focusing on or celebrating. Personally I love focusing on all the different aspects of my identity, queer, father, LEGO fan, nerd etc. I’ll celebrate them all.

You know it's bad when @AustinPowers is the one telling people to lighten up :)

Anyway, never seen Queer Eye, and as a queer person I can understand the concerns about rainbow capitalism and marketing stunts, but frankly,

1. marketing isn't automatically bad, it's only bad when it's nothing more than superficial virtue signaling and the company doesn't actually help marginalized groups. Everyone, including LEGO, can do better, but it's not like LEGO doesn't already honor these values in some way. Marketing can be used for good.

2. people, especially those in marginalized groups, need to earn a living. So long as queer people are involved in the processes and paid accordingly (you know... like Matthew Ashton), I don't see a problem. LEGO is a toy company. If they *weren't* selling any Pride products — in other words, integrating Pride into their product line — I'd raise an eyebrow. You can already make any character you want queer or straight. But some people prefer visibility, and that's what Pride is all about.

I'm more of a 40516 kind of person, but I'll keep an eye on this news. You are not obligated to do the same if this does not interest you, or if this upsets you. And good riddance to those who were already constantly leaving insufferably negative comments about various LEGO themes anyway — the comments section will be a little less tiresome. LEGO is all about imagination, creativity and wonder, and I hope the colorful bricks teach you a little something about having an open mind.

Okay, back to capitalizing on opening my Christian wallet…. TLG please note that France is working feverishly to reopen the Notre Dame in Paris. You could really bank on all the free publicity and marketing by making a set based on the cathedral!!!

@JusJeff said:
"I’m all onboard for LEGO’s moves towards inclusion. As a Christian I’m under represented in LEGO sets. I would like to see TLG include Christian themed sets. Think about the number of medieval European church’s or the Vatican, that would be Awesone!"

Seriously? As a Christian you are underrepresented by Lego? Every year Lego releases quite a few Christmas and Easter sets. You also get advent calendars for every major Lego theme. Yes, I realize that they may not feature a Jesus minifigure, but they are sets celebrating Christian holidays. Don’t tell me these sets are secularized, because they aren’t. They celebrate Christian holidays that are only celebrated by Christians.

As a Jew I would love nothing more than a set celebrating Chanukah, but the odds of that happening are absolutely 0. I can’t even propose a Chanukah themed set on Ideas because of their anti-religion policy, but that rule doesn’t apply to Christmas themed ideas.

@alfred_the_buttler said:
" @JusJeff said:
"I’m all onboard for LEGO’s moves towards inclusion. As a Christian I’m under represented in LEGO sets. I would like to see TLG include Christian themed sets. Think about the number of medieval European church’s or the Vatican, that would be Awesone!"

Seriously? As a Christian you are underrepresented by Lego? Every year Lego releases quite a few Christmas and Easter sets. You also get advent calendars for every major Lego theme. Yes, I realize that they may not feature a Jesus minifigure, but they are sets celebrating Christian holidays. Don’t tell me these sets are secularized, because they aren’t. They celebrate Christian holidays that are only celebrated by Christians.

As a Jew I would love nothing more than a set celebrating Chanukah, but the odds of that happening are absolutely 0. I can’t even propose a Chanukah themed set on Ideas because of their anti-religion policy, but that rule doesn’t apply to Christmas themed ideas. "

Are you saying that Christmas is only celebrated by Christians?
On a broader note, this thread really isn't bringing out the best of people. I personally fall into the camp of feeling that reality tv shouldn't be produced as lego sets, but I understand what they are going for.