10291 Queer Eye press release
Posted by Huw,
Here's the press release for the Queer Eye set that was inadvertently revealed earlier today:
Billund, September 14th, 2021: Today, the LEGO Group and Queer Eye reveal a special new set in honour of the award-winning show that has brought tears to our eyes and joy to our hearts. The LEGO Queer Eye – The Fab 5 Loft set is a model of the apartment that serves as the group’s base in the show.
The set, created in partnership with Queer Eye creators Scout Productions in a partnership conceived by the show’s licensing agency IMG, will be available globally from October 1st on www.LEGO.com, LEGO stores and select retail partners.
Matthew Ashton, Vice President of Design at the LEGO Group and lead designer of the new set, worked closely with the Fab Five and is proud of the collaboration and what it stands for.
He said: “Queer Eye has had such a positive impact on so many people’s lives which is why we are excited for this collaboration. It reminds us that we need to take time to celebrate kindness and help build each other up. In this set we’ve captured themes central to both the LEGO Group and the show – caring, creativity, learning and fun. While the Fab Five rebuild people’s lives, we are on a mission to inspire kids and adults to get creative and help rebuild a more positive world.”
Authentic details and fabulous hair
The set recreates the original loft from Season 1 and 2 of the show, where Bobby Berk, Tan France, Antoni Porowski, Karamo Brown and Jonathan Van Ness first assembled as the Fab Five to embark on a mission to change people’s lives for the better.
Bobby Berk, the group’s interior designer said: “LEGO bricks played such an important part in my childhood. Clicking those little bricks together really sparked my imagination and creativity. Collaborating with the LEGO team was an absolute dream come true! It would be any kid’s dream, and now it’s my reality.”
The set, created for adult fans who love stylish, modern design and elegant architecture, features 974 pieces and measures over 9 cm high, 35 cm wide and 21 cm deep. It is packed with authentic details – including the iconic ‘STYLE, TASTE, CLASS’ sign - and accessories to highlight each of the Fab Five’s talents.
It also features seven minifigures and fan favourite, Bruley the dog and comes with a coffee-table-style instruction booklet which gives an insight into how LEGO designers and the Fab Five collaborated on developing the set.
“It’s been an honour to work with the Queer Eye team and everything they represent. Our design team has really enjoyed recreating the Fab Five as LEGO minifigs; Tan was the biggest challenge. We didn’t have an element that did his gorgeous hair justice, so we had to make an entirely new wig element - in shimmering silver of course! The team have also had fun packing the loft with Easter eggs, including a ‘Yaaas Queen’ print for the kitchen, which if you look closely, features ‘FAB 5’ in the unique brush-stroke art,” Ashton added.
Building people up
Each Queer Eye show features a ‘Hero’, a person who learns different skills and perspectives from each of the Fab Five which helps rebuild their confidence and has a positive, lasting impact on their lives. The LEGO set aims to showcase each of the stars’ skills and celebrate their artistry and individuality.
Food and wine specialist, Antoni, has a kitchen island from where he can help ‘Heroes’ learn new culinary skills and express themselves through food. Style guru Tan has a clothing rack where he can plan outfits to suit every personality and shape to make people feel great about what they wear.
Karamo is a life coach and therapist. He supports ‘Heroes’ on their personal journeys, helping them to make sense of their pasts and chart a way forward. He has a couch and scrapbook which he uses to shape the conversations and tools he shares with participants. Jonathan, the grooming consultant, has a salon area complete with a swivelling barber’s chair. He is expert in helping people take care of how they look and seeing their true inner beauty.
And as for interior designer, Bobby? The set itself captures his style as well as featuring his laptop and the ideas board he uses to develop concepts to help ‘Heroes’ transform their living or work spaces.
The set also features one of the show’s most memorable makeovers - Kathi Dooley, Jonathan’s beloved High School teacher. The episode celebrated the positive influence Kathi had on Jonathan and reinforced the importance of children receiving genuine support from the adults in their lives as they work to find their true, awesome selves. The apartment features a transformation chamber – and before and after minifigures - to recreate Kathi’s emotional reveal.
The fab LEGO team behind the set are: Matthew Ashton - Vice President of Design, Ruth Kelly - Senior Element Designer, Diego Lopez Sancho - Senior Graphic Designer and Eloise Bradley - Senior Licensing Manager.
You can view more images in the database and read our review later this afternoon.
67 likes
93 comments on this article
Never seen the show so the set doesn’t interest me in the slightest. Cool looking Minifigures though….
Why
Not interested in Seinfeld or friends or this so it’s a pass
In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!
I wonder if the French bulldog is the first time Lego's done an actual real named animal in a set
Why indeed. Please let this be the end of these TV show sets and cancel the office. I don’t even know what this show is. The only value these sets have for me is to look up the instructions online and mess around with furniture design.
Oh my god I can’t believe this is real, in a Fabulous way! Haha. I’ll be ordering anyway as soon as it’s available, I love the show and the guys are lovely, so having a set dedicated to them and their show is something special. And to the people not bothered about it and to the haters, you don’t actually have to buy it you know, so no need for being so negative, there’s plenty of people out there that this will appeal to, so cheer up and be happy. Just my two cents.
@Samdefisher said:
"Never seen the show so the set doesn’t interest me in the slightest. Cool looking Minifigures though…. "
It's actually a really cool build, regardless of subject matter. But I totally get if you're not into the show, it's quite a big purchase!
A great looking set with a lot of interesting mini builds. Glad to see a show with purely positive vibes getting a set.
Looks really great to me and worth the money! I haven't seen the show either.
Oh yay, another useless dust collector diorama for adults. For the record, I had these same thoughts about the FRIENDS, Big Bang Theory, and Seinfeld sets. To me, this is not what Lego is about.
But hey, at least 18+ set boxes are like iPhones now: they come in black or white. *sent with confetti*
Also call me uncultured, but I'm Gen Y and I've never heard of this show. Is this a Gen Y or Z thing? Judging by the jaring Tik-Tok style "3D" logo, I'm guessing the latter?
@darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
10 cents per piece is the going rate. The fact that some sets have a cheaper ppp does *not* mean that this is a *bad* ppp.
Day one for me.
Comparing this to the Seinfeld set, this is very pricey for what you get. Not interesting enough for the build itself and not cheap enough as a parts pack. Pass.
Is this the first set that sanctions the removal of minifig hands? I always assumed that was an "illegal" thing to do to minifigs due to wear and tear on the hands.
How funny, and random, for Kathi that she’s now been immortalised as a LEGO mini figure.
As I have neither style nor taste nor class, this is an eas pass for me ;)
But it's the closest to a clothes store/boutique that you'll get from LEGO outrside of Friends.
More one-off sets of overrated TV shows...
While I never watched the Show to me the Minifigures seem more interesting than the actual Diorama.
Its kinda weird to see modern styles in Lego figures but they stick out atleast
The walls are way more boring than those of Central Perk or the Seinfeld apartment. Which is just down to the shooting set they're adapting, not lego's fault, but it does ultimately put this set below the two O did buy.
I've not seen any of those 3 shows, but to be a good interior I think I need to see interesting shaping on the walls, detail is not enough if it's just laid over dull right angles.
I'm actually a really big fan of these open-room style sets! It's great to be able to present the gorgeous figures in an accurate and detailed environment with lots of space for different set-ups. I also like that Lego seem to be trying the same thing different sizes of sets, such as 76200. Might not get this because I'm not a fan of the show, but I can't wait to see others in this style.
@darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
I can think of multiple Star Wars sets that were 100€ with 800 pieces roughly, the Podrace Remake from 2011 instantly comes to mind
All Hogwarts Castles before 2010 also were 100€+ for less 800-900 pieces
I’ve never seen the show so no interest but it appears to be on par with other sitcom set models. I can only assume it contains all the requisite references and call-backs. I hope the show’s fans enjoy it.
With that said, I love the inclusivity and representation aspects of the set. Anyone who downplays that doesn’t understand what it means to feel excluded or less-than.
@reardonmj said:
"The only value these sets have for me is to look up the instructions online and mess around with furniture design."
That's pretty good value, isn't it?
@fakespacesquid said:
" @darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
10 cents per piece is the going rate. The fact that some sets have a cheaper ppp does *not* mean that this is a *bad* ppp."
PPP is a bad way of rating value.
I' ve seen an interesting way of rating objective value by Brickpicker, wich I use to this day, where he looks at the average price per average piece used. That way f.e. some set may costs 10c / 1 by 1 round plate and some set may cost 10c / 2 by 4 brick and it's obvious the later has a better value, even if both sets have a 10c ppp ratio.
(leaving out subjective ways to value stuff)
@The_Toniboeh said:
"I wonder if the French bulldog is the first time Lego's done an actual real named animal in a set "
The french bulldog was included with the frenchmen series 17 minifigure and a white one was included with the dog sitter from series 19
The minifigs look great. They would be a nice addition to a collection. But untill this set I never heard of the show.
I would have never thought that there was a large enough following of this show to warrant a set from LEGO, but then again I don't watch reality TV so I am ignorant. I am hopeful that this means many other desirable IPs are in the works?
@darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
Queer Eye: licensed -> higher price
Modular Building: no licensed -> lower price
simple
@Gabriel_Voyager said:
" @darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO ? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
Queer Eye: licensed -> higher price
Modular Building: no licensed -> lower price
simple"
As simple as licensed Seinfeld set with ~350 more pieces costing 20 bucks less?
@Muggle said:
"Is this the first set that sanctions the removal of minifig hands? I always assumed that was an "illegal" thing to do to minifigs due to wear and tear on the hands."
That's actually a really good point. I'm guessing that Lego is just making handless torsos now to serve as shirts. However if they are actually endorsing removing and swapping minifigure hands then that would immensely alter the world of legal/illegal building techniques.
Edit: It seems that according to the instructions the hands are left on, but the box art and press release shows them off. This would still be promoting removing hands though...
@sipuss said:
" @Gabriel_Voyager said:
" @darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO ? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
Queer Eye: licensed -> higher price
Modular Building: no licensed -> lower price
simple"
As simple as licensed Seinfeld set with ~250 more pieces costing 20 bucks less?"
The license don't have a difined cost, it's no difficult to understand that a license for a comedy of 30 years ago have a lower price that a license of a reality show of 3 years ago.
simple
Hideous
Never seen the show either, but those are some great furniture builds (that kitchen!) and some nice looking Minifigure parts. If I can pick this up for a slight discount count me in!
@BelgianBricker said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
10 cents per piece is the going rate. The fact that some sets have a cheaper ppp does *not* mean that this is a *bad* ppp."
PPP is a bad way of rating value.
I' ve seen an interesting way of rating objective value by Brickpicker, wich I use to this day, where he looks at the average price per average piece used. That way f.e. some set may costs 10c / 1 by 1 round plate and some set may cost 10c / 2 by 4 brick and it's obvious the later has a better value, even if both sets have a 10c ppp ratio.
(leaving out subjective ways to value stuff)"
PPP is already not subjective. It's literally just math, the opposite of subjective.
"Average piece used" as in the mode? The only conversations around PPP I've seen on Brickpicker are around gauging the *future* value of a set. Using PPP to gauge the current value is very different from using PPP as an investment strategy. There's a big gap between "This is a fair exchange" and "I want this exchange to be strongly in my favor so that I can profit later." Brickpicker's whole MO is investment, so it makes sense that they would use the latter, but that does not negate the former. I haven't seen a reasonable argument against PPP for regular value
@Gabriel_Voyager said:
" @sipuss said:
" @Gabriel_Voyager said:
" @darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO ? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
Queer Eye: licensed -> higher price
Modular Building: no licensed -> lower price
simple"
As simple as licensed Seinfeld set with ~250 more pieces costing 20 bucks less?"
The license don't have a difined cost, it's no difficult to understand that a license for a comedy of 30 years ago have a lower price that a license of a reality show of 3 years ago.
simple"
When Netflix got the rights for Seinfeld two years ago, it set them back over $500 million. Not exactly a cheap license
Like many others I have never heard of the show (although I am a latecomer to series; we are only just watching Twin Peaks...) but this would be great for the Minifigs as the torsos, legs and hair are all great, plus those stone pattern bricks in white too - very expensive for a parts pack though and with the set so expensive and a bit niche to say the least, I suspect those parts will be rare and therefore pricy on Bricklink too...
Do Lego designers choose their own personal favourite themes nowadays to design and release a rather big set?
Is this -whatever it is- series even worthy of a lego set? How bout fans’ desire for dozens of other, better? and certainly more famous tv shows and films.
Seems like there comes no end to Lego ‘s waste of efforts and designer budgets. *sigh*
I probably wont be getting this because its not based on a show I enjoy, but the build looks great! I love all the details and those new white brick pieces look really clean.
@fakespacesquid said:
"
When Netflix got the rights for Seinfeld two years ago, it set them back over $500 million. Not exactly a cheap license"
i don't know, but license for Netflix is just a little different from license for Lego.
Lego is not a streming television platform, just create a little play set :)
I think you made a little confusion about television license and brick toy license.
"This set is designed for non-Lego fans, and that's bad" is classic gatekeeping. There's nothing wrong with wanting something different, but it's inappropriate to say this shouldn't exist.
From the earlier thread:
"chrisaw in Australia, 14 Sep 2021 10:02
These have to be some of the most accurate looking minifigures to real people I’ve ever seen. "
It has never ceased to amaze me the amount of attention and forced "care" that can be brought to bear on an Upper Management pet project. These type of groomed projects always have a much stricter definition of "Only the best is good enough..."
@lORDoFtHEbOARD said:
"Do Lego designers choose their own personal favourite themes nowadays to design and release a rather big set?
Is this -whatever it is- series even worthy of a lego set? How bout fans’ desire for dozens of other, better? and certainly more famous tv shows and films.
Seems like there comes no end to Lego ‘s waste of efforts and designer budgets. *sigh*"
When the lead designer of a project is also a VP of Design... there is a lot of leaway in what they get to work on.
@darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
Since when has a Modular Building ever retailed for $100? Most of them are 1.5x the amount of pieces for... 1.5x the price, so the math checks out. Or is this a European market thing?
Great, here we go again with the debates in the comment section because people have opinions. Opinions are OKAY to have, people!!!
@Sutures said:
"From the earlier thread:
"chrisaw in Australia, 14 Sep 2021 10:02
These have to be some of the most accurate looking minifigures to real people I’ve ever seen. "
It has never ceased to amaze me the amount of attention and forced "care" that can be brought to bear on an Upper Management pet project. These type of groomed projects always have a much stricter definition of "Only the best is good enough...""
It sounds like you have been involved in a lot of the internal design meetings. You seem to have a keen insight into the reasons behind making the set and what went into it!
Are you able to share any more specifics? I would hate to think you are begging the question with wild speculation.
@sideswinger said:
"Great, here we go again with the debates in the comment section because people have opinions. Opinions are OKAY to have, people!!!"
Opinions are great, but hate is not
@shokwave2 said:
"Why"
Julia Goldin
@Gabriel_Voyager said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
"
When Netflix got the rights for Seinfeld two years ago, it set them back over $500 million. Not exactly a cheap license"
i don't know, but license for Netflix is just a little different from license for Lego.
Lego is not a streming television platform, just create a little play set :)
I think you made a little confusion about television license and brick toy license."
There is no reason to believe that the Seinfeld TV license would be $500,000,000, and the Seinfeld toy license would be pennies on the dollar. Likewise, there's no reason to believe that Queer Eye is somehow radically MORE expensive than the most popular sitcom in television history. The television license and the brick toy license are not unrelated to each other.
I think you made a little confusion about popularity.
@tremendo said:
" @Sutures said:
"From the earlier thread:
"chrisaw in Australia, 14 Sep 2021 10:02
These have to be some of the most accurate looking minifigures to real people I’ve ever seen. "
It has never ceased to amaze me the amount of attention and forced "care" that can be brought to bear on an Upper Management pet project. These type of groomed projects always have a much stricter definition of "Only the best is good enough...""
It sounds like you have been involved in a lot of the internal design meetings. You seem to have a keen insight into the reasons behind making the set and what went into it!
Are you able to share any more specifics? I would hate to think you are begging the question with wild speculation.
"
-5 points for improper use of "begging the question." I used no circular reasoning. My statement is based on several previous jobs. Yes, I have been involved with internal design meetings, but not at The LEGO Group. When Upper Management is hyper-focused on a project, the rules are different. That is universal.
Unless you're just trolling, I don't understand the attack. I said nothing about the politics, desirability, or even the reason for the existence of the set. I've even tried to stay out of assuming motivations. I was, however, talking about the quality. The simple point is every LEGO set should have this level of quality and attention to detail, but, people being people, that would be unrealistic.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @Gabriel_Voyager said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
"
When Netflix got the rights for Seinfeld two years ago, it set them back over $500 million. Not exactly a cheap license"
i don't know, but license for Netflix is just a little different from license for Lego.
Lego is not a streming television platform, just create a little play set :)
I think you made a little confusion about television license and brick toy license."
There is no reason to believe that the Seinfeld TV license would be $500,000,000, and the Seinfeld toy license would be pennies on the dollar. Likewise, there's no reason to believe that Queer Eye is somehow radically MORE expensive than the most popular sitcom in television history. The television license and the brick toy license are not unrelated to each other.
I think you made a little confusion about popularity. "
They could be unrelated to each other, there's no way of knowing. Not all brand rights are equal. For example, some properties secure likeness rights from the actors as part of the initial production, while other times licensees need to get the rights from the individuals directly at additional expense. I don't think that applies to more generic toy products like Lego or Funko vinyl, but it's a known issue in action figure development.
Why am I raising this example if it doesn't apply? Because it's just an example I'm familiar with, but there could be many others. How is the IP holder's profit distributed? How many stakeholders need to approve? These aren't things we can know, we can only speculate. Honestly, you both make valid assumptions, but there isn't any way to resolve them, so I wouldn't worry about it.
@darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
Follows the 0.10 cents per piece rule and has the normal price per part ratio AND it has not only 7 minifigures, but 3 extra torsos, and extra hair pieces. Definitely worth $100 dollars.
@Sutures said:
" @tremendo said:
" @Sutures said:
"From the earlier thread:
"chrisaw in Australia, 14 Sep 2021 10:02
These have to be some of the most accurate looking minifigures to real people I’ve ever seen. "
It has never ceased to amaze me the amount of attention and forced "care" that can be brought to bear on an Upper Management pet project. These type of groomed projects always have a much stricter definition of "Only the best is good enough...""
It sounds like you have been involved in a lot of the internal design meetings. You seem to have a keen insight into the reasons behind making the set and what went into it!
Are you able to share any more specifics? I would hate to think you are begging the question with wild speculation.
"
-5 points for improper use of "begging the question." I used no circular reasoning. My statement is based on several previous jobs. Yes, I have been involved with internal design meetings, but not at The LEGO Group. When Upper Management is hyper-focused on a project, the rules are different. That is universal.
Unless you're just trolling, I don't understand the attack. I said nothing about the politics, desirability, or even the reason for the existence of the set. I've even tried to stay out of assuming motivations. I was, however, talking about the quality. The simple point is every LEGO set should have this level of quality and attention to detail, but, people being people, that would be unrealistic."
You're presupposing that this is a pet project, using that to justify why it's getting made when it otherwise wouldn't. That presupposition is why I said, "begging the question". Maybe I've been using it wrong this whole time?
That being said, nobody commenting in this thread knows whether or not this was a pet project or something that upper management is hyper focused on. A lot of people are using that assumption as a jumping off point for some less-than-desirable commentary.
You're correct in that you didn't do the latter, but I don't think it's fair for us to assume we know the reasons behind this set getting made.
I'm always happy to be corrected on grammar though :)
Re-reading the press release, I get the impression that this was an idea pitched by the TV show people (or their licensing group) rather than an idea from Lego.
I never thought I'd see a Lego product that prominently displayed the word "ass." Guess that's a milestone for this set, unless I missed something in the past
@goldenguy880 said:
"I never thought I'd see a Lego product that prominently displayed the word "ass." Guess that's a milestone for this set, unless I missed something in the past"
It says aas, not "ass".
@AcademyofDrX said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @Gabriel_Voyager said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
"
When Netflix got the rights for Seinfeld two years ago, it set them back over $500 million. Not exactly a cheap license"
i don't know, but license for Netflix is just a little different from license for Lego.
Lego is not a streming television platform, just create a little play set :)
I think you made a little confusion about television license and brick toy license."
There is no reason to believe that the Seinfeld TV license would be $500,000,000, and the Seinfeld toy license would be pennies on the dollar. Likewise, there's no reason to believe that Queer Eye is somehow radically MORE expensive than the most popular sitcom in television history. The television license and the brick toy license are not unrelated to each other.
I think you made a little confusion about popularity. "
They could be unrelated to each other, there's no way of knowing. Not all brand rights are equal. For example, some properties secure likeness rights from the actors as part of the initial production, while other times licensees need to get the rights from the individuals directly at additional expense. I don't think that applies to more generic toy products like Lego or Funko vinyl, but it's a known issue in action figure development.
Why am I raising this example if it doesn't apply? Because it's just an example I'm familiar with, but there could be many others. How is the IP holder's profit distributed? How many stakeholders need to approve? These aren't things we can know, we can only speculate. Honestly, you both make valid assumptions, but there isn't any way to resolve them, so I wouldn't worry about it."
The ins and outs aren't really necessary, Seinfeld is the most popular sitcom of all time and one of the top 3 most popular tv shows of all time. The idea that this reboot of a reality-tv makeover show would have higher licensing costs is just comical. It's like saying the Ghostbusters license would be cheaper than Angry Birds.
@Daniel8 said:
"To sum it up: Great design, nice minifigures, niche interest, unreasonable price."
What is unreasonable about 10 cents per piece? It's the unspoken handshake. It's not knocking it out of the park, but it's not Star Wars level.
Seriously, how often do you people buy Lego?
I’m gay. My boyfriend is gay. This set does not represent us. In fact, it insults us. It reinforces the stereotype that gay men are all catty, ‘fabulous,’ effeminate and obsessed with fashion. The only people it appeals to is heterosexual women who like to use gay men as fashion accessories and gay people who identify as queer, which has little to do with their orientation and is a political statement. If Lego wanted to be “inclusive,” perhaps they could have made a wedding set with the option of two grooms/brides in addition to the bride/groom one, which was actually requested. The rainbow doesn’t represent me. A show about men reinforcing archaic stereotypes while acting like puppets for people who are laughing at them doesn’t represent me. My boyfriend served in his country’s military for 7 years of his life. He now does a manual labour job. He is stronger and more masculine than any heterosexual man I know. It is insulting to be compared to these people because we happen to be same-sex attracted.
@goldenguy880 said:
"I never thought I'd see a Lego product that prominently displayed the word "ass." Guess that's a milestone for this set, unless I missed something in the past"
And you're forgetting about the Classic Batcave and their prominent "dick" sticker....
The set looks decent overall. Neat features, great looking figures. $100 seems fair for what you're getting. Do I want to spend $100? Likely no, but I'm cheap. It may or may not hold me back from purchasing it since LEGO budget needs to be maintained. But if money was no object, I'd certainly pick it up.
Anybody care to discuss the poll results?
I'll start by saying I voted "No interest" mainly because I don't have the least bit of a clue of the show nor of the characters. However, the set looks nice, the minifigs are interesting (but would be much more so if I were familiar with the characters as I am with the Friends' set), the price certainly does not entice non-fans of the show to purchase it, and I take not many people worldwide are familiar with the show per se.
What strikes me positively is TLG's effort and strive for inclusion. Commendable, at risk of less success on the shelves. It would be interesting to monitor sales and see how and where they perform better or worse.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @darthnorman said:
"In no world, nor universe or even parallel dimension is this set worth $100... we get modular buildings with 1.5 times the amount of pieces for the same price. This set has a ton of the same pieces, a few prints and that is it. Why does it cost so much @LEGO ? These recent prices are absurd, there is no logic behind pricing whatsoever. 975 pieces... I mean, look at what you get for your money here. Hard pass until you start to learn!"
10 cents per piece is the going rate. The fact that some sets have a cheaper ppp does *not* mean that this is a *bad* ppp."
PPP is a bad way of rating value.
I' ve seen an interesting way of rating objective value by Brickpicker, wich I use to this day, where he looks at the average price per average piece used. That way f.e. some set may costs 10c / 1 by 1 round plate and some set may cost 10c / 2 by 4 brick and it's obvious the later has a better value, even if both sets have a 10c ppp ratio.
(leaving out subjective ways to value stuff)"
PPP is already not subjective. It's literally just math, the opposite of subjective.
"Average piece used" as in the mode? The only conversations around PPP I've seen on Brickpicker are around gauging the *future* value of a set. Using PPP to gauge the current value is very different from using PPP as an investment strategy. There's a big gap between "This is a fair exchange" and "I want this exchange to be strongly in my favor so that I can profit later." Brickpicker's whole MO is investment, so it makes sense that they would use the latter, but that does not negate the former. I haven't seen a reasonable argument against PPP for regular value
"
I never said ppp was subjective. I said it was a bad way to determine value.
You should watch more brickpicker videos, not only the investment ones. I think it is obvious that you not only look at quantity when you try to determine value, but also look at what that quantity beholds, because otherwise you are comparing apples with oranges, and that is exactly what you do when you simply look at ppp.
Great partspack! I've never heard of this tv show.
@The_Toniboeh said:
"I wonder if the French bulldog is the first time Lego's done an actual real named animal in a set "
The Big Bang Theory set had Cinnamon, the dog of Raj. Don't recall if she was mentioned by name in the description though.
Never imagined I'd see torso pieces without hands
@ALEGOMan said:
"marketing ploy for the lgbt community, nothing else"
Mods? Huw? Seriously?
@tremendo said:
" @ALEGOMan said:
"marketing ploy for the lgbt community, nothing else"
Mods? Huw? Seriously? "
What issue do you have with that comment? I can't fathom anything that would require mod intervention here.
Save the concern for the concerning comments. This is so, so, so far removed from actual homophobia and reacting like this to a flat critique of the set isn't helping anyone.
I don't know what show it is based of, but okay.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @tremendo said:
" @ALEGOMan said:
"marketing ploy for the lgbt community, nothing else"
Mods? Huw? Seriously? "
What issue do you have with that comment? I can't fathom anything that would require mod intervention here.
Save the concern for the concerning comments. This is so, so, so far removed from actual homophobia and reacting like this to a flat critique of the set isn't helping anyone. "
In light of the poster’s previous comments I strongly disagree. I don’t see anything critiquing the set in that comment.
Clearly nothing will be done about comments quoting bible verses and pearl clutching about how this is not appropriate for kids etc, so I will shut up and stay out of the comments sections going forward. It’s disappointing.
@AcademyofDrX said:
""This set is designed for non-Lego fans, and that's bad" is classic gatekeeping. There's nothing wrong with wanting something different, but it's inappropriate to say this shouldn't exist."
I'm not saying this shouldn't exist, only that several other sets, themes or whole product lines should exist before this even gets on the design board. But no worries, at least my budget is safe for the foreseeable future - yay capitalism, where you can vote with your wallet!
I'm not much of a reality tv fan, and have only seen Queer Eye in passing, so this set probably wouldn't normally interest me. That said, the minifigs look great, there's a ton of them, and the rest of the set contains a lot of useful looking pieces. I may very well buy this just for the minifigs and parts.
@Daniel8 said:
"I'm not saying that 10 cents per piece is unreasonable, but the actual volume of the set just doesn't feel good.
Star Wars sets have an expensive PPP, yes, but you get a LOT of big parts. And take in the cost of the Star Wars license and (to an extent) the Disney license."
thats is exactly why I say to compare price per average piece used!
@Romans122 said:
" @Muggle said:
"Is this the first set that sanctions the removal of minifig hands? I always assumed that was an "illegal" thing to do to minifigs due to wear and tear on the hands."
That's actually a really good point. I'm guessing that Lego is just making handless torsos now to serve as shirts. However if they are actually endorsing removing and swapping minifigure hands then that would immensely alter the world of legal/illegal building techniques.
Edit: It seems that according to the instructions the hands are left on, but the box art and press release shows them off. This would still be promoting removing hands though..."
This is the biggest shocker about the set to me, and I'm surprised fewer people are talking about it! I never in a million years would have seen Lego promoting hand removal. We didn't even see it in the (18+} Luke Vs Vader set, so what caused this change? I wonder if they will comment on it in the designer video?
@rishi_eel said:
" @Romans122 said:
" @Muggle said:
"Is this the first set that sanctions the removal of minifig hands? I always assumed that was an "illegal" thing to do to minifigs due to wear and tear on the hands."
That's actually a really good point. I'm guessing that Lego is just making handless torsos now to serve as shirts. However if they are actually endorsing removing and swapping minifigure hands then that would immensely alter the world of legal/illegal building techniques.
Edit: It seems that according to the instructions the hands are left on, but the box art and press release shows them off. This would still be promoting removing hands though..."
This is the biggest shocker about the set to me, and I'm surprised fewer people are talking about it! I never in a million years would have seen Lego promoting hand removal. We didn't even see it in the (18+} Luke Vs Vader set, so what caused this change? I wonder if they will comment on it in the designer video? "
i'm surprised people are shocked -> don't we all remove and swap hands from torso's?
@fakespacesquid said:
"What issue do you have with that comment? I can't fathom anything that would require mod intervention here.
Save the concern for the concerning comments. This is so, so, so far removed from actual homophobia and reacting like this to a flat critique of the set isn't helping anyone. "
Yeah, that sort of comment should just be reported so it can be unceremoniously moderated (which it has been, now).
@BelgianBricker said:
" @Daniel8 said:
"I'm not saying that 10 cents per piece is unreasonable, but the actual volume of the set just doesn't feel good.
Star Wars sets have an expensive PPP, yes, but you get a LOT of big parts. And take in the cost of the Star Wars license and (to an extent) the Disney license."
thats is exactly why I say to compare price per average piece used!"
Again, what do you mean by "average piece?" The most-used piece? That's a goofy measurement, which really only applies to Art sets or maybe Minecraft. And things like 75286 don't really give you a lot of big parts. The Star Wars PPP issues extend beyond the massive ships (especially considering larger sets typically have smaller PPPs, regardless of the pieces used)
I don't care much for this set, so won't get it, but will take these type of sets any day over yet another boring Star Wars ship re-released from last year :)
Don't care, give the fans what they want (aka The Office). For all these washed up, overrated cheesy sitcoms that get sets, you'd think the best TV show of all time would get one by now. Sad!
Lots of people here calling this a sitcom (it isn't). If you don't know anything about the show, why does this bother you?
If you people here saying they know the show and don't like it because it reinforces some trade stereotypes about gay men. That was definitely true when it first started, although I've seen the new seasons on Netflix and I would argue that it is much less true now and that they have gotten smarter about the overall message of their show. Still not my cup of tea but it is hardly offensive, IMO. Perhaps just offensive in the sense that it sometimes equates very superficial things that aren't affordable to everyone to "being confident and true to yourself" - but, come on, plenty of shows offer fake life lessons like that.
I know people who genuinely love this show, and I was surprised by that too when I found that out, but I gave it a try and while it's not for me, I understand why they like it and I don't begrudge them indulging in a model that reminds them of what they like about the show. It's no worse than all of my models of scientifically inaccurate spaceships glorifying space warfare.
@starwars4ever2 said:
"Don't care, give the fans what they want (aka The Office). For all these washed up, overrated cheesy sitcoms that get sets, you'd think the best TV show of all time would get one by now. Sad!"
Rights are owned by another company. Lego WANTS to make one.
Why LEGO....just why?
This isn't my cup of tea. While I enjoy these apartment style sets very much, I'm not very familiar with this show (granted I'm not very familiar with Seinfield either, but at least Seinfield and Friends are what I would call more standard apartment styles). That being said, even though this set doesn't really interest me as a whole, there are some aspects of it I like. The white and dark (?) gray masonry bricks are nice colors and I'm sure people who make MOCs will enjoy them quite a bit. Additionally, I quite enjoy the designs of the kitchen and most of the living room. It's also fun to get new plant designs and while I'm not the biggest fan of the posters/neon sign, it's always nice to get new ones even if they're stickers. Finally, it's nice that we're getting more colors for both the hairpiece that I believed was originally used for Sally from The Nightmare Before Christmas, as well as the one that I believe was introduced in Everyone is Awesome. However, as always, even if something is not for me, I feel it is important for me to add that I'm glad that these sets are able to find an audience
Being gay is not political.
Is this the first 18+ box with a white background? If it actually is white, I think that's a good choice because some of these sets look absolutely terrible on black backgrounds. At least now they can pick white as an alternative.
It’s clearly just rainbow capitalism because there isn’t much to the scene that makes it unique. Of course people who like the show will like the set, but there is hardly any appeal outside of these fans (as evidenced by the poll) because there is very little innovation. If this were actually a unique and impressive build, then it would be much easier to see why Lego would produce this. But given the fact that this is just another Friends-style scene with different colors and some well-made minifigures, clearly shows that this is nothing more than Lego cash grabbing and taking advantage of a social stance that earns you brownie points today
@lego4elio said:
"It’s clearly just rainbow capitalism because there isn’t much to the scene that makes it unique. Of course people who like the show will like the set, but there is hardly any appeal outside of these fans (as evidenced by the poll) because there is very little innovation. If this were actually a unique and impressive build, then it would be much easier to see why Lego would produce this. But given the fact that this is just another Friends-style scene with different colors and some well-made minifigures, clearly shows that this is nothing more than Lego cash grabbing and taking advantage of a social stance that earns you brownie points today"
FYI - The company came to Lego about this set idea and an LGBTQ VP designed it, who is also a big fan of the show.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
" @Daniel8 said:
"I'm not saying that 10 cents per piece is unreasonable, but the actual volume of the set just doesn't feel good.
Star Wars sets have an expensive PPP, yes, but you get a LOT of big parts. And take in the cost of the Star Wars license and (to an extent) the Disney license."
thats is exactly why I say to compare price per average piece used!"
Again, what do you mean by "average piece?" The most-used piece? "
read my previous posts or check brickpickers video on the subject (like I recommended before).
The rest of your comment is irrelevant to me because I already mentioned before that I think ppp is a bad way to determine value, so why keep bringing it up?
It's OK if you like it and use it, but rationally speaking it is a bad way because you don't know which pieces your 10c are refering to, so, between sets, you are comparing apples with oranges.
Like said before: in one set the average piece (based on setweight and number of pieces) used may be a 1 x 1 round brick, in another set it may be a 2 x 4 brick. It seems obvious that, if both sets have a ppp of 10c, the latter has a better value.
@BelgianBricker said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
" @Daniel8 said:
"I'm not saying that 10 cents per piece is unreasonable, but the actual volume of the set just doesn't feel good.
Star Wars sets have an expensive PPP, yes, but you get a LOT of big parts. And take in the cost of the Star Wars license and (to an extent) the Disney license."
thats is exactly why I say to compare price per average piece used!"
Again, what do you mean by "average piece?" The most-used piece? "
read my previous posts or check brickpickers video on the subject (like I recommended before).
The rest of your comment is irrelevant to me because I already mentioned before that I think ppp is a bad way to determine value, so why keep bringing it up?
It's OK if you like it and use it, but rationally speaking it is a bad way because you don't know which pieces your 10c are refering to, so, between sets, you are comparing apples with oranges.
Like said before: in one set the average piece (based on setweight and number of pieces) used may be a 1 x 1 round brick, in another set it may be a 2 x 4 brick. It seems obvious that, if both sets have a ppp of 10c, the latter has a better value. "
None of your previous posts explain what "average piece used" means, and searching that on Brickpicker yields no results. Again, it seems like you're saying to use the Mode, the piece that shows up most frequently in the set. Again, that is a terrible measurement, and nowhere near as versatile, useful, or consistent as PPP.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
" @BelgianBricker said:
" @Daniel8 said:
"I'm not saying that 10 cents per piece is unreasonable, but the actual volume of the set just doesn't feel good.
Star Wars sets have an expensive PPP, yes, but you get a LOT of big parts. And take in the cost of the Star Wars license and (to an extent) the Disney license."
thats is exactly why I say to compare price per average piece used!"
Again, what do you mean by "average piece?" The most-used piece? "
read my previous posts or check brickpickers video on the subject (like I recommended before).
The rest of your comment is irrelevant to me because I already mentioned before that I think ppp is a bad way to determine value, so why keep bringing it up?
It's OK if you like it and use it, but rationally speaking it is a bad way because you don't know which pieces your 10c are refering to, so, between sets, you are comparing apples with oranges.
Like said before: in one set the average piece (based on setweight and number of pieces) used may be a 1 x 1 round brick, in another set it may be a 2 x 4 brick. It seems obvious that, if both sets have a ppp of 10c, the latter has a better value. "
None of your previous posts explain what "average piece used" means, and searching that on Brickpicker yields no results. Again, it seems like you're saying to use the Mode, the piece that shows up most frequently in the set. Again, that is a terrible measurement, and nowhere near as versatile, useful, or consistent as PPP. "
A: strange, he explains it in almost everyone of his video's
B: I'm not saying to use the piece that shows up most, I never did.
C: PPP isn't consistent, because you have no idea what piece your price is refering to. You are constantly comparing oranges with apples. It is only consistent mathematically speaking (because you make the same calculation), but that calculation itself is irrelevant to what you want to know (value).
C: I understand by now that you simply want to disagree. Fine, it's all good.
The price is good for this set. Good parts pack, new torso's, heads, etc.
But is this set iconic? Something that stands out on the shelf? Is the apartment iconic at all?
I'll get for the parts.
I will pass on this set. Passed on Seinfeld also. Bought the Big Bang set because it was the 1st of its kind. Only bought Friends due to having a 33% sale at one on my local stores.
I think the voting results speak for themselves - we don't want sets like this Lego!!
I've got too short of an attention span for 44 minute shows, and have never been that intro reality TV, so Queer Eye never appealed to me. Although, I did have a friend in high school that adored the show and always begged me to watch it.
If LEGO is looking into tapping into licenses popular in LGBT circles, fingers crossed we get something Steven Universe or She-Ra Reboot based one of these days. I need a Peridot and Double Trouble to go with my Marceline minifigure!
@BPK2300 said:
"I would have never thought that there was a large enough following of this show to warrant a set from LEGO, but then again I don't watch reality TV so I am ignorant. I am hopeful that this means many other desirable IPs are in the works? "
What makes me question the thought process behind this one, is Queer Eye probably does have enough Pop Culture recognizability to warrant some attention... but that was the old show. From 10-15 years ago. The one that even South Park referenced hilariously. This set isn't that. This is the NEW Netflix Show... which nobody knows even exists. I'm thinking the crossover market between Netflix Queer Eye fans and Lego fans can probably be seated in a moderate sized restaurant. And still maintain some Social Distancing. At $50-60 it would probably attract some crossover interest. If just for the FABULOUS Hairpieces and Torso's (Dear God! They got me!) But at $100? Sorry dudes but straight guys don't pay $100 for a hairdo. I don't think most gay guys do either.