Meet the new LEGO Friends!
Posted by MeganL,
The exciting news today is that a new generation of Friends has been announced! The original cast of Olivia, Emma, Andrea, Mia, and Stephanie has grown up and we're meeting a whole new set of Friends.
In retrospect, all the signs were there: the second half wave of Friends this year had each of the original characters striking off on their own adventures. What other changes can we expect to see in this re-imagining? I'll discuss some of the key changes after the break, as well as share the bios for the new generation of Friends characters. Later today, we'll publish an interview with the Friends relaunch team.
Everything around the Friends line has been refreshed, including the logo.
The visual identity of the Friends line will be changed entirely, with the primary colour being teal and the secondary colour purple. The colour palette is changing as well to more jewel tones instead of the pastel tones in the past. The packaging will be different - the curved box fronts are also a thing of the past, and box art will feature photorealistic backgrounds. Much effort has been put into making this theme more gender-neutral.
There will be a series to support the sets, and the plot of the sets/series is also different from the original. Unlike Olivia, Emma, Andrea, Mia, and Stephanie, who were all best friends from the outset, these new eight Friends do not know each other at the beginning. The stories that we'll see in the series and through the sets will show all eight getting to know each other and experiencing different aspects of friendship. Two of the new Friends are related - Aliya and Zac are cousins.
The five original Friends aren't gone, though - they've grown up! We'll meet an adult Mia in one of the first sets, 41730 Autumn's House. Mia is Autumn's mother. The rest of the original Friends will be making cameo appearances in both the series and the sets, albeit in adult form.
The series will be launched in January on YouTube with a 44-minute premiere. That episode will be the first day of school for the Friends where they meet for the first time - at the international school set featured in the first wave.
The Friends team has committed to continue to the path on diversity that was started in 2022. As Fenella Charity, Creative Lead for LEGO Friends, says, "Everything that you've loved about the 22 launch, will be even more so in 2023."
LEGO has worked with the Geena Davis Institute extensively to ensure appropriate representation in storylines and sets. As Costas Syrmos, the Marketing Director for LEGO Friends, says, "We don't want to use diversity as tokenism; we will never do that. Everything we do will be embedded in meaningful stories that the audience can relate to.
"When it comes to all the stories we're writing in the characters, we work very closely with the Geena Davis Institute. They are experts and they vet all the stories to make sure that we are on the right path and we don't make any mistakes on how to present the work."
Diversity will be shown throughout - Heartlake City is being built up from scratch, with up to ten different districts. Each will have its own architectural style and details, all the way down to the styling of the pavement. When asked about other forms of diversity being shown (such as anxiety, Down's Syndrome, sexual orientation), the Friends team said that all forms of diversity will play out through the character arcs.
Without further delay, meet the new LEGO Friends!
Aliya
Aliya read her first chapter book when she was only five years old… and after reading it on her own, she immediately flipped to the front page and began reading it again, out loud, for her friends to listen to the story. The only thing bigger than Aliya’s brain is her sweet and gentle heart.
But as kind as she is to her friends and family, Aliya is sometimes tough on herself; as the child of two successful parents, she feels the pressure of high expectations. Luckily, even though she spends a lot of time studying or reading, Aliya still squeezes in adventures with her best friend Autumn. Aliya is seen as a leader among her friends and in her school, but her desire to help people can sometimes go overboard, and she’s been known to completely take over group projects, ending up doing everything herself so it comes out ‘perfect.’
Sometimes her friends can talk her down and convince her to take a breather and let others help her, and other times… she crashes hard. Slowly Aliya is learning to use her courage not just to be a good leader, but also to admit she needs her friends as much as they say they need her.
Autumn
If Autumn had it her way, her bedroom would be outside in a multi-story treehouse rather than indoors. Although her and her family live just a quick bike ride out of town, Autumn spends most of her time on the ranch, doing chores, hanging out with the animals, and exploring the deeper darker woods at the edge of their furthest fields.
Despite only being born with a limb difference, Autumn never met a challenge she didn’t want to take on—whether it’s climbing a cliff side for the sweetest blackberries in the state or teaching her best friend Aliya how to climb a pine tree, the only thing that makes Autumn nervous is when her mom asks if she’s finished her homework yet. Although she is a bit of a daredevil and generally sees rules as just ‘suggestions,’
Autumn takes her work on the ranch seriously, and is devoted to animals as well as protecting the planet. Because Autumn spends so much time with animals, she can get a little annoyed with the drama of people, and needs alone time to decompress, especially if she has to make an important decision. Her best friend Aliya understands this need and some of the best times they’ve had as friends is completely silent moments in nature, enjoying the peace and each other’s affectionate company.
Leo
New city, new house, new friends and newly renovated kitchen (courtesy of his two architect parents), Leo is experiencing a lot of things for the first time! Growing up, Leo found comfort in the family kitchen, especially at his grandmother’s side, learning how to make his favourite dishes and practicing recipes until the flavours were just right.
As the oldest sibling, Leo is familiar with caring for people and diffusing arguments, but when it comes to his peers, he is anxious to avoid confrontation in order to keep up the good vibes of the group, even at his own expense.
When he first arrived in Heartlake City, he worried whether his passion for the culinary arts would be seen as cool, or cringe among the other students. That uncertainty pushes him to connect with his friends via their shared love of the beach; surfing, paddleboarding, and kicking a soccer ball around on the sand with his teammates from the Heartlake High soccer team. Slowly but surely, Leo is getting more comfortable with letting people see this other side of him, especially because everyone is OBSESSED with the beach snacks, he brings every week! Leo may not know it yet, but his warmth and caring personality have already gained him close friends who see the real him.
Zac
Zac was destined for the spotlight. He’s smart, he’s cute, he’s athletic, he’s funny, a great dancer and even a decent singer during karaoke nights! He’s talented at martial arts, has won a couple motocross races, the list goes on and on and on. With so much success, you’d think a guy like Zac might be a little bit of a show-off… and you’d be right!
Thankfully, although everything comes easy to Zac, he’s happy to share the spotlight with his friends, he always makes sure everyone at the party is having a great time and is genuinely excited to meet new people and learn more about them.
Zac is as clever as he is cool and has been known to ace a test without even studying (much to Aliya’s annoyance), but lately, the competition in Heartlake City has been getting tougher, and soon Zac will have to practice the one skill he’s terrible at: dealing with failure! But with good friends like Liann, who joins him when he plays pranks, and Aliya, who always hears him out in the rare moments he’s frustrated, Zac is confident soon enough he’ll be the best at being humble, in addition to everything else he’s the best at!
Liann
Anyone who says Liann is disorganised just doesn’t understand her organisation style! Sure she couldn’t find her blue lightning sneakers for two months… that just gave her a reason to break in her new red lava ones! Liann is one of the few people who can match Autumn’s boundless energy – and you can usually find her at the skatepark.
The only time she slows down is when she is hyper focused on a drawing. Although she has aspirations of becoming a comic artist one day, first, Liann has to figure out how to stick with a project for longer than fifteen minutes. Because she’s easily distracted and zones out as soon as she gets bored, she can get herself into trouble occasionally, and her impulsive streak sometimes causes problems for not just her, but her friends too.
Liann’s optimistic enthusiasm however means she’s quick to get into a mess, but even quicker to apologise and make things right. She’s always ready to have fun and do something new, and her bad moods never last longer than a moment. Liann is a sparkling, joyful mood maker that nearly everyone in school wants to be friends with.
Olly
Whether it’s setting up the Heartlake High fashion show, organising a bake sale for the equestrian team, or video editing a clip for Isaac’s Grocery website, Olly is always the hardest working person in the room. His charm and charisma matched with his gorgeous outfits make him a memorable person in Heartlake City, and he often has an influence on the biggest and best events.
Growing up in a working-class family, Olly was not able to afford designer brands or private classes, but there is nothing in the world that can stop Olly when he sets his mind to something. With a few online videos, he taught himself to sew, design t-shirts, how to edit film and photos, and in just a few years Olly has transformed from kid with a dream to young man with a (detailed and colour-coded) plan! Sometimes however, his willingness to help can turn into meddling in his friends’ interests—but Olly means well, and simply sees the potential in everything.
His persuasive personality means he usually gets his way, but friends like Zak and Aliya keep him on his toes, as those two are even more headstrong than himself! Between his up-and-coming YouTube channel, and his growing fashion finesse, Olly believes one day he can turn Heartlake City into a global fashion hub.
Paisley
It’s not that Paisley doesn’t have a lot on her mind…it’s more that she doesn’t even know how to begin to express herself! Big crowds and noisy rooms have always made Paisley feel anxious, and although her confidence is growing, she often doubts if she’ll ever be able to boldly rule the stage like Zac or jump headfirst into an adventure like Autumn.
Despite being a lady of few words, Paisley has many talents. Her stunningly beautiful voice surprises everyone who hears her, and as a classically trained multi-instrumentalist, Paisley has recorded hours of amazing music that no one will hear. Music is deeply important to Paisley as her late mother was a recording artist in the 90s; singing and playing music is a way of remembering and connecting with her mom.
When Olly encourages her to share her music with a wider audience, Paisley is excited, but she’ll have to work hard on her insecurity and self-consciousness first. A kind and soothing friend, Paisley often can tell someone is having a bad day before they say anything, and her perceptive personality means people often come to her to talk out difficult feelings.
Nova
Online, Nova is super popular. Her streaming channel has over five hundred thousand followers, her online handle in the gaming community is well-known, and she gets tons of likes and comments on pretty much everything she posts. In real life, well…Nova is a bit of a loner.
She’d rather watch super scary thriller horror films instead of whatever popular sitcom everyone else is talking about in school, and her dead-pan sense of humour and overall blunt personality means she comes off as rude or mean to people who don’t know her well. In reality, Nova is much softer on the inside than her prickly exterior, and she is a thoughtful person, and very eager to help, especially if it’s a problem involving any techy stuff.
Nova yearns for deep, close friendships, but has a hard time opening up to people, and because she can sometimes be a little too honest, more than once she’s hurt the feelings of someone she was trying to get to know better. But the best thing about Nova, like a true gamer that will replay the same difficult boss level over and over until they win, Nova is willing to try and try again to become friends with people who will care about her and all her geeky passions.
I'm very excited about the new LEGO Friends! I think this is the first time LEGO has "graduated" one set of characters to introduce the new. I won't be sorry to see the end of the pink and purple packaging, and welcome the new jewel tones. It looks like the fantastic quality of the sets will continue.
Which new Friends characters will be your favourite? Let us know in the comments.
123 likes
111 comments on this article
Interesting. I like it!
Autumn having a missing limb is a surprising but extremely welcome addition to the lineup. Lot of kids will be able to identify with her in that regard. Good on Lego!
Is it just me, or does every reiteration of the Friends line get worse looks and build wise?
Wow, a lot of thought went into those characters, and I like that they are planning Heartlake City with different districts and styles. It should make for some interesting sets. I would love to see some the diversity (in reference to the architectural styles) being discussed here appear in the City sets. Thanks very much for the information!
Mia, a mother? I knew her when she was just a girl :)
My kids used to be great fans of the original first iteration of the Friends theme, but by now have outgrown both Friends and LEGO in general.
Since I never cared about the backstory, let alone the figures, this new direction doesn't affect my appreciation of the sets. If I like the build and the value for money proposition, I will keep on buying the occasional set. If not, well, not the end of the world either.
As for missing limbs, my minifigs often had those even during my childhood, even if not by design from the outset ;-)
@MrBob said:
"Autumn having a missing limb is a surprising but extremely welcome addition to the lineup. Lot of kids will be able to identify with her in that regard. Good on Lego!"
It also says she doesn't like to follow rules... "You see kids? If you don't follow the rules, you'll end up losing a limb or worse!"
@biffuz said:
" @MrBob said:
"Autumn having a missing limb is a surprising but extremely welcome addition to the lineup. Lot of kids will be able to identify with her in that regard. Good on Lego!"
It also says she doesn't like to follow rules... "You see kids? If you don't follow the rules, you'll end up losing a limb or worse!""
Funny you say this as its exactly what I was thinking.
But reading the descriptions for all the kids it seems like they'd be terrible people IRL or are sending out bad messages to kids. Hates loosing, lets people cheat off her by copying homework, people only like you if you give them food, gets into trouble for having fun... etc.
I wish them well.
But above else it is the sets, parts selection, build quality and value for money that will make or break them.
We've already been there, done that. Which one of them is going to sacrifice themself to save the world?
This is really cool! Looking forward to seeing all the cool things that come from this new beginning.
good grief it's all so mind-numbingly, stiflingly earnest
Autumn is a Name half of the world won't pronounse correctly, but at least they didn't name her Fall.
Let's hope the theme continues to be as good as it has been lately! This year it might have been the best theme put out by Lego!
THERE’S *LORE* TO LEGO FRIENDS?!!
Autumn isn't missing a limb like someone said, she has 'a limb difference'. How dare you, saying she was supposed to have a hand there when she was born.
And while LEGO thinks it's super important to include and reflect all personalities/colours/genders, they don't have the balls (or other not specified reproductive organs) to just say Olly's gay.
Nova sounds a lot like my daughter so she's gonna be my favourite.
Everyone is going to be asking "Who is Autumn's Dad".
Next round of sets - 'Olivia's DNA Testing Centre'.
So many cool buildings and they have some depth to them as well. Take that CITY!
I just hope they will never start using road plates on these.
I have triples of the Nova. Triples is best. Triples makes it safe.
There was potential to be even more diverse, I'm mildly surprised they didn't add more variety.
I was never the target audience for "Friends" and that never worried me. The sets could be hit and miss, but there were some definite gems, over the last 10 years. Some of the sets (even with all the pink) were just so sweet and lovely.
Having said that? I really like this idea.
We're still in Heartlake City, and the original Friends characters are still around, they've just grown up, and now we have the next generation. I think that's a brilliant idea. That's genius. I'll take my hat off to them for that.
@GrizBe said: "But reading the descriptions for all the kids it seems like they'd be terrible people IRL or are sending out bad messages to kids."
I imagine this was done to allow for character development, as the kids will grow and change (over the next few years). Honestly, Nova seems like the kind of person I'd move towns to avoid, so.
As for the comment re: Olly? No kidding. I tell you, my internal radar just exploded with rainbow fireworks, at nothing more than the picture of the guy, in the last post. Maybe it was the hair? Or my radar is just too finely-tuned. Anyway, hopefully he gets a boyfriend at some point.
As for Zac? Are they just describing Walter Jones playing "Zack" as the first ever Black Power Ranger from 1993?
I think giving the Friends some less-than-positive traits isn’t inherently bad in and of itself. They’re characters. Flaws make characters interesting. So long as someone doesn’t seriously mess up while writing to the point bad morals are given, it should be fine.
I think the switch from pink to teal is interesting. Makes it easier to integrate with other LEGO kits from Creator and City in my opinion.
I’m definitely not the target audience for Friends, but I hope those that enjoy the theme enjoy this new take!
@Zordboy said:
"I was never the target audience for "Friends" and that never worried me. The sets could be hit and miss, but there were some definite gems, over the last 10 years. Some of the sets (even with all the pink) were just so sweet and lovely.
Having said that? I really like this idea.
We're still in Heartlake City, and the original Friends characters are still around, they've just grown up, and now we have the next generation. I think that's a brilliant idea. That's genius. I'll take my hat off to them for that.
@GrizBe said: "But reading the descriptions for all the kids it seems like they'd be terrible people IRL or are sending out bad messages to kids."
I imagine this was done to allow for character development, as the kids will grow and change (over the next few years). Honestly, Nova seems like the kind of person I'd move towns to avoid, so.
As for the comment re: Olly? No kidding. I tell you, my internal radar just exploded with rainbow fireworks, at nothing more than the picture of the guy, in the last post. Maybe it was the hair? Or my radar is just too finely-tuned. Anyway, hopefully he gets a boyfriend at some point.
As for Zac? Are they just describing Walter Jones playing "Zack" as the first ever Black Power Ranger from 1993?"
“Alpha, Rita has Escaped Again! This Time Bring Me Eight New Teenagers with Attitude!” *shredding guitars*
Not a fan of Olly being exclusive to the most expensive set(and $100 at that), hopefully he will be in a move wallet friendly set in the next wave.
@MainBricker said:
" @bobaphat107 said:
"Autumn isn't missing a limb like someone said, she has 'a limb difference'. How dare you, saying she was supposed to have a hand there when she was born."
All humans are supposed to be born with 2 hands. It's not offensive to say so. Some people don't fully develop all their limbs as a foetus.
People with these conditions feely admit that they were born without a hand, they don't claim that they were always meant to be that way."
Yeah, I know. It wasn't directed at people on Brickset, but at LEGO with their 'limb difference'. It's all so PC, with the surveys and institutes.
Before the 'Rebuild The World' slogan, there was an old slogan years ago, 'Use Your Imagination'...
I'm not sure I like the core 5 of the friends being adults now. It sounds like a revived TV series after decades of being on air, yet only 10 years have passed.
I like the addition of new friends, but I am surprised they are all new. But, hey, I'm not the target audience of this theme.
Obesity? Excluded.
How old are these 'Kids' supposed to be?...
I was apprehensive at first, but I like this new direction! I was never into Friends, but I think these new sets broaden their appeal (a little more modern, inclusive, and more focused on the next generation of LEGO-lovers!)
@Fat_Tony said:
"Obesity? Excluded."
username checks out XD
Interesting to see where this goes, and I like the focus on story and character development, but less than a year is probably a little too early for a legacy sequel. Remember when everyone was complaining about the Amazing Spider-Man being released 'too early'? Not the biggest fan of the logo either, but that's just me.
Still, its kind of crazy to look at all the 'girly' sets from 2012 in today's landscape when compared to these.
This looks very promising, although this is coming from someone who isn't the intended target audience of the Friends line. That said, I did buy a couple of Friends sets in the past years, mostly because they actually had nicer buildings than we've gotten from the City theme (especially 41311 Heartlake Pizzeria) or just some fun little sets that also work with regular minifigures (plus great hairpieces).
The diversity and a bigger cast are cool, as kids who got / bought multiple Friends sets would often get the same five core characters. I like the fact these characters have grown up and are passing the torch to a new generation, like GenZ'ers now becoming adults and moving on to other things.
Seeing the original cast as adults is a cool element and that can be aspiring to kids too. I hope the Friends line lasts long enough to see Mia, Olivia, Emma, Andrea, and Stephanie at an advanced age doing 'boomer' stuff. They already have a house with a porch and rocking chairs, after all...
And, sure, not every new character has only likable traits, but flawless characters are boring. No one is flawless and that's how you experience growth, by making mistakes and learning from them. I'm curious how LEGO will implement those aspects. I mean, older LEGO fans grew up with pirates and medieval robbers with crossbows, so I'm not sure what the fuss is about.
@Fat_Tony said:
"Obesity? Excluded."
... just like many other ordinary real life characteristics not considered being cool. Each one of these kids is unbelievably awesome from the start. Is there room for any development left? As they are characterized they can already single-handedly (one of them literally) deal with anything in the world. I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. Feels like bag of lies to me.
As just2good pointed out even if you despise friends just look at all those new hairpieces!
I'm randomly noting that my daughter's interest in Friends collapsed like a dynamited building overnight when she was 10 or so. Prior to that, she loved Friends for the basic domestic play aspect of it. Then one day, she woke up and thought that girls chasing after hairbows was the dumbest thing ever. She pretty much told me that she'd rather move into something like the Jurassic line so she could have being people chased by dinosaurs instead of putting a bow on a lost bear.
So, yeah: my experience is that Friends is for 10 and under unless you add some rampaging dinosaurs to Heartlake City.
@CCC said:
"It feels a bit like series 5 of Grange Hill. Out with Tucker Jenkins, Alan, Benny, Trisha and Cathy and in with Roland, Zammo, Jonah and Fay."
It will get lively when Gripper Stebson arrives at Heartlake High!
paisley is so cute
"
And while LEGO thinks it's super important to include and reflect all personalities/colours/genders, they don't have the balls (or other not specified reproductive organs) to just say Olly's gay."
So Olly is everyone's gay best friend?
Looking forward to the 2032 lineup when the original Friends girls get to be grandparents!
DaveE
@davee123 said:
"Looking forward to the 2032 lineup when the original Friends girls get to be grandparents!
DaveE"
This raises the inevitabilty of dead Friends in some not-so-distant future.
Followed by a revivial of the Monster Fighters theme in a Friends setting after that.
I wonder if this means there will be a new season of the animated show? My kids loved watching the previous episodes.
@SinKiller_Nick said:
"I wonder if this means there will be a new season of the animated show? My kids loved watching the previous episodes."
"The series will be launched in January on YouTube with a 44-minute premiere. That episode will be the first day of school for the Friends where they meet for the first time - at the international school set featured in the first wave."
@ResIpsaLoquitur said: "So, yeah: my experience is that Friends is for 10 and under unless you add some rampaging dinosaurs to Heartlake City."
I'd be okay with it.
I mean, we got quite a lot of dragons with the "Elves" theme, so, I imagine that's the closest you're going to get. Unless there's a "Jurassic World" franchise in Heartlake City, and we know how that ends.
@Zordboy said:
" @ResIpsaLoquitur said: "So, yeah: my experience is that Friends is for 10 and under unless you add some rampaging dinosaurs to Heartlake City."
I'd be okay with it.
I mean, we got quite a lot of dragons with the "Elves" theme, so, I imagine that's the closest you're going to get. Unless there's a "Jurassic World" franchise in Heartlake City, and we know how that ends. "
You know, I have no idea why the Elves line didn't include a throwaway line that Emily Jones fell into a portal outside of Heartlake City. (Bonus points if the portal was left by Lord Vortech.)
@HugeYellowBrick said:
[[[[
And while LEGO thinks it's super important to include and reflect all personalities/colours/genders, they don't have the balls (or other not specified reproductive organs) to just say Olly's gay.]]
So Olly is everyone's gay best friend?]]
Or token gay friend ("You know, I have gay friends myself, I can't be homophobic...").
@Ridgeheart
Or Tilly Lockey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kG4eMZqppT4
The only thing I'm disappointed about is the animal moulds. This would have been the perfect time to rework the style and find a common ground between System and Friends animals. Having different moulds for both was always silly.
If an animal is cute, it'll be cute. If the current System cat mould isn't cute enough, rework it. But find a happy medium so everyone can share the moulds. The new kittens seen in City sets, for example, were expertly moulded and are adorable.
Still print silly eyelash prints on the Friends animals if they absolutely have to, but at the very least use the same moulds. Bridge that gap.
Animals aside, I'm glad the theme as a whole is stepping in this more gender-neutral direction, though. The sets look fantastic, as always!
Can't believe how curmudgeonly most people are in the comments here. Awesome new hairpieces! Stylish new sets! Cool, distinct character designs! IMO Friends just keeps getting more refined and better.
That said, I came here to be a curmudgeon and point out that this is NOT the first time LEGO has graduated one set of characters to make way for a new set. It happened in everyone's favourite theme: Knights Kingdom II! The young upstart knight Jayko became King Jayko in the final wave.
This is a big change but I'm loving what it means for the future of the theme. Super excited about the new lineup and to see the theme going a bit more gender-neutral since I think Friends has been one of LEGO's best themes for a while now. I will miss the slanted edges on the boxes, though!
I love the new hairpieces and it's great to see disability representation in minidolls now as well. I can't wait to see more of the new sets and I'm glad the original Friends will still be sticking around as adults!
@ICAbricks said:
"What the frickin' McNuggets, LEGO?
Why would LEGO change the LEGO Friends characters? Nobody asked for this. Now we have 8 new characters - way too many to keep track of! And if the theme is more oriented towards girls, then why are 3 of the new characters boys? (I'm a boy but I'm not that interested in the Friends line) However, it does seem interesting to bring a new generation into LEGO Friends. But I still don't think this was really necessary."
The larger thing I'm lamenting is that excessive backstory discourages Lego free play. Licensed themes notwithstanding, Lego up until the early 2010s largely gave you generic characters with little backstory. Even Lego City is now in on "every character is a distinct personality." I miss the 1980s being like: here's a box of spacemen. YOU decide who they are.
Do all new Lego sets need a Trigger Warning?
Is Paisley on the spectrum?
Really appreciate the change for more gender neutral colors. I feel like Friends was already doing that two or three years in, but going all in on it is fun. Always felt weird to have explicitly "girl" themes from a company that's supposed to make toys for every one.
The new logo gives me major Clikits vibes.
A new cast is an interesting choice. I'll admit, I never got that into the original cast of Friends and still haven't watched any of the series, I'm way behind. That said, really digging the look of Leo and Paisley here.
The only real gripe is that... there's eight of them. That's a lot of characters to keep track of at once! Of course, this isn't unheard of. BIONICLE had like 20 main protagonists, and they simply cycled between different groups of six every two or three years. Hero Factory had 9 protagonists, and simply focused on 6 or 7 of them each year instead of all 9. But, themes like Ninjago have 6, NEXO Knights had 5, the original Friends had 5, and all of those were themes where the main cast remained in focus every year. Balancing 8 MCs isn't impossible, but it's a tad out of LEGO's comfort zone.
Making the gender ratio 5 girls to 3 boys is also neat. Kind of a reverse smurfette principle. I will once again complain that minifigs need more fashion like this so we can recreate some of this lot as non-dolls.
I do like that its not just a flat out reboot. Revivals of series where they just do a time skip for a generation are usually pretty fun. It irks me when each and every character from the original series ends up having a child that looks exactly like them and behaves exactly like them (at that point, why bother making them new characters in the first place) but that doesn't seem like what's happening here. At least so far.
@Jdrewg said:
"Do all new Lego sets need a Trigger Warning?"
Just military ones.
(Look, as someone in the armed forces, I'd have appreciated a Friend whose parent is regularly out on deployment.)
“Sexual orientation”…WTF!?
@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Even Lego City is now in on "every character is a distinct personality." I miss the 1980s being like: here's a box of spacemen. YOU decide who they are."
With the assistance of a batch of 3626ap01 minifig heads, there's nothing to stop you erasing those characters' personalities prior to substituting those of your choice (villainous laughter optional).
There you go, all the diversity one could dream of. Really hope this means people will leave the yellow minifigures alone now.
@eggbert20 said:
"“Sexual orientation”…WTF!?"
It is bonkers that there are some who are expecting a toy company to define the sexuality of an underage character in sets meant for young children.
Please just let kids be kids and have fun toys.
Wait hold on I'm back, I just thought of something funny.
Over the course of this September and October, the BIONICLE fanbase held a contest to create a fanonical design for Lariska the Dark Hunter. That contest wrapped about a week ago.
Today, LEGO revealed their new character Autumn.
Basically the only info we had on Lariska's design form the books was she was female and an amputee.
Autumn here is female and an amputee.
Fun little coincidence that.
@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"The larger thing I'm lamenting is that excessive backstory discourages Lego free play. Licensed themes notwithstanding, Lego up until the early 2010s largely gave you generic characters with little backstory. Even Lego City is now in on "every character is a distinct personality." I miss the 1980s being like: here's a box of spacemen. YOU decide who they are."
*SpacePEOPLE...jk
You are very right and it makes me sad that so many adults are projecting their lack of imagination onto kids nowadays.
I think that many adults also struggle with the idea of kids not telling stories that conform to their adult ideologies. Letting kids play on their own might lead to original thoughts. :)
^ So ... where is Heartlake City's location on/in the Great Spirit Robot?
I don't know much about the Friends backstory, but these new sets look awesome, and I'm always excited for more diversity!
Also: a number of people commenting seem disturbed that TLG might include LGBTQ+ representation in the line. If you're someone who finds this alarming, I *beg* of you to talk to a queer person about what it was like to grow up without any kind of representation in children's media. There is nothing innately sexual about queer characters--just as there is nothing innately sexual about straight characters.
@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
" @ICAbricks said:
"What the frickin' McNuggets, LEGO?
Why would LEGO change the LEGO Friends characters? Nobody asked for this. Now we have 8 new characters - way too many to keep track of! And if the theme is more oriented towards girls, then why are 3 of the new characters boys? (I'm a boy but I'm not that interested in the Friends line) However, it does seem interesting to bring a new generation into LEGO Friends. But I still don't think this was really necessary."
The larger thing I'm lamenting is that excessive backstory discourages Lego free play. Licensed themes notwithstanding, Lego up until the early 2010s largely gave you generic characters with little backstory. Even Lego City is now in on "every character is a distinct personality." I miss the 1980s being like: here's a box of spacemen. YOU decide who they are."
Most of kids have no idea of Lego media. Seriously
I love the new cast of characters! Some thoughts:
As others have said, I think it’s high-time the Friends theme addressed diversity in body type. Minidolls have always fallen victim to the “Barbie” body criticism and I think with the big push for diversity it’s even more obvious now.
I was also hoping to see some characters specifically identified as LGBTQ+, but I think the limited information we have about them now certainly leaves that possibility open for the future for any of these characters. It would have been especially nice to see a non-binary friend, but again, that hasn’t necessarily been ruled out. And to those of you freaking out about sexual orientation or gender identity appearing in children’s sets, need I remind of you of the countless examples of straight relationships and cisgender identities present in previous LEGO sets and themes?
Some folks are saying that these are clearly still “girl toys” which I think says more about the commenters than anything. We’ve gotten used to minidoll themes being pushed solely to girls and it will take some time to readjust to the reality that Friends is for everybody!
Finally, I agree that the continued separation of animal elements is frustrating. For example, the Friends giraffe could have easily been developed to work for both minidolls and minifigs. Now we’ll have to wait years for an entirely new piece for a minifigure-style giraffe.
@GrizBe said:
"Is it just me, or does every reiteration of the Friends line get worse looks and build wise? "
It's just you.
Yeah, it's not like Ninjago was a hugely successful TV series or that there are a lot of LEGO specials/movies every year.....
I can't help but be bittersweet about this. Part of me wanted to see where they'd go and how they'd grow up, but part of me wanted them to remain timeless. It looks like fun though, and things do change. I'm sure we'll get some great sets. Especially looking forward to what Nova inspires. One problem though: only 2 of 8 names ending in 'a'? Not sure that's gonna fly...
Somme weird character traits in there. Doesn’t follow the rules...copy her homework. Encouraging the social media follower/famous garbage? Yeah........no.
@Vindicare said:
"Somme weird character traits in there. Doesn’t follow the rules...copy her homework. Encouraging the social media follower/famous garbage? Yeah........no. "
Kids want characters they can relate to, which means having realistic character traits/flaws. It would be incredibly dull for them all to be perfect little goody-two-shoes. And of course nobody bats an eye when a show or series aimed at boys features protagonists who are reckless, unstudious, or otherwise imperfect role models.
@eggbert20 said:
"“Sexual orientation”…WTF!?"
This is just more proof that LEGO is staging themselves to be bought by Disney...
@Rolyat24 said:
"I love the new cast of characters! Some thoughts:
As others have said, I think it’s high-time the Friends theme addressed diversity in body type. Minidolls have always fallen victim to the “Barbie” body criticism and I think with the big push for diversity it’s even more obvious now.
I was also hoping to see some characters specifically identified as LGBTQ+, but I think the limited information we have about them now certainly leaves that possibility open for the future for any of these characters. It would have been especially nice to see a non-binary friend, but again, that hasn’t necessarily been ruled out. And to those of you freaking out about sexual orientation or gender identity appearing in children’s sets, need I remind of you of the countless examples of straight relationships and cisgender identities present in previous LEGO sets and themes?
Some folks are saying that these are clearly still “girl toys” which I think says more about the commenters than anything. We’ve gotten used to minidoll themes being pushed solely to girls and it will take some time to readjust to the reality that Friends is for everybody!
Finally, I agree that the continued separation of animal elements is frustrating. For example, the Friends giraffe could have easily been developed to work for both minidolls and minifigs. Now we’ll have to wait years for an entirely new piece for a minifigure-style giraffe. "
Name a set that has explicitly shown a straight couple? Because I can’t think of one. Box art just shows people together, YOU write story. A castle set with a King & Queen? It’s a Queen & a Prince. Or vice versa. The man “proposing” to the girl in Parisian Restaurant? Two friends out on a birthday dinner & the ring is the present. Any number of families in Creator houses or City sets? A brother visiting their sister & niece/nephew. If you want gay couples in every set you buy? Do it. Want a non binary minifg? Do it. We don’t need LEGO telling us every step of the story.
@Vindicare said:
" @Rolyat24 said:
"I love the new cast of characters! Some thoughts:
As others have said, I think it’s high-time the Friends theme addressed diversity in body type. Minidolls have always fallen victim to the “Barbie” body criticism and I think with the big push for diversity it’s even more obvious now.
I was also hoping to see some characters specifically identified as LGBTQ+, but I think the limited information we have about them now certainly leaves that possibility open for the future for any of these characters. It would have been especially nice to see a non-binary friend, but again, that hasn’t necessarily been ruled out. And to those of you freaking out about sexual orientation or gender identity appearing in children’s sets, need I remind of you of the countless examples of straight relationships and cisgender identities present in previous LEGO sets and themes?
Some folks are saying that these are clearly still “girl toys” which I think says more about the commenters than anything. We’ve gotten used to minidoll themes being pushed solely to girls and it will take some time to readjust to the reality that Friends is for everybody!
Finally, I agree that the continued separation of animal elements is frustrating. For example, the Friends giraffe could have easily been developed to work for both minidolls and minifigs. Now we’ll have to wait years for an entirely new piece for a minifigure-style giraffe. "
Name a set that has explicitly shown a straight couple? Because I can’t think of one. Box art just shows people together, YOU write story. A castle set with a King & Queen? It’s a Queen & a Prince. Or vice versa. The man “proposing” to the girl in Parisian Restaurant? Two friends out on a birthday dinner & the ring is the present. Any number of families in Creator houses or City sets? A brother visiting their sister & niece/nephew. If you want gay couples in every set you buy? Do it. Want a non binary minifg? Do it. We don’t need LEGO telling us every step of the story. "
Personally, I think that this is the healthiest way to look at it. The minifigures are blank slates that you can have as whatever you want. Declaring them one thing or another is kinda limiting.
@ICAbricks said:
"What the frickin' McNuggets, LEGO?
Why would LEGO change the LEGO Friends characters? Nobody asked for this. Now we have 8 new characters - way too many to keep track of! And if the theme is more oriented towards girls, then why are 3 of the new characters boys? (I'm a boy but I'm not that interested in the Friends line) However, it does seem interesting to bring a new generation into LEGO Friends. But I still don't think this was really necessary."
Ever hear of a Ken doll?
@Rolyat24 said:
"Some folks are saying that these are clearly still “girl toys” which I think says more about the commenters than anything. We’ve gotten used to minidoll themes being pushed solely to girls and it will take some time to readjust to the reality that Friends is for everybody! "
In the creator interview that was just posted, the designer admits that Friends' customer base is primarily girls. It's possible to recognize that a significant portion of girls inevitably gravitate towards dolls and domestic play and boys gravitate towards action and escapism, while still firmly believing that no one should be excluded from either category.
Some real cynical takes here. And where did anyone read about letting others copy her homework? I don't see that in this article. I'm sure the point of these characters having flaws is so that a lesson can be learned in overcoming them. Personally, I think Lego should stick to letting kids use their imaginations, but if we must have well-defined characters, these seem pretty thoughtful. These character descriptions are a pilot episode, setting up story arcs.
@Vindicare said:
" @Rolyat24 said:
"I love the new cast of characters! Some thoughts:
As others have said, I think it’s high-time the Friends theme addressed diversity in body type. Minidolls have always fallen victim to the “Barbie” body criticism and I think with the big push for diversity it’s even more obvious now.
I was also hoping to see some characters specifically identified as LGBTQ+, but I think the limited information we have about them now certainly leaves that possibility open for the future for any of these characters. It would have been especially nice to see a non-binary friend, but again, that hasn’t necessarily been ruled out. And to those of you freaking out about sexual orientation or gender identity appearing in children’s sets, need I remind of you of the countless examples of straight relationships and cisgender identities present in previous LEGO sets and themes?
Some folks are saying that these are clearly still “girl toys” which I think says more about the commenters than anything. We’ve gotten used to minidoll themes being pushed solely to girls and it will take some time to readjust to the reality that Friends is for everybody!
Finally, I agree that the continued separation of animal elements is frustrating. For example, the Friends giraffe could have easily been developed to work for both minidolls and minifigs. Now we’ll have to wait years for an entirely new piece for a minifigure-style giraffe. "
Name a set that has explicitly shown a straight couple? Because I can’t think of one. Box art just shows people together, YOU write story. A castle set with a King & Queen? It’s a Queen & a Prince. Or vice versa. The man “proposing” to the girl in Parisian Restaurant? Two friends out on a birthday dinner & the ring is the present. Any number of families in Creator houses or City sets? A brother visiting their sister & niece/nephew. If you want gay couples in every set you buy? Do it. Want a non binary minifg? Do it. We don’t need LEGO telling us every step of the story. "
I don’t disagree with the take but Lego has created sets with straight couples before.
10184, 40165
And plus there are licensed sets that feature straight couples: 41630, 10760
@ra226 said:
"And where did anyone read about letting others copy her homework? I don't see that in this article. "
It was literally in the photo of the character which...well, maybe it was taken down, or it's in the other article. Either way, her descriptor literally said "WILL LET YOU COPY HER HOMEWORK."
Wow.... I knew comments could get toxic, but wow... this thread is getting nasty. It's actually kind of sad we have to keep dragging people kicking and screaming from the 1950's into the 2020's. Just because somebody looks different, or thinks different, or is anything-else than what you are (or perceive yourself to be) doesn't mean it's bad to include them in Lego form. Hearing aids, guide dogs, limb difference, different sexual orientation are a GOOD thing to include in Friends / City / LEGO so people who do have those differences feel represented. I can't believe the comments I'm reading about people putting other users / the sets down just because of their own personal prejudices.
People need to be better people to each other.
@Yooha said:
"Is Paisley on the spectrum?"
Her bio could be read that was, though I think they are aiming for anxiety not ASC? Nova seems like she might be - bit of a loner, dead pan sense of humour and blunt personality.
Liann sounds like she might have ADHD: gets distracted easily, zones out and impulsive.
Anyway armchair diagnosis aside I think the characters sound great. I like that the boys have been given cooking, fashion and performing arts interests, there will be boys who see themselves in those characters who might not identify with other LEGO products.
I think the move towards brighter colours is good too. Mix and match with City sets will be more harmonious and if you like more domestic/everyday/less conflict based sets but don't want pink and pastel this will be the theme for you.
I am certainly not the target market for this theme, but I always thought the builds and colors looked fun.
That said, I am 32 years old and reading the press release makes me feel like a woefully out-of-touch individual. I don't remember my childhood being that complicated and complex. My childhood was "school stinks, I wanna go play outside, I want pizza for dinner, etc" Kids these days have it pretty rough, I guess.
I have been unhappy with the direction the City sets have taken the past few years, and have started to appreciate the design of Friends set, and have even purchased my first sets from the line. I brought them home, and my son refuses to play with them even though in many ways, they are superior to their City counterparts. I understand that a lot went into the backstories and identities in rebooting this line, but my question is, is this what kids really want or is this just what adults are projecting on them? The biggest obstacle for my son is that the minidolls look creepy to him (very skinny with long arms and legs) and don't fit in his vehicles or sit in chairs the way minifigs do in City sets. Why couldn't they just use normal minifig molds? I think if they did this initially, it would have helped bridge the gender gap in these products, but they can't go back now.
@Vindicare said:
" @Rolyat24 said:
"I love the new cast of characters! Some thoughts:
As others have said, I think it’s high-time the Friends theme addressed diversity in body type. Minidolls have always fallen victim to the “Barbie” body criticism and I think with the big push for diversity it’s even more obvious now.
I was also hoping to see some characters specifically identified as LGBTQ+, but I think the limited information we have about them now certainly leaves that possibility open for the future for any of these characters. It would have been especially nice to see a non-binary friend, but again, that hasn’t necessarily been ruled out. And to those of you freaking out about sexual orientation or gender identity appearing in children’s sets, need I remind of you of the countless examples of straight relationships and cisgender identities present in previous LEGO sets and themes?
Some folks are saying that these are clearly still “girl toys” which I think says more about the commenters than anything. We’ve gotten used to minidoll themes being pushed solely to girls and it will take some time to readjust to the reality that Friends is for everybody!
Finally, I agree that the continued separation of animal elements is frustrating. For example, the Friends giraffe could have easily been developed to work for both minidolls and minifigs. Now we’ll have to wait years for an entirely new piece for a minifigure-style giraffe. "
Name a set that has explicitly shown a straight couple? Because I can’t think of one. Box art just shows people together, YOU write story. A castle set with a King & Queen? It’s a Queen & a Prince. Or vice versa. The man “proposing” to the girl in Parisian Restaurant? Two friends out on a birthday dinner & the ring is the present. Any number of families in Creator houses or City sets? A brother visiting their sister & niece/nephew. If you want gay couples in every set you buy? Do it. Want a non binary minifg? Do it. We don’t need LEGO telling us every step of the story. "
This is a very strange take. Of course kids (and adults) are free to assign whatever identities they want to their toy people. But in the current world we live in, LEGO does often give character descriptions or backstories to inspire play. Pretending otherwise is just ignoring the past decade of in-house LEGO themes. And in this current state, TLG has given us plenty of explicitly heterosexual relationships. For example, every single ninja from Ninjago has had a hetero relationship and/or love interest. I’m fairly confident that hetero romance has been seen in both Chima and Nexo Knights. Even in prior Friends sets, I believe we’ve seen straight married couples in the form of the Friend’s parents and I think the set descriptions/marketing/cartoon have implied that the friends have been on dates with boys. (Not certain on this one, as I haven’t paid that much attention to Friends). My point is, there are explicitly straight minifigures and nobody seems at all upset by that. If that hasn’t been an issue before, then what is the real issue with a gay minifigure? It seems more rooted in hatred or bigotry than anything else.
New sets: Cool
New Colours & Logo: Cool
New Characters: I'm fine with them although I liked the all girls clique.
It seems like they are going away from the girl astethic the theme was known for.
And I don't know how I feel about that. I know this may sound weird but they should just have merged it with City at this point.
What I don't like is this talk about diversity. I don't see how it brings anything of value to the theme.
The characters aren't more interesting to me because of it. Also skin colour, gender, disabilities and mental health aren't personality traits. It just comes off as disengenious when you see them force this stuff onto the chracters. The original Friends where fine in this regard because they actually had personality traits to begin with. I don't think this will sell well and I'm eager to see if my assumption holds true.
Surprising.
I like the character change, variety is great. Having "grown ups" original friends was a nice move. Maybe some even relocated to "Lego City" as a mini figure, who knows?
What I don't see is in what why the sets are different ? Teal/Pink? It looks the same design style for me. If it weren't for the press release I would never notice anything different.
Hopefully one of these new kids love trains and we'll get a "Friends" train set.
New logo is new logo.
Isn't it the difference though between "it's weird for a girl to have a girlfriend" and "some girls would rather have a girlfriend and that's ok". Representing diverse characters is about showing that differences are 'normal', for want of a better word.
@elangab the boxes have changed quite a bit and while we might not care it will affect purchasing decisions. The palette of the sets has been quite bright and mostly non-pink for a while now so I agree that the sets themselves aren't that different.
I welcome the change. It includes various races , disability(Autumn), LGBTQ(Olly). I also like how they included Mia as a mother, but it makes me wonder whether the other four original friends will make an appearance.
Autumn,Paisley, or Nova would have to be my favorites.
"balls"
heh
@MainBricker
Best take take this award
AWARD
cool guy
Olly looks uncannily like Adam Conover and I cannot unsee that...
@CCC said: " @Fat_Tony said:
"Obesity? Excluded."
Very true."
Serious question.
How would it even be physically possible to portray obese Lego figures? The best thing you could do with minifigures would be a stomach/hips attachment (didn't Thor have one for his dad-bod mode for one of the "Endgame" sets?).
Doing that for a mini-doll would be damn near impossible.
@Murdoch17 said:
"Wow.... I knew comments could get toxic, but wow... this thread is getting nasty. It's actually kind of sad we have to keep dragging people kicking and screaming from the 1950's into the 2020's. Just because somebody looks different, or thinks different, or is anything-else than what you are (or perceive yourself to be) doesn't mean it's bad to include them in Lego form. Hearing aids, guide dogs, limb difference, different sexual orientation are a GOOD thing to include in Friends / City / LEGO so people who do have those differences feel represented. I can't believe the comments I'm reading about people putting other users / the sets down just because of their own personal prejudices.
People need to be better people to each other."
When I was a kid I would undo all the buttons of my dark blue duffel coat except the top one, slip my arms from their sleeves, pull the hood low over my face and pretend to be Batman. I’d run around the playground - die-cast batmobile in hand - and for all the world I *was* the Caped Crusader. The fact that Batman was an adult and I was a kid, he was American and I was in the UK, and he and I were different ethnicities made no difference to me whatsoever. My point is that you really don’t need representation to be inclusive.
Back then there were two schools of thought: one held that inclusivity necessitated representation (of which Wonder Woman and Luke Cage are products) and the other that it didn’t. In the intervening period, proponents of the former declared themselves correct without evidence and now resort to name-calling to silence the latter. Kids are even told that the former is inherently true, so have come to believe it. But it wasn’t always the way and the case for ‘no inclusivity without representation’ is far from proven (likely because it’s false).
@Zander said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"Wow.... I knew comments could get toxic, but wow... this thread is getting nasty. It's actually kind of sad we have to keep dragging people kicking and screaming from the 1950's into the 2020's. Just because somebody looks different, or thinks different, or is anything-else than what you are (or perceive yourself to be) doesn't mean it's bad to include them in Lego form. Hearing aids, guide dogs, limb difference, different sexual orientation are a GOOD thing to include in Friends / City / LEGO so people who do have those differences feel represented. I can't believe the comments I'm reading about people putting other users / the sets down just because of their own personal prejudices.
People need to be better people to each other."
When I was a kid I would undo all the buttons of my dark blue duffel coat except the top one, slip my arms from their sleeves, pull the hood low over my face and pretend to be Batman. I’d run around the playground - die-cast batmobile in hand - and for all the world I *was* the Caped Crusader. The fact that Batman was an adult and I was a kid, he was American and I was in the UK, and he and I were different ethnicities made no difference to me whatsoever. My point is that you really don’t need representation to be inclusive.
Back then there were two schools of thought: one held that inclusivity necessitated representation (of which Wonder Woman and Luke Cage are products) and the other that it didn’t. In the intervening period, proponents of the former declared themselves correct without evidence and now resort to name-calling to silence the latter. Kids are even told that the former is inherently true, so have come to believe it. But it wasn’t always the way and the case for ‘no inclusivity without representation’ is far from proven (likely because it’s false)."
Or... maybe some kids just are more interested in being represented than you were and you don't need to insist that they're wrong or indoctrinated or some other such garbage?
It's fine that you didn't have any interest in characters who specifically represented you! There's nothing wrong with that! What is wrong is insisting that your way is the ONLY way, and that anybody who asks for more has some sort of nefarious intentions.
@Lyichir said:
" @Zander said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"Wow.... I knew comments could get toxic, but wow... this thread is getting nasty. It's actually kind of sad we have to keep dragging people kicking and screaming from the 1950's into the 2020's. Just because somebody looks different, or thinks different, or is anything-else than what you are (or perceive yourself to be) doesn't mean it's bad to include them in Lego form. Hearing aids, guide dogs, limb difference, different sexual orientation are a GOOD thing to include in Friends / City / LEGO so people who do have those differences feel represented. I can't believe the comments I'm reading about people putting other users / the sets down just because of their own personal prejudices.
People need to be better people to each other."
When I was a kid I would undo all the buttons of my dark blue duffel coat except the top one, slip my arms from their sleeves, pull the hood low over my face and pretend to be Batman. I’d run around the playground - die-cast batmobile in hand - and for all the world I *was* the Caped Crusader. The fact that Batman was an adult and I was a kid, he was American and I was in the UK, and he and I were different ethnicities made no difference to me whatsoever. My point is that you really don’t need representation to be inclusive.
Back then there were two schools of thought: one held that inclusivity necessitated representation (of which Wonder Woman and Luke Cage are products) and the other that it didn’t. In the intervening period, proponents of the former declared themselves correct without evidence and now resort to name-calling to silence the latter. Kids are even told that the former is inherently true, so have come to believe it. But it wasn’t always the way and the case for ‘no inclusivity without representation’ is far from proven (likely because it’s false)."
Or... maybe some kids just are more interested in being represented than you were and you don't need to insist that they're wrong or indoctrinated or some other such garbage?
It's fine that you didn't have any interest in characters who specifically represented you! There's nothing wrong with that! What is wrong is insisting that your way is the ONLY way, and that anybody who asks for more has some sort of nefarious intentions."
My case is not based on a sample size of one, i.e. me. It rests on popular culture and buying behaviour across the west over decades, from toys to comic books to movies and beyond. It’s well documented, for example, that the appearance of Wonder Woman did little to increase the popularity of super hero comic books among girls, or that for many years African American, gay and Jewish boys were disproportionately represented in the buying demographic of comics despite not being particularly represented.
Meanwhile, the evidence for the ‘no inclusivity without representation’ doctrine is nonexistent. It just decided it was correct and cancels anyone who dares stand up to it.
@Zander said: "But it wasn’t always the way and the case for ‘no inclusivity without representation’ is far from proven (likely because it’s false)."
I've really gotten in sea shanties lately. I heard "The Wellerman" in the closing credits of a movie, recently, loved it, and spent hours on YouTube consuming as many as I could.
There's a couple of choir videos, where people submit videos of themselves (apparently TikTok has a duet feature?), and the video editors put clips together of hundreds (for one video, thousands) of people contributing to the song. Watching closely, I noticed something. Some of the videos were people using sign language to 'sing' along with everyone else. The thing about sea shanties is the thumping beat. So even if you can't hear the music, you can still feel the beat and contribute to the song. I thought that was incredible. It's something I would never have thought about ... but I bet that it meant the world to the people in the audience who had hearing disabilities.
Word of advice? Try not to lecture marginalised people about how marginalised they really are. Because they already know.
Lego Friends must have a HUGE following of Brickset users to have all these people impacted by the change! The Friends design team should be proud they have broken into the AFOL and TFOL community in such a big way!
You know, in 10 years time, when these sets begin to feature as RSOTD, Bionicle Historians would become a thing of the past.
@Judgeguy said:
"I have triples of the Nova. Triples is best. Triples makes it safe."
And I don't live in a hotel.
@Murdoch17 said:
"Wow.... I knew comments could get toxic, but wow... this thread is getting nasty. It's actually kind of sad we have to keep dragging people kicking and screaming from the 1950's into the 2020's. Just because somebody looks different, or thinks different, or is anything-else than what you are (or perceive yourself to be) doesn't mean it's bad to include them in Lego form. Hearing aids, guide dogs, limb difference, different sexual orientation are a GOOD thing to include in Friends / City / LEGO so people who do have those differences feel represented. I can't believe the comments I'm reading about people putting other users / the sets down just because of their own personal prejudices.
People need to be better people to each other."
No kidding. The venom in this thread - spewn by grown adults, most likely - at teaching children things like respect for differences and celebrating diversity is deeply sad.
Oh, so it was a whole new roster. Unexpected, but fresh! The only thing that miffs me is that we don't get an Olivia-style STEM girl. Women in science is important!
This thread makes me disappointed in the AFOL community, but it's also good to see people push back against the various forms of bigotry here.
@TeaWeevil said:
" @Judgeguy said:
"I have triples of the Nova. Triples is best. Triples makes it safe."
And I don't live in a hotel."
I knew someone would get it
@Rolyat24 said:
"Want a non binary minifg? Do it."
You know that all minifigs are non-binary, right? We, the people playing with them, assign their gender identity to them, they don't do it themselves. They're inanimate objects, after all. If you don't like them to represent gay people, they don't have to. It's your imagination and your kids'. However, I don't see what's supposedly wrong with LEGO having just ONE explicitly gay minidoll in a theme that's otherwise populated with straight couples.
Alternative interpretation which I imagine is LEGO's intent: Don't let people tell you what you can and can't do because of your disability. Believe me, as a disabled woman myself since childhood that is a powerful message for kids with disabilities to hear.
@MainBricker said:
" @jjr_2009 said:
"I don't know much about the Friends backstory, but these new sets look awesome, and I'm always excited for more diversity!
Also: a number of people commenting seem disturbed that TLG might include LGBTQ+ representation in the line. If you're someone who finds this alarming, I *beg* of you to talk to a queer person about what it was like to grow up without any kind of representation in children's media. There is nothing innately sexual about queer characters--just as there is nothing innately sexual about straight characters."
Thank you for being a self-appointed spokesman for gay people.
As one of these "LGBT" people myself (and I hate the term "queer", which is now predominantly used by heterosexual people), I can tell you the reality.
Not everyone knows their sexual orientation at the age that these themes are aimed at. You also seem to be under this opinion that someone's sexual orientation is the main part of their identity and people can only be represented through that. I can be represented in many ways, and when talking about toys it will be more about visual representation than anything else.
I remember when all straight people were saying that gay AFOLs must be really happy to get the Queer Eye set due to "representation". I have no interest in that set."
I'm not sure how my comment makes me "a self-appointed spokesman for gay people." You're welcome to disagree (and obviously you do)!
I've heard the word "queer" used by plenty of LGBTQ+ people--although I'm sure there are plenty of straight people who use it as well.
It's true that not everyone knows their sexual orientation at a young age--but there are plenty of people who do! And why shouldn't they be able to enjoy a toy that makes them feel represented?
Of course I don't think a person's sexual orientation is the "main part" of their identity--I don't understand how you would glean that from my comment. But it's definitely a part of a person's identity--and it can be expressed in multiple ways--some of them visual, and some of them not.
I *do* agree with you about the Queer Eye set. It's perfectly fine for anyone to enjoy it, but I have zero interest in the show or the set. But that's just me!
@Zander said:
"My case is not based on a sample size of one, i.e. me. It rests on popular culture and buying behaviour across the west over decades, from toys to comic books to movies and beyond. It’s well documented, for example, that the appearance of Wonder Woman did little to increase the popularity of super hero comic books among girls, or that for many years African American, gay and Jewish boys were disproportionately represented in the buying demographic of comics despite not being particularly represented."
I'm not granting the premise, as I don't think that superhero comics for whatever time period you're talking about is comparable to this product line, but I also think your conclusion is not applicable here. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the primary aims of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. Yes, representation is developed and marketed in a consumer context, so growing the customer base would be one possible measure of success, but it's not the only one, or even the main one. The Geena Davis Institute's site has extensive commentary on their mission, and thinking it's only about moving product is a very shallow view. The cultural attitude that businesses should care about profit and nothing else is no longer the predominant opinion in corporate America.
A few people have brought up obesity as a blind spot here, and I think it's actually a very good callout. Body type and body image representation include areas like those represented in the line, but fatness matters too. Lego likes standardized figure forms, but that may have to change if they're serious about their commitment. I'm not using this to dismiss what they are accomplishing, just agreeing there are more opportunities.
Being the non-target audience for this , those builds looks really good. Simple , yet detailed. I like it , I bought the 1st 2 waves of friends for my daughters and they loved them. Eventually they moved onto other hobbies , but I really enjoyed my time building those sets with them. The new branding is nice , hope it resonates with its new and old fans of the theme.
@Zander said:
" @Lyichir said:
" @Zander said:
" @Murdoch17 said:
"Wow.... I knew comments could get toxic, but wow... this thread is getting nasty. It's actually kind of sad we have to keep dragging people kicking and screaming from the 1950's into the 2020's. Just because somebody looks different, or thinks different, or is anything-else than what you are (or perceive yourself to be) doesn't mean it's bad to include them in Lego form. Hearing aids, guide dogs, limb difference, different sexual orientation are a GOOD thing to include in Friends / City / LEGO so people who do have those differences feel represented. I can't believe the comments I'm reading about people putting other users / the sets down just because of their own personal prejudices.
People need to be better people to each other."
When I was a kid I would undo all the buttons of my dark blue duffel coat except the top one, slip my arms from their sleeves, pull the hood low over my face and pretend to be Batman. I’d run around the playground - die-cast batmobile in hand - and for all the world I *was* the Caped Crusader. The fact that Batman was an adult and I was a kid, he was American and I was in the UK, and he and I were different ethnicities made no difference to me whatsoever. My point is that you really don’t need representation to be inclusive.
Back then there were two schools of thought: one held that inclusivity necessitated representation (of which Wonder Woman and Luke Cage are products) and the other that it didn’t. In the intervening period, proponents of the former declared themselves correct without evidence and now resort to name-calling to silence the latter. Kids are even told that the former is inherently true, so have come to believe it. But it wasn’t always the way and the case for ‘no inclusivity without representation’ is far from proven (likely because it’s false)."
Or... maybe some kids just are more interested in being represented than you were and you don't need to insist that they're wrong or indoctrinated or some other such garbage?
It's fine that you didn't have any interest in characters who specifically represented you! There's nothing wrong with that! What is wrong is insisting that your way is the ONLY way, and that anybody who asks for more has some sort of nefarious intentions."
My case is not based on a sample size of one, i.e. me. It rests on popular culture and buying behaviour across the west over decades, from toys to comic books to movies and beyond. It’s well documented, for example, that the appearance of Wonder Woman did little to increase the popularity of super hero comic books among girls, or that for many years African American, gay and Jewish boys were disproportionately represented in the buying demographic of comics despite not being particularly represented.
Meanwhile, the evidence for the ‘no inclusivity without representation’ doctrine is nonexistent. It just decided it was correct and cancels anyone who dares stand up to it.
"
Sure must be nice to insist upon something not having evidence when there's evidence in the very article you're commenting on.
Sure, Lego surveyed kids and found that they generally valued more representation and wanted to see people like themselves in their toys, but why give kids what they actually claim to want? After all it's not evidence, and if the kids want those things, it's just because their parents/teachers/insert-other-nefarious-entity-here made them THINK they want it. No, we have to fight "indoctrination" by giving kids what adults insist is good for them, whether they like it or not.
Of course, I'm being sarcastic. Not only is discouraging kids' interests and preferences or treating them as "inauthentic" or wrong bad pedagogy, it's just plain bad business for a toy company. The success of Friends in the first place came in part from discarding assumptions about what girls wanted in toys and actually studying their own interests and play patterns to make a toy that was right for them. Now Lego
As an amputee who lost an arm, I love what Lego has done with Autumn and I share the same headspace that nothing stops me doing anything that others can do.
Be more Autumn...
@jjr_2009 said:
" @MainBricker said:
" @jjr_2009 said:
"I don't know much about the Friends backstory, but these new sets look awesome, and I'm always excited for more diversity!
Also: a number of people commenting seem disturbed that TLG might include LGBTQ+ representation in the line. If you're someone who finds this alarming, I *beg* of you to talk to a queer person about what it was like to grow up without any kind of representation in children's media. There is nothing innately sexual about queer characters--just as there is nothing innately sexual about straight characters."
Thank you for being a self-appointed spokesman for gay people.
As one of these "LGBT" people myself (and I hate the term "queer", which is now predominantly used by heterosexual people), I can tell you the reality.
Not everyone knows their sexual orientation at the age that these themes are aimed at. You also seem to be under this opinion that someone's sexual orientation is the main part of their identity and people can only be represented through that. I can be represented in many ways, and when talking about toys it will be more about visual representation than anything else.
I remember when all straight people were saying that gay AFOLs must be really happy to get the Queer Eye set due to "representation". I have no interest in that set."
I'm not sure how my comment makes me "a self-appointed spokesman for gay people." You're welcome to disagree (and obviously you do)!
I've heard the word "queer" used by plenty of LGBTQ+ people--although I'm sure there are plenty of straight people who use it as well.
It's true that not everyone knows their sexual orientation at a young age--but there are plenty of people who do! And why shouldn't they be able to enjoy a toy that makes them feel represented?
Of course I don't think a person's sexual orientation is the "main part" of their identity--I don't understand how you would glean that from my comment. But it's definitely a part of a person's identity--and it can be expressed in multiple ways--some of them visual, and some of them not.
I *do* agree with you about the Queer Eye set. It's perfectly fine for anyone to enjoy it, but I have zero interest in the show or the set. But that's just me!"
Arguing with this person will get you nowhere. Mainbricker finds a "random reason" to rail against a set every time it has as focus on diversity. They may not even realize they're doing it, but it's absolutely a pattern.
Loving the new hair pieces! I wonder if they'll do a similar thing to ninjago?
I WANT
I love the move towards a more gender neutral/inclusive Friends theme, but I'm disappointed that none of the new friends use they/them pronouns. This would have been a prefect opportunity to do that.
@jedisquidwardagain said:
"We've already been there, done that. Which one of them is going to sacrifice themself to save the world?"
Whichever one is an interpreter.
@Dash_Justice said:
"I love the move towards a more gender neutral/inclusive Friends theme, but I'm disappointed that none of the new friends use they/them pronouns. This would have been a prefect opportunity to do that."
Agreed, but maybe one of them will have a character arc about that. I too was hoping for a little more gender-nonconforming representation, but I won’t give up hope yet!
I didn't like Lego Friends when they first came out. But to be honest, Friends has one of the best set design teams in the Lego Fleet. The Friends characters look like a bunch of rich skinny girls to me. You can see that when you set them up in a crowd. It's like that Lost in Space episode where the machine churned out Dr Smiths, except their all clone variants on Mia. So adding people colors is awesome. We have SO MANY EMMAS.
I was hoping when my daughter was born that she would play with the minidolls and keep my minifigures safe. But she really plays with minifigs more too since she was old enough to play. (ironically her name is Olivia)
If I were Lego, I would smash the Friends and City Line together and keep the Friends designers in charge. But the line would come with a single option. One includes minifigures and natural style animals, and the other the minidolls and mascara animals. That would save on budget, improve the city line and give enough diversity for all of us.
And this particular family could have the cool Friends sets without the lame Friends dolls.