RichardAM wrote:'how can we keep these consumer and fans as they grow-up?'
Munchy wrote:LEGO by definition and company statements is a toy intended for young boys. I think this discussion is trying to figure a way to incorporate young girls into that group. If more young girls find LEGO to be fun and entertaining, that in it of itself will produce more female AFOLs or at the very least less of the crowd that is against girls and LEGO's.
Peppermint Pig wrote:
1. More WWII era goodness.
Can you explain this comment for me? My thought (without a lengthy rant on the horrors of WWII) is that it would be too violent a theme for LEGO, even though as a kid I played "army" with my brother and friends and still have the army men I played with.
Munchy wrote:LEGO by definition and company statements is a toy intended for young boys.
Bruce N H wrote:Munchy wrote:LEGO by definition and company statements is a toy intended for young boys.
I'm not sure where you get this.
Peppermint Pig wrote:The innocence of the 40s and 50s is a great place to begin, since you can give boys great looking hot-rod car models as well as mobsters. For girls, two words: Nancy Drew. If you have an hour to spare and wouldn't mind a bit of cinema... http://www.archive.org/details/nancy_drew_reporter
Now take a movie like that, reduce it to its components in terms of sets, figs, and vehicles. Put in some short take-it-or-leave-it comic strips as exposition for play possibilities (like they've done for many of the recent lines), while letting the kids fill in details for characters and you really have something! And if you don't think you have enough, go to Archive.org and find a few more movies to get your imagination rolling!
Clickits. Clickits?!???!!!!!????? THIS was supposed to be the thing to get girls into LEGO? I don't know, maybe one of our FFOL members can help on this, but this one seems like a bunch of men sitting around saying - "what do girls like?" "Hey, girls like jewelry, right?" "Yeah, let's make LEGO jewelry!" Didn't they learn from that quickly-failed Scala Jewelry line?
FirebenderDude2 wrote:I agree with all of this, but I will add something:
Don't make stuff too pink.
Lamanda2 wrote:Or perhaps due to possible unsuccess with the earlier "Paradisa" line, they don't want to march forward in thois direction?
Bruce N H wrote:-I think it is a huge mistake that the (IMO overly) 'girly' theme, Belville, isn't fig scale. This makes it that much harder for those girls who do get into these to transition to other themes. Also, I never see Belville sets on the shelves of Target etc, so it seems that LEGO isn't doing enough to push this to distributors.
-more girl figs
-more non-conflict sets - more homes, businesses, things like a circus or zoo theme
-reinstatement of Paradisa as a fig-scale girl-centric theme
-I'd love to see fairy tales as a castle sub-theme. We could get good castly settings but also perennial favorites of younger girls like Cinderella. This could be a Disney tie-in or not.
wobnam wrote:So.. what should they do?
Focus on including, not dividing. I don't mind a "girl theme", but it has to be as compatible with other themes as possible... More than a girl theme though, of course, like everyone else I'd like to see more sets in existing themes (especially City) that doesn't have the conflict/action focus. More gender-neutral themes would also be nice...
Peppermint Pig wrote:3. Fix the ratio. A 13 to 6 female to male minifig ratio to make up for the situation. They don't have to all be pink either!
Peppermint Pig wrote:Think Chevy Chase Vacation
Baites wrote:Take the paradisa theme. It was minifig scale, but was dominated by pinks and cream colours. While these sets added to my colour palate as an adult builder, as a child it was too girly for me. They could have included more of the standard colours to even out the look.
Munchy wrote:None of their freinds play with LEGO's.
Get around that problem and we'll see an upswing in female participation in our hobby.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests