LEGO Marvel Gargantos Showdown 76205 Monster Building Kit with Doctor Strange, Wong and America Chavez for Ages 8+ (264 Pieces)

Product Information

The fake awe from online reporters at Disney including queer characters for the billionth time never ceases to exist. Now it’s gonna extend to their licensed LEGO products, too? If you needed this arrangement of parts in your own MOC you probably wouldn't worry about it too much, but I'm surprised to see it in an official model, especially since the issue becomes immediately apparent while building. The issue I have with the German AFOL community is that it is becoming more and more divided, and that some people just do not listen to reason anymore. And that is at least partially due to the aforementioned YouTubers.

Panke ist the best known, true. He's very polemic, also true. But he's not the only one reviewing off-brands; others do that, too, and in a much friendlier manner. Interestingly, trying a digital build as well, Stud.io doesn't throw up a collision warning, even though the parts clearly overlap visually." Gargantos Showdown represents an interesting addition to the Marvel theme and is therefore extremely enjoyable! The eponymous monster looks fantastic and offers incredible display value, taking advantage of those versatile tentacles. Gargantos' eye includes splendid detail as well, although the absence of additional functionality is perhaps disappointing. The tiled surface below the lower eyelid structure requires that space because the tentacles fitted underneath protrude very slightly, so you could not close the gap completely.

I must admit I have been contemplating whether publishing this article was the right thing to do. I suspect someone in LEGO's Christmas has been runied as a result of the problem, either through worry or having to work out what to do.

What do you think -- Is this a problem that would worry you, or doesn't it matter? Should we continue to bring issues like this to your attention?" I’ll be honest, this does seem like a fairly minor issue, but I do think it is a bit concerning. Something about the parts being placed like that just doesn’t look right. I could see this potentially causing confusion at best or damaged parts at worst by forcing pieces into these positions. But then I figured that would have happened anyway as soon as we notified the company on Monday, both officially and via my designer friend, and that was certainly the right thing to do. At first glance the assembly below, part of the creature's lower eyelid, looks innocuous, but closer inspection reveals what could be a design flaw. It's valid to be concerned if these issues are setting a precedent for future product releases. But the reason you and other fan media communicate with LEGO is to hopefully facilitate positive change. We want LEGO products to be the best they can be. And so do they, but like any other big company I'm sure their processes and management are riddled with issues beyond our control, or even beyond the control of individual employees such as designers.

Minifigures

Well, there's nothing stopping the comments from proclaiming doomsday, but this article was written exactly as it should have been, so credit to that. On a more serious note, people like to make fun of the phrase or what it refers to, but this design flaw fully and precisely meets the definition. This is the kind of thing LEGO strives to avoid in their designs, and this specific issue was a miss on their part. But you start to understand why the designation is meant to be taken seriously, even with the use of the word "illegal". Especially with the use of that word. The word "illegal" has other meanings than just "the LEGO Police are coming to get you". I'd agree, I don't actually have an issue with the AT-AT set. A construction method that requires a degree of skill to disassemble I feel is fine for a large complex set and the intended audience for it. Huw's article discusses this issue in detail and I find it extremely unlikely that LEGO considers the technique 'legal'. If the flange on the wheel arch was just pushing the ball cups outwards slightly, I might agree. However, a 1x6 plate is then attached beneath those ball cups, forcing them to detach partially from the wheel arch and creating the gaps. Unless design rules have changed recently, elements are definitely required to be pressed down firmly and completely on the stud(s) underneath. Plus this isn’t complaining about a set being innaccurate to a movie, not including X character, or something that’s more up to preference. This highlights a possible problem with the building experience - which is the main draw to buy LEGO over other toys.

Transparent has changed, it is now more 'foggy'. 100% of AFOLs who have commented about this to me do not like the new transparent! Is it a change of material? On the digital front, the parts visibly intersect each other in Studio 2.0, but it does not flag the connection as an error (it usually does, but there are a number of situations where it doesn't). No idea if the parts exist in the consumer LDD so I haven't tested in it. I wonder if the issue in Studio 2.0 is present in the internal LDD as well.

Publishing this was absolutely the right thing, and you should not be more forgiving on this. These are standards Lego has set for themselves (and they are a good thing, since they try to prevent the pieces from braking/ making connections that are really hard to separate). As a consumer I absolutely love this stance and I expect my product to not have these kinds of flaws.