Are Lego Historical themes a 'thing of the past'?

daewoo

lol

I'm not really a military guy and my city is quite peaceful.  Not even sure why there's a police department...  ;)

Bumblepants

^My City needs them for traffic control as everyone is driving exotic sports cars

Fauch

this could be a city subtheme, there are remnants of medieval cities with castles here. kind of like that old town set with a medieval parade, that would quite like where I live actually.

Bumblepants

Fauch said:

this could be a city subtheme, there are remnants of medieval cities with castles here. kind of like that old town set with a medieval parade, that would quite like where I live actually.

They actually did that ages ago in one of the really old Town sets. Would be fun to do again. I've considered doing it with my Kingdom Joust and MMV

SumoLego

daewoo said:
I guess the green army men from the Toy Story line don't count as modern soldiers in Lego's eyes? 

The short answer is that LEGO doesn't want be identified as overtly or subtlely supporting any combatant in any conflict.  As they are a Global brand, it is considerably less expensive to maintain object neutrality.  It's not hypocrisy - as LEGO is consistent in avoiding negative controversy.

The Green Army Men are a perfect example.  They're clearly US WWII troops.  But in the LEGO realm, they're a license product of a kids' film concerning toys.  The risk of mass protests against the Toy Story Green Army Men is pretty remote - even for the PC crowd.  Plus, the Green Army Men aren't actually prosecuting war in the Toy Story movies.

Marvel and DC characters on the other hand...

Baby_Yoda

All this talk of people of the easily butthurt variety brings back a funny memory from back when I was a mere lurker.
https://forum.brickset.com/discussion/26529/yet-another-unhappy-group

Lyichir

Keep in mind that there will almost certainly be another Castle theme after this year. Castle is a theme that's refreshed like clockwork on a three-year cycle—the only reason there isn't a "historical" Castle theme now is because Nexo Knights was the castle theme for this particular cycle.

That said... I do see historical themes becoming less prominent by necessity. Mark me down as one of the "politically correct" types a lot of you seem to fear, but history is basically lined with abuses and atrocities, and there are very few eras that emerge unscathed when you view them with a critical eye. Combine that with the regionalism of many historical settings or cultures (which can limit them from having broad worldwide appeal), and the result is that Lego's safest bets are things like they've been doing for years—highly abstracted versions of history, like Castle, Pirates, or Vikings that eschew real-world national affiliation or historical figures in favor of more neutral storytelling based on those eras.

The_Rancor

^ I agree, there should in theory always be appeal in medieval knights or pirates because they permeate popular culture and have become quite neutral in their depictions, showing no one or anywhere in particular. Even old-fashioned pirates have become loveable rogues or heroes - whether the Pirates or the Imperial Guards are the 'good guys' in Lego sets is much more open to interpretation than the usual knights factions vs each other.

I still think however that there's very little headspace in Lego's target audience at the moment for pirates and knights - based on my family and other kids I've noticed recently, their only interests are either Fortnite or comic book characters. It'll probably take a substantial shift in public popularity with films, games or collectibles based on medieval times or pirates to bring them back (unlikely with the latter as POTC seems to be dying down). Original fantasy or sci fi as a Lego theme can still work though - there's a huge amount of original stories that can be told there and more importantly they will probably match what kids are interested in too, outside of, you know, licenses.

Polyphemus

Baby_Yoda said:

Even I hadn't heard of Asterix and Obelix outside of my mother's old comics at home. I can safely confirm that it's not hip with the kids anymore.

Ouch! That makes me feel old! :)

bigginsd

Their stance on warfare is also ridiculous.  They'll make historical soldiers and futuristic movie soldiers (with guns and everything), but they won't produce a "modern" soldier.  A soldier is a soldier.  Their job hasn't changed over the centuries and it won't change much in the future.  They kill and destroy the "enemy" so their side wins.  The only differences are the tools that they use.  So in Lego's eyes, a sword, which is used to slice off body parts and/or run people through is good to go, but an AK-47 isn't.  Of course, they haven't even been consistent with this stance because they have produced a couple of WW1 era warplanes as well as at least one CMF that could be considered to be a modern soldier (Royal Guard).  I guess the green army men from the Toy Story line don't count as modern soldiers in Lego's eyes? 

And now we deal with the hypersensitive PC crowd who (in my opinion) walk around all day looking for things to be offended by.  I get that Lego is a business and that they must cater to the current whims, but there are so many historical themes that they could do that they can't, because some group here or there will get offended.  I would love it if they did revisit the old west, but that's likely to never happen again.  I would love it if they revisited Explorers, but historically the explorers were followed by the conquerors, and even though humans have been conquering for thousands of years, we must frown upon that kind of thing now.  Maybe I'm just too cross with the world or don't understand adulting as well as I had thought I did...

As you're American, especially (sorry if it's steriotypical) from Texas, I can totally understand you have a view of guns as tools and feel it should be represented as would any other part of the modern world.

I'm from Australia which despite what you may have heard is not as anti-gun as you'd think, I grew up in a rural area where most if not all farmers had guns for pest control. I also have friends in Denmark and have visited many times, so I have a small understanding of their culture. 

I think European and even Australian attitudes are guns are an unfortunate necessity, our police have them (although parts of Europe do have unarmed Police as the default Police on patrol) and if you own one it is registered and locked in a safe. If you lose your gun or let someone else use there are stiff penalties. Military culture is not glorified, it is a depressing reality. Why would you want to make a Toy out of that? Toys are about escapism, playing with medieval swords and laser guns are enough levels removed so that I child will not see them on the News and think War is all a game. It is not over sensitive PC BS, it is wanting your child to enjoy their childhood and grow up feeling War and modern guns are given the gravity and seriousness they deserve.
It is obviously a different perspective, Mattel and other American Toy Companies share your perspective. I don't think you can expect a Northern European Company to change their cultural perspective, buy Mega Bloks if you want modern warfare as they have the Call of Duty sets which appear high quality. Or third party stuff like Brick Arms. 
Hope i wasn't rude.

Astrobricks

^ Nicely stated. 
Also, bundling everybody who gets offended into one big “PC crowd” ignores the fact that it’s dozens of crowds, each with their own perspective. Everyone tends to get offended when they feel their particular group is being ignored or treated poorly (or has been historically). Today, the anti-PC crowd is one of those. They get offended if someone asks that they change their language to avoid causing offense.

SumoLego

I think the 'crowd' we're referring to are the vocal enthusiasts that place a disproportionate amount of weight in language and/or labels, rather than really focusing on the root causes of inequity and bias that is their true motivating factor.

If someone says something insensitive, 'that' crowd has the perception of extrapolating that insensitivity as a barometer into that someone's actions.  The focus should be on whether that person is going to act with inequity and bias, no matter what nonsense comes out of their mouth.  

I would say the intermittent raging debate over the NFL team in Washington is a good example of that.  Plenty of die-hard football fans get all hot and bothered because a group of perceived "do gooders" or "social justice crusaders" that really have no agenda other than to get noticed for their altruism needlessly disrupt a mascot and/or symbol of their favorite football team.  Even though it's an obvious racist term.  (Which may not necessarily offend Native Americans in this context - but there no consensus on that issue, either.)

The fight becomes about the fight - and not whether there is a negative impact on the community that should be offended. 

Just to be clear, I'm picking or advocating for either side - it's just the perfect illustration of why the "anti" PC crowd and those seeking to impose cultural sensitivity clash.

This is probably why I don't want someone feeling like they're offending me when discussing an Oriental Rug.  Frankly, if someone were to ask me about an Asian Rug, I'd start snickering thinking we were talking about hairpieces.

Baby_Yoda

^ That's an excellent way of putting it. Someone who's "politically correct" (in a negative context) is saying things that are perceived to be good merely because they have good intentions, but don't actually have an effect on the overall situation. I could say, for example, that using the word "Sumo" in the above's username when they're from New York is offensive to Japanese culture, and demand that they change it. It shows that I care about Japan despite it not being my own country, but the actual action of them changing their username won't do a single sumo wrestler any good.

catwrangler

For what it's worth (bleeding heart here, run for your lives ;)), I think @bigginsd is right about the interminable "Lego is hypocritical" discussion - it's coming from a very specific cultural place that sees modern guns and warfare in a particular way. What I am curious about is whether all the different cultures of people who work high up in Lego ever bleed over into influencing stuff like that - it has come a long way from being just a little workshop in Denmark, after all. Is America a big enough market to have influenced it over time re: depictions of warfare (because TLG has softened its stance over the years - we're a long way past "no grey bricks because kids will make tanks"), or is it always too much of a risk to let any one market have a lot of influence, because you risk alienating others? 

I suppose another side to this is that, as with so many other things, the sales figures will tell them if they're getting it right or not...

alaskaguy

Pick anything historical that you want to - no matter how innocent it may seem, and no matter how conscientious you are in being respectful with it, there will be no end of people who will complain that you're supporting oppression, being racist, being nationalist, appropriating culture, ignoring some more worthy cultural/political group from history or modern times, are not diverse enough, etc. etc. etc. etc.   You just can't win with these people.

I'm not at all surprised that one or more toymakers, including Lego, have come to this same conclusion and decided to stay away from such things.

SumoLego

Except Ninjas.  We all love Ninjas.  And shapeshifting robots.

daewoo

I get that the founder didn't want his toys used a certain way.  The specific issue here is the inconsistent logic applied to their corporate thinking.  Their apparent stance is that they don't want to make warfare a subject of play.  That's totally their prerogative.  I 100% get that.  But then they produce things that indeed can be seen to clearly make warfare a subject of play.  A person killed with a sword (regardless if it was held by a pirate, or a conquistador, or an old west cavalryman) is just as dead as a guy shot with a gun or blown to pieces by a grenade.  The same goes for a Rebel Soldier shot down by a Storm Trooper with a blaster.  It's still warfare as play.  OK, I concede that it's not an Abrams facing off with a T-72 in the Iraqi desert kind of play, but it is play nonetheless.  If the standard is to not glorify warfare, or make warfare a form of play, then anything to do with warfare should be off limits.  That's how I see it, anyway.  But again, TLG has every right to produce whatever products they want, by whatever standards they want.  I, the consumer, reserve the right to buy or not buy....or buy and then make a modern tank out of it and have it rampage through my city.  Not that I would do that, but I do know people that would and do.

As for the actual topic, human history is human history.  Judging the past using modern principles is folly and counter-productive.  Taking offense now because people in the 1800s did a certain thing is silly and a waste of energy.  That we're tearing down statues and renaming things doesn't change the fact that those people lived and did what they did, regardless of whether we agree with their actions or not.  White washing history only leaves us vulnerable to repeating the errors we should have learned from but didn't because we were too offended to try to reach actual understanding. 

Historical themes will be problematic to produce now since people are taking offense at almost everything.  Can't do the old west again because that might offend some aboriginal Americans (or non-aboriginal Americans who believe that it's their place to be offended for someone else).  Same with the Outback and the aboriginal peoples of Australia.  If you revisit imperial times, even though the focus might be pirates, you are still celebrating (in some people's eyes) the European conquests which killed millions and enslaved millions more.  This limits TLG's options and, in my opinion, makes for a less interesting product catalog.  Again, that is 100% TLG's prerogative.  My hope is that they can keep producing innovative and fun new sets, incorporating cool things from the past as well as imagining for the future.

datsunrobbie

alaskaguy said:

Pick anything historical that you want to - no matter how innocent it may seem, and no matter how conscientious you are in being respectful with it, there will be no end of people who will complain that you're supporting oppression, being racist, being nationalist, appropriating culture, ignoring some more worthy cultural/political group from history or modern times, are not diverse enough, etc. etc. etc. etc.   You just can't win with these people.

I'm not at all surprised that one or more toymakers, including Lego, have come to this same conclusion and decided to stay away from such things.

“The story so far:
In the beginning the Universe was created.
This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.”

-Restaurant at the End of the Universe

SumoLego

I would also point out that there's a bit of the 'I know it when I see it' applied to this standard.

Is Steve Trevor's plane in the Wonder Woman set over the line?  Probably not.  

But a 'Pat Tillman vs. the Taliban' playset would definitely be miles past that line.  

Would a Iron Man Mark I vs. Ten Rings playset reflecting those scenes from Iron Man be suitable?  I would guess not because none were produced.

At the end of the day, LEGO does best to appeal to everyone - and in particular kids.  After all, it's just a highly sophisticated interlocking brick system.

560Heliport

They removed the German Iron Crosses from Steve Trevor's plane and replaced them with stars...

SumoLego

560Heliport said:

They removed the German Iron Crosses from Steve Trevor's plane and replaced them with stars...

And, obviously, no Nazi symbols appear on the Indiana Jones sets as well.  But my point was that the mere plane itself exists.

dannyrww

SumoLego said:

Except Ninjas.  We all love Ninjas.  And shapeshifting robots.

I was thinking that was a little off topic as shapeshifting robots are not historical....and then I remembered that time in 2005 when Optimus Prime made the ultimate sacrifice. 

J0rgen

I like that it doesn't seem to be a black and white policy. We saw German army vehicles like trucks and planes in Indiana Jones, but notably not the tank from «Last Crusade». I think planes might be ok, while a tank is not, because a plane or a starfighter (even one loaded with guns) is not inherently a war toy. You can go on exciting adventures to far-off places in a bi-wing or an X-Wing, in addition to reenacting combat scenes, while a tank is solely an instrument of war. While I would have liked the tank from «Last Crusade», I'm very happy LEGO keeps up the no modern warfare policy, even while indulging in some questionably mature licenses.

Baby_Yoda

Lego do what people think is right, not what's actually right, because the latter is pretty much impossible to measure and the former makes a lot more money.

kukutxx2020

I don't think LEGOs gonna stop producing pieces like these because they are definitely still relevant. Just recently, some LEGO Exhibits by Warren Elsmore featured by Brick History and Brick Wonders was put up to creatively display history throughout the years. Exhibits like these can be quite attractive to kids as well as their parents. Talking about history, I think you should check out The Toy Report as well if you wanna learn more about LEGO's history as a company lol. <shameless plug>