Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

Lego and Warfare/Weapons

1235»

Comments

  • SWAT_StrachanSWAT_Strachan Member Posts: 24
    Sets that I'd like but will never see production are Firefly, Battlestar Galactica and Ghost in the Shell (maybe even a Battlefield3 set or two). All of these themes have had some awesome submissions on the Cuusoo site, but because they either contain guns, violence, or mature themes, they will be discarded out of hand.

    Lego, here's a suggestion... MAKE. SETS. FOR. ADULTS. There's even a term for us, AFOLs! The market is there, why not exploit it? Idealism is admirable, but profits run a company.
  • Brewer51Brewer51 Member Posts: 248
    ^ TLG wouldn't want (I'm assuming) their brand associated with adult products, even if there is a market. Traditionally they are a family-friendly company and I doubt they'd suddenly switch to making war machines.

    That's also the beauty of Lego, is that you can make your own war machines. You don't need them to licence sets, as you can make your own - it's even possible to make military minifigs if you wanted.
  • RedbullgivesuwindRedbullgivesuwind Brickset's Secret HeadquatersMember Posts: 1,975
    ^^They do make sets for adult you have the architect line, UCS, modulars, mini modulars and many, many more AFOLs make up five percent of their market so while they will make a little bit of money from us we dont make up their major market. Its mothers buying for their six or seven year old who dont want their children playing with a known prositute (in firefly, as well as its a tiny market for fire fly) and Battlefield3 is an incredibly violent game which mimics real world situations, something no parent should be letting their six year old play. As said before by @Brewer51 and others lego is first and foremost a childs toy and that is always who the audience will be at. Which is why we wont see any REAL WORLD violence/ or open moral sets
  • lulwutlulwut Member Posts: 417
    TLG doesn't know what they want. Why does set 9441 Kai's Blade Cycle have kill markings?
  • princedravenprincedraven Essex, UKMember Posts: 3,768
    edited June 2012
    ^ Not sure what this has to do with modern warfare? TLG have never said they don't use conflict.
    Kai is defeating very much fictional snake monsters.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    ^ Wha...t?

    Snake monsters are fictional? Say it ain't so!!!!

    Go and burst my bubble why don't ya! :)
  • SherlockbonesSherlockbones Member Posts: 411
    I still find it strange Lego can produce a Star wars set based on a violent Star wars game which rating is a is 16+ but then they refuse to make any other game on the same level
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    I still find it strange Lego can produce a Star wars set based on a violent Star wars game which rating is a is 16+ but then they refuse to make any other game on the same level
    Money, it is all about the money... Everything else is just fluff talk...
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    ^^ There are six Star Wars LEGO sets from the expanded universe. I take it you're referring to #7672 Rogue Shadow, which is a depiction of ship that is featured in Star Wars: The Force Unleashed. That game has several different ratings. Notably: BBFC (UK) gave it 12; ESRB (North America) gave it T (like 13+); OFLC (Australia) gave the DS, N-Gage, and iPhone OS versions a PG (like 13+); PEGI (Europe) gave the DS version a 12+; and USK (Germany) gave it a 12+. Seems to me that the game is pretty much kid friendly. Some ratings organizations (Australia and Europe) gave the Xbox and PlayStation versions a stronger rating, but even so, the set itself looks pretty age appropriate for 12-year-olds. Games like Gears of War, on the other hand, are universally rated to be 18+ and mature audiences. Their themes and content are clearly not appropriate for kids.

    ^ It is not all about the money.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    ^ It is not all about the money.
    Don't be silly, it is always all about the money... All large corporations, everywhere in the world, are always about the money...

    Why? because they have investors, and banks, and boards of directors to answer to, and shareholders to answer to, and all those people ultimately put their money into the business to get more back out.

    Google's "Don't be evil" mantra is, at the end of the day, about the money (positive public image makes money is the idea there)

    Take a look at this set:
    http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=9500-1

    This is from the PC game, Star Wars: The Old Republic. That is not a game I'd want kids playing, while it is rated T for Teen, it has endless violence and many sexual situations in it, including sex slaves and prostitutes (including one of the companions of a main playable character)...

    So I would simply say that if Lego thinks the good outweighs the bad and that they can get away with it and will make money from it, they'll do it. If not, they won't.
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    All large corporations, everywhere in the world, are always about the money...
    Well, that's a bunch of hyperbole. I get the point you're trying to make. In fact, I'll even clarify it a bit. Technically it isn't about money as about maximizing profit, generating wealth, extracting the most value, etc. Economic theory and in some situations legal obligations dictate that profit maximization is what a company does. And let's say the board of directors chooses not to do this? Economic theory predicts that company will be bought out as the market corrects for the inefficiency.

    But you're wrong about all large corporations wanting to profit maximize. The American Red Cross would be an excellent counter example. It's obvious you forgot that non-profits are corporations too. I know, non-profits by definition are not about making money, so you probably meant to exclude them. But then there are benefit corporations. "The chartering of benefit corporations is an attempt to reclaim the original purpose for which corporations were chartered in early America. Then, states chartered corporations to achieve a specific public purpose, such as building bridges or roads. Their legitimacy stemmed from their delegated charter, although they could still earn profits while fulfilling it."

    Of course, TLG is a corporation that is for-profit. And yes, their primary purpose is to generate profits for their shareholder. But don't lose sight that economic theories are just simple models. In the real-world people (like businessmen and shareholders) can have other objectives that don't terribly clash with the profit-making schemes. I think LEGO believes in their policies and applies them thoughtfully. I don't think they compromised their beliefs with making the six additional Star Wars sets. I think they keep away from real world violence because they believe it is wrong.

    As for Star Wars: The Old Republic, the ratings are BBFC 12, ESRB: T, PEGI: 16+, and USK: 12. So arguably the game is appropriate for the target audience of the set, not to mention that the set itself is perfectly age appropriate even if you think the game is not.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    ^ I fully get that companies can have other goals and purposes other than "just money", many corporations actually do much good, and give back in many ways. Some more than others.

    But to give back, to do good, to do anything, they must have money, that is why it always comes down to the money. If it ever doesn't, someone else will do it better and run them out of business.

    You must be profitable to do anything, so you must focus on the money first. Even if you're a non-profit. A non-profit still must bring in at least as much money as it spends, to do anything.

    Money is not evil, it isn't good, it is just a tool and can be used for good or bad like anything else. The more of it that you have, the more good or evil you can do. It amplifies the qualities of whomever wields it.

    ^ my 2.3 cents worth... ;)
  • RedbullgivesuwindRedbullgivesuwind Brickset's Secret HeadquatersMember Posts: 1,975
    edited June 2012

    Take a look at this set:
    http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=9500-1

    This is from the PC game, Star Wars: The Old Republic. That is not a game I'd want kids playing, while it is rated T for Teen, it has endless violence and many sexual situations in it, including sex slaves and prostitutes (including one of the companions of a main playable character)...

    So I would simply say that if Lego thinks the good outweighs the bad and that they can get away with it and will make money from it, they'll do it. If not, they won't.
    The counter argument I think lego would put to that is they haven't portrayed any of those characters. What they have made are the lead villain and some troops and the two lead good guys. None of whom are in the morally dubious area (see my above points).

    With things like serenity they would have had to made the companion as she is a major character and if they didnt make her it would be like never making chewie in the star wars lego line.
  • SherlockbonesSherlockbones Member Posts: 411
    edited June 2012
    Yeah if they made her think of the little kids at school
    "Oh yes I am a prostitute let me fight you" Also many young kids will ask what one is...

    actually Force unleashed is a 16+ in England, does not deserve that high rating though
  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    ...she is a major character and if they didnt make her it would be like never making chewie in the star wars lego line.
    Chewie? Really? You chose to compare Inara to Chewie instead of Leia to make your point? That's just wrong. LOL

  • mressinmressin Lego City... erm LondonMember Posts: 843
    ^Why? Chewie might be female, too. Has his/her gender ever been substantiated in the movies?
  • prof1515prof1515 EarthMember Posts: 1,561
    ^Why? Chewie might be female, too. Has his/her gender ever been substantiated in the movies?
    Inara was the beauty amongst the crew. Chewie hardly fits that description. He might make a better Jayne instead.

  • mressinmressin Lego City... erm LondonMember Posts: 843
    ^a)Companions come a dime a dozen. I haven't seen a statue of Inara yet. ("Jayyyyyne! The man they called... Jayyyyne!")
    b) Jayne is a girl's name.
    c) Hey, maybe all Chewie needs is a new hair cut. Maybe kisses from wookies are not quite as bad as Han would have us believe. ;)
  • RedbullgivesuwindRedbullgivesuwind Brickset's Secret HeadquatersMember Posts: 1,975


    Chewie? Really? You chose to compare Inara to Chewie instead of Leia to make your point? That's just wrong. LOL



    I meant as a major character not in physical attractivness.
  • ringleheimringleheim Member Posts: 168
    One thing missing from this discussion (although I might have missed it) is that we are talking about a Danish company. Denmark had an experience of the Second World War very different from that of the UK or that of the US. It has caused trauma to generations of Danish people. This has fed into LEGO's policy of avoiding "war" themes rooted in reality.

    So what if LEGO have produced sets that edge more closely to a "war" theme? They have good reasons for the stance they've taken, and although like the rest of us they're not absolutely consistent 100% of the time, surely it's just sensible to respect their approach?

    It seems incredibly dogmatic to declare that because LEGO have not been absolutely consistent, then they have a personal obligation to me to produce a particular war-themed set that I would like. It's the kind of argument I'd laugh at were it presented to me by a child.
    I find it funny that you use wording such as "edge more closely to a war theme."

    What exactly is not full fledged "war theme" about a Sopwith Camel? How could they possibly "edge more closely" to war? What are Lego's "good reasons" for their stance in making that kit?

    I don't know if you are addressing me in particular (seems like you are) but I have certainly not suggested that Lego has an "obligation" to produce a particular set of any description for my personal benefit.

    I am simply saying that TLG abandoned any anti-violence stance they may have once had a long time ago. And therefore the door is wide open for them to make something like a battleship or Spitfire airplane without violating their currently enforced policy on this issue.

    And apparently they agree with me. Did they not recently announce a policy saying they would consider a WWII or earlier war theme?



  • RedbullgivesuwindRedbullgivesuwind Brickset's Secret HeadquatersMember Posts: 1,975
    @mrseatle yeah of course :-). Anyway wont get into a debate about that.

    What I do think we can say is that lego would be open to pre 1945 model but it would have to be very good. Anything post 1945 they arent gonna touch with a barge pole. That seems to me a good comphremise
  • brickmaticbrickmatic Member Posts: 1,071
    What exactly is not full fledged "war theme" about a Sopwith Camel? How could they possibly "edge more closely" to war? What are Lego's "good reasons" for their stance in making that kit?
    What's not full fledged is that the plane has strong connotations with aviation history and is associated by many with airplanes, not war. Consider to which group would you more likely add a Sopwith Camel: the Wright Flyer and a Lockheed Vega OR a M1917 Browning machine gun and a Mark I tank. The Sopwith Camel is a reasonable third addition to both groups. For me, the first group, the historic airplanes, is what comes to mind first. I think this is the case for most people. However, if you're a World War I history buff you would likely place the Sopwith Camel in the second group, British WWI equipment. Regardless, both groupings are logical. If you can't appreciate that the first grouping is reasonable and non-militaristic, you will find it difficult to understand why LEGO has not contradicted their policies. As for the reasons why LEGO went ahead with the kit: 1) The play experience is not related to real world modern warfare, killing, torture or cruelty to animals. 2) It does not depict weapons and military equipment that children may recognize from hot spots around the world 3) It does not show violent or frightening situations.
  • mrseatlemrseatle Member Posts: 410
    Just keep the Castles coming!
  • sonsofscevasonsofsceva 1904 World's FairMember Posts: 542
    Here are two pictures of the Enlighten Brick Air Gun from China. It uses springs for its actions and fires a technic pin about 4 meters.
  • paul_mertonpaul_merton UKMember Posts: 2,967
    edited June 2012
    I submitted the following project to LEGO CUUSOO earlier this month. I did think it was a bit borderline with regards to whether it would be acceptable to Lego (it depicts warfare in an alternate history, so it's not "real" as such), but I guess it doesn't really matter when it's only got 12 votes.

    lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/18636

    image
  • BustinBustin Member Posts: 286
    As a soldier some might say my opinion will be very biased. There are many things that I feel could be created by Lego in regards to "war" in a respectful medium. As I have read others mention just because there is a tank present doesn't mean it cannot be because of the tremendous technical feat that it took to move 30 tons of steel.

    Obviously anyone at any point can take offense to something. I mean there is a year of the dragon set that just was announced. Well where is a US year of Declaration of Independence set???

    There is a Statue of Liberty. Well I'm sure there are people who may find that offensive right?

    I think a creator or UCS line through the ages with classics like the spitfire, 109, mustang, zero would be just fine with the world. Showcasing planes from each side and country would be the best way to go if they were to do this in any form. As it would not show prejudice to the war in any form.

    In the end though I feel Lego should take more freedom in what goes in the box. The bricks exist already... Make the sets and let parents decide if it is right for their child to play with.

    I would love WWII era vehicles. Or at the very least a better AFOL oriented color palette of bricks so we can better craft our own MOCs. (Lego has improved on this)
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.