What licensed themes will end next year?

[JimBee]

Seriously, you gotta learn to let things go.

-Omi

Maybe you ought to take your own advice.

Seriously, if you're trying to make a point, I'm not seeing it. Indy's definitely got a good chance of have one more wave, regardless of what sets that wave might have, IMO.

And yes, Lego has made military vehicles. Race for the Stolen Treasure had two. There's also Jungle Cutter, Rive chase (military boat, Russian "duck"), and almost every Agents set(not strictly military, but combat vehicles).

One last thing, you're complaining about SW sets being redone over and over... wasn't there three Hogwarts castles? Haven't people been complaining about how 2009 has been nothing but remakes for SB? Either way, I don't mind remakes, in fact I enjoy an updated set every once in a while. The X-Wing wouldn't be iconic if it wasn't made into Lego 4 times.

[Omicron]

And yes, Lego has made military vehicles. Race for the Stolen Treasure had two. There's also Jungle Cutter, Rive chase (military boat, Russian "duck"), and almost every Agents set(not strictly military, but combat vehicles).

Let me rephrase, modern military stuff like tanks. And that is true because they themselves make that point clear. As for the vehicles you mentioned, first off the ones in the Race for Stolen Treasure are just a car and a cargo truck, and the Jungle Cutter, I have never seen that on the history channel being used in battle. Let me know when Osama comes around with one in the Middle East. This is why stuff like Brickarms exist.

Indy's definitely got a good chance of have one more wave, regardless of what sets that wave might have, IMO.

So did every theme that has been discontinued.

One last thing, you're complaining about SW sets being redone over and over... wasn't there three Hogwarts castles?

While you do have a point, each of those 3 sets depicted a different part of the castle. Meaning the Great Hall was not in the second or third set, and are only similar in name. A Y Wing is just a Y Wing. Maybe the new one uses more new pieces than the previous, but still is a Y Wing. Hogwarts castles weren't the same thing over and over.

Besides they aren't making anymore SB or HP sets so I have no need to complain about those.

Maybe you ought to take your own advice.

I do. That is why I am not bitching about Batman ending last year, nor did I when it was.

-Omi

Edited August 9, 2009 by Omicron

[McSmeag]

One last thing, you're complaining about SW sets being redone over and over... wasn't there three Hogwarts castles? Haven't people been complaining about how 2009 has been nothing but remakes for SB? Either way, I don't mind remakes, in fact I enjoy an updated set every once in a while. The X-Wing wouldn't be iconic if it wasn't made into Lego 4 times.

I don't feel Omicron was "complaining" about redesigned/rereleased Star Wars sets; merely he was noting that it has happened quite a lot, as some people appeared to be denying that. All such misunderstandings seemed to have concluded on the previous page, if you missed it.

Also, on the subject of Lego making tanks, I feel there is perceptible difference between a military jeep or plan and a tank. Jeeps and planes can be used for extra-militaristic purposes; the technology was not designed with destroying or killing as their purpose. Yes, perhaps the specific planes or jeeps in some of these sets were developed for military use, no doubt, but when it comes down to "brass tax," as they say, a plane is just a plane and is relatively benign. Tanks, on the other hand, were developed with only one purpose: a heavily armoured mobile weapons platform. They are, in short, made to dispense death, nothing more.

I do not doubt these are Lego's feelings on the matter. They can, albeit shakily, still defend their nonviolence policy while producing military planes and cars, but I do not expect to see them make realistic tanks without rescinding their policies.

But then again, the policy has been on very shaky ground ever since they started making realistic guns.

Edited August 9, 2009 by McSmeag

[JimBee]

Let me rephrase, modern military stuff like tanks. And that is true because they themselves make that point clear. As for the vehicles you mentioned, first off the ones in the Race for Stolen Treasure are just a car and a cargo truck, and the Jungle Cutter, I have never seen that on the history channel being used in battle. Let me know when Osama comes around with one in the Middle East. This is why stuff like Brickarms exist.

Also, on the subject of Lego making tanks, I feel there is perceptible difference between a military jeep or plan and a tank. Jeeps and planes can be used for extra-militaristic purposes; the technology was not designed with destroying or killing as their purpose. Yes, perhaps the specific planes or jeeps in some of these sets were developed for military use, no doubt, but when it comes down to "brass tax," as they say, a plane is just a plane and is relatively benign. Tanks, on the other hand, were developed with only one purpose: a heavily armoured mobile weapons platform. They are, in short, made to dispense death, nothing more.

So what you mean to say is that TLG is never going to make a tank? That's quite a difference than military vehicles in general. I don't mean to be argumentative here, but it's very possible that the Indy tank could be a set. Like McSmeag said, TLG is on shaky ground with topic of violence and weapons. Sure, the molds [of guns/ swords] might not be accurate, but the concept still remains. TLG said they wouldn't do a lot of things with violence and weapons, yet, they're still a key concept of many Lego sets (not that I'm complaining, of course...).

While you do have a point, each of those 3 sets depicted a different part of the castle. Meaning the Great Hall was not in the second or third set, and are only similar in name. A Y Wing is just a Y Wing. Maybe the new one uses more new pieces than the previous, but still is a Y Wing. Hogwarts castles weren't the same thing over and over.

But that's what some of us have been trying to tell you- the sets have changed. The new CW-style Y-Wing is an almost completely new design. What's so different about these two sets (Hogwarts and the Y-Wing), if they're both changed each time they've been remade?

I do. That is why I am not bitching about Batman ending last year, nor did I when it was.

-Omi

That's not exactly what I meant, but never mind that. Since this getting off-topic, please PM me (or others) if you have anything else to say that doesn't relate to the topic. Just so we don't cause trouble.

[Omicron]

So what you mean to say is that TLG is never going to make a tank? That's quite a difference than military vehicles in general.

Tanks that you see in everyday life, ones that were used in WWI up to now. That kind of tank. When you see it, you know its tank. That is what Lego won't make, because they are against modern warfare.

However that doesn't stop them from making an armored vehicle with a turret, since it isn't modern warfare (see Agents).

But that's what some of us have been trying to tell you- the sets have changed.

It is still the same thing. Also the Hogwarts sets aren't neccessarily remakes, I suggest you take a good look at them.

The reason why I say those are different because they are different. The Y Wing still keeps its basic design, just with different pieces and a pilot.

TLG said they wouldn't do a lot of things with violence and weapons, yet, they're still a key concept of many Lego sets (not that I'm complaining, of course...).

TLG said they wouldn't do anything of modern warfare. That is why they can make guns for Cowboy sets and get away with it, because that isn't modern warfare.

-Omi

[salty tbone]

Tanks that you see in everyday life, ones that were used in WWI up to now. That kind of tank. When you see it, you know its tank. That is what Lego won't make, because they are against modern warfare.

Please explain how the fighter plane in "Fighter Plane Attack" fits into your Lego policy of no modern military vehicles. These proclamations are constantly posted here that "Lego will never ... " as if they're carved in stone, but I honestly don't get it.

I figure if Eurobricks existing 30 years ago, this would be the progression of the slippery slope that Lego's been on.

Circa 1977: "Lego is nonviolent. They'll never make violent themes."

Then Castle line is introduced with the first minifig weapons.

Circa 1988: "Well castle is fantasy and not overtly violent. And Lego will never make minifig guns."

Then Pirates are released.

Circa 1995: "Ok. Well they've done historical weapons, but Lego will never release modern weapons."

Then Western line is released with revolvers and rifles.

Circa 1998: "Please, Lego will never make sets about war."

Then Star Wars is released.

Circa 2004: "Oh c'mon, that's sci-fi. And look, they don't even have guns. Just megaphones flipped around. Lego will never make actual blasters. It's just too violent."

Then Star Wars blasters are released.

Circa 2005: "Stop it. Everyone knows Lego's nonviolence policy. All of that is fantasy and sci-fi. Lego will never make modern military sets."

Then Indiana Jones sets are released featuring uniformed, modern soldiers with guns and vehicles.

...

I know this debate is endless, and I really don't want Lego to make modern military sets. But I don't understand how a WWI era tank doesn't fit into Lego's so-called nonviolence policy but a fighter plane with guns a-blazin' does.

[JCC1004]

If Lego never had the Indy theme the western sets would be the most war-like theme out there. Since ae tank would be made under for a theme, I would't have an objetion. Lego has made sets that are very war like. The Pilatus P-2(FPA german plane) was made just for war. Tis is my opinion. I could careless what the next possible wave of Indy is, as long as we get another wave. As long as one more Indy wave is released, I'll be happy.

Edited August 9, 2009 by JCC1004

[Omicron]

Please explain how the fighter plane in "Fighter Plane Attack" fits into your Lego policy of no modern military vehicles. These proclamations are constantly posted here that "Lego will never ... " as if they're carved in stone, but I honestly don't get it.

"My Lego Policy"?

Are you serious? Are you honestly claiming that I am making this all up?

I never said Lego didn't contradict themselves. I only said that is their policy. And it is carved in stone for them.

Do you recall the story of how Lego didn't want to make green bricks because they feared kids would make tanks out of them? That is what I am talking about.

If Lego never had the Indy theme the western sets would be the most war-like theme out there. Since ae tank would be made under for a theme, I would't have an objetion. Lego has made sets that are very war like.

What part about modern of modern warfare do you not get? Western sets are not modern. Star Wars isn't modern. Castle isn't modern. Agents isn't even modern.

Anything ranging from WWI to now is modern warfare.

-Omi

[Zzz]

A policy is something you stick to. If TLC acted against this (their own) policy, it is not carved in stone for them. It doesn't exist.

The vehicles in the Indy line proved so far that they make modern warfare vehicles. Since the tank was never used by the Nazis, nor in WW2 (unlike the fighter plane), and since the whole setup and context is based on a funny movie that is rated and suited for teens, and not based on reality, there shouldn't be a problem in making a tank.

Perhaps we will get one.

[JCC1004]

A policy is something you stick to. If TLC acted against this (their own) policy, it is not carved in stone for them. It doesn't exist.

The vehicles in the Indy line proved so far that they make modern warfare vehicles. Since the tank was never used by the Nazis, nor in WW2 (unlike the fighter plane), and since the whole setup and context is based on a funny movie that is rated and suited for teens, and not based on reality, there shouldn't be a problem in making a tank.

Perhaps we will get one.

Finaly someone else how sees things like I do. Omi, your post are starting to sound a bit rude.

[Omicron]

A policy is something you stick to. If TLC acted against this (their own) policy, it is not carved in stone for them. It doesn't exist.

In that case we should be expecting the military theme very soon.

Which won't happen, because that is against their policy of modern warfare, religion (thats why you never see church sets), and anything drug/alcohol related. Steve Witt is the one who tells me these things, along with other Lego employees.

The vehicles in the Indy line proved so far that they make modern warfare vehicles.

What other vehicles? A cargo truck? A car? A jungle cutter (of which I never seen being used in war)? Those aren't modern warfare.

Omi, your post are starting to sound a bit rude.

Sorry for having a sense of realism. Not being rude though.

-Omi

Edited August 9, 2009 by Omicron

[JCC1004]

What about these? They have rifes, medics, steel pot helmets and a mine sweeper. Those are very WWII like. Just give them some different heads and hands and there are some soilders.Indy sets just have kepis.Humves have replaced tanks in a way.

Edited August 9, 2009 by JCC1004

[Oky]

This discussion has gone way off topic, and way too heated, but let me just say how I view the whole military vehicle issue:

Race for the Stolen Treasure: One vehicle is just a cargo truck, not very military at all. The other is a normal jeep, with something brick-built attached to the top that looks like a gun.

River Chase: Again, a normal amphibian vehicle, just with a gun attached to it.

Jungle Cutter: Like Omi, I can't see how this could be seen as a military vehicle.

Flying Wing: This is a military vehicle, yes, but it's a fictional plane, so it's about as much a modern military vehicle as a Star Wars ship.

Fighter Plane Attack: Okay, this is getting pretty close to being military vehicles as they are modelled after real aircraft, but still, they are just normal airplanes with technic pins and telescopes attached to them to look like guns.

What I'm trying to say is that TLC has so far only made vehicles that are pretty generic (aside from some small brick-built add-ons that look like weapons) so that they could be used in a peaceful City setting as well. They have not made any vehicles that have a pure military purpose, thus not violating their policies. If they would make a tank, it would be a pure military set, modeled after a real-life warfare vehicle, and this is why I don't think that they will ever make one. (Note that I say "will", not "going to", meaning that it's not set in stone. Anything is possible of course.)

[legoindy01]

TLG has basically made soldiers with indiana jones but instead called them just bad-guys. Now they've gone as far as calling a set "fighter plane attack" fighter planes are used for 1 thing and 1 thing only "to kill enemys in war" period. Now if lego didn't release that set then I would have different thoughts about a tank. But they did release that with the name of "fighter plane" plus they released the flying wing which could be considered a military vehicle. In fact people in ither forums that haven't seen indiana jones saw that set and thought it was a fighter plane itself. Now toy story is releasing army men lego. I bet they will call them army men too. And every one knows armys are used in war. So what makes a tank so different? it is a military vehicle like a fighter plane and it isn't even green which is a common military color. If Indy ends then so be it. It was a great theme, I've already had my rant that it may last a shorter time period than sponmgebob and I've complained that it's being replaced by ben 10. But who know? maybe ben 10 will be a good theme after all. I think POP should be good and the same goes to toy story which I think I'll start collecting next. If lego reads these forums then they'll know that people want a lego indy tank. in almost every indy wan't list there's a tank in it.

[Oky]

What about these? They have rifes, medics, steel pot helmets and a mine sweeper. Those are very WWII like.

First of all, the discussion is about military sets (meaning vehicles), not minifigs. Secondly, these are modeled after cartoon characters based on toy soldiers (not real soldiers). Just because you can mod them to be real soldiers, doesn't prove that TLC is making military Lego.

[salty tbone]

"My Lego Policy"?

Are you serious? Are you honestly claiming that I am making this all up?

I never said Lego didn't contradict themselves. I only said that is their policy. And it is carved in stone for them.

Do you recall the story of how Lego didn't want to make green bricks because they feared kids would make tanks out of them? That is what I am talking about.

What part about modern of modern warfare do you not get? Western sets are not modern. Star Wars isn't modern. Castle isn't modern. Agents isn't even modern.

Anything ranging from WWI to now is modern warfare.

-Omi

Sorry for suggesting it's "your policy." It's just that oftentimes people here who are not part of Lego often state policy as if they have a seat at the boardroom table. Now that I know you talk to Steve Witt and other Lego employees, I'll yield to you.

My only point was that anything is possible (see the Toy Story soldiers). Nobody was suggesting a military theme, just a tank from a current license. And a WWI tank at that.

And call me unrealistic, but there are plenty of veterans who would disagree with you that a WWII fighter plane is not a modern warfare vehicle.

Edited August 9, 2009 by salty tbone

[Omicron]

What about these? They have rifes, medics, steel pot helmets and a mine sweeper. Those are very WWII like. Just give them some different heads and hands and there are some soilders.Indy sets just have kepis.Humves have replaced tanks in a way.

What war did we fight when we were two inches tall and green all over? :P

Oky Wan pretty much stated what I think on it.

-Omi

[Oky]

What war did we fight when we were two inches tall and green all over? :P

And had stands glued to our feet?

So what makes a tank so different? it is a military vehicle like a fighter plane and it isn't even green which is a common military color.

Well, firstly, it's tan, which is the second most common military color, and secondly, it couldn't be used for anything else than war, while a fighter plane wouldn't look too out of place at a City airport, especially with the technic pins removed.

[salty tbone]

Well, firstly, it's tan, which is the second most common military color, and secondly, it couldn't be used for anything else than war, while a fighter plane wouldn't look too out of place at a City airport, especially with the technic pins removed.

I think you're onto something. All Lego needs to do is add some technic pins to the Jungle Cutter and you got yourself a tank AND not break the policy.

[JCC1004]

This is vey off topic now. It's about what themes are ending not about the Lego war discussion.By the way Indy represts the oposing side to the Nazis, not US soilders. If Indiana Jones wasn't on the Ambush in Cario box the thug would look like an insergen!

Well, firstly, it's tan, which is the second most common military color, and secondly, it couldn't be used for anything else than war, while a fighter plane wouldn't look too out of place at a City airport, especially with the technic pins removed.

I live around Blue Ash airport and they have retired WW planes only used for airshows. One year the acted it like a battle. City airports mosly have jets not propeller planes. So it would look out of place at a Airport but not a airfiled with propeller planes.

Edited August 9, 2009 by JCC1004

[Zzz]

What about talking about the rumor on Jedi News: there'll be no more Indy sets in 2010.

[JCC1004]

What about talking about the rumor on Jedi News: there'll be no more Indy sets in 2010.

Alot now seems to be about the Lego millatary speculation now.

[Tinn-man]

Flying Wing: This is a military vehicle, yes, but it's a fictional plane, so it's about as much a modern military vehicle as a Star Wars ship.

Ahem....

not fictional ( ).

When LEGO introduced the Indiana Jones theme two years ago, they said that there would be no sets made based on the temple of doom, because of the level of violence in the movie. Two years later, we have two sets from that same movie sitting on store shelves. LEGO goes against their own policies a lot.

Plus, if LEGO thought that a tank was too violent or military oriented to make into a set, then why would they have a custom model on display in one of their stores?

Oh, and for the "oversized gun," here's a link. Screen shot taken right from the movie. I don't think that Lucas and Speilberg make up their own vehicles for period-set movies.

LEGO doesn't have an actual military line, and they probably never will, but they do make military vehicles for sets if they are needed. You can't have Indiana Jones without nazis, trucks, planes, and tanks. That's just what the entire theme is about. If LEGO wanted to avoid making anything having to do with military vehicles, they wouldn't have even picked up the Indiana Jones license.

Those are the facts. I rest my case.

[Omicron]

Plus, if LEGO thought that a tank was too violent or military oriented to make into a set, then why would they have a custom model on display in one of their stores?

Because it isn't a set modelled, built, nor endorsed by the Lego company. That is a MOC and nothing more.

We are discussing sets, not MOCs.

not fictional ( default_blink.gif ).

Wow that looks nothing like the flying wing from the movies. Just look at the Wiki article for the flying wing, and it doesn't even mention the fact that it was used in the movies. Meaning the one in the movie was fictional.

You can't have Indiana Jones without nazis, trucks, planes, and tanks. That's just what the entire theme is about. If LEGO wanted to avoid making anything having to do with military vehicles, they wouldn't have even picked up the Indiana Jones license.

Lego doesn't make Nazis. They didn't make Nazis for the Indy theme either, and they will tell you that. Those are just "bad guys".

-Omi

Edited August 10, 2009 by Omicron

[dabulls03]

Because it isn't a set modelled, built, nor endorsed by the Lego company. That is a MOC and nothing more.

We are discussing sets, not MOCs.

-Omi

Well I'm pretty sure it is endorsed by the LEGO company because it is on display in one of their stores...

But anyway, this argument is completely arbitrary. Both sides have valid points, but no matter what either of you say neither of you will ever admit that you are wrong. So just DROP IT!