Discussion Should LEGO make a Military Theme?

[slybynight]

OK - To steer it back on topic - YES KIDS WOULD BLINKING LOVE IT!

[large88]

Hummer, One of the most iconic military vehicles of our time...

Fighter Jet, sure there are a few of these jets in commercial or private use but 99.9% is military and take part in every day conflicts round the world.

Chinook, same story as the Fighter Jet. Every kid knows this is Chinook helicopter.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally against the whole military theme idea. But these examples do make me wonder where Lego really draws the line...

Edited March 26, 2014 by large88

[Itaria No Shintaku]

Itaria, let's make a deal and stop this. We are just trying to outsmart each other and we both know even if one succeeds, the other won't accept it. Just bear in mind I don't judge you. Feel free to being offended by army MOCs, you may have a special relation or experience to this theme I don't. I find them to be perfectly normal. However, I think you still don't get what I mean, so I'm gonna quote Super Goblin because his point is perfect:

If they refuse to make just a basic army theme (although they surely know it would sell like hot cakes), then they should also stop producing lines based on conflict and dealing directly with it, i. e. stop putting soldiers and warfare gear in sets. Otherwise, they are hypocrites.

But their policy makes them hypocrites, they have and will continue to sprinkle in military builds and minifigs into their sets.

The fact is that kids and adults would love military sets. These sets wether based on a specific time period or just generic would sell better than any other range Lego has ever created.

This is your opinion, which is not mine. You state this as a fact, where is just your opinion.

I see all universes they put soldiers in are totally fictional.

I don't see any hypocrite attitude in that, you do, your opinion do count as much as mine.

Further more, both Ojik and Super Goblin, your thought really makes no sense to me.

TLG is a toy company whose aim is to make money.

But they don't want to make money with the surely top seller theme: military army. (Frankly, I doubt about these facticious selling boosts, but whatever)

But they don't want to produce military army for their policy.

But they don't respect their own policy because of something I fail to acknowledge, but you say do exist.

So, closing the circle, TLG renounces to make mountains of money just to stick to a policy they do not respect?

Well, either you two feel you are 100 times smarter than TLG, or maybe your logic is totally flawed.

Obviously it's the second point.

To me, your logic is flawed.

Because:

if this is the fabolous top selling theme of all times, then TLG renouncing to a lot of money is to me they're sticking to a moral policy very well. No hypocrisy.

On the other hand, if TLG is hypocrite and doesn't stick to his policy, then they do not produce this theme because it won't sell as good as you two think.

This is flawless logic.

Finding military/army/gun MOCs offending? Now I've heard it all, people are to sensitive.

My politeness prevents me from telling what I really think of unpolite sentences like the above.

My whole point is that Lego isn't standing up to some great moral policy. They have made sets with military vehicles and figures, very realistic military vehicles in the past. They look silly and look like hypocrites sticking to this non military except when we can get away with it without any backlash policy.

I would never give a lot of money buying products from a company which I define "silly" and "hypocrite".

This, because I would feel very silly and hypocrite.

Edited March 27, 2014 by Itaria No Shintaku

[Herky]

Itaria, I know you may not know this, but using the KKK letters, even though that is his initials, is actually pretty offensive to most Americans since here, that is a white racist/supremist group.

I think TLG gets away with some military sets due to the fact they don't have a military theme in itself. Planes, jeeps sure, doubt we will see tanks or gun replicas, maybe a motorcycle, but I doubt it. I do not think TLG has some great moral policy other than what makes money, they will operate as ethically as they can, but they will also produce sets that make money. Is this hypocritical, maybe, maybe not...just depends on your point of view.

Fact: Lego does make military sets

Fact: There is no military theme

Fact: There are no first world countries (and not many 2nd or 3rd for that matter) that does not have a military to protect themselves

That's it, accept it and move on, let's stop arguing, it is beneath our intelligence at this point since all opinions have been well stated from each side, respect that others disagree and move on.

I would love to see more planes myself, and like the hummer, would like to see a bigger scale in the military green

Edited March 27, 2014 by Herky

[lifeinplastic]

I don't really see the need for a Lego military theme. Having seen other people's MOCs it seems there are parts available for people to build decent tanks, helicopters, etc. I'm also not really sure kids would be that bothered about having a 'real world' military theme above any existing fictional conflict.

One suggestion I have previously made is to include a UN soldier in a CMF line as this would not have to represent a single nation's military and would portray a peacekeeping force rather than being seen as an aggressor. Underneath the traditional blue helmet and bib could be a khaki/army torso, which collectors could then use in their own military MOCs.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

Itaria, I know you may not know this, but using the KKK letters, even though that is his initials, is actually pretty offensive to most Americans since here, that is a white racist/supremist group.

It didn't even cross my mind that using three letters could offend someone.

So, since I am a respectful person, I do apologize and I will correct the post.

I do that, because I am respectful, I do not mock people calling them nitpicky or using funny sentences about what they feel or do not feel offensive.

This because I am a respectful person.

Fact: Lego does make military sets

Denied. I can accept Lego does CIVIL version of military sets, not military ones.

[rob-cubed]

My biggest complaint is the lack of minifigs (particularly torsos) on which to base modern soldiers. I can make my own vehicles/structures. Only a few sets (mostly licensed) have included minifigs with a military-esque uniform... and these have all gotten expensive due to high demand.

I understand that LEGO will never explicitly focus on military themes, especially modern ones. It's their decision, regardless of the demand for them. But as long as they allow the secondary market to fulfill this need, I can live with that. I expect we'll start to see more and more custom pad-printed figs on blank LEGO parts or Asian copies.

[Ojik]

This is your opinion, which is not mine. You state this as a fact, where is just your opinion.

I see all universes they put soldiers in are totally fictional.

I don't see any hypocrite attitude in that, you do, your opinion do count as much as mine.

Further more, both Ojik and Super Goblin, your thought really makes no sense to me.

TLG is a toy company whose aim is to make money.

But they don't want to make money with the surely top seller theme: military army. (Frankly, I doubt about these facticious selling boosts, but whatever)

But they don't want to produce military army for their policy.

But they don't respect their own policy because of something I fail to acknowledge, but you say do exist.

So, closing the circle, TLG renounces to make mountains of money just to stick to a policy they do not respect?

Well, either you two feel you are 100 times smarter than TLG, or maybe your logic is totally flawed.

Obviously it's the second point.

To me, your logic is flawed.

Because:

if this is the fabolous top selling theme of all times, then TLG renouncing to a lot of money is to me they're sticking to a moral policy very well. No hypocrisy.

On the other hand, if TLG is hypocrite and doesn't stick to his policy, then they do not produce this theme because it won't sell as good as you two think.

This is flawless logic.

My politeness prevents me from telling what I really think of unpolite sentences like the above.

I would never give a lot of money buying products from a company which I define "silly" and "hypocrite".

This, because I would feel very silly and hypocrite.

I made an offer to stop this pointless argument. I said I respected your opinion and tried to clarify mine once again. And what did you do? You said you didn't share my opinion. Was it something I said? Did I say: "I have this point of view and you will too, this is a command."? No. Yet you attacked mine opinion and said I claimed it as a fact. And then you attacked my logic. Now I feel offended.

I have had enough. I won't write another long post which you will later dismiss. I'm quite a busy person and I'd like to go to bed, so I'll just explain my so-called flawed logic quickly. Read carefully.

TLG is a toy company. Toys are for kids. Therefore, TLG carefully chooses what to produce. They set up some policies.

One of them is to not produce war and army related sets. No tanks, no soldiers, nothing.

However, they do have the conflict in their sets. And that's understandable. But it means fighting. And this often includes vehicles, figures and guns which strongly resemble war elements.

Conclusion: they are hypocrites. Yes to the sci-fi and fantasy war with realistic guns and vehicles, no to the realistic yet innocent army theme.

[Gremer]

If they won't do a 20th-21st century theme, could they do an 1800's Military Theme? They did (albeit, a small one) an American Civil War set in the Lone Ranger.

[rob-cubed]

I bought a couple cheap LR sets just for the blues myself! Now I need some grays... :-)

I think like other sets that have included military-style figs--like Indiana Jones and the Endor rebels from SW--they are prone to include them only if the set is licensed and they are appropriate to key scenes from the movie. Unfortunately I don't think our Civil War or even the Revolutionary war are considered kids' themes, even if the British Solider CMF did raise my hopes to see a Minuteman one day.

[AndyC]

What about Star Wars?

Make believe, sure... But that might actually do more harm in this regard than the context of historical events. I'm no childhood psychologist or anything, but I'm not pulling this out of my - ahem - either. Lt Col Dave Grossman questions the idea of Luke Skywalker - whom he describes as a sociopath! - as a role model in his book, On Killing. As much as I love SW, his analysis is tough to refute.

It's a tough call, but fundamentally the difference (at least to me) is that fictional depictions like Star Wars or Indy generally have a very moral core to their narrative. There is a very clear distinction between "good" and "bad" and through playing out the stories themselves you reinforce that morality in children.

Real warfare is entirely different. No matter what any government might like us to believe at the time, there is rarely a truly clear distinction between which side is morally in the right. And trying to simplify it to the level that children understand tends towards creating racial connotations that we should not encourage in children, i.e. Germans/Arabs/whomever are "the bad guys"

[Itaria No Shintaku]

Conclusion: they are hypocrites. Yes to the sci-fi and fantasy war with realistic guns and vehicles, no to the realistic yet innocent army theme.

I'm surprised you felt offended and I apologize for this, as I stated this was not in my intentions. By the way I think that if one's logic is flawed, that's flawed, wheter that people is offended by putting this on his face or not. We can live in Cloud Cuckoo Land where if you find someone's logic not working you don't point him that, but you where the first claiming that we are not living there.

I must tell you, and that's not an opinion of mine, that's a fact, that one cannot hide himself behind the wall of "well that's my opinion". 1+1 = 2. It's a fact, not an opinion.

What I was suggesting, while you were busy being offended by mere logic, and I apologize again, is that nobody would ever put a restriction on a theme that would make it earn a godzillion of dollars and break this restriction for other minor themes.

Choose one of the two:

-either TLG doesn't break their policy on other themes, and some people see facticious links between their policy and that theme

-or the army theme won't provide TLG a godzillion of dollars, but not even the small incomes they had from Lone Ranger (which was pointed out to be possibly breaking the policy)

-or both the above

I personally think both the above are valid.

However, I accept the invite to stop the argument at least between you and me.

We have totally different points of view, I really cannot reason in a decent way with someone putting innocent and army related together in the same sentence.

It offends me.

And since you are offending me purposely, while I did it not on purpose, I really find that cutting this here is the only working solution.

Edited March 28, 2014 by Itaria No Shintaku

[Ojik]

I'm surprised you felt offended and I apologize for this, as I stated this was not in my intentions. By the way I think that if one's logic is flawed, that's flawed, wheter that people is offended by putting this on his face or not. We can live in Cloud Cuckoo Land where if you find someone's logic not working you don't point him that, but you where the first claiming that we are not living there.

I must tell you, and that's not an opinion of mine, that's a fact, that one cannot hide himself behind the wall of "well that's my opinion". 1+1 = 2. It's a fact, not an opinion.

What I was suggesting, while you were busy being offended by mere logic, and I apologize again, is that nobody would ever put a restriction on a theme that would make it earn a godzillion of dollars and break this restriction for other minor themes.

Choose one of the two:

-either TLG doesn't break their policy on other themes, and some people see facticious links between their policy and that theme

-or the army theme won't provide TLG a godzillion of dollars, but not even the small incomes they had from Lone Ranger (which was pointed out to be possibly breaking the policy)

-or both the above

I personally think both the above are valid.

However, I accept the invite to stop the argument at least between you and me.

We have totally different points of view, I really cannot reason in a decent way with someone putting innocent and army related together in the same sentence.

It offends me.

And since you are offending me purposely, while I did it not on purpose, I really find that cutting this here is the only working solution.

I said we are not living there so you can't expect to see child friendly MOCs only. AFOLs won't build Duplo banana. Simple as that.

What is a fact? What am I "hiding behind the wall of opinion"? I don't understand you right now and I'm starting to feel like you are turning me into a war lobbyist or something.

I wasn't offended by "mere logic". I was offended by YOU saying something about something I hadn't said and dismissing my peace suggestion.

I am not getting the part with the two facts so I'm gonna pass it. You are slowly turning this into a first world problem.

However, I must react to the last paragraph.

1) Yes, military toys are innocent. Feel free to be offended, this is a fact, though.

2) I'm not aware of offending you purposely. Yes, last few post I might not reacted gently, but I have reacted adequately and similarly to you.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

1) Yes, military toys are innocent. Feel free to be offended, this is a fact, though.

Er... not. This is an opinion.

2) I'm not aware of offending you purposely. Yes, last few post I might not reacted gently, but I have reacted adequately and similarly to you.

But while I apologize for my behaviour you do not. And usually who doesn't apologize doesn't feel guilty.

[Ojik]

Er... not. This is an opinion.

But while I apologize for my behaviour you do not. And usually who doesn't apologize doesn't feel guilty.

How about starting a poll? Not only I wonder if other people feel the same, it would also point a direction to this now quite meaningless thread.

Yet I insist I'm right. Have you ever heard a case of someone doing something violent and being inspired and ifluenced by playing with a toy gun or soldier figures? It's the same as the never-ending argument whether videogames inspired people who have done something wrong, and if they lead now innocent youngsters into doing so in the future. I have always found this ridiculous and switching games for military toys is even more wicked.

You nailed it, I don't feel guilty. Why should I? For saying what I think?

[Rick]

Guys, you both have repeatedly said you wanted to drop the argument. You have a different opinion on this topic and you both seem to understand each other's opinion.

This argument ends right here. You're free to discuss this issue further through PM, but not in this thread. Thank you.

[SheepEater]

It seems it's the same story with Playmobil. I have done an extensive search and found no military theme toys (please prove me wrong if that's not the case!). Not too surprising since it's a German company.

Anyway, to keep it Lego related: I just found these gems on youtube:

Edited March 30, 2014 by SheepEater

[DPrime]

It's a tough call, but fundamentally the difference (at least to me) is that fictional depictions like Star Wars or Indy generally have a very moral core to their narrative. There is a very clear distinction between "good" and "bad" and through playing out the stories themselves you reinforce that morality in children.

Real warfare is entirely different. No matter what any government might like us to believe at the time, there is rarely a truly clear distinction between which side is morally in the right. And trying to simplify it to the level that children understand tends towards creating racial connotations that we should not encourage in children, i.e. Germans/Arabs/whomever are "the bad guys"

That's an interesting point, and I suspect you might have found the true crux of the matter...

WWII is probably the most obvious example of a real conflict where most audiences - including (and maybe especially) children can make a very clear distinction between which side is morally in the right. I'm not saying that was necessarily true - especially from the point of view of the average soldier fighting on either side - but certainly it's been done successfully in countless films, television programs, books, etc. But I'm looking at it from a distinctly North American viewpoint. Would Europeans see it the same way? Should Lego - a European company - make villains out of Germans and Italians? I don't think they would - or should - but then again, I'm not sure we can have a bunch of soldiers in Waffen SS uniforms be all happy-go-lucky, Classic Town/Space smiley minifig head guys either.

If WWII is hard to figure out, forget about any conflict since. :)

In the end, I still think they'd sell a whole lot of sets - especially in the US, which is almost certainly good enough to warrant a try. After all, it COULD be a North American exclusive. And I'd love to see how it would turn out, personally.

Do I think it will happen? Not really... But you never know. Things change. I seem to remember a time where Lego would "never" include guns, too... And of course, time has a way of "softening" our sensibilities to such things. Kid yourselves all you want, but those American Union soldiers and "Imperials" from the old Pirates lines, various collectible minifigures and any given Castle theme sets, ARE military sets. :)

Edited March 31, 2014 by DPrime

[Itaria No Shintaku]

That's an interesting point, and I suspect you might have found the true crux of the matter...

WWII is probably the most obvious example of a real conflict where most audiences - including (and maybe especially) children can make a very clear distinction between which side is morally in the right. I'm not saying that was necessarily true - especially from the point of view of the average soldier fighting on either side - but certainly it's been done successfully in countless films, television programs, books, etc. But I'm looking at it from a distinctly North American viewpoint. Would Europeans see it the same way? Should Lego - a European company - make villains out of Germans and Italians? I don't think they would - or should - but then again, I'm not sure we can have a bunch of soldiers in Waffen SS uniforms be all happy-go-lucky, Classic Town/Space smiley minifig head guys either.

If WWII is hard to figure out, forget about any conflict since. :)

In the end, I still think they'd sell a whole lot of sets - especially in the US, which is almost certainly good enough to warrant a try. After all, it COULD be a North American exclusive. And I'd love to see how it would turn out, personally.

Do I think it will happen? Not really... But you never know. Things change. I seem to remember a time where Lego would "never" include guns, too... And of course, time has a way of "softening" our sensibilities to such things. Kid yourselves all you want, but those American Union soldiers and "Imperials" from the old Pirates lines, various collectible minifigures and any given Castle theme sets, ARE military sets. :)

Another fact that wasn't stated is: no castle resembles real world castles, nor armies recall any real historic armies.

For the ones not knowing that, Europa was a theme that could have filled such gap, but was never released, see http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/Europa.

It would be pretty impossible for TLC to make generic no-factions armies and vehicles which wouldn't recall a specific army in a real conflict.

[Herky]

LOL, nice try Rick, it just won't stop

[Dr.Cogg]

Lego has made military based sets here's proof:

Edited March 31, 2014 by Dr.Cogg

[Herky]

Dr Cogg, the argument is that none of those is a specific military, while the bent of the thread is actual military...so would TLG ever make a B2 or a Uboat...sure they make items that are fictional military but not actual...hence all the arguing. Some would like actual military, some are very opposed, and folks keep going back and forth on it, Rick asked for that stuff to stop but it didn't.

I get both sides, but the point is really moot, TLG is not going to make actual military. Folks should just MOC their own if that is desired. One could argue either side ad infiniti depending on their point of view.

[DPrime]

LOL, nice try Rick, it just won't stop

Hold on there - we're not dropping the conversation altogether, are we? If he wanted that, he could have just closed the thread.

[ShaydDeGrai]

Hold on there - we're not dropping the conversation altogether, are we? If he wanted that, he could have just closed the thread.

I think the take away message is to know when to "agree to disagree" and move on with informed, respectful discourse rather than making things personal.

There are historical facts, and then there are stated opinions. Sharing both can be productive, so long as all parties recognize which is which, and the end goal is to help people refine their opinions, not to "prove" the other guy "wrong." Some people may be enlightened by such discussions; others may feel their opinions more justified or find themselves more connected to like minded individuals - even if, as a collective, they are in the minority. In a mature discourse, however, no one should walk away feeling like they've been disrespected or otherwise attacked.

(edited to compensate for the fact that I may speak like an adult, but I type like a 3-year-old…)

Edited March 31, 2014 by ShaydDeGrai

[DPrime]

I think the take away message is to know when to "agree to disagree" and move on with informed, respectful discourse rather than making things personal.

There are historical facts, and then there are stated opinions. Sharing both can be productive, so long as all parties recognize which is which, and the end goal is to help people refine their opinions, not to "prove" the other guy "wrong." Some people may be enlightened by such discussions; others may feel their opinions more justified or find themselves more connected to like minded individuals - even if, as a collective, they are in the minority. In a mature discourse, however, no one should walk away feeling like they've been disrespected or otherwise attacked.

(edited to compensate for the fact that I may speak like an adult, but I type like a 3-year-old…)

Agreed 100% :)