118 replies to this topic

[LRDark]

Greetings, all!

In both the Winchester thread and the Firefly thread, there have been discussions on what Lego will and will not produce. As this isn't much relevant to the actual model being represented on the Cuusoo site, I have decided to create my own thread regarding the issues.

Firstly, I bring us an important announcement from Lego on their Cuusoo page: Brand Standards.

In this announcement, they clearly state what they will not produce; they are as follows-

•     Politics and political symbols
  
•     Religious references including symbols, buildings, or people
  
•     Sex, drugs, or smoking
  
•     Alcohol in any present day situation
  
•     Swearing
  
•     Death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture
  
•     First-person shooter video games
  
•     Warfare or war vehicles in any situation post-WWII to present
  
•     Racism, bullying, or cruelty to real life animals

It has come up in the aforementioned threads that this seems to contradict Lego's current and past lines, such as, but not limited to, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Lord of the Rings.

Starting off our discussion I am replying to another forum member who shall be invited to join in.  

meyerc13, on 08 May 2012 - 10:17 PM, said:

So you want to debate, but you chose to ignore the large body of existing evidence as to which themes LEGO finds acceptable, choosing to focus only on the limited evidence we have thus far from Cuusoo?  That seems quite convenient.

As I've said previously to you, I didn't feel it was the place to discuss other themes. Here I feel we can do it freely without overtaking the discussion of the actual Firefly model.

Quote

  I don't suppose you work for LEGO or one of their PR firms, do you?  The timing of your joining this forum seems awfully coincidental, and you seem quite defensive of LEGO's decisions.

I do not work for Lego, and my joining had nothing to do with Cuusoo, nor discussing Lego's standards; it was purely happenstance. People are able to have opinions that are shared with those you don't agree with. I agree that Lego has made some mistakes in the past, but I firmly believe that this is far from a mistake or hipocrasy on their part.

Quote

Heck, it isn't even just licensed sets.  "Licensed Companions" on Firefly were presented as a sci-fi western version of a Geisha (well, technically an oiran, but few would know the difference).  Does that mean that subject should be taboo under these new rules?  Better pull that collectible minifig off the market.  And better make sure Ninjago doesn't go there.

They've never produced a Geisha. It was a "Kimono Girl." A kimono has nothing to do with sex, drugs, or rock & roll. Your interpretation doesn't match Lego's:

"Hello, everyone / I am the Kimono Girl / This is my haiku."
"The Kimono Girl has the deepest respect for tradition. She has studied hard to learn exactly the way her traditional kimono robe should be worn, how her traditional makeup must be applied, and even just the right angle for holding her traditional folding fan. The Kimono Girl’s most favorite tradition of all is haiku poetry. She writes haiku verses about everything that she sees and does during the day. She’s gotten so good at it that she can have entire conversations in lines of 5, 7 and 5 syllables!"

Quote

It's a double standard, and whether you feel it's okay for me to mention the proof of that or not, it's out there and it isn't hard to find.

There is no double standard, and I never said it wasn't okay for you to mention proof; I just suggest that a new topic be made for such discussions, as I didn't see it as appropriate in that particular thread.

Now, on to the Licensed, and Cuusoo sets!

Personally, I fully agree with Lego's stance 100%. I agree with the lines that have been made, and I agree with the two sets that have been rejected. To refresh some memories, here are the in-question current licenses and the rejects from Cuusoo:

The Lord of the Rings (PG-13)
Star Wars (PG/PG-13)
Indiana Jones (PG/PG-13)
Prince of Persia (PG-13)
Pirates of the Carribean (PG-13)

Shaun of the Dead ®
Firefly (PG-13)

There has been a plethora of messages questioning Lego's decision on why to license the first five franchises/films, and to deny the last two the same honor. There have been statements that Lego is outright lying that these two are too far away, maturity-wise, from their core audience of 6-11 year olds. There have also been ideas that there is nothing different between all seven franchises, maturity-wise. Let's take a look at what questionable material all of these bring in terms of what Lego doesn't wish to produce:

Lord of the Rings

• Severe violence- x3

Star Wars

• Mild violence- x5
  
• Severe violence- x1
  
• Profanity- Damn x2, Hell x1
  
• Smoking

Indiana Jones

• Brief sexual content
  
• Mild violence x3
  
• Severe violence x1
  
• Profanity-  S**t x 3, Ba***rd x3, Hell, Damn, B**ch x4,
  
• Smoking
  
• Religious Imagery

Prince of Persia

• Brief sexual content
  
• Violence

Pirates of the Caribbean

• Brief sexual content x3
  
• Sexual content x1
  
• Violence x3
  
• Profanity- Hell, Ba***rd, Damn x4, A** x1
  
• Smoking

As can be seen these all hold some degree of adult content in terms of violence, sex, language, and drugs. The severity of these circumstances is up to the individual viewer. Some would say that they aren't offensive for a variety of reasons; some would say that they are equal to or surpass the following:

Firefly

• Severe sexual content
  
• Mild sexual content
  
• Sever violence
  
• Mild violence
  
• Profanity- Hell, S**t
  
• Smoking

Shaun of the Dead

• Mild sexual content
  
• Severe violence
  
• Profanity- C**t x1, F*** x47, S**t x32, Prick x9, A** x2, N****r x5, Jesus x3, C***s***er x4, T**t x1, W**k x3, m*** x2, and ch**k x4
  
• Modern drinking
  
• Smoking

(Sources for this information include Wikipedia, IMDB, my own interpretations, and my own film collection)

With this, it is quite easy to tell why Yatkuu's Winchester project didn't make the cut; Lego doesn't want to be associated with that majestic amount of strong language. Who can blame them? While many of us won't mind talking that way around kids, Lego has a very different stance, I'm sure. Now, tbone_tbl's Firefly project, I can find it a little difficult to see it from Lego's point of view. I won't say that this is definitively their stance, I can provide some support for their decisions. In order to do this, however, we must venture into the realm of what the source material is, as a medium... Join me, shall you?

First, let's take a look at the already-produced questionables. What do these have in common with one another that make them such a great addition to the Lego world? First of all and most importantly, these all have a huge fanbase (with perhaps the exception of Prince of Persia); Who hasn't heard of Pirates of the Caribbean, Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, or Star Wars? These are classics in terms of cinematic and literary history. These are precious gems that people are familiar with. They are gems that teach us about worldly things. People have changed because of these works. They have inspired countless individuals. They gave us something that didn't exist. Within these realms lie truths that provide us with moral guidance, and they teach us aspects of humanity that perhaps we haven't considered. There lie within these works the messages of honesty, integrity, bravery, self-reliance, and self-sacrifice. They teach us that we all have the power to accomplish our goals if we apply ourselves. They can teach us so many things that remain unlisted. These are famous and classic works that provide famous and classic messages.

Now, as I've admitted, I haven't watched Firefly, nor have I watched Serenity; I haven't heard of them. Perhaps one day they may indeed be classics, but at this current point in time, it isn't. I would like to be enlightened, however, on what this series does provide. I would like examples of these lessons as well from the fans of the series.

The work's theme, and what the work can teach us plays a huge role, I imagine, regarding what Lego will and will not produce. It isn't necessarily how much swearing, smoking, violence, or sexuality that a film has because I feel that those can be overlooked if they are a way to tell the story instead of enhancing it. There are, undoubtedly, limits, however. Lego has made it very clear what it doesn't want to be associated with, and I don't think we can honestly hold that against them. The boxes may say 16+, but the actual content is always age appropriate of a child.

Now it's time to share your thoughts, should you so choose. What are your views regarding the ethics of these lines?  

Edited by LRDark, 09 May 2012 - 04:08 AM.

[TheWarden]

Well written and I am in the camp that agrees with LEGO and in turn you.

Firefly / Serenity (having seen all episodes of the show and the movie) really shouldn't be a LEGO product according to their core values. I can touch on a few aspects why similar to your method.

1. Violence - This license may be a PG13 but it's a pretty hard PG13. Off the cuff, it seems a lot more violent than than the other liscences, and it's more visceral. The others ones are violent, but they don't tend to actually show the act of violence in some cases. Like the Indiana Jones heart ripper guy, you see the leadup and the afterwards, but you don't see the action. Firefly / Serenity shows a lot more violence in the act as I remember.

2. Death - Generally LEGO licenses don't focus on licenses where main characters die, or at least, when they do, they are morally "redeemed" or have some point to it. Well... SPOILER ALERT... main characters die in Serenity. Other than a plot arc, there was no point to their death in terms of morality.

3. Sex - The biggest nail in the coffin. Firefly / Serenity has a main character that is a "licensed companion" in nicer terms. Okay, no, she is a prostitute. Most episodes has her looking for clients. One episode is almost entirely within a brothel. No good.

4. Profanity - Firefly / Serenity doesn't have profanity. Sorta. But the crew frequently curses in a dialect that sounds like Chinese. So, it still promotes frequent profanity.

I can debate your side quite a bit more, but that's enough for now.

Also, you forgot Pirates of the Caribbean promotes drinking! And features cannibals!

[LRDark]

TheWarden, on 09 May 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

Well written and I am in the camp that agrees with LEGO and in turn you.

Firefly / Serenity (having seen all episodes of the show and the movie) really shouldn't be a LEGO product according to their core values. I can touch on a few aspects why similar to your method.

1. Violence - This license may be a PG13 but it's a pretty hard PG13. Off the cuff, it seems a lot more violent than than the other liscences, and it's more visceral. The others ones are violent, but they don't tend to actually show the act of violence in some cases. Like the Indiana Jones heart ripper guy, you see the leadup and the afterwards, but you don't see the action. Firefly / Serenity shows a lot more violence in the act as I remember.

2. Death - Generally LEGO licenses don't focus on licenses where main characters die, or at least, when they do, they are morally "redeemed" or have some point to it. Well... SPOILER ALERT... main characters die in Serenity. Other than a plot arc, there was no point to their death in terms of morality.

3. Sex - The biggest nail in the coffin. Firefly / Serenity has a main character that is a "licensed companion" in nicer terms. Okay, no, she is a prostitute. Most episodes has her looking for clients. One episode is almost entirely within a brothel. No good.

4. Profanity - Firefly / Serenity doesn't have profanity. Sorta. But the crew frequently curses in a dialect that sounds like Chinese. So, it still promotes frequent profanity.

I can debate your side quite a bit more, but that's enough for now.

Also, you forgot Pirates of the Caribbean promotes drinking! And features cannibals!

Thank you for the post and the information regarding Firefly/Serenity!

Also, I didn't list the drinking outside of Shaun of the Dead due to none of them actually going against Lego's preference of "Alcohol in a present day situation," as Lord of the Rings is more medieval, Pirates is more, well, piratey, and Firefly is futuristic.  

[Sam892]

I think the reason that the Firefly project was turned down was because the franchise appears to be dead. The TV show was cancelled and I believe the film was a flop. Due to this theres not a fastly expanding fanbase which you have with other themes like Star Wars. Even though many could say the same about Back To The Future, the franchise is still expanding at a steady rate. All three films are repeated a lot on TV and the franchise still makes products like for example the episodic game released last year and Blu-ray box-set (which I think was also last year). Plus the 30th anniversary approaching. These Factors would create buzz for merchandise and I reguard BTTF as a family film. Its a film that is like Star Wars, Indiana Jones and Lord of the Rings in that parents show there kids them and they enjoy them together. I remember watching all of those franchises with my Dad even though many of those older films were before my time. Even though most CUUSSO models are aimed at AFOL's its important with CUUSSO that they do appeal to families. It should be cool enough to appeal to the parent but at the same time draw in the child to play. This has always been a core value of LEGO that familys should bond though LEGO and I think its important that this is continued. It's a shame that the Firefly project won't be made and I feel sorry for the fans of the franchise. However i don't see how Firefly can fit into that value.

[JackJonespaw]

Good points! I agree with everything you've said. Lego does have violent sets, but not too violent, and never from an R-rated movie!

[Faefrost]

Well written. I think we all basically understand where Lego is comming from with the adult oriented content concerns. It sort of brings to mind that old US Supreme Court statement regarding obscenity. "we're not quite sure where the boundries are but we all know it when we see it."

I think the one area everyone seems to be the most argumentative about is the boundaries regarding violence. It isn't so much simply the presence of violence as it is also the context. Bugs Bunny Cartoons and "Ghost in the Shell" both have a high degree of arguably violent acts in them. But I think we would all agree that there is a stark difference between the two. Lego is applying a similar measure to their licensed properties. Star Wars, PotC, PoP, Harry Potter etc fall mainly on the Bugs Bunny side of the equation, excepting very specific story driven events. Sean of the Dead and Firefly, as much as we love them, do fall more on the Ghost in the Shell side of the equation.  The violence carries a terrorizing component to it as opposed to simply an action component. The players drip with blood and pain etc. We may not completely agree with all of TLG's decisions in this regard, but at least we can see where they are coming from.

One of the other interesting components of that context is "time frame". In this Lego is not alone, but it is always a little strange to see. Historical violence is ok. Future spaceman violence is ok so long as non humans are involved. Modern person vs person violence is not. (note no guns for Lego police). The only semi Lego lines that feature weaponry and as such violence are those where the antagonists are very cartoony or non human. Classic Monsters (Monster Hunters), Robots, Mind controlled skeletons, or weird cyborg cartoon type supervillains (Agents). (Once again the rules seem vague and confusing when you try and write them down, but at heart we all do sorta understand what they are).

Perhaps the most disappointing item on their nogo list is how hard the Religious one is. While I agree that Lego should not be making famous scenes from the Old Testament, or the Koran or whatever. I am fine with that. Arguments over matters of faith are not something we need to be carrying out over ABS plastic bricks. But I am truly hoping that this does not apply to the Architecture. Some of the most spectacular buildings in the world are Cathedrals, Temples, Mosques, Shrines etc. I would hate to never see any of them as subjects for some of the more spectacular AFOL oriented sets.

No alchohol? In present day situations? So there is still some hope for my suggested UCS Jabba's Sail Barge R2D2 that comes complete with a built in bottle of Single Malt and a spigot?

[LRDark]

Faefrost, on 09 May 2012 - 03:33 AM, said:

"we're not quite sure where the boundries are but we all know it when we see it."

I think that phrase sums it up beautifully. As you said, we all now about where the line falls.  

Quote

I think the one area everyone seems to be the most argumentative about is the boundaries regarding violence. It isn't so much simply the presence of violence as it is also the context. Bugs Bunny Cartoons and "Ghost in the Shell" both have a high degree of arguably violent acts in them. But I think we would all agree that there is a stark difference between the two. Lego is applying a similar measure to their licensed properties. Star Wars, PotC, PoP, Harry Potter etc fall mainly on the Bugs Bunny side of the equation, excepting very specific story driven events. Sean of the Dead and Firefly, as much as we love them, do fall more on the Ghost in the Shell side of the equation.  The violence carries a terrorizing component to it as opposed to simply an action component. The players drip with blood and pain etc. We may not completely agree with all of TLG's decisions in this regard, but at least we can see where they are coming from.

Indeed. Violence serves a number of purposes; I, for one, see a huge difference between, for instance, Lord of the Rings and Shaun of the dead. One is Good vs. Evil, and the other is Good vs. Neutral. Shaun, Ed, and Liz aren't fighting to end tyranny, or to stop an evil power; they're not standing up to anything, they're just trying to survive.

Quote

Perhaps the most disappointing item on their nogo list is how hard the Religious one is. While I agree that Lego should not be making famous scenes from the Old Testament, or the Koran or whatever. I am fine with that. Arguments over matters of faith are not something we need to be carrying out over ABS plastic bricks. But I am truly hoping that this does not apply to the Architecture. Some of the most spectacular buildings in the world are Cathedrals, Temples, Mosques, Shrines etc. I would hate to never see any of them as subjects for some of the more spectacular AFOL oriented sets.

Whoops, that reminds me, I forgot to add the religious artifacts onto my list under Indiana Jones I  also agree that modern religions should be kept to a minimum to not show a stance for or against a particular belief. I think little additions such as the all-important Ark of the Covenant in 7621 are delightful if done tastefully. It was a story-driven mechanic that purely dealt with history; it was treated as an artifact. Also, while I don't know about structures for today's established religions, the Viking line had elements that were found in the Eddas. The Midgard Serpent, Jormungand, was Loki's son, and that is an old-religion element used, just as several other features. Perhaps something in the same style would be acceptable, as long as it isn't "pushing" anything onto the customers. I don't know what, but that's why I'm no designer.

Quote

No alchohol? In present day situations? So there is still some hope for my suggested UCS Jabba's Sail Barge R2D2 that comes complete with a built in bottle of Single Malt and a spigot?

There's always hope!

[meyerc13]

So violence is okay as long as they don't show blood?  I've seen SotD, Firefly, Serenity, Star Wars, Batman.  There were no specific scenes in SotD or Firefly/Serenity that were so shocking that they were burned into my mind.

I can tell you that the scene in Batman The Dark Knight with the joker and the pencil was so horrible that I can still picture it vividly in my mind.  I was shocked when I left the theater that night that the movie was only rated PG-13.  Likewise the scene in Indiana Jones Temple of Doom, nobody can forget the scene with the heart... that one bothered me so much I've never watched the movie again.  So the fact that they don't show the act itself doesn't take away the horror of the act.  I have no problem watching Saving Private Ryan or other hyper-realistic war movies, because war is horrible, and it should be portrayed as such.  Likewise, when I watch an R-rated horror movie like Saw, I can accept violence and gore because I expect it walking into the theater.  With Indiana Jones and Batman the violence was discordant.

Again, I get why LEGO wouldn't want to make these sets.  I get it.  I can accept their decision.  What I can't get over is the fact that they say one thing and do another.

I think you hit on the truth in your first post, LEGO makes the themes it does because they have huge fan bases.  I don't think it's because they are life changing or any of that.  They're popular properties and they make LEGO a lot of money.  That's where the line is truly drawn based on LEGO's past decisions.

The irony here is that I love Batman and Lord of the Rings and I love that LEGO is making them, but it does put me into a difficult place as a parent.  PG-13 movies, by their very definition, aren't aimed at the core market they've defined of 6-13 (well, they are aimed at 1/8 of that market).  Even worse than making Batman or Avengers sets, they make sets based directly on the PG-13 movies.  That's the problem I have.  That's a problem that isn't unique to LEGO, other toy manufacturers do the exact same thing.

I'm sure I'll get over this eventually, and maybe I'll even come back around and enjoy Cuusoo at some point, but I do feel that LEGO is being less than honest with us about their core values.  If they had just said, "these are the rules for Cuusoo" I would have been fine with it.  Trying to say that these are brand standards, that just doesn't fit based on what we know they've produced.

[mrklaw]

So, it's ok to license POPULAR pg-13 material that breaks lego's guidelines, as long as lots of people have seen it and it'll make lots of money? The very definition of double standards I think.

Seems like the guidelines are a handy list of excuses. I'm not opposed to that list, many companies have similar ones, I'm more frustrated by the inconsistent application of those guidelines by Lego

And why would it matter if the license is dead? It's cuusoo, a project designed to get niche models made for smaller audiences, not to seek out the next huge Lego product range to sell millions.

Edit:

Quote

They've never produced a Geisha. It was a "Kimono Girl." A kimono has nothing to do with sex, drugs, or rock & roll. Your interpretation doesn't match Lego's:

Come on. It's clearly a Geisha. Everybody knows its a geisha. So Lego can get around things by simply renaming them? In that case a companion' should be fine ;)

Edited by mrklaw, 09 May 2012 - 08:12 AM.

[J.V.D.]

... well, at least TLG is now a bit more clear on explaining which kind of stuff stands a chance on CUUSOO and which not.

Of course, being it their product they can do whatever they want, nevertheless I cant help it but have to chuckle and frown at some of the guidelines, while others seem to be written specificaly to justify refusal of some CUUSOO project and being able to counter the "but TLG already did that" comments at the same time.

"alcohol in present day situation" ??? I think in the past alcohol had the same chemical components and exactly the same effect on people.. I can understand why TLG tries to ban alcohol, but this exeption to the rule seems to be clearly written to justify what they did for e.g. PotC ... money over morals???

* "war etc in any post WWII situation''?? Why? Was the bloodshed in WWI and WWII only fictional then? As far as I know those 2 conflicts were the bloodiest ones in the history of mankind. Living in Flanders, Belgium, we have here enough sites to reminds us of that. Again, the no war or death rules are very understandable, but the exeptions seem to be written "a la mesure du client" ..

And let us keep silent about the times TLG themselves violated even the exeptions to their moral rules..

* "religiuous building etc.." shouldnt that be contemporary religious , TLG? Or.. what else with all the ancient temples etc..?

* "cruelty to real life animal.." some vegetarians might have arguments about a fried turkey, drumsticks or a butcher cleaving some meat...

* "politics.." Mmm, is it just me, or are there more people that e.g. consider the white house not just a monument, but the symbol of political power in the US?

* "swearing" This is definitely the best one.. I have several dozens of minifigures in my collection, but up till now I never did hear any of them make a sound or speak.. let alone swearing.. Or is TLG maybe planning to produce figs with a speachchip included? No, this realy seems to be the wild card in their rules. If they dont like a CUUSOO entry, and can find somewhere a foul word related to it, this gives them a valid reason to refuse it..

Personaly I would love to see a less strict approach from TLG's side when it comes to products orientated to a more mature/adult public. And due to the CUUSOO age restrictions and selling channels, I thought this was the public Lego was aiming at. But again, being it their product, TLG has every right to do with the CUUSOO entries what they want.

But what annoys me a bit, and is starting to turn me away from the whole CUUSOO project is the .. ermm patronising tone they use to explain why something is rejected. Their arguments being contradicted by their own actions. Why dont they just explain it with B.C.'s words "its the economy stupid! , we dont see us able to sell enough of it". CUUSOO participants are supposed to be adults, mature enough to handle that cruel truth..

Well, lets hope that at least TLG isnt using CUUSOO only as a "lets see which MOC we can turn into a set" list, but also as a market research tool. Identifying what (kind of) themes are wanted by, a part of, the public.

Maybe a final thought: why aren't the guidelines applied to just the proposed set, instead of to the universe the source material comes from? Which makes a lot more sense. If the proposed set is neutral and polished enough, why refuse it because in another part of the franchise some improper language is used?
Like some use the argument that in e.g. Star Wars you dont see the actual slaughtering, its just insinuated so its ok.
But in e.g. the Serenity proposal, I just see a spaceship. I dont see bloodshed, I dont see a so called prostitute. Just a brickbuild spaceship. The Winchester looked like a modular building; ok, a british pub which is almost a cultural institution over there, with some zombies in front of it.. I didnt see humans being torn apart.. (in the new official zombie set, zombies are run over by a truck though..)
Maybe by the reference to the movie it is insinuated that all of that "ïmproper material" is there... but I dont actually see it.. So explain me again what is the difference with SW RotS, or the human sacrifices in IJ ToD???

Edited by J.V.D., 09 May 2012 - 09:28 AM.

[Scubacarrot]

• Politics and political symbols

Fair enough. Let's forgive Indiana Jones for having the Propaganda issues, and then move on.

• Religious references including symbols, buildings, or people

Fair enough.

• Sex, drugs, or smoking

Fair enough, don't see why "Sex" is in the same row as drugs and smoking, but okay.

• Alcohol in any present day situation

Because in the past, alcoholism was not a problem.

• Swearing

Fair enough.

• Death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture

Because Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Indiana Jones, Star Wars did not have any of these things.

• First-person shooter video games

Third-person shooter video games are okay, apparantly.

• Warfare or war vehicles in any situation post-WWII to present

Indiana Jones was not real, it was an illusion.

• Racism, bullying, or cruelty to real life animals

Fair enough, but why is cruelty to real life animals in the same row as the other two, and is cruelty to Unicorns okay?

Edited by Scubacarrot, 09 May 2012 - 09:02 AM.

[CopMike]

Great discussion everybody, I'm really enjoying reading all your arguments ! I'll stay back myself but I will say it's a pity when good sets don't make it.

J.V.D., on 09 May 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

Well, lets hope that at least TLG isnt using CUUSOO only as a "lets see which MOC we can turn into a set" list, but also as a market research tool. Identifying what (kind of) themes are wanted by, a part of, the public.

Trust me, TLG gets lots & lots of market research information from CUUSOO!

[mrklaw]

meyerc13, on 09 May 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

I think you hit on the truth in your first post, LEGO makes the themes it does because they have huge fan bases.  I don't think it's because they are life changing or any of that.  They're popular properties and they make LEGO a lot of money.  That's where the line is truly drawn based on LEGO's past decisions.

The irony here is that I love Batman and Lord of the Rings and I love that LEGO is making them, but it does put me into a difficult place as a parent.  PG-13 movies, by their very definition, aren't aimed at the core market they've defined of 6-13 (well, they are aimed at 1/8 of that market).  Even worse than making Batman or Avengers sets, they make sets based directly on the PG-13 movies.  That's the problem I have.  That's a problem that isn't unique to LEGO, other toy manufacturers do the exact same thing.
.

This is perhaps a broadening of the topic, but this infuriates me. Like you say, not unique to Lego, many other toy companies do it - produce toys based on PG-13 material that is clearly aimed at a younger audience than is advised to watch the movie.

This puts pressure on parents who perhaps buy those toys, to then take their kids to see the movie. Hey, there was a toy so it's probably an 'ok' pg-13 right? It's all part of the pressure movie studios can put on parents. I would prefer that toys can only be marketed to an age appropriate for the subject. If you have a pg-13 movie, you should not be selling your toys to 7 year olds.


Back to Lego. I think they really need to consider where they are it he market. They cannot continue to court AFOLs with expensive exclusive sets while continuing to insist they are a '6-11' company. lots of their core sets have building guidelines older than that. So is it just the themes? Why restrict your product in such a way?

[Clone O'Patra]

While I understand and even agree with people's notion of a 'double standard,' I think at the same time it makes good rational sense.

Let me just look at Lord of the Rings (because it is the most bloody, gory, disturbing source material LEGO has done yet).  Since LEGO is making this into an entire line, they get to generate plenty of promotional material that allows them to spin the source material just as they please.  A quick glance at the character bios on the teaser site shows that LEGO is doing all they can to turn this source material which is actually quite dark into something up-beat and fun.  When I watch those films, Frodo doesn't seem like a happy dude on a fun quest to me; he's rather melancholy and usually tends to complain (which makes him one of the most annoying characters to watch).  The same goes for almost every character.  I'll argue with you about some other themes, but when it comes to LotR, it doesn't fit this list of LEGO's pertaining to what's kosher in their brand.

However, as I said, they get to spin it with LotR in a way that they can't with CUUSOO.  The truth is, the kids won't know that Firefly is violent and contains sex any more than they will realize how dark all the characters in LotR are, but with Firefly LEGO doesn't get to spin it, which is a problem for them.  If they don't have the opportunity to magically wave their hands and say it fits with the brand, they can't make it.

Still, the one thing that Firefly and Shaun have against them that LEGO didn't mention is their target audience.  These are things made for grownups, or at least late teens.  LEGO's licenses are not.  LotR might skew the oldest, but even then, 10-year-olds can certainly watch and enjoy it, and parents should feel fine letting them do so.  That's why, while I agree that there does seem to be a bit of a 'double standard' when it comes to some things, I'm inclined to think that the likes of the rejected projects are in a different category because the IP is targeted at an audience outside of LEGO's age range.

[Yatkuu]

mrklaw, on 09 May 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Come on. It's clearly a Geisha. Everybody knows its a geisha. So Lego can get around things by simply renaming them? In that case a companion' should be fine ;)

I must agree with this one.. it’s a Geisha. And if you need convincing of what the general opinion is try a Google search on "Lego Geisha", you’ll get as many results if not more than on “Kimono Girl”.

I’m sorry but these discussions are not going to get us anywhere, in the end it’s their call, their “grey” rules.
Here is another example to illustrate what I mean with “grey” rules – an extract of the Zombie Minifig Bio:

Quote

“Briiiiiiiiiicks…”
Slow in speed and even slower of mind, the lumbering Zombie may look a little scary, but he’s completely harmless in every way. …..

Come-on! I don’t claim to hold a Phd in Zombiology… but I know what Zombies are - reanimated corpses that hunt the living. And everyone knows that “Briiiicks” is just a joke with “Braiiiins”!

Some might call this hypocrisy – I don’t - it’s the “LEGO veil”.
This concept isn’t from me by the way, it’s a supporter of the Winchester project who used it once in the discussions that took place on the Winchester’s CUUSOO page.

The “LEGO veil” is the capacity TLG has to tackle topics that are not appropriate by nature with their so called core audience by adding either a humorous twist or by softening the angles. And they can do this because in the end it’s still only plastic! To this day I have not heard a MF swear or seen one get drunk or even kill another!

I’m sure they could have used their “veil” with the Winchester if they had really wanted to – just like they could have pursued the serenity project – they chose not to go there, fine! Their call, their rules…. Or to quote what they just said:

Quote

The determination of how a project fits these above standards will be at our discretion.

We can use all the PG rating arguments we want… it is not going to change the fact that whether or not they will choose to use their marketing arsenal to put a “LEGO veil” on sensitive topics is their call – period.

[Ash]

These are not "moral rules" or laws or anything. These a Cuusoo "house rules", some rough guidelines for what Lego to help explain to people what Cuusoo products they will or will not consider making. They're not finalised and more importantly they are not The Lego Group's official internal policy guidelines. I even think "moral issues" is a bit of a stretch. The fact that they choose not to make sets featuring certain themes is not nescessarily a moral or ethical choice. It's just simply areas that they as a toy company have decided to avoid. Doing so does not imply any kind of moral judgement. Just a decision.

Is it a double standard to have enforce these sort of guidelines with regards to their internal development and Cuusoo development? Yep. It's a double standard. Two different things have different standards. There is absolutely no requirement whatsoever for TLG to apply the same standards to both these things. It makes a lot of sense for TLG to err on the side of strictness when enforcing this stuff on Cuusoo and it is completely acceptable for them to do so. Again... these are not laws.

I thought Clone O'Patra raised an interesting point that I hadn't heard before. With their own products they have a lot more control over the message through marketing and the like and, as with many non-licensed lines, they tend to create their own narrative. Star Wars is obviously the best example of this. The fact they ave the opportunity to do this may be one reason they might not enforce these guidelines so strictly on some themes. Money is almost certainly another.

Yatkuu just made a good post about the same thing. Calling it "the LEGO veil", a good term for it. And....

Yatkuu, on 09 May 2012 - 09:29 AM, said:

it is not going to change the fact that whether or not they will choose to use their marketing arsenal to put a “LEGO veil” on sensitive topics is their call – period.

Exactly.

meyerc13, on 09 May 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

There were no specific scenes in SotD or Firefly/Serenity that were so shocking that they were burned into my mind.

I can tell you that the scene in Batman The Dark Knight with the joker and the pencil was so horrible that I can still picture it vividly in my mind.  I was shocked when I left the theater that night that the movie was only rated PG-13.

I've seen someone else suggest this before. The only thing I can think is that you either watched an edited for TV version of Shaun of the Dead, stopped half way through or, and I think this is true for me, the gore is mitigated by the comedy. It has graphic violence way, way above and beyond The Dark Knight. However, you need to keep in mind with Batman Lego are drawing from a lot of sources and Lego's Joker is clearly not the Dark Knight's Joker. He's much more cartoony. Again the "Lego veil" thing in full force.

Edited by Ash, 09 May 2012 - 10:09 AM.

[Blondie-Wan]

J.V.D., on 09 May 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

... well, at least TLG is now a bit more clear on explaining which kind of stuff stands a chance on CUUSOO and which not.

Of course, being it their product they can do whatever they want, nevertheless I cant help it but have to chuckle and frown at some of the guidelines, while others seem to be written specificaly to justify refusal of some CUUSOO project and being able to counter the "but TLG already did that" comments at the same time.

"alcohol in present day situation" ??? I think in the past alcohol had the same chemical components and exactly the same effect on people.. I can understand why TLG tries to ban alcohol, but this exeption to the rule seems to be clearly written to justify what they did for e.g. PotC ... money over morals???

Hardly. The distinction between a depiction of alcohol consumption in a realistic, contemporary setting that accurately reflects something kids might very well see in their day-to-day lives, and a depiction of alcohol consumption in a historical and/or fantastical setting with no connection to anything real-world kids today have much chance of encountering may not seem significant to you, but it makes all the difference. It's not as arbitrary as you're suggesting.

J.V.D., on 09 May 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

* "war etc in any post WWII situation''?? Why? Was the bloodshed in WWI and WWII only fictional then? As far as I know those 2 conflicts were the bloodiest ones in the history of mankind. Living in Flanders, Belgium, we have here enough sites to reminds us of that. Again, the no war or death rules are very understandable, but the exeptions seem to be written "a la mesure du client" ..

Perhaps, but how many kids do you know in TLG's target audience who witnessed the horrors of WWI & WWII first-hand? Violence is violence, yes, but a historical context gives it an element of insulating remove that becomes more significant the longer ago the violence took place.

J.V.D., on 09 May 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

And let us keep silent about the times TLG themselves violated even the exeptions to their moral rules..

"Moral rules" may be the wrong term; it's more about TLG deciding for themselves what they do and do not want to depict in their sets because of the effect it can have on their brand, as well as what they themselves feel is appropriate for children in their target demographic. It's not exactly about morality.

J.V.D., on 09 May 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

* "religiuous building etc.." shouldnt that be contemporary religious , TLG? Or.. what else with all the ancient temples etc..?

The temples of various sorts they've depicted in various themes cannot reasonably be interpreted as any sort of endorsement of any one real-life religion over another, or as a criticism thereof; none of their customers are going to feel personally alienated by NinjaGo shrines or the like. Official LEGO City sets of churches, synagogues or mosques would likely have that result, however. Or LEGO-loving adherents of other faiths might feel slighted if TLG produced some such sets but not ones recognizing their own faiths. Or some combination thereof.

(Besides, just how many five-year-olds are excited about building churches? I'm sure there must be a few, but surely they're in the minority. Putting aside "controversial" considerations, places of worship just aren't the most exciting places in a city to most kids. For purely commercial reasons, a church likely wouldn't work as a mass-market set, unless the church were either being robbed or on fire.)

J.V.D., on 09 May 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

* "cruelty to real life animal.." some vegetarians might have arguments about a fried turkey, drumsticks or a butcher cleaving some meat...

Sure they might, but (with all due respect to any vegetarians / vegans here) such arguments are simply not a consideration for the overwhelming majority of people (at least where LEGO's products are sold). In a world where slices of lunchmeat are routinely shown on TV commercials and everywhere else, in which probably the overwhelming majority of TLG's customers and their parents do themselves consume meat, it's simply not much of an issue.

Moreover, "cruelty to real life animals" clearly refers to a lot more than simply consuming animals as food. Even for farm animals like cattle and pigs that are used for food, there are rules and laws specifying how the animals may be treated while they're alive. It may seem strange to you to consider what kind of humane treatment is accorded animals bred for human consumption, but it's still very much a real consideration.

J.V.D., on 09 May 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

* "politics.." Mmm, is it just me, or are there more people that e.g. consider the white house not just a monument, but the symbol of political power in the US?

It is, but it's a place of governmental power, not permanently associated with any one particular political party. The White House as an institution and a permanent construct doesn't represent liberal or conservative ideals, it doesn't represent the Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or any other party; it's just where the President lives and works, regardless of whatever party or creed or ideology a particular president may stand for. Simply making a set of the building doesn't carry any suggestion whatsoever that TLG is presenting a particular stance on a given political issue.

J.V.D., on 09 May 2012 - 08:30 AM, said:

* "swearing" This is definitely the best one.. I have several dozens of minifigures in my collection, but up till now I never did hear any of them make a sound or speak.. let alone swearing.. Or is TLG maybe planning to produce figs with a speachchip included? No, this realy seems to be the wild card in their rules. If they dont like a CUUSOO entry, and can find somewhere a foul word related to it, this gives them a valid reason to refuse it..

This one is included probably more for comprehensiveness than because it's actually likely to come up, but even if it would likely never apply to construction sets anyway, it could theoretically apply to product packaging / descriptions, or to things like comics and videogames.

(I need to get to work, so I'll respond to the rest of your post later.   )

[J.V.D.]

Blondie-Wan, on 09 May 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Hardly. The distinction between a depiction of alcohol consumption in a realistic, contemporary setting that accurately reflects something kids might very well see in their day-to-day lives, and a depiction of alcohol consumption in a historical and/or fantastical setting with no connection to anything real-world kids today have much chance of encountering may not seem significant to you, but it makes all the difference. It's not as arbitrary as you're suggesting.

... honestly, what would encourage a child most to take a sip from a forbidden bottle?
Seeing a cheerfull pirate do it, and see him acting funny afterwards?
Or... seeing drinking in an actual contemporary setting, see a drunk person bringing violence and misery to other persons?
You are right it is not that arbitrary, but if TLG realy wants to defend some values here (which kind of is suggested) and play the educational toy role... they are betting on and disqualifying the wrong horses..

Blondie-Wan, on 09 May 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

It is, but it's a place of governmental power, not permanently associated with any one particular political party. The White House as an institution and a permanent construct doesn't represent liberal or conservative ideals, it doesn't represent the Democrats or Republicans or Libertarians or any other party; it's just where the President lives and works, regardless of whatever party or creed or ideology a particular president may stand for.

Mmm, true, but even then: not every where in the world the US foreign policies are exactly supported or cheered at. Regardless of the political party the president comes from. So for those people the white house has the same kind of symbolic value, and might offend, as e.g. Romes St Peters basilic for non christians..
The same argument you use to disapprove modern day religious buildings..

Blondie-Wan, on 09 May 2012 - 10:49 AM, said:

Simply making a set of the building doesn't carry any suggestion whatsoever that TLG is presenting a particular stance on a given political issue.

What if we, just to see where that would lead the discussion, omit the words political 'issue" from that last sentence and replace them by e.g. "movie"?
Is by just making a set of a ship or a building, Lego making a stance, or even supporting, the violence, faul language, whatever... visible somewhere in that movie but not in the actual set????

Again, TLG can do what they want. CUUSOO is their baby. But maybe they better just stick to a Yes or No. The whole argumenting, guidelines etc are just backfiring. Their core business market may be 6-11 year olds, but the public they reach with CUUSOO are supposed to be teenagers and adults. Many of them see the contradictions in their motifs for refusal of some entries. The danger is that they might get fed up with CUUSOO and the whole project dies prematurely. Which would be a shame. CUUSOO has a lot of potential..

Edited by J.V.D., 09 May 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[Ash]

J.V.D., on 09 May 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

Again, TLG can do what they want. CUUSOO is their baby. But maybe they better just stick to a Yes or No. The whole argumenting, guidelines etc are just backfiring.

How is it backfiring?

The fact that some people disagree with them doesn't mean they're backfiring. Some people would disagree with Yes/No answers as well (possibly more, youd see exatly the same amount of speculation and arguing about semantics I'm sure). Some people will disagree with whatever they do. It's the nature of the internet. They're being open and honest about this stuff and are obviously still adapting the Cuusoo experiement as they go along (as they should be). I would have thought most of the people who are invested in Cuusoo apreciate the time taken to feedback and explain their decisions. I know I prefer it and the fact that we get some insight into the decision making process is actually one of my favourite aspects of the whole thing.

Edited by Ash, 09 May 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[Aanchir]

I definitely think that yes, there is a bit of a double-standard, but it's not TLG's. TLG is simply analyzing "acceptable/unacceptable" as they expect it to be perceived by their customers. They have a few strict rules of their own that don't involve their customers' POV, but for the most part the customers' perspective is what matters.

So it's understandable that things considered "classics", franchises that the parents of their target audience grew up with, might get a free pass where newer franchises those parents might never have heard of will be treated with more even-handed scrutiny. The newer and less familiar something is, the more likely parents are to feel offended and/or threatened by it. It's the difference between looking back at something with rose-colored glasses and reading its Wikipedia article looking specifically for objectionable content.

It should also be considered that even with their in-house licenses TLG likes to play it safe. They didn't do any sets for the sixth Harry Potter film when that was first released. They also didn't do any sets for Temple of Doom when the Indiana Jones theme was first released. They first "tested the waters" with less objectionable installments before taking larger risks with the more controversial ones later on. With a Cuusoo proposal they don't necessarily have that liberty. The set is the theme, and so even if it sticks to "tame" content, for many people it will carry the weight of the whole franchise and all its content regardless of appropriateness. It's not pretty; it's not fair; but it's a risk TLG has good reason to want to avoid, especially since they don't want the fledgling Cuusoo project to get a reputation for creating projects that (from some customers' perspectives) compromise their brand values.

[Paul Boratko]

Of course Lego is going to have double standards when it comes to Billion Dollar Franchises that they know will net Big Money as compared to others that may have a small cult following and not generated much money... C'mon, we all know that Wolverine is as violent as they come...

Along with this list of "Standards", I am fairly certain that models are looked at from a financial standpoint at the same time: How much is this going to cost us..? Versus How much money can we expect to make..?

Aa shown, Cuusoo models that require licensing are going to have the advantage when it comes to supports, but be at a disadvantage when it comes time for review...

Edited by Paul Boratko, 09 May 2012 - 03:01 PM.

[sharky]

mrklaw, on 09 May 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Come on. It's clearly a Geisha. Everybody knows its a geisha. So Lego can get around things by simply renaming them? In that case a companion' should be fine ;)

I thought the white face and red lips indicated geisha as well.  I may be totally wrong about that, but that's what I thought.

[LRDark]

meyerc13, on 09 May 2012 - 06:41 AM, said:

So violence is okay as long as they don't show blood?  I've seen SotD, Firefly, Serenity, Star Wars, Batman.  There were no specific scenes in SotD or Firefly/Serenity that were so shocking that they were burned into my mind.

I can tell you that the scene in Batman The Dark Knight with the joker and the pencil was so horrible that I can still picture it vividly in my mind.  I was shocked when I left the theater that night that the movie was only rated PG-13.  Likewise the scene in Indiana Jones Temple of Doom, nobody can forget the scene with the heart... that one bothered me so much I've never watched the movie again.  So the fact that they don't show the act itself doesn't take away the horror of the act.  I have no problem watching Saving Private Ryan or other hyper-realistic war movies, because war is horrible, and it should be portrayed as such.  Likewise, when I watch an R-rated horror movie like Saw, I can accept violence and gore because I expect it walking into the theater.  With Indiana Jones and Batman the violence was discordant.

I don't believe I have ever stated that violence is okay as long as they don't show blood. What I said was that there must be a moral or story-driven reason for violence as opposed to Shaun of the Dead's homage to gore flicks. As I said- the action must display what a character is, in essence. One very notable occurrence of aesthetic gore takes place in The Winchester, where Dave is ripped apart by senseless beings while still alive. That was a very graphic depiction, unlike The Joker's magical pencil, or Mola Ram's sacrificial hand. Those two instances were used as a device to both make audience love them as a character, and yet hate them as an individual. You'll always be rooting for Batman and Indiana to prevail. As in Shaun of the Dead, Ed, Di, Dave, Shaun, and Liz are against a mindless mass that brings nothing to the table. It's violence for "shock value" instead of a plot device. The action in Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones, and Pirates of the Caribbean comes second to the actual story and the character development. The violence and death don't take front row seats; when there is a death, there is always redemption or a sign of understanding.

Quote

Again, I get why LEGO wouldn't want to make these sets.  I get it.  I can accept their decision.  What I can't get over is the fact that they say one thing and do another.

It's not a "fact," it's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. What I'm attempting to do is demonstrate where Lego might be coming from, and that they're view of these licenses might not be the same as yours, or other AFoLs. Just because you don't agree with their choices doesn't make them "hypocritical," "wrong," and it doesn't mean they have "double standards." It doesn't mean that I'm "delusional" for believing them. It simply means that I'm viewing it from Lego's standpoint instead of dipping into my own personal beliefs regarding the appropriateness of these sets. I'm not here to say you or any other opinions are incorrect; I'm just here to state my reasons for believing that TLG is also not incorrect.

Quote

I think you hit on the truth in your first post, LEGO makes the themes it does because they have huge fan bases.  I don't think it's because they are life changing or any of that.  They're popular properties and they make LEGO a lot of money.  That's where the line is truly drawn based on LEGO's past decisions.

I remind you to take a look at exactly why these have huge fanbases. Lego is of course here to make money; what business isn't? But I can see a huge difference between making sets for Indiana Jones and making sets for more adult-themed films. Lego's lines have always had a classic quality to them; Robin Hood vs. Richard the Lionheart, Mars Aliens, Speed Racer... The only ones that I can see as being dubious are Prince of Persia and perhaps the Power Miners/Rock Raiders. Their lines have to be based on something, even so far as saying a Theme. There is a line that happens to be based on Indiana Jones, and it's because it was a classic- it was a classic because of what it teaches.

Quote

The irony here is that I love Batman and Lord of the Rings and I love that LEGO is making them, but it does put me into a difficult place as a parent.  PG-13 movies, by their very definition, aren't aimed at the core market they've defined of 6-13 (well, they are aimed at 1/8 of that market).  Even worse than making Batman or Avengers sets, they make sets based directly on the PG-13 movies.  That's the problem I have.  That's a problem that isn't unique to LEGO, other toy manufacturers do the exact same thing.

I'm also a lover of nearly every license they've had, in addition to Shaun of the Dead; I'm really looking forward to the third installment of the ice-cream trilogy! However, I still maintain that the films they're based on have something to tell. These films have context for their violence, and it isn't in a modern-day setting. The exception are the comic book heroes, and they all stand for justice; what can't be loved about that? Batman is aimed at kids in a Y7 format, and the only things based on the Nolanverse were released 2 years after the initial Batman sets which could've been used to test the waters, as Aanchir has previously stated. Batman is a universally acclaimed hero for all ages, as is Iron Man, Thor, and The Hulk (but not Hawkeye   ).

Quote

Trying to say that these are brand standards, that just doesn't fit based on what we know they've produced.

Personally, I think it does. Of course you're free to disagree, and as I've said, I'm just here to provide points for Lego's reasoning.  

sharky, on 09 May 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

I thought the white face and red lips indicated geisha as well.  I may be totally wrong about that, but that's what I thought.

mrklaw, on 09 May 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Come on. It's clearly a Geisha. Everybody knows its a geisha. So Lego can get around things by simply renaming them? In that case a companion' should be fine ;)

It is NOT a geisha to those of us who don't want it to be a geisha. Lego doesn't want it to be a geisha- they clearly say it is a Kimono Girl. Like it or not, you're the ones sexualizing the minifigure, just like others out there. I would love for you to tell every single person who has ever worn a kimono that you think of them as a geisha specializing in prostitution. I could very well say:

Pop Star
"I LOVE my fans!"
"The Pop Star knows how to get attention. Her last three albums went platinum and her private videos are in non-stop rotation on all the internet. She travels the world in limos and private jets, being sure to flash the paparazzi whenever she disembarks!
No matter how famous she gets, though, she can always use her time flaunting a baby-bump on her 15-year old body, doing drugs and crashing cars while drunk! "

Those are all stereotypes of pop stars. Just because you associate a a kimono with a prostitute does not mean that's its intention. The kimono is a popular Japanese garment for any Japanese individual. It's a traditional garb.

Additionally, the powdered face is a traditional makeup which was common on any traditional Japanese woman, as the Japanese were attracted to the white skin. This is why the geisha did it; it wasn't limited to just them.

[Omicron]

LRDark, on 09 May 2012 - 12:46 AM, said:

A kimono has nothing to do with sex, drugs, or rock & roll.

Neither does a geisha. Lego's description matches what a geisha does.

-Omi

[LRDark]

Omicron, on 09 May 2012 - 08:02 PM, said:

Neither does a geisha. Lego's description matches what a geisha does.

-Omi

I agree, I was just thinking that the counter-argument would be that a geisha did act as companions for men. My posts were just getting too long to really want to have that in it. Geisha were performers, nothing more. Sex just happened to be one of those "acts" that several geisha took part in.