Lego David

Non Kid-Friendly sets

Recommended Posts

LEGO is obiosly a kid's toy, but sometimes we get sets that are not nececerly kid friendly. Like, for example, this:

Image result for lego temple of doom

We all know what happens in this scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. And what happends here is defeneatly not kid friendly.

What sets are not 100% kid-friendly in your opinion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't let a kid of 8 yrs look at the movie but one of 14yrs shouldn't be a problem.

This Lego set however doesn't have a heart plucking scene, no chilled monkey brains, there aren't even eyes in the soup.

Edited by coinoperator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Lego David said:

What sets are not 100% kid-friendly in your opinion?

I couldn't care in either direction. At this point LEGO's stance on such matters has become so hypocritical, it doesn't really matter and if their age denomination is any indication, they are pretty clueless about how children's minds and developmental stages work, anyway. My 2 cents.

Mylenium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 9:59 AM, Lego David said:

LEGO is obiosly a kid's toy, but sometimes we get sets that are not nececerly kid friendly. Like, for example, this:

 

We all know what happens in this scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. And what happends here is defeneatly not kid friendly.

While that might be true of the overall movie, the primary scene represented here is a mine cart chase that I don’t think is any less kid-friendly than any of numerous other action sequences from PG-rated fantasies  from which LEGO has produced sets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a set from 2002 called Tusken Raider Encounter that was based on a scene from AOTC where Anakin slaughters an entire village of Tuskens. Not the most kid-friendly subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Blondie-Wan said:

While that might be true of the overall movie, the primary scene represented here is a mine cart chase 

Exactly, this is a chase set. It's no different to many of the Star Wars sets, or some of the Ultra Agents sets, or a lot of the police sets in which the police chase the robbers. 

And then to the theme itself. Indiana Jones is a good guy who defeats the bad guys, outsmarts the temple booby traps, and finds the hidden treasure and saves the day. Is this any different to Ninjao, where the heroes also defeat the bad guys, go through challenges and save the day, or Star Wars, or Marvel/DC? It's true the movie you've picked does happen to have dark/gory aspects to It. But since these aspects are not depicted in the sets I don't see the problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However its VERY pity that TLG missed the chance to produce brick 3626 modified with open skull and visible brains.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was a discussion in the Batman CMF thread about some of the characters that became minifigures that TLG may not have done enough backstory research into like history of sexual assault IIRC. The details are fairly obscure except for the more involved fans who have actually read certain comics but still, everyone who googles who March Harriet is will quickly find out she is an "escort".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what is or isn't "kid-friendly" is highly subjective. I mean, I've had homophobes and transphobes on Facebook try and tell me that LGBTQ+ characters in LEGO set or themes would not be "kid-friendly". Some people whose values are even more laughably outdated think that putting female firefighters and construction workers in sets is inappropriate for kids. And then you'll have many adults who are a lot more permissive than usual about what kinds of content their kids engage with.

Even the official ratings for movies and games often vary from country to country depending on what the cultural norms are in those countries — for example, many films and TV shows like Deadpool 2 or Game of Thrones are rated R/TV-MA (both meaning only appropriate for ages 17+) in the United States, but only rated FSK-12 (appropriate for ages 12+, or ages 6–11 with parental guidance) in Germany. Often this depends on how taboo individual factors in age-appropriateness are in those countries (some countries might be very opposed to sex and swearing, but not to violence or gore, while in others it might be the other way around).

And LEGO's own standards for what is or isn't appropriate for kids have changed dramatically over the decades in many ways that I would consider positive. For example, LEGO's upper management used to be so firmly opposed to portraying death in sets that back in the 80s, then-CEO Godtfred Kirk Christiansen threatened to fire long-time designer Niels Milan Pedersen for putting a prototype LEGO skeleton in a castle dungeon as a joke. For that matter, back when the first LEGO Space sets were being developed, the higher-ups at the time were resistant to allowing a black-suited spaceman because it was perceived to be "too scary". And of course, let's not forget how all the laser guns in older Space themes had to be marketed as "sensor arrays" and so forth — rather deceptively, I'd say, considering that the designers created them to resemble guns and fully anticipated many kids playing with them in that fashion.

I think it's honestly a good thing that LEGO is now willing to give kids and parents a little more leeway in what they do or don't consider age-appropriate, instead of being in denial about the things kids actually enjoy or the kinds of play they are actually drawn to. Honestly, it would be a little insulting to continue designing toys for kids who enjoy conflict-driven play while simultaneously condemning those styles of play. This literature review summarizes a lot of research into education and child psychology that supports the idea that "play fighting" is a perfectly natural childhood interest, and that outright prohibiting such forms of play can actually harm kids' ability to understand interpersonal conflicts. This is in line with LEGO's "Conflict and Weapons Policy", first codified in 2010, which states that:

Quote

The LEGO Group believes that conflict between good and evil can form an important part of children’s play as it teaches children about their own, and other people’s, aggression and helps them recognize and handle disputes in other situations. However, the LEGO Group has no intention of glorifying war or encouraging violence, and therefore refuses to produce realistic weapons and military equipment with the risk of children recognizing these types of weapons from hostilities around the world. Instead, the LEGO Group supports children, stimulating their imagination by launching only historical and fantasy weapons.

(source: https://www.lego.com/en-us/themes/lego-history/articles/lego-pirates-a81ba1cc2d424808b7c937dd4563f5a7)The Indiana Jones theme is definitely one that came closer than usual to the kind of real-world warfare that the LEGO Group prefers to avoid, considering that it prominently featured soldiers and military equipment based on real-life mid 20th century warfare. It's very possible that some of the stuff that appeared in the Indiana Jones theme in 2008–2009 might very well be prohibited in today's sets, now that LEGO has a clearly defined conflict and weapons policy rather than a nebulous de facto policy like they had before.

On 2/10/2019 at 3:48 PM, koalayummies said:

There was a discussion in the Batman CMF thread about some of the characters that became minifigures that TLG may not have done enough backstory research into like history of sexual assault IIRC. The details are fairly obscure except for the more involved fans who have actually read certain comics but still, everyone who googles who March Harriet is will quickly find out she is an "escort". 

I think superhero sets often have more flexibility with this kind of stuff than some other themes, since most superhero characters frequently vary in their kid-friendliness from one continuity to the next. Additionally, I think it's important to consider that March Harriet is usually characterized as a former sex worker. And while sex work is not child appropriate, the same can be said for sex in general, including sex between married couples — yet it'd be ludicrous to argue that all married characters with children are inappropriate for kids because they are implied to have been sexually active in the past or off-screen.

And honestly, I think a lot of fictional characters and real people alike have done things that would not be suitable for a kids' toy. I mean, Zeus/Jupiter from Greek and Roman mythology has a long history of being presented as anywhere from a serial philanderer to a serial rapist, yet while he hasn't appeared in sets, LEGO did create an aluminum minifigure of Jupiter to help publicize the mission of NASA's deep-space probe Juno.

Edited by Aanchir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, koalayummies said:

There was a discussion in the Batman CMF thread about some of the characters that became minifigures that TLG may not have done enough backstory research into like history of sexual assault IIRC. The details are fairly obscure except for the more involved fans who have actually read certain comics but still, everyone who googles who March Harriet is will quickly find out she is an "escort".

Oh yeah, it’s interesting the minifig choices they made for Superheroes. Carnage, a serial killer. Deadpool... Hank Pym. It’s all about how LEGO depicts the characters. 

No set TLG makes isn’t kid friendly. Hence the sets being on the shelf. Overall subject matter is another story entirely. It’s all about presentation. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this discussion reminds me of games we would play as children decades ago, war was one of the more popular games we would play, running around the neighborhood making gun noises and yelling, your dead your dead, I shot you first lay down. 

For the record I do not own a gun, I have never killed anyone and I am not a criminal. 

Edited by Johnny1360

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see some kid-friendly Game of Thrones sets.  I agree with the idea that sets can be kid-friendly even if the subject matter is not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, x105Black said:

I would love to see some kid-friendly Game of Thrones sets.  I agree with the idea that sets can be kid-friendly even if the subject matter is not.

That would be walking the line I feel. Generally speaking, the licenses TLG has/had are relatively tame overall. It definitely depends on the parents, but I see plenty of young kids, target audience for TLG, in the superhero movies, despite their PG-13 rating. I highly doubt those same kids are watching GoT. Even the reason for this thread started, the heart pull, can’t compare to what’s seen in GoT. That would be the deal breaker I think. 

They could absolutely do it though, and I love to see it, as the fantasy violence aspect isn’t out of the realm for them, albeit it’s more graphic. 

Edited by Vindicare

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I think what is or isn't "kid-friendly" is highly subjective. I mean, I've had homophobes and transphobes on Facebook try and tell me that LGBT characters in LEGO set or themes would not be "kid-friendly".

 

Why would they need to be outed as LGBT? Don't many LGBT people look just like "normal" people in real life. In that case, if a child or AFOL wants a particular minifigure to be gay, then that is their choice.

So for example, in this set:

60212-1.jpg?201811301044

Is the fireman gay or straight? And the BBQ man? Are they partners, or strangers?

It is very rare that we are told that a character is straight, so why the need to say a character is not? Personally, I think it is fine to leave the choice about sexual orientation of the characters to the people that buy the toys. For example, why would LEGO need to indicate that the fireman in the set above goes home and has sex with a man? If someone wants him to, that is fine. If someone wants him to have sex with a woman, fine. If someone wants him to just be a fireman and not care about his sexual orientation, also fine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree what people say here, but on various occasions we get sets that are definitely not kid friendly, like that Big Bang Theory set. (Correct me if I am wrong, I have never watched that Show).

16 hours ago, Blondie-Wan said:

While that might be true of the overall movie, the primary scene represented here is a mine cart chase that I don’t think is any less kid-friendly than any of numerous other action sequences from PG-rated fantasies  from which LEGO has produced sets.

While the primarily scene depicted in that set is indeed the Minecart chase scene, the set still features the place where the Stones are hold and where people are sacrificed, although not shown in the set.

Edited by Lego David

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Lego David said:

I agree what people say here, but on various occasions we get sets that are definitely not kid friendly, like that Big Bang Theory set. (Correct me if I am wrong, I have never watched that Show).

3

You are wrong. The set is not kid unfriendly. It is a group of people eating food around a table.

Even the show is rather tame, mainly innuendo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MAB said:

You are wrong. The set is not kid unfriendly. It is a group of people eating food around a table.

Even the show is rather tame, mainly innuendo.

I think the problem is not with the actual set, but rather with the source material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lego David said:

I think the problem is not with the actual set, but rather with the source material.

Why? They don't act out all the source material in the set. In the set they are just sitting around with their food. You don't see Leonard and Penny in bed together in a LEGO set, for example.

Many licenses will have some source material that is not suitable for a child. So long as this doesn't make it into a LEGO set, what is the problem? Daleks and Cybermen kill people in Doctor Who, yet they appear in sets. Same with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MAB said:

Why would they need to be outed as LGBT? Don't many LGBT people look just like "normal" people in real life. In that case, if a child or AFOL wants a particular minifigure to be gay, then that is their choice.

So for example, in this set:

Is the fireman gay or straight? And the BBQ man? Are they partners, or strangers?

It is very rare that we are told that a character is straight, so why the need to say a character is not? Personally, I think it is fine to leave the choice about sexual orientation of the characters to the people that buy the toys. For example, why would LEGO need to indicate that the fireman in the set above goes home and has sex with a man? If someone wants him to, that is fine. If someone wants him to have sex with a woman, fine. If someone wants him to just be a fireman and not care about his sexual orientation, also fine.

I think you're missing my point if the example you jump to is a set from LEGO City, which has hardly any characters with defined personalities or even names. I'm referring more to themes like Ninjago, Friends, etc. In these more story-driven themes, there are plenty of male characters with female romantic interests and vice versa: Jay+Nya, Kai+Skylor, Zane+PIXAL, Lloyd+Harumi, Emmet+Lucy, Tidus+Sira, Macku+Hewkii, Roodaka+Sidorak, and most characters' parents regardless of theme.

A kid growing up seeing these sorts of couples but not any clearly established examples of same-sex romance could easily get the impression that feeling attracted to somebody of the same sex or having two parents of the same sex is freakish or scandalous. Which I think we can agree isn't a great message to be sending.

And in any case, this is all beside the point I was making, which is that necessary or not, there are a lot of things that are perfectly tame/innocent by any reasonable standard that some adults still feel aren't "kid-friendly".

Edited by Aanchir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this set is any more kid unfriendly then a Pirates or Western set. 

Guns and Swords.

Imaginitive play is like the core of LEGO, even if it's based off a movie/comic/tv show, ultimately LEGO can still be customized, and mixed matched, it's a System after all.

Edited by TeriXeri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Aanchir said:

I think you're missing my point if the example you jump to is a set from LEGO City, which has hardly any characters with defined personalities or even names. I'm referring more to themes like Ninjago, Friends, etc. In these more story-driven themes, there are plenty of male characters with female romantic interests and vice versa: Jay+Nya, Kai+Skylor, Zane+PIXAL, Lloyd+Harumi, Emmet+Lucy, Tidus+Sira, Macku+Hewkii, Roodaka+Sidorak, and most characters' parents regardless of theme.

A kid growing up seeing these sorts of couples but not any clearly established examples of same-sex romance could easily get the impression that feeling attracted to somebody of the same sex or having two parents of the same sex is freakish or scandalous. Which I think we can agree isn't a great message to be sending.

And in any case, this is all beside the point I was making, which is that necessary or not, there are a lot of things that are perfectly tame/innocent by any reasonable standard that some adults still feel aren't "kid-friendly".

I don't think he was missing your point because you hadn't made it. You said "in Lego set and themes", which includes City. So your argument would be more with the television show and supporting media rather than Lego sets themselves.

It's a slippery slope. I mean, what would you do to add a (for example) gay character to a set to indicate that he's gay? Add a more fabulous dress sense?

I don't understand the fascination in modern times of having 'representation' in all forms of entertainment. I didn't identify with B.A. Baracus from the A Team as a kid, but I loved him as a character and wanted to have certain traits like that (minus the jewellery perhaps).

I also noticed that you said LGBT ('Q' and '+' missing). Maybe you had reason for that? Well that would depend on your beliefs (or personal truths) - which is exactly why this stuff should be kept out of media and toys aimed at kids; and like @MAB said, if a kid wants to imagine a gay relationship or whatever, then there is literally nothing stopping them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/11/2019 at 5:39 AM, Lego David said:

I think the problem is not with the actual set, but rather with the source material.

Then there is not problem.

On 2/11/2019 at 8:31 AM, MAB said:

Many licenses will have some source material that is not suitable for a child. So long as this doesn't make it into a LEGO set, what is the problem? Daleks and Cybermen kill people in Doctor Who, yet they appear in sets. Same with Star Wars, Indiana Jones, etc.

Exactly.  Same with Game of Thrones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about this set?

Image result for lego pirates of the caribbean whitecap bay set

At first nothing seems wrong about this set, untill you take a closer look at the minifigures...

Image result for lego pirates of the caribbean mermaid

They are a little... realistic... in a not very kid-friendly way in my opinion...

Also the scene this set is based of is itself not very aproapriate for kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, x105Black said:

Exactly.  Same with Game of Thrones.

 

I think there is a bit of a difference in what is thought about the licenses. Mention Indiana Jones and people will think action and adventure, rather than the few scary scenes. Mention Game of Thrones and people will think about swords and boobs. Or maybe that's just me.

1 hour ago, Lego David said:

 

Image result for lego pirates of the caribbean mermaid

 

What is the problem there? I see the backs of the shoulder blades, then scales down the back as they approach the fish tail section. What is not child friendly in that picture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who didn't see the movie the imagery of dudes in boats chasing concerned looking fish-women with nets is a bit confusing, what... what are they planning on doing once they capture them? But yeah naked shoulder blades isn't exactly scandalous.

1 hour ago, MAB said:

I think there is a bit of a difference in what is thought about the licenses. Mention Indiana Jones and people will think action and adventure, rather than the few scary scenes. Mention Game of Thrones and people will think about swords and boobs. Or maybe that's just me.

Well if one watched the South Park parody then its a different body part, but yeah mostly dragons and body parts comes to mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.