42113 Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

[XenoRad]

Just now, Gumalca said:

They would just announce to be reusing bricks that they've already produced. They can drop the advertisement of the Osprey completely.

You can build a tank out of every Lego set, but no sane person would ever make an accusation out of that.

The truth is that people don't really care that you're making tanks out of Lego or any other bricks. Apart from a few individuals who indeed would make a big deal out of it, in the grand scheme of things it's insignificant that you're building replica military vehicles. The world is not worse off by it, one bit. 

And that's really the point. Lego have made this internal rule that's not that much or a moral standing as they wish it were and now they're doubling down on a set that they've already spent time and money to make, they already marketed (you have official YouTube videos of its features) and they already put in stores in some locations.

 

Lego should have had the courage to go ahead with it. Dress it up if they needed to with a press statement, reclassify it as 18+ but go ahead with it. At this point it's like they're tying to trick themselves because they have a silly rule that doesn't really mean anything and we can see that.

 

Honestly it would have been a much more respectable position to bring it to market. Because people are going to get it, one way or another. The instructions will be put online, the parts will become available over time, some sets will be sold in a gray market. It will just be more difficult for no practical reason whatsoever.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

So I was planning to do a written review in Jim's style and incorporate some of Sariel's review elements.

But then I saw that someone already arranged to send Sariel a copy. I guess I'll leave the review to him then.

[XenoRad]

Just now, Ngoc Nguyen said:

So I was planning to do a written review in Jim's style and incorporate some of Sariel's review elements.

But then I saw that someone already arranged to send Sariel a copy. I guess I'll leave the review to him then.

It's up to you. If you think that you can bring out some interesting aspects in your review that no one else can capture you can go for it, even if it's just a shorter review.

Anyway, thanks for the instructions. There's plenty of people here that appreciate that. It's what being a community is all about in a way.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Just now, XenoRad said:

bring out some interesting aspects in your review that no one else can capture

Ohh thanks for the encouragement I think I can.

[nhk]

15 minutes ago, XenoRad said:

And that's really the point. Lego have made this internal rule that's not that much or a moral standing as they wish it were and now they're doubling down on a set that they've already spent time and money to make, they already marketed (you have official YouTube videos of its features) and they already put in stores in some locations.

This is something that JANG touched upon, which is that the founder of Lego created the rule against the glorifying of war, because he lived through WW2. Thus defined this should even preclude the creation of 'fictionalized and historic' war sets, and this clause is simply a cheat introduced in 2010 to give the appearance of conformity to it's founder's wishes. Ironically Lego has even produced 'fictionalized' versions of WW2 vehicles. The problem is that the original policy itself is too broadly defined in the first place and is neither enforceable nor feasible in the modern market. They need to admit that and work on finding a better solution. The fact stands that there are countless sets which violate the original rule far more than 42113 ever did.

[AVCampos]

1 hour ago, XenoRad said:

- Lego then figures out a way to re purpose set 42113 as to still give the community the possibility to build it and thus announcing to the world that they're somehow cancelling their cancellation of set 42113.

That can be solved by ditching the 42113 set number and assigning a new one, effectively making a whole new set that happens to have the same parts list as another. A set renaming due to corrections has happened before, with the 10213 (again with the 13, see a pattern here?)/10231.

[Toastie]

59 minutes ago, XenoRad said:

Lego should have had the courage to go ahead with it. Dress it up if they needed to with a press statement, reclassify it as 18+ but go ahead with it. At this point it's like they're tying to trick themselves because they have a silly rule that doesn't really mean anything and we can see that.  

Honestly it would have been a much more respectable position to bring it to market. Because people are going to get it, one way or another. The instructions will be put online, the parts will become available over time, some sets will be sold in a gray market. It will just be more difficult for no practical reason whatsoever.

That is 100% what I am thinking. Thank you for phrasing it that way. 100%.

Regards
Thorsten

[johnnym]

1 hour ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

So I was planning to do a written review in Jim's style and incorporate some of Sariel's review elements.

@Ngoc Nguyen: Please do! I'd be especially interested in the rotors. I found that they were moving quite fast in the review of that toy seller (now gone) and wondered if this is not a hazard for kids' fingers, arms, faces, eyes, hair, etc. especially as you have to take care of where your face is when operating the respective switch. Please don't hurt yourself when testing this - not sure what to use, maybe bigger wafers - but it would really interest me, if the rotors are a hazard for kids.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Just now, johnnym said:

Please don't hurt yourself when testing this

Spoiler:

Spoiler

Yes it does hurt when I use my finger to stop the rotors. I don't find them safe enough for kids. Maybe this is the real reason.

 

[brickless_kiwi]

Just now, johnnym said:

@Ngoc Nguyen: Please do! I'd be especially interested in the rotors. I found that they were moving quite fast in the review of that toy seller (now gone) and wondered if this is not a hazard for kids' fingers, arms, faces, eyes, hair, etc. especially as you have to take care of where your face is when operating the respective switch. Please don't hurt yourself when testing this - not sure what to use, maybe bigger wafers - but it would really interest me, if the rotors are a hazard for kids.

Oh my God what nanny state do you live in....oh wait... its lego for !@#$ sake not some dangerous machine

[Ngoc Nguyen]

Just now, brickless_kiwi said:

Oh my God what nanny state do you live in

Technically I do live in a nanny state. Vietnam is a single-party republic unitary state.  

[allanp]

Jangs view doesn't quite add up. According to Lego's own very specific rule, violence and military type vehicles are fine so long as they are fantasy. However Jang also states that a civilian rescue version of the v22 does not exist, which makes it fantasy, and therefore fine by Lego's own rule, right? 

He also said that it wasn't the actions of 3 protesters outside of a store that caused the cancellation of this set, then later says that Lego were called out for (apparently) breaking there own rule, but by who, that same organisation who he says was not to blame for getting the set cancelled after the set had already been approved by their own internal approval process. So it absolutely was them that got it cancelled.

He also says that, although the rule is dumb in his opinion, it was based off of the idea that the founder of the company did not want kids to play war. Star wars may be fantasy, but it is still playing war, the clue is in the name starWARS. But this Technic v22 is the opposite of playing war. It is a fictional rescue craft rescuing people FROM war or from any other situation of peril. It's not like its a VW beetle that was commissioned by Hitler or an Indiana Jones set where kids get to play with Nazis. This is a fictional rescue version of a real craft.

Finally he also says that he is most upset by the fan base for making this "innocent" decision so political. Well I can't speak to much about that here due to Eurobricks rules about talking politics. But what I will say is that as none of the points mentioned above was discussed or even allowed to be discussed, they just wanted it to be cancelled and that's it, I would say that stifling of any sort of discussion on the matter is just exactly what is so wrong with cancel culture, and while the cancellation of one toy may not be a big deal in the grand scheme of things, it is sad to see Lego not have the backbone to stand up to it.

The solution could have been as simple as a change of name for the set. Just re-brand it as a civilian rescue v22, and maybe even donate a portion of net profits from the set to war relief efforts, and that would make it clear that this is a fantasy re-imagining of a real craft (which is exactly what it is already, so no other changes necessary), designed to save lives, not end them like in war. Problem solved and everyone is civil and we all move on, and the world is just a slightly better place. But no, the unreasonable cancel culture that can't be bothered to even entertain the idea of a reasonable discussion gets it's way yet again. 

BTW, if the argument is that partnering with Boeing puts money in the war chest so to speak, if you pay taxes then some of that money goes to the governments war chest, there's hardly a financial transaction that you make that doesn't go partly towards war in one way or another, and Lego's own rule has nothing to do with that anyway.

Now I realise my opinion is rather firm on this, but here's the thing. If you disagree with me, that is absolutely fine. Disagree all you want, I will not be offended by the fact that you happen to have a different point of view that I do. That's because I am a reasonable person (or at least try to be). I dunno, I guess I'm just sick and tired of the unreasonable being the ones that get their way all the time, this is just one tiny straw on an already overloaded camels back.

Edited July 22, 2020 by allanp

[MinusAndy]

Dammit. I already had homes for all the new dbg panels on this!

[jshuiting]

I'm still amazed by the fact they actually planned to produce the V-22 as a Lego set, getting to build a licensed military vehicle goes pretty much against everything Lego stands for and i'm actually kinda glad they are trying to stay true to those standards.
Sucks for the people who wanted the model though, would've been a very interesting build i'm sure.

[dr_spock]

From 2010 Progress Report.    Policies are only as good as their compliance and enforcement. 

“Guideline for weapons and conflict in LEGO experiences”

A large number of LEGO mini figures use weapons and are – assumedly – regularly being charged by each others’ weapons as part of children’s role play. In the LEGO Group, we acknowledge that conflict in play is especially prevalent among 4-9-year-old boys. An inner drive and a need to experiment with their own aggressive feelings in order to learn about other people’s aggressions exist in most children. This, in turn, enables them to handle and recognize conflict in non-play scenarios. As such, the LEGO Group sees conflict play as perfectly acceptable, and an integral part of children’s development.

We also acknowledge children’s well-proven ability to tell play from reality. However, to make sure to maintain the right balance between play and conflict, we have adhered to a set of unwritten rules for several years. In 2010, we have formalized these rules in a guideline for the use of conflict and weapons in LEGO products. The basic aim is to avoid realistic weapons and military equipment that children may recognize from hot spots around the world and to refrain from showing violent or frightening situations when communicating about LEGO products. At the same time, the purpose is for the LEGO brand not to be associated with issues that glorify conflicts and unethical or harmful behavior.

“We have a strict policy regarding military models, and therefore, we do not produce tanks, helicopters, etc. While we always support the men and women who serve their country, we prefer to keep the play experiences we provide for children in the realm of fantasy.”

[Magical Duck]

12 minutes ago, dr_spock said:

 Policies are only as good as their compliance and enforcement. 

Exactly. And looking at the wording of that 2010 report, it is starting to make some more sense why they upheld this (still sad) decision.

[Polarlicht]

1 hour ago, jshuiting said:

I'm still amazed by the fact they actually planned to produce the V-22 as a Lego set, getting to build a licensed military vehicle goes pretty much against everything Lego stands for and i'm actually kinda glad they are trying to stay true to those standards.
Sucks for the people who wanted the model though, would've been a very interesting build i'm sure.

And the fact that they "overlicensing" their products. This set would be fine as it is without that pointless bell boeing license! Its getting worse and worse with this licensing trend. And this was bound to happen at some point. Iam kinda glad because i hope they woke up now and stop licensing everything. I do like  some licensed sets, but not all need to be like that (cough top gear car cough) since there is no point in that really. Iam an adult and fine without one official product...

[Toastie]

1 hour ago, allanp said:

I dunno, I guess I'm just sick and tired of the unreasonable being the ones that get their way all the time

But don't they get it, because no one "affected" stands up "reasonably"? Wisely? Rationally?

I have the feeling that when this type of thing happens, all hell (all crap and the deepest nonsense) breaks loose. Instead of: Thinking, discussion, accepted solution.

To be honest, I am tired of all that crying out loud (e.g., not getting a toy), all that whining, cussing, all that violence, trouble, all these irrational responses - that is what I am exhausted from. Not about who is getting whatever way. Homo sapiens sapiens. The very wise man. What nonsense.

Best
Thorsten.

[2GodBDGlory]

I'm just wondering...

Has there ever been this much activity on a topic in such a short time?

It seems to me that this could be record-breaking!

[Toastie]

Just now, 2GodBDGlory said:

It seems to me that this could be record-breaking!

And in addition: It is a nice, diverse, and decent discussion. I really like that. I am pretty sure there are not that many places on the internet, where I keep tossing in my blurbs on a record-breaking topic like this one. This is, as far as I am concerned - the big difference between EB and many, many, many other places.

Folks, I am having a couple of these:

Cheers,
Thorsten

[astral brick]

2 hours ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

 

  Hide contents

Yes it does hurt when I use my finger to stop the rotors. I don't find them safe enough for kids. Maybe this is the real reason.

 

What if this is the true key point of the whole story?

[Bartybum]

I don’t know why some of you guys are suggesting they’d rerelease the same parts but in a different set, or the same set but as 18+...

However you spin it, that’s nothing more than a conscious decision by them to provide us with the set and therefore breach their guidelines. Nothing’s stopping a minor from buying it, it’s just Lego. They’d just be lying to themselves.

The license explicitly says that it’s a V-22 Osprey, which is a military-only aircraft in the real world that takes troops and equipment into and from battle. An M1 Abrams tarted up in a search and rescue livery is still an M1 Abrams. The license is an explicit admission that it’s a military vehicle, no matter how many buckets of paint have been splashed over it.

We’re never seeing this set in any form ever again, period.

Personally I have no opinion on Lego’s policy. If the set is high quality then I’m happy. But while the unlicensed ones do toe the line and are sometimes really close to real vehicles (the Creator not-F14 and not-F35, for example) I am 100% sure that this absolutely violates their rule.

Edited July 22, 2020 by Bartybum

[nhk]

I'm puzzled why people are so quick to accept that fantasy vs fiction justification clause. It's not okay - if they want to avoid war they should do so entirely and if not, just admit they don't care about it that much. The whole 2010 policy write-up is obviously done in a way to convince themselves that it's okay to hold licenses like Star Wars etc. But if that's acceptable, then this rescue version should be fine too. From an ethical standpoint there are sets much more offending than this one, but they're given a free pass, because Lego wrote their policy in legal fine print to give them an out. This set just fell on the wrong side of that text, even though it's much less violent than a bunch of others they produced. The only thing this accomplishes, is expose Lego's hypocrisy. It does not prove in any way that they're sticking to some standard for anti-violence or anti-war.

Edited July 22, 2020 by nhk

[jodawill]

I just watched Jang's video about this, and I think he's right. I'm not sure where the idea originated that it was this tiny protest that caused TLG to do this. It obviously wasn't considering how small it was. I'm not happy with this "cancel culture" in general, but I'm glad to see that isn't the case here.

 

I wonder if the people in leadership didn't realize that this plane(?) is a military exclusive, and the people who make the decisions only found out when they received negative feedback.

[JackK34]

So apparently retailers who already have the set in their stock ARE allowed to sell it. Lego has stated 

"For stock which is already in storerooms of retailers, they will be able to sell the set – we just wouldn’t be shipping any more copies.

 

For sets in our warehouses, we are currently working through our plans for the sets and will explore ways to reduce waste and reuse elements – that AFOLs are interested in them has been raised!"

 

This raises the question: will stores bother to wait until August 1st now, or just put it on their shelves immediately (Lego has washed their hands of it) and on that note, where to look to buy it? Too large a store, likely they have already arranged a return to Lego. Too small and they probably won't have ordered any in the first place. I'm in Sheffield, England. Any suggestions? I've already sent out some enquiries about stock to some nearby retailers.