Discussion Should LEGO make a Military Theme?

[Itaria No Shintaku]

^apparently...

This conversation just won't die.

One can always hope....

[ummester]

Does anyone else see the humor in the concept that a discussion regarding whether or not LEGO should make a military or conflict based theme becomes heated and very conflicted?

[ShaydDeGrai]

(snip)

That being said, I will point out that the new Creator set "Blue Power Jet" is a VERY thinly veiled Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning II JSF. The lack of visible weapons is moot as the JSF is designed to primarily carry its warload internally to remain stealthy. It even features the lift fan of the F-35B.

I had pretty much the exact same thought when I first saw this kit, TLG has release Star Wars models (e.g. the original Slave-1) with less fidelity to the original airframe than the differences between the "Blue Power Jet" and an actual F-35B. Oh well, I guess even the designers at Lego sometimes have difficulty knowing exactly where to drawn the line between "impressive expression of engineering" and "war machine."

I can see the line being blurry with respect to high performance aircraft, stunt planes, maybe even spy planes (U-2, SR-71, theoretical "Aurora" or "SR-72" prototypes), etc. but I don't see how this could translate into tanks, half-tracks, APCs or Howitzers any time soon.

[rx79gez8gundam]

ReBrick featured me as ReBricker Of The Week back in Feb, but wouldn't allow my SR-71A. They did allow my A-12 "Oxcart", the CIA precursor to the SR-71A since it wasn't technically military operated. They also allowed my NASA YF-4E Phantom II CCV for the same reason. None of my other military models were permitted for the article. Being thet ReBrick is a direct extension of LEGO, that should give you some insight to their limits. So maybe an early CIA U-2, or NASA TR-1. The NASA Phantom squeeked by, I doubt most of their other borrowed combat aircraft would pass muster. The Phantom did because of the nature of its modifications and test regimen (decoupled flight controls, advanced canard controls, extreme angle of attack, etc), none of which was strictly military in application possibilities.

Edited March 26, 2015 by rx79gez8gundam

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

I would like to see a military theme.

[rx79gez8gundam]

I imagine this is something along the lines of what you meant by the aerial display teams?

The 1969-1974 US Navy Blue Angels, flying the McDonnell Douglas F-4J Phantom II. The classic 4-ship diamond passes over the airfield below as the two opposing solo aircraft prepare to make sneak passes over the crowd.

The 1969-1974 US Air Force Thunderbirds, flying the McDonnell Douglas F-4E Phantom II. Here the #5 and #6 solo aircraft perform an "opposing knife edge pass" for the crowd as the 4-ship diamond manuevers into position for their next demonstration pass.

Again, being that both US teams use combat aircraft (unique among the world's display teams as all others use non-combat trainers, not counting the defunct Russian Knights Su-27s) I doubt LEGO would allow them. Still, they do make for pretty MOCs, and the Blue Angels have always had a very attractive paint scheme.

[Rijkvv]

(unique among the world's display teams as all others use non-combat trainers, not counting the defunct Russian Knights Su-27s) I doubt LEGO would allow them. Still, they do make for pretty MOCs, and the Blue Angels have always had a very attractive paint scheme.

The Turkish Stars fly in NF-5 Freedom Fighters.

As for a military theme: I think Lego doesn't have a very strict line. World war 1 planes with machine guns are no problem, as are German WW2 soldiers and Russian post-war soldiers. Those are from a licensed theme, but I don't think there is any difference. If Lego allows medieval themes (most medieval movies I've seen contain scenes not suitable for children's eyes), a movie franchise where a planet is blown up (and even release the weapon itself as a set) and a minifig with an alternate choking face, and another movie franchise with German WW2 soldiers and post-war Russian soldiers, but refuses to release modern military sets, I call that hypocritical.

However, while I have the feeling that in the US people have respect for the military, in Europe, or at least the Netherlands it's a different story. Sometimes I see reactions online and while most of those people clearly never served in the military and thus don't know what they are talking about, it's clear to see there is a lot of opposition. If that's for the real military, I can understand why people don't like the idea of military Lego sets. However I don't understand why they don't like others to build military models.

But hey, I've seen plenty of great military MOCs that are even better than anything Lego would release and a decade before I became a real soldier I was already playing, pretending to be one.

Awesome Phantoms by the way!

Edited March 29, 2015 by Richie

[ShaydDeGrai]

As for a military theme: I think Lego doesn't have a very strict line. World war 1 planes with machine guns are no problem, as are German WW2 soldiers and Russian post-war soldiers. Those are from a licensed theme, but I don't think there is any difference. If Lego allows medieval themes (most medieval movies I've seen contain scenes not suitable for children's eyes), a movie franchise where a planet is blown up (and even release the weapon itself as a set) and a minifig with an alternate choking face, and another movie franchise with German WW2 soldiers and post-war Russian soldiers, but refuses to release modern military sets, I call that hypocritical.

I think their actions are only hypocritical if you're fixating on the existence of the set (a by-product) rather than the basic concept. We often oversimplify the issue of TLG's position to "banning" war, drugs, alcohol and religion from the list of acceptable topics for production models. I think it's more correct to say that they are philosophically opposed to making kid's toys that "glorify modern warfare", "promote substance abuse" and "advocate for one modern religion at the expense of another" The raw existence of a Jeep or a mini-figure in a military uniform from a licensed theme (such as Indiana Jones or Super Heroes ) isn't _by definition_ violation of these greater _ideals_ in that, in context, those movies aren't about the military; the hero isn't the one wearing the uniform; the story isn't about who has the best weapons or about how blind loyalty to the state is a greater virtue than compassion for one's fellow man, etc. (Even in this context, I can understand how some people might say if the military stuff isn't core to the plot, why bother including it at all, but as an argument, that dead horse was beaten into dog food several hundred posts ago here and elsewhere, so I won't belabor it).

Now if TLG decided to license Black Hawk Down, The Hurt Locker, Jar Head, etc. and used that sort of license as justification as to why those sets don't break the "no modern warfare" stance, _that_ in my book would be hypocritical.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

I agree with Richie, legos being hypocritical in that they make pirate sets (thus promoting theft, killing, etc.) ninja sets (promoting assassinations and loyalty to country/religion) and battle sets (Star Wars) but refuse to make military sets.

That's like someone saying they don't eat meat, but then go and stuff their face with bacon.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

I agree with Richie, legos being hypocritical in that they make pirate sets (thus promoting theft, killing, etc.) ninja sets (promoting assassinations and loyalty to country/religion) and battle sets (Star Wars) but refuse to make military sets.

That's like someone saying they don't eat meat, but then go and stuff their face with bacon.

Or maybe you just don't see pirates or Ninjas or Yoda wandering around your city streets, if I can say.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

What dose that have to do with it? It's still violent, and it's (aside from star wars) real.

[Peppermint_M]

*-Does

It is Fantasy, not realistic in any form. Magical weapons with elemental powers is not a nuclear bomb. Knights with pikes staving off Orcs is nowhere near real life. Piracy depicted in the LEGO sets are so historic as to be romanticised. It is no longer real. Piracy these days is men in speedboats with automatic weapons taking hostages, not some swashbuckling rogue tweaking the nose of the East India company or Privateers chasing down Spanish gold ships (What Piracy of the past has been downgraded to.)

If you get down to it Bionicle is pretty violent too. I saw a TV ad that was a little surprising. Whereas when I was a kid and Bionicle was new and each toa was showcased "enjoying" their element (Tahu was lava surfing, Gali was swimming, Pohatu was kicking a boulder about etc) This time hordes of "baddies" battled the "goodies" But it was clearly a fantasy scenario and not some modern and real conflict.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

I don't mind violence, I just wish lego would accept that they make violent sets already and just live with it.

And thanks for fixing my spelling error.

[Itaria No Shintaku]

I don't mind violence, I just wish lego would accept that they make violent sets already and just live with it.

And thanks for fixing my spelling error.

This has been explained so many times... if you don't get it, I can't explain it any more.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

There's nothing to explain.

Lego makes violent sets, but won't do military themes, making them hypocritical.

[muscleman]

No, i think they don't must make it. I don't like the idea.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

The don't must make it?

I'd love to see a modern military series. So many possible sets.

[rx79gez8gundam]

The don't must make it?

I'd love to see a modern military series. So many possible sets.

There are modern military sets available, produced by Mega Bloks under their Call Of Duty series. You also have the options of custom LEGO sets from numerous niche companies online, or you can recreate some of the sets people like myself, MadPhysicist, and scores of others have produced of modern militaria. LEGO is going to stick to their position of "no military" for the forseable future. There is obviously a market for military building sets, and has been for quite some time as competitors have produced and sold them mainstream for years. If the market did not exist the product would never have been on the shelf. This isn't an argument over morals or personal tastes, it's simply basic market math. If LEGO chooses to eschew this share of the market, then they can claim a moral stance and take the loss that branching into that market could otherwise bring. Being that LEGO is one of if not the largest toy company on the planet currently, I doubt they will notice nor care about any said loss. For the rest of us, I suggest if you want to see it, build it. It's what I do.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

But it's still hypocritical to make ninja and pirate sets, but no military.

[ShaydDeGrai]

There's nothing to explain.

Lego makes violent sets, but won't do military themes, making them hypocritical.

_IF_ they said their moral stance was against violent themed sets, then yes it would be hypocritical to have things like Ninja and Pirates, but their stance has always been against the glorification of modern/realistic warfare. That's very different that the broader, vaguer notions of violence (or conflict, violent or not, in general).

I'm not saying that they aren't already shipping sets that take a very romantic, white-washed view of some pretty dark periods in history (anyone who has studied the treatment of the local peoples in Europe's expansion into the Americas will never look at a game of cowboys and Indians the same way again) - but that is a different question than whether or not a depiction of a cartoonish 17th century pirate somehow glorifies modern warfare.

During the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, prior and during WWII, the Nazis used military toys (realistic tanks, planes, ships, artillery, V2 rockets and of course guns) to indoctrinate young boys into the mind set of the Hitler Youth, to desensitize them to the horrors of real war and fill their heads with dreams of glory and awards earned by killing all enemies of the state. Denmark had a front row seat as toys, rallys and propaganda turned innocent kids into teenage soldiers killing and being killed on real battle fields. TLG isn't saying "we oppose conflict based toys," they are saying "we will not be a party to the exploitation of children for the purposes of modern warfare".

Making toys that could be misconstrued as glorifying warfare and used as propaganda devices by people seeking to exploit children is what TLG is taking a moral stance against. And if you're rolling your eyes right now thinking that such melodrama could never really happen, then you should a) consider yourself lucky that you grew up in a more sheltered part of the world; and, b) pay more attention to international politics - did you know that after 9-11 certain companies in Asia made collapsable skyscrapers packaged with toy planes to knock them down? One "toy' we found was a spring loaded model of the World Trade Center that read "Death to America" on the sides. The child could then push a button and the spring would compact the tower into a pile of rubble that read "God is Great" in the middle - please do not tell me that a toy like that is no different than a couple of mini-figures practicing Spinjitsu.

Of course one could argue that brainwashing a child to abandon their childhood to become a soldier for the state/local warlord/drug cartel is a form of violence, but it is a very different sort of violence than that embodied by a flick fire missile knocking over Unikitty.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

Violence is violence, either on the battlefield or on the deck of your ship as pirates kill your crew.

[rx79gez8gundam]

Violence is violence, either on the battlefield or on the deck of your ship as pirates kill your crew.

So is beating the dead choir horse because you can't make it sing.

[rx79gez8gundam]

The Turkish Stars fly in NF-5 Freedom Fighters.

As for a military theme: I think Lego doesn't have a very strict line. World war 1 planes with machine guns are no problem, as are German WW2 soldiers and Russian post-war soldiers. Those are from a licensed theme, but I don't think there is any difference. If Lego allows medieval themes (most medieval movies I've seen contain scenes not suitable for children's eyes), a movie franchise where a planet is blown up (and even release the weapon itself as a set) and a minifig with an alternate choking face, and another movie franchise with German WW2 soldiers and post-war Russian soldiers, but refuses to release modern military sets, I call that hypocritical.

However, while I have the feeling that in the US people have respect for the military, in Europe, or at least the Netherlands it's a different story. Sometimes I see reactions online and while most of those people clearly never served in the military and thus don't know what they are talking about, it's clear to see there is a lot of opposition. If that's for the real military, I can understand why people don't like the idea of military Lego sets. However I don't understand why they don't like others to build military models.

But hey, I've seen plenty of great military MOCs that are even better than anything Lego would release and a decade before I became a real soldier I was already playing, pretending to be one.

Awesome Phantoms by the way!

I wasn't aware of the Turkish Stars, thanks for the correction!

I know what you mean about military MOCs being somewhat derided. I struggle to get mine any kind of views or comments, and they seem mostly snubbed. It's really disheartening overall. Even when I make non-military models I seem to be ignored. I personally enjoy building military equipment, particularly aircraft, because it's what interests me having grown up in the shadow of an Air Force base. I also feel military aircraft have a lot more aestheticly pleasing "fiddly bits" about them than the typical civilian aircraft does.

[ToaSalvus(lego)]

So is beating the dead choir horse because you can't make it sing.

No.

[Rick]

As seems to be the case every time this thread is resurrected, it turns into a repetition of people's opinions on whether TLG should make military sets or not, whether they're hypocrites for making a particular set that includes violence and whether that violence falls under their definition of "modern day violence/war". The discussion in this thread does not seem to progress any further and a lot of posts only seems to cause arguments.

We'll be keeping a close eye on this thread and if this arguing doesn't stop immediately, we'll be forced to lock it.

Thank you all.