leafan

Hello Michael and welcome to Eurobricks! Having a focus on the themes you enjoy most is a good idea because Lego has a vast history and can swallow wallets and purses whole. Smooth sailing brother!

I don't remember saying that!? I mean, I think Henry is cool but to repeat his name over and over.... well

I don't think I've gone too far; and I'm not saying that people can't believe what they want. But they're not going to make me believe it. Ok, well like I said, I could be wrong. Either way it doesn't matter to me because as I understand it, the owner is religious and applies some of those values to his business, which I think should be allowed so long as it's not hurting anybody. People can simply buy them from Tesco or wherever. No it's not, but I am dismissing those "issues" because I don't care about them. Well I'd say the want for (example) gothic style buildings of the Czech Rebpublic vs wanting minority sexualities and (in *my* opinion), imaginary genders, isn't comparible at all. A building needs to look a certain way to be that thing, where a persons sexual interests or 'identity' do not need to be represented visually. I am specifically talking about Lego sets here, mind, not tv shows etc, which I've already established are separate. Well I think we fundamentally disagree here, because I don't think it's the job of a toy company to reassure kids about their home life; I think that should be family and friends and toys should remain simply toys that are there to be built, played with, and destroyed. You know what though... It would be interesting to see Lego produce a range of sets specifically designed to do the things you and others talk about here, just to see how well it sells. I'm betting not well - but I suppose that'd be written off as some sort of prejudice. It doesn't matter to me at all. I was asking because, if that was intentional, then it just goes to show that depending on your beliefs or politics, what you may deem as acceptable in a toy will differ. You then have a lot of different questions which I'll answer quickfire style: "Is it that things that are contentious should be kept out of toys for children?" - Context is everything. So in your example of Indiana Jones/Nazi's, I'd say that WW2 an important historical event that should be taught to kids on a high level. There's no disagreeing about that, even if you're a literal Nazi. The lesson may be different depending on your view of it all, but it's important to learn, so yes I think it's good that kids are taught about that stuff, although I think Lego sets based upon a film set in that era are irrelevant and most kids don't care about the historical content there, they just want to shoot the "bad guys" or drive the cool jeep. It goes no deeper than that. Lego themselves though kind of broke their own rules about modern warfare there, but that's another topic. "Should LEGO not have made the Ecto 2 from the reboot of Ghostbusters, because feminism is considered contentious in certain circles?" - How are the characters identified as feminists based on the set alone? Otherwise it doesn't matter. I do however think that it shouldn't have been made because the film is shockingly bad. "Why should LEGO make Lunar New Year sets, if they cater largely to a non-European audience?" - Maybe not? I don't really care because there's no overt agenda and I'm not Chinese. "Why even have women minifigures, that perpetuate toxic norms such as childbearing, prescriptive body types, and hairstyles?" - Are you projecting? You can write this sentence because of a "toxic norms such as childbearing". "This, I think, is a real slippery slope, and I think you differentiate LGBT issues from other gender-based and cultural because the thought makes you feel icky." - Slippery slope, yes I agree. I even said that in my earlier post. But please don't try to make me look like I'm a minority in that I don't want to see LGBTQ+ issues visually portrayed in Lego sets, or kids toys in general. I guess we can't prove that either way though. I'd love to debate you on this, but frankly, I can already feel the moderators breathing down my neck and I've already been threatened with punishment once for voicing my opinion. I will say that yes, there is nothing wrong with the cultural norm being portrayed in toys. I didn't say that it did mean they don't have an identity. Another thing I didn't say. Of course it's not the only way to indicate these things, but the other ways don't matter in terms of the visual representation in a Lego set. It's not embarrassing for me because I'm not arguing that this made up stuff should be visually represented in Lego sets and that anybody who disagrees is a "transphobe" or whatever other phobe. The fact that you've indicated that you were waiting for my "hand" to be shown, shows that you're not really interested in civil discussion but rather showing how my beliefs are wrong so that you can point the finger and say "Haha, gotcha! Transphobe". Ok well obviously I haven't seen these Facebook conversations, but you didn't frame it that way, so do a better job at communicating at why you label people that way: " 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". " None of that touched upon individuals rights or morality. So the set would be normal looking people doing whatever they would be doing if they were designed visually as such? That would change the nature of the set because they effectively wouldn't be those things. This doesn't compare to what we're discussing. Catagorising Lego sets and parts isn't the same thing because you need to separately identify these things to use them. Or it could be that they understand that most people don't want that from a set. Most people want a cool set, to either play with or display. That said, I wouldn't rule it out as a possibility. They didn't want violence of any sort in their sets but their own research said that young boys liked playing with guns and enjoyed playing games with mild playful violence, so they allow room for that in themes like Castle, Space etc. because it sells. In the end, this all boils down to people arguing against opinion; and people's opinions on subjects like this are very emotive and, I hate to use this word but, divisive, so that is ultimately why I don't think this should be in Lego sets. Otherwise, I still wouldn't agree and wouldn't buy the sets, but I'd be ok with it existing in sets. Any discussion here about the deeper meaning behind why I feel like I do or vice versa just seems like gnawing for an opportunity to label the other as some negative; and that isn't productive for discussion. Off-topic - why does the boards time you out? It's a real problem if you forget when typing a long response like this. Luckily I had a backup plan. If it happens to you, open a new tab without closing the original, sign in again and you should be good to post on your original tab. If not, copy contents from original tab to the new one and paste it.

Yes of course they are the same characters as in the media, but the toy isn't inextricably linked to that in the eyes of a kid. Not every kid watches Ninjago and most adults don't, so to them the set is just a cool set with characters - whom are whatever the kid or adult wants them to be. So you're saying that they need visible indicators of their sexuality and/or "genderfluid" state. Riiiight. I didn't insinuate anything. I asked you a straight question because, if it were true, then that would mean you had a belief that those weren't a thing, and therefore any Lego set that pushes that narrative would be counter to your beliefs. You imply that it was mere oversight that it wasn't included - ok then. But you do realise that the average person on the street doesn't believe in made up genders, right? It's also strange that you take offense when your opening post in this thread labelled anybody who doesn't agree with this political stance as "homophobes and transphobes". Well we disagree. I think that is an unreasonable demand. I understand perfectly. I hadn't seen myself until I watched Max and Paddy's Road To Nowhere. If it hadn't existed I think I'd have been fine. Well you'd need to be a decision maker at Lego. Thank me later for the advice. And remaining neutral is what we've been discussing. Politics in toys. This is one of the reasons Lego don't make military sets. I could identify with military sets by the way. Just saying. Did it? News to me. Pretty sure they had Harry Potter sets last time I was in there, but I could be wrong. How exactly would you represent a Wizard or an Undead without showing them as such? Now I ask you what the difference is between a plain gay minifigure and a plain straight minifigure? The answer is that there's no difference, visually. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit. Care to read my previous posts before asking a loaded question? ta.

You know exactly what I'm referring to, I made it clear in my first post, so save the baiting for someone else. They absolutely are neutral in most cases in the context to which I was referring, and should stay that way. All of which no kid cares about. They just want cool toys. Stop trying to make it sound weird. Kids don't learn about weddings and valentines day from Lego sets. Do you have kids? They learn from parents and other kids. Also, are there a lot of Lego wedding and/or valentines sets that kids are lapping up? I didn't say that, but the fact that you did says that you did infact infer that from what I said; proving my earlier baiting comment.

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.

Welcome to Eurobricks.

I kind of expected to see Lloyd after he was in the Turkish Airlines commercial. Not in a big role, just a cameo.

Ah ok, it was so fast that I hadn't noticed. I do like the metal arm though. Pity I haven't been lucky enough to get the CMF Benny yet - I'm terrible at feeling packs.

Oooooh ok, that makes sense. Thanks. Well Benny doesn't have a metal arm in Benny's Space Squad, but he does in the movie. The movie arm is not explained (unless I had a major brain shutdown). We can only hope; and it did look fantastic. Well he was flying some kind of pirate disco spaceship. If I were to picture a fitting dream scenario for Metalbeard, it'd be living a scurvy life at sea with lots of rum and a ship to put the Titanic to shame (but made of wood and piratey). Yarr.

6079 easily. The randoms don't offer competition this time, in my opinion. Such a pity that, as @Marghal said, these weren't available outside of North America.

Oh I must have missed that one. Do you know the context? Also, I've just realised that they didn't even explain Benny's metal arm, which makes the Space Squad Benny seem even more out-of-place. What did you think of the small space-base scene? I doubt we're getting a set now, but at least it fit with Benny. For example, I didn't think that Metalbeard's vision was particularly fitting.

So this is the report from the opening weekend: I guess the minidolls didn't pull in the girls lol.

I may go see it again, but it's opening weekend was dreadful so it might be goodbye for future Lego movie projects, unfortunately. I can still see TLBM2 happening though. I'd say it's 50/50.

My favourite quote was from my (and my sons) favourite character Benny: "Don't touch me when I'm Spaceshipping!" to Balthazaar.

Wow, I hadn't realised that @Henry Bricklider had done a collab with another Youtuber. Henry, you're not informing your fans lol.

Welcome to Eurobricks, wolfspring! Your collection is fantastic and I'm very jealous, being a fan of Castle and Pirates myself. I encourage you to check out @Marghal's Youtube channel. He does reviews of Castle and eventually Pirate sets.

Further to the above, see the updates from Box Office Mojo: "FRIDAY AM UPDATE: Leading the charge on Thursday night was WB's The LEGO Movie 2: The Second Part with $2.1 million from previews beginning at 4PM. That figure also includes $600k from a preview event back in late January. Comparatively, The LEGO Movie only brought in $400k in previews ahead of its $69 million opening, while The LEGO Batman Movie brought in $2.2 million in previews ahead of a $53 million debut back in February 2017. " Then: " SATURDAY AM UPDATE: It's looking like a much weaker weekend than expected, thanks mostly to a severe underperformance from WB's The LEGO Movie 2, which brought in an estimated $8.5 million on Friday, which included $2.1 million in preview grosses, as the film is now looking at a three-day around $30+ million. This would put the film's debut more than -50% off the first film's debut. " Saw the movie btw - loved it. Not as good as the first one but still really good.

Welcome to Eurobricks, Sytema. Yeah custom minifigs are mocs, literally "my own creations". I hope you enjoy your time here.

I guess people will soon start to see the movie in droves and likewise, I am taking my boy this Saturday to see it. What I think is important to remember is that this weekends performance will in large part dictate it's financial success which will greatly impact the likelihood of seeing any further cinematic movies in the Lego universe. It used to be that opening weekends were make-or-break, but these days foreign markets (i.e. outside of America, like increasingly in China) make a large portion of a films takings, which does off-set the weekend slightly but it's still really important. I also don't think that the Lego Movie can rely very much on earnings in China due to the brand not being as strong there as in other parts of the world such as America and Europe. Keep an eye on how it's doing at Box Office Mojo and hope for the best. More movies means more sets and sales.

LOL! A trick I never did learn

It matters to me because kiddy stuff doesn't really appeal to me. It's potentially the difference between me buying the sets or not. I know that Lego doesn't care about that though and that's fine, but doesn't change my spending habits. But then again, I may not have bought into this theme anyway. We'll just have to wait and see. It'd also mean yet another licensed line where so many wish for another in-house theme.

I can just imagine that image zooming out to reveal Scooby Doo and the gang. /facepalm.

Welcome to Eurobricks, alvinofdiaspar. I'm glad that you've re-discovered Lego. My best advice is to find what you enjoy the most before dumping a lot of cash into it, then go ham

Welcome to Eurobricks, Przemek! Looks like little Alex is 'technically' already a fan. See what I did there?