TLG's Written Stance About "Weapons in LEGO"

[DLuders]

As Aanchir noted on this Eurobricks post, The Lego Group (TLG) has finally written down their stance concerning "guns and Lego". From their most-recent Progress Report 2010, TLG wrote on printed Page 26 their:

"Guideline for weapons and conflict in LEGO experiences"

"A large number of LEGO minifigures 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."

Nevertheless, for mature AFOLS, there is no denial that Lego tanks (such as those produced by Sariel and Mahjqa) ARE COOL, and display some of the best examples of Lego TECHNIC mechanisms.

[Tobbe Arnesson]

The basic aim is ... 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."

8199 Security Smash from 2010:

[mahjqa]

If I may quote myself:

I'm not much of a military person anyway.

Well, allow me to amend that statement; I like army vehicles. There's fuckloads of interesting tech in them. Shame that most of it is intended to render the opponent into chunky salsa.

Which is why I try to keep my models away from real-life military aesthetics;

is more a caricature than a real tank, and the

has bright orange striping that wouldn't work all that well in a camouflage paintjob. Edited March 10, 2011 by mahjqa

[Paul Boratko]

It's funny, because with the exception of the Technic line, every other theme in Lego seems to revolve around some type of conflict or battle....

However, when it comes to the city theme, the cops don't carry guns... But if you are fighting off the undead or mythical giant scorpions, then it is ok to use a gun...

Edited March 10, 2011 by Paul Boratko

[Paul Boratko]

Then you have the World Racers theme where you have cars, boats, and motorcycles equipped with chainsaws, spinning blades and rockets all being used to edge out the competition.

[Ralph]

8199 Security Smash from 2010:

This product is a good example of creating a good set for boys, after all I suspect every little boy has smashed their match box or hotwheels cars into each other at some point... I know I did!

So this is set perfect for those kids.

Ralph

[Dr. Steve]

8199 Security Smash from 2010:

Now that is funny!

[Blondie-Wan]

Though this is one of their most overtly regular military-themed sets ever, it's perhaps worth noting the minifigures here depict not actual soldiers, but simply other toys - ones actually about the same size as their LEGO counterparts, and whose weapons are molded right into their hands and cannot actually fire.

(Speaking of which, this set is one of the few LEGO sets that's actually considerably more complex than the thing it represents - the original army men are cheaply-produced, single pieces of plastic with zero moving parts. Of course, that's overlooking the fact that the "real" army men, like the other Toy Story toys, are secretly "alive" and active whenever no human is looking - but then, our LEGO set is a toy, too... )

[fred67]

I think TLG should just keep quiet about their policy. They can do whatever they want, but they seem a bit hypocritical.

I mean, what is "modern?" In some sense any firearms after Muskets are "modern," a WWII style rifle is just as deadly now; and just because semi-automatic handguns are popular doesn't mean revolvers aren't just as "modern."

In addition, when you in sets like the the flying wing (we all remember what happens) from Indiana Jones or Darth Vader's gruesome transformation, the policy makes little sense. This is especially true of younger audiences where there's little difference between fantasy or real violence.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't mind their overall policy if that's what they want to do, but they shouldn't keep patting themselves on the back for it when they continue to release sets with violent themes and parts.

[Meatman]

It's funny, because with the exception of the Technic line, every other theme in Lego seems to revolve around some type of conflict or battle....

That is a very good point Paul.

[Sariel]

If I may add something... I understand and accept LEGO policy, but at the same time I find it utterly incoherent. So, knives, swords, sabres, pistols, muskets are acceptable, but tanks are not. The usual argument is that tanks are designed for killing. Well, it appears to me that a sword and a tank are instruments created for the very same purpose, just at different technological levels. I understand that swords look good with knights and sabres seem natural with pirates, but let's not fool ourselves - they are made for killing, not for scratching one's back. The other usual argument is that tanks are too modern. I agree, they are way more modern that e.g. a musket is - but may I ask, what about the Death Start then? And how come tanks are too bad, but a device created solely for the purpose of destroying entire planets is perfect to let kids play with?

[Blondie-Wan]

I think TLG should just keep quiet about their policy. They can do whatever they want, but they seem a bit hypocritical.

I mean, what is "modern?" In some sense any firearms after Muskets are "modern," a WWII style rifle is just as deadly now; and just because semi-automatic handguns are popular doesn't mean revolvers aren't just as "modern."

In addition, when you in sets like the the flying wing (we all remember what happens) from Indiana Jones or Darth Vader's gruesome transformation, the policy makes little sense. This is especially true of younger audiences where there's little difference between fantasy or real violence.

What I'm trying to say is that I don't mind their overall policy if that's what they want to do, but they shouldn't keep patting themselves on the back for it when they continue to release sets with violent themes and parts.

I don't think they pat themselves on the back for it at all; if anything, from what I've read, it's more like wringing their hands over some of the things they feel compelled to represent in some of the licensed sets. I've seen articles describing how some of TLG's own designers would "wince" at the representation of things like machine guns in the Indiana Jones sets, for example, and I now half-wonder whether TLG's aversion to such overt depictions of violence is at least part of the reason why the Indy and Batman lines were put on hiatus or discontinued even though they apparently sold well.

[fred67]

The other usual argument is that tanks are too modern. I agree, they are way more modern that e.g. a musket is - but may I ask, what about the Death Start then? And how come tanks are too bad, but a device created solely for the purpose of destroying entire planets is perfect to let kids play with

It's not just modern, it's "realism." Death Star is completely fictional, but I agree in substance with a lot of what you said.

I don't think they pat themselves on the back for it at all; if anything, from what I've read, it's more like wringing their hands over some of the things they feel compelled to represent in some of the licensed sets. I've seen articles describing how some of TLG's own designers would "wince" at the representation of things like machine guns in the Indiana Jones sets, for example, and I now half-wonder whether TLG's aversion to such overt depictions of violence is at least part of the reason why the Indy and Batman lines were put on hiatus or discontinued even though they apparently sold well.

The question is why do they insist on publicizing this policy (in fact, repeating it over an over again) when that's the issue. I've never heard anyone complain about LEGO sets being too violent (maybe I just missed something), so I don't see why they jump to defend themselves. Even if people did complain, the fact is that when you sell millions of products to millions of people, you're always going to get whiners.

IOW, like I said, I don't have a problem with their policy... but they don't seem to mind violating it (at least in spirit) if they can make money on it (like Star Wars and, more importantly, Indiana Jones - whose time frame is recent enough to be considered "modern").

I remember LEGO apologists saying the reason HP was discontinued (and they stated emphatically "they will not release more") was because HP was getting "too dark." Can you understand why, while I have no problem with their policy, I think they should just stop publicizing it? They come off as hypocrites. They mostly try to avoid violence in sets... but if they said that, it would just sound stupid.

Edited March 10, 2011 by fred67

[Meatman]

Lego won't make a tank that resembles a military tank, but they'll design it in another form with spikes all over it firing missles. Lego actually makes more dangerous looking vehicles than any Military service has ever dreamed of.

Edited March 10, 2011 by Meatman

[Meatman]

And like Paul stated above, what kind of race features vehicles with saw blades and knives and guns on their cars?

A DEATH RACE

But they call it World Racers so that makes it ok?

[Seluryar]

lets not forget about the Western theme:

http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=6712-1

[BrickPerfection]

Very interesting that TLG finally wrote down their "unwritten rule". Thanks for sharing that information. Still, without weapons, every toy is boring . The technic tank looks quite good by the way.

[jonwil]

I suspect its all about what kids will associate things with.

When a kid sees NinjaGo with all the ninja weapons, they are going to associate it with cartoons and movies. Same with Kingdoms, Pirates, POTC, Adventurers/Pharaoh's Quest and western.

The Toy Story army men are clearly also fictional.

Starwars and Batman are also likely to be associated with cartoons and movies, as are the weapons in Space Police and Alien Conquest.

The sets they made from Indiana Jones, take the fighter plane attack for example. No military uses aircraft like hat anymore. When kids see those, they will associate it either with museums or with movies and cartoons (rather than real life)

Sets like the creator Fast Flyers and Sonic Boom are OK because they dont have weapons and they are brightly colored (so they will be more closely associated with airshows and aerobatic displays than with warfare).

[tazosaure]

I think TLG should just keep quiet about their policy. They can do whatever they want, but they seem a bit hypocritical.

If it helps I've always understood LEGO's policy on weapons not to be about the amount violence or pain carried by the weapons itself but more about whether one weapon relates to modern (as it current, or recent enough) conflicts.

Tanks definitely fit that description.

There are little conflicts that I know of going on today being fought with swords, six shooters, etc. Futuritic or fantasy looking weapons usually get a pass to as they can't be easily associated to any recent or on going wars.

I don't think there's much hypocrisy in that, they just don't want to offend part of their customer base by risking appearing on one side or another of a conflict.

[Baylego]

Huh, this is interesting. I also think that they shouldn't have written this down, now they have to follow strict guidelines on what they can create. Well, that is why there is Brickarms and Brickforge .

[fred67]

If it helps I've always understood LEGO's policy on weapons not to be about the amount violence or pain carried by the weapons itself but more about whether one weapon relates to modern (as it current, or recent enough) conflicts.

Tanks definitely fit that description.

There are little conflicts that I know of going on today being fought with swords, six shooters, etc. Futuritic or fantasy looking weapons usually get a pass to as they can't be easily associated to any recent or on going wars.

I don't think there's much hypocrisy in that, they just don't want to offend part of their customer base by risking appearing on one side or another of a conflict.

The problem is we're not just talking about warfare - the cops don't have guns, either... yet the "cowboy" does, and that's not licensed. And revolvers are used all the time to commit crimes and are still used in places by police... at LEGO scale there's little difference in revolvers.

I'm not arguing with their policy - I know they won't do an official LEGO realistic army tank or bazooka... I just think that while both hands are mostly on the same page, making statements like this really limits them... or they violate the policy at will... they should just not make a big deal about publicizing it is all I'm saying.

Edited March 11, 2011 by fred67

[Blondie-Wan]

The problem is we're not just talking about warfare - the cops don't have guns, either... yet the "cowboy" does, and that's not licensed. And revolvers are used all the time to commit crimes and are still used in places by police... at LEGO scale there's little difference in revolvers.

Right, but the approach tazosure describes would still apply. LEGO's cowboys could be seen as contemporary, but the idea behind them is clearly one of a wild west milieau; they get a pass because of their historical association. Of all the sets in which revolvers have appeared (as revolvers, as opposed to being used as construction elements for other things), I think the closest ones to the present would be some of the Indiana Jones sets, specifically ones from Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and that still takes place fifty years before the first sets based on it were released, so that would be considered a historical setting (and a fantasy / sci-fi one, for that matter). That film and those sets do also reflect the real-world Cold War conflict, but that's still historical.

I'm not arguing with their policy - I know they won't do an official LEGO realistic army tank or bazooka... I just think that while both hands are mostly on the same page, making statements like this really limits them... or they violate the policy at will... they should just not make a big deal about publicizing it is all I'm saying.

I'm not sure they are making a big deal about it, actually - doesn't this come from a report intended mainly for internal company use, even if it's available to the public? It's certainly not as though they're announcing it in their TV commercials or proudly emblazoning their product boxes with large snipes saying "NOW FREE FROM REPRESENTATION OF REAL-WORLD VIOLENCE!!" in giant red letters of something.

[5150 Lego]

Lego won't make a tank that resembles a military tank, but they'll design it in another form with spikes all over it firing missles. Lego actually makes more dangerous looking vehicles than any Military service has ever dreamed of.

This commment couldn't be more true.

i have to say i find TLC's offical "stand" on tanks/violence incredibly hypacritical. As others have pointed out in the past, Indie sets have used war machines. The fact that they were based on WWII machines is irrelevent. They were war machines with weapons. To me all that says is.. (we won't make a war tank or airplane, but if its a licensed set, all bets are off". Violence is ok, as long as it isn't based on modern type equipment. Its ok to play pirates, who rob, pilage, rape and murder. But a soldier driving a tank is bad.

If it helps I've always understood LEGO's policy on weapons not to be about the amount violence or pain carried by the weapons itself but more about whether one weapon relates to modern (as it current, or recent enough) conflicts.

Tanks definitely fit that description.

There are little conflicts that I know of going on today being fought with swords, six shooters, etc. Futuritic or fantasy looking weapons usually get a pass to as they can't be easily associated to any recent or on going wars.

I don't think there's much hypocrisy in that, they just don't want to offend part of their customer base by risking appearing on one side or another of a conflict.

Don't get me wrong, i do understand fantasy vs. reality, but in terms of guns and real weapons such as Indie, Batman, Pirates etc., there really all in the same categorey. Shooting someone is shooting someone. Guns are guns. Doesn't matter if its modern or not. If i choose not to allow my child to play with toy guns, then thats going to be all guns. A six shooter vs. a glock makes no differance.

[DLuders]

This policy is getting another look. See the fine print below. The "Toy Story 3" movie featured TOY soldiers, and it spawned Set 7595 (Army Men On Patrol). A variation of that set appears in the green picture below. Well, since the toy soldier minifigs are Lego "toys of (other) toys", the logical extension would be to make some additional toys for THOSE TOYS (i.e., for the soldier minifigures). A small, minifig-sized MICRO TANK (with Technic Links and Liftarms) is being considered....

[Fine Print: For more about today's happenings, see this. ]

[Plastic Nurak]

Thanks God, it's April Fool ...

...it isn't true ?