nhk

It's what we're all hoping for, but being developed in conjunction with Bell/Boeing it might not be so easy to de-license it. Unless some deal is worked out where they still pay the companies, but avoid branding the set as such. In fact if Bell and Boeing have already been paid in advance, then this whole protest was for nothing, the only achievement it garnered being pissing off a part of the Lego community and costing Lego some serious cash with the recall.

If we start considering that fictional violence is somehow less violent than real violence, we're practically normalizing the concept into the minds of everyone and they become desensitized to real world violence in general. Thus any fictional battle sets are actually much more damaging than a simple S&R set. But human psychology doesn't fit with the marketing excuses companies come up in order to peddle the highly overpriced branded sets which generate interest by their theme, regardless if it doesn't fit with the "brand gudelines". That is in fact what the "fictional vs real-world" part is, an excuse for Lego to circumvent their own rules when convenient.

It's fair to say that since Lego started their licensing deals things have gone downhill in a few areas. First it was the removal of B-models, now they're limited by their own "guidelines", which they don't event follow as long as the set is unlicensed. I'm guessing they figure that licenses will draw more AFOLs in, which they might, but the the downsides are getting to be pretty sizable. What irks me most is that the passage quoted by @andythenorth actually applies stronger to other sets, than to this harmless rescue variant of the Osprey. Meanwhile we have multiple sets with 'battle' and 'attack' in the title, not to mention that the entire Star Wars range is based around conflict and war. I wonder how they justify putting out a set called the "Death Star", I guess destroying a whole planet full of people just isn't that big of a deal.

There are no principles being adhered to here. Otherwise we wouldn't have models like: 4953 Fast Flyers 5892 Sonic Boom 31039 Blue Power Jet 42066 Air Race Jet All of these planes in particular are modelled specifically after military aircraft, but were just given a makeover to hide that fact. What other use is there for a single/double seat jet ? And let's think about all the Marvel/DC sets which have modern military vehicles like Humvees, Jeeps and the like, only not labeling them, plus those same sets include things that are supposed to represent modern weapons. You might argue that it's just play, but it's much more violent in it's message than a rescue labelled twinprop, which kids will have 0 idea that it's military related and adults can make the distinction between a set and reality. But yeah, props to Lego for adhering to their "principles" when convenient. P.S. Targeting products like this just undermines the message that this group is trying to convey. I for one cannot take them seriously when they're doing such a campaign against a simple toy. If they were really interested in changing something, how about starting a protest in front of the US embassy - the country with largest military spending in the world. But instead their attempt to drum up controversy over a Lego set just makes them seem laughably ineffective.

A sad day for lego and fans everywhere. Personally this makes me view Lego in a much more negative light. I'm not interested in the pseudo-political messages they're trying to convey, I'm just here for the creative toys. I'll definitely be thinking twice before I buy a set from now on.

They have been tiptoeing around military vehicles for a long long time. Turning it into a "licensing" issue, seems more like Lego refusing to take responsibility for creating military craft by leaving them unlabelled. They need to admit they haven't been following those guidelines for years now and adjust them so they reflect the modern market. I personally have more issues with the various (annoying) shooting features that can actually target figures, than a completely unarmed military set.

Neither Bell or Boeing can be considered mostly military companies, as each has a significant civilian market. If the definition is a company that produces any military vehicles, then a lot of others fit the bill, meaning that Lego shouldn't realistically have licensed anything. Without a specific a criteria anything in between can be argued, which is an exercise in futility and a very superficial point to make. What I specifically have a problem with is that this NGO is trying to push forward connotations that this particular version of the craft somehow participates in the taking of lives due to being used by military. While it may technically violate a very specific written point in some document, it doesn't stand against Lego's core values, as it is specifically designed to save lives during those troubled times of war we all abhor. The other issue is Lego's response and their identity troubles as they're trying to push hard into the AFOL market. This set also appears to be part of that trend so Lego either needs to own it or forego the market altogether. AFOLs in general are more interested in realism rather than play features and stud shooters. The Technic line in particular is what a lot of older fans naturally gravitate to because of that. In fact, the specific rule is extremely superficial when they have no qualms in representing all forms of violence (being fantasy doesn't make it less violent), but designates a rescue aircraft off-limits. I doubt they would cancel their lucrative Marvel/DC heroes deals if this was pointed out. The other concern is stifling diversity - large Technic aircraft are far and few in-between with the last one being 42066 back in 2017, which has a much more military look than 42113. In fact there are very few possibilities as other than airliners, which are unfeasible in Technic, practically any other aircraft type has some military version/use. Should we relegate the theme to a variety of trucks and cars each year, with the odd motorcycle here or there ? Yes, I am biased towards this set because I want it, it's been a long time since 42066, and it is potentially more interesting than a majority of sets in the line, even previous planes/helicopters. Maybe I would have defended it even if it was an attack version, but Lego already put their best effort into distancing the design from it's military use. What more can they do in order to be allowed to put forth an interesting aircraft set once in a blue moon. The argument that it's "just a toy" actually works both ways, because nobody in their right mind would consider that owning a toy is somehow showing support for war.