LRDark

It is your interpretation, along with a whole lot of other peoples interpretations. Lego supplies a figure in a kimono.

I can definitely see the arguments here, as with the Vikings line (though the Vikings weren't robbing the creatures). I think the difference, in the eyes of Lego, is that these are "old world" religions where as a mosque or church are still for the beliefs of "modern" people. They're not doing anything to promote the "old" gods, although I can't argue against the grave robbing. I think, had they done a Christian or Islamic line, people would be furious over the representation of their ideas, whereas with Vikings, and the Norse faith, those that decide to believe in Jormungund are generally knowledgeable to see the difference. Not to say all, of course, but a good portion of persons that follow the "Old" religions came about it in their own way instead of being raised with such teachings. I don't want this to lead into a discussion about religion, though, in terms of right/wrong I agree, it's a little off-putting for me as well, but I understand where Lego might be coming from I would really love to see a historical theme on some of these lines that are accurate to the T (with maybe accurate mythology/theology thrown in), but I can understand why that doesn't appeal to the children

Ohh, I'll have to check that out! Thank you for the infor, sidersdd. It think my favourite is the orc attacking the Uruk with a shovel

Oooh, that's a nifty little page! Any information regarding where that can be found? It looks like an instruction manual.

I used to work for them. The employee discount almost made things a good price

I was thinking of that face as well.

Hitler is by no means what the German peoples looked like. When I think of Germany, I don't think of Hitler; when I think of Japan, I think of kimonos. The common perception of Japan is the way they dress- the traditional garb is the kimono. Lego took this opportunity to provide a traditional Japanese woman. They took into account what the Japanese wear. Again, that is your interpretation. You're putting a profession on a traditional garb. And yet they have never, ever done it in a real environment like Shaun of the Dead would be. It has always had a fantastical or historical context, and they never have the actual act of death or blood. No gallows. No executioner. No fresh corpses. How am I being pushy? I'm simply explaining myself in the way I know how. I'm giving you my reasonings instead of saying things like "you're playing dumb." You can't discount your view isn't everyone's view; as I've said, I'm just giving reasonings why TLG could've made their decisions. I'm tired or reading all of the "well they're definitely lying and they're definitely hypocrites." I'm here to do nothing more. I am really tired of this as well; I was really hoping for a serious discussion of their actual posted standards I am interested in hearing thoughts about this is well! It seems to be things to keep the general public content. I can understand just about any reason as to why they've gone against most of their standards, not that I agree with them, but it seems like those give them the most options with offending the least amount of people. More "bang for your buck," as it were. As someone said (in another thread, I think?), the White House and Lady Liberty could offend someone who sees it as Lego supporting America an its government; the Ark of the Covenant in the Indiana Jones line is an obvious religious artifact; most of the films they've licensed had swearing, smoking, and/or sexual undertones; there was definite killing in those same films; PETA wouldn't even want to see the animals in the regular sets, at least as pets Those all have their supporters of why that's against their standards. That doesn't mean that those supporters are necessarily correct, in terms of Lego's point of view. I'm sure that that, in time, Lego will adopt new standards, even if it's only upping the "Warfare" policy from WWII to Korean. I don't think they're going to back themselves into any "unnecessary" additions such as modern robbers with guns, however. A crowbar works just fine

Well, my thoughts about it are due to the reasons he has his hat in the film. I remember hearing Peter Jackson say on the DVD commentary for Fellowship that Gandalf had his hat on to symbolize how happy of a world Middle Earth was, since Gandalf always had his pointed hat on in The Hobbit. When he lost his hat in Moria, it was used to represent how dangerous of a journey they were actually embarking on. However, I'm sure Lego just did it because that's what the scene was I am really curious as to how he looks with the long grey hair; if it looks decent, Lego could've very well added it to the set. Additionally, if they made a smaller beard (which was most likely made larger for the upcoming dwarves), a grey Serena/Elizabeth Swann hair would've looked amazing on him I'm really hoping for a white Qui-Gon hair if they ever decide to do a set featuring Gandalf the White, though...

These pictures are making me really excited for this set; I must say, I think my favourite parts include the glow-in-the-dark vines on the exterior walls and the curtain & casket room. They're quite simple, but they add a whole lot of flavour to Lord Vampyre's lair. I'm really looking forward to adding this thing to my Castle collection.

I can definitely see where you're coming from. Personally, I think all of the figures look great in the respects of how Lego tried to present them. Gandalf could've used his long hair, definitely, but during those scenes he wore his hat. What could we expect, yet another molded piece? Ohh well, hopefully they'll come up with an alternative for him in the future, although I don't know about that alternative appearing in The Hobbit wave. Also, I agree that Samwise looks odd compared to his film counterpart, and I think it's due to the length of his hairpiece. Using the same hair as Merry, Frodo, and Pippin, it gives the illusion of him being the same size, when he was, of course, larger with a fatter face. Sam's hair had the same overall shape as the other three, but it looks too big on the minifigure. Despite these details, though, I'm really enjoying them, and think they all look great; I look forward to seeing whether they hold up to this notion in person.

How is this not the same thing? I'm not playing anything; I'm giving you my honest opinions, and frankly, I find your notion quite rude. Your only arguments that I can recall are because it is viewed by others as a geisha. The point of me creating this thread is so that I can provide evidence for the stance that TLG is not hypocritical with these decisions. There is nothing about prostitution or geisha in this figure. You're adding that spin to that minifigure; don't blame TLG for your interpretations. It really doesn't affect their boundaries. You can provide any spin you'd like to any minifigure; you can see it in any way you'd like, be it habitual or forced interpretation. TLG wouldn't have anything left to produce given enough spin. Let's take a look, shall we, at these minifigures, and their names. Tribal Hunter, Cheerleader, Circus Clown, Caveman, Zombie, Skater, Robot, Demolition Dummy, Magician, Super Wrestler, Nurse, Ninja, Spaceman, Forestman, Deep Sea Diver, Spaceman Spartan Warrior, Lifeguard, Witch, Pop Star, Weight Lifter, Ring Master, Explorer, Karate Master, Surfer, Pharaoh, Vampire, Traffic Cop, Mime, Skier, Disco Dude, Maraca Man Hula Dancer, Tribal Chief, Samurai Warrior, Tennis Player, Sumo Wrestler, Baseball Player, Fisherman, Elf, Rapper, Space Alien, Gorilla Suit Guy, Race Car Driver, Mummy, Snowboarder, Space Villain, Pilot Artist, Crazy Scientist, Hazmat Guy, Hockey Player, Ice Skater, Kimono Girl, Lawn Gnome, The Monster, Musketeer, Punk Rocker, Sailor, Street Skater, Soccer Player, Surfer Girl, Viking, Werewolf Boxer, Cavewoman, Detective, Egyptian Queen, Evil Dwarf, Fitness Instructor, Gangster, Gladiator, Graduate, Lizard Man, Lumberjack, Ice Fisherman, Royal Guard, Small Clown, Snowboarder Guy, Zookeeper Bandit, Butcher, Classic Alien, Clockwork Robot, Genie, Flamenco Dancer, Highland Battler, Intergalactic Girl, Lady Liberty, Leprechaun, Mechanic, Minotaur, Roman Soldier, Skater Girl, Sleepyhead, Surgeon Aztec Warrior, Bagpiper, Bride, Bunny Suit Guy, Computer Programmer, Daredevil, Evil Knight, Galaxy Patrol, Grandma Visitor, Hippie, Jungle Boy, Ocean King, Rocker Girl, Swimming Champion, Tennis Ace, Viking Woman Now, let's see all of the ones that don't list a state of being, profession or hobby: N/A N/A N/A Kimono Girl N/A Sleepyhead Bride, Grandma Visitor, Hippie As you see, we're not let with much. Lego frequently used "races," if you don't mind a stretched term for this list, such as Elf, Caveman, Demolition Dummy, and Alien (19 altogether). Also removed were hobbies, like Tennis Ace and Maraca Man, in addition to professions (88 between Hobby and Profession). Why is it that Lego used the term "Kimono Girl," rather than geisha, if roughly 78.6% of all the Collectable Minifigures are named strictly for their profession/hobby. Every other name is completely clear regarding what the Minifigure is. The ones left in the list above have nothing else to go by in terms of other labels. What does the Sleepyhead do for a living? What sport does the Hippie play? The Kimono Girl certainly falls into the category of these for me. There is nothing else remarkable about her. She's not on a skateboard. She's not wielding a sword. She's showing no signs of a profession or hobby, other than what it states in her official biography. She's wearing a Kimono, hence her name. With all of the other professions explicitly mentioned, she could've easily been labeled "Geisha," but she isn't. Might I suggest that you look up traditional Japanese women? Various cultures have traditional dress, and, in this case, it is shared with, but not limited to, geisha. I've never said that she couldn't have been inspired by one. In fact, I believe in one of my earlier posts I recognized that it could very well have been the case. This does not mean that it was the case. The only evidence we have to go by has already been listed. She wears a kimono and has a white face; that's not anything to go by, as it was traditional garb. Now, on to the subject of the past. Here's what TLG has to say that it won't accept that will matter with this argument: Death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture Warfare or war vehicles in any situation post-WWII to present I don't believe Vikings, Western, or Pirates falls into any of these categories. None of them are present warfare, as I feel there are aspects of armies in these lines, like the Cavalry and the Redcoats. Also, there is no actual death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture involved in these original themes. There are no hangmen, there are no gallows, there are no corpses aside from skeletons. There are prisons in all three of the lines you mentioned to house the bad guys. The Western sets didn't even feature the cavalry in any Native sets; they were simply focusing on the culture of the Natives, and the laws of the land without ever crossing the two. The only violence really featured in these lines that I can see any real issue with lies within the sets of the Vikings. Here we have: Fafnir, Nidhogg, Jormungund, Fenris, and other such creatures, attacking and being attacked by our vikings. I feel that this is a quite safe line, as these are historical (in terms of Lego) encounters against fantastical creatures. The child understands that Fafnir won't swoop down in the middle of the night to steal his riches.

Then there's no actual proof that the Series 4 Kimono Girl is a geisha. It is possibly just your misconception. The article clearly states that it happened when geisha were first coming around. They used to engage in prostitution. Whether or not their current culture doesn't accept that makes no difference regarding the past. I am going for the time being, but I shall be back later.

Wow, what a lovely argument. The fact is, Wikipedia states that in the past, some geisha engaged in acts of prostitution.

Yes, because the points I made didn't actually happen, according to Wikipedia. Discount that. Please. Humour me.

This does not equate to my definition being incorrect. In fact, if you want to use Wikipedia... "As they became more widespread throughout the 1760s and 1770s, many began working only as entertainers (rather than prostitutes)..." "Some [geisha] would have sex with their male customers, whereas others would entertain strictly with their art forms.[17] Prostitution was legal up until the 1900s, so it was practiced in many quarters throughout Japan." "There is no doubt that coerced sex and bidding on a new geisha's virginity occurred in the period before WWII... —Liza Dalby, Do They or Don't They" "Before the war, a maiko's virginity would be auctioned (the original "mizuage").[20][21] This was outlawed in 1959,[22] but has been reported as relatively normal in the 1990s,[23] and happening "on a limited basis" in 2001." "In contrast, "machi geisha", who worked outside the licensed districts, often engaged in illegal prostitution." "Mizuage (水揚げ) was a ceremony undergone by a maiko, where a man paid money for the privilege of having sex with the apprentice geisha"

It has everything to do with opinion, as the "base" and "unworthiness" is defined by the individual. How is that not an opinion? Prostitution doesn't necessarily mean sexual activities, it just means performing acts which are deemed immoral by others. Geisha, to many, are prostitutes because of this.

And I, along with many others, still consider that prostitution, hence why I wasn't making an assumption. Especially when looked at: Prostitute:a person who willingly uses his or her talent or ability in a base and unworthy way, usually for money. To me, it's the exact same thing. Again, disagree if you wish, but I'm neither wrong nor making assumptions. I believe he was stating that having a kimono means nothing about your profession.

I'm going by sources. I looked it up. I've researched before stating the information. You might not like what I found, but it is what I've found. How does this sound to you? Mizuage: the act of a maiko (apprentice geisha) selling themselves to the highest bidder to mark their coming of age. The highest bidder had the right to deflower the maiko While the maiko would believe that's not an act of prostitution, I think many of us would disagree. As I said, I wasn't going to get into the argument because I honestly don't know a lot about it; all I was stating is that the Kimono Girl isn't the best choice for an argument against Lego's standard, as it isn't labeled as a geisha in any way, shape or form.

Again, you're making assumptions. There are plenty of other traditions that she could take part in. I'm not saying she definitively isn't a geisha; I'm just saying that any thought that she is such derives from the mind of the individual, not Lego themselves. Also, to correct an earlier point of mine, the "Ocean King," apparently, was named "Neptune" in a Lego catalog, not that it really matters.

I agree, but that's the "official" definition according to that. What else should we go by? But it's not a geisha. She doesn't perform, officially. She writes haiku. Lego might've processed the thought of geisha, but that's not what she is officially. She wears a kimono. She has a white face. She writes haiku. She studies tradition. Everything else is speculation. In addition, the Tribal Hunter is a hunter is most likely not called "Native American" due to the fact that not all Natives were hunters. It was giving him a profession, just as they did with the Chief. Lady Liberty is a common and correct name for the Statue of Liberty, so that bears no significance, as Lego didn't make up that name. The "Grandma Visitor" is rather odd, I agree, but I think it's to not step on anyone's toes giving it the iconic name of "Little Red Riding Hood," just as they did for "Sherlock Holmes," "Robin Hood," "Dracula," "Frankenstein," "Frankenstein's Monster," or "Neptune." I don't know the reasons for the odd names, but if someone would care to enlighten me, I would appreciate it.

I really don't appreciate you stating that my opinion is "dumb." As I said- don't agree with me if you wish, but frankly, saying that everyone assumes someone in a kimono is a geisha, or a prostitute, is rather racist. Is everyone in a kiffeyah a terrorist? You're the one insinuating something naughty with a traditional Japanese garb. My mistake; you didn't call anything inappropriate, but it seems like you feel that the kimono girl is inappropriate in the terms of Lego standards, when it's clearly not.

Why is a girl in a kimono inappropriate? It's an accurate (more or less) depiction of a traditional Japanese female. How else would it be?

Yeah, I can definitely see the correlation, but thank you for the information! At least I never made that mistake in the "real world," as I tend to not discuss Japanese culture, let alone geisha. There are many sexual escorts in the world as well. "Companion for men" is questionable, perhaps. Also, another quote from dictionary.com regarding word history: "1887, "Japanese girl whose profession is to sing and dance to entertain men;" hence, loosely, "prostitute," from Japanese, lit." It goes on to say a little more, I still feel that this isn't relevant, as it still isn't terminologically referenced as a "geisha" by Lego.

Well, I don't know much about Japanese culture, just the things I research. According to Dictionary.com: Geisha, n. a Japanese woman trained as a professional singer, dancer, and companion for men. Either way, the little girl shouldn't be thought of as a prostitute in terms of what Lego was attempting to produce.

I agree, I was just thinking that the counter-argument would be that a geisha did act as companions for men. My posts were just getting too long to really want to have that in it. Geisha were performers, nothing more. Sex just happened to be one of those "acts" that several geisha took part in.