BrickG

The problem is you shouldn't have to force logic here. It's 100% obvious they wouldn't ever CHOOSE to do that if they had a choice. It's working with what they've got. Nobody went into the writer's room and said "lets have a Lego episode but make the Legos WRONG because Homer is an idiot!" but instead I guarantee you they just got stuck with this. That is why this is stupid.

I agree with the other guy that it's an excuse. The real reason is the production budget. Anything else is forced due to circumstance.

It all comes down to costs. I'm pretty darned sure this is the best they could do with their budget for the episode.

I believe that first question has been answered. A lot of us think they're horribly ugly. And also it'll be less enjoyable because everything is horribly ugly. Reminds me of MegaBloks. ;p

My guess is nothing will happen. I'm not sure how someone can force you to do all that stuff. It sounds like if this is true the person seemed okay with it at the time :/. Also he was past the age of consent in that state (though flying somewhere to have sex where the age of consent is lower makes it a federal crime). Honestly I might sound like a jerk saying this but even if true it doesn't sound very rapey. It doesn't sound like anyone force fed this guy drugs or dragged him on the plane or anything. And again, age of consent in the state was reached... sounds a bit like someone regretting decisions made rather than having decisions forced on them. But hey, I don't know crap. I only read a summary on this one case. I could be 100% wrong. Also either way it doesn't look good. But it's not totally comparable to situations like Roman Polanski who did stuff to a 13 year old girl. I believe the guy in this case was 17 (which is still bad to many people but I believe the age of consent there is 16). Rumors about Singer's behavior have been around forever so it's a bit easier to believe this. But ultimately I'll let a judge and jury decide. EDIT: It sounds more like willing prostitution than anything else... As for how it'll affect the movie, probably very slightly. A few percents max probably.

Is this in the UK? I'm moving there either slightly before this even or during it. XP

I think Wolverine makes more logical sense here so I don't mind. I wish Kelsey Grammer was in this. He was one of the only good things about X-Men 3 and was a natural fit for beast.

You know, Gambit IS cool but there's a good reason he's not common in media. I'd say his stories aren't are interesting, important or relevant compared to other X-Men. Putting someone in something just because they're cool isn't a good reason. And I hope Tatum doesn't get Gambit. That's terrible.

This is one of those rare times that something is so ugly it rips the fabric of the universe and creates a science fact out of an opinion. That opinion is that these are ugly. Due to the nature of the universe not being able to handle too much ugly this opinion is now fact. 2+2=4, this is ugly. You cannot argue. It is science. Don't remind me!

No it doesn't. It really doesn't. This is factual. Opinions matter not here. These are ugly.

I figure they either started making this episode before the molds were decided on or they just did it because it's a lot cheaper and easier to animate these heads as opposed to molds. I do not like.

Are you being serious?

Tatooine is fine but it's supposed to be a backwater place where nothing happens. Yet everything happens there now. It's in most Star Wars stories or games as a key place. It's practically Courosant (spelling) and seems to be the center of the universe.

I figure this is mostly SHIELD changing forms and will be back with reforms. It would be awkward if Agents of SHIELD had like 6 more seasons where SHIELD didn't exist anymore. And technically it's not like Nick Fury has the power to dissolve SHIELD at will. It does still exist. If the FBI was found to have tons of Netherlands spies bent on world domination the whole FBI wouldn't be shut down immediately. It would be a process. Obviously in some form SHIELD exists. It's just let it's secrets out, looks bad and is under investigation. Some factions appear to be still fighting Hydra as I'm sure Coulson and his team will do.

Hill had like no development. Honestly I was surprised by the interest in her. She was barely in Avengers.

And yet again you misread everything I said. I never said you said I was pro-Nazi. Wat? Seriously? Okay I stopped reading after that point. You're clearly a brick wall. You're stubborn and immobile. There's no point in continuing this conversation because you're just so blind and so ignorant. Your reading comprehension is clearly in need of further education and it is pointless to continue debating with someone as pigheaded as you. So I am stopping. It did. So far you're the only one that thinks anything you've been spewing. You are clearly alone. Go be alone somewhere else. To everyone else I apologize for this diversion of the topic. I just found it difficult to ignore such absurdities and ridiculously unfounded accusations.

I might spend the money on just minifigures now. Super Heroes sets are just bad most of the time. Or a repeat of what's been done a dozen times like the Batmobile. I usually have a hard time justifying sometimes spending $10-20 on a SINGLE figure but at this point my collection is becoming too large for me to manage anyways.

The Blob and Captian Britain got minifigures in virtual form in the video game. That... kind of counts. ;p

What's offensive are your ridiculous words that seem to suggest I think the holocaust is fine. :/ Comparing cartoon violence to real life violence is the whole point. The comparison is extreme which again is the whole point. You clearly MISSED the point. Comparing and contrasting using two sides of an extreme was made to illustrate just WHY not all violence is equal and WHY The Lego Group is not hypocritical when accepting saying they want to avoid violence and then accepting some. The whole point was to give a CLEAR illustration that showed the obvious differences between different kinds of violence based on their medium and content. And when I said "for whatever reason" I think you're thinking like a teenager. I'm not a teenager saying "whut-evveeer!" but simply listing that there is a reason that they choose that some violence is okay and some is not. "Whatever reason" is literally meaning that, they use whatever reason they come up with to come to their decisions. The simple wording does NOT mean I'm downplaying the holocaust or anything like that. I thought it was OBVIOUS that I was suggesting that it's also worse because it's real. I compared a fictional scenario to an extreme scenario based on something real (though I'm not sure Hitler ever punched a jewish person personally). That went WITHOUT SAYING. That was the WHOLE POINT OF THE POST! Comparing something with a bad guy, something based on reality to something fictional and hero like. Again, THE WHOLE POINT. And you MISSED IT. I never said it was OKAY. Again, you failed at basic reading comprehension stuff. And I'm highly doubting you know anything about the context of Stephen Colbert too. I said that Colbert uses humor to make fun of stuff like racism. He uses it to point out the absurdity of things like racism (it's not the only thing) through the use of a character who just makes it all the more absurd. Some people believe this makes it fine because his comedy is a social commentary on how absurd racism and other things are. Which in the content compared to a REAL racist who genuines believes racist things is something that could be viewed as not as bad. It was an example. And if you knew how to read you'd see that I didn't take a personal stance on it myself. I literally never said it was 'okay' myself. I just used a general concensus and generalized thoughts of the people (he's got a lot of viewers) and did not say anything personally. It's nonsense because you suck at reading and go on tantrums based on your lack of reading comprehension. You've already several times proven that you misread most everything with your statements that are clearly not true. Read it again. I never treated it like it was fiction. Where the crap do I say it was fiction? The whole point was to contrast real world stuff with fake stuff for the clarity of the point which ended up going way above your head. You keep telling me I'm doing stuff, none of which I did. I never treated Hitler or the events like they were fiction. In fact I said the opposite when I said they looked at Nazi HISTORY (real history? did you think I meant FAKE history? wut?). I never said the use of racism in jokes is okay. And you took 'for whatever reason' really stupidly. "Whatever" does not only have the "teenager" meaning. So again, you completely read everything wrong. You're insulted for STUPID reasons based solely on your poor reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. And I bet you CONTINUE to do so because chances are since this is the internet and you have a certain level of anonymity you can easily be stubborn and refuse to even consider that you were dead wrong. On every point I might add. Seriously, leave the internet. I'm a bit defensive because I don't take kindly to essentially being told I'm acting like a Holocaust denier. Slight exaggeration but you are telling me I'm acting like that part of history is fictional which clearly I'm not. I'm not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

What he heck are you talking about? You read what I wrote so wrong it's mind boggling. You somehow read my words completely opposite of what I intended and made a point which I already made (that one type of violence due to the medium is worse). Please practice reading comprehension before you comment. I'm pretty sure I didn't write it horribly since Star Wars NutJub 69 seemed to understand exactly what I said. Seriously, you just completely missed the point of my whole post. And now I feel like I'm being told that I think Nazi violence isn't bad. Who doesn't realize that stuff actually happened? :/ I'm insulted and confused by your ridiculous post that seems to think I don't realize there's a difference here when my original post's point was to POINT OUT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE and Lego considers the content of the violence...

Ditto can be pretty useful and fun in battle when he has that ability that lets him transform immediately. Also IMO he should be the "Random" in Smash Bros!

I don't see anything wrong with money grabbing of this nature. Trying to make a living off something you love isn't something I can really attack. If there's stealing and other criminal-like things going on then fine. But... as a capitalist if they're doing it morally what's wrong with money grabbing? :P

I don't think it's a double standard. I don't think they ban ALL violence and stuff. They just judge it by the medium it's in. Like WWII Nazis they look at the history and consider it for whatever reason inappropriate. Simpsons Itchy and Scratchy they might consider more appropriate because of it's medium being a cartoon that doesn't take things seriously. I would make a comparison to Stephen Colbert who's "character" can say some pretty horrible things and he's taken heat for his character's racist portrayal of an Asian stereotype. However despite the overt racism and stuff people don't usually take it that way due to the medium he uses with comedy and essentially making fun of racism with a ridiculous character made to outline how ridiculous it is. And for violence, not all of it is created equal even if it seems to be at first. If you watch a video of Hitler shooting a Jewish person and watch another video of Captain America shooting a terrorist in exactly the same way one of those will be considered worse. It's all about how it's portrayed and less about the actual physical violence. Cutting off one head is not necessarily equal to cutting off another head. There are some heads cut off in LotRs but they're bad guy monster heads. Whereas if the movie was more filled with human heads rolling TLG might have a harder time making sets for those movies. I wouldn't call it hypocritical. I'd call it attempting to be smartly selective. They look at more than just the level of violence and look at the content of the violence and the medium which it is portrayed. I don't think it's arbitrary either and am sure they spend time researching whether a franchise is appropriate for most of their market (most parents don't mind some violence if it's "good guys beating up bad guys" violence). And I think taking such a black and white view of the issue is naive.

Getting addicted to rumors and theories. Gotta step away :P. It's useless to speculate and listen to rumors until there's something confirmed which probably won't happen until release. Feel like I'm wasting time. :P

I'd be fine with that but kids are stupid. They like stupid things. Heck, I'd say TMNT was stupid back when I was a stupid kid. I'd much rather these franchises grow up with us rather than get passed down.