BrickG

Nope. It's "legos" here everywhere but official Lego stores that have it hammered in their employee's minds. Language is regional even within the same language. Owners of trademarks often try to enforce or encourage a specific way to say their trademark but that doesn't dictate the language. Legos is used almost exclusively in some areas, specifically in North America. And it's used far far more than it's alternatives that others think of as the "correct" usage. The Lego Group has been very strict trying to get people to refer to their product as Lego Bricks or Lego Toys and not LEGOS purely with the motivation of protecting their trademark. However, they can't control language. If you say "legos" you are not grammatically incorrect, you're just not doing what a company wants you to do. It is in fact grammatically correct to say it either way. It's just one way is safer for the parent company. The word "legos" has come to mean in the USA "lego bricks" and there's nothing Lego or you can do about it because it's language. It's not incorrect. That's propaganda. It would be like me saying "colour" is NOT a word because only "color" is. In the USA for 99% of the kids out there Legos are any of the lego stuff that a lego set comes with. You might not agree with that, but again, companies don't dictate languages. Grammatically it's correct. It might not be friendly to the trademarks and might not fit with your view of Lego but it's language and it doesn't freakin' matter no offense :P. Legos is correct here in the US (possibly Canada too Idunno) and I don't mind it.

1) 1) No. Nothing is wrong. No evidence to suggest that there is anything wrong. Breasts are kid friendly (in the right context, not talking porn of course :P). If anyone thinks otherwise they're wrong. Simple as that. Kids don't get corrupt or anything from their Princess Leia and April O'neill action figures. 2a) Should they? IMO they shouldn't. This is more about their stupid response as it being "inappropriate" which seems to suggest they find the boobs themselves inappropriate. Which goes counter to their own toys and has absolutely no basis in Facts (like Fox News ). How they refused it is the argument. 2b) It matters how they mean "inappropriate". But from what it sounds like it's because boobs... which is dumb. They should have went with other reasoning. For example, my personal reasoning for not wanting it is the following: 1) Chest modifiers suddenly don't fit. You could bring up that they've been letting head modifiers not fit for a while, but for the most part those are for special characters that you wouldn't put them on anyways. Like who would put hair on a Ninja Turtle? Though I admit I have wanted to put on a helmet or something... Also IMO Chima goes too far which basically every head being a sculpt (being on top of a real head but they're ugly and obviously an afterthought). 2) I just don't think it's necessary. Boobs are represented okay right now. If anything the BIGGER problem is the 18:1 male/female minifigure ratio which is ridiculous. On the other hand I wouldn't mind terribly if they added boobs but I'm okay without them. I think the motivation is simply to get a somewhat more accurate gender representation. It's just an option that some people can find appealing, not for sexual reasons or anything, but just because (basically). People who aren't as attached to the iconic minifigure probably wouldn't mind seeing changes like that. Though for me I'd rather see arms that could move side to side first :P.

That's practically the definition of a straw man argument. I say boobs wouldn't be bad on Legos. You create an example which cannot be compared to that realistically with the "Leia needs much much bigger boobs". The two are not related, comparable and it's an informal fallacy because it misrepresents the original argument.

Honestly it's not really incorrect in the USA. Language is language. Nobody but hardcore lego people call it "Lego Bricks" or whatever. It's all "Legos" and I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I call them Legos myself when I'm not here and the only reason I don't do it here is because of all the people that "correct" my correct American lingo. It's correct enough anyways and I'm not changing my or a whole country's habits because Lego is concerned about their intellectual property. LEGOS ALL ROUND!

Around here they're selling okay. You'll always be able to find the sets (unlike TMNT and Marvel/DC which are often sold out).

The difference here is the Jabba's Palace stuff is crap. I hate to say it but I agree with those videos when it comes to Lego and girls. While I don't agree with everything in them I can say Lego does absolutely nothing to help the stereotyping of the genders...

J.J. Abrams said he didn't want to direct it and would rather be a viewer in an earlier interview. Disney, "We want you to direct our movie." Abrams, "I don't want to direct your movie." Disney waves hand, "You want to direct our movie." Abrams, "I want to direct your movie." Disney, "Move along..."

Okay, back on topic. Lego Bears, Lego Beats, Lego Boobs... Lego Battlestar Galactica. Debate over! Your arguments are invalid.

Fox News is as trustworthy as the Onion. I'm no democrat but they're a freakin' joke. Nobody should ever quote them on anything since they're so incredibly unreliable and morally bankrupt.

I don't know of any moms who would mind that and you hardly represent all moms. I as a young boy had a few toys with boobs including a Princess Leia action figure. Nothing bad happened because of it. I don't get your weird prejudice against boobs.

I think the new way for is superior for most people who don't build armies and/or don't have the money to build armies. I've tried army building in the past. I'm too poor. So I like these sets better. At least I can get some variation easily.

I can think of one use for those planets. I need to get one and repaint it to look like the Technodrome Eye... if I ever get to actually building that monster (don't have enough white pieces...).

Put this in the section of people who think the moon landing was staged. There's no point in giving these people any serious thought. There's no point in mentioning them. Move along... move along.

Now I'm wondering why a mom wouldn't buy their kid a lego set just because boobs are shaped out (albeit less than the example here :P) instead of drawn. Boobs aren't x-rated. Do those same moms never let their child watch TV or go outside because some people have shaped out non-drawn boobs? :o

What program did you use to make this?

Geeze just looking at the hints of some of you peoples collections... I'm taking forever just to organize mine and I've got like 1/100th the amount apparently. :/

That's pretty much it.

Confusing statement. You seem to think children are boob blind. As far back as I could remember I associated boobs with older females. It wasn't sexual or anything. It's not exclusive to Adults or Males. Most aged women simply have boobs. And it's a bit absurd to think children don't notice and take that into account when deciding if someone is a certain gender. Often it's the biggest help because men can wear girl clothes and girl hair, women can look like men. Boobs are a bit harder to duplicate.

My floor has been covered in Lego for almost a week now. I've been slowly sorting them.. haven't gotten very far... this is the kind of mess that will be around for a while.

I imagine I'll get all of the Superman sets unless the movie sucks. I'll also ninja onto him some freakin' RED UNDIES because Superman looks dumb without them. Which is odd because they're red undies...

Because it's the single most noticeable feature that most commonly marks the differences between genders. I mean, give a man boobs and he might look like a woman. Give them ears and that doesn't do much to distinguish and by that I mean it does nothing to distinguish the genders.

The likelyhood that Lego will get X-Men or Spiderman movie specific stuff is small since Sony still has the rights to those (and sells 'em to MegaBloks apparently).

I'd like the stick part and the chair part to be about half the size give or take. He needs to be bale to hold two of these things without them dragging on the ground.

If you're patient just wait a year and see if next year's has the Scarecrow in a smaller, more sanely priced set. I would never pay that much for a minifigure... But I'm also not patient. Almost broke my rule as I considered buying the absurdly priced ComicCon minifigures.

Which is a perfectly good reason. It's probably the BEST reason. Can't use chest armor! In fact I didn't think of that, and I'm sold. But that's not what Lego said. They said it was inappropriate. :P