 | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Frank Filz wrote:
| |
It’s funny how it’s ok for kids to play at cowboys and indians (well, not so
much the indians part any more) and pirates, both of which are genres that
glorify killing and lawlessness. On the other hand, war (especially WWII
which LEGO has had the most resistance to), which sure isn’t very pretty,
does have some positive sides to it (ok, so it does take an agressor, but we
usually don’t celebrate the aggressor the way we do with pirates).
|
Playing war is fantasy. It is, boiled to its essence, acting out the struggle
between good and evil. Generally speaking, fantasy works well the more removed
it is from reality. Space wars work great. The distant past works well, too.
What doesn’t work so well is contemporary scenarios of conflict-- they just
strike too close to home. The pain of WWI & WWII for Europe is not removed
enough from reality for comfort and therefore taboo, especially for the Danish
toymaker.
My .02,
JOHN
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, John Neal wrote:
| |
Playing war is fantasy. It is, boiled to its essence, acting out the
struggle between good and evil. Generally speaking, fantasy works well the
more removed it is from reality. >
JOHN
|
Thanks John,
I think you put to words what many folks feel, but can’t articulate. In the
US, WWII, has already reached the level of “myth” for most kids. This is of
course an unfortunate by product of a collective refusal to honor history, but
that’s a whole other can-o-worms.
I think LEGO has correctly judged that US customers at least will not mind
buying Nazis (un-swastica-ed, but nazi’s nonetheless) to be defeated by the
dashing Dr. Jones. WWII is long over and the culture collectively decided that
fighting was the right choice. It is easy to mythologize a war when the agressor
and loser was the Nazis.
LEGO could probably not want to try to get away with making modern military
equipment. Such equipment would stir up -in parents- reminders of Vietnam,
Iraq, Afganistan, and countless other wars around the world that are much more
vivid in recent memory, and where good/evil, success/failure are not universally
agreed upon. These wars are harder to mythologize.
Clearly LEGO is not making MI Abrahms’ and Apache’s, and it’s nearly impossible
for me to imagine them doing so. However, a year ago I would have said the
exact same thing about jeeps with guns, technicals, Wermachtt troopers and
fighter jets.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
Clearly LEGO is not making MI Abrahms’ and Apache’s, and it’s nearly
impossible for me to imagine them doing so. However, a year ago I would have
said the exact same thing about jeeps with guns, technicals, Wermachtt
troopers and fighter jets.
|
A crying shame really, since WW2 models precisely like those would guarantee
them my money.
ESPECIALLY M1 Abrahms and Apaches!
(Aircraft carriers would rock, too)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I agree with Karl. It makes a big difference which war is being represented.
Indiana Jones provides a perfect opportunity to provide vehicles from World War
II and the Cold War. LEGO will find them appropriate for their audience for
exactly the same reason Speilberg found them appropriate for his audience.
There is very little debate remaining on whether or not the Nazis or the
Communists were bad guys.
A really bold move would be a Civil War theme. There wouldn’t be many vehicles
to model, but there would be ships and buildings, minifigs and horses. It would
probably look a lot like the Wild West themes. Modeling Civil War battlefields
is a popular hobby among adults, but I don’t think kids are into it.
As far as the new Agents theme being a war toy, it really didn’t strike me that
way. It seems a lot more like a James Bond type fantasy theme with completely
fictional villains, like Batman and Star Wars.
And as far as coming up with a military-like space theme, I think Star Wars
fills that role quite adequately. The good guys call themselves the Republic,
and the bad guys call themselves the Empire.
Maybe an ancient Roman theme isn’t entirely out of the question. Playmobile has
one.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Erin Howarth wrote:
| |
I agree with Karl. It makes a big difference which war is being represented.
Indiana Jones provides a perfect opportunity to provide vehicles from World
War II and the Cold War. LEGO will find them appropriate for their audience
for exactly the same reason Speilberg found them appropriate for his
audience. There is very little debate remaining on whether or not the Nazis
or the Communists were bad guys.
|
Since the start of this thread, I have had a chance to examine the second wave
of Indiana Jones sets and the entire Agents line in person and now might be a
good time to revisit this thread. It seems like LEGO has a fairly obvious new
policy.
Licensed lines: LEGO war toys in licensed lines are probably here to stay. I
doubt we will see many, if any, armored vehicles and the like (though who
knows), and it is likely that the “wars” will continue to be the ones with
obvoius good-guys and bad-gusys. That said, LEGO has clearly been shown the
profibability of portraying jeeps, machine guns soldiers in uniform.
LEGO lines: It’s pretty clear that outside of Licenses, LEGO is sticking hard to
fantasy or historical (100 or more years ago) fighting only. Having the chance
to see the agents line in person made them seem much less “military” than in
previews. It’s pretty clear that there are guns and fights, but like (perhaps
even more so than) the dino-fighters and exo-force, of the past, it’s pretty
well confined to a clever cartoony fantasy environment with little real combat.
Even the new castle lines, with clearly deliniated good vs. evil and dwarfs,
trolls and “orcs” seem further removed from actual historical combat than sets
from the Classic Castle era.
All in all, I think it’s a nice balance. Clearly LEGO’s position on “war” toys
has shifted somewhat, but it’s nice to see that they seem to be taking their
time and giving serious thought to the shift and it’s implications.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Erin Howarth wrote:
| |
A really bold move would be a Civil War theme. There wouldn’t be many
vehicles to model, but there would be ships and buildings, minifigs and
horses. It would probably look a lot like the Wild West themes. Modeling
Civil War battlefields is a popular hobby among adults, but I don’t think
kids are into it.
|
Whose civil war would you choose?
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Tim David wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Erin Howarth wrote:
| |
A really bold move would be a Civil War theme. There wouldn’t be many
vehicles to model, but there would be ships and buildings, minifigs and
horses. It would probably look a lot like the Wild West themes. Modeling
Civil War battlefields is a popular hobby among adults, but I don’t think
kids are into it.
|
Whose civil war would you choose?
Tim
|
War of the Roses
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
No no, clearly he means the Dutch
Revolt with cavalry charges and great siege works throughout the Low Countries.
The lawlessness and danger of the “Wild West” but with better clothes and
swords!
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Ted Godwin wrote:
| |
No no, clearly he means the Dutch
Revolt with cavalry charges and great siege works throughout the Low
Countries. The lawlessness and danger of the “Wild West” but with better
clothes and swords!
|
That’s a line I could get behind!
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Tim Gould wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Ted Godwin wrote:
> > No no, clearly he means the
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Revolt Dutch
> > Revolt> with cavalry charges and great siege works throughout the Low
> > Countries. The lawlessness and danger of the "Wild West" but with better
> > clothes and swords!
:-)
> That's a line I could get behind!
Well, it isn't one you would like to be in front of. ;-)
Play well,
Jacob
--
Bregnerod Transit Authority - Moving mini-figs:
http://lego.sparre-andersen.dk/BTA/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jacob Sparre Andersen wrote:
| |
Well, it isn’t one you would like to be in front of. ;-)
|
Click here and press the button!
JOHN
| | | | | | |
