Subject:
|
Re: Military Lego Sets
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.dear-lego
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Sep 2001 23:17:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2089 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.dear-lego, Kyle D. Jackson writes:
> In lugnet.dear-lego, Pedro Silva writes:
> >
> > Maybe a different reason to TLC's attitude (and I'm only speculating) is due
> > to the fact that Denmark was ocupied by Germany during WW2, and neither the
> > danes nor the germans like to remember those days (would you like to
> > remember that your nation had been occupied once?). And knowing the
> > importance of the german market, I'd say this is one of the historical
> > reasons. Noone in Germany would buy sets from a theme where germans would be
> > portrayed as the "evil" guys. Same for Japan, Italy, and some countries in
> > Eastern Europe (axis' allies). In fact, I'm pretty sure hardly anyone in
> > continental Europe would like to remember the Wars fought here in the past
> > century. We are trying to build up a European Union, for heaven's sake!
>
> That would be my guess. I believe they want to avoid anything
> that is classified as "In living memory". They're really pushing
> the boundaries by producing the Sopwith Camel, but of course that's
> not available via mass-distribution. And "ILM" varies from conflict
> to conflict. No doubt sets depicting centuries-old conflict in
> the mid-east wouldn't go over too well since everyone there still
> seems intent on bangin' and whoppin' away at each other.
I dunno. If a crusaders set were available, I'd consider buying it. There
isn't a clear distinction about good-guy/bad-guy in that conflict, both
sides had similar reasons ("Jerusalem" should appear in the dictionary below
"reason"...). As long as there weren't such a distinction, I'd love to have
arab knights to add on to my "Reconquista" diorama. (brief explanation follows)
I consider that modern european civilization has a lot to thank the arabs,
who kept civilization during the dark ages. They were beaten off the Iberian
Peninsula because they did not want to fight, and instead they devoted to
science and the arts. On the other hand, my ascendants wanted to wipe'em out
the face of the Earth just because they had the "wrong" religion - and drive
the blokes out of Europe in the process. But I cannot claim that those who
gave me a language and culture were the bad guys... so I like the idea of
not clearly choosing a side.
> On the flip side you could make an extension of the Castle/Pirates
> themes for the conflicts between the British/Canadians and USAians
> in North America. Not many people are aware that Canadians
> torched the White House (which was white-washed afterwards to cover
> the smoke stains, thus "White House"), so it may no longer be
> considered "ILM". However many French-English and Anybody-Native
> conflicts here are much touchier subjects..., and I won't even
> comment on the Anybody-Native conflicts in the South and Central
> Americas...
I thought it was something the Brits had done... naughty Canadians!... ;-)
But yeah, it is something worth considering. What I think should not be
expected is that ships and such would carry "real life" flags, instead you
might have to buy a "flags" add-on. This way the set on the shelves would
not upset anyone, but could still be customized. This is appliable because
older armaments had little variation between different nations of the time.
By the way, the spanish gave a better treatment to natives than us
Portuguese, at least in South America. But they also tried to invade us
innumerous times. Again, the good guy isn't always good. History supports me.
> Ultimately it's probably best for LEGO to stay away from historical
> conflicts. The moment they produce a real identifiable item
> (such as the Sopwith Camel), it is immediately identifiable with
> a real historical conflict. However things like generic pirates
> and gov't fleet ships are much more anonymous. The Wild West
> army theme may have been a little too close to reality. Since
> LEGO's themes are populated with the concept of goodguy/badguy,
> using historical conflicts is not going to be well received from
> a toy company.
Agree. Even though I think the Camel was sold due to design complexity
rather than guns, I won't mind if Lego decides to sell tanks, or any sort of
modern armament, as long as I cannot identify a real nation as the "owner"
of the tank design. What I said above about the flags add-on would still be
applicable this way. It is not the idea of war, it is the idea of being on
the wrong side of it - which is not necessarily the side that loses...
Why not a *totally generic* line of war machines? This way they can still
retain some of the "chivalry" approach... I can make a battle between the
good "Yrteett" and the evil nation "Brlaag" this way! :-)
Pedro
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Military Lego Sets
|
| (...) Um did you forget the Arabs came to the Iberian peninsula via war and rape? Talk about one-sided historical revisionism. (23 years ago, 2-Sep-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Military Lego Sets
|
| (...) That would be my guess. I believe they want to avoid anything that is classified as "In living memory". They're really pushing the boundaries by producing the Sopwith Camel, but of course that's not available via mass-distribution. And "ILM" (...) (23 years ago, 1-Sep-01, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
31 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
