 | | Re: Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
|
(...) That's not a bad workaround, as long as the printing on the faces remains gender-neutral. One need look no further than the Adventurers theme to see the problem there. But now that you mention it, that problem could be headed off (!) by (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
|
(...) Or, as I mentioned earlier, just include multiple wigs. It's cheaper, and skirts the gender issue completely. (sorry)(but not really) JOHN (17 years ago, 28-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
|
(...) <snippage> Not at all. When you raised this issue at Brickworld during the Q&A, it got me to thinking. What do you think about the idea of simply including female wigs in every set? I mean, a fig is essentially gender neutral until wigs are (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego, lugnet.general, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
|
(...) Well of course you'd say all of that; you're a girl! Hardy har har. IMO you're right on the money with pretty much everything you wrote. I can think of no real justification for failing to include female minifigs in a much broader range of (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
|
(...) I pretty much concur with everything that you wrote. And I would be really curious to see what the sales figures (dollar wise) are for girl-oriented lines such as Paradisa, Scala and Clickits. Or even some trend lines. Or I'll settle for (...) (17 years ago, 28-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Building equality one female minifig at a time.
|
|
Building equality one female minifig at a time. (My apologies in advance for those of you that have already heard this rant.) Dear Lego, I have always been impressed with TLC's ability to provide quality products as well as sustaining valuable input (...) (17 years ago, 27-Jun-07, to lugnet.dear-lego) !!
|
| |
| | A Very Bad Clone Knock-Off
|
|
So I'm at the Dollarrama this evening, perusing for paperclips with the missus, when I happened upon this-- (URL) "Star Soldier Gaaki" Now where have I seen this before? Oh right-- (URL) Set 4868 - 4868 Rahaga Gaaki> So wasting 1 dollar (and it (...) (17 years ago, 19-Jun-07, to lugnet.org.ca.rtltoronto, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) The comparison is apt because like Abu Ghraib under U.S. control, Arkham Asylum is susposed to be run by the 'good guys'. Their mission is to protect the general population by incarcerating the bad guys - but not to abuse and torture said bad (...) (17 years ago, 11-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I have tried to keep track of this as it is rather interesting. My main complaint about the whole thing is that the torture chamber in this set is compared to Abu Ghraib and not Sadam's rape rooms or torture chambers with the hooks and metal (...) (17 years ago, 10-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Loathing him as I do, I can't speak for the Spiderman films, but I'd say that the 60's Batman tv show isn't suitable for viewing by anyone. Also, in the US the Star Wars films have all received a PG rating with the exception of RotS which (...) (17 years ago, 9-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) As a born-again Capitalist, the answer is clear to me, and Dave's right: it's all about the money. If somebody can earn money from making toys by tying into a craze, then they'll do it. Far too many companies look only at the bottom line, and (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
--snip-- (...) I don't think it can be quite so simple though. A lot of films are MA or PG13 (which any child can see if their parents take them IIRC) because of 'bad language' or nudity, neither of which are likely to make it to the toy product. (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Well, there's a pollyanna answer and a cynical answer. Pollyanna: The toys are produced for teenagers and adults who see the film and who still like to collect; they're only seemingly marketed to children so that the adult buyers feel youthful (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Reading through this thread I was coming to the same conclusions. I think its the main point. If a film is unsuitable for children then why are toys made of it? Tim (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) No need to apologize. I see your point about my post seeming the same... (...) Your view is that children shouldn't see the box a children's toy comes in. It does imply a change. In general, when I present my view to someone that they are (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Aren't torture chambers generally located in the basement? I reckon it's the Lobotomy Ward. That's much more jolly. (...) Batman as a theme in general touches on some pretty dark themes that probably aren't appropriate for children. I've often (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) I'm sorry if you thought that my post was alarmist over-reaction. I could claim your response to my post was much the same, I guess. (...) No, no. I'm saying that the scene "reminds me of some of the Abu Graib pictures", and that I find the (...) (17 years ago, 8-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) Hi Tim! I'd rather be talking with you about MOCs, but what can you do, right? Anyway, I'm sure the cartoonist who started that particular controversy thought the same thing. Words affect things, people read stuff. I don't think it's an (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) OK. I'm with you to here. Not sure I entirely agree but it's all reasonable. (...) Here you kick into what I consider to be an alarmist over-reaction yourself. Do you really think that a comment on a LEGO forum read by a small number of people (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
|
(...) This is an alarmist over-reaction, in my opinion. No offense, I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you broached the subject and here's my opinion. You seem to be implying that LEGO either is insensitive to the Abu Ghraib (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX) !
|
