|
|
 | | 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.
|
| (...) But that is why we have .off-topic.debate ;) (which both of us forgot to move to... sorry, Lugnet) (...) I suspect the cartoonist either didn't think much at all or consciously set out to be malicious but we'll never really know the answer to (...) (17 years ago, 7-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.off-topic.debate, 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) !
| | | | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
| (...) Of course he can have henchmen, but there's a clear pattern of having the henchmen dress in such a way as to make their employer more-or-less identifiable. Joker's guy has a dark-purple shirt, Two-Face's guy has a white/black shirt, and Mr. (...) (17 years ago, 6-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
| (...) What, the Scarecrow can't have henchmen? You can't run a supervillain lockup single-handedly. Not if you want to do a good job of it... Steve (17 years ago, 6-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
| (...) Wow--all else being equal, that's a fantastic piece of analysis. Nicely done! Dave! (17 years ago, 6-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
| (...) I agree that this image should not have been included on the box...but for an entirely different reason. Look at the set very closely. You've got the Riddler, and a cell for the Riddler. You've got Poison Ivy, and a cell for Poison Ivy. You've (...) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Arkham Asylum - A cool set, but a bit disturbing.
|
| (...) This kinda reminds me of the recall several years ago: (URL) (17 years ago, 4-Jun-07, to lugnet.licensed.batman, lugnet.dear-lego, FTX)
|
|
