42113 Bell Boeing V-22 Osprey

[Erik Leppen]

Liebherr is not a (mostly) military company, and a crane or a mining excavator is not a military vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebherr_Group

Osprey is (mostly) a military company, and this aircraft is (mostly) a military vehicle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell_Boeing_V-22_Osprey

Yes, it's a gray area. But that doesn't mean that you can say nothing about what falls on which side.

Again, their statement may not be consistent (you can't be 100% consistent) but at least their statement isn't selfish. Ours is. Nobody loses anything over not having 42113, especially AFOLs.

21 minutes ago, suffocation said:

I don't know how things are in your happy haven but here where I live a lot of people are glad to have even trivial, material things to look forward to after months of losing family and friends.

if 42113 where the only Lego available Technic set, you'd be correct.

Edit: also, please don't make ungrounded assumptions about my personal surroundings. How and where I live has nothing to do with this discussion, keep it outside of it. Play the ball, not the man.

20 minutes ago, hjxbf said:

bar leaving licensing be altogether.

I'd love to see that happen.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Erik Leppen

[suffocation]

15 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

at least their statement isn't selfish

Actually it is because they're cherry-picking the easiest battles to win.

Arguments such as "Liebherr isn't mostly military whereas Osprey is" are irrelevant - it's like comparing two polished turds to decide which one has the better shine.

 

15 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

also, please don't make ungrounded assumptions about my personal surroundings

I didn't make any groundless assumptions - it's an unquestionable fact that northern Italy's been hit way, way harder by Covid19 than any part of the Netherlands.

 

15 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

if 42113 where the only Lego available Technic set, you'd be correct.

If it's the only set folks are looking forward to then the availability of other sets is, once again, irrelevant.

Edited July 21, 2020 by suffocation

[Bartybum]

A Liebherr license is nothing like a Boeing license.

Sure, the excavator is used in coal mining, but that in and of itself isn't inherently violent or negative - we need coal for heavy industry.

Boeing and the V-22, however, are both heavily tied to the military, and the public knows it.

[Gimmick]

21 minutes ago, hjxbf said:

Which is the case for Liebherr, Volvo, VAG, etc. as well. The lot.

If you venture into licensing, some of that money is going to end up places you didn't like. But it's outside your control, bar leaving licensing be altogether.

[suffocation]

13 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

A Liebherr license is nothing like a Boeing license. 

Sure, the excavator is used in coal mining, but that in and of itself isn't inherently violent or negative - we need coal for heavy industry.

Boeing and the V-22, however, are both heavily tied to the military, and the public knows it.

Liebherr produce military vehicles as well as tank engines. If DFG-VK's argument is that by buying 42113 you inject money into a weapons manufacturer's coffers, the same should apply to ANY company involved in weapon manufacturing, regardless of their core business and the machine TLG chooses to replicate.

Edited July 21, 2020 by suffocation

[mahjqa]

Tons of arguments that just boil down to "they already went this far, I am really upset they didn't take it just this one step further!"

Gotta draw the line somewhere. Personally, I would've drawn it earlier.

[howitzer]

1 minute ago, Gimmick said:

Thank you for this. This set really sits in a place where no official Lego set has ever been, and while it is indeed a gray area, this set probably goes over the line as it seems to satisfy every condition that is required to make a set unacceptable.

I'm saddened to see it being pulled, as it seemed to be easily the best set of this year in almost every regard. But at the same time I totally get the argument that @Erik Leppen made about it being a toy in the end of the day. I just wish that TLG had decided to stuck by their ethical principles from the start and had never even considered making a licensed Osprey, but instead had either released it unbranded, or obtained a license for AW609. 

[JaBaCaDaBra]

55 minutes ago, Erik Leppen said:

To be honest, I'm with the protesters and I really, really don't get the point of this stupid petition here on this forum. Sorry to say but that makes us (where we = Eurobricks) just the same as we make out those German piece association people to be, except that they actually have a point and we don't. We just want to buy plastic pieces. What they say is because this is a licenced set, a third party that is involved in military operations, may receive revenue from a children's toy. This makes it different than sets like 42066, that had no such licence, and is the reason they don't want to market the set. How is that so hard to understand.

Yes, there are sets about vehicles used in coal mining. Using that as an argument for 42113's normal release, is a logical fallacy called "whataboutism". "What about 42055?".

Is it such an awesome worldchanging set that we can't do without? Come on. We, AFOLs, of all people, are the ones that can design a better Lego aircraft ourselves. We need this set the least of everyone. It's an interesting set, sure, but it's not revoluationary. Please instead of whining, go make your own aircraft, and put in on rebrickable. We can do that. and not a single penny will go to that company.

Apparently, this set is against TLC's guidelines. Otherwise they would have issued a statement that it isn't, But they pulled back the set. This means they know they are in the wrong. In my opinion this is a totally stupid move by TLC to even begin producing such a thing without looking into the company they arranged a licence with, and it's about time a group like this stands up against it.

BULL(mega)BLOCKS

Cause of two "not of this world" hipsters ventilate their (unwanted) opinion whilst they are a minority we ALL are FORCED to accept this?
Same as a minority destroyed OUR 6 December kids happening whilst this isn't even their country.

Unacceptable and against every democatic principle.
But nowadays minorities rule us, yeah.

18 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

Boeing

So when I fly to an holiday location my head is full of bombs and granate ideas cause this 747 may also carry bombs and granates to whatever location.

Bad Boeing, foei, shame yourself.

Edited July 21, 2020 by JaBaCaDaBra

[andythenorth]

Wow. 

Some here confuse two things.

1. Cancel-culture (a bad thing, small mobs terrorising free speech and free actions).

2. Companies having principles they won't deviate from.

Then some go looking for facts to support their argument either way.  Happy days.  Knock yourselves out.

Bollocks to that.

TLG have a principle not to represent contemporary military hardware. 

The V-22 Osprey represents contemporary military hardware.

This is an officially licensed model of a V-22 Osprey.

Dressing it up as a rescue device AND selling it as a licensed set puts 2 acceptable things together and arrives at unacceptable.

The company has a rule.  Sometimes rules get bent a bit. 

This rule was bent by TLG staff beyond breaking point.

TLG acted.  Rules are rules.

Stop crying over plastic toys like baby men. 

The bad scary nasty liberals have not taken your toys away.

Edited July 21, 2020 by andythenorth

[Rudivdk]

6 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

BULL(mega)BLOCKS

Please tone down my fellow Dutchman. No need to drag local politics to an international hobby forum. And stop that '2 hipster' thing, DFG-VK is probably larger than EB with all it's members...

[valenciaeric]

This is another example of corporate greed and obsession with trying to be all things to all people. In the end they get tripped up by their own protocols, which even their own high ranking employees obviously don´t understand.

I thought that temporarily pulling the City Police Sets and redoing the head of the minifig from the Star Wars Resistance Bomber were already PC gone mad but this decision actually seems common sense compared to those.

We could debate whether  the origins of the "cuddly" VW Beetle also make it unsuitable to market but in the end if Lego don´t do it someone else will. I would not lose sleep about any of the 2020 sets being cancelled as they are really nothing special. Some people are going to get rich quick if they have got stock and the set is never released.

[XenoRad]

The funny thing is that as far as I'm concerned had TLG not done anything and just let those protesters protest for a day or two this whole discussion back and forth on morals and ethics would not have occurred. Instead we get this churning of past sets and multiple people trying to categorize them in different categories to see whether they're as or less OK than this one.

 

It's not the people wanting the set that have made a big deal out of it, it's TLG and the protesters themselves who saw this as a sufficient "threat" that they had to bother to protest against it. I personally don't see much of a moral standpoint being made by cancelling this set. I do see a cool model/toy that I would have been interested in, due to its mechanical aspects, potentially cancelled. And it's a pity, that's all.

 

The military application of the aircraft is not inherent in the way it is portrayed in the set. The military application of the real aircraft its licensed on is limited to transportation. So considering this I again do not see any great stance against war or the military being made here.

 

 

 

 

[Erik Leppen]

12 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

we ALL are FORCED to accept this?

No, we can start our own toy company and do it differently.

But yes, we will indeed have to accept that TLC: 1. has guidelines to begin with; 2. tries to follow those guidelines; 3. made a mistake; 4. made some people angry and 5. chooses by themselves to try to fix the mistake.

The choice, in the end, lies with toy companies whether or not to release a set, with shop-owners whether-or-not to retail it, and to buyers whether-or-not to buy it.

[rener]

Just now, XenoRad said:

 

It's not the people wanting the set that have made a big deal out of it, it's TLG and the protesters themselves who saw this as a sufficient "threat" that they had to bother to protest against it. I personally don't see much of a moral standpoint being made by cancelling this set. I do see a cool model/toy that I would have been interested in, due to its mechanical aspects, potentially cancelled. And it's a pity, that's all.

 

The military application of the aircraft is not inherent in the way it is portrayed in the set. The military application of the real aircraft its licensed on is limited to transportation. So considering this I again do not see any great stance against war or the military being made here.

 

 

 

 

+1

In the end of the day only TLG make themselves look foolish, by cancelling a set they apparently shouldn’t have developed in the first place, according to their own guidelines.

And me being a tiny bit disappointed, as I think it’s a really nice model...

[Bartybum]

34 minutes ago, JaBaCaDaBra said:

Cause of two "not of this world" hipsters ventilate their (unwanted) opinion whilst they are a minority we ALL are FORCED to accept this?
Same as a minority destroyed OUR 6 December kids happening whilst this isn't even their country.

Unacceptable and against every democatic principle.
But nowadays minorities rule us, yeah.

Holy sh*t dude calm down, it’s literally just a toy.

[Ngoc Nguyen]

You wanna get married?

 

[Dylan M]

Such a lucky one.... 

 

[nhk]

Neither Bell or Boeing can be considered mostly military companies, as each has a significant civilian market. If the definition is a company that produces any military vehicles, then a lot of others fit the bill, meaning that Lego shouldn't realistically have licensed anything. Without a specific a criteria anything in between can be argued, which is an exercise in futility and a very superficial point to make.
What I specifically have a problem with is that this NGO is trying to push forward connotations that this particular version of the craft somehow participates in the taking of lives due to being used by military. While it may technically violate a very specific written point in some document, it doesn't stand against Lego's core values, as it is specifically designed to save lives during those troubled times of war we all abhor.

The other issue is Lego's response and their identity troubles as they're trying to push hard into the AFOL market. This set also appears to be part of that trend so Lego either needs to own it or forego the market altogether. AFOLs in general are more interested in realism rather than play features and stud shooters. The Technic line in particular is what a lot of older fans naturally gravitate to because of that. In fact, the specific rule is extremely superficial when they have no qualms in representing all forms of violence (being fantasy doesn't make it less violent), but designates a rescue aircraft off-limits. I doubt they would cancel their lucrative Marvel/DC heroes deals if this was pointed out.

The other concern is stifling diversity - large Technic aircraft are far and few in-between with the last one being 42066 back in 2017, which has a much more military look than 42113. In fact there are very few possibilities as other than airliners, which are unfeasible in Technic, practically any other aircraft type has some military version/use. Should we relegate the theme to a variety of trucks and cars each year, with the odd motorcycle here or there ?

Yes, I am biased towards this set because I want it, it's been a long time since 42066, and it is potentially more interesting than a majority of sets in the line, even previous planes/helicopters. Maybe I would have defended it even if it was an attack version, but Lego already put their best effort into distancing the design from it's military use. What more can they do in order to be allowed to put forth an interesting aircraft set once in a blue moon. The argument that it's "just a toy" actually works both ways, because nobody in their right mind would consider that owning a toy is somehow showing support for war.

[Gimmick]

6 minutes ago, rener said:

+1

In the end of the day only TLG make themselves look foolish, by cancelling a set they apparently shouldn’t have developed in the first place, according to their own guidelines.

And me being a tiny bit disappointed, as I think it’s a really nice model...

And what happened happened... and cannot be undone.

For me it would be ok if they release it, pay money to a charity organisation or whatever, cancel upcoming sets of this type and do not do it again. :) Showing insight is the goal here.

[Vectormatic]

Just now, Erik Leppen said:

No, we can start our own toy company and do it differently.

But yes, we will indeed have to accept that TLC: 1. has guidelines to begin with; 2. tries to follow those guidelines; 3. made a mistake; 4. made some people angry and 5. chooses by themselves to try to fix the mistake.

The choice, in the end, lies with toy companies whether or not to release a set, with shop-owners whether-or-not to retail it, and to buyers whether-or-not to buy it. 

Yup, totally realistic to expect some random online person to start up their own company.

And personally im not convinced this was an internal mistake by lego, chances are some people reviewed the set idea and approved it, and now this protest means they wind it all back and take the easy way out of claiming its a mistake and cancelling the whole thing.

 

As for choice, this takes choices away from shop owners and buyers, i literally cant choose anymore to buy this set. And if this thing had never existed, fine, but we've all seen the pics, movies etc.. we got to the point where some people on this forum actually managed to buy one, and now it is most likely gone because TLC decides to bend to cancel culture... and yes that annoyes the megabluck out of me, not only because of this specific set, but also because i dont want to see TLC, or society as a whole move to the point where some vocal minority gets to shout down everyone and bully whoever into conforming to their particular view of what is politically correct and non-offensive, because the internet gives even the smallest voice a giant megaphone, and for every single thing out there there will be someone offended

[suffocation]

4 minutes ago, Ngoc Nguyen said:

 

 

That's a beauty The internals look even more intricate than the already impressive (to me, at least) 42066.

[Bartybum]

@nhk As mentioned previously, it’s likely the combination of a large defence contractor license and traditional military vehicle that tips them off. If it were unlicensed or an AW609, this ordeal probably wouldn’t be happening.

[TeriXeri]

35 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

@nhk As mentioned previously, it’s likely the combination of a large defence contractor license and traditional military vehicle that tips them off. If it were unlicensed or an AW609, this ordeal probably wouldn’t be happening.

Exactly.

LEGO made a tilt rotor Technic set before , it just had zero "official" connections to a V-22 as it wasn't anywhere on the box.

https://brickset.com/sets/8434-1/Aircraft

Putting the real-life craft's name and model, and it's manufactuter on the box, made the set connected to the real world.

And LEGO also literally made dozens of Boeing Chinook lookalike transport helicopters before, but never put AH-47 Chinook on the box.

And my opinion is that Boeing or Bell by itself isn't even an off-limits license for LEGO , but LEGO would be in a similar situation if they did put the text AH-47 Chinook on the box for this set :

https://brickset.com/sets/42020-1/Twin-rotor-Helicopter

 

If Boeing by itself was the issue, LEGO would never have made sets like this : 

https://brickset.com/sets/10177-1/Boeing-787-Dreamliner

 

 

 

 

Edited July 21, 2020 by TeriXeri

[suffocation]

11 minutes ago, nhk said:

* oodles of wise words *

Couldn't have said it better had I tried for aeons. Hats off to you, sir

[nhk]

11 minutes ago, Bartybum said:

@nhk As mentioned previously, it’s likely the combination of a large defence contractor license and traditional military vehicle that tips them off. If it were unlicensed or an AW609, this ordeal probably wouldn’t be happening.

They have been tiptoeing around military vehicles for a long long time. Turning it into a "licensing" issue, seems more like Lego refusing to take responsibility for creating military craft by leaving them unlabelled. They need to admit they haven't been following those guidelines for years now and adjust them so they reflect the modern market. I personally have more issues with the various (annoying) shooting features that can actually target figures, than a completely unarmed military set.