Lego Violence

[prateek]

I think blood and such is too much, but anything that's not gory is fine by me.

[HumanPackMule]

I'm against overly gory uses of Lego. I'll only accept it when it's used for visual effect.

Anyone else notice Lord Thrawn's current avatar? I think it's pretty violent considering the minifig's head got ran over by a car and the use of blood.

[prateek]

I'm against overly gory uses of Lego. I'll only accept it when it's used for visual effect.

Anyone else notice Lord Thrawn's current avatar? I think it's pretty violent considering the minifig's head got ran over by a car and the use of blood.

That's not that bad. It's cartoon violence.

[Rocky]

That's not that bad. It's cartoon violence.

I think that when there is buckets of blood flying out from the under wheel of a car it is passed cartoon violence.

[SuvieD]

Minifig death and dismemberment is common for me. I don't use parts to illustrate blood, guts, or body parts though. Obviously a headless fig is dead, and thats enough for me. Going beyond even "comically" has no appeal. Just like in video games, I prefer the poof-and-sparkles deaths to the mortal combat blood sprays and WWII brain chunks flying.

I voted comic violence but many of the fan MOCs simulate real violence which to me should not be considered comic regardless of if you find it funny. Serial rapists maim and murder their victims with a smile on their face and no remorse in their heart. That should not seem comic to anybody and neither should representations of other graphic violence. I know movies like 300 are turning gory battle into an "art" but LEGO remains on the other side of the child's toy fence for me and is better represented with slap stick and comic violence than mirroring real violence.

[blueandwhite]

Minifig death and dismemberment is common for me. I don't use parts to illustrate blood, guts, or body parts though. Obviously a headless fig is dead, and thats enough for me. Going beyond even "comically" has no appeal. Just like in video games, I prefer the poof-and-sparkles deaths to the mortal combat blood sprays and WWII brain chunks flying.

I voted comic violence but many of the fan MOCs simulate real violence which to me should not be considered comic regardless of if you find it funny. Serial rapists maim and murder their victims with a smile on their face and no remorse in their heart. That should not seem comic to anybody and neither should representations of other graphic violence. I know movies like 300 are turning gory battle into an "art" but LEGO remains on the other side of the child's toy fence for me and is better represented with slap stick and comic violence than mirroring real violence.

I think the "intent" of the builder is a key issue here. The LEGO concentration camp scene produced by artist Zbigniew Libera is an example of a scene that is frankly unsettling and perhaps disturbing despite not being as visually graphic as some other scenes depicted in LEGO. LEGO can be used to create artistic statements; it can be used to produce silly works of cartoon violence, or it can be used to show acts that are clearly disturbing. I take far greater issue with the third use, but I still believe in freedom of expression (so long as it doesn't have a fundamental impact on the freedom of others). As builders and AFOLs we simply need to excercise discretion when making and viewing MOCs.

[Big Cam]

I feel strongly about this.

Yes, it's fine, and here is my reasoning why.

LEGO is no longer a childrens building toy company. Sure it's probably still over half of their income, but the AFOL is emerging and is growing in numbers. LEGO knows this. LEGO needs to stop thinking that every single set needs to be able to be built by a 5 year old (I'm being a little sarcastic ).

I think LEGO should make even more complicated sets and put that good old age stamp on it if it's too violent. Say 14+ on the box. Then if a parent buys their 7 year old a set that focuses on gun's and war and fighting, then shame on the parent, not LEGO.

[muffinman42]

im fine with cartoon violence to an extent.

mars mission is the only ones where there was bad violence in my opion, the astronauts/murders stole crystals that the aliens used as a green power source and they killed them and experimented on them(the marsians spared them the in-dignity of being cut up!), it was the most "as long as there not human they are monsters that are evil even thought they are defending their planet and not attacking ours!

i think the age tag is the way to go, but only on some sets in a theme, otherwise a younger childed who lts says likes castle wont get it for a year since all the sets will be stamped 14+ then the next year he will but the AFOLs will complain that the sets are really junior and centerd on play(i always wonderd why people buy a building TOY and complain about it being play centerd).

im a pirate fan but since im yet to build an enemy (brick beard will take this place once i buy anouther ship for him(ive got one but its been given to my privateer sigfig) i dont have any violence, i get most of the fun changing my ship and fort, moveing figs around and maybe shooting shots at legos disabled captain(i want to know how) on a raft.

[The Who]

I'm perfectly fine with violence in Lego MOCs, whether my MOC or somebody else's.

I usually do not incorporate blood into mine, but I will every now and then.

My opinion is that Lego is made to be used for building what you can imagine, and if you imagine violence, then I believe you are welcome, by all means, to show that violence ina MOC.

[Peppermint_M]

I have only added blood in one MOC (and sorry about this booger) it was "The Death of Jar Jar" subtitled: Sand Raiders are sooo woood! it was for comedic effect.

[The Who]

I have only added blood in one MOC (and sorry about this booger) it was "The Death of Jar Jar" subtitled: Sand Raiders are sooo woood! it was for comedic effect.

Don't worry, I don't mind it.

I have a few MOCs withs acts of violence against Jar Jar also, doesn't everybody? Including This One.

[mikey]

LEGO is no longer a childrens building toy company.

I think LEGO is essentially a childrens toy, and is likely (and quite rightly) to remain so. The Adult Fan Of Lego makes up a tiny minority of the Adult Population. I am proud to be one myself, but I realise that my hobby is some what unusual.

Then if a parent buys their 7 year old a set that focuses on gun's and war and fighting, then shame on the parent, not LEGO.

Whilst I would accept that Star Wars is a theme about war, it is Sci-Fi, a fantasy. I presume by this you mean a set based on 20th century, or contemporary warfare, I would be of the opinion that it would be shame upon LEGO.

There are many avenues for children to explore warfare, through Computer Games, Little Green Army Men, making warfare with their Lego. All of which as a child I participated in, but I do not think that Lego should, or actually need to, create a specific 14+ War Theme to allow children to engage in this type of play.

[Etzel]

Violence in MOCs are totally accepted to me, I rather go for realism than cartoonish violence when I build my MOCs. Every builder has their own view of violence and should build after that. LEGO is a great way to picture all kinds of art, disturbing and non-disturbing. No one should restrict that possibility.

BUT, violence in official sets is something totally different in my opinion. While MOCers build for their own purpose, TLG design their sets to sell them to, mainly, kids. That means TLG has some responsibility for what they produce and shouldn't make sets that too violent, religious, political, racist or xenophobic.

So, I think LEGO violence is OK when pictured as art (which MOCs are IMO) but not OK when done to make money from it.

[Legoist]

No problems in MOCs. Anyway, MOCs are more the province of AFOL than KFOL.

I would be against it in sets on sale. But Star Wars, Pirates, Castle and Indy still have an acceptable level of it.

[Emperor Claudius Rome]

Well I better go ahead and say this:

LEGO is a toy, and people can do what they want with a toy. LEGO's about expressing yourself by building. And people can build what they want. I mean, say one person likes SNOT, but another guys prefers baseplates. The SNOT guy or the baseplate guy shouldn't try to convert the other to his/hers technique.

And like CGH said: It makes the figs seem more real