Have Action Themes Become Extreme?

[BrickClick]

Hey-- I respect that. But frankly, Extreme Team just never felt like it was pulled off too well. The four main characters are daredevils. You never get the idea that they're in actual danger while doing this sort of stuff-- this is where they live, and what they do. I, too, respect non-violent themes, but in all honesty Extreme Team never felt like much was at stake.

Contrast that with the City theme. Even in that, what do the firefighters do? They fight fires. If they don't do it right, people could be hurt, buildings could be destroyed, etc. There's actual risks that drive the conflict, even though there's no need for violence. Same with the Coast Guard sets-- they're actually doing something to help people who would otherwise be in danger. It's a lot more exciting than Extreme Team, which as I said was extreme for no reason other than for the sake of looking cool. Heck, the Res Q theme, a city subtheme itself, predated Extreme Team, and I found a lot more enjoyment in that theme because of its dire atmosphere. There was something meaningful driving the action.

This isn't to say I disliked Extreme Team sets at the time (it was a theme that I enjoyed for its radical, rebellious image), but I have few fond memories of the sets, and the sets were basically forgotten when newer, more exciting themes like Alpha Team and Star Wars rolled along.

Though what you have said is true, I loved the Extreme team!

Even though I only owned one set, I liked the idea of a couple of people doing crazy stunts for no apparent reason

The set that I owned was the Extreme Team Racer and I still love this set today

So IMO Extreme Team was a great theme that I still considered ''action'' without it having any violence or weapons (Which is rare for me)

[WesternOutlaw]

I had that set - picked it up in on clearance at a small thrift shop. It's one of a few that I no longer have the pieces to. While it didn't do much for me, I would have liked the chrome exhaust pipes for a hot rod.

[Capt.JohnPaul]

I don't see what 6-year olds playing video games has to do with LEGO putting revolvers and lasers in their sets. What video games companies put in their games is up to them, and there are ratings for that. It's up to the parents, responsible or not to decide what is acceptable for their child. But if you mean playing games with LEGO, I don't think LEGO is responsible for influencing people to jack cars and shoot innocents. Most of the violence is against creatures, and judging by the animated movies on the websites, such as having a Rock Monster eat a sulfur crystal and burp, I don't think they mean any harm. None of the weapons are intricate, none really going above or beyond a revolver chamber or trigger. The only real intricacy on a weapon are the gatling guns and silencers, but really, few children view them any different as laser guns. Those that do are inevitable- one child will always be differently influenced than the next. Having weapons on a set doesn't necessarily support that. The gatling guns were from Exo-Force, where humans fought robots. Sure, a child could bring in a city worker from his Garage set and bust a cap in his ABS, but LEGO didn't include anything like that in the initial set to support anything like that. The silencer is on the new Slave I set, on Boba Fett's gun, where they are simply trying to have movie accuracy over violence. The Star Wars sets initially have higher age levels than the City sets.

Regardless of the argument, I still agree with your video game comments- I don't like the idea of adults jumping the ratings systems. They should read the M's and the T's as something their children shouldn't play. I'm just trying to say that LEGO is and always will be for a universal audience, to imagine whatever they'd like. Even if a child views something as a violent weapon, LEGO cannot be held responsible. Thankfully, if a children is able to be creative through playing with LEGO, the company can be held responsible.

Did I already reply to this??? Oh well, I agree video games have nothing to do with it well, maybe agents, (so many 007 things) and James Bond was not made for little 6 year olds to watch.

[Batbrick]

Did I already reply to this??? Oh well, I agree video games have nothing to do with it well, maybe agents, (so many 007 things) and James Bond was not made for little 6 year olds to watch.

I'd argue that while the James Bond influence is there, it's not so prominent in influence that a child will see the two as the same, when not that many kids of around 6 even know James Bond that well (I was lucky). Certainly, the theme is really escapist spy fun, just like Castle is escapist medieval fantasy.

Batbrick Away!

[Clone OPatra]

Very interesting topic to read through!

Like a few others, I think the four themes that you have picked Brickster are not really the best representation of the topic. I don't think Outback can be considered an Action theme at all, it was always a town theme to me that just happened not to involve police, fire, airports, etc. There were a few sets in the '90s that involved airshows, but those also were clearly town, not action.

Anyway, I would say that Action themes have, in general, become more conflict-oriented. I agree with ZO6; themes like Arctic and Adventurers were more about exploration, although I certainly found Sam Sinister and Baron von Baron to be a very large part of the whole Adventurers theme. After all, everybody was packed with guns in Adventurers, so you can't tell me the Baron wasn't going to fire off the rifles mounted on his bi-plane.

At the same time, Action themes have also been extreme for some time. The X-Treme team were just Daredevils, but I think with all of their stunt planes and such they can be seen as extreme. Just not overly flashy. Res-Q was also somewhat extreme, in its way, but I found that to also be more of a town spin-off than an Action theme of its own.

I certainly see how World Racers has evolved from that really crappy competition theme with the four contestants, but I don't think Island Sports factors in. That theme, without the background of the videogame, really makes no sense whatsoever. It was basically just a spin-off of the Sports theme with names characters and guys in jail outfits. That's right, huh?

Agents was really no more extreme than even the original Alpha Team sets; they had big guns too, just not pistols. Power Miners is no more extreme than Rock Raiders, it just has flashier colors, and dynamite. They had plenty of drills in the original.

Looking at it all, I would say that Action themes have only seemed to become more extreme because of design. Situationally, there were Action themes just as extreme five and ten years ago, but, sitting on a shelf, they didn't eek extremity. If you think about it, the X-Treme Team and Res-Q were in some serious peril, but they didn't have the advantage of crazy graphics, flick-fires, and lime green to make them shout extreme right off the box.

[Algernon]

Well, I think LEGO's increasingly lax attitude towards their no-violence policy should be pretty apparent to anybody who's been following LEGO since the 90s, or heck, even since 2001. I already used Bionicle as an example. In 2001 their swords were distinctly called "tools" and not "weapons" (which was more than a little silly) and the idea was that the Rahi were simply possessed by an evil spirit and could be saved by removing an infected mask. No killing was necessary. Even the Bohrok followed the same concept. Now look at Hero Factory, full of toxic waste-spewing monsters and flame throwers. Pretty unapologetic compared to the early years of Bionicle.

Another good example would be the LEGO Space themes of late. Not many people liked Life on Mars. But, it was one of LEGO's most non-violent Space themes thus far. In fact there was no conflict at all unless you were keeping up with the fiction being posted regularly on the official website: the humans had to help the aliens defeat their tyrannical leader. From looking at the sets, the majority of the theme was just a big mining expedition. The only exception was the Red Planet Protector, but again, it didn't appear as if the Mech had anything to shoot at.

Mars Mission, however, needs no explanation.

As they say, a picture's worth a thousand words.

You could also compare the new World Racers to LEGO's older Drome Racer's line. I won't bother going over the differences, but if everybody remembers Drome Racers, then I shouldn't have to.

That said, I don't think there's much of a debate. Yes, LEGO has gotten more violent. Sure, a part of me still kind of misses the perceived innocence of the older, classic sets. But I'm not going to make a fuss, because LEGO is one toy company that seems to value quality just as much as marketability, and while we may be getting more violent sets, they're still darn good ones.

[Raphy]

Heck no! I love the new ones as much as the old ones if not more. I love action, I love stuff blowing up, I love helicopters with gatling guns battling Decepticons, I love ninjas, samurais, people somersaulting from skyscrapers with parachutes to land safely on the ground and start robbing a bank, I love awesome guys with laser katanas, jetpacks, and sixty-foot hover-Cadillacs .....on TV, at least. Yay for violence! ;)

My mind is messed up. ;)

Kidding. Mostly. I can't deny that the above can, sometimes, be very entertaining to watch. ;d

But I have to disagree that TLG is getting violent..... in LEGO Star Wars, when in the real movies someone would get cold-bloodedly shot with a laser beam, in the LEGO versions people just have their little plastic heads fall off to the ground, where they look confused while their headless body walks around in circles looking for the head. It's comical; babyish, even. It's just not the same thing as violence.

Edited July 9, 2010 by Raphy

[Clone OPatra]

I don't understand why so many people see World Racers as violent. Yes, they have missiles, but I really think their goal is just to derail the other team, not kill them. There have been violent action themes going all the way back to the original Alpha Team.

[Sandy]

I don't understand why so many people see World Racers as violent. Yes, they have missiles, but I really think their goal is just to derail the other team, not kill them.

But that's what violence means - they want to physically hurt the other team, not just defeat them fair and square.

[Peppermint_M]

I think it is more Wacky Races, Dick Dasterdly kind of way, not a kill them dead kind of way.

[Clone OPatra]

I think it is more Wacky Races, Dick Dasterdly kind of way, not a kill them dead kind of way.

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. I don't think they are trying to physically hurt the other team, they're just trying to derail their vehicles. I guess you could say that if you try to blow up somebody's vehicle, that's a good chance of killing the driver too. But really, since it's all fantasy, the kids playing with it will decide. I bet plenty of young chaps had the X-Treme team splatting each other on the rocks as well, even though weapons weren't included.