You're not getting the correlation here.

You're saying they didn't name Kimono Girl as Geisha because of the geisha's "associotion" with the prostitution, which occured in the past.

I'm saying that is bull, because they made sets based on eras in which prostitution, slavery, drug/alcohol trafficking, and even killing occured. Vikings are widely known for their "raping and pillaging", even though that barbaric notion is a misconception (just like geisha being prostitutes is a misconception), but it's still there and they made those sets.

-Omi

Actually, I don't believe I've ever stated any reason as to why they didn't name her "Geisha." I've only said that they didn't. I gave no reason as to why. I think someone else mentioned it, but I don't know off the top of my head if that's accurate or, if it is, who it was.

By what standards are they defining their "Moral Stance"? If its american worldly standards by 2020 Lego will be building a Lego city set with a family house for Jack and John and their children.

I'm going to state the obvious question here:

What the hell is wrong with that?!

What about this is frustrating you? This thread is about Lego's standards. Someone brought up a point about there being a "Geisha" minifigure; something that people associate with prostitution. In no way, shape, or form has Lego ever backed this up. She is the "Kimono Girl." She wears a kimono. She has a white face. Both of those are incredibly common traditional features. She has a biography relating to writing haiku poetry. Nothing about this is going against what Lego identifies as their standards. They shouldn't be barred from making traditional garb because some people view it as the garb of a prostitute. There is nothing wrong or hypocritical about having the Kimono Girl in Series 4.

I'm here again. It seems my whole argument about companies taking into account common interpretations/recognition flew past your head. (Which is funny because that's exactly what's used against the Winchester. It was not the actual model that was the problem, but what it was associated with.) I don't know why you'd like to draw a picture of TLG as an ignorant company. On the other hand I'm sure they knew beforehand that many will take that figure as a geisha and they were okay with that. Seems like a lot more favourable view on TLG than yours, no? And I'm not one of those who thinks a geisha is inappropriate for Lego.

You can keep repeating that it's Kimono Girl, you perverts, not a geisha. To me this line of thought sounds ridiculous but there's no way I'll convince you about that. I'll try to not ever open this topic again because I'm too weak to not answer otherwise. Going back to my cheese grater now...

I'm here again. It seems my whole argument about companies taking into account common interpretations/recognition flew past your head. (Which is funny because that's exactly what's used against the Winchester. It was not the actual model that was the problem, but what it was associated with.) I don't know why you'd like to draw a picture of TLG as an ignorant company. On the other hand I'm sure they knew beforehand that many will take that figure as a geisha and they were okay with that. Seems like a lot more favourable view on TLG than yours, no? And I'm not one of those who thinks a geisha is inappropriate for Lego.

Nothing has "flown past my head." I completely understand all of your arguments. I don't agree with them. There is a difference. I'm sure Lego knew that there would be a misconception about the Kimono Girl; I have no doubt about that. What matters here though is that she isn't a geisha. Lego isn't supporting the geisha. They're supporting traditional Japanese wear. The Winchester specifically advertises and supports Shaun of the Dead by title, and it is a model based on, arguably, the "worst" location in the film. There are so many things to be associated with the kimono girl, as lightningtiger pointed out, such as a wife, or any other Japanese female. This isn't a figure that every single user is going to associate with a prostitute, unlike The Winchester, where it would say right on the box: Shaun of the Dead. The association stems from the name.

You can keep repeating that it's Kimono Girl, you perverts, not a geisha. To me this line of thought sounds ridiculous but there's no way I'll convince you about that. I'll try to not ever open this topic again because I'm too weak to not answer otherwise. Going back to my cheese grater now...

I never called anyone a pervert, nor have I made any mention of such. You can keep repeating "I associate it with a geisha, therefore it is a geisha!" Personally, I feel as though your line of thought is ridiculous. At least I'm siting sources and quoting official statements.

Wow! How did this thread get so far afield to all of this nonsense. I would encourage everyone to step back, and put down the kimono minifigs. Just back away from them.

Somehow an argument is being made that Lego is hypocritical in their standards or production decisions in some way? I'm not buying into that. I think they have been applying reasonable and fairly common community standards regarding age appropriate materials, and we, like the finest of Internet message board dwellers are doing our truly epic best to pull out an ever escalating list of minutiae, rules, wiki articles etc, in our valiant attempt to once again fail to see the Forrest for the trees.

The core of Lego's decision making process is this. Their core customer is a child between 6 at the lower age range and 12 at the upper. The key question when evaluating CuuSoo projects is, regardless of the actual intended audience of the project, would it be appropriate for some or all of that broad age range of customers. So, Star Wars is targeted straight at 10 to 12 year olds. Straight into their brain. No confusion, no truly reported damage even after 30+ years of exposure ( beyond a tendency to grow up and continue playing with toys), Pirates of the Caribean, same thing. Source material targeted at around 11. Harry Potter was designed to lead a child through 11 to 17. We all understand this. Just as we all understand that we would probably choose to refrain from taking our 8 or 10 year old sibling to a showing of Sean of the Dead. We will probably leave the 6year old home for Promethius, and we would expect to be having a lot of talks with them over firefly. Lego has made it clear they essentially use a parents judgement for such decisions. And the vast majority of us really do understand this. We simply choose to play stupid to stir an argument on the Internet.

Are there exceptions to these Lego rules? Sure, there are sometimes things that happen, especially with licensed materials, that can cause unexpected problems.christpher Nolan's Dark Knight is the best example. Lego had the DEC batman theme, which had always been comfortably on the 10 to 11 range comfortably and often was appropriate for lower, depending on which source was used. And then the Nolan Dark Knight gets dropped on them. They responded the best way they could. Kept he license look and feel as it traditionally was, just pulled in some basic things from the new movie, like the Tumbler. Kept everything else as if it was from the earlier media, and quickly moved past it. It's a little schizophrenic but it isn't hypocritical. It is just the application of common sense for problem solving in a specific instance.

Looking at projects put forth on CuuSoo most of us can predict what will go through and what will encounter these issues. It isn't morality policies, it is the application of good old fashioned common sense. Something the modern world seems to strive to teach less and less.

Wow! How did this thread get so far afield to all of this nonsense. I would encourage everyone to step back, and put down the kimono minifigs. Just back away from them.

Thank you Faefrost for placing the topic back on track.

I pretty much agree with everything you have said - I will only add that while the good ol' "common sense" is one thing, the reality of economics is another. I won't say that LEGO's decisions are exclusively directed by economic factors but I'm pretty sure they play a big role and I believe they can sometimes help bend a few rules (and in those cases they apply the famous "LEGO veil" - really like that concept btw!)

Coming back to CUUSOO, again, common sense sounds about right but you have to admit that the objective of the platform was not very clear from the start. It is obvious now that the Winchester did not stand a chance in view of their recently updated guidelines but it was not so clear when I submitted it back in January.

As I have said in the "Win's" thread - of course the Winchester and its source material were not aligned with LEGO's standards for kids - but I honestly thought that the evaluation of the project could have taken place in an Adult Fan Of LEGO dimension.

Thank you Faefrost for placing the topic back on track.

I pretty much agree with everything you have said - I will only add that while the good ol' "common sense" is one thing, the reality of economics is another. I won't say that LEGO's decisions are exclusively directed by economic factors but I'm pretty sure they play a big role and I believe they can sometimes help bend a few rules (and in those cases they apply the famous "LEGO veil" - really like that concept btw!)

Coming back to CUUSOO, again, common sense sounds about right but you have to admit that the objective of the platform was not very clear from the start. It is obvious now that the Winchester did not stand a chance in view of their recently updated guidelines but it was not so clear when I submitted it back in January.

As I have said in the "Win's" thread - of course the Winchester and its source material were not aligned with LEGO's standards for kids - but I honestly thought that the evaluation of the project could have taken place in an Adult Fan Of LEGO dimension.

The objective wasn't clear back then because they are, to some extent, making up the guidelines as they go along. Remember that Cuusoo is still in a beta stage, and they haven't yet worked out the kinks. The way I see it, each project that fails to pass review sets a precedent and allows LEGO to continue to tweak the guidelines until they have a system that is easy to use and understand, and results in actual sets a majority of the time.

The objective wasn't clear back then because they are, to some extent, making up the guidelines as they go along. Remember that Cuusoo is still in a beta stage, and they haven't yet worked out the kinks. The way I see it, each project that fails to pass review sets a precedent and allows LEGO to continue to tweak the guidelines until they have a system that is easy to use and understand, and results in actual sets a majority of the time.

I believe a large aspect in the confusion is that they've never really stated in words what their standards are before this, at least that I'm aware of. We all generally know what those standards are, and their list was used to get the general ideas across to nip the following projects posted in the bud. There are, of course, things about a line or license that can make or break those rules. As Cuusoo moves forward, they'll be able to expand on those standards as they see fit to add clarity to their meanings. Lego knows what it will or will not due, and I think they were just attempting to put their general no-nos in writing, which is a large task, as everything is open to interpretation by the reader.

It is obvious now that the Winchester did not stand a chance in view of their recently updated guidelines but it was not so clear when I submitted it back in January.

As I have said in the "Win's" thread - of course the Winchester and its source material were not aligned with LEGO's standards for kids - but I honestly thought that the evaluation of the project could have taken place in an Adult Fan Of LEGO dimension.

I agree, Yatkuu. It was a fantastic MOC, and I would've loved to own one. Maybe one day Lego will add more adult-oriented lines in terms of content under a different name other than "Lego," in order to separate itself from sets aimed at kids, where these standards can be lifted

Edited May 11, 201212 yr by LRDark

The objective wasn't clear back then because they are, to some extent, making up the guidelines as they go along.

Absolutely... and when you look at the initial feedback they gave on the Winchester (see below) I would even go further and say that they were not too sure of where they wanted to go.

Congratulations on all of the supporters! Your model is very well done, and you've presented the project in a fun and engaging way all around.

Since Shaun of the Dead is a comedy, and you present your work in a humorous fashion, we believe this is within the realm of the LEGO company brand standards on violence. Note that the zombie theme does put this project at the edge of what we produce, however we recognize that the LEGO Group produces other products where themese of violence and death play a significant role.

Please understand that this initial green light does not have an effect on the LEGO Review that will take place if the project reaches 10,000 supporters. The nature of the work would require some significant internal discussion before we make the decision to produce such a set.

In the mean time, we wish you the best of luck on your journey to 10,000 supporters!

The LEGO CUUSOO Team

You know, I sometimes wish they never gave this initial feedback... granted there were no guarentees, but still... this message was a rather positive one!

I can definitely see the arguments here, as with the Vikings line (though the Vikings weren't robbing the creatures). I think the difference, in the eyes of Lego, is that these are "old world" religions where as a mosque or church are still for the beliefs of "modern" people. They're not doing anything to promote the "old" gods, although I can't argue against the grave robbing. I think, had they done a Christian or Islamic line, people would be furious over the representation of their ideas, whereas with Vikings, and the Norse faith, those that decide to believe in Jormungund are generally knowledgeable to see the difference. Not to say all, of course, but a good portion of persons that follow the "Old" religions came about it in their own way instead of being raised with such teachings. I don't want this to lead into a discussion about religion, though, in terms of right/wrong I agree, it's a little off-putting for me as well, but I understand where Lego might be coming from I would really love to see a historical theme on some of these lines that are accurate to the T (with maybe accurate mythology/theology thrown in), but I can understand why that doesn't appeal to the children

I am sure there are plenty of historical (Ancient) themes that could be of interest to children (And adults.) if done properly that could involve some form of conflict or adventure but within the context of the theme. How about a proper Atlantis theme, not that underwater one, but an ancient Atlantis, that would be fun. These sets could also be marketed as educational.

Coming back to CUUSOO, again, common sense sounds about right but you have to admit that the objective of the platform was not very clear from the start. It is obvious now that the Winchester did not stand a chance in view of their recently updated guidelines but it was not so clear when I submitted it back in January.

As I have said in the "Win's" thread - of course the Winchester and its source material were not aligned with LEGO's standards for kids - but I honestly thought that the evaluation of the project could have taken place in an Adult Fan Of LEGO dimension.

To be fair to them, I think there probably were a lot of discussions in TLG regarding the Winchester. I think a good portion of the people there truly loved the MOC, and here was probably some serious debate about how far they wanted to extend the Adult category for their upper end AFOL lines, like the modular buildings. In the end, after much debate they came to the conclusion that they should maintain a certain degree of 6 to 12 friendliness in subject matter across anything carrying the Lego brand label. It's a business decision we can all understand. But I think it was debate regarding that wonderful moc that got them to argue it out and quantify it. So there really was no way to know ahead of time which way they would go with the Winchester, and I think we all greatly benefited because of that. However once they made that decision, the Serenity one was pretty much a given.

I do wish here was a more middle ground area. Some sort of "forbidden Lego" line where we could more easily see things like the Winchester. Although I know that if there was it would probably rapidly degenerate it to some something oddly reminiscent of the Second Life MMO. Intelligent adult subjects rapidly giving way to ever increasing deviancy and and weirdness.

I'm going to state the obvious question here:

What the hell is wrong with that?!

Well, I for one think that it's not a toy company's responsibility to push a social or political agenda. And much the same as they don't include religious or politicized military themes, they shouldn't include gay themes. Regardless of where one may stand on the issue the simple fact remains that it is a controversial one and potentially offensive to some, just as a religious theme may be offensive to some.

Personally I wouldn't be offended by either a religious set or a gay set in essence but I certainly would NOT want a toy company molding the mind of my kids to become an adherent of Den Danske Folkekirke or of same sex couples. Should I wish my child to become an adherent of those....then it's MY role and not Lego's.

The cool thing about Lego is that you can do whatever you want with it. If you want, the Guarded Inn maiden can be the knight's sister, wife or lover. If you want you can have the knight boinking the Black Falcon archer. It's up to you as a parent and not Lego.

And on a final note I don't believe that sexuality is really a theme that should be explored by toys aimed at Lego's key demographic. But again, if you want to....there's absolutely nothing stopping you. This is the beauty of the system, it doesn't NEED to push any agenda, whether it be right or wrong, it lets YOU decide.

Edited May 19, 201212 yr by chelman

(...) we recognize that the LEGO Group produces other products where themese of violence and death play a significant role.

Understand that we will not produce products that are related to these topics:

(...)

Death, killing, blood, terrorism, or torture

I propose to call it "hypocrytical double standard corporate BS", or HDSCBS for short.

Now, as I've admitted, I haven't watched Firefly, nor have I watched Serenity; I haven't heard of them.

So you're another Cooper Lawrence. That's why I'm not even going to bother and tell you why you're wrong, talking with obvious idiots/trolls is just waste of my time. Get some first-hand knowledge, then we can talk.

However, since there are few who agree with you, I will call megablocks on probably most egregious example of kid friendly theme:

Lord of the Rings

Severe violence- x3

Here are just some selected (far from all!) parts of LoTR:

Gollum/Smeagol: murderer, dies without any redemption.

The Battle of Helm's Deep: many, many casualties on both sides, lot of blood and dismembered body parts. Two of main characters made bet who can kill most enemies.

Implied slavery/torture/rape: orks are actually elves transformed by means of torture and mutilation.

Balrog: evil daemon, kills one of main characters.

Overwhelming evil corruption: anyone who wears Ring; Saruman; others.

Shelob: gargantuan evil spider that kills one of main characters (later we find she "only" paralizes him in order to eat him. Now that's what I call kid-friendly villain! </sarcasm>).

One of ents (sentient beings capable of feeling pain) is BURNING ALIVE. I rest my case.

This stuff is clearly R rated and there is no way anyone could possibly explain all that to 6-11 "target group" child.

So now you can do one of two thigs:

1. Admit Firefly/Serenity is child's play compared to LotR and Lego group is just bunch of hypocrites.

2. Pretend that those things never happened/are not present in Lego set and are thus irrevelant. But this means you have to apply same rules to Firefly: it's just spaceship model without any backstory. Which again makes TLG bunch of hypocrites.

Basically there is no way anyone could say that Shelob and The Battle of Helm's Deep is ok but Serenity is not without being called mentally deficient. Amount of Reavers killed by River (off-screen!) pales in comparison with amount of Orcs slayed in Helm's Deep (on screen!). Inara is called companion. What that means for 6-11 years old? Whatever you tell them, since there are no explicit sex acts on screen. It could just as well be a lady that talks with lonely man. Try explaining Lego-approved term "Death Star". Or how it destroyed entire planet and all its inhabitants. I dare you.

Edited August 11, 201212 yr by Emrakul

Okay, shoot down the new guy as you wish, but what's wrong with calling her a geisha? Unlike common beliefs, geishas weren't prostitutes. They were tea servers, or something along that line. It's a Western myth that got started because we didn't understand Japanese culture.

I propose to call it "hypocrytical double standard corporate BS", or HDSCBS for short.

Here at Eurobricks, we welcome and encourage meaningful and respectful discussion. Do not call people idiots or imply that they are mentally deficient.

Basically TLG is a business that wants to make money. There probably is a lot more money to be had with Star Wars (including a Death Star) and Lord of the Rings than there is in Firefly/Serenity. Yes, it is a cult hit now, but that in no way guarantees any money for future releases. Surely, TLG could afford to take some risks here and there to bring about certain play elements. But then again, that is probably what got them into trouble earlier in the 2000s.

Any given situation can create an exception. I'm not going to bring about any of my own beliefs into this argument, but as absolute as some things appear, there can be a reasonable exception. With that said, TLG probably has the same line they are trying not to cross. They want to bring about as many fun play scenes to the masses, all the while making some nice profits to continue to do it in the future.

They need something to appeal to the target audience and violence (dubbed "action") is a seller in that group (as is in most groups). Lord of the Rings/Star Wars has conflict and that brings about fun playsets. I'm sure Firefly had some conflict, but I don't remember much going on other than a lot of dialogue when I watched it.

Either way TLG, like any other business, needs to dance a fine line.

In this announcement, they clearly state what they will not produce; they are as follows-

• Swearing
  

At 10:10, the dude swears. In an official Lego video.

Just throwing that out there for ya.

-Omi

At 10:10, the dude swears. In an official Lego video.

Just throwing that out there for ya.

-Omi

While "damn" may be considered a swear in the US, it certainly isn't in my country, and I believe the rest of Europe.

While "damn" may be considered a swear in the US, it certainly isn't in my country, and I believe the rest of Europe.

It's just an example. :P

Keep in mind, these moral standards are in keeping with worldwide, not just Europe.

-Omi

Edited August 11, 201212 yr by Omicron

This stuff is clearly R rated and there is no way anyone could possibly explain all that to 6-11 "target group" child.

So now you can do one of two thigs:

1. Admit Firefly/Serenity is child's play compared to LotR and Lego group is just bunch of hypocrites.

2. Pretend that those things never happened/are not present in Lego set and are thus irrevelant. But this means you have to apply same rules to Firefly: it's just spaceship model without any backstory. Which again makes TLG bunch of hypocrites.

Basically there is no way anyone could say that Shelob and The Battle of Helm's Deep is ok but Serenity is not without being called mentally deficient. Amount of Reavers killed by River (off-screen!) pales in comparison with amount of Orcs slayed in Helm's Deep (on screen!). Inara is called companion. What that means for 6-11 years old? Whatever you tell them, since there are no explicit sex acts on screen. It could just as well be a lady that talks with lonely man. Try explaining Lego-approved term "Death Star". Or how it destroyed entire planet and all its inhabitants. I dare you.

Lord of the Rings base source material is found in pretty much every junior high school library in the world. I don't know about anyone else, but I read it at 9. I know I am not alone in that. Remember Lego keeps a separation between real world violence and make believe world violence. Context means a lot in this. Kids often learn of historic battles and wars. They grow up on greek and roman mythology. Samurai tales etc. this is different then showing them Goodfellas.

It's obvious you love Firefly. I understand your support and desire to see a set made. But let's be honest with ourselves. Firefly deals in some very adult themes. It is "PG13" at best. The main differences between Firefly and LotR is not necessarily the violence. Although Firefly dances much closer to that real world line than TLG would really go for. The problem is the violence plus the sexuality. "Space Hooker" is one of the main characters. One of the episodes involves an almost Taratino'esque gunfight defending a brothel, where an underaged teenage girl first displays some rather graphic killing skills.

Think of it his way. When a parent pre screens LotR's before letting a younger child watch it, they are mainly concerned with "will this be too scary for the child". When they watch Firefly or Serenity they are generating a list of questions that they are not yet ready to deal with yet. It doesn't make Firefly any less brilliant than the LotR movies. It just means that it is very clearly targeted at an older audience, one above where Lego targets.

While "damn" may be considered a swear in the US, it certainly isn't in my country, and I believe the rest of Europe.

Damn has lost it's 'swear word' title, in my opinion. It's thrown around on TV, as well as worse words. Swearing doesn't bother me, but it is sad what can/is said on TV nowadays.

Even my mom says damn. And she doesn't swear, hates hearing it. Doesn't see R rated movies(most PG-13 as well) because of swearing.

Edited August 11, 201212 yr by Legocrazy81

Damn has lost it's 'swear word' title, in my opinion.

In your opinion, not the entire world's.

Damn is still considered a swear word in most countries and cultures, regardless of how weak it is.

damn

verb (used with object)

1. to declare (something) to be bad, unfit, invalid, or illegal.

2. to condemn as a failure: to damn a play.

3. to bring condemnation upon; ruin.

4. to doom to eternal punishment or condemn to hell.

5. to swear at or curse, using the word “damn”: Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

Perhaps you should inform your mom that she swears.

-Omi

Edited August 13, 201212 yr by Omicron

I don't know whether I think 'damn' is swearing. I've always thought of it, I guess, as some kind of <insert that tiresome argument> swearing.

I don't swear, and I don't say 'damn', but that's not by principle, but rather because of lack of impulse (it never comes to my mind to proclaim dissatisfaction in any way that isn't likely to change whatever it is I'm dissatisfied with), so I wouldn't know what category that puts 'damn' in.

In your opinion, not the entire world's.

[...]

Perhaps you should inform your mom that she swears.

Swearing is pretty much a subjective thing. I feel pretty confident that Legocrazy's mother knows that there are people who thinks 'damn' is a swear word. And since she uses it anyway, it seems unlikely that she would care.

EDIT: Oh, I applaud that word filter!

I presume my meaning gets across, regardless of it. =J

Edited August 12, 201212 yr by Multiverse

I call Godwin's Law on the lot of you.

In you're opinion, not the entire world's.

Damn is still considered a swear word in most countries and cultures, regardless of how weak it is.

damn

verb (used with object)

1. to declare (something) to be bad, unfit, invalid, or illegal.

2. to condemn as a failure: to damn a play.

3. to bring condemnation upon; ruin.

4. to doom to eternal punishment or condemn to hell.

5. to swear at or curse, using the word “damn”: Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead!

Perhaps you should inform your mom that she swears.

-Omi

you're

conjunction (used as a subject and verb, not as a possessive)

1. conjunction of you and are

2. cannot substitute the word 'your'

your

adj (not for use as a conjunction of you and are)

1. of or relating to you or yourself or yourselves especially as possessor or possessors <your bodies>, agent or agents <your contributions>, or object or objects of an action <your discharge>

2. of or relating to one or oneself <when you face the north, east is at your right>

3. —used with little or no meaning almost as an equivalent to the definite article the <your typical teenager>

yore

noun

1. time past and especially long past —usually used in the phrase of yore