Jump to content

LEGO CUUSOO Rejects Firefly Set Proposal


Recommended Posts

Well, it's only to be expected with an edgy show like "Firefly" that is full of themes that the LEGO Group likes to avoid. Like the show's overhanging "war" theme. Not to mention it's cult status, which would most likely prevent the set(s) from being profitable.

A quality set will always make profit. Plus, kids might look at it and say, "Hey, that looks cool. I wanna buy it." And, you never know, it might serve as a gateway into the series for future fans, thought I'm still not expecting a second season. It sounds like Joss is just gonna let it die. But in all seriousness, the thing that makes me mad more than anything is how hypocritical their refusal really was. It's okay to make sets based on movies where a lot of people get eaten and mutilated by dinosaurs in a theme park, or an archaeologist who fights dictatorships whilst looking for ancient artifacts and having affairs with multiple women, but a space western with some of the deepest characters I've ever seen on TV is "too mature." I'll admit there were a couple of firefights here and there, but it wasn't like anyone exploded into a gory mess. The worst that could be done is they'd make Inara's pod into a set, which doesn't need to happen. Just make Jayne (hat included) and Mal minifigures, LEGO. The worst that could happen is some shrew complains in an angry E-mail about it. Otherwise, you won't get much bad press over it.
First of all, the Jurassic Park theme was ages ago, probably long before LEGO had fleshed out their brand standards. And Indiana Jones is typically considered a family movie (When did he have affairs, anyway? He never married any of the women, nor did he engage in relationships with women who were in relationships with anyone else). Meanwhile, Firefly, from what I've read, was a bleak and cynical story with many mature themes. The rejection has nothing to do with gore, and as LEGO revealed in their brand standards (which they released recently), there's a lot more that goes into whether a work's content is appropriate for LEGO to license.The worst that can happen is not angry emails, but that LEGO loses its reputation as a family-friendly company, or that Cuusoo gains a reputation as a service by which LEGO makes sets based on properties you wouldn't want your kids exposed to.

Formerly Lyichir: Rachira of Influence

Aanchir's and Meiko's brother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I understand why some people are disappointed about the rejection of the Firefly proposal (I am very happy that The Legend of Zelda proposal is being reviewed, but I would have been disappointed if it were rejected), I can think of several other reasons why the proposal was rejected:1. It would have been another space theme (Star Wars is very popular, and there already is Alien Invasion). "Hey, Mom, what's Firely?" "maybe it's some Star Wars thing."2. It's based off of a tv show/film that is not nearly as well-known as Indiana Jones, Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc.3. Sort of coming off of reason 2, but it's not as well-known by parents. Parents would show their children Indiana Jones because they watched it as kids/teens/young adults, unlike Serenity or Firefly (at least for the present, I'm actually looking forward to the time when a lot of today's generation become parents and share their video games with their kids :D).Since it is not well-known and is discontinued, it wouldn't exactly be in the best interest for LEGO to produce Firefly sets, regardless how it is received by the relatively small group of people who watch it (as compared, again, to Star Wars or Indiana Jones), and so I can see why, soley based off of those reason, LEGO decided to reject the proposal. I personally haven't seen Firefly or Serenity, I've only heard of it, so I can't really write about the questionable content that might be in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can say without doubt that Firefly has themes far too mature for Lego's target audience. Unlike Prince of Peria, or even Indiana Jones, Firefly has obvious sexual themes. One of the main characters, Inara, (in episode one at least) is a... err... 'Companion', and her job is not just sidetracked and part of her backstory.I agree with Lego Bricks decision to censor itAlso, some posts earlier suggest Inara's profession is not overtly shown. The first scene Inara features in is one of her practicing her profession. How's that for non-child appropriate?

Edited by Visaru

--------------   Tarrok | Korzaa | Verak | Kirik   --------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Prince of Peria, or even Indiana Jones, Firefly has obvious sexual themes.

It bothers me that we live in a society where "sexual themes" are a greater cause for concern than "violent themes".Whoops who left this soapbox here?

20383310448_7d514f8ffa.jpg

 

Spoiler Alert

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it's only to be expected with an edgy show like "Firefly" that is full of themes that the LEGO Group likes to avoid. Like the show's overhanging "war" theme. Not to mention it's cult status, which would most likely prevent the set(s) from being profitable.

A quality set will always make profit. Plus, kids might look at it and say, "Hey, that looks cool. I wanna buy it." And, you never know, it might serve as a gateway into the series for future fans, thought I'm still not expecting a second season. It sounds like Joss is just gonna let it die. But in all seriousness, the thing that makes me mad more than anything is how hypocritical their refusal really was. It's okay to make sets based on movies where a lot of people get eaten and mutilated by dinosaurs in a theme park, or an archaeologist who fights dictatorships whilst looking for ancient artifacts and having affairs with multiple women, but a space western with some of the deepest characters I've ever seen on TV is "too mature." I'll admit there were a couple of firefights here and there, but it wasn't like anyone exploded into a gory mess. The worst that could be done is they'd make Inara's pod into a set, which doesn't need to happen. Just make Jayne (hat included) and Mal minifigures, LEGO. The worst that could happen is some shrew complains in an angry E-mail about it. Otherwise, you won't get much bad press over it.
First of all, the Jurassic Park theme was ages ago, probably long before LEGO had fleshed out their brand standards. And Indiana Jones is typically considered a family movie (When did he have affairs, anyway? He never married any of the women, nor did he engage in relationships with women who were in relationships with anyone else). Meanwhile, Firefly, from what I've read, was a bleak and cynical story with many mature themes. The rejection has nothing to do with gore, and as LEGO revealed in their brand standards (which they released recently), there's a lot more that goes into whether a work's content is appropriate for LEGO to license.The worst that can happen is not angry emails, but that LEGO loses its reputation as a family-friendly company, or that Cuusoo gains a reputation as a service by which LEGO makes sets based on properties you wouldn't want your kids exposed to.
Well, Indy was with a number of women over the course of his adventures, which is hard to disprove simply because it's right there in the movies. And where did you read Firelfy was "bleak and cynical?" I won't deny that people got shot on more than one occasion, and Inara was the 25th century equivalent of a courtesan, but the show itself is actually quite heartfelt. It's about, as Whedon put it, "nine people who look into the void of space and see something different," which is a pretty accurate description. Now, I'm not saying being cynical is a necessarily a bad thing, but simply because these folks are in the keister of the universe doesn't make the show a downer.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I definitely agree that Firefly is not suitable for the intended age market, but I feel it has to be said:"Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!" :DSorry, couldn't resist. http://www.bzpower.com/board/public/style_emoticons/default/blush.png All quotes aside, I will admit I was surprised to see someone was trying to get this project through; because many of the things featured in Firefly simply aren't things intended for children to see. Moreover, who would buy it, other than browncoats? So... yeah. Lego stopped the signal.~PG~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'm inclined to believe that Lego isn't disclosing all of their reasons for not allowing a Firefly line. Star Wars, Indiana Jones, and Lord of the Rings are all still represented in media and entertainment today, whereas Firefly just has its 14 episodes. Nothing more has been done for the show other than give it the DVD/Blu-Ray treatment. There may be a huge fanbase out there for it, sure, but it's not exactly mainstream anymore, so to speak--it's what you might call a "cult" thing.So I'm thinking that, while Lego's reason of Firefly being "inappropriate" is most likely valid, the lack of newness--which we all know is important to Lego--may well have been a deciding factor too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike Prince of Peria, or even Indiana Jones, Firefly has obvious sexual themes.

It bothers me that we live in a society where "sexual themes" are a greater cause for concern than "violent themes".Whoops who left this soapbox here?
I think most parents would, given the choice, expose their children to violence than sexual themes, especially in media. There are many reasons why that's the case, but probably one of the most important reasons is because it's far easier to shrug off a violent scene than a sexual one. Edited by Zorrakh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two bits on the whole "They rejected a Firefly set" debate:I agree with LEGO on this one. Firefly, from what I understand, has content that is extremely questionable. This is actually a better decision, IMO, for Lego than them accepting it, because then concerned parents would bring up "Well x scene has x in it and we don't want children seeing that", and then LEGO would face a very monstrous PR nightmare and could even lose money if parents refused to buy LEGO products because they allowed a set to be built from something that contains very questionable content. I also think that the argument of "You've made a set out of x and it's super violent" isn't a valid one. LEGO didn't reject it because of the violence, they rejected it because of the... other things... as stated several times. You can't compare violence with prostitution or anything like that; it's like comparing apples and oranges. It seems like the reason that this argument is around is because they rejected "Shawn of the Dead" because it's too violent. Well, yeah, they would. It's a film involving a bunch of zombies and people get killed in some gruesome ways. But just because they reject a set from a zombie film because it's too violent doesn't mean that they'll reject other sets for the exact same reason.On the Cuusoo website, they give a list of prohibited things that will get any set rejected for containing it; on that list are graphic violence/blood and gore, along with sexual themes, alcohol in modern-day situations, and many other things. Remember that they can pick and choose from that list as they please, and they won't always wind up rejecting something for the same reason as another.

*Insert some sort of banner or photograph here*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My two bits on the whole "They rejected a Firefly set" debate:I agree with LEGO on this one. Firefly, from what I understand, has content that is extremely questionable. This is actually a better decision, IMO, for Lego than them accepting it, because then concerned parents would bring up "Well x scene has x in it and we don't want children seeing that", and then LEGO would face a very monstrous PR nightmare and could even lose money if parents refused to buy LEGO products because they allowed a set to be built from something that contains very questionable content.I also think that the argument of "You've made a set out of x and it's super violent" isn't a valid one. LEGO didn't reject it because of the violence, they rejected it because of the... other things... as stated several times. You can't compare violence with prostitution or anything like that; it's like comparing apples and oranges. It seems like the reason that this argument is around is because they rejected "Shawn of the Dead" because it's too violent. Well, yeah, they would. It's a film involving a bunch of zombies and people get killed in some gruesome ways. But just because they reject a set from a zombie film because it's too violent doesn't mean that they'll reject other sets for the exact same reason.On the Cuusoo website, they give a list of prohibited things that will get any set rejected for containing it; on that list are graphic violence/blood and gore, along with sexual themes, alcohol in modern-day situations, and many other things. Remember that they can pick and choose from that list as they please, and they won't always wind up rejecting something for the same reason as another.

Yes, it probably was a good desicion for Lego to reject it, as people might have ended up boycotting Lego, and it could cause them to lose money.

"I pitea the fool!"


(quote by Chro)


98.7% OF BZPOWER MEMBERS HAVEN'T SEEN MY BUCKET 


IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE 1.3% THAT HAS SEEN MY BUCKET, COPY THIS AND PASTE IT INTO YOUR SIGNATURE


I MISS MY BUCKET 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...I guess this shoots down any chance of Alien VS Predator sets... :P Anyway, on the topic of Lord of the Rings having violence, I secretly wanted a set of "Meat's back on the menu". But alas, "No one's going to save you now" Orc will not be given a minifig. :PSo yeah. Apparently there's a limit on how risque a theme can be before Lego say NOPE. This makes me doubt that my Idea for an original would ever be accepted If I put it on CUUSOO.-Digitally Advanced Villan Emulatorr

pNNgXax.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the most important reasons is because it's far easier to shrug off a violent scene than a sexual one.

I know. And it's absolutely backwards.
I wouldn't call it backwards. Sure, our cultural aversions to sexual issues are probably way over-the-top, and our cultural acceptance of violence is probably the same way. But I still think violent/gory content (within certain boundaries) is probably more acceptable to parents than sexual content for a key reason: kids are more likely to have experienced blood, injury, or even violence and death in their lifetimes than to have experienced sexual content.And I think this is reasonable cause for avoiding that sort of content, at least given the upbringing of today's parents. Kissing, hugging... that sort of thing is understandable for kids. Even "romance" is understandable to a certain extent. But go beyond that and sexual content becomes confusing or even scary. And even parents of teenagers often don't understand how or when they can help their children understand that sort of content. Parents of younger kids tend to be even more unprepared for that discussion.Perhaps several decades from now parents will be better-equipped to explain this sort of content to their kids, and so there won't be such a stigma against letting kids be exposed to it. But we're a long way from that currently, and I don't think it's any huge moral failing of parents that they are more prepared to pass on an understanding of violence/gore/death than to pass on knowledge of the sorts of mature content that kids that age are less likely to have encountered on their own.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find it utterly ridiculous that the overt violence and mature themes in other licensed properties are deemed "for kids," while Firefly, which is exactly the same as these other properties, somehow is not.If you think Lord of the Rings is a "kids" movie you have no business talking about themes in Firefly.

Kaiapu: Small gifts, given and received. Strange words, spoken and heard. Now turbo-powered!

 

qs75-1008469640.gif Posted Image

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, so I looked into Firefly a little bit, and I found the premise for the show:

Cowboys, thieves, fugitives, priests, and ########### on a spaceship. They do crime!

Gee, I wonder why LEGO rejected it... <_<I'm dissapointed with people who believe that a show based on that premise should have Lego sets based off of it. At least in Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, etc., there are good guys fighting bad guys, instead of criminals being the main characters of the show and their crimes being the main focus of the show. What kind of a reputation would be set by LEGO if they did that? I would question my own faith in the company, and I certainly wouldn't let my children, if I had any, buy any Lego Firefly sets.

one of the most important reasons is because it's far easier to shrug off a violent scene than a sexual one.

I know. And it's absolutely backwards.
I'm not sure if that's exactly relavent to the discussion at hand... Edited by Zorrakh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the most important reasons is because it's far easier to shrug off a violent scene than a sexual one.

I know. And it's absolutely backwards.
I wouldn't call it backwards. Sure, our cultural aversions to sexual issues are probably way over-the-top, and our cultural acceptance of violence is probably the same way. But I still think violent/gory content (within certain boundaries) is probably more acceptable to parents than sexual content for a key reason: kids are more likely to have experienced blood, injury, or even violence and death in their lifetimes than to have experienced sexual content.
Sorry, but I don't think that claim about kids being more likely to have experienced violence in their lives works. Very few children would have actually experienced anything like the gory carnage of scenes such as in Lord of the Rings, which incidentally is an excellent example to bring up, as Kaiapu said, or other violent content which Lego apparently has no problem with. It really boils down to how society has a perverse love of gore and strange repulsion of sexuality, which Lego is generally reflecting. So, I agree completely with Makaru -- right on, man. However, this is really a topic that probably shouldn't be discussed too much on BZP.~B~ Edited by Ballom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that LEGO does have entire lines of products aimed squarely at adults. CUUSOO is already a specialty line that caters to an adult market. One would think that in terms of what might come to fruition, their standards for what is acceptable would be a bit broader.

Lego's primary audience is still children, however. The things approved have to be buyable by kids, otherwise it is not profitable. Adults already decide what sort of toys are sold to kids anyway; for example, Bionicle was created by adults who worked for Lego. Cuusoo is just opening up the creative pool to allow more adults to use their creativity to make toys for kids.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to point out that LEGO does have entire lines of products aimed squarely at adults. CUUSOO is already a specialty line that caters to an adult market. One would think that in terms of what might come to fruition, their standards for what is acceptable would be a bit broader.

Lego's primary audience is still children, however. The things approved have to be buyable by kids, otherwise it is not profitable.Adults already decide what sort of toys are sold to kids anyway; for example, Bionicle was created by adults who worked for Lego. Cuusoo is just opening up the creative pool to allow more adults to use their creativity to make toys for kids.
Yes! Thank you for that, fishers64. I couldn't have said it any better (which would have been very difficult on my part :P). That was why I was so excited by the idea of Lego Legend of Zelda sets because it's a viable, and potentially awesome, product. Cuusoo is a marketing tool, not a place to decide what would be cool to see in Lego (that's what MOCing is for, is it not?). LEGO is giving people a chance to give their own ideas for a viable product that the community, both children and adults (mostly children) would buy. Edited by Zorrakh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the most important reasons is because it's far easier to shrug off a violent scene than a sexual one.

I know. And it's absolutely backwards.
I'm not sure if that's exactly relavent to the discussion at hand...
I find it entirely relevant when it all boils down to the marketing viewpoint that sex is bad and violence is good.Ballom is right, though. BZP is neither the time nor the place for my sort of crazy babble.

20383310448_7d514f8ffa.jpg

 

Spoiler Alert

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

one of the most important reasons is because it's far easier to shrug off a violent scene than a sexual one.

I know. And it's absolutely backwards.
I'm not sure if that's exactly relavent to the discussion at hand...
I find it entirely relevant when it all boils down to the marketing viewpoint that sex is bad and violence is good.Ballom is right, though. BZP is neither the time nor the place for my sort of crazy babble.
That marketing viewpoint is directly tied to the fact that the general public sees things that way. Like with the Friends controversy, I have to stress that as a toy company, it is in no way LEGO's job to try to change public perceptions. Their job is selling toys, and creating sets based on things typical parents wouldn't want their kids seeing runs counter to that.

Formerly Lyichir: Rachira of Influence

Aanchir's and Meiko's brother

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...