Talk:The Brick Bible

message: I reverted this revision which removed the note about content warnings. The content warnings are part of the content of the pages and I believe (although I don't have a cite at this time) the author of The Brick Testament has stated they are a key part of that content (that the Bible needs nudity/violence warnings could be construed as an editorial comment on it...) I suppose that they are important to mention is my view, but I don't really see why the material was removed. Comments? ++Lar: t/c 20:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content Warnings 

message: I have to agree with the comments of 80.213.200.100 above.  It is not a "parody".  That is the wrong word to use here.
The retelling of the action is essentially straight. Yes, Smith does like to bring out any elements of sex and violence in the story (though that's not so different from any number of Hollywood adaptations of literary works).  What the illustrations do sometimes do is make pointedly ironic commentary on the material -- for example emphasising the Ten Commandments were originally a list of capital crimes; the Jews applying Deut 13:10 on false prophets to Jesus; or emphasising the size of the ask to fully love ones enemy.  But this is commentary, not parody.
It is not "parody" just to be unflattering.  (cf Brian, above).
So I propose to remove the word "parody" from the article, and instead comment more accurately on what the work does show.  
(Compare WP:NPOV tutorial#Neutral language, or the standard example which I think used to be in WP:NPOV: We don't need to say Hitler was "evil".  Instead, report what the man did, and let that speak for itself.)
Jheald (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree the descriptive term "parody" is not accurate for this work. While there are a very small number of humorous illustrations, nearly all of the illustrations are straight representations of the Bible's text. Just because someone might find the image of Lego figures burning in hell amusing does _not_ make it a parody. Until someone can point to significant portions of the work where the illustrations are not reasonably straight representations of the Bible's text, I am removing the word.  Rotundo (talk) 06:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Parody" ? 

message: Uhm, theres a minor error in the article... Lego did manufacture a white male hair piece as part of a space-theme. Just thought that ought to be changed, maybe.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.194.45 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find any info on Peeron  , although I find it was produced in the similar colors "OldGray" and "Tan". The only true white hair I could find was "female pigtails", although it's not very God-like:  . In which alleged set would this hairpiece be found? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the white hair-piece 

message: Is the project actually still active? It seems the site hasn't updated since 2015 despite saying "more to come", doesn't seem like the author's published anything about it since then either (though she has worked on other Lego retellings but I don't know how much those would count as part of this). --Jessietail (talk) 07:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active? 

message: The newer website for this project goes under the title "The Brick Bible" because "When Elbe Spurling began working with Skyhorse Publishing on a series of print books, they were released under the slightly modified name The Brick Bible. The success of the print books eventually caused The Brick Bible to be the more recognized name for the project" (source here). Since that is not only the name of the current website, but also the name used by the books, should the article title not be updated to reflect that? Packer1028 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential rename to "The Brick Bible"