198 replies to this topic

[Omicron]

Aanchir, on 22 December 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Are we talking about the same set concept? Because I see several new molds in it: Link's hat/hair mold, Ganondorf's new hair mold (though come to think of it, some of the LotR orc ears look quite similar... why haven't I seen any customizers repaint/trim them for that purpose yet?), the crystal element, the Master Sword, the Hylian Shield, and the head mold with pointed ears (most visible on Zelda, though I'm assuming Link and Ganondorf also use it).

Lego has pieces they've already made that can be used.

Zelda's hairpiece can be a reused LoTR elven hairpiece (and it works just as fine). Ganondorf's hairpiece can be this or this (will have to leave out ears for that). The crystal piece can be 4 of these. Hylian shield can be printed on Lego's existing shields.

That leaves Link's cap which can be molded with the ears and hair (or just mold it with ears and print hair on the head) and the Master Sword as the unique pieces they would have to mold.

-Omi

[strangely]

Omicron, on 22 December 2012 - 05:58 AM, said:

It was what Lego specifically asked from him, what more do you want?

They didn't want the list of pieces, they wanted a set. He gave the concept to them and they accepted it. Then when the project recieved the 10k votes, they still accepted it. The final set concept that Lego asked him for and accepted ideally only had 2 new molds at tops.

-Omi

Perhaps I'm just not making myself clear. I'm just saying it's not really like what Lego actually produces. It was an interesting idea, but it lacked a streamlined design and play features that most Lego sets have. To me it wasn't really a set that could be played with, it was more a display for the characters. While that's a good quality for a moc it's not desirable for an adventure set that's meant to be played with.

And even though he later gave them a set idea it was still rejected because of new molds. Sure he did what they asked, but ultimately it just wasn't what Lego was looking for. I would love to see a Zelda Lego set, but this project just wasn't quite right. It's a great MOC, but not a very fun set.

Aanchir, on 22 December 2012 - 02:45 PM, said:

Personally, I'm quite grateful that the project was not rejected for licensing reasons. It was not, in my opinion, the best Legend of Zelda project out there, and it is good to know that some of the other Legend of Zelda proposals already posted (or even future proposals-- I'm quite fond of this one which if it were to be proposed would only need two new molds) might still have a chance. For that matter, MINGLES could potentially propose a newer model and be on a better footing than with the previous one, since it's now a lot clearer what it takes to make a successful Cuusoo project (and there are a lot of new molds already available in LEGO that might be applicable where he had previously used his own, more distinctive designs).

That's pretty much how I feel. This one was a nice idea, but set wise it just needed a different approach. I think we will get a Zelda project passed at some point (After all a second one is getting close).

[Omicron]

strangely, on 23 December 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:

I'm just saying it's not really like what Lego actually produces.

http://www.bricklink...m.asp?S=21101-1
http://www.bricklink...m.asp?S=21100-1
http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=6918-1
http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=8799-1
http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=8802-1
http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=6094-1
http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=9440-1
http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=7569-1
http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=7570-1
http://www.bricklink...em.asp?S=4865-1
http://www.bricklink...m.asp?S=79003-1
http://www.bricklink...m.asp?S=79000-1

Not much play value there. And I found more, but I think that's enough to show my point. Just cuz you don't see much play value in it doesn't mean others share your view on playable sets. Not all sets are meant to be played with.

Quote

Sure he did what they asked, but ultimately it just wasn't what Lego was looking for.

No he didn't do what they asked. He gave them what they asked for. They asked for this set. If it wasn't what they were looking for, they would have mentioned that. But it was nothing to do with the set concept that they asked for. If the set was not what they were looking for to begin with, or if there were other complications, they would have turned it down before it reached its mark, and they've done that with other themes already before they reached their 10,000.

-Omi

Edited by Omicron, 23 December 2012 - 11:37 AM.

[SalvoBrick]

Speaking for myself, I'm very happy with this decision fo some reasons:
- I'm a big fan of BTTF, I wanted to do a MOC of the DeLorean but I always give priority to other ideas. Plus, this set wouldn't be expensive, so I'll buy one or maybe two;
- even if the western town is excellent, each set would be very expensive, over 100 - 150 € maybe, so I wouldn't be able to buy one. Plus, i'm interested in city, and I could have bought one only to recycle the bricks for town creations
- I have no interest for the other sets (expecially videogames characters: maybe because I'm old and I don't play videogames?)
So, in my case, this is the first Cuusoo set I'm interested to buy :)

[strangely]

Omicron, on 23 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

Not much play value there. And I found more, but I think that's enough to show my point. Just cuz you don't see much play value in it doesn't mean others share your view on playable sets. Not all sets are meant to be played with.

But quite a few of those sets do have play features (I've had and played with a great deal of those). Some of them feature moving parts, a collection of weapons, animals and streamlined structures that encourage play. And I didn't say you had to agree with me, I was just trying to say I understand why it didn't become a set and I'm okay with that since there's other Zelda projects working their way up to 10,000 votes.

Edited by strangely, 23 December 2012 - 02:21 PM.

[Omicron]

strangely, on 23 December 2012 - 01:18 PM, said:

Some of them feature moving parts, a collection of weapons, animals and streamlined structures that encourage play.

And Lego can't put those in the set? The first 2 sets I linked to are the first cuusoo models, and they are just meant for display only.

And honestly, if you find a turning wheel to be fun playability, then I just don't know what to say. And a collection of new molds for weapons and accessories with new figs, kinda sounds like the proposed project does it not?

Quote

I was just trying to say I understand why it didn't become a set

But "because it has no playability" as you say was not the reason, so you can't say or understand to say that it is the reason. Lego doesn't want to cash in on new molds for a one time set, even it is just one unique piece. Even if the other Zelda project makes it, I doubt Lego will consider it for the same reason because it still features new molds, plus his other project was shut down pretty quick.

-Omi

[AndyC]

I honestly think a lot of people complaining would do well to re-read the guidelinesspecifically pointed out by the Cuusoo team a long way back. It's a great blog post for anyone thinking about suggesting an idea to Cuusoo and goes a long way towards explaining why ideas like playthemes (such as MWT) or that require any kind of new mold (such as Zelda) are probably going to be fighting a losing battle. The reasons behind pretty much every rejected set so far can be found described in plain English right there.

1. A good LEGO model helps, but it’s not required.
2. Your model can actually be too good for CUUSOO.
3. Consider your model size and potential cost.
4. Models should not depend on new LEGO element molds.
5. Go wide. Projects that feature new ideas and new categories have greater potential.
6. Think in terms of individual sets, since playthemes are planned well in advance.
7. Keep your concept kid-appropriate.
8. Suggesting a new license introduces factors outside of our control.

[Faefrost]

AndyC, on 23 December 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

I honestly think a lot of people complaining would do well to re-read the guidelinesspecifically pointed out by the Cuusoo team a long way back. It's a great blog post for anyone thinking about suggesting an idea to Cuusoo and goes a long way towards explaining why ideas like playthemes (such as MWT) or that require any kind of new mold (such as Zelda) are probably going to be fighting a losing battle. The reasons behind pretty much every rejected set so far can be found described in plain English right there.

1. A good LEGO model helps, but it’s not required.
2. Your model can actually be too good for CUUSOO.
3. Consider your model size and potential cost.
4. Models should not depend on new LEGO element molds.
5. Go wide. Projects that feature new ideas and new categories have greater potential.
6. Think in terms of individual sets, since playthemes are planned well in advance.
7. Keep your concept kid-appropriate.
8. Suggesting a new license introduces factors outside of our control.

Thank you. This is precisely what I keep trying to say. The only exception to above was the MWT, which just ran into an unfortunate timing incident. Lego signed a contract to produce a licensed Western Theme, that had not yet been revealed. But they have been upfront in other postings that given the long development process of themes and sets, some CuuSoo projects may have an issue with planned upcoming themes. There really wasn't much either TLG or the project designer could have done in that case.

[strangely]

Even if we won't see the MWT become a reality any time soon we at least have a new western theme. Granted Lone ranger could be better, but perhaps if it sells well Lego will bring back it's own Western theme sometime after the Lone Ranger contract expires. After all Lego seems to respond pretty well to the fans demands so maybe in a couple of years we'll see something similar to the MWT.

I'm interested in seeing how the next review turns out. The sandcrawler is a set I would love to have but I just can't quite imagine it passing. I feel like the size alone would pose a problem for Lego.
I think Portal has a chance of passing, but if it did I would bet that Lego would opt to use the Portal Puzzle Board game rather than the other suggestions in the presentation. I just think it's a fantastic representation of what the game is about. Simple but intriguing.
Based on the first two CUUSOO sets though it almost seems too likely that the curiosity rover will be the one to get made. While it's a fine project I honestly wouldn't buy it, space just doesn't interest me like it used to...

[Treader]

Really happy for BTTF!! It's one of my favorite movies!! Would be nice to have a whole theme with BTTF!

[robuko]

Treader, on 24 December 2012 - 01:03 AM, said:

Really happy for BTTF!! It's one of my favorite movies!! Would be nice to have a whole theme with BTTF!

Me too.  It would be great if the BTTF3 train makes it - and some Western saloons to go with it!

[Paul Boratko]

Very Excited for the BTTF set... I hope that it comes with minifigs..

Edited by Paul Boratko, 24 December 2012 - 05:10 AM.

[Warior135]

*Hums the Back to the future theme*

[Lego Amaryl]

Am I the only one who is not surprised by the choice?
It sounds to me the only logical one and I saw no reason why the Universal Pictures shouldn't have granted LEGO the license.

In reply to those that complain about another licensed set... you are underestimating how popular is the BTTF trilogy still today and how alive is still the fandom! PoP, PoTC, Ninja Turtles, The Lone Ranger and other movies or cartoons that TLG turned to sets will be forgotten soon, BTTF is a classic that will always be popular (without need to have a sequel).

[Mister Phes]

Lyichir, on 22 December 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

Correction: Pirates was dropped like a year before PotC came out. The cancellation may have still been connected to the development of PotC, but it's also possible that Pirates just ran out of steam on its own.

The recent LEGO Pirates theme wasn't intended to be ongoing and thus wasn't cancelled or "ran out of steam".

Bonaparte, on 20 December 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

Unfortunately the Modular Western Town project conflicts with an ongoing project at the LEGO Group and a result, the project does not meet the business case requirements and has not passed the LEGO Review.

This is the current situation, but after the ongoing project is no longer in production, is there not a possibility for re-review?  Seems quite wasteful to decline such a popular creation because it conflicts with contemporary objectives.

Do we have we any further information on this issue or is that something I'll have go digging for?

[Lyichir]

Devorath, on 22 December 2012 - 07:35 PM, said:

First Lego Set that only AFOLs will buy. I mean, I didn't even know their once was a tv show called Back To The Future! And the car looks rubbish IMO. Actually, I have no idea why I am having this rant, as these sets don't make it to NZ. (We lack a Lego Store)

EDIT: iPod keyboards are really small and you make typos.

Um... Back to the Future was a movie series, not a TV show. And a classic at that (at least here in the U.S.). As for the look of the model, that's likely to change in the final set, since I can tell the model as it currently stands uses a few unusual techniques which are never used in actual sets (such as filling a space with levers).

[relhak]

AndyC, on 23 December 2012 - 07:44 PM, said:

2. Your model can actually be too good for CUUSOO.
3. Consider your model size and potential cost.
6. Think in terms of individual sets, since playthemes are planned well in advance.
7. Keep your concept kid-appropriate.

If any set meets the criteria of #2, this is it.  I immediately thought of #3 when I first saw MWT and thought it would have to be broken up to 5 sets of around $50 each, which violates #6.  

This set is like Diagon Alley plus two extra buildings.  I think Lego wants to appeal to non-Lego fans, not just put out a set for the die-hards.  It would be ok for their new theme design challenge, but still heavy on the rehash factor even if they didn't have TLR coming out soon.

Aanchir, on 21 December 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

In fact, just to cover my bases, let's list all the ridiculous conspiracy theories that HAVEN'T been suggested yet:
4) The LEGO Group stole the idea of the Modular Western Town, then stole the idea of the Back to the Future time machine, used it to go back in time, and created their modular buildings series based on the Modular Western Town idea. Any memories we have of the modular buildings come from the altered timeline.

Don't forget, they also went further back in time and created the Lone Ranger TV series so they would have an excuse to block the MWT and save themselves the 1% royalty.

Seriously though, the modular building line was based off of Market Street, which was also a fan design.

[Legocrazy81]

relhak, on 27 December 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

If any set meets the criteria of #2, this is it.  I immediately thought of #3 when I first saw MWT and thought it would have to be broken up to 5 sets of around $50 each, which violates #6.  

Seriously though, the modular building line was based off of Market Street, which was also a fan design.

Actually, it was only going to be one of the five, there was a thread in the Historical section where it was polled on which people would like to see made. He was made aware through getting votes that only one would be made.

For the people using the 2 like themes assumption, while I suppose it could vary license to license, but we're getting an Evergreen Castle theme alongside LotR/Hobbit.

Edited by Legocrazy81, 27 December 2012 - 05:18 AM.

[Dorayaki]

I don't really know what's an ongoing project means. If LEGO would really like to do something with Western series renew, the rejection is not important in fact.

[Aanchir]

Legocrazy81, on 27 December 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

Actually, it was only going to be one of the five, there was a thread in the Historical section where it was polled on which people would like to see made. He was made aware through getting votes that only one would be made.

For the people using the 2 like themes assumption, while I suppose it could vary license to license, but we're getting an Evergreen Castle theme alongside LotR/Hobbit.

When it comes to licensing complications, the situation varies depending on the particular license. Maybe the licensing agreements for LotR/The Hobbit are less strict, whether because TLG would not agree to stricter terms (whereas with Western they might not disagree with stricter terms since Western is not a staple of the LEGO brand) or because the rightsholders for those films knew better than to ask for them. Alternatively, maybe the LotR/Hobbit licensing agreement might expressly prohibit medieval fantasy ("swords and sorcery") themes, in which case the upcoming non-licensed castle theme could simply avoid fantasy elements just as Kingdoms did and still be compatible with those licensing terms.

[Omicron]

Lyichir, on 26 December 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:

Um... Back to the Future was a movie series, not a TV show.

Actually there was a BTTF show. :P

-Omi

[Tragic Banjo]

Between this set and the new TMNT theme, it's like my entire childhood is just getting crammed together. I really hope the final design will be as it appears in Part II, with the wheels able to fold down. It seems like a pretty easily executed mechanism, since it was already used for Nick Fury's car.

[Faefrost]

Aanchir, on 27 December 2012 - 03:54 PM, said:

When it comes to licensing complications, the situation varies depending on the particular license. Maybe the licensing agreements for LotR/The Hobbit are less strict, whether because TLG would not agree to stricter terms (whereas with Western they might not disagree with stricter terms since Western is not a staple of the LEGO brand) or because the rightsholders for those films knew better than to ask for them. Alternatively, maybe the LotR/Hobbit licensing agreement might expressly prohibit medieval fantasy ("swords and sorcery") themes, in which case the upcoming non-licensed castle theme could simply avoid fantasy elements just as Kingdoms did and still be compatible with those licensing terms.

PoP and LR are both Disney. Lego seems to have a fairly broad Disney license, which also probably gives Disney a little more leverage in pushing for exclusivity. Whereas WB / New Line may not have had those requirements.

[BrickG]

I wish they'd do more than one but BttF probably couldn't support more than one.  That way you can have a Western based on BttF 3 ;).

We need 3 sets.  One for each movie.  Tons of Marty McFlys (a normal one, one with that crazy rainbow hat and the auto-shoes from the second, then a cowboy one for the third), tons of the Doc, Biff, etc.  All from the different timelines :P.

Never gunna happen.  I am looking forward too the BttF set more than I thought I would be.  Probably because I just got my TMNT sets and I'm feeling nostalgic.


I bet the final version is very similar to what was submitted.  A Marty, a Doc, a Hoverboard and the Delorean.  Probably like...  $20-25.
I just hope the Delorean is a bit better.  I'm not sure how much better you can make the model at this scale though.

Edited by BrickG, 28 December 2012 - 04:43 AM.

[antp]

They could still make one set providing the parts needed to make the three versions of the car (not making three cars, but to chose which variant to make). I hope that's what they will do.

Edited by antp, 28 December 2012 - 11:52 AM.