[MOC] BENDER

[J_C]

disclaimer: I do not have any licence for any Matt Groening original work. I only created LEGO Bender for fun and for free. Its LEGO interpretation and LEGO design is my own.

info: Bender's Wiki

______________________________________

Hi, I am Bender, I bend girders, I can bend them into any angle. 45 degrees, 30 degrees, you name it...

I also want to kill all humans, I smoke, I drink, I steal.

This is how I look:

 

As you can see I am not just some stupid bottom to top robot, I am a SNOT robot:

 

And I can move, thanks to softaxles, magnets, pins, balls and sockets:

 
 
 
 

My front door opens, so I can hide all I steal. Look at that nice pile of money I stole:

 
 
 
 
 

I am getting sick of you humans, with your organs and soft skins. I will have a drink of my beer:

 
 
 
 
 

Oh, somebody ripped my hand of. But it can be easily attached back:

 
 
 

And if you do not like me, you can bite my shiny metal.....oh...you can't, it is plastic:

 

______________________________________

Video:

 

Instructions (free) (PDF computer generated) will be on Rebrickable (link available when MOC approved on Rebrickable):

preview:

 

EDIT: Instructions available

Rebrickable - BENDER

Edited October 10, 2016 by J_C

[kevinb120]

I didn't put it together from the thread title, glad I clicked on it!  Awesome build!  

I need to start going through my grey parts inventory asap!

Edited October 2, 2016 by kevinb120

[anothergol]

Pretty well done.

I wonder why Lego never made (or did they?) rubber axles with metal wire inside, it would allow things like this to "work" with real parts, and it would have cool other uses.

[carebear]

WOW!!!!

Love this!!!

Great Work!!!

Greetings

[Lewi85]

Fantastic work! Lego have done the simpsons why not futurama... Job well done... You've got me thinking spaceships 

[J_C]

7 minutes ago, Lewi85 said:

Fantastic work! Lego have done the simpsons why not futurama... Job well done... You've got me thinking spaceships 

Because I guess, swearing, chain-smoking, alcoholic, kleptomaniac, womanizer (with special feel for fem-bot professional women), who among many other evil things, flushed down the toilet Leela's pet, threw Fry's dog in hot lava, and basically is die-hard-no-morals lovable villain is not so perfect for Lego rules about what is appropriate.  

Edited October 3, 2016 by J_C

[J_C]

I added link to instructions. 

Feedback welcome. Thanks.

[MAB]

On 03/10/2016 at 0:35 PM, J_C said:

Because I guess, swearing, chain-smoking, alcoholic, kleptomaniac, womanizer (with special feel for fem-bot professional women), who among many other evil things, flushed down the toilet Leela's pet, threw Fry's dog in hot lava, and basically is die-hard-no-morals lovable villain is not so perfect for Lego rules about what is appropriate.  

But apart from all that, I wonder why not? :-)

PS. Nice model, and even nicer that you shared the instructions.

[AmperZand]

That's very well designed but is it real? It looks like it may be CAD (LDD?) renders. If so, you should state that up front in the thread's title.

 

[J_C]

5 hours ago, AmperZand said:

That's very well designed but is it real? It looks like it may be CAD (LDD?) renders. If so, you should state that up front in the thread's title.

 

Why should I state it? As warning? Are renders offensive? Less valuable? It is obvious those are renders.

Those are RENDERBENDERS or BENDERENDERS.

Stating the obvious is pointless. I have eternal faith in intelligence of EB visitors.

I made ex-post model in LDCad (I do not use LDD - it sucks IMO), otherwise there would be no instructions. Renders are made in completely different software.

Why aren't there any pictures of real brick model you may ask? 

1.  I can't take really nice pictures.
2.  I have no studio set up, with background, lights.
3.  my hands would be in the pictures.
4.  I do not have all the parts in right colours, my Bender is made from any colour that was available and even some of "nonstructural" surface tiles are missing (only few) - I do not have enough of them. Therefore he looks bit prototypish - because he is prototype - chameleon style.
5.  I did not want to publish them.

Point 5. should have been enough on its own.

Edited October 7, 2016 by J_C

[AmperZand]

16 hours ago, J_C said:

Why should I state it? As warning? Are renders offensive? Less valuable? It is obvious those are renders.

Those are RENDERBENDERS or BENDERENDERS.

Stating the obvious is pointless. I have eternal faith in intelligence of EB visitors.

I made ex-post model in LDCad (I do not use LDD - it sucks IMO), otherwise there would be no instructions. Renders are made in completely different software.

Why aren't there any pictures of real brick model you may ask? 

1.  I can't take really nice pictures.
2.  I have no studio set up, with background, lights.
3.  my hands would be in the pictures.
4.  I do not have all the parts in right colours, my Bender is made from any colour that was available and even some of "nonstructural" surface tiles are missing (only few) - I do not have enough of them. Therefore he looks bit prototypish - because he is prototype - chameleon style.
5.  I did not want to publish them.

Point 5. should have been enough on its own.

It may be obvious to you because you're clearly quite skilled in CAD/rendering so know what to look for, but it isn't obvious to everyone. And it's not a matter of intelligence. It has to do with knowledge of CAD/rendering and LEGO, and one's ability to see the images well. As this is an AFOL site, perhaps we can assume a certain knowledge of LEGO (though even that may be unfair to newcomers to the hobby). As for knowledge of CAD/rendering, there's no reason at all to suppose that being a FOL is related to it. You don't have to pass a CAD test to buy LEGO and discuss it online. And some people may be viewing the images on mobile devices with small screens or may have visual impairments. For all the people who can't immediately determine they are renders for whatever reason, you should state it up front. I'm sure it wasn't your intention to deceive, but that can be the effect with CADs/renders.

Rendering LEGO is not strictly speaking part of AFOLdom. The hobby definitionally involves LEGO, but CAD/rendering doesn't. One could be a CADesigner/renderer of LEGO and never have even touched a piece of LEGO in real life. A CAD/render may be a useful step towards completing a MOC in LEGO, but it isn't LEGO. LEGO is a physical product. CAD/rendering isn't physical, it's digital. If sufficient numbers of people switched to CAD/rendering LEGO instead of getting the real thing, either TLG would go bust or would have to change its business model. CAD/renders may inspire people to buy LEGO, but if not and sufficient numbers are content with CADs/renders alone, that's bad news for TLG and for hobbyists like me who value real LEGO.

 

 

 

 

[J_C]

6 hours ago, AmperZand said:

It may be obvious to you because you're clearly quite skilled in CAD/rendering so know what to look for, but it isn't obvious to everyone. And it's not a matter of intelligence. It has to do with knowledge of CAD/rendering and LEGO, and one's ability to see the images well. As this is an AFOL site, perhaps we can assume a certain knowledge of LEGO (though even that may be unfair to newcomers to the hobby). As for knowledge of CAD/rendering, there's no reason at all to suppose that being a FOL is related to it. You don't have to pass a CAD test to buy LEGO and discuss it online. And some people may be viewing the images on mobile devices with small screens or may have visual impairments. For all the people who can't immediately determine they are renders for whatever reason, you should state it up front. I'm sure it wasn't your intention to deceive, but that can be the effect with CADs/renders.

Rendering LEGO is not strictly speaking part of AFOLdom. The hobby definitionally involves LEGO, but CAD/rendering doesn't. One could be a CADesigner/renderer of LEGO and never have even touched a piece of LEGO in real life. A CAD/render may be a useful step towards completing a MOC in LEGO, but it isn't LEGO. LEGO is a physical product. CAD/rendering isn't physical, it's digital. If sufficient numbers of people switched to CAD/rendering LEGO instead of getting the real thing, either TLG would go bust or would have to change its business model. CAD/renders may inspire people to buy LEGO, but if not and sufficient numbers are content with CADs/renders alone, that's bad news for TLG and for hobbyists like me who value real LEGO.

 

 

 

 

You sound like you think that making renders to presentation is some kind of cheating. And you sound very judgement and critical towards it and my decision to use renders for presentation. I object it quite strongly. BTW: nowadays renders are used everywhere in industry (car catalogues, movie posters, products advertising - more and more of what you consider photos are actually renders. e.g. hollywood film promo: not photos, renders: http://thechive.com/2016/03/31/this-poster-shows-exactly-how-hollywood-is-7-hq-photos/  )

I did digital file ex-post. I did it for instructions (how else could I make them? - I do not like photo instructions - Lego does render instructions too, does that bother you?), and for better presentation results than I can achieve by photography. No need to state it, no need to justify it, because there is nothing wrong with it. 

I would like to kindly ask you if you can cut this pointless discussion from here and if you have any concern about it, you are welcome to PM me. 

 

 

[Jim]

On 7-10-2016 at 2:37 AM, AmperZand said:

That's very well designed but is it real? It looks like it may be CAD (LDD?) renders. If so, you should state that up front in the thread's title.

There are no rules stating that one needs to address the fact it's a digital model. So "should" isn't the right word. "Could" would have been better. So let's end the discussion.

Furthermore it's a great MOC, however, the images are too big. Site regulations state that the maximum width for an image is 1024 pixels. So please, replace the images with smaller ones.

[J_C]

39 minutes ago, Jim said:

Furthermore it's a great MOC, however, the images are too big. Site regulations state that the maximum width for an image is 1024 pixels. So please, replace the images with smaller ones.

Thank you. Pictures replaced with 1024 width. Sorry.

[Jim]

Just now, J_C said:

Thank you. Pictures replaced with 1024 width. Sorry.

Great, thanks!

[agrof]

One of my favorite Cartoon, great MOC!  

One remark: I would use Technic axles (or other solution) for the legs, flex axles are poseable - if You hold them, but Bender will not able to stay on own feet... ok I got it, it must represent the "too many beer" effect.

[J_C]

1 hour ago, agrof said:

One of my favorite Cartoon, great MOC!  

One remark: I would use Technic axles (or other solution) for the legs, flex axles are poseable - if You hold them, but Bender will not able to stay on own feet... ok I got it, it must represent the "too many beer" effect.

Thanks.

I also like Futurama and Bender is great. 

I had a version with normal hard technic axles. but then he can stand but he cannot move. It is a trade off. This version allows: bending of the arms (softaxles) rotation of arms (pins on magnet holder), removal of the arm (magnet), moving fingers (balls,sockets), bending of the legs (softaxles), rotation of the leg (turntable), rotation of the head (turntable).

Sure, there is a compromise, now he is more-or-less a "rag-doll". but it is fun to play with. IMO: that is important! 

If anybody can come-up with any improvements, I am more than happy to see them.

It is easy to MOD "hard-axles" leg version and make Bender "shelf-worthy". Or make 2 sets of legs (hard and soft) and swap them for "standing" and "playing". 

It is LEGO, possibilities are endless - BENDLESS 

I am collecting proper colour parts to build him way I indended, without looking like a parrot (which is current state of mine)  , I do not have enough correct grey parts yet, so I have mostly blue head, with yellow and brown, body with red and yellow etc. 

Edited October 10, 2016 by J_C