Will a set based on an Existing License ever pass Review on LEGO Ideas

[Naijel]

I agree Wesker. The problem I feel is that if people put up smaller and simpler products the big ones take the votes because they seem so much more awesome. So it's a catch 22.

[Blondie-Wan]

Isn't the Wall-E the example that submitted projects, where LEGO already have a license for, can get thru the selecting process?

The Disney license is not only related to princess, see Cars, Toy Story, Pirates of the Caribbean and some others.

Or could this be because the designer is Disney related?

I think it's best described in this instance as LEGO having a good partner relationship with Didney, but that isn't the same thing as having a blanket license to each and every property. WALL·E is a specific property they weren't already doing. I think in this case, the fact they had an ongoing partnership with the rightsholder that involved licenses to lots of other Disney properties, but not yet this one specifically, helped a great deal (as did the fact the subject matter is very family-friendly, it lends itself well to LEGO, and had an additional point of interest in being proposed by someone who actually worked on the movie). In other words, I don't think it says anything about whether they'd approve an Ideas project based on an extant license.

That said, I do still think it's possible.

[Dennan]

I think it's best described in this instance as LEGO having a good partner relationship with Disney, but that isn't the same thing as having a blanket license to each and every property.

I agree. I think a license would be easier to do with a company they are already working with than with a new company like Nintendo.

When the license is there already for some other "characters" it's easy, and faster to add "characters".

I also think the main issue with Ideas is the big parts sets, I personally love the sets but just don't see these happen within the Ideas program.

For LEGO there need to be sales, and not everybody can or will pay over €100 for a set.

I think smaller sets just sell in bigger volumes, with better margins than big sets. Making me curious about this ratio.. If there is one €300 set is being sold, and 6 €50 sets, which one will give LEGO a better profit?

[PaddyBricksplitter]

I really liked the Ghostbusters and Back to the Future sets. I was disappointed that the T-Rex and Light sabres didn't get through. I think they would have made interesting builds.

I thought the Big Bang set is kind of boring but makes commercial sense. Just like Wallee or whatever he's called.

What do you guys think about the science based sets? I know it's about "Good play or play well" but come on.

"Hey kids you know what's cool? Bird watching and physics!"

[Deathleech]

I agree Wesker. The problem I feel is that if people put up smaller and simpler products the big ones take the votes because they seem so much more awesome. So it's a catch 22.

We were having a discussion in the History forums about this very subject. One member said none of the smaller LotR projects get anywhere near 10,000 votes so there must not be interest. I pointed out most of them weren't very impressive, especially when compared to the huge Minas Tirith, Rivendell, or Lothlorien sets that ARE getting support and which all are $200+ minimum sets. A 50 dollar, 450 piece set set doesn't look that impressive when you compare it to a 200 dollar, 2,000 piece set that is more MOC like than an it is an official Lego set.

As you said, it's a catch 22. The smaller projects are more likely to pass Lego's review, but due to their size they don't generally get voted for as much to reach the required 10,000 votes. The large, really impressive looking projects seem to have an easier time getting 10,000 votes, but then once they make it to review Lego has never passed one to date. Of the 14 projects currently in review, at least 8 or 9 of them are over $100 sets that have little to no chance of being made due to size alone.

[Blondie-Wan]

I really liked the Ghostbusters and Back to the Future sets. I was disappointed that the T-Rex and Light sabres didn't get through. I think they would have made interesting builds.

I thought the Big Bang set is kind of boring but makes commercial sense. Just like Wallee or whatever he's called.

What do you guys think about the science based sets? I know it's about "Good play or play well" but come on.

"Hey kids you know what's cool? Bird watching and physics!"

I love them, myself. I bought the Hayabusa set and the Research Institute, and would love to be able to get the Shinkai 6500 and the Curiosity Rover, but the former was never offered outside Japan (I'm in the US), while the latter was gone far faster than I could have anticipated.

I continue to vote for projects recreating real-world endeavors in scientific exploration, discovery and research; they're some of my personal favorites, and I fully intend to try to get as many of the ones that pass review as I can. I get that they're not everyone's cup of tea, but I love them.

We were having a discussion in the History forums about this very subject. One member said none of the smaller LotR projects get anywhere near 10,000 votes so there must not be interest. I pointed out most of them weren't very impressive, especially when compared to the huge Minas Tirith, Rivendell, or Lothlorien sets that ARE getting support and which all are $200+ minimum sets. A 50 dollar, 450 piece set set doesn't look that impressive when you compare it to a 200 dollar, 2,000 piece set that is more MOC like than an it is an official Lego set.

As you said, it's a catch 22. The smaller projects are more likely to pass Lego's review, but due to their size they don't generally get voted for as much to reach the required 10,000 votes. The large, really impressive looking projects seem to have an easier time getting 10,000 votes, but then once they make it to review Lego has never passed one to date. Of the 14 projects currently in review, at least 8 or 9 of them are over $100 sets that have little to no chance of being made due to size alone.

I think if people want to see any more LEGO sets based on Middle-Earth, they're going to have to campaign for them, and do so more vigorously, supporting not just those huge models that would make multi-hundred dollar sets, but also much smaller projects - in fact, it's probably best to just support everything, or at least every project that isn't outright terrible, and try to fill each review batch with multiple projects based on The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, to demonstrate serious interest. It would probably be particularly helpful if there were multiple projects based on the same specific subjects - two or three different projects of the Prancing Pony, say, or Radagast's home or whatever, appearing in the same review batch.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Blondie-Wan

[DarthHank]

I totally agree with the idea that only big LotR projects can get 10,000 votes, but only small LotR projects can pass the review. This is true with many other themes as well, sadly. I also agree that LEGO has already thought about most Star Wars ideas, so a fan idea is unlikely to be new, and costly if LEGO chose it. If you want a Star Wars idea to succeed, you need to come up with something revolutionary, and that's hard to do at this point. However, it's possible to submit something that seems strange to LEGO, but attracts a lot of attention, showing LEGO that there is interest where they thought there was none, say, and getting them to make the set.

[wesker]

I actually thought NujuMetru's Edoras was a great project for Ideas. It was affordable, looked great and was getting plenty of support. Unfortunately it lost steam when it got overshadowed by the same creator's Minas Tirith project which had a lot more campaigning.

It'll be nice to see Edoras given another shot on Ideas.