The best of the worst Lego Ideas

[anothergol]

OK, I was thinking about the other rule about projects based on licenses already used by Ideas, and you're right that Star Wars does not fit the description. But it has twice as many pieces as are allowed per the guidelines, which makes it unacceptable.

Are you talking about Cavegod's AT-AT? Because you wrote AT-ST, which would be my entry, and it's only 800 parts, that definitely fits in the guidelines.

Besides, it's clear that Lego wouldn't produce a set like it is, Lego wouldn't produce anything this fragile. However, the original project for the exo-suit had much worst sins than mine (like, retired parts, illegal connections) - and it was still produced, in a redesigned form (which sometimes ends up bad, & is disrespectful for the author, but that's another story).

Yet, I don't care, I knew in advance how many votes to expect, as there was already another AT-ST entry. I didn't post it expecting it to pass. Anyone who designs a set purely & only for Lego Ideas, that is, will only show it there and didn't design it for the fun of it, is an idiot wasting his time. If Lego Ideas wasn't public, if entries were to be for Lego's eyes & judgement only, absolutely no one would suggest anything. That would be the same as working for Lego, for free. No, the key here is views, so you see, that's the main reason for people to post projects.

Unrelated, I wonder why Lego Ideas hasn't been used for the Lego movies. With the amount of stuff in the movie(s), knowing that everything is (more or less) a proper build, it would have been nice to fill the movie with user entries, even if it's just stuff in the background. Even crap entries would be fun. Imagine the ugly pyramid as a cameo, somewhere in the background.

Edited August 20, 2016 by anothergol

[Lyichir]

Are you talking about Cavegod's AT-AT? Because you wrote AT-ST, which would be my entry, and it's only 800 parts, that definitely fits in the guidelines.

Besides, it's clear that Lego wouldn't produce a set like it is, Lego wouldn't produce anything this fragile. However, the original project for the exo-suit had much worst sins than mine (like, retired parts, illegal connections) - and it was still produced, in a redesigned form (which sometimes ends up bad, & is disrespectful for the author, but that's another story).

Yet, I don't care, I knew in advance how many votes to expect, as there was already another AT-ST entry. I didn't post it expecting it to pass. Anyone who designs a set purely & only for Lego Ideas, that is, will only show it there and didn't design it for the fun of it, is an idiot wasting his time. If Lego Ideas wasn't public, if entries were to be for Lego's eyes & judgement only, absolutely no one would suggest anything. That would be the same as working for Lego, for free. No, the key here is views, so you see, that's the main reason for people to post projects.

Unrelated, I wonder why Lego Ideas hasn't been used for the Lego movies. With the amount of stuff in the movie(s), knowing that everything is (more or less) a proper build, it would have been nice to fill the movie with user entries, even if it's just stuff in the background. Even crap entries would be fun. Imagine the ugly pyramid as a cameo, somewhere in the background.

I don't see why you'd think redesigned projects on Ideas would be "disrespectful". It's not like those redesigns are done without the knowledge of the project creators, who are usually very involved in the development of the final product.

As for your question about the use of Ideas projects in movies, that runs into huge ethical (if not legal) issues, since users who have submitted projects to Ideas did not do so with the intent of those projects being used in a multi-million dollar film without any sort of compensation. It's much easier and less sketchy to design the materials for those movies from scratch (with the help of both official and fan designers contracted to work on the movie).

[x105Black]

Are you talking about Cavegod's AT-AT? Because you wrote AT-ST, which would be my entry, and it's only 800 parts, that definitely fits in the guidelines.

Besides, it's clear that Lego wouldn't produce a set like it is, Lego wouldn't produce anything this fragile. However, the original project for the exo-suit had much worst sins than mine (like, retired parts, illegal connections) - and it was still produced, in a redesigned form (which sometimes ends up bad, & is disrespectful for the author, but that's another story).

Yet, I don't care, I knew in advance how many votes to expect, as there was already another AT-ST entry. I didn't post it expecting it to pass. Anyone who designs a set purely & only for Lego Ideas, that is, will only show it there and didn't design it for the fun of it, is an idiot wasting his time. If Lego Ideas wasn't public, if entries were to be for Lego's eyes & judgement only, absolutely no one would suggest anything. That would be the same as working for Lego, for free. No, the key here is views, so you see, that's the main reason for people to post projects.

I guess I got confused with the discussion switching back and forth between the AT-ST and AT-AT. I was talking about the AT-AT in my last post. There's nothing really objectionable about the AT-ST, but I don't see it getting through review. That's because it's a project from an IP that they make many sets from, and I don't anticipate many Star Wars projects making it through Ideas. It's also because I believe that there is inevitably an AT-ST somewhere in their pipeline. So, while there may eventually be an AT-ST set, I don't think it will come from an Ideas project.

If someone is making a project for Ideas, it would benefit the cause to post it in a variety of other places, like here, Facebook, and other social media sites. That way, they can maximize the number of votes. So I don't think anyone with a serious project "will only show it there and didn't design it for the fun of it." I think that even if a project is created with the goal of passing it through Ideas, it is also made for the fun and love of building. But the point of Ideas should be to suggest and vote for projects to become sets, and as such, all projects on Ideas should be viable candidates for production.

Edited August 20, 2016 by x105Black

[anothergol]

I don't see why you'd think redesigned projects on Ideas would be "disrespectful". It's not like those redesigns are done without the knowledge of the project creators, who are usually very involved in the development of the final product.

I doubt that the author really has anything to say.

It's also disrespectful for those who voted. I well understand that Lego can't use retired parts & has to discard illegal connections. But look at what the already not-so-amazing DeLorean project became..

Some projects, like Wall-E, were improved, though.

As for your question about the use of Ideas projects in movies, that runs into huge ethical (if not legal) issues, since users who have submitted projects to Ideas did not do so with the intent of those projects being used in a multi-million dollar film without any sort of compensation.

of course it would be a special case of Lego Ideas, I'm not saying they should pick any project that's already there

But the point of Ideas should be to suggest and vote for projects to become sets, and as such, all projects on Ideas should be viable candidates for production.

Still, the many votes send Lego a message. You will probably disagree with these again (because, Star Wars), but they got votes.

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/144406

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/91535

Even if it doesn't pass Lego's selection, large UCS sets being voted for over & over, that can't be ignored by Lego.

And they're cool to look at, unlike all the crap listed in this thread. And they're not that many, they're not crowding Lego Ideas.

Edited August 20, 2016 by anothergol

[jimmynick]

However, the original project for the exo-suit had much worst sins than mine (like, retired parts, illegal connections)

The Exo-Suit had certain advantages such as originality and already being a favorite of AFOLs (and TFOLs) everywhere.

I didn't post it expecting it to pass. Anyone who designs a set purely & only for Lego Ideas, that is, will only show it there and didn't design it for the fun of it, is an idiot wasting his time.

I'd contend that posting a project merely for views, and not expecting it to pass review, clogs up the ideas pipeline just as badly as "let's stack a few bricks together and put it in front of the weird CGI dunes on LDD" sort of project. There are various media like Flickr, Rebrick (sponsored by TLG!!!) and blogs such as TBB that are perfect for getting views and stroking your ego.

edit: before anybody asks, I do think you're just getting your jollies by being unnecessarily elitist

Edited August 20, 2016 by jamesn

[x105Black]

I'd contend that posting a project merely for views, and not expecting it to pass review, clogs up the ideas pipeline just as badly as "let's stack a few bricks together and put it in front of the weird CGI dunes on LDD" sort of project. There are various media like Flickr, Rebrick (sponsored by TLG!!!) and blogs such as TBB that are perfect for getting views and stroking your ego.

I agree.

[PicnicBasketSam]

@x105black: There is, in fact, an AT-ST coming out on September 30. So his project has no chance whatsoever with another version of the exact same vehicle on shelves... that's why Elsa's castle didn't pass review, that's why the Helicarrier didn't pass review, and that's why that Disneyland castle uploaded last month has no chance at even gathering enough votes.

Also, anothergol doesn't seem to quite grasp what Ideas' main purpose is... it's not for displaying models, it's for persuading LEGO to make someone's idea into a set. If something would make a terrible set, it is therefore a bad idea and certainly doesn't belong on LEGO Ideas.

[anothergol]

@x105black: There is, in fact, an AT-ST coming out on September 30. So his project has no chance whatsoever with another version of the exact same vehicle on shelves... that's why Elsa's castle didn't pass review, that's why the Helicarrier didn't pass review, and that's why that Disneyland castle uploaded last month has no chance at even gathering enough votes.

That's irrelevant, because Lego had a classic AT-ST & an UCS one on the shelves at the same time. Not the same thing, not the same target.

And "an AT-ST" is NOT the/an idea, at all. Hardly anything on Lego Ideas is "an idea", other than "this existing idea, + Lego". It's the build that matters.

There has been zero "idea" that passed so far on Lego Ideas. Not even the maze is an idea, as it exists as "not Lego". But the guy built a working version, that's where the value is.

Also, anothergol doesn't seem to quite grasp what Ideas' main purpose is... it's not for displaying models, it's for persuading LEGO to make someone's idea into a set. If something would make a terrible set, it is therefore a bad idea and certainly doesn't belong on LEGO Ideas.

What I'm saying is that if you're posting on Lego Ideas AND you expect your stuff to pass, you're delusional. Most likely, it won't. If you're very very lucky, it will.

You can be sure that all the kids who made the entries listed in this thread, are the only ones who really believe Lego is gonna pick their stuff.

There's a difference between posting a build that you *expect* Lego to produce, and posting a build that you *would agree* to be produced by Lego. This is what differenciates Lego Ideas from Flicker or MOCPages - it's not every MOCer's choice to want Lego to mass-produce his stuff.

So that's how I view Lego Ideas. If someones builds a cool MOC and wanna keep the only build for himself, then Flicker is perfect. If he would also *agree* for it to be mass-produced, and believes that there would be enough people interested in that, then he should post on Flicker *and* Lego Ideas.

So it's not the *purpose*, because it's (almost certainly) not gonna happen. If you're very lucky, then it will happen. If not, then still be happy about the views you got. If you did it only for that purpose of Lego to produce it, all you're gonna get is disappointment. On top of other people telling you, after it's all done, "see, no one voted for it, you should have known this in advance and not have posted it". Yes, because that's exactly what you're doing here, you're telling me that I'm polluting Lego Ideas because I know that my entries aren't gonna get voted for. But the reason I know that they aren't gonna be voted for, is simply that I'm not stupid. Would be a nice surprise if they were, but I would be stupid to expect them to be.

The only thing I would have advised to people posting entries would have been "at least make the effort of not using retired parts, and avoiding illegal connections". And yet, at least one project passed that wasn't following this. So even that is irrelevant.

Edited August 21, 2016 by anothergol

[Robianco]

I just get tired of seeing a MOC and then find a link to the Ideas submission.

When I joined EB three years ago there was a thread about Cuusoo and I commented on the various projects that were up for review and the Exo Suit was the eventual winner. I described a few of the sets as poor and commented that I thought the Tumbler submission at the time was lazy. Brent Waller designed and submitted that Tumbler and he asked me to explain why I though it was lazy. I told him that the 'idea' was lazy, not the build. Would I have bought the Tumbler if it was released? Yes. Do I think it was a good Ideas submission? No.

If anything has been made by Lego in any scale then it's a poor 'Idea' and shouldn't be on there. That's lazy.

Mazes exist but there are no Lego mazes and both the build and execution to bring that project to market was an original idea. The very early Cuusoo sets of the satellites were original ideas. The Hayabusa was a very well designed and original build and not relating to any existing Lego product. The focus on licensed sets can be exciting for people wanting to own Marty McFly minifigures but I'm not overtly a fan of just bringing new licenses to the party as a way of getting votes and selling sets. Brent eventually got there with the Ghostbusters set which has then led to the HQ and Dimensions sets. Echo-1 was and is as excellent build and I bought it day one. I still think the Tumbler was a lazy submission.

I, rightly or wrongly, consider any AT-AT, AT-ST, X-Wing, Millennium Falcon or TIE Fighter a lazy submission because Lego has already made it. It's a lazy idea because Lego has already done it regardless of how well someone may build it. If you want to submit a SW vehicle then find one that hasn't been done. The only plus to these submissions I can see is to let Lego know that there is a desire for these larger sets to be made but with that comes the issue the Sandcrawler had... It must have already been on the table with Lego and the massive submission of the Sandcrawler was rejected only for Lego's smaller UCS to hit the shelves less than a year later. Then we have the 'Lego ripped him off and it's not as good as the Cussoo set' comments. Tough. If the Cuusoo Sandcrawler only served to give Lego a nod to how popular their impending release then fine... and the world got to see a great MOC of a (close to) minifig scale Sandcrawler. Cavegod's AT-AT will forever be held up as the holy grail of AT-ATs and it's an incredible build but it's now an albatross around Lego's neck that any AT-AT that isn't released at that size won't be as good and people will always compare it to Cavegod's. As people BrickLink 10179 Falcons and mod them like ScottishDave I think people should BL Cavegod's to the build a similarly revered and incredibly scaled walker.

[anothergol]

If anything has been made by Lego in any scale then it's a poor 'Idea' and shouldn't be on there. That's lazy.

I don't agree, to me the idea doesn't count, the build does.

If Lego produces another DeLorean and that one looks good (or even just acceptable), I'll buy it. I'm sure many bought "the idea", or in fact, just the minifigs. But the car looks horrible, I'm still waiting for a good one.

You said it yourself, Ecto1 was a good build - I bought it for that reason as well.

The Hayabusa was a very well designed and original build and not relating to any existing Lego product

It was still "something existing + Lego".

What you may consider "ideas" would be the birds (very arguably), and the exo-suit. But that doesn't matter to me, I don't buy ideas. Any one has "ideas", just pick anything at random, and add Lego to it. Now for the real, hard part: build it properly.

I, rightly or wrongly, consider any AT-AT, AT-ST, X-Wing, Millennium Falcon or TIE Fighter a lazy submission because Lego has already made it.

With that reasoning, Lego shouldn't do any Millennium Falcon because Lego has already done it.

Look at Marshal Banana's one, that's the ultimate one, I wish he was adding it to Ideas, and he would get 10k votes in no time. It doesn't matter that Lego has already done it. Lego has done it (& will do it forever) for kids, Lego has done it for adults, but Lego has never done it with this quality.

Cavegod's AT-AT will forever be held up as the holy grail of AT-ATs and it's an incredible build but it's now an albatross around Lego's neck that any AT-AT that isn't released at that size won't be as good and people will always compare it to Cavegod's

Maciej Szymański 's AT-AT is already much better than Cavegod's. LiLMeFromDaFuture's progress so far is better as well. There's still a lot of room for improvement here, especially on large builds. More recently jhaelego's build is good as well.

Edited August 21, 2016 by anothergol

[Robianco]

It's called Lego Ideas. Why don't they just shut it down then if everything 'already exists + Lego'. The reason Lego can produce another Falcon is because it's their brick system and their toy and they have the license... That's different from having a site to let people to submit something original and they just submit a Falcon.

Marshalbanana doesn't need to add his build to Ideas... It's a great build but he probably knows that if Lego were planning a large Falcon again they wouldn't need his submission to do so... Or need his design for it. They have some quite good designers at Lego as it stands. They also don't have the freedom to just build as they would a MOC but they manage to put out hundreds of excellent sets a year.

Ideas isn't a MOC shop whether people want it to be or not. It's about both having an idea to make something not already done in Lego and then building it properly. It's not one without the other. Just because something is built well doesn't mean it should be in Ideas. Seriously... Think about whether it's a good MOC or whether it's an original idea that's built to the right standard that would warrant someone buying it.

Lego review sets and improve or alter things as they see fit so the idea is actually quite important. A good idea with poor build won't get anywhere... Or shouldn't.

It shouldn't matter whether Lego does another Delorean... And they won't... If someone doesn't like the one released just MOC a new version but don't submit it to Ideas. That's just stupid. Imagine submitting a revised Delorean as an original idea to a site that previously released a Delorean that you just didn't like the build of.

I mentioned Cavegod's AT-AT because it was submitted to Ideas and the instructions are available but people can build what they like and feel free to change or improve things where they see fit.

I'd actually ask people to think about their submission as a verbal pitch to Lego as if in an interview.

---------

'Hi... Welcome to Lego Ideas. This is your chance to submit an original idea created by you in Lego form. So what's your idea?'

I've made a Police Station.'

'You know we've made quite a few of those already... they're a staple of our City line. We release one of those every couple of years as they're good sellers to new and existing buyers. Is yours significantly different in scale or build from one of our existing sets?....'

---------

Every single set selected by Ideas has been able to offer something new to the Lego catalogue. Brent's Tumbler for example... great build but not far off the scale of the version released by Lego with the joker chase set. How would that have fared in a verbal pitch regardless of how good the build was. ECTO-1 was something else entirely and hit the bullseye. Great build and not previously released... thus becoming the start of a new license.

The Falcon, X-Wings, Snowspeeders, Batmobiles, Bat Caves etc... they're staples of Lego's existing license strategy and will never be absent that long from our shelves. They will never be an Ideas release.

If you can build ANYTHING in the world from Lego as an original idea (original because it hasn't been released by Lego previously) then why build something they've already done several times as your original submission?

I think by saying NOTHING is an original idea because it already exists in the universe and you just have to build it in bricks is missing the point of Lego Cuusoo and Ideas.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Robianco

[anothergol]

Marshalbanana doesn't need to add his build to Ideas... It's a great build but he probably knows that if Lego were planning a large Falcon again they wouldn't need his submission to do so... Or need his design for it. They have some quite good designers at Lego as it stands. They also don't have the freedom to just build as they would a MOC but they manage to put out hundreds of excellent sets a year.

Lego hardly releases anything that has the quality of MOCs out there. First, because most sets are for kids & have other requirements. Second, yes, it's because their designers aren't that good. It's very new that some Lego official sets have MOC-quality, like the Beetle.

Lego certainly doesn't need a website to license stuff.

If you're cynical, then Lego isn't about builds, nor ideas, at all. It's there for 2 reasons: free advertisement for Lego, done by users themselves, and Lego gauging interest in specific licenses.

Do you think Lego needs you to think of Adventure Time? Lego needs Lego Ideas to gauge interest in Adventure Time, yeah. It's also a nice backdoor for a legit company to measure interest in licenses that they don't own, without having to use those licenses themselves (which would require owning them in the first place).

Can't their, quoting you, amazing designers design an Adventure Time set? No, they could have made it themselves, only they would have taken the (little) risk that no one was interested in an Adventure Time set. But please, Adventure Time + Lego, that's not an idea. Or let me flip through the IMDB and tell you about all of my "ideas"..

It's about both having an idea to make something not already done in Lego and then building it properly.

Oh *really*? Are you saying that when the DeLorean project was added, there was no Lego DeLorean yet? There were plenty, and there were plenty on Lego Ideas. Same thing for Doctor Who.

Tell me, if it's "the idea" of Wall-E that was interesting, why didn't this one pass?

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/94740

Or this one?

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/99534

Or this one?

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/89195

Or any of these?

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/93758

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/81892

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/80849

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/80731

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/76543

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/77597 (+dozens of others)

..mmh? It's because the idea is worthless, it's the BUILD that counts.

Had THIS Wall-E passed https://ideas.lego.com/projects/23327, I wouldn't have bought it. I don't buy ideas. And Lego wouldn't have turned that entry into the Wall-E that we got. Like it or not, but someone took an existing *cough* idea, and implemented it well, and that's what people voted for, the build.

Edited August 21, 2016 by anothergol

[jimmynick]

Robianco has already said that the quality of a build counts, but "the most bestest ever build of a Star Wars vehicle that TLG has already made several times before" is not a good Ideas project.

For me, the best projects are things like Birds and the Maze (even though I myself don't like the Maze) - they are original ideas that TLG *does* need to gauge interest in. They're small and relatable - my mother, hardly an AFOL, bought Birds for herself and she loves them. On the other hand, TLG don't need 10,000 people to say they'd like a new Falcon, AT-AT, Sandcrawler, etc. because a) of course they would and b) it's believed Disney dictates to a large extent what is and what is not made as a SW set.

Also, just because something is a good MOC doesn't mean it would be a good set. Even if it had no illegal connections per se, it may be delicate or have parts that are no longer in production. This was the case with the Exo-Suit, as you've pointed out, and it required significant reworking to be made a set.

These are some of the strengths of the Caterham project. Although it proposed another license for TLG to get, the Seven is a relatively obscure car that TLG probably did need market support for. Also, Carl Greatrix rebuilt his MOC in a way that could be presented as an actual set, and preliminary images indicate that he managed in this way to direct the development of the actual set. But, apparently, he's deluded for posting a model expecting it to be made into a set.

[Robianco]

Regardless of whether or not I think you've missed the point of Lego Ideas I certainly think you've missed the point of my posts as Jamesn has pointed out.

The reason those other Wall-Es didnt make it is because they weren't as good a build and didn't attract enough votes.

Dr Who, BBT... No different to Ghostbusters in the sense of building a set based off of something new to Lego. Once 10k votes reached its up to Lego to see if it's worth approaching the license holders. Lego may already have been working on the Dr Who license once CB lost it.

If they just thought 10k votes was worth pickling up a license then Zelda would have been out a long time ago.

And as for Lego's designers being poor? Really? The largest toy company in the world has got there regardless of having poor designers? You paint a picture of Lego looking over at MOC creators with green eyes... Wishing they only had those working for them instead of the team of incompetents they seemingly have.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Robianco

[xboxtravis7992]

Lego hardly releases anything that has the quality of MOCs out there. First, because most sets are for kids & have other requirements. Second, yes, it's because their designers aren't that good. It's very new that some Lego official sets have MOC-quality, like the Beetle.

What the heck? Lego Designers aren't that good? Have you ever seen any of their MOCs outside of their official work? On par with anything a fan could create. The reason Lego sets often look inferior to MOCs is the fact they have to match mass production standards. Lego Designers have the talent to create great MOCs but they have to simplify official designs so anyone could build it, so the talentless noob can open any Lego kit and in a few hours have a finished set.

The skill required to design something for mass production is IMMENSE. To know that thousands of copies of the model will exsist and every single one needs to hold up to child's play is a great talent.

Also MOC like quality in official sets isn't a new thing at all. Look at any of the Modular buildings (first started in 2007) or some of the classic UCS sets. When Lego is catering to serious FOL's they will design sets on par with many community MOCs.

[anothergol]

What the heck? Lego Designers aren't that good? Have you ever seen any of their MOCs outside of their official work? On par with anything a fan could create. The reason Lego sets often look inferior to MOCs is the fact they have to match mass production standards. Lego Designers have the talent to create great MOCs but they have to simplify official designs so anyone could build it, so the talentless noob can open any Lego kit and in a few hours have a finished set.

Ok, then explain the difference between 10187 & 10252. The gap is huge, and you can't blame the lack of parts in 2008 - MOCs in 2008 were already doing better than this blocky crap. It's the designer who made the difference.

And, "on par with anything a fan could create", for a pro? Shouldn't pro stuff be better than fan-made stuff?

You told about modulars - here as well, today's modulars are better, because the designers improved. As I wrote, I'm starting to see, since last year, official sets that are good like good MOCs. But before this? Name one, and I'm sure I will find a MOC that was much better.

Also, the quality is only one of many factors to sell a set, so it's normal that Lego doesn't put as much effort or time as a hobbyist would.

The skill required to design something for mass production is IMMENSE. To know that thousands of copies of the model will exsist and every single one needs to hold up to child's play is a great talent.

We're talking D2C stuff here, not really for young children. Yeah I understand why Lego's upcoming AT-ST is ugly - if I had to design one for kids, it would probably be that ugly. Lego's UCS AT-ST however, that wasn't designed for children.

Regardless of whether or not I think you've missed the point of Lego Ideas I certainly think you've missed the point of my posts as Jamesn has pointed out.

The reason those other Wall-Es didnt make it is because they weren't as good a build and didn't attract enough votes.

Well, you said it was about the idea and the build. I just proved you that it wasn't about the idea. After there have been 30 Wall-E projects on Lego Ideas, it stops being an idea (if you really insist that "Lego + Wall-E" is really an idea that one guy had). It's how you present the concept that matters (thus, the build & the pictures), and only that. Sure, to the voter, the concept matters, it's certainly not new that a license sells. But the one who made the entry had no idea, he worked on a build. Lego + Wall-E isn't more an idea than Lego + some Star Wars stuff.

I think the problem here is the website's title, but that's just a title, & not even its original one. Cuusoo, which still exists, is about (quoting their website) "materlizing wishes".

In any case, what you think Lego Ideas is not made for, is what people are voting for. And Lego doesn't seem to have a problem with it. So they should know better.

These are some of the strengths of the Caterham project. Although it proposed another license for TLG to get, the Seven is a relatively obscure car that TLG probably did need market support for. Also, Carl Greatrix rebuilt his MOC in a way that could be presented as an actual set, and preliminary images indicate that he managed in this way to direct the development of the actual set. But, apparently, he's deluded for posting a model expecting it to be made into a set.

Do a search on Ideas for Catheram btw. Yes, this one too was not a "new idea", and you will easily understand why this is the one that people voted for. The build.

Edited August 21, 2016 by anothergol

[jimmynick]

Are you just upset your own project is nowhere near on pace to get 10,000 votes over one year?

[Robianco]

You're still not getting it... Or not reading it right. The idea is one thing. The build is another. Both need to be right.

An AT-ST is a poor idea. Why? Because Lego has already done it... Many times. It's not original regardless of how good it is because it had been done. They won't release it as an Ideas set because they've already done it and will do it several times again.

Wall-E was a more original idea that several people had... One build was better than others and reached 10k votes. It passed review and it was released. Same designer could then submit a Bat Tumbler. It would be a poor idea because it's been released. Several times, regardless of the build.

Millennium Falcon... Poor idea. Regardless of build.

X-Wing... Poor idea regardless of build.

New BTTF Delorean... Poor idea regardless of build.

Any set that has be made by Lego before is a poor idea. And regardless of what Lego say I don't ever see an Ideas set having DC, Marvel or SW content.

Caterham... Better idea... Never done by Lego and the winner was probably the better build and reached 10k.

No matter whether it's a D2C set, UCS set or system scale set it will still need to be able to be built by someone who may never have built a set before even at age 12 as that will be the age on it. MOC builders have no restrictions on how they build but Lego designers will have many.

Please don't say their designers are poor again... It comes across as misinformed and incredibly naive.

If Cuusoo meant 'Materialising Wishes' then each submission must start with 'I wish Lego would make a...' If Lego have already made what you wish for then how can that be a good idea?

Edited August 21, 2016 by Robianco

[x105Black]

Well, you said it was about the idea and the build. I just proved you that it wasn't about the idea. After there have been 30 Wall-E projects on Lego Ideas, it stops being an idea (if you really insist that "Lego + Wall-E" is really an idea that one guy had). It's how you present the concept that matters (thus, the build & the pictures), and only that. Sure, to the voter, the concept matters, it's certainly not new that a license sells. But the one who made the entry had no idea, he worked on a build. Lego + Wall-E isn't more an idea than Lego + some Star Wars stuff.

The idea and the build together are what makes a good project.

Adventure Time + Lego, that's not an idea.

This one, in my opinion, was a great idea. The brick-built characters thing wasn't a great idea, if you ask me, but they definitely look very recognizable. I think this one is a case where it was successful because people really wanted to see the license, not the set.

Caterham... Better idea... Never done by Lego and the winner was probably the better build and reached 10k.

Or it just happened to get more publicity, or it was just posted at the right time. There could be a variety of reasons this one was voted into review. But yes, it's a good build of a good idea, and both of those generally need to be in place.

And I agree, if something has been done before (in any scale), the chances of it being a successful Ideas project are diminished.

[anothergol]

Fine, but it's you few against the (minimum) 10k who voted for those projects you don't see fitting on Lego Ideas.

The UCS speeder just got its 10k btw. Pretty good, I had voted for it.

Edited August 22, 2016 by anothergol

[Artanis I]

^ opinions are divided on whether submitting something that is a great build is worth wasting your time on, since anything already made by TLG (at whichever scale) is [able/never going] to be released as an Ideas set.

I'd actually ask people to think about their submission as a verbal pitch to Lego as if in an interview.

---------

'Hi... Welcome to Lego Ideas. This is your chance to submit an original idea created by you in Lego form. So what's your idea?'

I've made a Police Station.'

'You know we've made quite a few of those already... they're a staple of our City line. We release one of those every couple of years as they're good sellers to new and existing buyers. Is yours significantly different in scale or build from one of our existing sets?....'

The kid's response:

"Why yes, it is significantly different, it consists primarily of 2x4 bricks on a huge grey baseplate and has a sand dune background rendered from LDD..."

[Robianco]

The kid's response:

"Why yes, it is significantly different, it consists primarily of 2x4 bricks on a huge grey baseplate and has a sand dune background rendered from LDD..."

And at that stage it shouldn't make it past submission review... If it does the it'll make around 12 votes from friends and family and disappear into the void. As it should. We're not talking about kids submitting crap here.

The Landspeeder is a superb build and if it was released as a SW UCS set I'd probably buy it. It at least has the benefit of being completely different scale to any other speeder Lego has done. Do I think it'll pass review and be released as an Ideas set? No, I don't.

This is where Ideas has the secondary value of working as a prompt to show there is interest in a large speeder... But it also becomes a Facebook for MOCs... Generating likes.

As others have said a great MOC doesn't necessarily mean a good Lego set and great MOCs don't always need an Ideas link at the end of its description. Wanting exposure for a build and getting likes for it is fine but that's where Ideas is becoming different from its original purpose. At least that's how I see it.

It's going to be a matter of opinion and I don't think either 'side' will convince the other which is right... and neither should they. I think I formed my opinion by people saying that Cuusoo was failing because people didn't see the sets they wanted go into production and how sets such as the Sandcrawler and Helicarrier both achieve 10K votes, fail review and then have smaller versions (although both UCS) come out quite soon afterwards, to then have some people say Lego ripped off those sets. It's just not the case... and Lego isn't failing if it doesn't put the UCS Landspeeder into production.

Do I think it's just down to the idea? No. Do I think it's just down to the build? No. Do I think the build IS the idea? No. The quality of the build should be a given.

Edited August 22, 2016 by Robianco

[BrickJagger]

Okay, now I'm certain that Lightningtiger, Clint, and My Temple are all bot accounts. They always post the same thing on EVERY project that comes in, almost instantaneously.

You'll have to ask our Lightningtiger about that, because he does have the most posts on this site for a regular member, so he's pretty active.

[Actor Builder]

You'll have to ask our Lightningtiger about that, because he does have the most posts on this site for a regular member, so he's pretty active.

That could just mean he's a very ambitious robot who's consistently active in multiple communities...

Or he's just an optimistic guy who likes to encourage people...

[AFOLguy1970]

I would not necessarily say the design on this one is bad. In fact it looks great, but there is a definite issue here. Where have I seen this before?

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/151732