Licensed Technic Sets.

[JTS]

I was wondering whether Lego would ever reintroduced branded Technic Sets. And I'm not talking about Ferrari, Williams or Lamborghini.

From memory I can only recall there being a few Technic star wars characters, but never any vehicles.

So my questions to you guys are do you think we'll see it anytime soon, and if so what would you like to see?

I'd personally like a Batman Tumbler and a BTTF DeLorean that lights up like a Christmas tree.

[Blakbird]

I don't think you are ever going to see any Star Wars Technic again. They were not popular and sat on the shelves for years. Star Wars fans didn't like them because they don't like Technic and there are no mini figures. Technic fans didn't like them because they don't do much of anything. Obviously there are exceptions and some people did like them (such as me), but I think they were a money loser for LEGO. Given this, I think LEGO is reluctant to expand Technic into any other licensing outlets that are outside of its main focus of construction and other vehicles. Unimog was probably the most logical choice and if we see more licensing I think it will be that type.

[JTS]

I completely understand where you're coming from, but is there an opportunity to combine vehicles and current/upcoming licences?

A Plow King truck from the Simpsons license, for example, could be large, technical, functional and contain purple to draw in buyers from outside the franchise.

Edit: I meant Plow King instead of Mr. Plow

Edited August 12, 2013 by JTS

[Arfman]

Well, I would never buy such a Technic set because, frankly, I don't like the Simpsons very much and I don't think the "toy" Technic will look pretty next to my yellow/red Technic collection. I think I'm not the only one.

[mssm]

Dont forget the Land-Rover Defender at Cuusoo. It will be in the next review since the project achieved 10 000 votes. We might see a licensed box later. On other hand it may be a Cuusoo box and not labeled Technic.

[paul_delahaye]

Obviously Lego would need permission to build a licensed set, but if they picked the right partner, I suspect many companies would be over the moon that Lego wanted to build a set which resembles their product.

I suspect that may be the case with Maesrk for example? I bet Lego just give them a load of free promotional sets for Maesrk to use, I could be wrong, but I doubt it's financial like it would be with Star Wars/DC/Marvel, etc.

I'd like to see a tie in to Catapillar/JCB something like this, but I guess if Lego can make a loader/Digger/Hauler/Bulldozer without the complications of a licencing agreement, why would they bother.

Paul

[nicjasno]

Technic doesn't sell because licenses, but because of the awesomeness of the sets themselves. Sadly, for me, that has been lacking lately.

[EyesOnly]

I'd like to see a tie in to Catapillar/JCB something like this, but I guess if Lego can make a loader/Digger/Hauler/Bulldozer without the complications of a licencing agreement, why would they bother.

Paul

Yes construction makes sense to licence but is still not needed. Sure we could have a Cat vehicle but how much different would it be from any other mostly yellow technic vehicle. The Unimog is unique as for as i know for i have seen lots of trucks but non that small yet versatile. Normal size trucks would be nice to have in flagship scale but the only truly unique about it would be the cab design. I mean we could argue forever whether or not 42009 is a liebherr as the color scheme would imply or some other brand but it doesn't matter. TLG doesn't really need to bother with licenses unless the vehicle in question is unique which most construction machinery isn't.

[aol000xw]

Ferrari was quite disappointing in my opinion, except for the F1, and that was after the Wiliams and the Silver champion. That silver champion should have been a licensed version in the first place. The Unimog is awesome but the real thing itself is extraordinary.

I think licensing, can make sense in certain cases but for the most part no. Llicensing means fees, and sometimes overexploit of the license and weak models..They better license when they get a great idea, instead of getting ideas from the license.

As has been said ficctional vehicles althougth atractive at first may result in poor models due to lack of functionality or lack of appeal except for the franchise fans, and even then... for example, the only non Technic Lego that I own are every single UCS Star Wars model, but those technic Star Wars models... I didn't like them,

Mind you that your Tumbler or Delorean might be more adequate as a UCS for movie vehicles ala Star wars than a technic saga.In the line of movies and thinking of the 41999 a Dodge charger General Lee might fit, but again is a one time model.

As Technic, I can think of very few licenses I might be interested Wall-E,. a really big and detailed F14 Tomcat with pneumatics and motors for variable wings, landing gear, canopy, flaps etc etc But I don't think they touch the military.

Meanwhile you can get de Cuuso DeLorean ^^

[CisFran]

As Technic, I can think of very few licenses I might be interested Wall-E,. a really big and detailed F14 Tomcat with pneumatics and motors for variable wings, landing gear, canopy, flaps etc etc But I don't think they touch the military.

I know it's out of topic, but you mentioned military, this is a nice read about Lego releasing military sets..

http://www.brothers-brick.com/2008/07/06/should-lego-release-modern-military-sets-editorial/

[aol000xw]

Ha! In that link the Lego 4953 is a Tomcat. There are no Migs with that configuration (air intakes, variable wings) but the color schema might be inspired by some acrobatic migs. Too vague for licensing just as the 42009. Is interesting however that an otherwise clearly military unit may be considered if deweaponized.

[Jeroen Ottens]

As Technic, I can think of very few licenses I might be interested Wall-E,. a really big and detailed F14 Tomcat with pneumatics and motors for variable wings, landing gear, canopy, flaps etc etc But I don't think they touch the military.

You mean something like this:

Or this, if you're more into Russian fighters or studless lego:

Sorry, I couldn't resist

[aol000xw]

Ah! that Sukhoi is a good start but 1:24 for a little fighter? Are you kidding me? I saw your Hindeburg, so we both know what big and detailed means.

[Someonenamedjon]

Dont forget the Land-Rover Defender at Cuusoo. It will be in the next review since the project achieved 10 000 votes. We might see a licensed box later. On other hand it may be a Cuusoo box and not labeled Technic.

Eh, don't get your hopes high, they have never passed a technic set, or any set that is pretty big.

[The_Skirrid]

Well, that shape of Defender is due for replacement next year [even though this year was the 65th anniversary for the Land Rover], I wouldn't be surprised if some version of a Lego Land Rover set made it into production next year. My only gripe is that licensing adds a few quid, non-licensed sets have a better price per piece ratio generally. Comparing the Unimog and Mobile Crane MkII bears this out.

[Tubby]

Ha! In that link the Lego 4953 is a Tomcat. There are no Migs with that configuration (air intakes, variable wings) but the color schema might be inspired by some acrobatic migs. Too vague for licensing just as the 42009. Is interesting however that an otherwise clearly military unit may be considered if deweaponized.

The one that has confused me the most when talking about both licenced and military sets is the Sopwith Camel 10226.

It's quite clearly de-weaponised but is also a rather famous first world war bomber. OK, it's meant for AFOLs more than anyone else but it straddles the line between Legos own principles and is definitely not a fantasy aircraft.

[The_Skirrid]

The one that has confused me the most when talking about both licenced and military sets is the Sopwith Camel 10226.

It's quite clearly de-weaponised but is also a rather famous first world war bomber. OK, it's meant for AFOLs more than anyone else but it straddles the line between Legos own principles and is definitely not a fantasy aircraft.

Actually the model isn't de-weaponised - it has the twin .30cal Vickers machine guns that fire through the prop, and was considered by most authorities to be a fighter. The 'bombs' used by Camel's pilots were often hand held Mills bombs aka grenades. Late war variants included the ability to carry four Cooper bombs [but it was still called a ground attack aircraft].

[LiamM32]

I was wondering whether Lego would ever reintroduced branded Technic Sets. And I'm not talking about Ferrari, Williams or Lamborghini.

From memory I can only recall there being a few Technic star wars characters, but never any vehicles.

So my questions to you guys are do you think we'll see it anytime soon, and if so what would you like to see?

I'd personally like a Batman Tumbler and a BTTF DeLorean that lights up like a Christmas tree.

I don't buy many licensed sets. But as other have said here, media licenses are much about visual appeal. Lego system is more fashion, while Technic is more function. I think that film licenses typically wouldn't work well for pure Technic models, but I think that licensed sets could work great with system exteriors and Technic functions built-in. In that case, Technic could add to the visual appeal by adding motion.

Howabout a minifig-scale Leaky Cauldron pub set from Harry Potter, with a Technic function to move the magical bricks to open the hidden door. If Star Wars was going to have more large scale droid sets (like the UCS R2-D2), there should be many internal Technic funtions. Large vehicles (such as star wars ships) in general could really benefit from Technic funtions. Maybe Bionicle style Technic funtions in superhero action figures, such as Spidey's web launcher and many possibilities for Iron Man.

A bit of embedded Technic might get me more into licensed sets.

For one of the two ideas that you mentioned that you wanted, check out this Lego Cuusoo project; Batman Technic Tumbler. I actually think that it could be an interesting idea. I bookmarked the project myself, so that I might support it later.