The Real Indiana Jones

LEGO Ideas Discussion

Recommended Posts

This is true. But every set so far that reached review based on a current license has fallen into those categories of things that Lego had already done before and planned on doing again. The Sandcrawler and the Tumbler were already in their production plans (remember licensed sets get scheduled 2+ years out.) and they had already produced fairly large definitive versions of each prior.

And technically the Curiosity Rover was a pre existing license. Lego has a license contract with NASA.

Ehhh... not really. NASA is not a privately owned company and none of the Discovery Kids NASA sets nor the LEGO City Space sets were technically NASA-licensed sets. With LEGO City Space the LEGO Group did enter into a partnership, but that's not the same thing really since it was mainly a cross-promotion type deal rather than the sets carrying any kind of NASA branding.

I agree, this stands a better chance than any other LEGO Star Wars project to date just because it doesn't seem to conflict with anything that we can expect the LEGO Group to already have in teh pipeline. I have a feeling that if the LEGO Group couldn't do Star Wars sets at all through LEGO Cuusoo, they'd just reject them automatically like they would with a My Little Pony project, a Halo project, or any other project that runs into an insurmountable licensing conflict. So it stands to reason that there ARE LEGO Star Wars projects that the LEGO Group and Disney would at least be willing to take into consideration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is anyone else having a glitch with Lego ideas? I've bookmared my Lego Ideas page in my Favorites but whenever I click on it when after I've turned my computer on it takes me to Lego Ideas Page not Found. It doesn't do this the second time I click on the link. It also does this glitch with the homepage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well they revealed the Exo Suit, and it's quite impressive. As expected a lot of the greebling has been sacrificed to making it actually playable. But Mark Stafford did a good job of keeping it close to Peter Reid's design. The highlight is 2 new Green Classic Space figs. A male and female. Oh and a mini build of Peter Reid's Turtle bot.

Good Stuff! (And weirdly this set seems to almost do a better job of addressing the cause championed by the female minifig / research institute set, then that set does. )

And for today's seemingly random topic of discussion (brought on by perusing a week or twos Ideas submissions. I so miss the old age limits.) subtle or undefined things that will almost guarantee a project will not pass review. By this I mean these are things that are not explicitly stated anywhere, and are technically legal under Ideas, but reality being what it is, you can clearly see the pending failure points.

1. Old Parts Required - by this I do not mean that the project uses old parts or was designed with them, but rather that some integral element of the project revolves around out of production parts. Remember between 2003 and 2006 Lego retired almost half of their molds. Most of it being larger or more specialized parts. They will not remake or ressurect those for ideas. Some examples; large, long unseen animals such as the Elephant. Monorail or Monorail track. Old school sound and lights or fiber optics, And probably the big one for this sort of thing, Finger Hinges, which allow for geometries you cannot duplicate with today's parts. Yes the designers can and will work around some old part use, but if it is critical to the project it is a likely failure point.

2. What they already made but better, particularly involving anything licensed. For example a Batman Tumbler or Bat. There can be some exceptions, such as a good reasonable UCS proposal of something never done that way before. But it immediately falls under that vague "pre existing licenses may face greater complications" rule.

3. Licensed Fan Fiction in Lego form. By this I mean things like your own special Star Wars ship that you designed yourself. Or a new Batman vehicle. Or a set that includes your own new characters added to an existing license. (" Darth Fred terrorizes the Galaxy in his dread snake ship of doom!"). Even if brilliantly built, every license holder will veto any such third party add ons to their IP out right. (And yes sometimes toy companies are allowed to create new things in a license, such as Some of Kenners classic SW toys. But that is done in direct partnership with the IP holder, with no third parties involved. So Hasbro or Lego can do it, you however cannot via Ideas. )

4. Remake toys held by another company. Remember those aforementioned Kenner Star Wars odd ball vehicles, that did not come from the movies? Things like the Stormtrooper Transport or some of the strange little wheeled things? Yeah, you're not going to be able to have Lego make a set of those anytime soon. The same with TMNT and some of the old Playmates stuff.

5. Things that have previously failed review for clear reason. Ie The Zelda rule, "no means no". If the subject and nature of presentation has already undergone a business case review, and failed, chances are the outcome will not change on the next go round. Yes Zelda keeps failing on no new parts. But above and beyond that there are likely other underlying business issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect those "uncodified" rules to be actually writtens in the rule page so that creators can save their time for other projects. Well TLC have claimed several times that Zelda's are rejected for improper designs (aka need original molds that TLC can't afford, which is another uncodified rule?).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect those "uncodified" rules to be actually writtens in the rule page so that creators can save their time for other projects. Well TLC have claimed several times that Zelda's are rejected for improper designs (aka need original molds that TLC can't afford, which is another uncodified rule?).

It's already in the guidelines: "We cannot produce new LEGO parts molds, new cloth or other non-brick elements within the scope of LEGO Ideas, and therefore we don’t accept projects that include these items. New colors are okay, but Please only propose existing elements, as well as stickers and printed parts."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would expect those "uncodified" rules to be actually writtens in the rule page so that creators can save their time for other projects. Well TLC have claimed several times that Zelda's are rejected for improper designs (aka need original molds that TLC can't afford, which is another uncodified rule?).

These are all things that they would be unlikely to specifically codify because in many cases the final decisions lie with a third party (anything involving currently licensed themes), or they involve specifics that they just do not discuss in public. Take Zelda as the example. we all assume all of the projects failed because of the new parts. Which is likely the primary cause. But back when the first set hit review they still would have put it through a full thorough review, talked to Nintendo and examined the numbers and the business case. There can be (and given that Zelda is in fact a regular console video game more than likely actually are) multiple other failure points in that review. And those business case failures would likely still carry through to any subsequent projects. (chances are they will not do as deep a business case review ona second or third pass of a similar project. Just a basic "has anything changed?" look at the numbers.)

Rather these are failure points that we can reasonably surmise from observation, and knowing a little bit about things like licensing. The hidden gotcha's if you will. And they are not absolutes. As I say for the most part it is safe to assume that a project based on "What Lego already did but better" is destined for failure, just because it is generally a subject that Lego has in fact already covered. There are a few cases where it might not pose a problem. Things like normal real world vehicles. If you put up a better Fire Truck or a better Bus you are OK. If you put up a better Star Destroyer or Ninjago Dragon... yeah chances are its not gonna go places.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's already in the guidelines: "We cannot produce new LEGO parts molds, new cloth or other non-brick elements within the scope of LEGO Ideas, and therefore we don’t accept projects that include these items. New colors are okay, but Please only propose existing elements, as well as stickers and printed parts."

Thanx, my amnesia again. :grin: Unfortunately now we won't get more explanations from LEGO to ensure that all Zelda projects are rejected for the same reason.

Since there have been licenses that Team Ideas actively recommended (eg, Doctor Who), I wonder if they may also actively show that some licenses are not welcome in this website. If the license owners have shown direct rejections, it may be just written down in the rules. Now we only know that Super Mario is now owned by K'Nex, the rest business things are not clear. The simplest answer could be that Nintendo's license fee is much larger than any other company.

The updates or new ideas based on existed themes are quite subjective, but yes, this kind of thing can't be called "innovation" and not all people would love to afford that.

Edited by Dorayaki

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanx, my amnesia again. :grin: Unfortunately now we won't get more explanations from LEGO to ensure that all Zelda projects are rejected for the same reason.

Since there have been licenses that Team Ideas actively recommended (eg, Doctor Who), I wonder if they may also actively show that some licenses are not welcome in this website. If the license owners have shown direct rejections, it may be just written down in the rules. Now we only know that Super Mario is now owned by K'Nex, the rest business things are not clear. The simplest answer could be that Nintendo's license fee is much larger than any other company.

The updates or new ideas based on existed themes are quite subjective, but yes, this kind of thing can't be called "innovation" and not all people would love to afford that.

No license partner or potential license partner will ever publicly discuss license negotiations. It's bad business. The license that they turn down today they may pick up tomorrow. They may deal with the same partner on another project. Plus even knowledge of discussions can alter other negotiations with other partners and alter competitors behavior. This is also why they announce all of a review periods results at once rather than a rolling pass fail as they evaluate each one. Knowing one concurrent licensed project was passed or rejected can impact negotiations with the next partner in line.

And one final reason they will never ever talk about licensing as a reason an Ideas project fails. They never ever will want to push the blame for a projects rejection back onto the licensor. Licensors take it very badly when angry mobs of nerds are pointed at them in fury. The Licensor always has absolute veto over any licensed set. But we will never hear about that. (Case in point MWT was effectively killed by the terms of the Disney LR license. Lego had no leeway in the decision, and no way to warn or discuss it. Licenses can be a beach.)

If you watch carefully Lego very very rarely reveals much in the way of information about any of the terms of their licenses. The only Ideas license restrictions they put up are really for licenses that are publicly known to be held by and under use by a competitor, and thus unavailable. (Dr. who was not endorsed by Lego or CuuSoo. It simply came off the "un obtainable" list.) other than that I think the only concrete bits of info on any of Legos licenses we have learned is that the SW license does not allow for individual minifig sales, and the LotR/Hobbit license requires a more substantial build per minifig than the classic SW Battlepacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to ask again but I can't find the info, when do we hear the result of the next section?

I'm seriously hoping for Doctor Who

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the only concrete bits of info on any of Legos licenses we have learned is that the SW license does not allow for individual minifig sales, and the LotR/Hobbit license requires a more substantial build per minifig than the classic SW Battlepacks.

Oh? I hadn't heard that before (about The Hobbit / The Lord of the Rings requiring more substantial builds). When / how did that info come out (and if it's the case, then what about Gandalf Arrives, Riddles for the Ring and The Wizard Battle)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh? I hadn't heard that before (about The Hobbit / The Lord of the Rings requiring more substantial builds). When / how did that info come out (and if it's the case, then what about Gandalf Arrives, Riddles for the Ring and The Wizard Battle)?

One of the Lego staff was answering questions early on, and when faced with the question of why no Star Wars type Battlepacks for LotR (4 figs and a small build at a $12-20 or less price point), he politely explained that the specifications of things such as the ratio of figs to build in a set and how they handle "Battlepacks", and the requirements for named characters in a set vary from license to license, with the implication that the LotR Army Builders as a result needed to be a bit more substantial, pushing them to the $30 and 5-6 fig price point. The sets you mention are 2 fig sets. A lot of it seems to be some nebulous ratio of build or bricks to figs. Both Wizard Battle and Gandalf Arrives have quite substantial builds for a small low price 2 fig set. Riddles for the Ring, has a bit more build than we would expect. Granted its a pointless build. They never explicitly said anything about the terms of either specific license beyond making it clear that each is different (and is often clearly spelled out in the contract), and what is permissible in one is often not in another. We can kind of guess or assume the rest just based on observation. They left very clear the implication that LotR needed more build and a higher price point for the Army builders. Which is why we got sets like Orc Forge, Mirkwood Elf Army, Uruk Hai Army and Dul Guldur Ambush.

It's all just another example of how weirdly complex licenses can be, and some of the reasons why TLG does not always do "the obvious thing that would sell a gajillion! AND IT'S WHAT WE WANT!!!" In the end the licensor has much greater control over licensed set decisions then we often realize. And much of that may be related to how they subdivide their IP to various licensee's. How the IP holder chooses to differentiate between things like the construction toy license vs the action figure license vs the game license, etc. They set the boundries in such a way to give clear value to all of their partners. But this will at times limit what a given partner may do. Even if it seems like a good or much desired thing.

Edited by Faefrost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to ask again but I can't find the info, when do we hear the result of the next section?

I'm seriously hoping for Doctor Who

According to the official blog, the results of the next review are coming in late summer / early fall. That's the batch with the two Doctor Who projects, along with the Back to the Future "Jules Verne" train, The Big Bang Theory, the Apple Store, and the life-sized birds sculpture. I'm seriously hoping for Doctor Who, too (though I'd really be happy with some of the others, as well).

Fortunately I do think Doctor Who has an excellent shot - not only have not one but two projects garnered the necessary votes in the same period, but both of them did it very quickly - they're both among the fastest projects ever to get 10,000 votes, actually. And unlike many other license proposals, Doctor Who is already known to be a possibility (at least in the sense of the rights being available and so on). I'll frankly be very surprised if neither of those Doctor Who passes review and gets chosen as the next CUUSOO / Ideas set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really hopeful DR Who makes it into a produced set. Very excited about that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really hopeful DR Who makes it into a produced set. Very excited about that!

I hope Dr. Who makes it as a set. I am not getting overly optimistic though. I know I babble a bit around here about some of the hidden gotchas that are not always apparent to we the fan base, but would rear their ugly head at review time. Dr. Who has a few rather noticeable ones. Not enough to guarantee its failure by any means. But more than enough to guarantee that its success is far from a given. Here are just a few that can cause problems in spite of deep fan interest.

1. The BBC - ugh! How to put this. The BBC is a notoriously difficult licensing partner. On almost every level. The root of the problem is the BBC is not really a business, and is in many or most ways a government operated monopoly. What this often means is their staff, including those who deal with licenses are often a bit removed from many forces and concerns that naturally occur in the true private sector. They are notoriously bad at gauging value of their IP's. Often grossly over inflating them or arbitrarily assigning value with little actual data or experience. They are not real good at picking or supporting larger licensing partners preferring to go with smaller local ones. They have a pretty broad history of driving partners nuts. Have you ever wondered why DVD sets of your favorite BBC shows are so expensive? Especially when compared to anything else? Or why you cannot get full season sets of the pre Ecclesten Doctors and instead must hunt them down story by story? It's because actual market forces do not apply to the BBC. At least not in as direct a way as in the real world. So what does this mean regarding a Dr. Who Lego set? Short answer, there is a remarkably good chance that the BBC will price the license beyond what TLG is willing to pay. Fan enthusiasm and interest from Ideas will only increase their expectations on value. Whereas Lego will be basing their willingness to pay on actual outside market data. Things like the success or failure of Character Builders line. Dr. Who's overall and international viewership numbers, etc. these two sides may not come to agreement.

2. Character Builders take on the license just went away - Lego is going to look as hard as they can at the success or failure of Character Builders recent take on the license. At least as far as they can from public information. They may not like what they see. Especially considering that the heart of CB's line was a set very similar to what is being proposed by both 10k projects. The question will be in part "is the simple fact that it is "Lego" enough to boost sales of a similar product beyond CB's?"

As I said, neither guarantees a review failure. But they do offer a possible and not unlikely clear logical path for a review failure to happen. And oh boy what nerd rage would it be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm excited to see that support for the Wall-E project has really gone up! It'll definitely meet 10k supporters in time for the next cutoff date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guidelines say no new printed parts or stickers yet Cuusoo has done those in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guidelines say no new printed parts or stickers yet Cuusoo has done those in the past.

I think that's phrased poorly. What it says is "New colors are okay, but Please only propose existing elements, as well as stickers and printed parts." That definitely makes it sound as if they're only allowing existing stickers and printed parts, but given that, as you say, sets have introduced new prints in the past, I think it's supposed to mean that you can introduce new prints and stickers to spruce up existing elements.

Seeing as no projects are being removed for having new stickers or prints I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that's what they meant. It'd be nice if someone could get clarification, though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's pretty obvious that something heavily relying on many stickers or prints is not going to be too likely to pass, and something that just uses subtle prints/stickers could still be made even without them.

The key question regards minifigs or specific items that require recognition, and of course mostly applies to licenced Ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice to see more support for genuine creativity than IPs and nostalgia and on ideas - but it seems people don't want that. When you think about it, people are supporting the stuff that is the most unlikely to be made into a set. And I'm a hypocrite - because I supported 2 Jaws projects :tongue: and post nostalgic projects.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a project that uses prints from older sets. Example from 2003. Would it be possible to bring those back for an ideas project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about a project that uses prints from older sets. Example from 2003. Would it be possible to bring those back for an ideas project?

As long as the parts that the prints were on are still viable then I would imagine no reason not to use them. The Exo Suit uses classic space logos on the torsos. A lot of it will depend more on what the prints are and if licensing is involved. But I can't think of anything where an older print would be truly core to the set, and could not be replaced with new art or stickers if needed for production. Art is easy and reasonably cheap in the scheme of things. So long as it is not some weird complex surface.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding LOTR and battle-packs, I suspect the rules there have to do with the way the license for the LOTR tabletop war game works, i.e. sets need to contain a higher ratio of build to figs to prevent competition with the war game stuff

In terms of printing, it seems like new prints are ok in any ideas set, look at the research lab set with the printed star chart piece. So new prints and new colors are ok keeping in mind the very limited number of "changes" a given ideas set is likely to get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to suggest that an official forum thread be started for Ideas projects by Eurobricks members. It would give us a chance to band together, and would help organize all of the great ideas out there*.

*For instance, ummester built a beautiful modern take on the Galaxy Explorer, something that I'm sure almost all of us would eagerly support in a heart-beat, but no one would find it** unless they went directly to the Sci-Fi forum.

**Granted, that's the first place you would look for something like that, but it would be far more expedient for everyone if we just had a thread, where people could see all the ideas laid out by theme, and click through to the Ideas page. "Like this, supported, meh, maybe if they change it, oh, oh, definitely supporting this," etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the support Lind :classic:

One thing I have noticed on ideas is that views are the single most important element to get a project supported - exposure and views.

There are a few duplicate ideas where the builds are either of equal quality, or, in some cases the less supported build is of greater quality, where the idea getting the support is far out in front on views. What I think would be useful in this thread is a sharing of tricks and tips for increasing project exposure.

GlenBricker has a ton of data on how fast projects have or will hit 10k on his web site. I think the fastest 10k project was around 6 days.

GlenBricker's data is good for time vs support but I have not found a page that logs views vs support - I think this needs to be collated.

A project that has 200 views and 150 support means that 75% of those who have looked like it. A project that has 250k views and 5000 support means only 2% of those that have looked like it.

If there was a way to view all projects with over a given percentage support to view ratio, I'm sure it would yield the higher quality projects. I doubt there are many, if any, projects with greater than 50% view to support ratio - though there are probably plenty in the 10 - 40% range that just aren't getting viewed enough.

Edited by ummester

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A project that has 200 views and 150 support means that 75% of those who have looked like it. A project that has 250k views and 5000 support means only 2% of those that have looked like it.

If there was a way to view all projects with over a given percentage support to view ratio, I'm sure it would yield the higher quality projects. I doubt there are many, if any, projects with greater than 50% view to support ratio - though there are probably plenty in the 10 - 40% range that just aren't getting viewed enough.

The view/support ratio is effectively meaningless. People who like a project and support it, will keep going back to it to check out the discussion board. This will create an extra view each time they go to the project main page. So views don't record the number of people who have seen a project, just the number of times the project page has been seen. I just tried it and gave some new project an extra 4 views.

What the number of views does mean is that as this number grows, people are obviously coming back to see how a project is going, and probably interacting on the discussion board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.