The Real Indiana Jones

LEGO Ideas Discussion

Recommended Posts

I sure hope they don't reject it as "just another big NASA project."  I'm still disappointed that they didn't approve the Space Shuttle by KingsKnight.  Even though the model represents a specific aircraft owned by NASA, it's still a modern military aircraft so I expect that, just as they rejected the Red Arrows BAE Hawk despite its non-combat context, they will also reject this project despite its non-combat context.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 5, 2018 at 4:06 PM, icm said:

I sure hope they don't reject it as "just another big NASA project."  I'm still disappointed that they didn't approve the Space Shuttle by KingsKnight.  Even though the model represents a specific aircraft owned by NASA, it's still a modern military aircraft so I expect that, just as they rejected the Red Arrows BAE Hawk despite its non-combat context, they will also reject this project despite its non-combat context.

Quite possibly. They do reject the majority of projects that reach review, after all. However, we don't know exactly why they declined the Red Arrows BAE Hawk. The association with contemporary military stuff is certainly a possibility, but they've done similar planes before; indeed, it's possible it was declined for being too much like stuff they've already done (or are doing), rather than being something they absolutely don't do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Robert8 said:

That's way too big to pass the review

Seeing the approved and released model of the Old Fishing Store, I don't think that size is the biggest issue here. Creator, City, Elves, Friends and Minecraft have featured treehouses in recent years. While those sets aren't as detailed and impressive as the project by a long shot, the D2C Ewok Village from a few years back is arguably quite similar.

(btw, I've started my first Ideas project. Can I sit with the cool kids now? :grin:)

Edited by Exetrius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Robert8 said:

That's way too big to pass the review

It's only 2,643 pieces, just below the 3,000 part limit. But if this project was approved, its part count quite possibly could be reduced anyway; but, for being an original project, it would possibly be priced around the same range as most Creator Expert modulars even if it did retain its original piece count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Robert8 said:

That's way too big to pass the review

I'm not sure it's an issue of size. Even recently, we've seen big projects released as big sets (Saturn V, Fishing Store) or reduced to smaller ones (Ship in a Bottle). I feel like this one wouldn't suffer as much reduction as SiaB, but would be crunched down somewhat. Other than that, it's got playability, a cohesive design, it looks stunning--there are a lot of reasons why it would pass.

My bigger concern is that there is a large treehouse set in the Elves theme supposed to release later this year. Given the delay (review, production, etc), this one might land far enough away on the calendar to have a chance, but if there is a chance the two sets will eclipse each other at all, this would be rejected.

It's a shame, really. Maybe they could hold it over 'til the next review to ensure it wouldn't compete with the Elves treehouse, but if non-Elves-loving FOLs knew there was a premium Ideas set coming out a year later, would they settle for the Elves one now? I think that's the biggest obstacle this one will have; TLG won't want to short their current sales for an Ideas set.

Edit: while I like this project a lot, of commits one of the cardinal sins for me (numerous times!) by jamming technic pins into the bottom of bricks. But of course, if it passes that will be changed. I just hate seeing it for some reason, a pet peeve I guess. Oh well, rant over. Back to your lives, citizens. :classic:

Edited by rodiziorobs
Added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Exetrius said:

the D2C Ewok Village from a few years back is arguably quite similar.

I agree.

9 hours ago, rodiziorobs said:

My bigger concern is that there is a large treehouse set in the Elves theme supposed to release later this year. Given the delay (review, production, etc), this one might land far enough away on the calendar to have a chance, but if there is a chance the two sets will eclipse each other at all, this would be rejected.

It's a shame, really. Maybe they could hold it over 'til the next review to ensure it wouldn't compete with the Elves treehouse, but if non-Elves-loving FOLs knew there was a premium Ideas set coming out a year later, would they settle for the Elves one now? I think that's the biggest obstacle this one will have; TLG won't want to short their current sales for an Ideas set.

I can't imagine an Elves set competing against this anyways, as I'm sure the designs would be vastly different.  This project is already quite a bit different from the previous Elves treehouse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stitch has only 21 supports to gather, I think we’ll see “The Brick Fan - Lego Ideas Stitch Achieves 10,000 Supporters” post by @Digger of Bricks this evening...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Stitch project will get rejected in the review anyway since it violates the rule about not having projects that conflict with existing licenses (and that list of licenses specifically mentions all the characters in the Disney CMF line which includes Stitch)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonwil said:

The Stitch project will get rejected in the review anyway since it violates the rule about not having projects that conflict with existing licenses (and that list of licenses specifically mentions all the characters in the Disney CMF line which includes Stitch)

 

I'm not sure that they will bounce this one for that. They did make Wall-e.  The Disney stuff kind of gets into a really grey area I suspect. It's a broad license with a lot of sub licences that may or may not be in force. While they don't want people submitting more projects from ongoing licences, I don't think it will be an auto fail for a grandfathered in project such as this. 

On 2/14/2018 at 8:29 AM, Exetrius said:

 the D2C Ewok Village from a few years back is arguably quite similar.

 

It has always been so tempting to take an Ewok Village set. Change the tree and leave colors, swap out the minifigs and submit it as "Robin Hood Prince of Thieves" to see if anybody gets the joke? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jonwil said:

The Stitch project will get rejected in the review anyway since it violates the rule about not having projects that conflict with existing licenses (and that list of licenses specifically mentions all the characters in the Disney CMF line which includes Stitch)

 

I wouldn't say brick built characters and minifigures are equivalent

Actually, I do think thei Stitch project will pass the review

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, LegoModularFan said:

Stitch has only 21 supports to gather, I think we’ll see “The Brick Fan - Lego Ideas Stitch Achieves 10,000 Supporters” post by @Digger of Bricks this evening...

Yep. Well, at least this morning instead. :wink:

The Brick Fan - LEGO Ideas Stitch Achieves 10,000 Supporters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On February 14, 2018 at 12:31 AM, x105Black said:

If I had been going there more actively, that would have gotten my vote.  Alas, I have been there very rarely over the last few months.  I'm still waiting to see TRON and Voltron!

This is very much me. I was going there daily, or close to daily, for a long time, but I've been mostly inactive on Ideas for a while now.

There's a number of websites I frequent at various times, but it seems like I have the energy to regularly keep up with only some of them in any one given period, so I go through phases where I visit a particular site regularly, followed by periods where I leave it alone for months, and I cycle various sites into and out of my daily habits. Then I start to return to them months later, while temporarily abandoning others.

In the case of LEGO Ideas, it means my user history shows I was going there constantly for a while, supporting projects, leaving comments, etc., but then just kind of fell away from it, and have gone back only sporadically since. But I do plan to become a regular participant again, especially since I plan to submit my own projects eventually. 

And yeah, I'm really looking forward to seeing the TRON and Voltron projects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before I ever decide to submit something similar - creature-based - I am curious to know if there is any more information as to why those dinosaurs, namely the Tyrannosaurus rex, were rejected a couple of years ago.
Was it the piece count, or the subject matter, or something else entirely; does anybody have any idea?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, General Magma said:

Before I ever decide to submit something similar - creature-based - I am curious to know if there is any more information as to why those dinosaurs, namely the Tyrannosaurus rex, were rejected a couple of years ago.
Was it the piece count, or the subject matter, or something else entirely; does anybody have any idea?

It conflicted with a Licensed theme. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Faefrost said:

It conflicted with a Licensed theme. 

Dinosaurs conflict with Jurassic Park. Just like how anything remotely set in space conflicts with Star Wars. :ugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I saw that the Ideas team highlighted an "under 100 supporters" project that looked remarkably similar (could've even been the exact same re-submission) to the Addam's Family mansion (you know, the upsized mod of the official set Haunted House) - didn't that project fail review? I thought that function was for promoting stuff not seen before. What am I missing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Digger of Bricks said:

Dinosaurs conflict with Jurassic Park. Just like how anything remotely set in space conflicts with Star Wars. :ugh:

/sigh. For those thinking with what they sit upon. The Jurassic Park pretty clearly carries a "No Dinosaurs" non compete clause. They made that absolutely clear back in the day. That Dinosaur you mentioned was originally a JP project that got taken down when Lego got the JP license. Then changed to a non JP project (by removing the gate). Some themes or Licenses have fairly strict no compete clauses. Some are more open. For example Lord of the Rings did not preclude Castle (although it probably did preclude a return of "Fantasy Era" while active). Lone Ranger had a strict "no Western Theme" non compete. Similarly we know Pirates of the Caribean similarly does not allow Lego's in house Pirates them while active. The Star Wars license has never prevented traditional Lego Space themes. Generally Lucasfilms non competes prevent you from taking on a competitors IP. So no Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica while you have Star Wars. Even that may have softened in recent years. (George used to really HATE Battlestar Galactica with a passion. And Lawyers). 

I don't think I could ever begin to explain just how complex and granular the license contracts can be, here on a forum. When we say non compete, it often isn't that cut and dry. They go into great detail on what you can and cannot do as part of the contract. So for example the Jurassic Park/World license will preclude any in house or third party Dinosaur theme, although there may be certain exceptions carved out for things that are not felt to be too close. So that 3 in 1 Creator Dino set would likely not trigger the contract rules. They would write around that. Similarly if there was a needed dino subcomponent for another licensed theme it would often allow it. Such as the giant T rex animatronic in the classic Batcave. (I know I am not describing this very well as I'm getting a little fuzzy from cold meds.)  But for something like Ideas they would have to renegotiate the contract, Which will generally not happen. 

Add to this confusion, some IP holders, who had kept their properties isolated via non competes, are suddenly seeing surging profits from letting them mingle. Marvel and DC Heroes for example. So yeah every contract is distinct, and different, and often insane. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Artanis I said:

So I saw that the Ideas team highlighted an "under 100 supporters" project that looked remarkably similar (could've even been the exact same re-submission) to the Addam's Family mansion (you know, the upsized mod of the official set Haunted House) - didn't that project fail review? I thought that function was for promoting stuff not seen before. What am I missing?

It's not exactly the same project (nor is either project merely a mod of the Haunted House). It is a very similar project, and one by the same submitter - essentially a pared-down version of the earlier submission - but a critical difference is that the version (s)he originally submitted had over 7,000 pieces, while the current one has fewer than 3,000, in accord with the new rules. It is entirely reasonable to think that a version of the famous house with under 3000 pieces might be approved when one with over 7000 was not. The size / piece count of the original submission was clearly a factor in its rejection, and obviously a different take on the same subject matter that uses far fewer parts has a much better chance - no guarantee, of course, but better than before.

There is no rule against submitting projects of the same subject matter as previous projects that have been reviewed and declined. Different projects can receive different evaluations, even they share the same subject matter. Different piece counts are just one reason a project might possibly be approved when a previous model of the same subject was declined; another might be the time of review. For example, consider the Lone Ranger issue Faefrost mentioned above in his response to Digger of Bricks. A while back, when LEGO still let us know why projects were declined, there was a lovely Modular Western Town project that was declined because it unfortunately conflicted with the terms of LEGO's license for their then-upcoming Lone Ranger theme (though of course the project submitter didn't know that at the time of submission). From what we understand, their license prevented them from offering any other Western sets or themes at the same time they'd be offering the Lone Ranger sets, meaning not just that particular project (which was also unrealistically large anyway), but any other "old West"-style project that had the misfortune to enter review at that time would be automatically declined on those grounds even before being evaluated on other factors - but since their Lone Ranger license is no longer active, the same thing wouldn't happen now, and other Western projects submitted now might have a chance when they wouldn't have then. They might even permit the exact same Modular Western Town project to be resubmitted (if it weren't so big that they'd now reject it right off the bat for being over 3000 pieces).

In other words, just because an Addams Family house project was reviewed and rejected once doesn't mean there's zero chance they'll ever approve one in the future, and it certainly doesn't mean no one can ever submit a project of that subject matter again.

(Though it's not exactly the same situation, it is worth noting that they have in fact at least once approved a project based on a particular licensed property even after declining a previous project based on the same property. Some years ago they reviewed and rejected an Adventure Time project, and then the year before last they approved a different, later one. It's true that the two projects were quite different - the first was for a build of an iconic structure seen in the show, at either minifigure scale or a smaller, Architecture-like scale, while the second one that got approved was for a set of larger-than-minifigures brick-built figures, similar to Miniland figures. But it does illustrate that a project based on a licensed theme can have a chance even when they've previously rejected projects based on that theme.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Blondie-Wan said:

It's not exactly the same project. It is a very similar project, and one by the same submitter - essentially a pared-down version of the earlier submission

That's all you needed to say, no need to tldr rant...

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.