The Real Indiana Jones

LEGO Ideas Discussion

Recommended Posts

Also, pretty much the only real way to overhaul Ideas is for those that run to sift through the 1000-supports club and give each set that reaches that milestone ONE GOOD, LONG, HARD LOOK. Because in the perceived cesspool blokes called LEGO Ideas there's one set proposal that will be a unanimous winner from the very beginning. The one that you know will be a set and sell well with no second glance. The one that doesn't need an IP to be great, because it just is on all talking points.

All that's needed is a truly expert eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, pretty much the only real way to overhaul Ideas is for those that run to sift through the 1000-supports club and give each set that reaches that milestone ONE GOOD, LONG, HARD LOOK. (...)

All that's needed is a truly expert eye.

Agreed. But they could also set a max piece count to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing that baffles me is why any company wouldn't be interested in a LEGO depiction. It's a great honour that definitely increases popularity, it's like being a star during the 80's and saying you don't want to be on the muppet show.

They either underestimate the power of positive influence lego has, or they are simply stupid.

You're looking at it from a LEGO fan point of view. Not everyone who owns an IP see it that way. They may not want their brand associated with children toys or they don't think LEGO is the greatest thing ever. Going the other way can be true too, LEGO may want not want to be associated with them like that oil company. Licensing agreements are a two way street. Terms and conditions have to be negotiated and agreeable to both parties. Things like fee and creative control can be a sticking point. If the fees asked are too high, then it could make the set too expensive for LEGO to be economically viable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a fan, yes, and by no means a marketing expert, but LEGO always had a general positive vibe to it even for a distant stranger who never held a brick in his hand. Every association with another business is a risk as you have no control over the reputation of the other, but I would presume that there are people who evaluate such things, and if so, it's hard for me to believe that anyone would think they wouldn't benefit from a LEGO licence. The only instance where this makes sense is for TV shows that are no longer aired and the production house doesn't want to stray any potential popularity of current shows by reviving old ones through merchandise, but that's kinda far calculated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. But they could also set a max piece count to begin with.

Not all pieces are equal, though. Let's say they're willing to make a set with a build consisting of up to, oh... let's say 750 pieces, of an."average" parts assortment - a parts mis of 2x1 bricks, 1x3 plates, minifigure elements, 'cheese slopes', etc. in proportions similar to what you'd find in most sets. Now, suppose someone has a project with over 1200 pieces - but nearly half of them are tiny things, like 1x2 plates, 1x1 round plates, etc., and nothing fancy (no minifigures, no prints, etc.). They could likely surely do that.

The issue is that not all parts are equal. A project calling for dozens or even hundreds of 1x1 round plates in common colors isn't going to be too taxing as long as it doesn't need much else in the way of fancy stuff; OTOH, a mere three copies of a certain element might be at least two pieces too many if the pieces in question are XL motors or 48x48 baseplates in trans-neon reddish-orange. In other words, a blanket statement like "no projects needing over 1000 pieces" won't work so well, since it would eliminate some projects they could actually do; they'd need to instead have a maximum value for a complicated mathematical function with hundreds or thousands of variables, the number of each of which would affect the number of each other. It'd be nuts.

And that doesn't even take into account the differences between the submitted project and the final resulting set. All approved Ideas projects get redesigned when turned into the final sets, sometimes quite heavily, and just because a creator's project is 1200 pieces doesn't mean it can't be turned into a commercial set with just 800 pieces. As every fan here should know, there are so, so, so many different ways to build a given object at a certain size that for any project larger than a promotional polybag set, there's a good chance of a huge difference between the piece count of the submitted project and the piece count of any commercial set that might come from it.

Now, having said all that, I would agree it might make sense to set an absolute limit anyway, and just have it be a high one - say, 6000 pieces, which is higher than any set ever released aside from certain bulk assortments not aimed at building a specific model. That would still allow for many huge models with very little chance of becoming sets, but it would eliminate the utterly insanely elaborate creations with absolutely no chance whatsoever, like 10,000-piece UCS-ish Star Wars vehicles or 20,000-piece layouts of Middle-Earth locales.

But really, if the object is just to reduce the number of projects with very little chance, well... the thing is, all projects, even the best-thought-out ones, have very little chance anyway. Consider: in the entire history of CUUSOO / Ideas to date, there have been over 14,000 projects submitted - there are that many there now, including everything in all states (gathering support, achieved support and awaiting review, in review, approved, not approved, archived, etc.), and more are submitted every day. To date, they have approved just thirteen projects. That means that based on current data, the chances of a project (any project in general) being approved are fewer than one in a thousand. Anyone submitting to Ideas has to realize that, and if they do, it's no problem. If the rules for submission are tightened, though, then sure, it would cut down on the projects that would be posted, and give those remaining projects each somewhat better odds of being approved if they make it to review... but it would also likely cut down on the number of projects making it to review in the first place. If vast numbers of the user base are shut out of having their own projects posted because they don't meet more narrowly-defined guidelines than before, than many of those people are likely to drop out of the process altogether, and not vote for anyone else's project. We might then find ourselves in a situation where few or no projects even get to 10,000 votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a fan, yes, and by no means a marketing expert, but LEGO always had a general positive vibe to it even for a distant stranger who never held a brick in his hand. Every association with another business is a risk as you have no control over the reputation of the other, but I would presume that there are people who evaluate such things, and if so, it's hard for me to believe that anyone would think they wouldn't benefit from a LEGO licence. The only instance where this makes sense is for TV shows that are no longer aired and the production house doesn't want to stray any potential popularity of current shows by reviving old ones through merchandise, but that's kinda far calculated.

You might think so, but you'd be surprised. There are lots of commercial brands that want their brands perceived a certain way, and who tightly manage their brands so as to mold those perceptions, and for many of them, having licensed toys available based on their brands just won't fit.

For example, Apple Computer (as it used to be known) once used to license its brand out to third parties for "lifestyle" items - watches (not their own Apple Watch, but regular analogue wristwatches), apparel, etc. When Steve Jobs returned to the company in the 1990s, though, he laid out a plan for the then-troubled company to return to profitability, and part of it had to do with very tightly controlling the brand in a specific way. To this end, he shut down all the third-party licensees of Apple-branded t-shirts, towels and whatnot, shaping the Apple brand into more of a high-end, fashionable sort of boutique label. They still worked with third parties on products designed to work directly with their own, but the days of third-party products that simply bore Apple licensing were over. And judging from the state of the company in the 1990s, when it was nearing disaster, and the state of it now, it's hard to argue that was a bad move.

That's one example. There are numerous others, where companies might decide they just aren't interested in having official toys of their IP made by anyone, even our most beloved and respected toymaker. Some of them might already have their own toy plans they're not yet willing to discuss. And so on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have bought the DC-3 as well. The key takeaway for me from the video is that you had better not consider anything over 500 pieces unless it is the idea of the century. Consider the quip about production capacity limitations to be the unofficial piece count limit for an Ideas project.

I'd just like to note the Ghostbusters, Birds, WALL•E, and Doctor Who sets all have over 500 pieces. In fact, WALL•E and Doctor Who each have over 600.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only thing that baffles me is why any company wouldn't be interested in a LEGO depiction. It's a great honour that definitely increases popularity, it's like being a star during the 80's and saying you don't want to be on the muppet show.

They either underestimate the power of positive influence lego has, or they are simply stupid.

It's not necessarily that a company wouldn't want a LEGO depiction. They might just not be able to come to an agreement as to HOW.

For instance, they're are some projects like The Legend of Zelda that really need new molds to work. A company that is protective of their IP would not want a toy of their characters to look wildly inaccurate or "off-model". Yet if new molds aren't in the budget, they aren't going to necessarily just shrug their shoulders and say "meh, use a generic bandanna". There are all kinds of potential scenarios where both sides might be unable or unwilling to reach an agreement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One interesting thing about this is that now that they've worked through the 2015 backlog and have released or at least finalized everything for the year, in addition to approving a first set for next year (the Labyrinth Marble Maze) that might be doable as quickly as Birds was, they could get to a point early next year where they're "caught up" - where everything they've announced (all the way up through the Maze) has been released, and we're awaiting the announcement for the next set right after an already-released one. I doubt it, but you never know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LEGO has a new factory being built in China. It should be online by around 2017. That could help alleviate some of their current production capacity problems. It may be too soon to set a limit on part count. Then again the Ideas group seems to me like a small business unit in a large company without a lot of internal clout. Their allocation of shared company resources could be much smaller if they aren't bringing in the huge amount of revenue like the bigger themes. I guess if Ninjago needs more production, guess who gets reduced. As the saying goes: nothing personal, just business, Lord Business.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think LEGO Ideas needs an intervention

-Pretty low ratio of approval (0/13)

-Sometimes, it takes too long to release an approved set, with almost no info about during the wait (Dr Who, Exosuit)

-Sets with malfunctions (Wall-E is a mess)

-Some reviews take too long (Dr. Who and F7A Hornet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ideas (or LEGO) has a 'problem' now. The first 2015 review hasn't even ONE project qualified. WHAT! I can understand that the medieval street and the T-rex won't made produced but still....

I still don't know what to think about the Hornet tho,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to note the Ghostbusters, Birds, WALL•E, and Doctor Who sets all have over 500 pieces. In fact, WALL•E and Doctor Who each have over 600.

I guess 500 pieces is pushing the lower limit of the cutoff range, but 1000 pieces would probably be around the high end. I note your point about piece size, so maybe it would be fair to say that Lego is likely not going to approve an Ideas set greater than $100 in retail price.

I do also agree that some type of upper limit needs to be set. I would also like for there to be a way to screen and remove projects that have no chance of making it, whether or not it is that beautiful 40,000 piece model of Erebor or if it is something that looks like a 4 year old designed and Dad thought we all should see it.

Judging by the current offerings, it would not surprise me if nothing makes it through the next review either. Indominus rex is too big and deals with an IP license, a double whammy. Brick Built adventures? I am not sure--again a license and no telling how many people would actually buy it. Rivendell is beautiful, but it really belongs at a Brick-con rather than on the shelf taking up space with an unaffordable price tag. Physics? I love the idea, but it has too many loose pieces, making it more a display item than an actual working thing, kind of like small yellow. Besides, could you imagine trying to get all of the "dominos to stand up? Caterham--I figure if the Corvette got shot down, then so would this. Lothlorien--with a piece count of 1399, it is actually achievable and I would buy it in an instant, and it is really a stunning build. It is the closest LOTR project I have seen to being reasonable, unfortunately the piece count and licensing will be its doom. Modular Library--I actually liked the Natural History Museum better and thought it had the best chance of any modular, but nope. Having to compete with Creator line will probably doom any modular submission. F7A Hornet seems to stand the best chance, because it has now been rolled over twice. So obviously Lego is really considering this, but that is no guarantee it will get approved. Stay-Puft has to compete against a current license and looks rather sizaeable too, which give it some serious headwinds in this process. And the Little Prince? I am not feeling it. How do you display that anyway?

So I figure either the Hornet or nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they didn't think the F7A Hornet would sell, they would have rejected it by now. My guess is either licensing discussions going on or a need to wait and see how the game it comes (which hasn't even been released yet) from develops and whether said game is a good "brand fit" or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I don't think that Ideas will exist by this time next year. Too much controversy, too few sets.

With all due respect, I think the present controversy is nothing - just the disappointment one would naturally expect after a review with no new sets announced. And set releases have actually accelerated dramatically since it began as LEGO CUUSOO, when we waited a couple years for a single set; now we're up to four sets a year (a rate they achieved just last year, and have maintained this year). CUUSOO / Ideas has resulted in over a dozen fan projects becoming real, actual, official LEGO sets. It generates publicity and attention from outside both LEGO's core kid customer base and its diehard adult fandom. It's launched multiple entire new themes. By just about any standard with the possible exception of what I frankly think are some rather unrealistic ones being applied here, I'd say it's a resounding success, and I'm confident it will still be around in a year.

I do think LEGO Ideas needs an intervention

-Pretty low ratio of approval (0/13)

They've also had a review batch with 3/6 approved (and one of the remaining three that wasn't approved dupicated the subject matter of one of the three that was). Review batches are a dice roll; TLG can't do anything about what projects make it into a batch and what don't. They can only approve those they want to do and that they're able to. But I don't think one disappointing review means the end of the world.

-Sometimes, it takes too long to release an approved set, with almost no info about during the wait (Dr Who, Exosuit)

Doctor Who had a long wait because it was approved simultaneously with one set that they decided to release before it (they could just as easily have done it first of the two, and then we'd just all complain about the long wait for WALL•E instead), and because there was already another set still in the production queue at the same time they were approved. And the Exo-Suit had an unusually prolonged development because of the nature of the model, and we actually did get info about it while we waited; we even got a series of nifty video teasers.

-Sets with malfunctions (Wall-E is a mess)

WALL•E had an issue with the neck that not everyone would necessarily even agree was an issue, but that enough people said enough about that they decided to revise it. It didn't take very long, and the set is actually available again already, despite having just come out a short while ago and then been recalled. And for those who got the first run, I'd say it's arguably a bonus, since it means free extra pieces for them.

It might well have been an expensive, painful problem for TLG to have to deal with, but honestly I don't think it's been a huge problem for us fans, and at any rate it's just an issue with one set that happened to be an Ideas set, not an issue with the Ideas program itself. It could have happened with a set in any line, and indeed, has happened with various sets from time to time.

-Some reviews take too long (Dr. Who and F7A Hornet)

Those are both projects based on external IP licenses, and TLG has to spend time to work things out with the rightsholders. In the former case, we now know that they worked out a deal for not just a single set but also the IP in general and its use in a new LEGO video game. For the latter, it's a new game that isn't even out, so TLG doesn't know yet whether it's even a suitable property for them yet. The waits for those were reasonable given the circumstances. And the batch with the Doctor Who projects also had four other projects that were approved or rejected right off the bat; we got timely results on 4/6 of the projects in that batch, and waited for additional results for just 2/6. It's not like we waited extra long for the entire review.

Edited by Blondie-Wan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Sometimes, it takes too long to release an approved set, with almost no info about during the wait (Dr Who, Exosuit)

-Some reviews take too long (Dr. Who and F7A Hornet)

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet, but the reason the Doctor Who set took so long to me revealed is the no new molds rule for Ideas. Since LEGO has made it very clear that they will not make an Ideas set that requires new molds, they had to release the sonic screwdriver in the dimensions level pack before revealing the Ideas set. LEGO must have really wanted to make this happen to make a loophole like this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned this yet, but the reason the Doctor Who set took so long to me revealed is the no new molds rule for Ideas. Since LEGO has made it very clear that they will not make an Ideas set that requires new molds, they had to release the sonic screwdriver in the dimensions level pack before revealing the Ideas set. LEGO must have really wanted to make this happen to make a loophole like this.

that isn't exactly the case, the rule for ideas is that the submission must not Require a new mold. Doctor Who didn't require it and the submissions even used existing parts to represent the sonic. more likely The BBC wanted the new screwdriver and forced Lego to make a new mold. the delay would have been in time required to design the part, get approval from BBC, and then put into production. the fact that there are dimensions sets that use the same part only helps justify the cost of new molds and production runs of the new part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many of us that post their projects on Ideas are a tad ticked off to the point of why bother but I'm not going to stop designing and posting projects as I feel it's only way to get Lego to develop different sets or even different themes/sub-themes.

Really I couldn't understand why science adventures or international space station didn't make it since Lego have done similar sets in the Ideas world before ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-Some reviews take too long (Dr. Who and F7A Hornet)

I got my retailer catalog in August, and DW was in there. I'm assuming these catalogs were finalized in like uhhhhh what, July, maybe?

When was DW announced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a bummer...

Time to clarify the rules to avoid disappointments like this. Waste of time for everyone involved (including LEGO).

But there was absolutely nothing unexpected in this. You all complain about 0/13. But they are competing for 4 or 5 production slots a year and currently have some backlog. Just looking at the rejected sets you can see why for the most part. We all knew or realized most had no chance.

Science Adventures, - let's be honest here, it's the same set from the same person. It is the leftover components from when the project was proposed as a theme. Before it morphed into Science Institute. There was nothing new original or interesting here. And likely would in no way have tapped the previous pools of consumer interest.

Discworld - difficult licensing. Especially with the license holders death during the review. Disk world is a weird property. This project was likely not a good fit for it.

Medieval Market - was a MOC not a set proposal. It was a big honking MOC that had no chance as a set ever.

Frozen castle - Lego unveiled their own Frozen Castle days after this hit Ideas. No Ideas set of "what Lego already did but better!" Will ever get made. There is little chance of pre existing licenses getting made under ideas.

DC-3 - how well did the Sopwith Camel do? Also would this be a viable or even the same project without the expensive and complicated chrome or silver plating? Chromed parts require special molds.

T-Rex - was dead the moment they got the Jurrasic World license. While they cannot and will never publicly say, most of their licenses have pretty hard and fast no compete clauses. The JW one would impact Dinosaurs or give veto power to Universal.

ISS - they have made and released ISS models in the past. It is likely not a subject they wish to return to at this time.

Golden Girls - a decades old sitcom about over sexed old people? I'm not seeing the brand fit there. Plus it's doubtful this made it past day one of review. It was near identicle to the prior Ideas proposal. The same business case applied. It would be rejected for the same reasons. TBBT set at least is a current show with a clear Lego marketing tie in. They feature Lego on the show. The show is about a nerd who plays with Lego as an adult.

Zelda - the definition of insanity is forever repeating the same failing action expecting a different outcome.

Titanic - oh look everybody died! Above and beyond the whole size/scale thing is the question of brand fit. This was a horrific real life disaster.

Daft Punk - was a minifigs set. That's a nope.

Corvette - this one is the most mysterious for its failure. Maybe it's size? Maybe they already have one in the pipeline in some other form? Maybe they could not reach agreement with Chevy? There are some weird quirks to licensing that we out here in customer land don't always understand. If Lego had already begun licensing talks with Chevy regarding the Corvette for something like their Speed Champions line, then it is precludes this being made as an Ideas set. It is already pre-existing Art, even if we the public is unaware of it. If that is the case it would be the only new or unstated rule revealed by this review period. (Or at least what most unfamiliar with licensing would not be aware of.)

Small Yellow - is ugly. Has none of the power or appeal of the full size original. Looks fragile and questionable as a build. Is a single color set which Lego does not do. (It's a major difference between Lego and Megabloks. And one they have discussed in the past. They require multiple colors to make parts differentiation easier for the instructions. They revealed this when the Exo Suit was unveiled. It was why it could not be solid bley.)

By all appearances Ideas is working exactly as designed and is having great success. Not everything that hits 10k will be a great product.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a mocer, i would not allow such a mistake, weak solution, for my work. And i'm very glad TLG aknowledged the problem and decided to fix it.

You would need hire a really good legal team to stop them. By submitting a project, you agree to their terms and conditions which gives them the right to alter your MOC as they see fit.

(i.) Assignment

In exchange for use of the Platform, and to the extent that your contributions through use of the Platform give rise to any intellectual property right interest, hereunder copyright, patent rights, design rights etc., you hereby assign all rights worldwide to the content generated by you to LEGO, meaning that LEGO can use your contributions in any way and for any purpose, including to reproduce, manufacture, copy, adapt, modify, perform, display, publish, sell, broadcast, transmit, or communicate to the public by any means whether now known or unknown and distribute your contributions for the whole duration of protection granted to intellectual property rights by applicable laws and international conventions.

Although you are assigning the rights above, you may continue to share and promote your work on your own website, online profiles, and event displays for free as long as you are doing this for non-commercial reasons. You may not sell any items, physical or digital, related to the ideas submitted to the platform. If we learn you are selling images, building instructions, custom kits, or anything related to ideas you have submitted to the platform, your ideas are subject to deletion, legal proceedings and removal without notice.

Should LEGO choose to no longer consider your ideas for production, by way of refusing your submissions to the site, deleting or archiving ideas you have submitted, or denying your ideas, LEGO will retain the non-exclusive right to display your ideas on the Platform and in promotional materials related to the Platform worldwide, and release back to you the remaining rights that you assigned at the time of submitting the ideas.

Should you choose to delete or remove your ideas from the Platform prior to approval from LEGO, all rights assigned to LEGO at the time you submitted the contributions, will remain assigned to LEGO for a period of three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope that the Corvette failed because of the "we're making something too similar" or "we have too many cool cars that this would eat into our sales" explanations. I can accept those. Not that I would've bought it anyway, but it looked nice, marketable and fairly reasonable in size, unlike most proposals.

0/13 was a surprise, but not entirely unexpected given the actual projects in review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ Dr_Spock.

You've misunderstood me, or perhaps was i not clear enough: when i say "as a mocer, i would not allow such a mistake, weak solution, for my work", i don't deal with the work i submitted on Lego Ideas. I think to my lego creations, in a general manner.

I perfectly know rules of Lego Ideas. Once you've submitted a project, he is not "yours" anymore. They can do what they want with it. That's why you've to think twice before submitting anything.

BUT......written rules are not enough to allow everything.

The fact is it's not a reason for TLG to apply incoherent modifications to well born project......even for the sake of it. That's not a legal issue, that's a common sense issue. And you know what? They would have kept the ball-joint link, they would have been no problem, no "recall", no modifications to apply to a product already on the market. They would have sold tons of Wall-E for christmas.

There can be other considerations at work besides "this part would work well here". For example, with the Exo-Suit, the new smaller ball joints introduced with Mixels might have been good for the set, but they weren't an option because their entire initial production runs of the parts were needed for Mixels. There might have been some reason they decided against a ball joint for WALL•E that had nothing to do with how well it works in the model.

It's unfortunate for TLG that it turned out they recalled and revised the set, but they seem to have recovered pretty quickly; shelves at local stores have plenty of what I presume are the revised set. It's a problem that affected the first few days of availability of a set that'll probably be around a year or more. In the grand scheme of things, it's just not a big deal... and moreover, it wasn't anything to do with the Ideas program. Sometimes, TLG doesn't quite get a set right until it's out the door, and they issue replacement parts packs or whatever to fix it; it can happen and has happened with sets in various lines, and there's no reason to think it's limited to or even more likely to happen with Ideas sets than sets from any other line or program.

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.