The Real Indiana Jones

LEGO Ideas Discussion

Recommended Posts

Looking at the list of items for review:

Fossil Museum wont get made, its too niche, they already did a dinosaur skeleton in the Research Institute set plus some of those skeleton builds look questionable.

Jedi Council is too big and tied to an existing license so forget that.

Same with the Jurassic Park Visitor Center.

Modular Train Station has the same problems as other modulars that got rejected.

Old fishing store is cool but I cant see it passing the "will it sell" test.

Particle accelerator wont sell to anyone who isn't a scientist, geek or physics guy even ignoring any safety or size issues.

BB8 has the magnet issue (its now illegal in many countries to use small magnets like that in toys, even the USA has imposed restrictions on toys with magnets small enough for a child to swallow) plus the "existing license" problem

Not sure about the Johnny 5 set or the Gingerbread House

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless LEGO has already a gingerbread house in the works, I would say that's the set with more chances of being approved

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless LEGO has already a gingerbread house in the works, I would say that's the set with more chances of being approved

Funny thing is that we are rumored to get a full size Holiday Train this year. The two limited edition sets last year were a miniature holiday train and a gingerbread house. So it is possible that Lego has at least considered the idea of making a minifig scale structure. With that said, I do agree that this seems to have the best chance of being made into a set this round.

If there is no problem with the BB-8 using magnets, then this is probably the best chance a Star Wars set has of being produced. BB-8 is extremely popular, and such a set would probably sell very well. Like most others, I have a feeling the magnets are more the issue than even the license this time around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the list of items for review:

Fossil Museum wont get made, its too niche

You have got to be kidding.

With 708 days left (lol), "Voltron - Defender Of The Universe" by len_d69 got the 10000 supporters today

Aw, darn it. I wanted to support that one myself, but I was still catching up on the past few weeks' projects, and hadn't gotten to it. Oh, well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aw, darn it. I wanted to support that one myself, but I was still catching up on the past few weeks' projects, and hadn't gotten to it. Oh, well.

Well, we'll blame you for the extra months we have to wait before we get the outcome for this one! :sad::wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the list of items for review:

Fossil Museum wont get made, its too niche, they already did a dinosaur skeleton in the Research Institute set plus some of those skeleton builds look questionable.

Jedi Council is too big and tied to an existing license so forget that.

Same with the Jurassic Park Visitor Center.

Modular Train Station has the same problems as other modulars that got rejected.

Old fishing store is cool but I cant see it passing the "will it sell" test.

Particle accelerator wont sell to anyone who isn't a scientist, geek or physics guy even ignoring any safety or size issues.

BB8 has the magnet issue (its now illegal in many countries to use small magnets like that in toys, even the USA has imposed restrictions on toys with magnets small enough for a child to swallow) plus the "existing license" problem

Not sure about the Johnny 5 set or the Gingerbread House

Pretty much my thoughts. Though I didn't know the fact about magnets. I think Johnny 5 and Gingerbread House have the best chances though honestly unless the house went for a decent price($40 or lower) I don't think I'd buy any of them.

Edited by Tech Artist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Voltron set looks good but.... I don't think it'll pass the review

EDIT

And now Spaceballs - Eagle 5, by NvdK, achieved the 10000 supporters

1448543-Eagle_5_Ideas_title.png

Edited by Robert8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most previously approved LEGO Ideas sets were made in physical bricks, but the Adventure Time set was recently approved, so maybe they're less tight on what can be approved and what isn't. Not saying LDD models are always bad mind you, but generally they're the most plentiful of all projects, and don't stand out. It's why I believe out of the two Doctor Who sets the physical version was chosen, and it just looked nicer. As for the Voltron set, it looks too large to be made into an Ideas set, so I can't see that passing. The timing for Spaceballs is downright perfect, with the 30th anniversary being just next year. If it gets approved I can see it coming out before it normally should (I.E. The Ecto-1 releasing before the Exo-Suit even when the Exo-Suit was a whole review period before the Ecto-1) just so that it does release during the 30th anniversary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a huge Spaceballs fan, but as much as I would love an Eagle 5 set, I just don't see it being made. Apart from the rumoured deal between Brooks and Lucas that prohibits any merchandise (hence the joke about it in the movie), I doubt it would pass brand fit as there is a bit of swearing and innuendo, plus it isn't that well known outside of it's cult following, not like some of the other 80s movies that have passed that have a much wider audience, even today.

Apart from the above reasons, it surely would tick all the boxes in regards to size and build quality, it would even fit better into town layouts than most of the other Ideas sets as it is 6 wide instead of 8

Ideas really has a fascination with the eighties, doesn't it? :laugh:

That's because most of the builders grew up in the 80s when these movies/shows were screening and we all have very found memories of them.

I'd love to see the Voltron model too, that cartoon was great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys!

A "technical" question. How would you judge this rule:

Please only suggest new ideas. No projects to “bring back” old LEGO sets.

Don't submit projects requesting we re-release or “bring back” discontinued LEGO products or themes in their original form, and don’t submit projects that are “modifications,” “improvements,” or “expansion sets” to existing or past LEGO sets. If you’re submitting a project based on a discontinued LEGO theme or brand (for example Blacktron or Octan), it must be your own new, creative work.

against projects like:

Mini Wall-E

Wall-E

Imperial Shuttle

Taj Mahal

etc.

All these projects could be said being "modifications" on past LEGO sets?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure if there is a place for Johnny 5 after Wall-E. They are both sentinent robots with big cute eyes :wink: its for me like someone wants to submit a different version of the exo suit really. This said, I'd love to see the fossil museum going through though :laugh:

The fishing store would be great too. The council chamber could absolutely work, if made in a more simplified way, like built open and with more basic walls. Much more like the Dr. Who set than the Ghostbusters HQ. And i can clearly see the gingerbread house being made!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A "technical" question.

All these projects could be said being "modifications" on past LEGO sets?!

I'm not sure about them being a "modification", but they are certainly very similar to existing/previous products, I would bust them on that. That is if there's a written rule about that sort of thing.

But if you are talking major scale changes like that Taj Mahal, I don't know if you could just rule it out for being a model of the same thing. The architecture sets come in different scales, some are of the same building.

I think by "modification" the Ideas team is talking about really obvious copies with slight changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys!

A "technical" question. How would you judge this rule:

against projects like:

Mini Wall-E

Wall-E

Imperial Shuttle

Taj Mahal

etc.

All these projects could be said being "modifications" on past LEGO sets?!

I'd say mini Wall-E, Wall-E and Taj Mahal are just projects based on the same idea, not modifications of the already released LEGO sets

By "modification on past LEGO set" I'd say they mean to take the actual LEGO set and resubmit it after some minimal changes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ideas really has a fascination with the eighties, doesn't it? :laugh:

The 80's were great, so that's something I love about the Ideas submissions.

As for the other question, I would say that no alternate version of an existing product is likely to pass, nor should it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys!

A "technical" question. How would you judge this rule:

against projects like:

Mini Wall-E

Wall-E

Imperial Shuttle

Taj Mahal

etc.

All these projects could be said being "modifications" on past LEGO sets?!

I honestly don't think they should be allowed. It's like people putting out 66 Batmobiles right after/before 76052 came out - it's already out. Why even bother?

Edited by CM4Sci

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys!

A "technical" question. How would you judge this rule:

against projects like:

Mini Wall-E

Wall-E

Imperial Shuttle

Taj Mahal

etc.

All these projects could be said being "modifications" on past LEGO sets?!

I don't see these projects as breaking that rule, but I put all of them (Except maybe the Taj Mahal) into the category of redundant projects. Whenever a licensed Idea gets really popular you'll see some copies of it pop up relatively soon thereafter, (There were a million deloreans in the CUUSOO days) or in the case of WALL-E for months afterwards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if LEGO were to take down a bunch of the ideas that are obviously pointless, or just bad, then those builders would eventually stop being interested in Ideas at all, and stop supporting projects as well. Then it would be even harder to get 10,000 supporters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys!

A "technical" question. How would you judge this rule:

against projects like:

Mini Wall-E

Wall-E

Imperial Shuttle

Taj Mahal

etc.

All these projects could be said being "modifications" on past LEGO sets?!

None of those are really pitching modifications or re-releases of past sets, they just happen to depict the same subjects as past sets. If you were to disqualify any project that happened to depict the same subject as a past set, that would mean no space shuttles, no submarines, no fire engines, no police cars, etc, because all of those things have been in LEGO Town or LEGO City in some form.

Granted, I doubt any of those projects are going to succeed in review, because many of them ARE probably too similar to existing sets, or are already a part of an existing license agreement, or just don't offer enough unique features that the previous set of the subject did not. But they don't even come close to breaking any rules. And an "if it's ever been a set it can't be an Ideas project" rule would be excessively limiting, because there's no way to know where to draw the line. Should a 600-piece LEGO Technic Formula 1 project be disqualified because LEGO had a Formula 1 set back in 1975? Should a minifigure-scale double-decker bus project be disqualified because there was a London Bus set in 1966? Should a brick sculpture of William Shakespeare be disqualified because there was a William Shakespeare minifigure? It's just plain impractical, especially since some people might pitch a project without even realizing there's been a set of the same subject in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that if LEGO were to take down a bunch of the ideas that are obviously pointless, or just bad, then those builders would eventually stop being interested in Ideas at all, and stop supporting projects as well. Then it would be even harder to get 10,000 supporters.

That's the only justification for crappy projects I've heard that makes any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't think they should be allowed. It's like people putting out 66 Batmobiles right after/before 76052 came out - it's already out. Why even bother?

In the case of your example, it would be because the '66 Batmobile is just a part of a much larger set, to the point that there's a huge difference between the two sets. While I get why they wouldn't approve that project when the already have the '66 Batcave, I'm honestly surprised they preemptively archived the project before it even made it into a review batch. I do think they should have just let it end peacefully in review.

That's the only justification for crappy projects I've heard that makes any sense.

Perhaps, but it's certainly a sufficient justification all by itself. Disallowing all those less-accomplished projects by the teeming unwashed masses right out of the gate surely would turn off a bunch of those submitters and turn them away from Ideas entirely, and the remaining projects would accrue votes that much more slowly. Fewer projects would even make it to review.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, given the apparent fervor for getting an official LEGO set based on The Legend of Zelda via Ideas, there's something I found interesting about this Ideas blog post from a couple months ago, but I forgot to mention it earlier:

image.jpg1_8.jpg

Do you see it? There, in the upper left, directly to the left of and behind the TIE Fighter:

efcea28e-c108-48fb-a45b-99eea9fdfef1.jpg

Okay, it could be nothing - maybe someone there is just a fan, but... well, still, why is it there? I do note it appears to be not a LEGO model but a conventional sculpture. Are those things sold commercially?

Hmmm...

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.