ummester

Ok, I misinterpreted the last Greenpeace advert, thinking the emphasis was on a popular toy being petroleum based and not a marketing deal with an oil company. Can someone explain what the message in this recent add is to me? If the LEGO artic melts LEGO minifigs won't be able to ride LEGO polar bears? I don't get it? Why don't Greenpeace just state their claims in the ads? Seriously, marketing people these days, including the ones that work for Greenpeace, seem kind of tapped to me. Why not have some words - kids can still read, well, perhaps not as well as they were once taught but most still can. Why doesn't Greenpeace just have some straight up text describing their issue - Kids, LEGO is a nice toy but its made out of petrol. Also, the LEGO company is in bed with an oil giant that is mining a limited resource from an area of the planet that is already under threat due to climate change. Think about this when you play with your LEGO - it may indirectly impact coming generations of polar bears. If you like polar bears and LEGO, write to LEGO and say you want them to speed up research on new plastic and end ties with shell. If enough children do this, I'm sure LEGO will listen because LEGO likes to make money from your parents :D Ok, well perhaps a little less cynical - but I am sure if Greenpeace was direct with parents and children, now that it has some attention, it would make more sense than that advert.

Some is AFOL nostalgia, I agree but some is a concern that children don't use their imaginations as much as they once did. I agree that kid's go for the things you mention - but it is a bit of a chicken and egg scenario - do they prefer identifiable characters and adversarial conflict because it truly gives them the greatest pleasure, or because it is what is sold to them? My children have entered their dark ages now - their LEGO being discarded for other interests and I admit that I re-enforced the above points by buying them more Star Wars (probably because I thought it was cool). But thinking back, they got the most imagination flexing from Bionicle. Star Wars had good guys and bad guys too distinctly defined - what is more even the weapon and vehicle types and colours were defined for the range. With Star Wars, they were imposed upon to build and play to a predetermined universe - with Bionicle, not as much - we made dragons, spiders, spaceships, warriors and all sorts of things - the less defined the range is, I find the more expansive it suggests the child's imagination should be. I know, I should have brought them Creator sets :D Point being, original CS design constrained the imagination less than any of the ideas mentioned. And, whether they think they would like it or not, isn't it better to strive to push child's play away from commercialised franchises, defined boys and girls stuff, good guys and bad guys and promote the use of their imaginations instead?

Great design and amazing render - what did you use?

Another one I put this one up not too long back. https://ideas.lego.com/projects/72716 It's becoming a theme on Ideas. TLG will probably get the hint and make some sets. The Exo suit is probably a test case for sales :D Re the discussion - I don't think there should be factions (like Aliens, or bad guys or anything) if Classic Space is rebooted. I don't even think the minifigs should have sexes - they should just be the classic smiley faces, humanoid astronauts in red and white with all story telling elements to be supplied by the child building. In my mind, the true power of CS was that it was a blank slate - it fed the imagination of builder/child playing in a way that no other LEGO Sci FI themed lines have done.

Surprisingly it's coming up at $49.99 AU in my cart (I expected $75) but it is out of stock.

Oh - didn't realise that - I thought that it tracked unique views, not repeat views.

I didn't mean it like that Heppeng (I meant made out of Trans clear parts) - but that is brilliant. An Exclusive nothing.

Thanks for the support Lind 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'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.

I must admit that licensed sets (Star Wars) pulled me out of my dark ages. I can see how and why the shift happened - a necessary evil, perhaps. It would be nice if it shifted back the other way though - now that LEGO is on it's feet again. I didn't notice that - every time I have tried to order parts from LEGO direct (which is only really in the last year) it has been more cumbersome and expensive than Bricklink. It was Bricklink where I had to pay 50c per fleshy hand, vs 1c per cheese slope.

Awesome creativity - with some excellent little touches. The compass is fantastic.

I agree with Csacsa - it's a good rendition that has all the major elements in place but it needs to be a bit longer/sleeker to be exactly like the game. A very nice idea and build though.

Pretty cool. The Brain Bug does have the most interesting profile. Where are the round bricks on the tail of the sharp shooter from? The look really great with the holes in them. Are they official parts or custom made?

That's really nice - captures the feeling of the scene perfectly.

SDCC exclusive minifigs - when pandering to nerdism creates economic unrest I have no vested interest in this beyond the issue that I can buy 50 cheese slopes for the price of 1 flesh toned hand. I don't mind that a cost of a MOC is determined by the rarity of the parts involved, I'm opposed to that rarity being influenced by the promotion of and desire to have a wall full of little plastic characters, when the characters are comprised of elements from a toy designed for construction and imaginative creation.

These are good questions. I would say. 1. LEGO and the comic/IP represented. 2. The organizers/investment body for the convention. 3. Primarily the convention attendees. They are being serviced with getting something special for attending the convention. 4. Increases hype for super hero based products, with a definite slant towards the minifig as a collectible item. My only issue with all of this is that a marketing strategy that generates more interest in the minifig undermines the brick. LEGO is far greater than the minifg but both the company and, it seems to me, the larger percentage of fans, now promote/prize the minifig above the brick. Instead of giving a minifg away at these conventions, why doesn't LEGO give a small build away? A tiny Batman car smaller than minifig scale. A little invisible jet, smaller than what a Wonder Women minifg could sit in? In my eyes, either of these give aways would play more to the strengths of the LEGO product and this would solve any issues people have about it not being fair because, although the packaging for the convention may be unique, the parts would be readily available to anyone wo wanted to assemble their own and there is no way they would fetch $500 on Ebay.

Thanks for clarifying julocka, that the printed eye tile is OK will probably put a few minds at ease :) Totally appreciate that it's up to the judges, just used my entry as an example for the questions. BTW - there are some really cool and inventive designs in the entry thread, some ideas that have made me smile. Nice turtle construction all round.

opn2 rude may have been the wrong word if you want to get all technical - it was an expression of feeling more than precise grammar. A single minifig does not have the same possibility for building, experimentation and creation as say a Mixel - or 50 pieces of LEGO which cost the same. The modern minifig is basically a sell out - it's pandering to a pop culture collection driven mindset which I personally find below the good points of LEGO. I like variety in minifg parts - I said that, I like that the pop culture driven minifig has given rise to flesh coloured parts, you can't have good without the bad. But the idea of either children or AFOLs putting more value on a Batman, or a Jabba, or a UniCat, or whatever or is exactly the type of mentality that gives rise to debates such as the one in this thread.

jodawill - LEGO is obviously my favourite toy also. But I think it is kind of biased to think that nothing about LEGO is political.

The curves aren't necessarily gone Dredgen. It's all just options at this stage. What I would like, if the project gathers enough support, is for the supporters to somehow vote on the elements that can be changed - a poll perhaps - to work out a preferred version.

You can't 'find' and SDCC exclusive in the same way you can 'find' Mr Gold. But, I recon the idea of Mr Gold is pretty rude also. The idea of collectable minifigs is rude - where is the build ability in that? Where is the avenue for creativity in that? Sometime during my dark ages the minifig changed from being a generic humanoid element from a build, to some kind of licensed, collectable and sought after action figure. I think what the modern minifig has become detracts from the quality of the LEGO product overall - but, without this shift, there would probably be no flesh toned parts, which I prefer to build with, so I guess you have to take the good with the bad.

If a meme goes viral it will probably have more effect than writing to a company.

Nice level of detail for the size of the build - well done.

The buggy is very cool.

Thanks for comments and support. Believe it or not, designing that robot took longer than the rover or tracking station, I'm glad it is appreciated. The working name in my head was 'Retrobot'. The deactivation switch on his back (round red tile, as a shout out to HAL :D) is so that he could be used as a classic sci fi plot device - robot running amok kind of thing. I didn't want to clarify that on the Ideas page - because the project was developed around the idea that that set actually expanded my imagination as a child. It looked cool but was kind of a blank slate as far as story telling went - I was trying to somehow recreate that feeling. No defined good or bad guys, no defined men or women even - just some human astronauts exploring space with the builders/players imagination as their guide. Oh, my next and current project has a minifg sized 'robot' character, which is also proving the most difficult element to design. I take my hat off to builders that can pull out great shapes/designs on such small scale - it's not easy.

That's an interesting point re Azog, Anio - some exclusives do not remain exclusive. Yet, I see this as more reason to stop exclusives, to protect those poor collectors who get royally ripped off. It seems we agree on sentiment but not method - I agree that people should get over wanting exclusives so much, though I also I think that, if there were no exclusives, there would be nothing for people to get over.