ShaydDeGrai

I think the real question is really, how committed is TLG to going after potential customers _outside_ of their traditional demographic. Friends doesn't do a lot for me, personally, but I like the concept better than I did Belville and I appreciate the color palette. That said, I have a number of friends in SWE (Society of Women Engineers) and they are completely thrilled by the offering and as a former educator, I embrace the idea of getting construction toys in the hands of young girls before gender stereo-types start telling them there's something wrong with them if they actually enjoy something other than tea parties with stuffed animal and Barbie dolls. I'm a big LOTR fan but I'm also (or perhaps because I'm such a fan) disappointed by TLG's offerings to date. The LotR is so much bigger and richer than a few mini-figures and play sets (with gratuitous play features) There's nothing fundamentally WRONG with the sets they've released to date, but if you're NOT an eight year old whose only experience with Middle Earth has come from Peter Jackson's films, you just can't help thinking "That's it? Where are the Ultimate Collector Set models? Where are the Architecture-style models I can display at the office?" Even if you _ARE_ an eight year old you find yourself asking "Where's Galadriel? Or Arwen? Or Eowyn? Or any other female character for that matter? What about Elrond? Saruman? Gandalf the White? The Witch King? Denathor? Treebeard?" There's just so much untapped potential, the current line leaves you feeling hungry rather than excited. Friends could be as open ended as Creator if TLG were to made a serious commitment to making it so, but it doesn't have the best track record when it comes to attracting and keeping a female audience compared to fielding kits that virtually leap into the hands of young boys. On it's surface, the LotR currently looks to be stuck somewhere between a Prince of Persia and a Harry Potter line, but if TLG actively sought to engage adult LOTR fans (not just existing TFOLs and kids who _also_ like LOTR) a Middle Earth line could be as big as Lego Star Wars (I'm sure I'm making myself a target here but...) if you look beyond the film to the books, Tolkien's other literary works, notes and letters, 70 years of fan art both commercial and otherwise, the three ages of Middle Earth offer a huge universe to drawn upon for kits, by comparison (and I say this both as an informed Star Wars fan and someone ready to duck) the Star Wars just isn't that rich (yes I have read the books, the comics, seen the movies and TV shows, played the games, etc. SW is big, but when it comes to real substance and originality its not the be-all-end-all universe some fans think). Unfortunately The Silmarillion is not exactly typical reading for your average eight year old and I just don't see Morgoth taking down the Valar with flick-fire missiles so TLG would really have to go outside their comfort zone to capitalize on this market.

I think AndyC is very much on target here. If you're planning to retire off of your CuuSoo royalties, I wish you the best but hope you're keeping your day job. Personally, I've got seven projects active over there with about a grand total of one thousand votes between them _combined_. I doubt I'll ever see any money from them but I like to think that the statistics TLG gets from CuuSoo at least _inform_ their internal conversations about what sort of kits and themes people are after; what it is about a given kit makes someone support _this_ model but not _that_; what makes a _fair_ price-point in the AFOL community; etc. It takes a fair amount of self-promotion just to get a few dozen votes once your project slips of the "new projects" radar, but I'd like to _think_ that even the projects that haven't yet made it to the formal review stage but have managed to rise above the noise of the crowd are at least getting unofficial notice by the-powers-that-be.

I gave it a maybe, but not due to frequency of use or lack thereof. I'd start by just redesigning the site they have to play better on an iPad under Safari. Go with pure HTML 5, no plug-ins, no Flash, no Java, no IE work-a-rounds that degrade standards compliant browsers, etc.; just HTML5, CSS3 and Javascript with pages that adapt gracefully to smaller screen sizes, limited bandwidth and touch gestures in place of keyboard and mouse. A "from-the-ground-up" HTML5 design can get you native device resolution matching, animation, media streaming and secure communication without any of the patches, plug-ins and overhead we used to need just a few years ago. CSS is finally powerful enough to allow you to scale and rearrange things properly such that controls are large enough to interact with without zooming, essential information can be clustered without 2D scrolling, and when more space is available (such as on a desktop) it can be filled with optional extras rather than just whitespace. If you want S@H to have the look and feel of a native app on your iOS or Android device, if designed properly, you can even save the site as a tap-able icon on your device to launch in a frameless browser session without getting mired in device-specific native object code. The trend (at least with my customers) seems to be to design for two modes, 2.5-7" screens (for smart phones and small tablets) and 7"+ (for large tablets and desktops) A seven inch diagonal seems to be about the point where you need to redesign your workflow rather than simply adapt your layout for the change in screen real estate. I've only had one customer in the past two years actually ask for support under 2.5" (for Blackberry) and since the introduction of Chrome, most people (outside of Australia, Saudi Arabia and China) have stopped bending over backwards to accommodate IE. I don't know that a small screen (~320x480) version of S@H for mobile phones would be worth the effort of developing "tiny viewport workflows" compared to the richer experience a 10" tablet or Desktop site would offer. Since _I_ started with tablets, the only thing I use my smart phone for these days is voicemail and checking the time I don't even do email on it anymore.

I feel like I just went through detox "cold turkey" (*shudder*) I'm so glad you guys are back and thank you for continuing to supply us with our daily dose of LEGO banter.

I'm both a collector and a MOC builder so I'm really a fan of both. I appreciate the _idea_ of a complete set and try to keep a few handy for days when I just want to open a box, follow an instruction book and chill out. Other than trying to find just the right part in 20+ open polybags, there's no stress with a kit, you just watch it come together as you work and enjoy yourself (Technic kits are especially fun in this regard in that sometimes you don't even know what part of the model you're working on as you build it). Occasionally, you learn a new building trick or discover a part you'd never seen before. They're fun. Parts, on the other hand are like crayons, paints, clay or any other creative medium of your choosing. Often the more variety you've got to play with, the more creative you can get. Creativity can be a double edged sword, though. It's great when your vision comes to life and frustrating when it doesn't. The breadth and diversity of the collection that you have to draw from can often help make the difference (but if the collection gets too big you're back to the stresses of trying to find things, where to store them, how to explain to the wife why there's 10,000 bricks and an Argonath covering the dining room table with company coming over in less than an hour, etc.) I rarely buy sets to use for just parts (unless its a good sale or the set has a good supply of less common parts) but I never leave the local LEGO store without a packed PAB cup even if I don't have any major projects in mind at the moment. If I do have a design in mind, I'll pop over to Bricklink or S@H, but even there I'll always order extras in case my design changes. In the end, I think it all just comes down to what you want to do.

I filled a tall cup the other night and after an our with my brick separator this morning it seems I got: 107 clear cheese wedges 102 tr. orange cheese wedges 15 red 1x8 tiles 118 brown 1x2 plates 51 red 1x2 hinge brick upper 51 red 1x2 hinge brick lower 28 sand yellow 4x4 plates 17 sand yellow 2x10 plates 7 clear 1x2x2 walls 35 black 1x2 profile bricks 39 sand yellow 1x4 bricks 88 sand yellow 1x2 palisade bricks 148 sand yellow 1x2x2 corner plates 32 tr. yellow 1x1 round plates 61 tr. blue 1x1 round plates 77 tr. red 1x1 round plates For a total of 925 parts, or a price of about 1.5 cents pert part. It's nowhere close to my best effort but compared to ordering the parts individually at PAB S@H prices (133.80 USD) it works out to about an 89% savings, so I figure it's not a bad haul.

I for one will miss them. Ever since discovering these things, I've made it a habit to clean out the entire stock on hand whenever I visit my 'local' store. Usually it's just three or four bags, but still, I leave the bin empty. Not only were they a good buy with a much wider array of parts than the pick-a-brick wall, it kinda reminded me of the good old days of opening up a pack of bubble gum cards. You never knew what you were going to get. Most of the time they were just duplicates of things you already had, but then there was the unexpected discover of something rare or novel. I can understand the issue of selling "used" parts in the store being a quality control concern, but now I wonder what's going to happen to all those parts from broken down display models and customer returns. I seems a shame to see them end up in a recycle bin when they have so much fun left in them.

Cool. And a January release would be just right for my birthday, it must be fate. I'd better start dropping hints now...

Surprisingly, I've just acquired my first cow. I picked up Medieval Market Village the other day and realized that somehow, over the past 40+ years of collecting LEGO, I've got enough horses to populate Rohan but I've never had any LEGO cattle, now I have two.

Thanks, I hope it wasn't too much of a rambling rant.

I know 10k can seem like an impossible goal, but this is more than "just another modular building" in both its design and its intent. I applaud both your efforts and your goals. Good luck. ... And for what it's worth, you're now one vote closer to 10,000

There are a number of things about CuuSoo that I think could be done better (and I've posted my opinions on such both here and on their feedback site) but one pet peeve I have really isn't something that I expect TLG to fix. Of late my biggest issue isn't with the site, but with the people who go there and (very vocally) just don't get it. The thing I think most people miss is the simple fact that it's TLG's job to decide what is or is not feasible and that making such decisions is the very purpose of the REVIEW stage. Too many CuuSoo users see themselves as gatekeepers, self-appointed keepers of the faith, determined to shoot down projects they deem unworthy (or at best, unlikely) I think the biggest reason why licensed projects occasionally shoot past all others is because those ideas appeal to a mass audience that ISN'T fixating on what TLG will or won't ultimately produce, they just click a button move on. My Little Pony racked up thousands of votes in a matter of hours (mostly by people who came to CuuSoo just to cast that one vote) despite that the entire toy line is closely guarded Hasbro Intellectual Property. While I'm sure there are a lot of disappointed My Little Pony fans out there, it is an example of how the system is _supposed_ to work. The crowd said "We want this!" TLG heard them, looked into the reality of the situation and came back and said "Sorry". In the case of Minecraft, they said "Here." In neither case, was it a question of this model versus that, or a crowd of AFOLs arguing amongst itself on legal issues, or similarity to existing kits, or scale, or price, or theme propriety. MLP and MC fans didn't get bogged down by that they just, by and large, cheered on the idea. CuuSoo is about concepts and ideas. There has never been nor likely will ever be a _model_ that passes review and gets produced verbatim. The models that people post are just advertising for their ideas and when you support an idea at CuuSoo you are supporting a concept, not an implementation. If you voted for MB's UCS Sandcrawler expecting his exact model to be available on S@H for $100, I'm afraid I have bad news for you; While that model and that price range might certainly qualify as a "wish" (and if it comes to pass, put me down for 10, it would be awesome) I don't see it ever happening. Does the fact that the things we wish rarely happen mean that we _shouldn't_ support CuuSoo projects? Of course not. Just because a given model (illustrating an idea) might be impractical to market (too small an audience, too big, too expensive, etc.) doesn't mean that the idea itself should summarily be rejected. More to the point, does the fact that I might see a reason why a project might not pass review mean that _I_ should take it upon myself to dissuade people from even advancing this model to the review stage where such factors can be considered by professional with a vested financial interest? Absolutely not. As someone who has run brainstorming sessions tackling real problems, it really irks me when I'm browsing projects over at CuuSoo and find projects where some self appointed pundit has not just decided not to support a project, but taken the time to explain why TLG would never produce X and go on to call anyone who supports the project in spite of the wisdom he's just shared, an idiot. The rational might be entirely correct, but shooting down an idea, based on the specifics of a model while things are still in a formative stage is really more about one person's ego than effective use of crowd-sourcing. When you support a project, you are given the opportunity to leave private messages to TLG about what you do (or don't) like about the project. I've always assumed (hey, I could be wrong) that these comments would be taken into account (along with price and quantity info) at the review stage. When I supported the Sandcrawler project, I explicitly commented on the scale, lighting and power functions features as key features that would make me buy that one even though I already have the official one and I gave them a realistic ceiling of what I'd be willing to pay. This is the sort of data that belongs in the REVIEW stage because it tells TLG "These are the features of the concept that we need to incorporate in our own version of the model, and we need to be able to market this product for less than X" I'll admit I've been a bit stingy in my support over there (mostly due to the cluttered activity feed (a problem they've recently addressed) dissuading me from be associated with too many projects) but I've also supported projects that I _knew_ I'd never see pass review; Star Trek, Doctor Who, Serenity from Firefly, The Winchester, etc. I knew that other companies owned the IPs or that the material was inappropriate for kids etc. but I supported them anyway. I didn't post comments telling people not to vote for the UCS Sandcrawler because it would be too expensive or not to support a modular courthouse because LEGO was coming out with a Town Hall so it would be redundant. I supported 'unlikely' projects because I wanted TLG to take notice of these quality projects and I wanted to tell TLG _why_ I felt these were quality projects, to help push the debate forward. Maybe none of the projects I propose or support will ever see the light of a store shelf; but then again, maybe TLG will learn something from the data collected at CuuSoo and find ideas that it can fold into other kits and themes that will make their products even more appealing to people like me. I can imagine plenty of scenarios where something good can come out of quietly supporting an unlikely project. I so no benefit whatsoever of using the comments sections as a platform to publicly justify one's own decision not to support something and/or to insult the effort, wisdom or intelligence of others.

I don't know; I remember when the first proto-minifigures first came out in the '70's (the slab bodies with fixed legs, bumps to imply arms, no hands and no face printing). I'd recently read Le Guin's The Lathe of Heaven and the first thing that jumped to mind about the fact that everyone was uniformly yellow was, "Hey, Legoland must be the world without racism that George Orr would have dreamed up if he'd only been a little cheerier to begin with" (in the book everyone is light gray). I'm not quite sure why, but to this day I think of that episode and that book every time the debate of "fleshies" vs. "yellows" arises. With respect to it as an "important aspect" of LEGO, for me, it's a moot point, I'm just not a big mini-figure person in general.

Cool. I'm no photographer, but I'm happy to throw in a couple shots of the Fellowship passing through the Argonath Other shots from this photo set can be found here.

The deal that jumps readily to mind to me was the UCS Yoda set (7194). A local KB Toys was closing and they had three of these guys for 10 USD each, so I bought them all. That worked out to be a bit less than a penny a piece with lots of sand yellow/tan and sand green bricks. The first runner up would have to be the technic set 8466 4x4 Off-Roader for 12 USD. I spotted it on-line, figured it was a mistake but ordered it anyway to see what would happen. It turns out it was a mistake (they'd put the decimal in the wrong place) it was supposed to be 120USD and it had taken them several hours to notice and correct the problem. I got a call from a customer service rep explaining the error. I was expecting them to ask if I still wanted the kit at $120 but, instead, she very politely said it was their mistake and they'd honor the price and she hoped I'd both enjoy the kit and do business with them again in the future. I did both.

I used to be a professor at an engineering school, so, naturally I had to have the school add a LEGO section to our prototyping lab. Sometimes I think kids signed up for my classes just to get their LEGO fix. Academic credit for playing with LEGO, it's no wonder people got wait-listed.

Done! Always happy to praise Eurobricks while sharing my profound apathy toward Facebook and Twitter.

Actually it's just a different kind of programming, the kind cults and spy organizations specialize in; they've got me programmed to buy extra stuff whenever they have a double VIP points promotion -'Double points... must ... buy... LEGO....'

Thanks for posting this link. It was interesting to see TLG's take on things. I freely admit bending a few of these rules myself on occasion, but then I'm not designing my stuff to be played with by a 7 year old.

Obviously I wish TLG had the Star Trek franchise instead of Hasbro, a line of UCS starships and bases would be awesome. Failing that, I've always thought that Stargate SG-1 and Stargate Atlantis would make a great basis for some really cool kits. And for the obscure, as a child, I thought the show UFO from ITC and Gerry Anderson productions was great. My friend had the Dinky Toys collection for their vehicles (SHADO tanks, Moonbase, Intercepters, etc) but I built mine out of LEGO. They weren't very good (and looking back at the show 40 years later, neither was the source material by today's standards) but in its day it was fun.

I could see both The Hobbit and the LotR continuing as parallel successful lines, but predominantly targeted at two different base audiences. Although both are set in Middle Earth, one was clearly written to tantalize a child's imagination while the other was written as the myths from a culture that never was. We'll have to wait to see how the movie versions blur the lines between the kids' story and the war epic. The books that make up the LotR, in my editions, total nearly 1800 pages, while the Hobbit is only 300 so I suspect Peter Jackson will be borrowing from other sources a bit if he expects to get 3 films out of The Hobbit. Will that make make The Hobbit a more mature tale? Will it hurt the Hobbit's appeal to young kids? I guess we'll find out in a few months on that front. In the mean time... From a literary standpoint, The Hobbit is clearly the fun adventure romp through Middle Earth. It was written to appeal to children and has lots of little narrative threads that would translate well to mini-figure-centric play sets. This is essentially the types of kits TLG has been trying to market for the LotR, and for what those sets are, they're okay. As an adult LotR fan, however, I've been generally disappointed with things to date. I'm fine with what they've released, but it's what they haven't release that irks me. The LotR was a more informed, grittier epic fantasy, a cross between Tolkien's own reflections on being in the trenches (literally) of WWI, The Odyessy, The Aeneid, The Kalevara and healthy doses of forethought and imagination. It was aimed at an older audience and is rightly characterized as 'mythic'. Although I think the LEGO sets to date have done okay, the themes, the color palette and the action of LotR make it a tough sell for a toy company aiming at six year olds and priding itself on responsible, educational play. It's just not a kids story (I actually was less than 6 the first time I read it, but that doesn't count, I've always been an outlier) and the films certainly reflect this. I've seen chatter on various LotR fan sites that suggests I'm not the only adult who wishes that TLG would come up with LotR kits with more 'adult appeal', something akin to the SW Ultimate Collectors Series with cool display models that AREN'T just back drops for mini-figures. If TLG already has the license, why not milk it for all it's worth and release kits that showcase the cool places and architecture of Middle Earth like desktop models of Orthanc, The Hornberg, Minas Tirith, Minas Morgul, Barad Dur, etc. [shameless self promotion, I've been pitching this idea over at Cuusoo for a while now) Of course they could continue with the mini-figure play set offerings but the focus of the 6-12 year old market would be biased toward The Hobbit, and the UCS/Architecture line would have more of a LotR slant. I know several people who do NOT self identify as AFOLs but they are Star Wars fans and consider the UCS LEGO SW kits absolute must-haves. It's the only LEGO they buy and only one of them actually cares about the mini-figures at all. They don't bother with battle packs or playsets but they'll spend hundreds on cool looking space ship models that they build once and then let sit around gathering dust for years. I think a similar market exists for The LotR but the offerings to date just don't tap into it and, if TLG wants to keep both The Hobbit and LotR franchises growing, it's something TLG should seriously consider moving forward.

For me, the rule of thumb is simply a question of material: if it's plastic, rubber or metal, it should be a genuine, unmodified LEGO part (I don't consider "right-sizing" things like pneumatic tubing a modification because those particular official parts are designed to be cut to length). I have no objection to the use of LEGO but non-technic parts in technic MOCs, it's all LEGO to me. For other materials like cloth, string, or custom printed labels, again I have no problem so long as the non-LEGO elements are a finishing touch (rather than a focus) of a creation. If someone builds a mammoth crane but runs non-LEGO string through the pulleys, I'm not going to hold that against them; Likewise, an awesome sailboat build doesn't suddenly become some non-LEGO art project just because the creator put a paper sail on the technic mast. If non-traditional coupling techniques are used, like rubber bands or magnets, or even string, I think they should be official LEGO rubber bands, magnet couplers, and 1x1 round string coupled plates because in this situation the items aren't just decorative, they are being used structurally and I think a "genuine" model should be able to support itself using only genuine parts.

The short answer is, it wasn't easy. My workbench looked like there'd been an explosion in a mannequin factory for a long while; hands, heads, feet everywhere in all different sizes and colors. I'd wanted to do these for some time. I first got the idea when the Statue of Liberty kit came out and made a few aborted attempts at smaller, less detailed builds that I was never too keen on. Then, earlier this year when LEGO LOTR was announced I decided to try again, but this time I was armed with a few behind the scenes photo references of the models built by WETA for the movies (which is why one king has a sword instead of an axe, as in the book). I though of the photos as a reference, but not really a "blueprint" just like turning a book into a play, or a play into a movie, rendering a sculpture in LEGO bricks is a change in medium and you need to need to play to the strengths of that medium and the expectations of its audience, so don't get hung up on fidelity, do a good job of conveying the idea you want to get across and the viewer's imagination will smooth over the details. In this case, I decided that the thing that would really sell the Argonath idea was the outstretched hands. If they weren't right it would be a lot harder to make the rest of it work. So I spent a lot of time just making hands. I made little ones, with just an angled plate and a plate hinge for a thumb and big ones that were larger than my own (If I'd kept them all I would have had my own answer to the Rodin Museum...). The trick was find the right balance of detail, shape and scale. I did this mostly with a mix of hand sketches on graph paper (some of which I print myself to get a 2.5x3 box size that matches the proportions of a one stud brick), and good old fashioned rummaging and experimenting with parts. I dabble with LDD and ML-CAD from time to time (mostly when I'm not sure what pieces would capture a shape best and don't feel like opening 100 sorted ZipLoc baggies just to experiment) but the problem I have with the digital tools is that they're low end CAD programs, not true solid object modelers. They'll let to suspend pieces in mid air and allow you to "build" a model that would collapse under its own weight in the real world. They are great when you want to rummage through an infinite supply of rare and obscure parts looking for just the right piece that, when turned sideways and given a bit of a twist captures the shape that you're after, but for me, nothing beats building and rebuilding in real life. Once I cooked up a hand I was happy with, it set the scale for the rest of the model. The fact that the hand was the key design piece also made things a little easier for the rest of the sculpture in that there's lots of data available about the proportions of the hand and the rest of human anatomy, so it set some guidelines for the rest of the design/build. For example, the length from the heel of the hand to the tip of the thumb is about the same as the distance from the tip of the chin to the bridge of the nose, and the eyes are roughly the halfway point on the head, so if the thumb is five and a half bricks long, the head should be about 11 bricks tall. Also the width of the hand (less the thumb) is approximately the spacing of the pupils for most people so now we have a sense of both width and height for the head. A "perfect" human is 8 heads tall (my figures are a bit shorter than that because I wanted a throw in just a subtle dash of mini-figure proportions). So this now I had a sense of how big the figure was going to be (this was also the point where I realized I didn't have nearly enough parts on hand and started ordering more as I continued to refine the design). The first "draft" of the figure was a technic skeleton with properly sized and posable arms, legs, torso and a block of bricks for head. This would serve as my stand in as I tried to figure out what parts of the figure would be most visible and what the overall shape should be. Next I started building heads. Again I resorted to staring at the reference photos, then sketching on paper, then building (repeat as necessary). The beard on the right hand statues was a particular point of frustration and I'm still not happy with it, but sometimes perfectionism gets in the way of progress and borders on procrastination. Other key focal points I built and re-built repeatedly were feet, weapons and the breastplate and chainmail skirt of the left hand figure. I generally assumed that SNOT construction would be in play so I decided to just design the keys bits however they looked best and worry about how to pull all the bits together later. If you look carefully at this guy, you'll notice that the hand, sleeve, sword hilt and helm have very little logic as to which way the studs are going (and the inside is using a fair bit of SNOT-helpers and technic parts to hold it all together. As for the base and the robes, it really just came down to (sometimes less than patiently) building and rebuilding to see what worked and gave the overall model the feel of stone but the flow of cloth. I keep my posable technic skeleton handy to remind me of the overall shape I was going for, and secured key sub assemblies (like the feet or hands) in place as the core structure got tall enough to support them. This was also a bit of trial and error. An early attempt looked like: Much of the form is there but the robe seemed to heavy and chunky, and the quarried mountainside seemed out of place. I put a lot of hours into building this guy so I was hesitant to take him apart. For better or worse, the choice to rebuild was taken from me when I tripped over my cat, dropped the figure and discovered just how many different directions 5000 bricks can bounce. Very little of the original figure was salvageable, so my photos of it had to serve as the basis for the redesign, which came out like: I have no idea how many parts when into these guys in the end (they're pretty heavy despite being mostly hollow). I still have my original sketches but have dismantled most of my prototypes. A fair bit of planning went into the more technical aspects of the SNOT layout, but overall, it was a very organic, do-what-feels-right, rebuild the parts that aren't working sort of process to get to the finished product. Thanks for asking (hopefully you're not regretting the question now )

I'll be the first to admit that I'm no photographer (I usually let my wife take the shots that 'matter') but when I'm trying to pick up small details on LEGO creations, my three best friends are a versatile macro lens, a short tripod and lots of light. As has been pointed out a DIY light box can come in handy (assuming the model fits inside). I'm usually working on larger models so I don't have a light box; I use my dining room (which already has white walls and ceiling and multiple light sources on dimmers that I can readily diffuse to raise ambient light levels). However, ambient light can make it hard to pick up surface details, especially for me, more that half of my LEGO collection is either black, white or some shade of gray. To bring out highlights and shadows on surfaces, I use strategically placed book lights with super bright LEDs. My personal favorite is the Mighty Bright Xflex Light (about 10 USD from Amazon, depending on color) it has a small head with a long flexible neck and battery pack with clip. For lighting a model, the battery pack is heavy enough to act as a base and lets me position the light in tight places (sometimes even inside the model or hidden behind it for backlighting). If the glare is too much, a scrap of tissue paper makes a great diffuser. For accent lighting, tape a bit of colored cellophane or acetate transparency film over the LED and you have a mini-figure scale gel light. I rarely ever use a flash, as I never get the result I expect from one; though I freely admit that this could just be function of the fact that I never really learned how to use all the features that my wife's camera (a mid range Nikon DSLR) offers - I'm pretty sure that with the right settings it could probably order a pizza and tell me when it's time for my car's next oil change, I just haven't read the manual yet.

As if the subject matter wasn't bad enough, it's not even a very good model. You'd think they'd at least be able to get a cease and desist order on the use of the trademarked logo on the packaging.