Another Brick In The Wall

My gut feeling (or wishful thinking) says that one Victorian London Christmas modular will be released .... with a series to continue if successful. Or it will be made into a Mini Modular. Because display ships (as opposed to play set ships) are not big sellers. The significance of this particular ship is probably more to do with who was on it, rather than anything intrinsic to the actual ship. Also, it probably known to <20% of the general population The Beatles license is with K'Nex -- in fact they released the same model in 2015.

I think IDEAS will eventually support larger sets, but yeah, LotR sets are usually bigger than any set in circulation... also IDEAS has never approved a project associated with a previous or concurrent theme. However, next round is a distinct possibility of large set, with at least one building from Victorian London Christmas -- mainly because all the other projects are totally uninspiring.

No Double VIP Points?

How can you send PMs to Lego Ideas creators? I'm specifically trying to get in contact with the creator of the VF-1 macross Valkryie? Anybody know if he is on Eurobricks?

No Double VIP Points in October? Darn

I don't mean any disrespect, but it's thinking like this that nearly bankrupted the company.

Let's wait to see what the Hoth Echo Base set is like before we make sweeping statements. Given the plot details to Rogue One, it's almost certain we'll see another DS set. My personal preference is a reissue of 10143 which was a glorious display set.

TLG is not going keep a set in production just so it has a "flagship" or "ironic" set. They are a profit-based corporation, not a museum. If it's not making them money, they will no longer produce it. Simple as that. Especially since the set in question contains outdated minifigs and specialised parts that no other set uses.

What role is that? We are not privy to how many were sold in the last year? If the Echo Base playset is true, it will easily fill the void.

This would be a totally unprecedented move. There's Ewok Village plus another 4 UCS sets in circulation. Plus the rumored Hoth Echo Base playset.

Does anybody feel the 10937 Arkham Asylum Breakout was retired too early? Did it not sell well?

Isn't UCS Red 5 a Big W exclusive? Any spotted in Syd???

I asked a cute girl who works in the toy section in one of the stores i visited out for coffee.....so i get to stay in the loop (and maybe further discount) (Yes, i realise i may have a serious problem.)

Anybody seen any Slave 1's at Myers in the Sydney area? I've checked at Sydney City, Bondi Junction, Eastgardens

Does the OZ Shop@Home have Double VIP Points in March, like in the US?

This didn't stop them releasing classic Pirates sets between World's End and On Stranger Tides. TLG's PotC license is tied-in with the films. If no film is produced, TLG cannot be stopped from releasing classic Pirates sets. In fact, releasing Captain Hook themed sets is more likely to infringe the PotC licensing agreement, since that IP is held by a different subsidiary of Disney and they are both separate legal entities.

Shame Captain America's not getting an updated helmet like the Flash. http://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/lego-marvel-super-heroes-preview/

No, deep debate is necessary. 1. Mothballing a project does not amount to "Knowledge of a future project". 2. The extent of the LR license restriction would be, at the most, to refrain from undertaking a competing Western theme for the duration of the LR license. Anything more would be an unenforceable as a restraint of trade in most legal jurisdictions. As with the example of PotC, a hiatus in film production allows TLG to market generic Pirates themed models. The LR license would have been concluded on identical terms, as it was between exactly the same parties.

This whole statement is incredulous. What percentage of people who buy Lego products have knowledge that CuuSoo even exists? Of those, what percentage would forgo buying LR licensed models in the faint hope that a project that is mothballed (i.e. may or may not be produced) in 18-24 months time is brought to the market? Only the legal form of the LR license terms conflicted with MWT not the economics of it. Modulars are directed to different Lego demographic. Most LR Lego products were marketed to 6-12 year olds. Only one set (Colby City Showdown) incorporated constructions that resembled anything remotely like MWT. Therefore, mere knowledge of their existence could not have conflicted with the LR license.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? If there was a license conflict, surely the LR license was finalized. No, it would not. No licensing agreement can be that far-reaching to exclude future projects after the license is extinguished. It would be unenforceable as a restraint of trade. Irrespective of this, if CuuSoo genuinely believed MWT was a worthwhile project they could have used vague language such as "the design is subject to further consideration in view of pre-existing licensing obligations." Intuitively, even if they openly said we will produce MWT in 2015 when LR ends, do you really think it would have had a material impact on sales of LR in 2013-14?

Mothballing a future project cannot infringe a license agreement. It's like saying TLG will never produce another Pirates theme because of a short-term PotC license. Indeed, they produced generic themed Pirates models between PotC films.

Which begs the question why CuuSoo didn't decree something similar with respect to Western Modular Town. The LR sets are not going to see a second wave and there will be no sequel.

The licensing agreement between Lucasfilm (Disney) and Lego is a long-term deal negotiated at arm's length. These are rare in the business world. One of the reasons they are rare is because the licensor fear the licensee will degrade the value of the intellectual property over the period of the license. Consequently such license agreements are restrictive on the people that may use the license. (i.e. independent contractors are often explicitly excluded). TLG designers are agents of the licensee. They do not directly profit from using the license. Their design remains the property of the licensee. By giving marshall_banana a royalty associated with the CuuSoo project, he is acknowledged to be the part economic owner of this particular model, contrary to the terms of pre-existing license agreement.

Licenses are not granted for each model. TLG already has a licence to produce Land Rover vehicles, just like they have a license to produce Star Wars and DC vehicles. In case of the Sandcrawler, Disney did not permit a third party (marshall_banana) to benefit from use of the Star Wars license.

Which fortuitously appear on the bike mechanic of Series 10 CMF.