Faefrost

They probably did a pretty thorough review of a high degree of projects in the database when they ended the last review period and announced the results. At least most of the projects over 1000 or 500 votes that would have been flagged by their comments previously.They mapped it all out before posting the changes. I don't think THAT many projects have gone away yet. Probably the really obvious ones or those that cannot be converted. Straight Up new part proposals. Software, Electronics, Minifig collector sets, etc. The notices most likely went out the same time the new rules were posted.

If you can pull it off it's the sort of thing that the reviewers would probably love.

Tonight after showing Tangled on one of the Disney channels there was a brief teaser preview for Disney XD's upcoming new shows. It led off with a brief clip from Rebels of the Ghost running from a trio of classic ISD's.

A number of old canopies and cockpits have long since faded into history. Plus the entire line of old style finger hinges. A lot of old Classic Space specific parts. I'm sure there's a huge list. Plus some older part variations that allow for unusual geometries that just can't be accomplished with modern. Such as the old Macaroni bricks. The two main issues will be old parts for which there simply is no modern equivalent, and will never be made again, such as the old Monorail track. Or parts that permit connections or geometries that are unique.

It isn't just the quantities of the CMF's. It's the margin. In a normal set you really can't use 30%+ of the sets retail price to fund a new part. But that kind of cost is pretty much built into the CMF's.

The original set was not technically a UCS set. It was a very large exclusive set. Just as technically The Death Star set, The Ewok Village and the Cloud City sets are not really 'UCS" in terms of style or build. They are minifig scale system sets. Just on an epic scale and content. (UCS sets tend to be more super detailed display sets. This is probably more of a large well minifiged play set.)

You might be able to tell by digging around in Glenbricker's data? I would guess that it is stuff that really has no chance of being changed or modified. Probably a couple of Comic Super Heroes blind bag projects, the LDD 3DS project etc.

There is legitimate social pressure. And then there is some of what attempts to disguise itself as such on modern college campuses, but lacks any actual ethical, scientific or academic standards. And it is getting increasingly difficult for the average layperson to distinguish between the two. Case in point, Ms. Sarkeesian's well funded, broadly watched but factually shaky and ethically challenged presentations on video games, or her two part series on Lego in particular.

I think with existing and active licences it is a little more complicated than the simplicity of "inevitable discovery". It's more a matter of "There is already a clear existing contract in place to make these subjects should both parties choose to. That contract does not have room or accommodations for third parties or outside contractors." I actually think that ANY SW projects that stem from ILM or Lucasfilms on screen designs will be DOA at review. But more obscure EU subjects that have not appeared in a movie or TV series might still be viable, if just barely. I also don't think we will ever see a suped up or UCS variation of a specific subject that they have already released as a set in some form. There are of course exceptions to some of this. One good example of a project that touches on an existing license but might still have potential would be the Barris Batmobile from the 60's TV show. While it is more or less a Batman IP, the actual license for the vehicle was held by the cars creator rather than DC Comics or the television producers. So it would carry its own stand alone license for something like a Lego set.

Asking TLG for a greater spread of female representation is not unreasonable. However the people asking should take a better assessment of Lego's current policies and offerings rather than responding to out of date Internet rankings from those with more agenda than facts. To be fair there is room for improvement on both sides. Lego has made great strides in becoming less boy focused but still has a few weak spots ( as an example in my collection there are probably a hundred assorted blondes and brunette females. 4 or 5 clearly identifiable Asian females. A host of multicolored female aliens. And yet the only identifiable black females (humans) are from the Friends line. A young black FOL of my acquaintance does take some issue with this. ). Whereas much of the push for more female Minifigs seems to be coming from a certain Cloistered University Inteligensia, heavily influenced by poorly supported feminist outrage and urban legend. (Really? City sets are bad because the box is blue? Seriously folks?) In the end Lego's best option is to read the letter, nod their heads politely, and then do what they feel is best for their business, product line, and what the kids seem to enjoy playing with. They've been right more often than wrong so far.

Lego bricks are of astonishing precision with very very tight tolerances. Remember the whole concept of "System" where bricks must connect to every other brick in a variety of ways, every time. So the main molds for the ABS construction elements are designed for millions of cycles using high temperature high pressure plastics. It's a far cry from the molds needed for something like the arms and legs of an action figure. Lego's specs are probably some of the highest for any Injection Molded Plastics manufacturers. With tolerances probably approaching auto or aircraft engines in some regards. (I don't say that lightly. It's just that in most cases IP plastics don't need quite such tight tolerances.) And many of Lego's molds are expected to work for millions of shots. So yeah a lot of Lego's molds are extremely expensive. This more than anything is the difference between Lego and the questionable quality of the clone brands. (Here's one of the dirty little secrets about all of those specialty parts that Megabloks uses. Have you ever noticed that they just aren't that useful outside of the set they were designed for? Or a very narrow application? That's because they don't actually have the degree of connectivity, and thus precision of the more typical bricks.) Also remember that for Lego the tooling and molds are the core of the business. They are the principled value asset. So if they pick and choose what molds to make carefully they easily recoup the expense and turn a major profit with new tooling. The secret to that is to only commission new tooling when you can clearly see a path to amortizing the costs. Regular retail sets like Ninjago can offer such possibilities. Unfortunately CuuSoo and certain specialty D2C type sets do not. (Note we don't get exclusive new tooling in Modulars).

I would assume that projects built using legitimate but discontinued Lego parts would proceed normally. If they make it to review they would then be evaluated as to whether there was a newer viable part solution. If no then the project fails review. The takeaway is you are better off using current parts. And a monorail while technically within the rules somewhat, will never pass review. So it would at best be a protest project. The same for projects who's geometry requires old style finger hinges.

I think part of it with the new part proposals is both we and those behind CuuSoo failed to fully take into account the shear enormity of what goes into part design. Regular set proposals are basic design work and design validation using existing known elements and parameters. But part design really isn't so much design as it is engineering with an underlying testing and validation need way above what was probably feasible via CuuSoo. Which is a shame. I'm sure there were some fantastic part ideas on there. And I really hope they do figure out a better way to poll the fans for such good ideas. All the changes strike me that CuuSoo is primarily being refined so that it isn't simply about channeling ideas, but also deliverables. In the long term scheme of things this is a good thing. I'm kind of surprised that the guidelines did not offer any advise regarding reasonable size or cost of proposed sets? I figure that discussion will make it's way down the pipeline eventually. (The license issue with the Sandcrawler may have prevented its other problem from really coming into play?)

Regarding the CAD file, the savings would be virtually nil. Actually a user provided CAD design would probably increase costs as TLG designers would have to go back in and re validate every part of it. Lego parts, particularly Structural Elements with high degrees of connectivity, have an extremely high threshold of design precision. The degree of engineering in a simple 2x4 brick is really quite astonishing. When we complain about the differences between Lego parts and clone brands. This is the root of it. The design precision and the mold process and quality. As far as mold and tooling costs? I've been realistically quoted anywhere between $50,000 and $300,000 for just the tooling. With any Lego structural or building elements on the higher end of that. The lower end costs are things like very short run minifig parts that typically only have a single point of connection. Things like the rubbery soft hairpieces or the artists paintbrush and that do not need to fully conform to the Lego System rules. The costs increase based on the number of parts needed (how long do you expect the mold to last? How many cycles?) the type temperature and pressure of the plastic being used? The precision requirements of the parts being produced? What are the tolerances? And how complicated is the part itself? What are the release needs? How complex must the mold be? An example of what is probably fairly lower cost mold would be the CMF Librarian's book. It looks like it is a simple flat 2 piece mold that uses a softer plastic, and it has no connection points to any Lego system connectors. The only thing that would increase its cost is printing. I would guess that at the higher end are any of the ABS construction elements. With larger plates probably being among the worst. They require so much precision and so much care in design to prevent things like part warping (hello Megabloks) It's my understanding that some of the bottom end development costs have come down, as they can now use 3d printers for prototyping and testing instead of more complicated test molding. But the costs of the actual production molds are still quite high. But also remember that for a company like Lego, the molds are the business. They are the principle asset. The primary capital expense.

That should be fine. It is a reasonable single set, brick built, with no new parts. Heck a 2 or 3 distinct builds using the same set of bricks is probably a plus at review.

It means projects can only use existing parts. CuuSoo does not have the capabilities to make new parts or elements. if you read the actual rule and not the summary it clearly states that you cannot submit a project that is a corporate or sports logo or mascot. However a corporate logo etc may be used as an element of a greater Lego build project if it is in context. So the Landrover discovery is fine. It's simply the trucks logo's. The Apple store is probably ok. It's signage on a model of a real world type store or building. The Redit martian thing is gone.

Oh boy more wall o text :D http://lego.cuusoo.com/guidelines No seriously in reading through the actual new Guidelines and House Rules they are much much clearer than the summary. Here are a few key highlights. And a few interesting things that the Summary missed that will really surprise some. - "No submissions with only company or team logos or mascots. Ideas containing a logo or mascot must be in the context of a meaningful LEGO model." I think this addresses Lightningtigers concerns pretty head on. You can't make a model OF a corporate or Sports logo or mascot. You can use a logo in appropriate context for a greater Lego model. So no Purdue Pete. But LT's Ford dealership is fine. - "LEGO CUUSOO is not a gallery to display your creations. Please make it clear through your images and description that you are recommending your submission as a potential LEGO product. If you want to show off your creations instead please post to the LEGO.com Create & Share Galleries and ReBrick." Is anyone else laughing with joy over this one? -"Drawings and photos are OK. You may use your own photos or drawings of non-LEGO objects, as long as you describe how you would make them into a LEGO product." Notice the subtle change here. You can no longer just submit a picture of something and say "I want this made in Lego" you still have to provide some reasonable design work yourself. Be it brick or drawing, etc. -"Your submissions are your own work and no one else’s. You agree not to upload images that belong to someone else as a part of your project, even if that person gives you permission. If you want someone else’s idea to become a reality through LEGO CUUSOO, please ask them to post it. Collaborations between builders is welcome, but please refer to guideline #8 below. You can submit an idea someone else has already submitted, as long as your work is original. For example, two people can submit original designs of the same model car, or original designs of the same item from a movie. In the case of overlap, we will consider the project that reaches 10,000 supporters first, regardless of which project was submitted to LEGO CUUSOO first. Each person must submit their own original work." I'm guessing those last few sentences answers any questions we might have concerning how they will handle the Ghostbusters project issue? First to 10k gets the review. -"When you submit a project on LEGO CUUSOO, you're giving us the rights we need to commercialize your idea. This also means you may not sell anything related to your project independently. You may not sell building instructions, custom kits, or anything related to your project. We will remove projects without notice if we learn you are commercializing content submitted to LEGO CUUSOO. You may share and distribute photos and building instructions free of charge on your own website and online profiles." That seems to clarify a few things regarding monetization and distributing instructions. Overall I kinda really like these changes. They all seem to make sense. Streamline and clean up the process. Cut back on the impossible projects and overall clutter, and encourage clean tight well thought out projects that can actually see a chance of appearing in a box on a store shelf. Refinement is often good.

And just to clarify for everyone. There really is nothing new or unexpected in these new rules. Most of it we have been able to easily glean from observing review results, and applying a little thought or knowledge on business process. Nothing here is meant to screw anybody or act to any bodies detriment. These rules are simply a reflection or a more public explanation of what CuuSoo is and what it's capabilities are. It is a fun crowd sourcing mechanism. But it is not a magic wish machine. Real world limitations and business rules do apply. The one advantage that this has is it prevents certain types of inherently impossible projects from getting everyone's hopes up, and then burning through several months of CuuSoo review team time and effort only to leave everyone disappointed or bent out of shape. Once again there really is nothing particularly surprising here. - No new parts. While this is sad, it makes sense. New parts are by all accounts the most complicated and expensive part of TLG's business, requiring a much larger commitment of resources than we are probably able to appreciate. The new parts projects never seemed a good fit for CuuSoo, in many ways. Chances are that that extended review if the Portal set was them looking at new part viability under the CuuSoo banner. They probably hit the complexity head on and determined that the two concepts just would not viably mesh. - no corporate logos. Lots of reasons for this one. Aside from those listed above, it may also be for legal reasons regarding the CuuSoo web site itself. The use of a corporate logo in a project proposal may publicly imply an endorsement by said company that does not in fact exist. Case in point, the Apple Store. A third party is using Apples signage to solicit votes and support for a project that benefits them. It's one thing to make a proposal using an IP symbol such as the Batman logo. But if you stick a DC comics rondel on your project it means something very different. The lawyers may have raised some issues there. I suspect that this rule may see some future refinement. - No Lego Logo. As above it implies endorsement that does not exist. - one project = one set. They have been shouting this at us for years. Some just refuse to listen. CuuSoo is a small, limited sub group within the greater Lego. They are targeted at one shot sets. They don't do product themes, nor do they cross pollinate with the internal theme groups. We know this. They have told us this over and over. - No minifig only projects. Once again they have been shouting this at us repeatedly. Some just don't get the hint. - No non brick projects. CuuSoo can only make things that Lego makes themselves internally. No third party production deals or partnerships. Makes perfect sense. - only use authentic Lego parts. As above, lots of very basic reasons for this. And I don't think anyone is really surprised by this rule. Let the wailing and gnashing of teeth commence.

You are reading too much into the no Logo rule. There is a difference between a corporate logo, and a licenced IP product. Andyt he Bugdroid, The Redit thingy, the Marvel logo mosaic, etc. these are direct corporate logos. There is no business case reason for Lego to ever make these. They are nothing more than free marketing for somebody else's business with no benefit. They are not a model or a product carrying the logo. They are the logo itself. There are some mixed situations, where the corporate Logo is not itself the project, but may be an element of a project. Such as a McDonald's restaurant, an Apple Store or in your case your Ford dealership. The chances are these projects could easily continue with any specific branding removed. Ie if you were to change your logos to "City Motors". They will probably still allow the use of Logo'ing or licensing of certain types of models of real world things, such as well known cars. A model of a Chevy or a Mustang would most likely be permitted. These sorts of things will probably involve some case by case decisions. The no sports logo's is interesting. But the rules are probably the same as above. No direct logo or mascot. But something real world such as a stadium model may be permissible. This in no way impacts Licensed IP's which are company products, not company logo's. As an example while Mario is often associated as a symbol of Nintendo, he is actually an IP. His primary function is as a game character not a corporate mascot. So a Mario set would be permissible ( well except K'nex has the license.) but an actual Nintendo logo (white oval with red border and lettering) would not be. Lego has an interest in licensing IP properties, not another companies corporate logos and signage. By "brick based" I am pretty sure they mean "Lego part based" so it would encompass any current Lego production parts. Bricks, Duplo, Technic and Constraction. And existing Power Function elements. There is a very simple reason for the "only brick built sets" rule. The rule is actually "only stuff we design and produce internally using parts readily available from our warehouses and directly owned factories." Stuff like apparel, software, electronic components, tape measures, etc is all stuff that they would normally contract out to a third party producer. That is obviously not something they are looking to do via crowd sourcing. Besides its pretty apparent that the CuuSoo review team is only really capable of reviewing Lego set projects. They are not rigged to do a full business review of say software, write specifications for a software product, design it and Shepard it through development. That requires a very different sort of team than what they probably have available. So limiting CuuSoo to project types that fall within the review groups internal areas of expertise is quite reasonable. And probably should have been in there from the beginning. What sounds like a good idea is meaningless if you don't have a production team designed to deliver it. They are limiting projects to actual deliverables.

K'nex thought Family Guy would be an appropriate license for a children's toy? Really? /bogglesatlackofjudgement. That kinda puts any controversies over the Simpson's and Lego in perspective.

Also remember that the preferences are not simply "gender" or sex specific, but age factors into it very highly as well. One of the major break points seems to be around 7. So a 5 year old girl probably loves any form of little people, just as a 5 year old boy loves playing with a Friends set, but somewhere around 7 they start getting pickier. TLG in their market research is looking at a broad enough spread of childrens ages to seek to maximize the lines. For minifig loving 5 year old's they have the new Juniors sets.

We don't actually know whether or not they have the ability to do a Super Hero CMF series for either Marvel or DC? The terms about "Action Figures" vary from license to license. We know they can't do it with SW, and have some clear indications about LotR/Hobbit (sets require x number of pieces per fig sort of thing). But there were rumors that they were actually looking at the feasibility of doing such a line in Super Heroes. (including that the print designs for the SDCC figs came from the CMF proposals.) Heck Megabloks had Marvel Blind Bag's and didn't run into a license issue, so it's possible that it is still an available option.

If it helps, I seem to recall some article or interview that talked a bit about the set selection of the SW line, and what Lucasfilms input was vs how much free rein they had. As I recall it went something like this. Lucas might specify 1 or 2 sets to tie in with a specific marketing push. Stuff like the Rogue Shadow or the TOR ships. They would the generally request a certain pattern for about half the remaining wave (ie they want x number of Clone Wars sets, y number RotS etc to once again correspond to overall marketing pushes) And the remainder they were generally left to their own discretion. I think Lucas normally only gave specifications for about half of a given wave. Does anyone else remember reading this somewhere? Or can remind me where I might have read it?

I think that was a wish list that was actually culled from our discussions here. It is in no way real. One thought that may give us a bit of hope regarding a third wave. Wasn't TABA originally supposed to be a Summer release movie, before it got pushed back? So we may be dealing with a situation similar to the Lone Ranger sets, where Lego based things on the planned movie release dates, and its too late in the game to make major changes? So another Hobbit Wave may be the Summer wave and maybe (we can keep praying) a LotR wave was planned for winter?

actually Misako is one of the few characters shown to be a practitioner of Spinjitsu, and we see her use it a number of times. Which at least puts her on par with Nya in terms of a spinner. Now I doubt it would happen as I can't see many young 7 or 8 year old males clamoring for a "little old Lady" or "Lloyd's Mom" spinner set. As for Dr. Julien