Faefrost

I am keeping it in mind. That is why the estimated TOTAL Zelda fan base is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 million. Peak sales + 20% is a reasonably safe (if conservative) estimate for such things. Without some other outside markers there is not going to be a huge pool of "cumulative fanbase" that differs wildly from the peak. The Zelda fan numbers trend very very stable from game to game. Without a lot of high peaks or valleys, (outside of that 1 game hitting 8 million.) nor a steady predictable upwards trend. Particularly noteworthy is that the peak game is not the most recent or current one. The peak game was 2006's Twighlight Princess. The next bast sellers were the original 1987 Legend of Zelda at 6.5 million and 1996's Occarina of Time at 7.6 million . Beyond that pretty much every other title, including all of those released since 2006, typically sit somewhere in the rough neighborhood of 4 million. (say mid 3's to mid 4's). You nailed the problem with many video games on the head with this; "and thus appeal not just to fans who still buy the latest Nintendo system and play the latest Zelda games". Video game properties tend to be hardware gated or limited in their potential fan bases. Nintendo ones even more so. Mario has managed to get past this becoming a cultural icon. Zelda games, not as much as we might think. They are part of a niche. a reasonably large niche mind you. But still a fairly fixed one. You point out that some of TLG's competitors are diving into video game properties with some gusto. This is true. But requires a bit of understanding. Those competitors are for the most part seeking " Blue Water Markets". Untapped niches in which they can compete. Places where the big dogs in the room are choosing not to play. So they are going after lower cost but higher risk properties in the hopes of finding a hidden treasure. Megablocks is going after Call of Duty because Lego is the big dog in the room. They have had some success doing this. (well okay, pretty much just Halo.) and a lot of at best meh results (World of Warcraft for example. May have turned a small profit, but certainly no huge hit for the costs.) Whereas Lego has no reason to play in the riskier marketspaces. They can get the A list long term wide audience properties and they dominate the Red Water Markets. At their level going after riskier smaller niche properties is typically a wasteful use of their most precious resource, production and factory time. So they will apply a much more stringent and harsher business case analysis to video game properties than some of their competitors. It's worth noting that to my knowledge the only video game properties that TLG's largest competitor Kre-O (Hasbro) has licensed and produced are their recent Cityville sets. Which like TLG's Minecraft releases are based on mobile platform games which are believed to reach a broader audience than traditional video games.

The Prince in the Ariel set is using a placeholder bearded face from a Friends minidoll. So I don't think these are completely final. I kinda like them. I was expecting lots of panels and big pieces. So that doesn't bother me. The Castle and Rapunzel's Tower look great. The Carriage... Not so much. I hate to say it but both the Duplo version of this one, and the Kingdoms Kings Carriage one look so much better.

I think their technical stand is that "real world, modern era, human on human" violence and firearms are not allowed. So no armed City Police. But fantasy robotic swat assault teams are fine.

It ,might not be as difficult as you might believe. Zelda is a video game property. It is a big fish in a very small tank. It is extremely popular amongst Nintendo fans. But really the best Zelda game sold just under 8 million. It's estimated that the total crossover Zelda fans number somewhere around 10 million or so. Those numbers do not equate to "expensive given the popularity of the games". Zelda would be a cheap and easy license if it wasn't for Nintendo. You end up paying a large license price to Nintendo for what should be an inexpensive license with limited market reach and penetration, Zelda.

I'm kind of hoping that they do do all 13 in full Bo5A armor for the third wave and movie. For the 3rd movie tie in sets there probably will not be a lot of new named characters. Bain and a couple of Orc's maybe? By the end of DOS pretty much everyone major should be on the table and well represented in minifig form. That should open the door for them to go back and do the Dwarves in the major outfit change that should occur then. Or at least a few of them. This may in part be why we have not seen much in the way of Dwarf figs this go round (and only one Bilbo and Gandalf as well). Yeah some other characters may have outfit changes, but honestly the change in the Dwarves and Bilbo's outfits to battle gear to defend Erabor is a major plot point. Much more so than a change of clothes for Thranduil or Bard.

So which set would they have been happy with? The Starbuck's? The McDonalds? Oneof the others? Voters for a project like that are not a heterogenous grouping. And that is the problem. Once the project is sold to the voters as a Theme or even worse a "Series" it makes it much harder for the reviewers to prune something out for development into a single project. Not impossible, but it does greatly increase the odds of rejection. If you say voters would have been satisfied with just one small building with some accessories, well OK, then what differentiated the project from set 7848? (other than the lack of a truck?). The minishops is an almost perfect example of something that can look great as a fan desirable, but still be an absolutely lousy business proposal. They are great simple little builds. Easily done within Lego. (So easily done within Lego that Lego has in fact done these types of sets and builds numerous times, just not with these specific businesses. See TRU, Batman Bank, etc). But the project was doomed for a combined number of reasons. In part because it was proposed as a series, not simply a one off. And then it required not just one, but multiple separate licences. While CuuSoo has never explicitly said this, I am willing to bet that any project that requires two or more individual licences, dealing with entirely separate rights holders will almost certainly fail the business case review. (Yeah, that will probably be bad news for fans of the Macross / Robotech Valkyrie ) . Further compound that with each of these licences would have once again TLG creating something to promote another business, rather than the built in play value of the licensed IP itself. (There is a bit of a difference between making products full of McDonalds logo's and recreating a scene and characters from Star Wars. It can seem subtle at times.) While no single one of these issues would have doomed the Minishops. The combined weight of them makes for a truly horrid business case. Look at the negatives this way; - The project was proposed as a multiple release "Series" - Each piece of the series requires a separate licence - The separate licences are not characters or mass media scenes, or for models of actual real life products that another company produces, but are in fact exclusively corporate logo's. - If the project is reduced to 2 minishops it still requires multiple licences. - If the project is reduced to one minishop it has a high number of similar characteristics to already released Lego sets. Some of which are still on store shelves. And one of which is directly tied to a core TLG business partner. - The only thing specific or distinctive about this project is those licensed corporate logo's. Without them the same results could easily be accomplished under the existing City or Friends themes using generic places of business. Mary's Coffee Shop? O'Reilly's Burgers? etc. I'm not saying any one of these would cause a failure. Some of them TLG has and will work around in order to produce products. But the aggregate weight of the questions quickly builds up to the point where you can easily see where it might clearly hit issues at review.

It looks like the set is somewhat modular. Much like the recent Castle Kings Castle and Gatehouse Raid sets. So it can be attached in different orders, making it easy to combine multiple sets into a larger scene.

The implication we have always had (although hard to prove) is that CuuSoo theoretically has 3 or 4 production slots per year, roughly corresponding to the quarterly review periods. Although in hindsight this might be overestimating it, and actual production might be more akin to 2 effective slots. Remember we also don't know how repops, like making more Minecraft or BttF sets impact the schedule? Are those additional two new Minecraft sets considered part of CuuSoo's production budget? Etc? Also "in theory" all sets are reviewed independently on their merits and those that pass go into a queue to wait for one of those production slots. So reviews that have no winners are balanced by reviews that have 2 or more, with the possibility for some production backlog. In actual practice I don't think the review team can really avoid comparing one to the other, and selecting those they like best of the lot. The fact that they have selected at best 1 per review (less now) seems to imply that they are facing a stringent review and trying hard not to generate a production backlog. I think the vagueness of the answers is more to avoid making any promises that they may not be able to keep. They don't want to say "we can do 4 sets a year" because people get outraged when they only then do 2. They wish to leave their production options open and not subject to public review or flame throwing. Sad but understandable. This next review, with 7 sets, will probably be the best test of whether it really is one per, or if they will pass multiple sets at once?

The Portal 2 project was the one still in evaluation. The MWV was turned down because of a license conflict / no compete clause with the Lone Ranger licensed theme. There is nothing to re-evaluate there. It was just a matter of bad timing. The project came up just as TLG was entering into the contract with Disney. TLG doesn't have any choice in the decision.

Remember Lego is a toy company. Not a maker of collectables. They remake certain types of popular sets because their primary customer base ages out and they want to have a similar experience on the store shelves for the next batch. Did anyone notice the small plane in the hanger? Is that a new set?

The Civil War story arc was mostly awful. A great concept that actually raised real world logical consequences of Super Heroes, just poorly executed, as pretty much all massive crossover events are. The only high point of it was Ed Brubakers Death of Captain America storyline. (Now if you ever want to read the Civil War story concept done right dig up Mark Gruenwald's phenomenal 12 issue Squadron Supreme miniseries from the 80's.) Now while Civil War was mostly awful, much of the follow up to it and the Secret Invasion garbage was some of the most compelling stuff Marvel ever put out. Stuff that bled over into the movies. Norman Osborne's Dark Avengers. The Iron Patriot. Steve Rogers "Super Soldier" uniform. Much of the modern take on Iron Man and Pepper Potts. Etc. good stuff all around. (At least until the next idiotic crossover event).

It's not that it isn't worth it, or isn't desirable. It's simply that the numbers don't make it feasible. It's pure business math. Nothing more nothing less. And it is expected not just of CuuSoo, but any smaller more experimental programs. Heck CuuSoo actually has more flexibility and production resources than the first few Modular buildings, which were limited not just by no new parts, but had to use existing parts and colors that were already in stock the warehouse. No color changes, no printing, no making another batch of something that wasn't in stock. As the products popularity grew and sales increased the restrictions faded. This will eventually happen with CuuSoo as well. But new unique tooling will be the big barrier that will not be crossed for a very very long time. Perhaps the best hope for those wishing for Zelda stuff might be the recent interest the CMF line has in licensed properties. CMF's because of their nature, and their high margin, have a very high new tooling budget. If Lego would ever seek a license to do a Nintendo based CMF series then the tooling would be a given.

A tenth? I think tooling starts around $80,000 and goes rapidly upwards from there. The reason CuuSoo does not allow for new tooling is a new part can easily be 25% or more of the retail price of the set, given the low limited production numbers. New tooling is 1% of a sets retail price for regular mass distribution production sets, where the typical production runs are hundreds of thousands if not a million sets. For CuuSoo's production runs of 20,000 it just isn't viable to amortize tooling costs. And this isn't limited to CuuSoo. Ever notice how we don't see new unique tooling in Exclusive sets like Modulars? Same reason. Almost all new tooling is designed to be used in the regular retail sets. The stuff you see on the shelves at WalMart or TRU.

1. Black Widow is in it because She is part of the Winter Soldier story. It will make sense. Just trust the comic geeks on this one. 2. No idea on the shield color. But with the uniform thing they seem to be going for more of a Bourne or Steranko's a SHIELD look and feel. The above linked uniform is actually more akin to the uniform worn by Cap in the comics as the Director of SHIELD. The various outfit changes also seem to indicate they are playing a bit with Cap's wartime role as a Commando and infiltration team leader. Which once again plays into the Winter Soldier story. 3. Yes. SHIELD and Nick Fury based stories are always playing around in that fine grey line between security and liberty. See last weeks episode of Agents of SHIELD with its NSA vs Wikileaks contrasts. 4. Cheap to license for a trailer and final music is not yet completed?

I think most of the modern take on Gandalf as tall and looming came mostly from the Ralph Bakshi movie. And particularly the posters for the movie

For Super Heroes? There are tons of "Army Builder" potentials. Otherwise known as Minions! Aim Beekeeper guys. Hydra Guys. Man droid Armor. SHIELD CapeBuster armor. All kinds of potential goodies. On a related note, didn't Megablocks or KreO have a Marvel blind bag series out at some point? If so it may be an indication that TLG may not be restricted by an action figure license for the theme?

I think a Ghostbusters Ecto One with 4 figs is about as close as we will get to a sure thing, (well other than the Mars Rover) outside of potential licensing issues, there aren't really any potential flaws in the idea. It's well sized, appropriate subject matter and has broad familiarity and appeal. We probably will not get the building however. Heck they could probably reuse the Rotta the Hutt mold in GitD as Slimer if they were so inclined. The Oz set is the other highly likely one out of this review. Just too classic. The only real pitfalls would be license, and maybe figuring out a better way for the Tin Mans hat?

I was thinking at the $14.99 price point it is probably a small set. On par with the Batman, Catwoman set or the Iron Man 3 Golf Cart of Doom one. So probably Karai on a standard Superbike ala Catwoman, April on a scooter and some buildable street terrain?

Those Megablocks ones are awful. They cause some very strange stresses on parts. This solution looks much better.

It looks like the movie version uses a ninja type lower face mask. Which actually works really well for the character, and would look great on a minifig. I'm betting a Winter Soldier minifig will have a dual sided face. One having the mask, an one an uncovered face. Kind of like the Galaxy Squad figs.

There is a little bit more info on this most recent review process, some comments regarding rejected projects, and how that impacts going forward in a Q&A post on CuuSoo https://legocuusoo.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/272853-questions-related-to-the-winter-2012-spring-and A lot of very generic answers without a lot of takeaways, but still you can figure a few things out reading between the lines. - Projects are evaluated independently of each other, and not in competition. They pass or fail review based on the individual merits of their business case. - it looks like they did a very deep review of the portal project, and went the extra mile to try and make it viable. I strongly suspect that the ultimate decision regarding the project fell on whether they felt they needed those new structural pieces, and what it would take to make them. - they say that each project is evaluated independently, and that the failure of 2 Zelda projects does not mean that a third will not succeed at review. I would caution that it is clear that they have nothing against the IP of Legend of Zelda, nor do they have an automatic rejection of Zelda themed projects. But let's be honest. If the next Zelda set presents with the same barrier to production, namely the needed new hairpieces, it will in all likelihood face the same results. The problem with the LoZ sets isn't the IP. It's the new tooling.

Ooo! Doesn't one of the episodes involve Karai on her bike chasing April on her scooter? We have a new scooter piece now.

Bravo! Some rational thinking around here. TLG doesn't typically simply reject any CuuSoo review project for callous reasons. The one exception to this is "brand fit" which they have always been very up front about. Where the set or the sets source materials are felt to be outside of the age appropriate range for their Primary target audience go 6-12 year old children. We may grumble about that when heavily loved MOCs like the Winchester and Serenity get rejected. But I think we can all understand the reasoning. It sucks for us sometimes, but it's a toy company. We wouldn't like them if they didn't try and behave like a proper toy company.

Minecraft also had 10 million paying customers while still in "Beta", at the time that the decision for the Lego Minecraft set was made. The game had not yet achieved full release or full market penetration. Its user base was and still is climbing. Whereas Portal 2 had 4 million units sold, and hit its peak penetration in 2011. Zelda has roughly 8-10 million fans worldwide across all of the released games. That number will remain stable without some new game that sells a buttload of WiiU's. The IP is artificially restricted by the platform that it runs on. (which is yet another issue with video game properties.)

Portal 2 is an extremely popular video game. It sold 4 million copies worldwide. Overall the estimated dedicated Zelda fanbase is around 8-10 million total across all the games. These are fantastic numbers for video games, and guarantee their producers really good profits. But these tend to be on the low end of desirable for licensing as a toy product. You want a very large customer base to be at a minimum broadly familiar with your IP, its characters and story or pop culture references. From watching TLG's licensing decisions I get the impression that the lowest they will typically go for a licensed property is somewhere slightly above 10 million, and preferably with a fan base on a clear upward trajectory. When Minecraft was licensed it was at 10 million copies sold with sales numbers and popularity still climbing and full market penetration not yet achieved. This is not the current case for either Portal 2 or Zelda. Yeah there is a niche market to be had there. But it is a riskier niche. One that TLG does not normally enter into. (Some of their competitors do play in these niches to mixed results). Think of it this way. typically the absolute best video game (that isn't Call of Duty, Grand Theft Auto or Mario) will top out somewhere in the neighborhood of 10-12 million units sold. Or thinking on it another way 10-12 million eyeballs on the IP. The worst movie licences will typically hit 100 million eyeballs, with the best of them hitting 2 billion +. Which market do you think carries less risk and is easier to sell into? That's the problem with related product licensing that video games face. And that's why most of the video game based toys that do get made end up in clearance bins inside of a very short sales window. Yes we all love video games and want representations of our favorite characters. But these are the harsh business realities with the properties as they exist today. Minecraft may have opened some eyes to the possibilities that may exist in the properties. But it is not an order to ignore the math and open the floodgates to video game IP. Each case will be extremely carefully looked at I am sure. Yes the creators said they wouldn't mind if the projects got trimmed back to single sets. But in both cases the proposed and voted on projects were are very much based on the concept of "series" and not simply a single set. The Minishops project while a delightful little group of buildings visually presented well as some nice builds, was an absolute horror of a business or project presentation. To achieve what was put forth in the top vote attracting picture would require not simply multiple sets but multiple independent licences. limiting it to one build in a small set might have been viable, but what would voter reaction have been? It so dilutes the project that how recognizable would it have been to what was voted on? Yeah the project was sorta all right. But their were better, easier and cleaner to produce projects up for review. I think the Female Minifigs is going to run into some similar problems and analysis. No matter how you slice it it is really meant as a series and not a stand alone.