Faefrost

Oh dear lord I hope not. I honestly hope Lego dodges any license with Fox, and instead gives us a real true classic comic type Fantastic Four set to kind of ride the marketing. Everything we have heard about the next movie FF sounds utterly awful.

Joust might actually almost be a better parts pack then Helm's Deep, depending on what you are going for. like HD it is all brick built, but it has a greater variety of colors and useful specialty things like windows etc.

I'm not sure that Oz is ever really the best test example to study for potential sales data. Between the somewhat random nature of the Oz pricing, and the occasionally flaky availability of what seems to show up locally, the patterns that an observer might notice are probably more than a bit skewed.

I think PotC and LR have had very strong sales. Far better than they would have expected from stand alone Pirate and Western themes. Marvel Super Heros have been a very strong core seller. It's hard to gauge the Duplo stuff, but I think the princess and Jake and the Pirates have done decently. The weak points were Prince of Persia and some parts of the Toy Story line (build a Zerg?) Cars probably did ok sales but was overproduced and below expectations.

OMG! Lego makes your fashion sense deteriorate like that? I never knew. The horror.

Nintendo really needs to fire their department in charge of naming stuff. I mean seriously between this and WiiU? It's like the assigned the job to the accounting department?

I love them. Great work. Just the right amount of trim and accent and green cockpits to make the black ships positively pop. They look so sharp I had to look twice to tell they weren't renderings. Well done.

The problem isn't that can or cannot interfere with future products. The problem is publicly announcing said projects. An actual future product or something saved for later will not impede a license. However an announced future product will. It's the act of announcing the product that causes conflict. This is fairly well understood in business. Knowledge of a future product will impede sale of a current project. In this regard the CuuSoo review probably effectively seves as a product announcement, even if it was not originally intended to be so. Once a project hits review the options are "pass" which is a new product announcement. "Fail" which isn't. If they were to attempt a third option of "deferred" it would still effectively be a new product announcement. Which is where the problem comes in. Archiving a project before it hits review effectively says "not at this time but we may review it later." Which more or less stows it away without announcing it as a product. It says essentially "we can't review this now." The MWT ran into the problem because the LR license was privately in effect but had not yet publicly been announced. It got caught in that weird period where TLG could not publicly reveal the license or do anything that might do that, but they also were already restricted by it. The CuuSoo project was a complete fluke as it existed outside their normal marketing and product planning cycles. Nothing anyone expected or had plans for dealing with.

I'm sure that was a matter of timing. LR was not known until after MWT was already in the review process. To mothball it at that point probably would also infringe on the license. Also MWT had a problem with and competed with a license that TLG had. So even publicly mothballing it would be viewed as a form of competition with the license. Whereas with JP, TLG does not have that license. They have no non compete clauses to worry about. They simply know that the actual license is not currently achievable. They are allowed to publicly sit and wait out someone else's license. But to do so with one they have is a form of direct competition with the license.

It's certainly educational. But it's un sellable as a retail set unless it includes a Gordon Freeman minifig and a couple of Head Crabs.

Not surprising. Still kind of sad to see. I'm thinking there is a KreO design team sitting around somewhere salivating at all of the perceived interest in Jurassic Park brick building sets, based on all the recent CuuSoo activity. THey archived it, not delete. So if the license ever frees up it may be resurrected. They really just said that "we can't make your project at this time or for the determinable future, but you never know. Maybe someday."

The seemingly counterintuitive thing is the fragility of build is often more likely to pop up in the giant Adult and AFOL targeted display sets. These types of sets are built for look, not to survive play, and it often shows. Just look at the Star Wars UCS type sets. They are particularly notorious for this. Heck major chunks of the B Wing are just held on by a few studs. When doing some sort of technic pin connection would have been perfectly viable. The X Wing s a strange mix of super reinforced solidity and complete frailty. Apparently we old foggies aren't viewed as a high risk for overly energetic swooshing?

A new blog post from CuuSoo congratulating the 7 review qualifiers. http://blog.lego.cuusoo.com/2013/09/03/congratulations-qualifying-projects-fall-2013-review/ It looks like the Oz set made it in. Not much else in the way of new information beyond "they are working on the past reviews".

So wait? They canned the Superhero idea? And opted for the Simpsons instead? Really? Someone thought that was the ether way to go?

Thank you. Much better said than I was able to.

We have heard nothing of an Erebor set.

I'm betting its something that walked out of the factory, like so many recent figs that first appear on ebay. It's probably more a good sign that we will be seeing Azog in a set than it s an unbelievably good deal on the comic con fig.

I suspect that it is not simply a matter of "payment". As you note Lego can pay third parties for design work. I think the very nature of the CuuSoo contract causes some problems. Lucasfilm's problem is most likely more an issue involving that CuuSoo royalty. TLG can probably pay a contract designer on a work for hire basis, or outright purchase someone's designs. But I can't see Lucasfilm's licensing lawyers being thrilled with the idea of the licensee assigning royalties to a third party, involving what they would view as one of their core ILM IP designs. And in this case it doesn't really matter if the lawyers would be right. If they had even the slightest fear that there may be some sort of perceived legal exposure of their IP in a CuuSoo project, they will (and probably did) veto it.

If you are looking for a good starting point for Star Wars sets, there are few better than http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=7965-1 2011's 7965 Millenium Falcon. Granted it's not as nice as the classic UCS Falcon, but hey who has $13,000 just lying around. 7965 will give you a great round up of the core characters at a decent price. It's still on store shelves, but probably not much longer. Combine it with the low cost http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=9490-1 and you will have the full primary cast from the first movie.

Actually it makes perfect sense. Remember for CuuSoo you are gaining support for your project. Your designs. This becomes an issue with things like Star Wars. Marshall's Sandcrawler is actually Marshall's interpretation of a ILM / Lucasfilms design. CuuSoo is an of itself sort of a form of licensing a third parties designs. The CuuSoo designers get royalties from their designs. This is not the same as a in house work for hire or contract arrangement. And this is something that Lucasfilms would most likely not permit under the terms of their license contracts with TLG. They would not want any outside party with any claims on a Sandcrawler design. No matter how trivial or seemingly innocuous. While this may not be an issue with any and all Star Wars projects, I kinda suspect that it will hold true for any of the ILM designs that were seen on screen in any of the 6 movies. Something that is just described in an EU novel is probably fine. Something based on a thrid party drawing which is in turn based on a novel, comic etc might work. A video game subject maybe, depending on who produced it. But the actual ILM stuff is probably Verbotten under the license. And regarding Portal? I don't think it is licensing. At pretty much the same time they announced those results they also said that anything involving licenses would be held and announced together in order to avoid impacting other licence discussions. (A not uncommon business practice). I think the Portal project has been delayed because of that new part design. It wasn't a Portal specific piece. It was a kind of unusual structural element. I'm wondering if the review team didn't like the part or at least have enough curiosity about it to kick it over to the part design department for further review. And they long ago said that any new part evaluations would take a really long time. That may have prompted them to break the Portal project free from the normal review cycle.

As long as DC approves the design of the big fig in line with their character templates I would see no reason why they could not. But don't compare the characters from the video games to what Lego will or can actually make. The video games are made under license by Travelers Tales (Tt). The new Marvel game has a ton of "BigFigs" shown in it simply because this is the first time that Tt has used these types of bigger playable character models in the game. They had not yet developed this feature for the Lego Batman 2 game. (Batman2's innovative feature was open world roaming. Which they also used in the LotR game). There is some casual back and forth between Tt and TLG in terms of design. But what one makes is normally not completely indicative of what the other will do. Tt will use existing lego designs wherever possible, often including some that we the public have not yet seen. But where no design exists they will make their own. It seems that Lego will occasionally draw some inspiration from what appears in game, but it is rare and never a direct copy unless it is something promotional. (ie Elrond minifig) and honestly, I don't think DC has quite as many A list or well known characters that would require or benefit from a Big Fig? Marvel has some prime candidates. Hulk, The Thing, etc. DC has less that are well known, and pretty much none that are heroes. Kilowog is the only that I can think of offhand. Clayface would need a big fig. Gorilla Grod could go either way? (as a one shot villain he works well as a Big Fig. But if you are doing a Flash set with Gorilla City than you would want a bunch of minifig size dudes ala Chima.) Killer Croc will depend heavily on which version of the character they do. He really isn't supposed to be THAT big.

Has Lego ever produced a Landrover or Rangerover branded set or model? I know they have licences with Ferrari, VW and Mercedes? But I didn't think they had ever done an actual Landrover? There are a few city trucks that look vaguely similar but nothing carrying the brand or markings. I could be wrong on this? But regardless, no licences are not simply a blanket to produce any and all. What can and cannot be produced is specific to each license. Lego can have a license with one licensor to simply produce a specific set or vehicle (Say the BttF DeLorean) and have an entirely different license with another vendor to produce everything in their catalog or a specific range of their catalog. (ie Star Wars.) Licences are simply contracts. How broad or narrow they are is a factor of cost and negotiations. And there are some wildly broad differences between the license holders. Landrover will probably be fairly open with regard to licensing. Most vehicle manufacturers view sub licensing as a form of free advertising. It is not their core product or revenue stream. This is changing a little bit as they become aware that money is available. But still for the most part these licences are cheap and easy to get. As I said free advertising for the core product lines. Whereas in the case of something like Star Wars, the licensing IS the core product line and revenue stream. (No really it's not the movies. Since Empire the movies are just the commercials to pimp the licensing and merchandising revenues. ) So they will be much more protective and much more specific regarding any use of those licences. As you say they would not allow Marshall to benefit from this license. (It's probably a bit more legally complicated than that and in truth it is less of a "Megabloks" move on their part. They have to take certain steps to protect their IP and provent outside claims against it. Marshall's project fails as a result.) My point still remains. When Marshall's Sandcrawler was shown to the Lucasfilms / Disney people the lawyers would have said "Hell No. Not possible under the contract. You've already made that. And we expect you to make it again with no 3rd party." Whereas chances are if or when they show the truck to the Landrover people the reaction from everyone including the lawyers will be "Cool! Yep it looks like one of ours. When can we buy one my grandkids would love it?" Landrover sells actual trucks. A tiny look alike truck does not really cause any consternation in their business. No ones gonna drive a CuuSoo set to work. Whereas for Star Wars or Warner Brothers, the IP design such as the Sandcrawler or Tumbler IS the core product. So where, how and by who it gets made is important. College mascots probably does have some potential to be a profitable market. But is it a worthwhile one for a company the size and scale of TLG to meander into? Remember TLG is the big dog in the room with huge global markets. Their production cycles are their most valuable commodity, and their overall choke point. Can they make a profit from Purdue Pete? Probably. At a minimum probably enough to pay costs of a short run. But is that or a continuing run of college or team mascots a worthwhile niche for a company of their scale and reach? Does it give good enough return on design and factory time? Honestly I think that will depend heavily on the size of the company making the product. For TLG it might not be. Just not a high enough return on factory production. Whereas a smaller outfit like Megabloks of Oxford may see a decent niche return for something like that. Granted CuuSoo is designed to be sort of a loss leader. An experimental project that does not return the most efficient use of production resources (which is why it is limited to only 4 cycles per year). And instead drives things like word of mouth. Opens new avenues, and just keeps fans involved (or foaming at the mouth in some cases. See: Jurassic Park, insanity). I just think that even in CuuSoo the same return on production time calculations go on in a smaller scale. And I think the consensus will be that 25% of their factory / production time would be better served on a product that has appeal outside of a small portion of Indiana, and maybe includes some play value.

I'm not saying that the Landrover will be made. I just think it has a better chance than most of us give credit for. Your points 1 and 3 assume that the project will remain at the size proposed. Chances are the Lego designers will shrink it a bit. Probably to something with a $300 threshold. As far risk. Yeah it is risky. But they assess risk based on data and past performance. They really have very little data on making a beyond huge Star Wars set with all the bells whistles and power functions. But they have decades of that sort of data on Technic vehicles. They have experience with short run limited edition high priced technic sets and know exactly what the market is for them. So they have a much clearer analysis of risk here. The 10k votes isn't the due diligence in this case. They actually have hard data generated in house from similar products. Which makes for a much cleaner review. Pass or Fail this project will probably have the best data backing it of any CuuSoo review. And I suspect that if or when TLG does decide to make a huge and expensive CuuSoo set for the first time, it will probably be a Technic set. Just because it is such a known and predictable niche. I'm not sure how a comparison to the Tumbler comes in here. The Tumbler will fail for the same reason the Sandcrawler failed. It is a license and design that Lego already has and already has specific matching product related to. The license has certain expectations of the licensee, and these supersede CuuSoo or a third party getting involved. In the case of the Tumbler, Lego already has a Tumbler on store shelves. They have the rights to the design and derivatives. They do not need a third party proposing something that they already have, nor do the terms of their license really allow that third party involvement. Whereas they would just be seeking a one time license use for Landcrawlers Logo and likeness in the case of the Discovery. Nowhere near the same animal.

The problem with Purdue Pete is how specifically geographically limited the set is. It has one place it can be sold. Purdue. And maybe parts of Indiana. Anyplace else it just takes up retail space. I mean heck, imagine if hey put it on the shelf in Amsterdam or Munich? And more than anything else it is that geographic exclusivity that will make it fail the business case. If CuuSoo only has 4 production slots per year, why would they waste one of them on something that will really only sell in a single college bookstore? (Which in turn is only open for 8-9 months of the year?) is it possible? Sure. But is it good business to enter into this market this way?

/sigh! I still way prefer yours. And that Diner is to die for.