Faefrost

Using what type of plastic?

If you are unsure of where to start, some of the available boat pieces can help, rather than fully MOC'ing up a hull. Start from something like this. The black boat hull pieces from Agents set 8636, and build up and lengthen from there.

One of the Lego staff was answering questions early on, and when faced with the question of why no Star Wars type Battlepacks for LotR (4 figs and a small build at a $12-20 or less price point), he politely explained that the specifications of things such as the ratio of figs to build in a set and how they handle "Battlepacks", and the requirements for named characters in a set vary from license to license, with the implication that the LotR Army Builders as a result needed to be a bit more substantial, pushing them to the $30 and 5-6 fig price point. The sets you mention are 2 fig sets. A lot of it seems to be some nebulous ratio of build or bricks to figs. Both Wizard Battle and Gandalf Arrives have quite substantial builds for a small low price 2 fig set. Riddles for the Ring, has a bit more build than we would expect. Granted its a pointless build. They never explicitly said anything about the terms of either specific license beyond making it clear that each is different (and is often clearly spelled out in the contract), and what is permissible in one is often not in another. We can kind of guess or assume the rest just based on observation. They left very clear the implication that LotR needed more build and a higher price point for the Army builders. Which is why we got sets like Orc Forge, Mirkwood Elf Army, Uruk Hai Army and Dul Guldur Ambush. It's all just another example of how weirdly complex licenses can be, and some of the reasons why TLG does not always do "the obvious thing that would sell a gajillion! AND IT'S WHAT WE WANT!!!" In the end the licensor has much greater control over licensed set decisions then we often realize. And much of that may be related to how they subdivide their IP to various licensee's. How the IP holder chooses to differentiate between things like the construction toy license vs the action figure license vs the game license, etc. They set the boundries in such a way to give clear value to all of their partners. But this will at times limit what a given partner may do. Even if it seems like a good or much desired thing.

Back during the early 90's I think. Some of its ideas eventually saw release with Aquanauts or Aquaraders... err one of the Aqua somethings.

No license partner or potential license partner will ever publicly discuss license negotiations. It's bad business. The license that they turn down today they may pick up tomorrow. They may deal with the same partner on another project. Plus even knowledge of discussions can alter other negotiations with other partners and alter competitors behavior. This is also why they announce all of a review periods results at once rather than a rolling pass fail as they evaluate each one. Knowing one concurrent licensed project was passed or rejected can impact negotiations with the next partner in line. And one final reason they will never ever talk about licensing as a reason an Ideas project fails. They never ever will want to push the blame for a projects rejection back onto the licensor. Licensors take it very badly when angry mobs of nerds are pointed at them in fury. The Licensor always has absolute veto over any licensed set. But we will never hear about that. (Case in point MWT was effectively killed by the terms of the Disney LR license. Lego had no leeway in the decision, and no way to warn or discuss it. Licenses can be a beach.) If you watch carefully Lego very very rarely reveals much in the way of information about any of the terms of their licenses. The only Ideas license restrictions they put up are really for licenses that are publicly known to be held by and under use by a competitor, and thus unavailable. (Dr. who was not endorsed by Lego or CuuSoo. It simply came off the "un obtainable" list.) other than that I think the only concrete bits of info on any of Legos licenses we have learned is that the SW license does not allow for individual minifig sales, and the LotR/Hobbit license requires a more substantial build per minifig than the classic SW Battlepacks.

These are all things that they would be unlikely to specifically codify because in many cases the final decisions lie with a third party (anything involving currently licensed themes), or they involve specifics that they just do not discuss in public. Take Zelda as the example. we all assume all of the projects failed because of the new parts. Which is likely the primary cause. But back when the first set hit review they still would have put it through a full thorough review, talked to Nintendo and examined the numbers and the business case. There can be (and given that Zelda is in fact a regular console video game more than likely actually are) multiple other failure points in that review. And those business case failures would likely still carry through to any subsequent projects. (chances are they will not do as deep a business case review ona second or third pass of a similar project. Just a basic "has anything changed?" look at the numbers.) Rather these are failure points that we can reasonably surmise from observation, and knowing a little bit about things like licensing. The hidden gotcha's if you will. And they are not absolutes. As I say for the most part it is safe to assume that a project based on "What Lego already did but better" is destined for failure, just because it is generally a subject that Lego has in fact already covered. There are a few cases where it might not pose a problem. Things like normal real world vehicles. If you put up a better Fire Truck or a better Bus you are OK. If you put up a better Star Destroyer or Ninjago Dragon... yeah chances are its not gonna go places.

He also mentioned the "Aquatron" or 'Seatron" underwater space theme that never saw release. I wish I could find the pictures I remember seeing of the proptotypes. That series included a really good looking monorail. edit: Silly me here it is (buried somewhere on EB)

Hey Dorayaki, am I imagining it, or is there a page in the latest Lego Club that features a comic character that looks rather close to your Avatar? So there may be hope for a bit more color among the Minifigs?

I think we can all agree that something in the geometry of cheese slopes can cause cracking under certain conditions. Probably related to the uneven forces applied to the small plastic piece. The problem is even with the occasional cracking the cheese slope is just too good of a piece to be retired or given up on. We have seen similar issues in the past (headlight bricks). I think it is pretty clear that at least with the Cheese Slopes it is not so much a plastic issue as it is something subtle in the core of the parts design, probably related to temperature changes, which will take years to work through. But those cases are way different than what is being shown in those Chima sets. There is something strange going on there.

As other have pointed out UCS can be taken a few ways. Lego actually only used the designation on the packaging for a few early sets and then stopped using it until the Sandcrawler. But fans and cataloging sites kept the designation alive. Here are what are typically considered to be the key elements of a UCS set. 1- large D2C super detailed model. Often larger than minifig scale. 2- expensive Direct to Consumer (d2c) set 3. Typically featuring that distinctive name plate (although not in all cases) Most have no debate over whether or not the large scale SW ship models and the Batmobile are UCS. They are. The points of debate are the huge play sets and the sculptures. By play sets I mean the original Sandcrawler. The Death Star, the Ewok Village, the 10198 Tantive IV (the older one IS UCS) and the huge MTT. (Other minifig scale sets such as the MF and Imperial Shuttle are fully UCS no question.) Previously most of the play sets were felt to be D2C but not UCS... Until the new Sandcrawler came out labeled UCS, which muddied things up a bit. The Sculptures are equally weird. The large busts are mostly felt to be their own thing. But R2D2 is generally considered UCS. In the end the specific labeling isn't that important. Collect the sets that you like and fit your mental image of what your collection should be.

Short of going to look up each piece on Bricklink as you design to see how out there it is, there really is not. At least not that I am aware of? The only other thing I can think of is to build a portion of the model in LDD, export a parts list, loop it through BL to see where the problems lie, and then go back to modify, and stear clear of the problem pieces as you progress. Granted I mostly MOC Modular buildings so it is easy to do this at each layer. The only other thing I can think of in your case. Since you will mostly know your colors, especially your problem exotic colors as you start, do a BL search based on color and see if you can spot the problem parts ahead of time. But yeah the most frustrating and time consuming part of digital design is the fact that while the programs validate for whether the part has ever been made in a given color, they don't tell you age, rarity or price. That has bit me a few times. (/e looks at godawful expensive red windows ordered from Sweden)

Actually the individual floors of the Townhall are the same as the PR's. It's just TH has an elevated foundation at the bottom. (OK the briefing room / courtroom is down below at baseplate level, but effectively most of the ground floor of TH is elevated.) That's where most of the extra height of the floors comes from. It's the PC and especially the FB that have the extra height to the floors themselves.

yeah from reading that I am guessing that each "change" basically reflects each step or stage through the factory process that it would need. Each automated sub assembly. Each new color for a part. Each print pass, etc. Basically each time they need to do a setup in the factory. if you read a bit deeper into that whole thread there is also some wonderful insight or information regarding colors and how Lego handles and manages them, and why all pieces are not available in all colors. And also why they could not or would not do the Exo Suit in all LBG. Rather fascinating. And a good reminder that the process of production and logistics is something that gets factored into design, and is much more complex and burdensome than we ever imagine. How complex must it have been to actually design Benny's SSS and bring it through to retail, while still retaining the look and feel of the old school CS?

As far as stuff that I think would work really well with a bit of updating? A nice blending to sort of tie together the second and third generation of Lego Space would be cool. IE a Blacktron / Space Police / M Tron / Rock Raiders / Ice Planet type thing. I would settle for a new Space Police v Blacktron theme though. A new full Pirates theme A new Castle Fantasy Era theme Vikings Atlantis / Aquaraiders

I am sure we will see Monster Fighters in some new form eventually. That was a completely new adventure theme, and to all appearence sit did well. While we will not see AC specifically again (parts of it did well, parts not so well with the retro 50's alien stuff doing meh) already GS was the spiritual and in some ways literal successor (using or reworking many of the designs planned for a second wave of AC.) taking the fight out to the aliens. So both of those concepts have and will appear again for use I am sure. Chima is NOT a permanent theme. It is like Ninjago. (Or at least like Ninjago originally was) it is a planned multi wave theme, with deep media tie ins. But as it's initial target group ages out of it it will likely fade. Probably a 3 year cycle give or take. (Ninjago was cancelled, but then brought back because of fan demand. The first and only time that has happened with Lego. Since then it is in uncharted territory in terms of expected life cycle.) Lego's Permanent or as they refer to them Evergreen themes are City (which is the one that is truly permanent and always on the shelf), Castle, Pirates, Creator, Star Wars and now Super Heroes (just added to the list). They also have the two overarching Evergreen themes of Space (of which AC was a part) and Action/Adventure (which MF was a subset of.) not all Evergreen themes will be on the shelf at the same time, but they are the ones expected to come back in regular cycles or rotation.

That's gorgeous. sadly I don't think it has much chance. we know Lego was deep into doing a Lothlorien set. It appears in the game and there is a sketch model of it on a shelf in that picture of the design office. For whatever reason they elected not to produce it. (probably for the best. Lothlorien is major for the die hard Tolkien fans. But as a playset? It's kind of dull. The fact that the scene is bookended between the two best action sequences in all three movies doesn't help. )

What I gather from reading Mark Staffords posts on the Redit thread, the design team has a limited number of "changes" budgeted per set or theme (for these purposes treat CuuSoo/ Ideas as a single theme). Changes can be thought of as "anything not currently in stock in the parts warehouse". So a part in a new color (or an old color that they don't have anymore of) is a change. A new minifig print is a change. A printed part is a change. Etc. CuuSoo since it is a limited run limited distribution property has a smaller pool of changes available. Because each change is an expense. Each requires allocation of factory time and resources. (And this is not unique to Ideas. Remember the initial modular buildings had no change budget. Cafe Corner was designed using only parts currently in stock. All of the D2C sets tend to have very limited change budgets.) In this case CuuSoo as a whole has a certain overall budget for changes, and the Ecto 1 burned through a lot of that. Which makes sense as it is probably the more commercial or retail oriented set, which would also see the biggest benefits from some of the changes. Accurate printed Minifigs in it give a greater return in it, than in an unlicensed set like the Research Institute or Exo Suit. So Mark was left with wasting a change on the barrels or on giving us the nice new green classic spacemen. I think the Minifigs were the better choice overall. People will buy the set just for the new green Benny's and especially the girl Benny. Whereas for a barrel in LBG? Maybe a couple of hundred of the more dedicated AFOLs would focus and fixate on that? (And before anyone shakes their angry little nerd fists in the sky because PROFIT! And BUSINESS! Remember, we want Ideas to be profitable. We want Ideas to be successful. We want the Ideas team to make sound business decisions so the project can grow and thrive and develop to where it can give us bigger and better Ideas. And at least for the present that will mean that they make some conservative decisions. They don't needlessly waste changes. They don't overproduce. Etc. )

Well they revealed the Exo Suit, and it's quite impressive. As expected a lot of the greebling has been sacrificed to making it actually playable. But Mark Stafford did a good job of keeping it close to Peter Reid's design. The highlight is 2 new Green Classic Space figs. A male and female. Oh and a mini build of Peter Reid's Turtle bot. Good Stuff! (And weirdly this set seems to almost do a better job of addressing the cause championed by the female minifig / research institute set, then that set does. ) And for today's seemingly random topic of discussion (brought on by perusing a week or twos Ideas submissions. I so miss the old age limits.) subtle or undefined things that will almost guarantee a project will not pass review. By this I mean these are things that are not explicitly stated anywhere, and are technically legal under Ideas, but reality being what it is, you can clearly see the pending failure points. 1. Old Parts Required - by this I do not mean that the project uses old parts or was designed with them, but rather that some integral element of the project revolves around out of production parts. Remember between 2003 and 2006 Lego retired almost half of their molds. Most of it being larger or more specialized parts. They will not remake or ressurect those for ideas. Some examples; large, long unseen animals such as the Elephant. Monorail or Monorail track. Old school sound and lights or fiber optics, And probably the big one for this sort of thing, Finger Hinges, which allow for geometries you cannot duplicate with today's parts. Yes the designers can and will work around some old part use, but if it is critical to the project it is a likely failure point. 2. What they already made but better, particularly involving anything licensed. For example a Batman Tumbler or Bat. There can be some exceptions, such as a good reasonable UCS proposal of something never done that way before. But it immediately falls under that vague "pre existing licenses may face greater complications" rule. 3. Licensed Fan Fiction in Lego form. By this I mean things like your own special Star Wars ship that you designed yourself. Or a new Batman vehicle. Or a set that includes your own new characters added to an existing license. (" Darth Fred terrorizes the Galaxy in his dread snake ship of doom!"). Even if brilliantly built, every license holder will veto any such third party add ons to their IP out right. (And yes sometimes toy companies are allowed to create new things in a license, such as Some of Kenners classic SW toys. But that is done in direct partnership with the IP holder, with no third parties involved. So Hasbro or Lego can do it, you however cannot via Ideas. ) 4. Remake toys held by another company. Remember those aforementioned Kenner Star Wars odd ball vehicles, that did not come from the movies? Things like the Stormtrooper Transport or some of the strange little wheeled things? Yeah, you're not going to be able to have Lego make a set of those anytime soon. The same with TMNT and some of the old Playmates stuff. 5. Things that have previously failed review for clear reason. Ie The Zelda rule, "no means no". If the subject and nature of presentation has already undergone a business case review, and failed, chances are the outcome will not change on the next go round. Yes Zelda keeps failing on no new parts. But above and beyond that there are likely other underlying business issues.

Can almost guarantee a few. Rebels is using a ton of McQuarries art and designs to form the animated shows look. With some of his ship designs being straight up used in the show. Plus a full size stage mock up of a McQuarrie X Wing has been photographed next to the new Milenium Falcon set on the London Sound stage. So it may be putting in an appearance in Ep VII.

What sort of Mutant are you looking for? There can be a rather broad range of subjects from X Men to tentacled horrors. Some good references for how to do some really wild minifig customizations can be found in a few books. http://twomorrows.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=965 (volumes 1 and 2) Also Jordan Schwartz's new book The Art of Lego design has a few sections on minifig customization http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-LEGO-Design-Creative/dp/1593275536

Lego's license is with Marvel. Marvel has as of late become extremely disillusioned with the properties currently held by Fox, and some terms of the old merchandising deals related to those properties. As such they are rumored to now be taking a much harder stand on merchandise that might support either the X-Men movies, or more directly the Fantastic Four. Notice that there was absolutely NO toy merchandising tied into DoFP? They are reportedly going a step further with FF and pulling not simply movie based toys, but any Toys, products and they are even retiring the FF comic books from the line. I don't think Marvel will completely shut down X-Men licensing or merchandising. But they will be doing their best to keep it clear of the movies. And they will be probably limiting it in many ways. I kind of suspect that the X-Mansion set will be insta vetoed by Marvel because of this.

You mean aside from the obvious views of at a minimum the then French government back in the 80's? Or the US government almost from the groups founding? (Greenpeace was founded by a group of US Vietnam era draft dodgers, which already put them on the US governments not so nice list. Who then set out to "forcibly disrupt" US and western Nuclear testing at the height of the Cold War. This tended to not make them a lot of friends in some circles.) For more current views, India declared them a threat to National Security two or three weeks ago.

Actually yeah, a good number of national governments do consider Greenpeace a terrorist organization for some of the tactics used by them over the years. At a minimum some of it qualified as piracy.

Mark had posted awhile back that at the time he was designing this set the new small ball joints were still restricted to Chima and Mixels only, and had not yet been opened up for general design availability yet.

I was thinking the same thing. The April hair piece is much better for Natasha than the official one.