BrickG

I can't think of anyone else Link's hat could be used for besides Peter Pan (who Link was obviously inspired by). The look wouldn't fit LotRs, Peter Pan isn't going to go to Lego and I can't really think of another use for it besides some generic Christmas Elf which is already covered by a mold. Really, if they made a hat/hair/ears mold for Link that's basically all they could use it for. Anything else is a stretch or they already have something that does it. I really really want a Zelda set. I'd buy two of 'em! And I think they'd sell very well. I'm pretty sure the Minecraft set has sold way beyond the other Cuusoo projects and is basically not limited at this point and I think Zelda could pull that off too. But as they've said, they're unwilling currently to buy a new mold, and they'd potentially need SEVERAL... it's just not happening. I might be wrong but I highly doubt it and hope I am.

I'm 27. A full grown d00d. And I keep watching this show and am never disappointed (besides a few little kiddie things and inconsistencies that happened in earlier episodes). This is probably my favorite TV show on TV right now. Bye bye everything else! This show is just fun. I hope we get a set with Justin in it. ;)

I don't like it. Who buys Android trinkets that aren't the actual Android? Hope it fails.

We'll just make a third and fourth and fifth, etc until Lego gets the picture. ;p

I guess Zelda can have a Legolas hair piece with a crown printed on it. Now... if there's Ganondorf I don't know how you'd mimic his balding jewel decorated head without making a new mold. That assumes a lot though as Cuusoo, if they chose to do this (lol) would probably easily consider basing it off a more recent Zelda like Skyward Sword (which is superior anyways, freakin' best Zelda game in years!). The cuusoo here is not Twilight Princess specific, it's just he aims for a more realistic representation and was inspired by it. Skyward Sword is realistic enough and a lot more recent. Heck maybe they'd do one based on the unannounced game but that seems unlikely since that game is likely 2-4 years away. Or maybe the Wind Waker HD remake but that also seems unlikely... Anyways the point is the villain doens't have to be Ganondorf. But I feel like you DO need one (and I think it would be lame if it was a buildable non-figure one). So you'd probably need new hair for Link and the Villain. There's an old Lego sword that might be a good Master Sword. Maybe he can just get a standard sword though that would be slightly lame but I could go with it. His tools are there a bit... you can probably build little bombs... bow and arrow? EZ! Boomerang? Well... guess you don't need it! But still, even if they manage to keep it down to one or two new molds that might be asking too much... but I do think it would sell like crazy because of the cult following it has just like I think the Back to the Future thing is going to sell like crazy due to nostalgia.

Well it might be more complicated than that outside of video games. Nintendo actually used to (maybe still does in Japan?) make Lego-rip blocks much like MegaBlocks and all that stuff. Right now K'nex seems to have a license, at least for Mario and Donkey Kong, that is similar to Lego. In fact it seems Lego sued Nintendo once over Nintendo's brick products. So who knows :P. I buy the "too many molds" reason.

I'm happy for it. Zelda is my number one choice for a cuusoo project. But like the other one there's just about no chance of this happening... There'd be like half a dozen needed unique molds, much of which couldn't be used easily outside the franchise. I guess you could manage with just new hair molds for Link, Zelda and Ganondorf/Demise/whoever... But cuusoo seems to not even want to do ONE new mold. And it doesn't help that we're currently basically in the middle of the "Zelda Cycle" and the next big new Zelda game probably won't come out for at least a few more years (I don't think the coming remake counts).

I'm personally hoping that if they ever do a Lego set with Galactus they simply use the clock scale minifigures minus the clock for him ;). (stormtrooper picture for scale) Kind of ridiculous bug I think it would be awesome. Heck, it could work for sentinels too and they're supposedly in the oncoming movie.

The build of Jabba's Palace is too compact and depressing.I'd rather have not had the tower and given his room a bit more space.

Best minifigures? Probably Jabba's Palace. Best build? I didn't buy enough sets to really be able to say.

Another neat Nintendo project. Metroid. I don't think Metroid has the popularity to get 10,000 votes. But you could probably make it without any new molds (maybe... that helmet and shoulder stuff might not work with existing pieces perfectly). http://lego.cuusoo.c...deas/view/34189 Probably wouldn't have a good chance of winning anyways. In other Nintendo news the second Zelda project is gaining votes more quickly now, outpacing the Android thing. Would be awesome but it's destined for failure.

So the battle pack isn't just generics? It has the Lone Ranger? Hard to army build unless I want an army of Lone Rangers on the side. :/

I wouldn't call that another minecraft because it's probably 1% as well known. Maybe I'm just in the dark. I tried going over to their website and I "played" the game and it seemed like just a place for ads?

Yeah I agree that the car as is would need to be modeled better. The Lego team will redesign it (as they do with all Cuusoo). But I'm not sure to expect THAT much better. Just using Google Image there's a few really awesome models, but they're almost TOO GOOD for Lego to do :P. This one is significantly better. There are a few other really awesome models of it. Not that the submission was bad or anything, just... not as good. :P

The Dark Ninja is a bad interpretation of Bradford. How they get that minifigure from someone who was supposed to be like an evil Chuck Norris I can't understand. Then they gave him crazy eyes for no apparent reason too.

Show so good. Now I need a Karai minifigure too :/. http://th09.deviantart.net/fs70/PRE/i/2013/018/7/f/tmnt_2012__karai_and_leo_by_turtletitan97-d5rx1g0.jpg Some people don't like her design. I don't mind it at all (besides the weirdness with making all females in the series thin as string). Plus her episode was a good one. I'd also love some Space Heroes sets ;p. Funniest part of the new series! I wish I could find some clips of it to share online... unusually morbid but I guess they can do that because it's "fiction WITHIN fiction".

Is Zod's hair a new mold?

Brand names can and are currently being used to describe their products in the plural. It's both grammatically correct and proper. It IS technically correct because there is no grammatical rule stating that you can't do that. Absolutely none. Brand names are proper nouns which can indeed be used in plural. However, I admit it's a bit messy at times. However the messiness is not technically incorrect, it's just messy. At most it could be compared to mess writing that a teacher might recommend to change so it's not as messy. But it's still technically fine (for the most part, proper noun pluralization gets complex). For example... "Look at all the USA Todays," Technically fine. It might be cleaned up to "Look at all the USA Today magazines," Then there are some that more familiar. "I want to eat my Oreos" and "I want to eat my Oreo cookies" both sound correct and both sound clean (at least here). In fact, Oreo itself refers to their own cookies and brand name as one and the same. Another example might be... "I want to watch all the Star Treks" Messy, but technically not incorrect. A lot of people would want it to be cleaned up to say something like "I want to watch all the Star Trek series" or whatever. The point is... "legos" works. Messy or not, it works. Proper Nouns YO! Further more, while it may be unacceptable in some countries, it's become just so much of a staple in the USA that it's integrated itself into our local language (vernacular!). It's an acceptable form of speech. Not to a lot of core LEGO fans. But still. Now, you might be thinking "but what if the brand name is a proper name? This is where the vernacular really comes in. You can indeed still pluralize a proper noun that is a proper name if it's got a non-standard secondary application, a common noun. Lego has become like that here in the USA. The language has a mind of it's own and has taken over. I guess some people can argue that the 98% or whatever is wrong, but it's so integrated into the culture here it's irrelevant. It works. Legos works. Heck, "Microsofts" works technically (be it messy). If it's not technically correct anywhere, I guess there could be more argument made for the local vernacular of other places as it relates to the proper name. But as I said in my first post, I'm really only talking about the USA and if the rules apply HERE. I can't speak for other countries.

Irrelevant as Lego does not control language. Vernacular is bigger than LEGO. ... I fail to understand what is so hard to understand? My logic is literally flawless. Can someone present an argument against it that uses facts? Not the opinion of LEGO (who doesn't matter in a linguistic sense). Not a "it's just wrong". I want to see some rule of grammar that actually exists. Or something.

No, it's technically not. It's not a perfectly valid argument that pluralizing a brand name is incorrect. Why? Because there's no grammatical rule that says that cannot be done. Absolutely none. This is the whole argument. It's about myths. There are facts within the English language. Not everything is up to interpretation and opinion. For example the definitions of words. "Orange" doesn't mean "blue". That's a fact. Absolutely no English Teacher could mark off a point for saying "legos". And in NO English and American English textbook or grammar textbook is there a rule that says "pluralizing a brand name is incorrect." (speaking from this country only) 100% true. You can still have the opinion that you can't pluralize brand names however, you'd be factually wrong. It can be done and it's done often. As for my tone, I don't have much of one in my head but this being text it's very easy to read things differently. I'm sorry if you think I"m screaming at you or something. :P

I'm not doubting LEGO said anything like that. That's not the issue. Obviously LEGO has it's own rules for how to use it's brand name. The issue is that doesn't matter grammatically. It doesn't matter linguistically. LEGO doesn't have the power to dictate the rules of grammar or language. They can encourage and request though.

Nice edit! Ran out of black heads? Or is there a spy in the costume on the right!?

I guess this is more about the community than LEGO. LEGO actually handles it well and doesn't seem to talk "correct grammar" and stuff. But I've consistently seen in the Lego communities just a spreading of non-truths as the motivation behind what's simply a company trying to protect it's brand (nothing wrong with protecting your brand). When it goes from "Lego wants to protect it's brand" to "you're not using proper grammar when you add the 's'" and "UR WRONG!".... it's just stupid. Again, the most popular reasoning I've seen, which has already been stated annoyingly in here... is "it's a brand name, you can't pluralize it"... tons of companies do. You can. This statement that you can't is just not true. Cokes, Oreos, Toyotas, 10000x more. And then the "Lego said so" which is also irrelevant as Lego has no control over language. These are facts. Opinions on the matter don't matter. You can have an opinion that they're wrong but you'd have a factually wrong opinion. There is no evidence, at least locally (in the USA), that there's anything "wrong" about saying "Legos". Absolutely none. Until someone shows some data and evidence to suggest otherwise besides "you can't pluralize brands" and "Lego said so" there is none. I've been trying to remember to not say "Legos" on here and usually don't. I don't mind Lego wanting to protect their brand and am glad to help them. But... the false information... so annoying...

It can't be wrong because it's factually not wrong. That's not an opinion. It's fact. You can think of it as "wrong" like an emotional wrong how it's "wrong" to take candy from a baby. I guess that's fine. But factually wrong? Impossible with the current standards of the language. Disobeying the company? The company literally has ZERO authority over this issue. EB as a majority decided the correct term? Irrelevant as the majority can and in this case IS wrong. Grammatically it's correct. "Grammatically correct or not"? That's not how facts work. I'm sorry but it's true. Respect is also irrelevant to this issue. All LEGO can do is offer their opinion on what the proper use of their brand is. But they have no sway over language that is created by societies as a whole. Legos is correct. If you want to respect LEGO and not call them that, that's fine. But I'm sick of people spreading non-truths about the facts here. This isn't Fox News. :P

There's a lot of controversy here about the usage of "Legos" which is basically what it's called in North America by everyone who isn't a hardcore lego fan or a lego Ambassador or employee. So basically like 99% of people here refer to the collective individual elements of LEGO sets as "Legos". Now there's a lot of "you're wrong" that goes around. Heck, an Ambassador has said I'm just wrong and acted like they were an English teacher. However the use of "Legos" is a matter of language and grammar and locality. And it's not incorrect to use (at least in the respective countries, USA and probably Canada but I'll talk only about the use in the USA here). First off the Lego Group is basically worried about their trademark. Some companies in the past, who's names have become synonymous with a certain type of product to the degree that all products of that type are called it's trademark, even ones not made by the company, have had trademark isses because of their trademark becoming genericized. This can weaken the trademark considerably to the point of losing the trademark. Examples of this happening include Aspirin, Heroin and Yo-yo. Companies sometimes find themselves having to go on campaigns to avoid genericization. Band-Aid, Xerox and Lego have all gone on those campaigns and have so far been successful at avoiding the loss of their trademark. Lego has been practicing this for a while, asking consumers to refer to their Lego elements as Lego bricks, Lego toys, etc so that the emphasis is on the brand name and the element separately reducing the risk that as many people generalize all similar products like Mega Bloks, Block Tech, and any of those "Lego-like" things into "Lego" or "Legos". I admit, a lot of people do this. And it is a problem for Lego. Now such actions are understandable. Lego doesn't want to lose it's trademark and then see all it's competitors use the name "Lego" on their products. But this isn't about that. This is about the grammar and usage. Now, there's been word going around that the use of "Legos" is incorrect. It is not. It's time to face the facts. The Lego Group, a large company, does not control language. In the vernacular at least (native language or dialect of a specific population) "Legos" is correct. Lego might not want to hear that, heck it outright says it's wrong and discourages it in any way possible. But again, this is LANGUAGE which is not within The Lego Group's reach. First lets look at the word "Lego". It's a brand name, a proper noun. I understand why people think it's weird to say "Legos" because that might feel like saying "Microsofts" or "Googles". However, the evolution of the name, at least in places like the USA, has gone past that. First off there is no rule that a proper noun or a brand name cannot be used in such a fashion. Have you heard your grandma say "Nintendos"? I sure have. Heck, even about things that are Sony or Microsoft. Yes, she might be factually wrong about the Sony and Microsoft things however the use of "Nintendos" is absolutely NOT grammatically incorrect. In fact the practice of turning proper nouns and brand names into countable objects is a common practice! From "Macs" to "Toyotas" to "BMWs" to, yes "Legos". There is absolutely nothing incorrect grammatically about doing that to a brand name despite what Lego would want you to believe (because they fear genericization). Heck, a lot of brands do this THEMSEVLVES especially car brands. This is a grammatical FACT. This is language. This is how language works. It might not be ideal for the Lego company but it's just the facts. The fact that Lego officially names the proper terms also does NOT affect the language. No matter what the "official grammar" is the unofficial grammar of "Legos" is still very much grammatically correct. Again, deny it all you want. But language is not dictated by a company or the hardcore fans. Brand names, despite what a lot of people believe, can be turned into countable objects as long as there are actually countable objects. This is the biggest case I see against "legos"... but factually it's not actually a rule. You CAN grammatically do this. So basically, the vernacular of using the word "legos" is 100 grammatically correct. Vernacular makes it sound weird and off in some regions (basically everywhere outside of the USA and possibly Canada). But that's irrelevant. The Lego Group has attempted to control the use of the word "Legos" and to say what's correct and incorrect, but that's also irrelevant as they have no real power over language. Grammatically there's absolutely nothing wrong with using "Legos", "Nintendos", "BMWs", etc. Though hopefully you're actually referring to the correct products, otherwise it's incorrect (factually, not grammatically). So no calling Mega Bloks "Legos" as that's factually wrong (they're not the same brand) but still, grammatically correct. Legos is both grammatically correct and factually correct because you're referring to a single company's products. You could say it's not a fact because Lego says it's not. You could say it's not grammatically correct because they say it's not. But it is. Again, they do not control language. Legos = Grammatically correct. Legos = A vernacular term most often used in the USA and correctly according to it's language. Now, Lego is a fine company and if you want to help them keep their trademark, that's fine. I usually try to say "Lego bricks" and stuff specifically when online (I don't bother in "real life" since nobody here does). But seriously, come on. Facts are facts. Grammar is grammar. LEGOS IS FINE. And don't discount vernacular. In some places it's fine to say kleenexes, in others it's kleenex. Both are fine grammatically. You can say you have two Cokes. Two Oreos. Some things sound fine regionally while others do not sound fine regionally. It's freakin' language. Lego has no control over the grammar and saying "Legos" is grammatically wrong is incorrect. Grammar and the vernacular are on "Legos" side. When it comes down to it there's only one issue. Whether or not you want to help Lego maintain it's trademark. But stop saying it's "incorrect" to use the word "Legos" because it's not... it's just not. Not here in the USA anyways.