Blondie-Wan

Should this perhaps be modified a wee bit further? I'm thinking the important thing is whether another company has a construction toy license specifically. We all know of other licensed sets and themes for which LEGO holds a "construction toy" license, while other companies hold licenses for action figures and/or playsets (Star Wars being the most obvious example, but I believe this is also true or has also been true of Indiana Jones, Marvel and DC, Harry Potter, and several others). This is important with regard to this: (bolding added by yours truly)Ooh, that's a factor I hadn't considered / known about. But does it necessarily kill the project? It could be that JazWares' license is broad enough to just cover all toys in general, but if not, I'd hope LEGO has a shot...

I noticed both back around the time the first trailer hit, and I think it's safe to say both the collar/hood and the hair with cowlick will be actual new pieces; in fact, the images of the one set we've seen so far do actually show Wyldstyle with what appears to be that "pulled-down" hood / "collar" element. Moreover I imagine both of them, along with Wyldstyle's hair, will make it into sets in other themes, such as City (though I'm not so sure about President Business's hair ).

Well, I suspect those tiny dinks and dents in the edges of some of the bricks are just the result of the bricks being somewhere in the middle or at the bottom of bins full of thousands upon thousands of bricks in the factory; if there's a huge mass resting on one tiny spot on the edge, it seems to me, the pressure is going to make a little dent in the edge. Perhaps I'm wrong, but it seems like something I'd just expect. That said, as I noted earlier most of these "issues" seem really trivial to me, excepting the one brick with the marred corner that prevents it from sitting correctly atop the brick under it. Moreover, I'm not sure what could be done to prevent these sorts of issues - it seems like any possible solution would require inspecting the bricks far more closely and setting a tougher standard for what passes and what doesn't, but that would surely raise costs, and people already complain about LEGO prices as it is. I don't think many of us would be too happy to have to pay two or three or four times as much as we do now for a set of a given size. It seems to me the best solution, then, might be for the original poster (and anyone else with what I'd consider much stricter-than-usual standards for what they consider "good," "acceptable," "poor," etc.) to just contact TLG's customer service, as suggested, and request replacements. If one does this a great deal, I'm sure TLG will eventually want to see these "defective" bricks one's getting, and when they see how little marked the bricks actually are they might no longer be willing to supply free replacements to that particular consumer; OTOH, if enough people do this, it may get them to reevaluate what they consider "good," "acceptable," "poor," etc. and impose the tougher requirements we'd be happy to see, if they're able to do it without raising prices above what the market will bear. But who knows?

I wasn't suggesting they revisit discontinued themes; I was just citing them as examples of licensed themes that lend themselves to army-building. That said, most of the themes I originally mentioned (Star Wars, The Hobbit / The Lord of the Rings, and Marvel and DC Superheroes) are still active. And of the two I mentioned that aren't, at least one of them does have a fair chance at coming back, if a fifth Indiana Jones movie does wind up happening.

The Toy Story Pizza Planet aliens and army men are exactly what I was talking about. Are they not enough? I made a point of getting over 20 of each, myself - nowhere near the huge armies some people collect for some themes, but enough to qualify as "army building," I think. (And technically, the heroes and villains aren't unique, anyway - remember, the main characters are all toys, mass-produced in factories, and while we don't see most of them in the actual movie storylines, someone might conceivably want them; moreover, we actually do see a whole slew of Buzz Lightyears in Al's Toy Barn in Toy Story 2. That's not actually what I was thinking of at all, but since you mentioned the uniqueness of the heroes, I thought I'd point it out.) Super Heroes so far has had the Chitauri invaders from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and Gotham City PD from the DC Comics one; both are things one might reasonably wish to amass in large quantities (and heck, one might also want a good handful of henchmen for the Joker and Two-Face). Beyond figures already produced, though, I was speaking mainly in terms of potential characters from those universes, beings we might very well see turn up in sets. Dr Leg O Brick's post cites a fair number for starters. Indiana Jones? Just of the minifigures produced, there are Lao Che's thugs, the Thuggees, the Cairo street thugs (hm - there's a pattern here somewhere...), the German soldiers, the Russian soldiers, and the Ugha. And as with Super Heroes, the source material of the franchise portrays numerous other members of large groups that would be suitable for amassing large numbers of minifigures, were they produced, and I actually do hope to MOC some of them from suitable components of other minifigures from other lines. And heck, for Indiana Jones one might well want to army-build even some of the animals - ants, spiders, snakes, bats, horses, monkeys, camels, crocodilians and more all appear on screen in numbers ranging from "several" to "bajillions" in the various Indy productions.

Erm... huh? You quoted me, but seem to be responding to someone else. I wasn't "worked up," if that's what you thought, and I certainly didn't take anything personally. I merely didn't share your view, and indicated as much. I also agree that they don't need to look bad or poorly constructed (and indeed agree that the opposite is desirable); I simply don't think that they are bad or poorly constructed. Moreover, until you posted this, I didn't even know that you thought they looked bad or poorly constructed, since your earlier post used much softer language. Regarding "using the normal minifig," I assumed it was obvious why they aren't. As we know from the various announcements and discussion surrounding the initial launch of Friends, the minidoll arose because TLG's best research (on which they spent four years and millions of dollars talking to thousands of girls and their mothers) that led to Friends indicated that young girls don't tend to be particularly enamored of minifigures, and wanted more realistic-looking figures. I'd therefore expect the minidoll to be the standard figure now for any major new theme aimed principally at girls.

Oh, cool! These don't look half bad, I think. These aren't part of the Friends line, though; they're a new line, Disney Princess. As noted by several previous posts in the thread, these are apparently aimed at a younger age range than Friends (or City, Star Wars, The Hobbit / The Lord of the Rings, etc.), and there's nothing wrong with that. In fact, I imagine there'll be one very positive upside to these sets being intended for slightly younger builders. I wouldn't bet my life on it, but I suspect all those decorated elements will be actual printed bricks, not stickered ones.

That could well have been the thinking behind that rejection, but Andy isn't the same as just a logo or something; it's a robot character, like robot characters they've already done from various narrative licenses. The only difference is that this one does serve as a corporate mascot-type thing, but that doesn't mean it can't be a toy or model. Obviously it is one to the builder, and to the voters. I don't see that it's fundamentally different from something like the various VW models (does VW pay TLG to make those sets? I'd guess not; why should this one be different?). But perhaps I'm wrong; it did get rejected. I just don't think it would have to work the way you describe (or even that it could - certainly I don't see why Google would pay TLG to make a set based on their IP). I mean, I do get what purpose Andy serves, but that doesn't change the fact that it's still a robot character, and one designed to be inherently appealing. I know I'd want the set, and I don't work for or have a financial stake in Google, nor do I even use an Android phone. I'd want it just because it's a cute lime green robot. Er, wait - how is it not an "honest attempt at crowd-sourcing", and why can't something be both that and a "marketing gimmick"? Correct. Of course it's quite possible that some specific individual stores would pass while others wouldn't, and not even just because of the reasons we'd think about (TLG not wanting to associate with a particular business or brand, say). Some of those other companies might themselves not want to have third-party merchandise produced of their stores, even if we as LEGO fans think of it as some kind of honor. I kind of doubt Apple would really be on board with another company making and commercially selling toy replicas of its stores, for example, even if some here might consider it advertising for Apple.

News at last - reviews are done for the Winter 2012, Spring 2013 and Summer 2013 batches! The short version, behind the spoiler tags:

Erm - huh? "Brick-compatible (non-LEGO) Hot Wheels"? What's this about?? (I'm afraid the link isn't working for me, so I can't see if there's more information there.)

Well, obviously it would depend upon exactly what the figures are, just as it would with non-licensed figures. If there actually were going to be a Star Wars wave (for example - and yes, I'm aware of the reason it wouldn't happen; I'm using it purely as an example), I think it's safe to say plenty of people would want to amass huge numbers of stormtroopers, Jawas, and so on, while being happy with just one or two of Luke, Han, Leia, etc. Plenty of licensed themes feature minifigures, or at least the potential for minifigures, that lend themselves to army-building, including Star Wars, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones, Toy Story, Marvel & DC Superheroes, and many more. Obviously licensing considerations and other factors preclude many of these from being given the so-called "CMF" treatment anyway, as has been extensively discussed with Star Wars, but merely being from a licensed theme doesn't automatically mean something is inherently unlikely to be desirable in vast quantities... although it's probably safe to say it's not sought with The Simpsons. But then, army-building is only a part of what drives sales of the CMFs, anyway. I don't know that I'd count The LEGO Movie and the Minifigures game the same way I'd count other "media" themes; these two are themselves based on LEGO's own material, after all, and I suspect the character mix in these waves will be pretty much like what we've gotten in the first eleven waves. They'll undoubtedly be a mix of various character archetypes, from various "themes" as we know them, rather than being dependent upon being recognizable as specific characters like all those from The Simpsons.

This is the one that looks significant to me. To be honest, the others strike me as rather trivial, but this one I agree is problematic. I don't know if the sort of perfection you appear to be after is actually feasibly attainable.

It was a nice try!

Well, first of all because it's an Advent Calendar, obviously, and thus offers the advent calendar experience, which actually is important to some people - not everyone, granted, but opening one numbered box each day to get a little surprise can be a cherished part of the holiday season for some, regardless of how "useful" the pieces are after December. Secondly, this set has way more than 1-2 minifigures; whether they're good minifigures or not is obviously subjective, but I think it's safe to say each of them is good to someone. And finally, the set MSRP is $40 ($39.99), not $50. Not to say I think this is a particularly great one, and it stands a good chance of becoming the first LEGO Star Wars Advent Calendar I don't get for myself, but I do see the point of them.

Not to get off topic, but... Huh? I don't know whether you're talking about the US prices, but if so, 18 cents per piece isn't remotely typical of Star Wars sets.

I'd noticed that in recent years. For a while after I came out of my dark ages it was an excellent resource, but it seems that in the last two or three years the updates have become very sporadic; there are mass-market sets from 2010 that still don't have parts inventories, never mind sets from more recently than that. I wish it weren't so, but there it is. As far as catalogs in sets go, I do know they were still around as recently as the early 2000s, as I have some that cover sets up to at least 2002 and I think 2003 or 2004. I think I stopped seeing them, though, in new sets from around 2004 or 2005; certainly they seem to have completely disappeared by 2006. I'm at work and away from my LEGO at the moment, but I want to say the last ones were in 2004, though I might be off by a year in either direction.

I'm very gratified to be so successful as I've been at collecting this theme, particularly considering how late I started. Just today I went to my local TRU, and took advantage of both the current US promo and last week's 30% sale on 79004 Barrel Escape - yesterday was supposed to be the last day that sale price was valid, but they had inadvertently left the sale sign up for it and so the manager let me get one at that price, and combine it with the current BOGO to get 9470 Shelob Attacks for 40% off - granted, that would be 40% off TRU's marked up price of $24.99 rather than the MSRP of $19.99, but it still amounted to 25% off the MSRP, and I got both sets together for less than fifty bucks. I also found 9474 The Battle of Helm's Deep clearanced for $89 yesterday and put it on layaway, and finally I picked up a free copy of 30213 (the Gandalf polybag) in a Walmart "Toyland" promotion. I'm on my way...

I'm among your supporters for that project. Good luck! When you say "all the way," do you mean all the way to 10,000 votes, or all the way to becoming an actual set? I agree it's probably tougher for the non-licensed sets to garner that many votes, but I suspect the ones that do may have a slightly easier time passing the review, if anything, in part for the reasons Faefrost cites, as well as the absence of licensing hassles, the dimished likelihood of brand fit conflicts, and other concerns. And there have actually been non-licensed projects that have made it to 10,000 supporters, and many others with good chances of doing so.

Now, that is a beautifully designed home for our favorite little plastic people. Very well done. CUUSOO projects that make it to being actual products are always redesigned, but I could see TLG actually using your design with very few changes, with the exception of the staircase; I think they'd do something to reinforce that for an actual commercial model, although it looks like it works fine in a MOC. I envy you your stash of pink bricks! I have lots of certain colors from the themes I've gotten so far, but even if one collects a lot of Belville sets it can be tough to get that many basic bricks in pink. If TLG decided to do your project and kept it that color, I'm sure plenty of people would want to get multiple copies just so they could build the house while also getting a bunch of extra bricks in pink. I'm sure my girlfriend and I would both love this. Supported, and I'll be sure to let her know about this one so she can support it too. Good luck!

I can't speak for everyone, and I don't pretend to know how much of a factor this is for others - how many people are fans of all these themes - but I can say this certainly hits the nail on the head for me. I'd probably have kept up with all the Hobbit / Lord of the Rings sets myself if I weren't also trying to collect Star Wars (and various other themes, both licensed and not, but these two are some of the big ones for me).

It really depends. There were actually two different Ghostbusters projects that made it to 10,000 votes for this review period - this one and this one. While both have their own interpretations of the source material, they do both present the car and the four Ghostbusters themselves; the main difference between their concepts is that one includes the station and the other does not. They therefore have the perfect opportunity to choose whether to include the station or not (assuming they do in fact do either of them, of course, which isn't guaranteed but looks likely), by choosing which specific project to approve and turn into a set. Alternately, they could combine the two and produce a "middle ground" set, with the four characters and the ECTO-1, plus a small station facade or something, just not a full building.

Hm. I hope to get a Death Star soon, and the prospect of recent production runs using updated versions of minifigure parts concerns me. I absolutely don't mind getting the later versions of characters' heads, but I really really want to get the older stormtrooper torsos rather than the new ones.

Another supporting vote here!

Maybe not Shaun of the Dead, but what about Firefly / Serenity? That's another IP on which a CUUSOO project was based, which garnered 10,000 votes. And while Sherlock is undoubtedly popular, Firefly has a lingering popularity with an audience I suspect may be somewhat more inclined to buy LEGO sets than the average Sherlock fan... but it was still declined for reasons of brand fit. Right now, our ideas of just what works of popular entertainment might be acceptable source material for LEGO are being challenged and expanded by The Simpsons, but we have to remember there are still things they just won't do. I haven't seen Sherlock yet myself, but if the descriptions here do it justice, I suspect it's one of those things TLG just doesn't want associated with the brand, even if it's a high-quality production.

Maybe for many people, but I'm glad to have it. I'm guessing you mean "not exciting as a LEGO set," because it's one of the most compelling, dramatic scenes in the story.