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".

Okay. With this packed review, I wonder if they'll pass more than one set like other reviews.

I for one think Poptropica could pass. It would appeal to young kids, something really not yet done with CUUSOO. Having been addicted when I was little, I immediately recognized it and loved it.

Ghostbusters: Duh. Set Name: Ghostbusters Ecto-1. Minifigures:4. Price: 34.99

Atlas: beer can with colorful crap in it. NO

Female fig set: Maaaaaaybe. I'm not sure if they'd sell 10,000.

FTL: Don't know anything about it. So I can't tell anything about that.

Wizard of Oz: Probably. It'd be expensive, however.

Lego has archived Senteosan's Jurassic Park project, because of Hasbro's license. This was to be expected.

PS : I really like the last sentence of Lego's message : Please understand that our comments here do not have an effect on the LEGO Review that will take place if the project reaches 10,000 supporters.

Edited September 4, 201311 yr by Leewan

PS : I really like the last sentence of Lego's message : Please understand that our comments here do not have an effect on the LEGO Review that will take place if the project reaches 10,000 supporters.

That's underneath all of the official LEGO comments.

Yes I know. But I think it's quite ironical to see this sentence under a message saying "we won't produce your project at all".

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.

Yes I know. But I think it's quite ironical to see this sentence under a message saying "we won't produce your project at all".

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."

Edited September 4, 201311 yr by Faefrost

You know, as, ah... unlovely as the prototype ATLAS mini model is, I think it actually has some potential to be a more appealing set. Certainly the substantially larger, more minifigure-scaled version linked from this model's page is quite a bit more compelling. While obviously any model this size would be compromised compared to the larger one, I think an attractive model could be made from this project; it's just that the model shown here isn't it.

I imagine TLG's designers and CUUSOO team members will probably consider this when evaluating the project... though I'd agree that even with a substantially more compelling build, the ATLAS project is probably still the least likely out of this review batch to get produced. But one never knows...

You know, as, ah... unlovely as the prototype ATLAS mini model is, I think it actually has some potential to be a more appealing set. Certainly the substantially larger, more minifigure-scaled version linked from this model's page is quite a bit more compelling. While obviously any model this size would be compromised compared to the larger one, I think an attractive model could be made from this project; it's just that the model shown here isn't it.

I imagine TLG's designers and CUUSOO team members will probably consider this when evaluating the project... though I'd agree that even with a substantially more compelling build, the ATLAS project is probably still the least likely out of this review batch to get produced. But one never knows...

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."

Indeed, and it wouldn't be the first time they've handled this particular IP, for that matter.

If they ever did reacquire the JP rights, it'd be notable as a licensed theme they'd had once, allowed to run its course and go to a competitor, then gotten back after said competitor had done their own version between TLG's first and second runs with it. The only other property I can remember this happening with is Spider-Man, done by TLG for the first two live-action movies in the Raimi / Maguire trilogy, then taken over by Mega Bloks for the third movie and other media, and now back to TLG again as part of the larger general Marvel theme.

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.

Oh, don't get me wrong - I don't think its chances are good, just that they're somewhat better than the mock-up in the proposal would let one believe. I agree a set using exactly the same build shown on the project page would be pretty much completely unmovable (except perhaps as a pure parts pack if it were cheap enough). I actually think a set of the larger model would sell better than this, even though it would have to cost many times as much.

But I do think some clever product designers at our favorite toymaker could look at the proposal model and envision a broadly similar but much more compelling model in their minds, and it's that possibility that gives this project a (slim) fighting chance. If CUUSOO sets were forced to use the exact same builds as shown in the project proposals, of course, this one would be absolutely DOA.

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."

Which begs the question why CuuSoo didn't decree something similar with respect to Western Modular Town. The LR sets are not going to see a second wave and there will be no sequel.

Which begs the question why CuuSoo didn't decree something similar with respect to Western Modular Town. The LR sets are not going to see a second wave and there will be no sequel.

Sure, but the license agreement may have barred them from doing anything that even gives the appearance of considering a competing project (also, the decision was made well before the movie was released).

Sure, but the license agreement may have barred them from doing anything that even gives the appearance of considering a competing project (also, the decision was made well before the movie was released).

Mothballing a future project cannot infringe a license agreement. It's like saying TLG will never produce another Pirates theme because of a short-term PotC license. Indeed, they produced generic themed Pirates models between PotC films.

Edited September 4, 201311 yr by Another Brick In The Wall

Which begs the question why CuuSoo didn't decree something similar with respect to Western Modular Town. The LR sets are not going to see a second wave and there will be no sequel.

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.

I'm sure that was a matter of timing. LR was not known until after MWT was already in the review process.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? If there was a license conflict, surely the LR license was finalized.

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.

No, it would not. No licensing agreement can be that far-reaching to exclude future projects after the license is extinguished. It would be unenforceable as a restraint of trade.

Irrespective of this, if CuuSoo genuinely believed MWT was a worthwhile project they could have used vague language such as "the design is subject to further consideration in view of pre-existing licensing obligations." Intuitively, even if they openly said we will produce MWT in 2015 when LR ends, do you really think it would have had a material impact on sales of LR in 2013-14?

Edited September 4, 201311 yr by Another Brick In The Wall

Can you clarify what you mean by this? If there was a license conflict, surely the LR license was finalized.

The license was undoubtedly finalized at that point, but it hadn't been officially announced (although rumours were certainly flying around). Mothballing the MWT would've been borderline admitting they had the LR license. Aside from the fact they may not have wanted to do that, there may have been contractual obligations to provide no official confirmation before a certain point.

Irrespective of this, if CuuSoo genuinely believed MWT was a worthwhile project they could have used vague language such as "the design is subject to further consideration in view of pre-existing licensing obligations." Intuitively, even if they openly said we will produce MWT in 2015 when LR ends, do you really think it would have had a material impact on sales of LR in 2013-14?

We don't really know the clauses in the LR license, nor to what extent they bar LEGO from making other Western-themed things. We also don't know how long the license lasts. It's quite possible that, since LEGO is partnered with Disney anyway, the LR license lasts for a good deal of time. CUUSOO can't go around saying for everything 'we can't make this now but maybe we will eventually.' They review it and come to a decision for that review period. Obviously with Portal they did decide to say 'we might make this' for whatever reason, but that one could be a matter of a lengthy deal-making process; it's not a matter of putting it off indefinitely until they aren't barred from doing it, like LR.

Could they have archived the Western Town way back when? Maybe. But maybe they hadn't put that process in place yet, maybe the CUUSOO wasn't aware of the conflict before the thing reached 10,000, maybe this and maybe that. Maybe what AndyC said above^ while I was posting this. Sounds reasonable to me.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? If there was a license conflict, surely the LR license was finalized.

No, it would not. No licensing agreement can be that far-reaching to exclude future projects after the license is extinguished. It would be unenforceable as a restraint of trade.

Irrespective of this, if CuuSoo genuinely believed MWT was a worthwhile project they could have used vague language such as "the design is subject to further consideration in view of pre-existing licensing obligations." Intuitively, even if they openly said we will produce MWT in 2015 when LR ends, do you really think it would have had a material impact on sales of LR in 2013-14?

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 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.

The Lego Technic team will be working overtime redesigning the Landrover to meet their criteria. I broke down and got the instructions and started to build it, and there is no way that it comes close to the way that actual Lego models are built. Not that it is a bad thing, but certainly things would have to be omitted from it which is what helped get it the support in the first place. The main things that got the Landrover it's supports was the fact that it drives and has a a transmission, but sadly, there is no way Lego could release this model in it's current state there is just too much of the possibilities of things failing. You are talking about a whole redesign and I don't see it happening very quickly. The Technic designers spend a long time on their flagship models. I don't think we'll ever see any models of this size ever making it. Especially ones this complex.

I think that a good solution for the Land Rover Defender would be to make it a combination model of 3-4 sets. They should also make a heavily-downscaled single-set version of the truck to justify the license. The combination model could just be Sheepo's model with some necessary modifications from Technic designers. Then they could try to design separate sets that use the same pieces, including a 600-850 piece Land Rover truck that can use Power Functions as an add-on. I don't really know if this idea would help or hurt sales though.

I don't think that anyone on the forum has suggested this before, and I don't really imagine this being the solution that TLC will go with.

Came across two projects today that I fell in love with.

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/48249

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/48240

I can't think of any old nostalgic movies/shows to make projects of.

-Sci

Came across two projects today that I fell in love with.

http://lego.cuusoo.c...deas/view/48249

http://lego.cuusoo.c...deas/view/48240

I can't think of any old nostalgic movies/shows to make projects of.

-Sci

Wow! I especially love that Home Alone one.

Came across two projects today that I fell in love with.

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/48249

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/48240

I can't think of any old nostalgic movies/shows to make projects of.

-Sci

Both are interesting properties to base projects around. I think both will do well in voting, but would probably not do as well in review.

Magic School Bus- probably has the better chance of the two, and looks like a great well designed project. I only see 2 problems with the project. One is the IP itself. How widespread is it? I know the show has run for years on American Public Broadcast stations, but does it have any European exposure? Anywhere else? The show may also skew a bit younger than the normal target range for CuuSoo sets and projects. The other problem is the project is a great utterly fantastic school bus and kids. But probably needs a bit more illustrating the "magic". I know the project talks about some simple machines and such to stage a "field trip". But some sort of more specific setting might illustrate the nature of the show a bit better.

Home Alone has some different issues going on. It's great fun and a fondly remembered movie. But the question of brand fit may come into play. Yeah it's a fun cartoony movie, but it is still hard to completely ignore that it is a live action movie whereby two thugs seek to terrorize and harm a small child, and said child proceeds to direct copious amounts of violence against them, including lighting them on fire. While we know this is all in fun, and as I said, cartoony, in the movie. This might not translate well to a more static presentation such as a Lego set. "Little Billy with a Flame Thrower" does not seem typical of the sort of play features Lego goes for. But hey, you never know.

On a related not to the Magic School bus project, has anyone ever put forth a Sesame Street one? That would seem to be the better positioned Children's Television Workshop type IP? It carries much more nostalgia value and has deep decades long penetration around the world. The only draw back is it would probably need character molds.

Edited September 6, 201311 yr by Faefrost

Does anyone think the TMNT party wagon project has a chance? This would be a real nostalgia trip. Though they'd need to get the license from Lionsgate. The Nick contract might prevent this.

Does anyone think the TMNT party wagon project has a chance? This would be a real nostalgia trip. Though they'd need to get the license from Lionsgate. The Nick contract might prevent this.

I think we will see a set based on the van from the new movie, which more closely resembles the classic Party Wagon than the current ShellRaiser. I don't think they would need a Liongate license unless they were doing a specific old live action movie design. But didn't the original Party Wagon designs come from the Playmates toy lines? I also think Nikolodean outright owns the entirety of the franchise now, including the prior shows. So any contracts for Turtles stuff would likely go through them (excepting Playmates designs).

I think we will see a more classic leaning van set. Just not through CuuSoo.

Edited September 6, 201311 yr by Faefrost

Hmmm? Sherlock up 1200 votes in a few hours. A huge stream of (mostly female) outside supporters.