LEGO Ideas Discussion

[lightningtiger]

Well, yeah, they say that outright - they can develop a theme that springs up from a single Ideas set. That's what they did with Minecraft, and there's nothing wrong with that.

But I gather you're talking about more than that, and about things like the Avengers S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier and the Ghostbusters Firehouse Headquarters. But both of those sets were obvious candidates for large sets, based on franchises to which LEGO already had the rights, and they surely had both sets in development before the Ideas projects entered review, and quite possibly before they were even posted. Is LEGO just supposed to give a royalty and five free copies of a set to every fan who proposes the same obvious idea that they're working on already anyway?

No, but there is a difference between just suggesting an idea to actually designing, customising, building, photographing, etc., a project idea yourself that was the point I was aiming for.

Look at Dimensions - Portals, Wizard Of Oz, etc., all 10K rejected's yet they make the video game with matching mini builds and minifigs.......I wonder what those 'Cuusoo/Ideas' project posters think about that, they do the ground work and Lego takes the spoils.

I personally don't care if any of my projects don't really make it, though it would be nice to see some city style ideas make the cut for a change and if Lego thinks even one of my set ideas even in part only is good for them to use so be it - I would consider it my part in creating a better Lego City theme for everyone.

For me being on Ideas is like being on EB here, it's for the glory of the brick and for making friends within the Lego world.

Brick On everyone !

[Captain Nemo]

I'm developing the opinion that Lego are using Ideas as a launch pad for their so-called OWN ideas for sets and themes !

And if things don't get to 10K or they get rejected one way.......then they'll take it another without having to pay a red cent to the original designer/idea provider.

I'd like to point out this counter argument that I always lean on with this common complaint (And one that I recently noted on Brickset, as there was a large debate over the HQ on there a few days ago) that being: Lego owes the designer nothing if said designer does not hold the rights to their idea. It's a simple as that.

Ghostbusters HQ, Helicarrier, Portal. The designers who submitted these hold no claim to the idea itself--Lego later on making that set does not mean they should give royalties to that designer. You can argue that morally yes, but legally no. The main argument on Brickset was about the HQ and whether or not the designer should have received credit (for the record, after complaining to Lego, the designer was offered a free set when it comes out)--personally, I think he's lucky even for that because he doesn't own any of the rights to begin with.

Really the issue just stems from the fact that designers are not offering new ideas, but rather previously existing ideas. Coupled with the fact the designs themselves are often outrageously over sized--they get rejected. That doesn't mean Lego ignores that the idea/theme received 10,000 votes. That also does not mean that Lego is now somehow beholden to the designer forever for supplying them with an idea they do not own for a set that does not conceivably work.

[dr_spock]

If you don't want LEGO to use your rejected, archived, etc. ideas, you should not be a member of Ideas site and submit a project. Under their Terms of Service you assigned your rights to LEGO. Even if you deleted your project, you still give LEGO rights for up to 3 years.

I guess you can think of it like going to venture capitalists to fund your business project, they'll own a good chunk of you.

Always read and understand the terms in a contract before you sign. If the terms are not agreeable, don't sign and/or re-negotiate.

[AFOLguy1970]

If you don't want LEGO to use your rejected, archived, etc. ideas, you should not be a member of Ideas site and submit a project. Under their Terms of Service you assigned your rights to LEGO. Even if you deleted your project, you still give LEGO rights for up to 3 years.

I guess you can think of it like going to venture capitalists to fund your business project, they'll own a good chunk of you.

Always read and understand the terms in a contract before you sign. If the terms are not agreeable, don't sign and/or re-negotiate.

I agree that Lego has no obligation to compensate anyone for a project if something similar is produced after it does not pass review. I feel for Sergio regarding the Ghostbusters HQ. I really do. He even traveled to Billund and met with the designers who could not tell him anything while he was there. I too think he is still lucky to be offered a set and to have the ability to meet with the designers.

With that said, this is the reason I do not enter photo contests anymore. Most people are hoping to win a prize, but few realize that you just gave up the rights to your photo by entering it, and they could use it for other purposes. They do not even have to credit the photo to you if you surrender the rights to it.

I would venture to say that there is a possibility Lego designers might browse these forums from time to time and view various MOCs and designs submitted here purely for the enjoyment of others. Could they be influenced or even replicate some of what they see here? Possibly. They could even be doing it subconsciously.

As far as Ideas is concerned, it seems like the best shot is to come up with an original, non-licensed, moderately priced set that will interest Lego builders.

[ShaydDeGrai]

You don't see the issue? Did those 10k voters commit to buying?

I've had this argument before and been summarily shot down by a lot of people - I don't vote for sets I wouldn't actually buy and, I think, for example, The Golden Girls set would not have gotten 10k votes if voters were obligated to buy it. Neither would a lot of these huge sets whose cost would be several hundreds of dollars. Based on average prices, a 10k piece set would be in the neighborhood of $1000. How many people would vote for it if they were required to put 10% down on the estimated cost of the set? You could get it back if the set fails to reach 10k and be accepted, but you'd lose it if you didn't buy the set if it was made.

Now how many 10k sets are viable?

How do you think TLG looks at it? Small sets, small runs, not really worth while. Huge sets, even in small runs, potential loss. Medium sets, small runs, potentially worthwhile, smaller risk of loss.

Medium sets win.

These are all very good points that many people have glossed over since the very first days of Cuusoo.

Like Fred67, I don't treat proposals as a "like us on Facebook" sort of thing where people randomly click a thumbs up that they have even the slightest interest in. Ideas isn't MOCPages or Flickr (no matter how many posters try to treat it as such) it's a cross between a crowdsourcing business site (like Kickstarter without any level of actual commitment) and in Internet buzz site to raise LEGO brand awareness (which is probably why TLG _doesn't_ require firm commitments for support, it would likely drive away casual traffic).

Personally, I only support projects that I would actually buy and on the rare occasion when something I like gets made, I follow through and _do_ buy it unless the "Official" design has scaled things back too much or otherwise spoiled the thing that attracted me to it in the first place. These days, I don't support very many big builds (mostly because I've become jaded and don't feel like wasting my time on stuff that, based on the past few year's experience, will never happen) but I used to, and even then tried to be realistic with my expectations.

Unlike many people who decide to support a huge model, if _I_ back something ridiculously huge, I expect it to command a pretty big price tag. I remember when the UCS Sandcrawler was gaining support; I backed it and when the site asked me what I'd be willing to pay for it I said something like $1200 and explicitly noted in my comment section that I was backing the scale, the power functions and the lighting aspects of the largest USC Star Wars model ever produced. I went on to say that if it wasn't on par or better than the USC Millenium Falcon I wasn't interested. I didn't expect them to actually build it, but I was using Cuusoo as a way of telling TLG that there _were_ AFOLs out there that wanted more high end UCS sets and that a "limited" run of 10,000 copies of a $500+ set might not be as risky a proposition as they marketing models (based on interests and incomes of teenaged boys) might suggest.

But I understand TLG's position, I know I'm not their typical consumer. I remember talking to someone from the Cuusoo team at a convention. He expressed his frustration with the price suggestion box they had on the support form and why they were considering getting rid of it. For every serious user who tried to associate a real value for a given proposal, there were 50 people who'd just enter $1 as their way of saying Lego should cost less. So, not only were people saying they wanted huge kits, they were also stating in the same breathe that they effectively saying that they wanted them for free. I know "cuusoo" means "wish" but if that's your idea of a sound business model, perhaps you should invest your retirement savings in lottery tickets, because your odds of getting an outcome you're happy with about the same.

Even with the token dollar crowd aside, I've known people who supported that Sandcrawler set and (unrealistically) wanted that same model, brick for brick, for the price of the original official SandCrawler (140 USD). When I pointed out that the old model could fit entirely within the proposed on with room to spare _and_ the proposed one probably had $140 worth of motors, lighting and other PF parts alone, they were completely un-phased, somehow thinking that if 10,000 people told TLG that they _had_ to make the set and they _had_ to sell it for a $1000 per unit loss, TLG would just say "okay, the customer is always right…"

For both the "dollar" crowd and the "better but still way off" crowd, you need to realize that offering a big kit isn't just a risk at that point, losing money is almost guaranteed. If you price it low enough to made the masses happy, you're not covering your costs. If you give it a realistic price tag, it's a given that a lot of the people said "I'll buy that for a dollar" aren't queuing up to get one at $750. And just by putting a big set into production, it means that some other big set ISN'T getting made. This is not a big deal if your factories are sitting idle, but LEGO has dozens of themes and hundreds of kits and only limited capacity to produce parts, bag parts, print boxes and instructions and packaged the whole thing up into a massive kit.

It's not like Ideas is its own entity with its own production and infrastructure; it's just business sub-unit in a zero-sum game. Look at it from TLG's overall perspective. Would you take the Shield Helicarrier out to production to make room for a 4000 piece Idea's proposal, or delay the release of the next flagship Technic model because 10,000 people thought that if they asked nicely TLG would release a big build kit with a dozen mini-figures and and average price of a penny a piece?

Mid-sized kits win because they minimize risk, plain and simple. The asking price is modest enough that even when the token dollar crowd fails to buy it, others will discover it and step in. The production runs and packaging demands are small enough that TLG can squeeze in kit without seriously impacting "normal" production. The brand awareness advertising mission of Ideas is satisfied and the exposure from a potential product failure is minimized.

It may not be what the typical Ideas user wishes for, but it makes good business sense.

[rodiziorobs]

It's not like Ideas is its own entity with its own production and infrastructure; it's just business sub-unit in a zero-sum game.

I had never thought of Ideas as a zero-sum game, but that makes a ton of sense. In retrospect, it makes me surprised that any projects have passed review; a winning idea has to be not just a great project, but also a better (or at least as good) idea than whatever TLG has researched and designed in-house ahead of time.

[Artanis I]

In addition to that but not as drastic, 10c per part is less likely in an Ideas set because of a potential licence fee, special boxes & booklets, limited production and the "royalty" for the designer.

[Faefrost]

There are a couple of concepts to take into account when looking at Ideas sets or designing one. They are some hidden gotchas. For the most part these are things that Lego cannot create rule around. They simply are what they are. They revolve around the concept of what we call "pre-existing licences." Which can be a bit more complex than we typically grasp.

- Pre-Existing License. What this means is Lego has a signed licensing contract for the IP in question. WooHoo we shout that means Lego can make our super sweet Star Wars design! No actually it doesn't in fact it will largely preclude them from doing so. See the license grants Lego the right to make sets based on the IP's designs. It also comes with the assumption that Lego may or will make those designs in Lego form. So for Star Wars every ship seen on screen is already assumed to be somewhere on Lego's to do list. This is a problem for Ideas. As the contracts may preclude any third party involvement. Further the license holder will have absolute veto power. Do they wish to extend the license or grant exceptions to the rules to cover an Ideas project? While it may happen, it is not likely. Part of the problem is that CuuSoo/Ideas "royalties" deal. That will cause some huge issues in the case of a pre-existing license. Once again think Star Wars. Lucasfilms has entered agreement with Lego to make ship sets. Why would they approve royalties to some third party for what they view to be ab ILM design and IP? They contracted with Lego to make this stuff in house with no outsiders and no legal complications. Also as we saw with the MWT, the GB HQ and a few others Pre-Existing licences are not always known or apparent to us. We only see a small piece of the license, when product is on the shelf. The license actually runs for some time in either direction.

- Pre Existing Business Arrangements or Negotiations - if Lego is in discussions regarding an IP, has recently had said discussions etc, that will likely function much like a pre-existing license as far as Ideas is concerned. The arrangement is in place direct with Lego. At that point any Ideas stuff is wholly in the hands of the IP owner. A good example of this is the Ghostbusters HQ. Lego inadvertently revealed when and why that project failed review. They said when they were discussing the Brent Waller Ecto-1 with Collumbia, the subject came up "by the way we have this big anniversary looming. It would be really nice to..." At that point the GB HQ in fact the entire GB line became a pre-existing arrangement and precluded Ideas.

- Prior Art - if Lego has designed it in any licensed form, such that they have had discussions regarding it with the licensor, it will not be made by Ideas. Remember that picture of the design room, with all the nice un produced Star Wars subjects? Yeah those are prior art. The IP holder expects those to be made in house. A good guideline is if Lego has made it or sold it at any scale it is prior art. The big example of this is the Batman Tumbler. It was never going to pass as an Ideas set. (Remember class pre-existing licenses are complicated). Another example would be a Thundercats set. Seems like a great Idea. But we know it's not possible because Lego did a bunch of preliminary design work for a Thundercats line that fell through. Lego eventually morphed their work into Chima, but they still have otherwise unknown prior Thundercats art. And the only reason we know this is a Thundercats producer pitched a fit in public. Otherwise Lego will never say what they have worked on.

- Non Compete Agreements - as an added gotcha sometimes pre-existing licenses may include non compete agreements. Lego can't make certain types of sets or enter into certain competing licences while a license is running. The classic Ideas example of this is the MWT where the Lone Ranger license blocked any unlicensed western theme sets. Similarly the PotC license blocks Lego Pirates when it is active. Plus some licences may block a competitor. It was long rumored that the Star Wars licensing for many years precluded the holder from also doing Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica toys or similar. Those have mostly gone away, as licensors have discovered they make more money when the licensed products have synergy and cross play, but still may pop up occasionally.

- Prior Research Still Counts and Prior Failures will increase chances of further review failures - in a nutshell the first review will typically remain the authoritative one. No matter how many times you send them a Zelda project. They already had discussions with Nintendo from that first one. You are now in pre-existing agreement territory. If the first Golden Girls project failed the second will too. The business case remains the same, regardless of subtle project differences. Look at the parade of failed Zelda sets. The problem is not the build, the specific subject or needed new parts. The problem is business case or licensing, and thats not gonna get better with a new build.

I believe GlenBricker broadly characterizes all of this as "Inevitable Discovery" the idea that once Lego enters into an agreement with an IP holder that specific subject will eventually be made regardless of Ideas input.

Edited November 10, 2015 by Faefrost

[jonwil]

If LEGO knows for a fact that they wont approve Ideas sets in certain themes they already have licenses for (e.g. Star Wars or LOTR or Super Heroes) they should say so and not allow those licenses to appear on the site.

Edited November 11, 2015 by jonwil

[Blondie-Wan]

If LEGO knows for a fact that they wont approve Ideas sets in certain themes they already have licenses for (e.g. Star Wars or LOTR or Super Heroes) they should say so and not allow those licenses to appear on the site.

The fact that they haven't done so ought to indicate that there are circumstances in which such projects might be approved.

[Artanis I]

Lego did a bunch of preliminary design work for a Thundercats line that fell through. Lego eventually morphed their work into Chima, but they still have otherwise unknown prior Thundercats art.

From a (well known on Eurobricks) Lego designer recently re discussion of (at the time) rumoured Nexo Knights:

A few facts for this thread! (Because it's seriously lacking in them :P )

First, from early in this threads speculation; the LEGO Legends of Chima range had absolutely nothing to do with the return of the Thundercats TV show. Although several of us remembered the show from our childhoods it was never the basis for the theme and the Chima theme was well into development when we found out it was returning. This worried us, fortunately it wasn't very good and most kids didn't see it or draw any parallels. We probably drew more inspiration from Fabuland than the original Thundercats!

...

Just to clarify, no, nothing for Chima was developed for a 'dropped' Thundercats theme. It was developed for LEGO, by LEGO and doesn't really look anything like the Thundercats heads in the original or the remake (except Lion-O and Laval are both lion humanoids with red spiky hair/manes.) The Chima lion head was originally a fully printed head rather then a 'mask' head over a standard head, the final form developed as it is to allow for more printed colours.

...

[Robert8]

I see the activity is kinda decreasing in LEGO Ideas. It's taking longer than usual for the projects to get the 10000 votes

If the next review gives 0 approved sets again.... this will be a disaster

[dr_spock]

I see the activity is kinda decreasing in LEGO Ideas. It's taking longer than usual for the projects to get the 10000 votes

If the next review gives 0 approved sets again.... this will be a disaster

Why would it be a disaster?

[Blondie-Wan]

I don't know that it would be, but it would certainly be a huge disappointment to many people, at the very least, especially right on the heels of a prior zero-approval review. I think it's a good thing that F7A Hornet project is still under consideration, as it might be a stronger candidate than many of the other projects now under review.

[Artanis I]

Out of 10 projects, half of them have no chance, most of the rest possible but unlikely, the others all depend on the "back room" issues regarding licences etc. We could very well get another 0.

[Blondie-Wan]

Indeed, I do think it's a strong possibility, as most of this batch's projects strike me as highly unlikely, even though I voted for most of them. The F7A, Adventure Time figures, and The Little Prince project seem to me the likeliest candidates, but all three are licenses, which of course can complicate things any number of ways.

[jonwil]

Looking at whats in review, the 2 LOTR projects are out (both are too big and from a theme where LEGO has business case information to show that the theme doesn't sell).

Caterham Super 7 is even less well known than the Corvette was (how many normal people will know what a Caterham is?)

Indomius Rex is just like the T-Rex from last time (too big, too flimsy) with the added factor of the Jurassic World license

Modular Library is probably too big for an Ideas set (regardless of the questions over whether it would sell there is the simple factor of how much of the production capacity they can allocate to Ideas and what that means for size limitations)

I could see LEGO doing a large size Mr Staypuft in the future but not as big as Brett's design and not via Ideas (for the same reasons the GB HQ isn't an Ideas set)

Physics is probably too big for an Ideas set and probably wouldn't sell all that well.

Little Price is cool but probably not popular enough to be worth the effort and costs of licensing it. (although I do wish I could track down a copy of the somewhat recent 3D rendered cartoon of the series so I could watch all the episodes I didn't catch when it was on TV)

Adventure Time is a popular show but popularity on TV doesn't always mean it is viable for a toy line or even a one-off. Plus Warner Bros/Cartoon Network may not be happy with brick built figs.

Best chance to actually get made is the F7A Hornet IMO. I suspect LEGO has already said "yes" to the "will it sell" question and is either still in licensing negotiations with Cloud Imperium Games over a license for it or are waiting for the final game to show up to make sure its a good brand fit (imagine what might happen if LEGO released the set and then the final game earned a "mature" rating for example)

As for the stuff that's at 10k but not in the review, the Land Cruiser has the same problems as the Land Rover, Corvette and Caterham (including size). Jurassic Park vehicle has the same license issues as other JP projects.

And I don't see either sub passing the "will it sell to the target audience test" (Jules Verne sub is also too big and anything Beetles can be a nightmare for licensing)

[Blondie-Wan]

Caterham Super 7 is even less well known than the Corvette was (how many normal people will know what a Caterham is?)

I mostly agree with this, though "even less well known than the Corvette was" implies the Corvette itself isn't well-known, which surely isn't the case - it must be one of the most well-known cars ever. We don't know why it was declined, but any number of other issues seem more likely. Perhaps it was licensing snags, as TLG is already licensing Chevrolet brands for the Speed Champions line, or perhaps Chevy and TLG couldn't come to terms on this project, or perhaps they actually are in fact already developing one (in which case all the folks who already suspect TLG of ripping off Ideas creators with the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier and Ghostbusters HQ are probably going to have a conniption fit, so for TLG's sake I hope it's not that). But I do agree with you that Caterham Super 7 isn't nearly so well-known... although I'm not sure that would have mattered to all buyers. I know I'd never heard of it before, but I found it a really nice-looking car project, and I'd consider getting it as a set even though I'm not a "car guy". I just liked the look of it a lot.

Adventure Time is a popular show but popularity on TV doesn't always mean it is viable for a toy line or even a one-off. Plus Warner Bros/Cartoon Network may not be happy with brick built figs.

Adventure Time does actually have a fair bit of merchandise, though, including toys. And the loose simplicity of the art style on the show lends itself fairly well to this sort of approach (the project figures are immediately recognizable to someone familiar with the show), so I do think the rightsholders would be happy with the likenesses. I think the biggest obstacles here would be either if the extant toy licenses cover construction toys (it doesn't have any already that I know about, but that doesn't mean the rights aren't spoken for), or that TLG might decide the darker themes underlying the fun and wacky surface aren't really a good brand fit, what with the show taking place in what's really a post-apocalyptic future and some of the characters having pretty sad / dark back stories and all. OTOH, I never would have thought they'd do The Big Bang Theory or The Simpsons, so obviously I'm not the best judge of such things, and I do think Adventure Time is ultimately pretty kid-friendly even with the subtext and all - more so than either The Simpsons or, especially, The Big Bang Theory.

And I don't see either sub passing the "will it sell to the target audience test" (Jules Verne sub is also too big and anything Beetles can be a nightmare for licensing)

Size and licensing are one thing (er, two things), but I don't know about the "target audience" idea. Do you mean traditional LEGO buyers / fans? Part of the whole reason for being of LEGO Ideas is to expand their target audience. The Yellow Submarine would target Beatles fans, moreso than just LEGO ones - and there are surely plenty of them who would love to build an official LEGO Yellow Submarine.

I think the biggest obstacles to these, besides your aforementioned size and licensing concerns, might be the Beatles' association with drug use (though at least it's not an explicit part of the project, and it can be taken as simply a fanciful adventure about the Beatles on a Yellow Submarine), and that 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea probably doesn't have a huge, devoted contemporary following / fandom per se... though it surely does still have plenty of fans and admirers, and the Nautilus also would have potential to sell well sheerly by virtue of being a particularly gorgeous, beautiful set.

Edited November 12, 2015 by Blondie-Wan

[x105Black]

Can somone point me to information on the Thundercats that was supposed to happen? I'd like to know more details.

Also, there are a lot of assumptions here. Just because Zelda has failed a number of times does not mean it will always fail. However, that could indeed be the case. We don't know anything for certain. I wish we could get better answers for rejections, but they are always deliberately vague.

I think the Beatles set would be a fantastic set, and would sell very well. I know several adults who were KFOLs that are not currently into LEGO, but would jump on the chance to build their own Yellow Submarine. The Beatles are the biggest rock group of all time, I'm sure there's an audience. I hope the licensing wouldn't be too hard to obtain, but that's the only real snag I can think of.

I'd much prefer to see Adventure Time done in minifigure scale, and it can be done well, but would certainly require some new parts. I hope they end up developing this independently from Ideas, as it has so much more potential than a single set.

[jonwil]

In regards to the Corvette, how recognizable is it in Europe? And how recognizable are the older models (as compared to the newer models)

Its quite possible LEGO are doing a larger size Corvette but a new one not the old one in the Ideas project (so the 2 projects would conflict but its harder to argue that TLG ripped off the Ideas project)

Edited November 13, 2015 by jonwil

[Kaanere]

In regards to the Corvette, how recognizable is it in Europe? And how recognizable are the older models (as compared to the newer models)

The Corvette is very recognizable in Europe for car fans.

Not so much for normal people.

[Aanchir]

I mostly agree with this, though "even less well known than the Corvette was" implies the Corvette itself isn't well-known, which surely isn't the case - it must be one of the most well-known cars ever. We don't know why it was declined, but any number of other issues seem more likely. Perhaps it was licensing snags, as TLG is already licensing Chevrolet brands for the Speed Champions line, or perhaps Chevy and TLG couldn't come to terms on this project, or perhaps they actually are in fact already developing one (in which case all the folks who already suspect TLG of ripping off Ideas creators with the S.H.I.E.L.D. Helicarrier and Ghostbusters HQ are probably going to have a conniption fit, so for TLG's sake I hope it's not that).

Not going to speak to the Ghostbusters HQ controversy, but anybody who thinks the SHIELD Helicarrier set was ripped off from LEGO Ideas is clearly completely clueless. I think it's kind of ridiculous that it even comes up in these discussions of "LEGO Ideas controversies". The 22,000-piece Helicarrier project (which was never remotely viable) went live in May 2014. The 6700-piece updated version (still not remotely viable) didn't go live until July 2014. The final design of the Helicarrier was formally revealed without any resemblance to the project in January 2015. And only a total buffoon would think LEGO could design a nearly 3,000 piece set in less than eight months. Even ordinary-sized sets usually begin development at least eighteen months in advance.

LEGO Ideas sets can be released on an accelerated timeline because the designer often has done a lot of the groundwork. For the Helicarrier, the designer on LEGO Ideas did hardly any of the groundwork. While a great digital MOC, the Helicarrier they designed was ludicrously large and never once built physically. There's no reason to even assume it could have supported its own weight, let alone passed the LEGO Group's standards for stability. And seeing as the final set was at an entirely different scale, there's nothing the LEGO Ideas project creator's work could have told LEGO except "hey, the helicarrier is a thing that exists", which, needless to say, the designers already knew.

If believers in the SHIELD Helicarrier non-troversy could pose any kind of threat to LEGO, then there's hardly anything they could do to escape that group's ire, because people who subscribe to that hogwash have already abandoned their reason at the door. Apologies for the rant.

[Blondie-Wan]

Oh, I agree, but it doesn't stop people from making that connection anyway. I similarly am confident TLG's Ghostbusters HQ set was not simply ripped off from the Ideas project, but that idea persists in others anyway.

[BirdOPrey5]

What I don't get, why do both have a traffic light? That wouldn't be obvious to me to include looking at the movie- plus it hangs over the base, can get in the way of something next to it... I never understood why it was in the LEGO Ideas project and I really don't see why it was in the official set. While I doubt the official LEGO project wasn't in the works, that detail alone makes me wonder if the Ideas project didn't have some influence. Legally, it's allowed to, would just like to know if it did.

[Blondie-Wan]

The traffic light is there at the real / reel building, and it's a feature on the sidewalk next to it. As long as they have the sidewalk on the side of the building, it makes sense to include it, though I can see leaving it out.