This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Why can't Lego release sets like this?

1246789

Comments

  • Chaos, is there a custom instruction book for that model?
    Don't think so, but the guy who built it has multiple angles of it on his flickr accout So you might be able to deduce how it is built from them.
  • Crab Lego, Crab Lego, Walk like crab, built from Lego
  • Gears of War chainsaw rifle built from LEGO.
  • The Last March of the Ents flickr.

    Here is just a little of what you're going to see if you click:
    image
  • edited March 2012
    To buy or not to buy? 170€ is expensive, but it's not like Star Wars Lego ever loses value.
    image

    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • edited March 2012
    = redacted =
    Post edited by La Petit Mort on
  • Holy Zeus on a Pogo stick:
  • edited May 2012
    All my money, take it. On the same note, on the Cuusoo site (basically LEGO Kickstarter, where any idea with 10,000 supporters is reviewed for production by LEGO), both a Firefly and Legend of Zelda set have reached the 10,000 supporter goal, along with an EVE Online ship and a Back to the Future DeLorean. (Plus, the amazing Tachikoma posted above is almost halfway there - support it!) I am sufficiently impressed, there is some huge potential here, especially since LEGO has stated it has no problem pursuing licences for properties.
    Serenity
    Ocarina of Time, Ganondorf's Throne Room
    Post edited by Tesla on
  • Yea I found this today because of a link to Ogre and it's pretty awesome!
  • edited May 2012
    The Tachikoma (from the video above) could become a real LEGO product if it gets more support on Cuusoo. Holy shit, I want one. At the very least you should go to the page and look at the other Tachikoma's he's made on the same build plan in different colors.

    There is also an amazing Modular Western town. It's crazily detailed and has almost 10k supporters. On the other hand I can hardly believe that this Vampire GT by highly acclaimed Technic-MOC Builder Crowkiller has less than 1,000 supporters.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on

  • ShutUpAndTakeMyMoney.jpg
  • Yea that's annoying.
  • Star Wars has a scene with a droid whose sole purpose is to torture, and not only does Star Wars get licensed, but there're sets that actually include instructions for building a microfig of the Interrogation Droid.

    Serenity has a message of hope and empowerment in a world all-too-similar to our own, and a crew that prevails in spite of overwhelming odds, and this is deemed "Not suitable for children."

    Fuck you, LEGO. This probably means that the Tachikoma won't fly, either.
  • Killing and torturing is child friendly. Tits, dude.. tits..
  • Khorne is PG-13, Slaanesh is no-no.
  • Killing and torturing is child friendly. Tits, dude.. tits..
    Related question: Is it the Tachikoma from the manga, or the Tachikoma from GitS:SAC?
    Khorne is PG-13, Slaanesh is no-no.
    BRICKS FOR THE BRICK GOD. MINIFIGS FOR THE MINIFIG THRONE.

  • Tachikoma are the ones in the Anime, Fuchikoma are the manga ones.

    And this thing is just bad news.
    image
  • I guess the bigger problem for the Serenity model wasn't the violence, but the sex in the show. Then again, the motto should really be "Whores? I'm in".

    I do find the violence policy that the Lego company enforces very selective and often dumb though, such as abstaining from modern weaponry while both historic weaponry (cannons and pistols on pirate ships, Crossbows, lances and swords in castles, even six shooters in western settings) as well as futuristic ones (the entirety of the Star Wars franchise) are A-OK.

    I just hope that if the Tachikoma passes, they will overlook a bit of the nudity in GITS, and focus on the Tachikoma shorts at the end of the SAC episodes.
  • I don't understand any modern companies that care so much about managing their image and brand. There is a guaranteed high demand for a product. You have a near-monopoly on supply of that product, and existing brand loyalty. It's basically guaranteed profit. You ignore that profit for some ephemeral reasons.

    Since most companies care only for profit and nothing else, you almost want to applaud them for something like this. It's almost noble for any company to give up money for any ephemeral reason, even if that reason is such an obsolete idea as preserving a brand image.

    But really, it isn't about profit, managing a brand, or anything else. What it all comes down to is that almost every company in existence seems dedicated to avoiding one thing, and that is giving customers what they actually want. To make it worse, it seems that most companies, LEGO in this case, are using the Interwebs to make nice and pretend they care what customers want while simultaneously not actually doing as customers ask.

    The company that comes closest is Valve, but even they still have DRM on Steam which customers would like to see removed. That's the other thing that makes it even more painful. When companies make half-hearted gestures to assuage the customer. Dell please give us laptops with Linux so we can avoid the Microsoft tax. Ok, here are a handful of crappy ones you can buy. NO we want to be able to select Linux as an option on any and all of your existing PC options. Oh, you barely sold any Linux laptops and stopped selling them altogether. I wonder why!?

    LEGO, if you setup a web site where users vote on what sets they want made, then you can't cop out. If you don't make every set we vote for that will be profitable, then the site is the same bullshit as the White House petition site. A load of shit. Instead of making us like you more, it makes us see you as dishonest. You are a promise breaker, so now we like you less than when you started.

    Same thing goes for every company ever.
  • I understand why they're saying that Firefly/Serenity is inappropriate for children. I don't agree, mind you. References to sex shouldn't be considered more taboo than violence, and Firefly is no more violent than Star Wars, as others have mentioned. However, LEGO has to work within society's standards of what is taboo, not mine.

    But I still have to agree with Apreche - Why even bother having this site if you're just going to reject the popular ideas? And what's so bad about releasing a product aimed at adults rather than children? Clearly, people want to buy this product; so what if they aren't 6-11?
  • edited May 2012
    I understand why they're saying that Firefly/Serenity is inappropriate for children. I don't agree, mind you. References to sex shouldn't be considered more taboo than violence, and Firefly is no more violent than Star Wars, as others have mentioned. However, LEGO has to work within society's standards of what is taboo, not mine.

    But I still have to agree with Apreche - Why even bother having this site if you're just going to reject the popular ideas? And what's so bad about releasing a product aimed at adults rather than children? Clearly, people want to buy this product; so what if they aren't 6-11?
    If they can obtain the license, and they do not want to tarnish the LEGO brand, then just come up with some other brand label to put on the box. Nobody will care. Book publishers do this all the time. DC puts the Vertigo label on books it doesn't want to be associated with DC, but it's DC. Nobody cares. They just want good comics no matter what the brand is.

    Marketing and PR people who learned their craft in the pre-Internet era are strangling a lot of companies. All the rules have changed. If I had a company, I would hire those people to only handle marketing to people who are not Internet people. I would have a completely different team of sales and marketing people who sell to the Internet using modern demographic. Will probably have different products, pricing, everything. Eventually the former will shrink to nothingness and the latter will grow and be the only thing that remains.
    Post edited by Apreche on
  • edited May 2012
    Three problems, Scott:

    a) LEGO is already producing sets based on the Cuusoo, so what the customers are asking for through this avenue isn't entirely ignored.
    b) There has to be at least some avenue for LEGO to decline producing sets that the customers want. It's a slippery slope argument, but there is the problem of the Lego Cock-n-balls possibly going through the Cuusoo process and getting enough votes. You can't really force LEGO to produce such a set.
    c) You can't slap on some other label as there are certain copyright and licensing issues. Even if you obtain the license, most certainly part of the license will be that the product is properly labelled as licensed and with the proper naming.

    I do agree though that the Serenity shouldn't have fallen to the decision of the LEGO company.
    Post edited by chaosof99 on
  • edited May 2012
    There has to be at least some avenue for LEGO to decline producing sets that the customers want. It's a slippery slope argument, but there is the problem of the Lego Cock-n-balls possibly going through the Cuusoo process and getting enough votes. You can't really force LEGO to produce such a set.
    Scott's point is that LEGO has no good reason to not produce sets that customers want.
    You can't slap on some other label as there are certain copyright and licensing issues.
    Sure, we can't, but LEGO can put whatever label they like on it.
    Post edited by lackofcheese on
Sign In or Register to comment.