I only want the minifigures. I so much preferred the Lego ideas up house lol. I wish Lego would do less dollhouse sets.

The Up house looks pretty good, effective playset and hits the essential components. Appropriate amount of balloons, considering too many more plastered everywhere would be annoying to build.

Probably will grab 31139 before this, but it'll go on the list to grab at some point.

I love the minifgures though lol. WHEN I buy the minis from bricklink, I will buy the actual bugle piece for russel. And I gotta remake that cane into a walker! I’ll also make sure Moana has the heart of tefiti Lol hopefully someone of rebrickable fixes that up house for me to make it a full house XD

A great addition to my Up house MOC. The train looks interesting!

The parade one seems nice, but I suspect the UP house won't sell as well as it should due ot being inly half of it.

Adventure is out there!

Does Lego hold onto all ideas contributions? I'd rather build the 2022 ideas house from bricklink if the plans were available. It is the dormer window that gets me.

I’ll be needing 3 Up Houses! And 1 train. That pirates sail is lovely.

I have only one thing to say: "Wait--where is Kevin!?"

@lloyddobbler said:
"I have only one thing to say: "Wait--where is Kevin!?""

I agree. Kevin, and Ellie were must haves in my opinion. Can't do 'Married Life', without Ellie.

Finally, more minifigure-based Disney sets!!!

The UP House looks fantastic!

The way that chimney is build seems like it might be hung/suspended from there?

@ToaMatoro said:
" @VaderJr316 said:
" @ToaMatoro said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

Wasn’t Minecraft originally an ideas set?

I mean, that's the risk you run with submitting an idea with an already owned license, isnt it? The up house wasn't exactly their idea, anymore than me submitting a star wars ship would be my idea. Unless it literally uses the same techniques, you can't really fault them for making a thing that they actively had already sought the rights to..."

Apperently the person who designed the Lego ideas Ecto-1 21108 also designed the firehouse which Lego practically made an EXACT copy to sell in stores! 75827

To keep him quiet they bought him a car XD

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/ee095c8d-1ad2-41ab-885d-41ec39740e9d"

Yea, I remember that. That one I can understand the controversy a little more. The build was very similar if I recall, and there had never been a continuation of a license that began with ideas before"

In fact there is a few themes that continued after starting on Ideas:

21102 and the huge Minecraft line
21103 got remade at a larger scale
21108 as mentioned
21307 I believe was before the other large cars (maybe not camper van)
21319 we got the Friends apartments

Dug is perfect and beautiful. A must-have!

@SD449 said:
"21307 I believe was before the other large cars (maybe not camper van)"
Both the 10242 Mini, the 10248 F40 and 10252 Beetle were released before the Caterham.

So while a great set (still sad I didn't buy it...), it didn't break new ground for Lego.

The Up set looks fantastic! I like how cheap it is, and while there aren't enough balloons I'm glad they went this direction. I'm not sure I would be a fan of paying an extra $40 or so for balloons, let alone the repetitive building. The figures look great as well! As much I love the set, I'm not sure I'll pick this up. There are just too many fantastic sets this year.

The Disney train looks really good for 4+. I kind of wish Moana was a CMF, but I guess it saves me money. It won't be a set I'll pick up, but it will probably sell well.

It's not my theme but the up house looks entirely lacklustre, a basic house with not enough balloons to represent the actual cartoon version. Content if the people waiting for this are happy but from an objective builder the Lego ideas version had so much more character.

These are cute. I like the Up house and I must have a Doug! The Train is okay. It looks like a parade float. The choice of subjects is odd though? Peter Pan okay makes sense, Toy Story, good choice, very bland and unrecognizable Moana cart... why? Just from the shaping of it they should have thrown in a surf board and made it lilo & Stitch.

SQUIRREL!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Doug's going on my Bricklink wantlist, but I'm not sure about picking these two up. The house is more like a facade, and the train has nothing that stands out other than the minifigures.

Planning already... The UP house will be fixed halfway up the wall in my Lego room with heaps more balloons painted above it. One of the wall connectors from an ART set should be easy enough to attach to the back. Ideal that it's only half the house for that.

I expected the "Lego is just ripping off Ideas submissions," comment, but all the rebuttals were a pleasant surprise. Also, the Up house needs a SQUIRREL!

@TheOtherMike said:
"I expected the "Lego is just ripping off Ideas submissions," comment, but all the rebuttals were a pleasant surprise. Also, the Up house needs a SQUIRREL!"

It has one, though.

Yet another record player, they're everywhere these days!

@MrClassic said:
"Yet another record player, they're everywhere these days!"

well, records are re-gaining popularity these days, so why not? (They've passed CD sales, from what I heard)

@TheOtherMike said:
"I expected the "Lego is just ripping off Ideas submissions," comment, but all the rebuttals were a pleasant surprise. Also, the Up house needs a SQUIRREL!"

You may have missed it, but it contains a dark orange squirrel.

I like the Up house, but I think the amount of balloons is very disproportionate to the size of the house.

@fakespacesquid said:
" @VaderJr316 said:
" @ToaMatoro said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

I mean, that's the risk you run with submitting an idea with an already owned license, isnt it? The up house wasn't exactly their idea, anymore than me submitting a star wars ship would be my idea. Unless it literally uses the same techniques, you can't really fault them for making a thing that they actively had already sought the rights to..."

Apperently the person who designed the Lego ideas Ecto-1 21108 also designed the firehouse which Lego practically made an EXACT copy to sell in stores! 75827

To keep him quiet they bought him a car XD

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/ee095c8d-1ad2-41ab-885d-41ec39740e9d"

Again with this hilariously bad take.

Can you name a single feature that the project firehouse and the set firehouse share that ISN’T just drawn from the movies? A single shared building technique? A single aspect that can’t be explained by a shared IP source?

That guy didn’t come up with the idea of building the firehouse. Lego didn’t copy his concept. That guy didn’t build anything unique that Lego copied. Lego didn’t copy his execution.

If they didn’t copy the concept, and they didn’t copy the execution, then what the heck did they copy?"

Yeah, looking at the submission and the set there are some big building differences. I always felt it was a stretch to say they 'stole' his design. The scale is pretty much the same, and some parts that just wouldn't have been done any other way no matter who designed it. But that is to be expected when two people build a copy of one building.
But yeah, I think they went with a settlement and acknowledgement of his design because this was the first situation like this, and it would be quicker and cheaper than going through a potentially long and expensive court case.
They very quickly put in a clause to prevent it happening again though.

@ToaMatoro said:
" @VaderJr316 said:
" @ToaMatoro said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

I mean, that's the risk you run with submitting an idea with an already owned license, isnt it? The up house wasn't exactly their idea, anymore than me submitting a star wars ship would be my idea. Unless it literally uses the same techniques, you can't really fault them for making a thing that they actively had already sought the rights to..."

Apperently the person who designed the Lego ideas Ecto-1 21108 also designed the firehouse which Lego practically made an EXACT copy to sell in stores! 75827

To keep him quiet they bought him a car XD

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/ee095c8d-1ad2-41ab-885d-41ec39740e9d"

Yea, I remember that. That one I can understand the controversy a little more. The build was very similar if I recall, and there had never been a continuation of a license that began with ideas before"

Minecraft had seen several follow-on sets before even the Ecto-1 made it through Ideas, far before the Firehouse. And I have yet to see a building similarity that can’t be explained by shared source material. Both builds are based on the same movies, they’re gonna look pretty similar if you squint. The details are key, and the details weren’t shared

What a cool show of sets.

I want that Moana so badly!

The prices for these are obscene

@Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

This is standard policy in action. The _IDEAS_ team is bound by the Ideas rules. Any other design team in the company is not. What has happened in the past is the person whose Ghostbusters HQ hit 10k got a free copy of the set when it did release, but their project was double-doomed. Not only were there already plans in motion to release the HQ independent of the Ideas program, but the Ecto-1 had already burned the IP as far as Ideas is concerned. In this case, there's nothing that would have specifically caused Up to be banned, but this wave of Disney sets has probably been in the planning stage a lot longer than normal, so it may have already been slotted for release this year when the first Up project cleared 10k.

The Up house needs more balloons!

More... MOAR!

@VaderJr316:
The plain truth is that both the Ghostbusters HQ project and the eventual set were based on a real building, so it wouldn't make sense for them to look significantly different. And yet, they did. The set was dark-red like the real building, while the project was something like dark-orange because the bricks look that color at dawn/dusk (when many photos tend to be taken for some reason).

Any IP that gets approved for an Ideas set is forever banned from being selected again, so there was 0.0% chance that the firehouse could have ever been approved after Ecto-1 was. Claims that they "stole" the idea of a real NYC building that was used as a filming location for a movie that they now had under an active licensing deal (which also puts IP on the restricted list until any related sets have been retired for an unspecified amount of time) have not gotten any less tiresome. Thankfully, they are at least getting much less common.

@ToaMatoro:
I guess you forgot about Minecraft. Third to clear review in total, first once they opened the original Cuusoo program up to the entire world, and still cranking out tons of new sets every year.

@Miyakan:
They may have just put a blanket ban on any Disney IP clearing review until this 100th Anniversary thing has come and gone, whether it was something they were producing or not.

@SD449:
Minecraft was definitely post-Ideas by then. Most of the other stuff you mention came long after even the Firehouse had retired. I beleive the only other source of post-Ideas expansion predating the Firehouse was Dimensions. Releasing in 2015, the Marty McFly and Doctor Who Level Packs were probably the only other expanded licenses that predate release of the Firehouse on 1-1-2016. And there had definitely been other large car models before the Catterham, but there has never been another set released using the Catterham license, so I would never count that one.

Wish they make a full modular style Up house with around 2000-3000 pieces.

Not sure if I'll go for either of these or not, but I've wanted a train like that but for LEGO original themes for so long!!!

I don't know if anyone has posted this but all I see is Harry Caray.

@fakespacesquid said:
"I mean, if you’ve seen the opening of the movie, this set is basically to scale with the modular buildings, as well as minifigs. Having it be made of several thousand pieces would throw it way off"

https://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/pixar_up-7.jpg

It's definitely not to scale with minifigs. Carl only comes up about halfway on the pink window frames in the film, but he's the same height as them in this set.

ok but the Doug mold is pretty comically on target

@Spritetoggle said:
"I'm really struggling with how to preface this, so I'll just start:

-Every additional group of balloons would likely be an addition to the price tag, as well as tedium while building.
-Price generally seems to be a concern around here, so shouldn't this outcome be desirable?
-LEGO's primary focus has never been perfect recreations of reality. It's impressive when it's achieved, but to expect that as the norm from LEGO seems wildly misguided and disconnected from the medium's strengths.
-An official set may not be as good as an Ideas submitted version. But counterintuitively, that means the Ideas version is probably not good enough to be an official set: It's too much, too overbuilt, too fragile, too complicated, too drab, etc.
-As others have said, LEGO sets are in production for a lot longer than people give credit. What we normally see is only the last sliver of the process, the conclusion of multiple years of development.

Sorry, My thoughts aren't perfect, perhaps mistaken even, but I had to get it off my chest."

I don't see anything misguided in your statement. I share your sentiments, especially with the balloon and Lego medium points.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Miyakan:
I wouldn't even call it a settlement. He had no legal standing to claim foul play. Ghostbusters was accepted for one Ideas project, which earned it a lifetime placement on the banned list. Ghostbusters was an active IP, which would have earned it a temporary placement on the restricted list, if it hadn't already landed on the banned list. Rules don't require any other design team to clear their plans with the Ideas team before proceeding with them. Ideas has to clear their plans with everybody else.

All that happened was Ecto-1 naturally led into an expanded theme, which looked understandably awkward (especially to anyone who doesn't understand the IP rules), so they threw the guy a token bone before moving ahead with plans that they had ever legal right to."

Wasn’t the “lifetime ban” clause added after the Ghostbusters HQ? My memory is rusty, but I think this was also before that other ban was implemented on submissions of IPs currently in use by TLG.

Regardless, I side with Lego on the decision. The submission sold very well and with the 1% revenue share the original creator had little to complain about. Lego never releases exact production figures so there’s no exact way to estimate sales, except for one case: 10225 USC R2-D2 sold 48,480 units based on the poster. Using that rough number, we can guess the submission made at least $250,000.

@Spritetoggle said:
"-Every additional group of balloons would likely be an addition to the price tag, as well as tedium while building.
-Price generally seems to be a concern around here, so shouldn't this outcome be desirable?
-LEGO's primary focus has never been perfect recreations of reality. It's impressive when it's achieved, but to expect that as the norm from LEGO seems wildly misguided and disconnected from the medium's strengths.
-An official set may not be as good as an Ideas submitted version. But counterintuitively, that means the Ideas version is probably not good enough to be an official set: It's too much, too overbuilt, too fragile, too complicated, too drab, etc."

I agree with a lot of your sentiments. Disney is a family brand that sells just as much to children as they do adults. We were spoiled with the Disney Castle and Train which are hallmarks of Disney’s parks, but the roots of their appeal is to children. The last time I babysat my nephew I watched the same Pixar movie dozens of times. If the Ideas submissions were passed, I would struggle to give that to anyone young. Smaller builds are more affordable for families and more approachable for children. This is a perfect scale for that regard.

@Spritetoggle said:
"-As others have said, LEGO sets are in production for a lot longer than people give credit. What we normally see is only the last sliver of the process, the conclusion of multiple years of development."

This implications have me somewhat concerned for the future, but I totally agree. At what point does Lego determine if a submission will be rejected due to internal development? Is it when the designer sketches the idea? Makes a MOC of it in their free time? And how do existing partners like Disney affect the decision when when they can’t have a blanket coverage for every IP to ever exist by the company (I think)? I imagine Disney has more leverage against TLG on their future products. Interesting food for thought.

@PurpleDave said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
"I mean, if you’ve seen the opening of the movie, this set is basically to scale with the modular buildings, as well as minifigs. Having it be made of several thousand pieces would throw it way off"

https://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/pixar_up-7.jpg

It's definitely not to scale with minifigs. Carl only comes up about halfway on the pink window frames in the film, but he's the same height as them in this set.
"
Agree. Definitely not to scale exactly. And at least they could make a full scale house (deeper) with full interior, more details, and closed back that could easily reach 2000 pieces.

@vader11:
Could, but almost certainly won’t. They got this on tap now, which is the first set based on that film, so how long will it be before they’re willing to retread this same ground? Then, TLG seems to have this misconception that Pixar films are strictly for kids. Besides Lightyear, when’s the last time they released a set based on a Pixar film that wasn’t 4+ branded?

@ShinyBidoof said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

I'd have been disappointed if this thread didn't contain at least one tin-foil hat post. Though I'm surprised it took 9 minutes to appear."
Hardly a “tin-foil hat post”. If LEGO were more honest and transparent in the operation of the Ideas website they would have a much better reputation regarding it.

@PurpleDave said:
" @vader11:
TLG seems to have this misconception that Pixar films are strictly for kids. Besides Lightyear, when’s the last time they released a set based on a Pixar film that wasn’t 4+ branded?"

No, you have the misconception, not TLG. Disney has and always will be a family brand. Their core audience is children, hence why almost all of their movies are rated G. No, not PG, just G. Lego has very vocal adult fans who want intricate UCS-everything, but we’re undoubtedly the minority in this case.

@PurpleDave said:
" @Jesse_S_T:
No, the entire spirit of the Cuusoo/Ideas format was to do _new_ stuff. Creating an ongoing theme was against the stated purpose, and was rendered largely impossible by banning further submissions based on any IP that had already been selected during a previous round."

Somehow you missed every question or point in my reply. I was talking about the timeline Lego amended their rules on two different cases. Once after the Ghostbusters Firehouse to prevent future conflicts in development, and the another time when Star Wars, Marvel, DC, etc were banned theme submissions for the same reason. I disagree with you interpretation of the Ideas Spirit and Stated Purpose as well.

@Spritetoggle said:
"I'm really struggling with how to preface this, so I'll just start:

additional group of balloons would likely be an addition to the price tag, as well as tedium while building.
-Price generally seems to be a concern around here, so shouldn't this outcome be desirable?
-LEGO's primary focus has never been perfect recreations of reality. It's impressive when it's achieved, but to expect that as the norm from LEGO seems wildly misguided and disconnected from the medium's strengths.
-An official set may not be as good as an Ideas submitted version. But counterintuitively, that means the Ideas version is probably not good enough to be an official set: It's too much, too overbuilt, too fragile, too complicated, too drab, etc.
-As others have said, LEGO sets are in production for a lot longer than people give credit. What we normally see is only the last sliver of the process, the conclusion of multiple years of development.

Sorry, My thoughts aren't perfect, perhaps mistaken even, but I had to get it off my chest."

You're technically correct... the best kind of correct.

But, I still want a back to the house. Do we know the price?

I really love the new Up house. Up was one of my favorite movies as a kid so I am really excited to see the house now as a LEGO set.

After a quick look at 43217, I want to ask, where's the bird?

The Disney Celebration Train looks really good, as do most 4+ Mickey Mouse sets. I'll certainly get that one.
The 'Up' House looks fine too but, with no interest in the film or characters, a definite pass.

I am disappointed by the train, I thought it would be better than that.

The Up submissions were better and I think I need to see more of it before I consider getting two for the whole house. I prefer when they try to do a whole building rather than just half, but I guess that encourages spending doesn't it?

@Doctor_Hugh said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

I'd have been disappointed if this thread didn't contain at least one tin-foil hat post. Though I'm surprised it took 9 minutes to appear."
Hardly a “tin-foil hat post”. If LEGO were more honest and transparent in the operation of the Ideas website they would have a much better reputation regarding it.
"

It’s much closer to a tinfoil hat post, though. Almost half of set reveals these days feature someone digging through several years worth of Ideas submissions to try and find something that vaguely resembles the new finished product. And 11 times out of 10, these posters don’t acknowledge that the Project and the Set look absolutely *nothing* alike aside from sharing an IP.

In the Moc community, if you build an arm for a mech in a unique way, and then someone sees it, likes it, comments on it, and then four months later posts a mech of their own with the exact same arm design, brick-for-brick, without crediting you? They stole your design. They took the unique aspects about what you made, and copied them.

But

If you post your mech, they see it, four months later they post a mech that has an arm that isn’t built like yours at all, did they copy your mech arm? No, obviously not, it’s silly to even try and say that. That’s what is happening here. You would need pretty severe vision problems to try and claim that this set looks anything like the projects. And you’d need a severe information deficit to try and act like those two projects are the only people to ever build the Up house out of Lego.

Finally, we have a LEGO Updog.

@Givememorebricks:
They’re still inflating balloons, so they haven’t left home yet. Ignore the dog. He’s there for the end of the movie when they get back.

@rolomolo12345:
Carl’s still filling them.

@fakespacesquid:
But, but…everyone knows Ideas contributors invented watching Pixar films!

@fakespacesquid said:
" @Doctor_Hugh said:
" @ShinyBidoof said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

I'd have been disappointed if this thread didn't contain at least one tin-foil hat post. Though I'm surprised it took 9 minutes to appear."
Hardly a “tin-foil hat post”. If LEGO were more honest and transparent in the operation of the Ideas website they would have a much better reputation regarding it.
"

It’s much closer to a tinfoil hat post, though. Almost half of set reveals these days feature someone digging through several years worth of Ideas submissions to try and find something that vaguely resembles the new finished product. And 11 times out of 10, these posters don’t acknowledge that the Project and the Set look absolutely *nothing* alike aside from sharing an IP.

In the Moc community, if you build an arm for a mech in a unique way, and then someone sees it, likes it, comments on it, and then four months later posts a mech of their own with the exact same arm design, brick-for-brick, without crediting you? They stole your design. They took the unique aspects about what you made, and copied them.

But

If you post your mech, they see it, four months later they post a mech that has an arm that isn’t built like yours at all, did they copy your mech arm? No, obviously not, it’s silly to even try and say that. That’s what is happening here. You would need pretty severe vision problems to try and claim that this set looks anything like the projects. And you’d need a severe information deficit to try and act like those two projects are the only people to ever build the Up house out of Lego."
However, the core of Ideas is the idea, not the quality of the build or the building technique. The recently revealed BTS Dynamite is a prime illustration of this. So the idea is "Carl's House", not the exact build of that idea. It was rejected twice and LEGO release their own. Now, obviously LEGO can release what they like but their refusal to tell people why they reject ideas, or simply not allow it to be uploaded onto the website in the first place, is where they create these problems themselves. Ultimately they don't care otherwise they would have changed the process long ago but all the time they shroud things in secrecy people will assume the worst.

Where are folks finding the pricing info? What are the prices?

is the house swooshable?

@Volfogg said:
"is the house swooshable?"

Not sure if it's swooshable, but if you have it hanging from the ceiling in my neck of the woods during a strong enough earthquake it's gonna definitely be destructible!

@Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

Only four comments in and the conspiracy theories begin…

@MonsterFighter said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

Only four comments in and the conspiracy theories begin…

"
It's not a theory if it's true. If LEGO were making their own version when the idea was submitted they should not have uploaded it onto the website for people to vote on. Ideally they would tell people why it has been rejected but we do appreciate why they prefer not to do that. Ideas is a very flawed system which LEGO have shown no interest in improving. It's their reputation which is damaged which they are clearly not interested in either.

@Doctor_Hugh said:
" @MonsterFighter said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

Only four comments in and the conspiracy theories begin…

"
It's not a theory if it's true. If LEGO were making their own version when the idea was submitted they should not have uploaded it onto the website for people to vote on. Ideally they would tell people why it has been rejected but we do appreciate why they prefer not to do that. Ideas is a very flawed system which LEGO have shown no interest in improving. It's their reputation which is damaged which they are clearly not interested in either."

Yet sales are strong, so really there’s no interest. A lot of people don’t really even recognize that sets come from an online voting system. They just see that Lego is producing a new set.

@ItisNoe said:
"The parade one seems nice, but I suspect the UP house won't sell as well as it should due ot being inly half of it. "

I suspect it’ll sell better (in terms of number of copies sold) than it would have with a back, since this way it’ll be less expensive.

@Doctor_Hugh said:
" Now, obviously LEGO can release what they like but their refusal to tell people why they reject ideas, or simply not allow it to be uploaded onto the website in the first place, is where they create these problems themselves. Ultimately they don't care otherwise they would have changed the process long ago but all the time they shroud things in secrecy people will assume the worst.
"

But… they actually *did* change the process long ago; the thing is, they changed it in the other direction - they actually *used* to say why Ideas got declined.

*That* actually used to create problems, though - discussing why certain projects were declined turned out to be something they couldn’t keep doing. For example, if they decline a project because they’re already doing something similar, then by saying so they reveal a set that’s in the works long before they’re ready to announce it. If they decline a licensed project because the IP holder doesn’t want to do it, they inadvertently send a bunch of LEGO fans to contact the IP holder and complain, which may only discourage the IP holder from wanting anything to do with LEGO and its fans in the future.

Those are two examples. And while they do leave open the possibility of revealing the reasons for declining *some other* projects, doing so would mean that every time they didn’t share reasons for declining something, it would mean the reasons for doing so fell into one of those areas, and even that would reveal stuff TLG wasn’t comfortable sharing.

TLG discovered there are a number of reasons why they don’t share specific information on each and every individual decision to decline a particular project, so after a brief period of actually giving that information out in the early days of LEGO CUUSOO / LEGO Ideas, they stopped doing so, in one of the earliest changes made to how the program works.

I, too, would love it if we could know exactly why every declined project was declined, but they already tried that, and it just wasn’t practical. The current policy of not sharing that info on a case-by-case basis is what they’ve found in practice to actually cause fewer problems for them.

@Jesse_S_T:
First, I never said Pixar films were made for a strictly adult audience. I said they were never made for a strictly child audience. Unlike a lot of G-rated content, they write their films so parents (and other adults) will find them just as enjoyable as their kids, rather than spinning up the DVD and putting wads of cotton in their ears. Of the 26 feature films Pixar has produced, 13, including the first five, were rated G. The other 13, including the most recent five, were all rated PG. “Up” happens to be their second PG film, after The Incredibles.

On the other stuff, you’re not the first person here to hold the mistaken belief that I’m obligated to reply only in the format of your choosing. So far, the only clear rule change I remember being applied to Ideas is when they said they were now allowed to opt for new molds if _they_ felt it was necessary. This came about with the release of Sesame Street, where as recently as Steamboat Willie they had clarified that they were not permitted to do that. Everything else you cited could just as easily have been a rules clarification.

The first of these I recall is when, having never published any guidance on what sort of content would be rejected out of hand, someone’s Shaun of the Dead project was removed just prior to hitting 10k. At that time, they chose to clarify some of the unwritten rules that we had only been able to guess at. Given standard company policy, most of us already assumed modern warfare was not allowed, nor sexual content, drug use, and a bunch of other stuff that didn’t mesh with their core values. Shaun of the Dead got archived, not because it’s a bloody and violent movie, but because the Winchester is a bar. That was clearly a rule that the Ideas team had to abide by, but not one that had been clearly stated to the contributing public.

Some of the community had a strong suspicion about many of these content restrictions, because they had previously been rolled out to the LUG community regarding the defunct Community Window program that used to be open to LUGs that were located near official LEGO Stores. Except for the “no themes/no elements” rules, which were stated right from the start.

@PurpleDave said:
" @fakespacesquid said:
"I mean, if you’ve seen the opening of the movie, this set is basically to scale with the modular buildings, as well as minifigs. Having it be made of several thousand pieces would throw it way off"

https://www.filmofilia.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/pixar_up-7.jpg

It's definitely not to scale with minifigs. Carl only comes up about halfway on the pink window frames in the film, but he's the same height as them in this set.
"

All right, not fully to scale, but not very far off either. IMO buying a second set would be enough to complete a very respectable MOC of the building. For those of us who aren't bothered by the open back, the difference in price will be a definite asset!

@Givememorebricks said:
"After a quick look at 43217 , I want to ask, where's the bird?"

There's a blue (or teal) chicken on the weathervane and a smaller red bird showing in the top inset photo on the back of the box.

@Daysali said:
"Where are folks finding the pricing info? What are the prices? "

Click on the links to the main Brickset pages for the set and the prices are listed in the first big box on the right. (40 of any major currency to get the train; 60 (or £55) to get the Up set.)

@monkyby87 said:
" @Doctor_Hugh said:
" @MonsterFighter said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

Only four comments in and the conspiracy theories begin…

"
It's not a theory if it's true. If LEGO were making their own version when the idea was submitted they should not have uploaded it onto the website for people to vote on. Ideally they would tell people why it has been rejected but we do appreciate why they prefer not to do that. Ideas is a very flawed system which LEGO have shown no interest in improving. It's their reputation which is damaged which they are clearly not interested in either."

Yet sales are strong, so really there’s no interest. A lot of people don’t really even recognize that sets come from an online voting system. They just see that Lego is producing a new set. "
If you are saying LEGO care more about sales than customers then you are agreeing with my point, even if the tone of your comment implies you are disagreeing with me.

@Blondie_Wan said:
" @Doctor_Hugh said:
" Now, obviously LEGO can release what they like but their refusal to tell people why they reject ideas, or simply not allow it to be uploaded onto the website in the first place, is where they create these problems themselves. Ultimately they don't care otherwise they would have changed the process long ago but all the time they shroud things in secrecy people will assume the worst.
"

But… they actually *did* change the process long ago; the thing is, they changed it in the other direction - they actually *used* to say why Ideas got declined.

*That* actually used to create problems, though - discussing why certain projects were declined turned out to be something they couldn’t keep doing. For example, if they decline a project because they’re already doing something similar, then by saying so they reveal a set that’s in the works long before they’re ready to announce it. If they decline a licensed project because the IP holder doesn’t want to do it, they inadvertently send a bunch of LEGO fans to contact the IP holder and complain, which may only discourage the IP holder from wanting anything to do with LEGO and its fans in the future.

Those are two examples. And while they do leave open the possibility of revealing the reasons for declining *some other* projects, doing so would mean that every time they didn’t share reasons for declining something, it would mean the reasons for doing so fell into one of those areas, and even that would reveal stuff TLG wasn’t comfortable sharing.

TLG discovered there are a number of reasons why they don’t share specific information on each and every individual decision to decline a particular project, so after a brief period of actually giving that information out in the early days of LEGO CUUSOO / LEGO Ideas, they stopped doing so, in one of the earliest changes made to how the program works.

I, too, would love it if we could know exactly why every declined project was declined, but they already tried that, and it just wasn’t practical. The current policy of not sharing that info on a case-by-case basis is what they’ve found in practice to actually cause fewer problems for them."
But as I stated in one of my other comments in this thread, we do understand why LEGO prefer not to tell anyone in advance that they are working on a particular project. Therefore, when the original submission is made, simply decline to add it to the website for the voting process. That is where the animosity is created by wasting the designer's time in canvassing for support and the voters' time in voting, not to mention giving everyone involved false hope when LEGO already know it will be rejected.

@sklamb said:
"There's a blue (or teal) chicken on the weathervane and a smaller red bird showing in the top inset photo on the back of the box."

Wrong birds. They want to know where Kevin, the Macguffinch, is. Like Dino in the Flintstones, the need for new molds probably forced them to trim the cast. Personally, I think they got the three most important characters in there already. After that, I could make valid arguments for why Charles, Alpha, Kevin, or Ellie should have been picked for a hypothetical fourth slot. Charles is the main antagonist, Alpha is their primary source of direct conflict, Kevin is the main source of conflict, and Ellie is why Carl wanted to go there in the first place.

Fellow Dad's rejoice. My son will be OVER THE MOON for the Up House. He has tried to build it multiple times at 3 different scales. "Hooray!"

Squirrel!

Generally, my opinion of 4+ as an AFOL is that it sucks. However, that train is really nice--exactly like a small park/parade train would be. Also, I'm impressed we also get an actual Moana minifig, not a Minidoll. Also impressive it's the centennial trainset, and it doesn't cost half a grand.

@VaderJr316 said:
"And I gotta remake that cane into a walker!"

Why? In the movie, Carl has a cane with four feet, each of which has a tennis ball impaled on it. Short of dual-molding the roller skate wheels in lime, this is as close as you're going to get to his cane at that scale.

@PurpleDave said:
" @sklamb said:
"There's a blue (or teal) chicken on the weathervane and a smaller red bird showing in the top inset photo on the back of the box."

Wrong birds. They want to know where Kevin, the Macguffinch, is. Like Dino in the Flintstones, the need for new molds probably forced them to trim the cast."

Ah. Thank you for the explanation. One of these days I really need to watch this movie....

Although I'm still rather excited over the blue (or teal) chicken on the weathervane!

It bugs me that Tinkerbell is the same size as all the other figs

@CCC said:
" @Doctor_Hugh said:
" @MonsterFighter said:
" @Glacier_Phoenix said:
"It's curious how they rejected an Ideas one in both 2021 and 2022 (with those having started at least a year prior to being canned by lego) and yet now we get one where they don't have to pay the fan designers "

Only four comments in and the conspiracy theories begin…

"
It's not a theory if it's true. If LEGO were making their own version when the idea was submitted they should not have uploaded it onto the website for people to vote on. Ideally they would tell people why it has been rejected but we do appreciate why they prefer not to do that. Ideas is a very flawed system which LEGO have shown no interest in improving. It's their reputation which is damaged which they are clearly not interested in either."

So you think LEGO should advertise all the sets they have in development? And for how long? It could well be that five years ago Pixar decided they wanted the Up house produced for the 100th Disney anniversary. If they had such a disclosure policy, people would abuse it. They would suggest many sets for the purpose of seeing if they are rejected to find out if something is in the design stage."
As I said, we do appreciate why LEGO prefer not to explain exactly why a submission is rejected, but purposely allowing designers and voters to waste their time is clearly wrong. Since LEGO and Disney have such close ties I'm surprised they don't simply ban all Disney related builds from being submitted. The recent announcement of A Nightmare Before Christmas set was very surprising, partly as a very similar idea from the same designer was rejected the previous year, and partly as it is inconceivable that LEGO have not thought about producing such a set themselves, particularly as they have already produced figures in the CMF series. Perhaps they could explain this glaring inconsistency in the process.

Lego have been "borrowing" ideas for years. I remember seeing those SW mini-fighters for years before Lego came up with the "original" idea. Even the Death Star and Ewok Village were based off of Kenner originals.

I think with Lego Ideas, don't be surprised if Lego reject your idea only to then spend a few years creating their own "original" set and then have fans defend Lego by saying that "Lego had the idea in development for at least a year before the Lego Idea was submitted".

@sklamb:
Ooh, good thing I kept it mostly spoiler-free.

@Judgeguy:
She’s just closer to the camera.

@CCC:
“Here’s a 2x4 brick representing the house from Up, and a 2x4 brick representing the castle from Brave, and a 2x4 brick representing the aquarium from Finding Nemo, and…”

@Doctor_Hugh:
Nightmare has been on the restricted list at least once, possibly twice. For sure it went on when they made Jack and Sally CMFs, but I don’t know if it fell off the list by the time they made Jack and Sally Brickheadz. It’s possible it was still restricted when that project cleared 10k. People don’t even seem to be aware that they have a list of restricted and banned IP posted on the site, or how to find it. And the truth is, being on the restricted list isn’t enough to disqualify a new project, because it may well take long enough to clear 10k that the IP falls back off the list first. Or if it’s set to fall off during the review period when the affected project lands on their plate, they may just wait it out if they feel like proceeding with it. But the truth is, lots of people don’t care that their projects are clearly doomed from the start if they can make it into the 10k Club.

@SillyTwig said:
"Carl needs to inflate a lot more balloons before that house can fly!"

that and the price are the only things putting me off from the set, but I will probably pick it up anyway
sad that the great Moana minifigure ended up in a lame 4+ set, and most people already have the woody figure.

also hope they will start making more sets based off pixar movies:)

@PurpleDave said:
" @Doctor_Hugh:
Nightmare has been on the restricted list at least once, possibly twice. For sure it went on when they made Jack and Sally CMFs, but I don’t know if it fell off the list by the time they made Jack and Sally Brickheadz. It’s possible it was still restricted when that project cleared 10k. People don’t even seem to be aware that they have a list of restricted and banned IP posted on the site, or how to find it. And the truth is, being on the restricted list isn’t enough to disqualify a new project, because it may well take long enough to clear 10k that the IP falls back off the list first. Or if it’s set to fall off during the review period when the affected project lands on their plate, they may just wait it out if they feel like proceeding with it. But the truth is, lots of people don’t care that their projects are clearly doomed from the start if they can make it into the 10k Club."
It's for LEGO to police the restricted list. If a designer submits an idea from an IP on the restricted list then LEGO shouldn't approve it to the voting stage. But there are many types of ideas which LEGO such block at the submission stage as they know they will be rejected. Allowing it to be voted on clearly indicates it could be approved, if that isn't the case then they are misleading people. LEGO like to give the impression they are better than other companies but they really don't care at all.

@Doctor_Hugh:
A…gain…just because the IP is restricted right now doesn’t mean it will still be restricted when a project based on that IP hits 10k and goes to review. If it is, the list is posted online, so “world’s tiniest violin” if someone fails to check. And how many projects get posted every day? How many different IPs do they represent? How much payroll would it take to weed through all of them just to eliminate stuff that will mostly fail to clear 10k and become a non-issue without any hands-on involvement? How much would they have to raise the price on every Ideas set just to pay for that needlessly extra work to be piled up on the front end?

@PurpleDave said:
" @Doctor_Hugh:
A…gain…just because the IP is restricted right now doesn’t mean it will still be restricted when a project based on that IP hits 10k and goes to review. If it is, the list is posted online, so “world’s tiniest violin” if someone fails to check. And how many projects get posted every day? How many different IPs do they represent? How much payroll would it take to weed through all of them just to eliminate stuff that will mostly fail to clear 10k and become a non-issue without any hands-on involvement? How much would they have to raise the price on every Ideas set just to pay for that needlessly extra work to be piled up on the front end?"
Every submission is currently vetted before it is uploaded for voting. I'm simply asking them to do a better job of it. You favour LEGO whereas I favour the designers and voters.

@Ridgeheart said:
" @Doctor_Hugh said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @Doctor_Hugh :
Nightmare has been on the restricted list at least once, possibly twice. For sure it went on when they made Jack and Sally CMFs, but I don’t know if it fell off the list by the time they made Jack and Sally Brickheadz. It’s possible it was still restricted when that project cleared 10k. People don’t even seem to be aware that they have a list of restricted and banned IP posted on the site, or how to find it. And the truth is, being on the restricted list isn’t enough to disqualify a new project, because it may well take long enough to clear 10k that the IP falls back off the list first. Or if it’s set to fall off during the review period when the affected project lands on their plate, they may just wait it out if they feel like proceeding with it. But the truth is, lots of people don’t care that their projects are clearly doomed from the start if they can make it into the 10k Club."
It's for LEGO to police the restricted list. If a designer submits an idea from an IP on the restricted list then LEGO shouldn't approve it to the voting stage. But there are many types of ideas which LEGO such block at the submission stage as they know they will be rejected. Allowing it to be voted on clearly indicates it could be approved, if that isn't the case then they are misleading people. LEGO like to give the impression they are better than other companies but they really don't care at all.
"

I used to be active in voting for cool new sets since Cusoo, but seeing certain sets get voted all the way up, only to be smacked down time and time again ("Hello, Zelda! Goodbye, Zelda!") without so much of an explanation did wear me down. I still see cool things come out of Ideas now and then, original stuff, lovely recolours, things that make me want to buy some sets, but for the most it's something that I feel I have very little agency over, and as such I just don't participate any longer.

In the above example, it's just unnecessy to keep dangling those sets in front of us ("Who's a good boy? Who wants their Zelda-sets? Do YOU want your Zelda-sets? Yes you do, yes you do!") only to snatch them away ("Yoink! Haha, sorry, what Zelda-set?") if they know they're not going to produce them - but they'll still make us go through the rigamarole of voting and showcasing. In that case, why bother at all?

Ideas, currently, might as well just be another wing of Lego's design-factory. Some things I like, some things I don't, but it doesn't feel like any of us have any real input about the output."

I quite agree. I think I'd rather they simply banned all IP submissions. From the 51 in the last review round that would remove about 20, so still ample to choose some excellent sets from. Certainly Cats, Sea Turtle, Tuscan Villa, Witch House and Mushroom House were worthy of being accepted, and if they wanted to please classic fans then Armada Port, Medieval Watchtower, Medieval Guarded Inn and Medieval Alchemist would all have delighted many collectors. Unfortunately, none of those were chosen.

LEGO clearly don't use the site to gauge interest in specific genres otherwise they would accept at least some of the modulars and castles (and related medieval) which make every review. I tend to believe they only made the Medieval Blacksmith so they can claim they don't reject every castle related submission (so only 99% then).

@Ridgeheart Well Lego are doing a Zelda set (long after the various Ideas submissions), they're trying to gauge the price of it.

@Doctor_Hugh:
No, I’m just facing facts. Weeding out what they’d consider objectionable content, like porn, drugs, graphic violence, or modern warfare, is pretty easy. Weeding out every affected theme could require an encyclopedic knowledge of all of those themes. Block them based on content tags, and people will just stop using those tags to avoid being blocked and prevented from making the 10k Club. Not everyone who submits a project thinks they have a shot of getting approved. Many know they don’t even have a snowball’s chance, and they don’t care. They’ll do it anyways because it’s a system where a lot of eyes get to see your MOC, and how popular it is. 10k Club is an achievement in its own right, even if you get rejected.

When new review classes were posted, I used to do a rundown of every project that was certain to be declined, and why, but I stopped because it was persistently the same couple reasons over and over again. Active IP, banned IP due to a previous project, restricted IP because of a recently retired set, and content that they would 110% object to.

@Ridgeheart:
There was a Wind Waker boat that I absolutely would have bought, even as someone who has barely played any LoZ games. It got rejected because they would have needed new molds. The hat was an obvious one (this was before the S11 Christmas elf), but they may have also been thinking about the sword and shield. So, for at least that one project, they were quite clear about why it got declined. I would assume this same reason applied to subsequent rejections, at least until Sesame Street was allowed new molds. After that, not a clue.

@Doctor_Hugh:
IP draws voters in. IP projects often have a much easier time clearing 10k because people come there specifically looking for them. Many other non-IP projects probably benefit from tag-along votes. They did set forth a rule, at one point, than no more than 50% of approved projects can be licensed IP, so that may even boost the success rate of non-licensed stuff. Want to get one more licensed set past the gate? You gotta pick one of these non-licensed projects to make alongside it first.

And Modulars aren’t ever going to be approved simply because they already have that covered with an official line.

@CCC said:
" IDEAS would be poorer if they banned all IP submissions. There have been some great IP-based sets in the past that LEGO would not have done otherwise."
I certainly don't disagree with that. I only own 11 Ideas sets but 8 of those are based on an external IP. There just needs to be a better way to run it to not anger the fans so much. Choosing 1 or 2 submissions was fine when there were only 10 or so in each review, but for the last the years there has an average of 38 in each review. Not increasing the amount of accepted ideas is frustrating to all. Some say LEGO doesn't have the capacity to quadruple the number of Ideas sets per year but as the average number of sets LEGO produce each year is over 900 that argument is clearly nonsense. In fact the annual number of sets increased from 849 in 2020 to 944 in 2021, an 11% increase in capacity.

@CCC said:
"As to accepting Modulars, the downside there is that they compete directly with an existing LEGO product."
That's like saying the August wave of Star Wars sets competes with the March wave. They compliment each other and collectors buy them all. Just as modular collectors would buy both. Two sets each year is not a lot. They could differentiate them if they wanted to. January for the traditional buildings and a July release for more distinctive buildings, or of particular architectural styles. Only one release per year for a theme has always seemed very limited.

@Ridgeheart:
Hated the entire idea of that show. If you want a realistic medical show, stick to Scrubs.

@PurpleDave said:
" @fakespacesquid :
But, but…everyone knows Ideas contributors invented watching Pixar films!"

And... they were the starting quarterback for BOTH teams in the Superb Owl.

Don't get me started about their Nobel prizes
.....

Seriously, if you submit your design (or anything) free-of-charge to a conglomerate, you shouldn't expect anything but a 'cease and desist.'

I hope this might be a sign of things to come and we might finally get the 'Disney Classics' theme I've suggested before of sets based on various films from their library which might not carry an entire theme themselves. Basically think something like the Superhero lines but for Disney films. For example I'd love some Lilo & Stitch sets :)

@WizardOfOss said:
"That Celebration Train looks surprisingly decent for a 4+ set, not too shabby!

But let's be real: It's all about the Up House. Which looks quite nice and isn't priced outlandishly. That said, I think I would have actually preferred a somewhat bigger (and obviously more expensive) set. With an enclosed house and many more ballons, which would make it great for displaying it hanging from the ceiling.

As for the Ideas issue, I guess this once more shows the whole Ideas concept needs an overhaul. More focus on actual ideas, less on good MOCs. And if you're doing something from an existing IP, better do something original instead of just the obvious."

I am hoping that someone combines two sets on Rebrickable into one large house.

@RwBricks said:
"It’s nice to be getting Moana, and the wings on Tinkerbell look great. The Up house exceeded my expectations given its price and price count, and the minifigures (and Dug!) are likewise really nice. However, while I can see why they might not have included Kevin, I am disappointed that we only get Carl’s chair and not Ellie’s. "

I agree Kevin for sure. Good idea on Ellie's chair, that would be a great addition as well. Printed tiles or stickers for pictures of Carl and Ellie for wall decor