Star Wars Dark Bucket project rejected

 

  • Star Wars Dark Bucket project rejected

    Posted by Huw, 08 Jun 2012 05:04. Filed under Cuusoo.

    The Star Wars Dark Bucket project on Cuusoo, which achieved 10,000 supporters over the weekend, has been rejected already. No surprises there, since LEGO hinted it would be when it achieved 5,000 supporters, but it is surprising that they waited so long to do so. The 'license conflict' that's mentioned in the comments had been acknowledged for some time, after all.

    I am sure this would have been a great seller, even if the price was, let's say, $2 per minifig = $200.

     


    70 comments, latest one posted 11 months ago. (Commenting has ended on this article)
    2637 views


 
 

Comments

Posted by Markey in Belgium, 08 Jun 2012 05:11

I'm not a SW fan, but I would have bought this for sure.

Posted by BrickBob09 in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 05:24

I don't see how some people thought that it would actually be made. LEGO led them in false hope. I think it would have been better to have archived it earlier.

Posted by icey in Denmark, 08 Jun 2012 05:51

Is it such a surprise that they waited? By doing so they generated users, votes, traffic and attention to the homepage and its fairly recently released concenpt!

Posted by CCC in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 06:00

$2 per figure is not realistic though is it? New storm troopers are what, about $6, at bricklink.

Posted by the_real_indy in United States, 08 Jun 2012 06:09

If they really want to keep the Cuusoo submissions within the realm of reality, then they should create a way of estimating the final price of the set (like maybe 8 cents per piece, plus 2.50 per minifig, or so...) and perhaps set a maximum limit of 5000 pieces and/or $500. If kids realized that a set would cost a million weeks worth of allowances, they would not get their hopes too high, and so not get too disappointed if an idea gets shot down for being too big! But just like Icey117 said above, they probably do want to generate enthusiasm over realism, at least for starters!! =)

Posted by the_real_indy in United States, 08 Jun 2012 06:12

^^^@CCC,

Well TLG can make them for $1.50, and sell them for $2.00. If they go for $6.00, then that is just the re-sale price.

For example, a Queen Amidala in royal robes does not cost $30 to make, but that is her re-sale price right now! =)

Posted by DaveBey in United States, 08 Jun 2012 06:31

I'm curious if the delay in response to the LEGO CUUSOO team feedback posted on 2012-04-17 was a determining factor.

Posted by CCC in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 06:42

Would they sell them at $2 a piece though, for the old style troopers (Ep IV-VI) that people want to make armies out of? Bear in mind the costs of a CMF.

A more affordable version of course would be standard four in a pack battle packs with a few extra bricks to make it a playset.

Posted by paul_merton in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 06:53

Saturating the market with a relatively cheap supply of popular and collectable minifigs would ruin any appeal in collecting them. It would also reduce the perceived value of any set which contains currently "rare" minifigs, lest they are also included in a similar bucket in the future.

Lego Group knows what it's doing. I suspect there's more to this than just the licensing issues.

Posted by Mickitat in Germany, 08 Jun 2012 07:00

I have to agree with paul_merton and think the_real_indy has a point. A rough price calculator is a great idea. Lego does ask "what would you pay for this set", but I guess many people have no idea what the sets would have to be priced at. The UCS Sandcrawler is a good example - I gave $950 as a price for it, but is this realistic at all?

Posted by cool_kid555 in United States, 08 Jun 2012 07:07

I wish it was made into a set... Id buy a couple.

Posted by Firox 5000 in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 07:22

I'm disapointed they rejected this but at the same time not surprised. It woud be very expensive for all those figures. Oh well, looks like we'll still have to get the battle packs for multiple star wars troppers.

Posted by goldfish in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 07:28

love star wars lego, but sort of glad really. This suggestion sways the balance too much to the minifig/action fig and away from the core product of building blocks.

Posted by kwilder in United States, 08 Jun 2012 07:30

RE: Price calculator:

I think this is a great idea. I know for my own cuusoo submissions, I researched what the sets might cost given other similar sized/theme sets and included that info in my postings. I notice very few people that do that. While I see why the volume of the submissions might prohibit them doing it for every set, I really believe it would be helpful, particularly as I look at sets to vote for. Having a price for one set would also discourage general "make this picture" posts, and posts for themes and would require people to focus on a specific set.

In the case of dark bucket, Lego posted at 500 votes what the potential cost would be. I think that is a reasonable time (not many make it to that point, so the volume issue above isn't as critical), and Lego might perhaps do a quick money analysis before posting "hey, good job" at 500. However, I wish that information could have been featured more prominently on the main voting page somehow, once Lego made that number. Perhaps there could be a note on the "support page" saying: "this set is estimated to cost X, how much would you pay?" Honestly, I've discussed with some people on CUUSOO that they just type "999" no matter what, so I don't know that that would help. Maybe add the dollar price to the title line of any set over 500 would be a solution (assuming adding it to the description for any starting set an is unreasonable use of time)

-----

As it is, I think the project should have been rejected when the creator refused to update his project according to what they said. Perhaps saying something like "if you don't make efforts to change your project before X number of votes, your project will be removed." But really, this is Legos game, they can do what they want. I think the rejection is totally fair.

Posted by Goldmatt in United States, 08 Jun 2012 07:33

License conflict? Hasn't Lego has the SW license for over ten years?

Posted by bellybutton290 in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 07:40

^yes but not to produce individual figures only sets that have both figures and bricks to build something with. This is why the battlepacks are around as this gets round the problem of trying to supply people with lots of figures. Another company has the rights to produce single action figures.

Posted by BrickBob09 in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 07:40

^^ LEGO has the license for Star Wars construction toys and Hasbro has the license for Star Wars action figures.
Therefore LEGO do not have the license to sell mini figures separately.

Posted by aquafreak125 in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 07:47

As much I'd like an easy way of acquiring 99 Stormtroopers, this project was doomed from the start thanks to Hasbro's rights to sell individual figures. Have you guys seen those Star Wars hero-factory style figures on cussoo? The dude who made them has done a really great job!

Posted by Huw in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 08:03

^ It is an excellent submission, for sure, but one that is also doomed to fail for the licensing reasons stated above.

Posted by Don in Canada, 08 Jun 2012 08:08

It's likely Lucasfilm would have forced all the figs to be glued together anyway, like they forced Lego to do with other minifig-only products. That would've sucked.

Posted by UtarEmpire in United States, 08 Jun 2012 09:09

Finally we can move on to better ideas. You know, like ones that involve bricks and building with them.

Posted by brizio in Italy, 08 Jun 2012 09:11

I have to admit I think Lego was very honest the whole time.
Please remember what they stated in their comment for 5000 supporters: "If the Dark Bucket concept were to go further, it would need to include some significant brick-based model component to be considered a construction toy for licensing purposes.".
Following this comment, nothing was really done to create something in line with what they requested. The Star Wars Dark Bottle concept was nice but not enough to change the substance.

Posted by CCC in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 09:11

Is it Lucasfilm that insists on the figures being glued, or Lego. It makes sense with the keychains, since to act as a keychain, you don't want bits falling off.

But not gluing eg magnets just means that Lego sells less of the big sets, since people buy the magnets for minifigs instead. I guess both companies lose out then.

Posted by sharky in United States, 08 Jun 2012 09:28

I don't think the rejection was purely licensing. If they really felt like it would sell well enough they could have included some kind of vehicle or dio scene to go along with it.

Posted by bigw1974 in United States, 08 Jun 2012 10:05

^@CCC I had heard from the guys at my local LEGO shop that it was Lucasfilm that had a problem with the magnets unless they were glued.

Posted by The Reviewer in United States, 08 Jun 2012 11:22

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! I was so looking forward to this set. Curse you stupid Liscence regulations and company rules. This so deserves to be a real set. and yet the crappy modular western town made it. @$!%

Posted by Iron-Man in United States, 08 Jun 2012 11:50

Whoa settle down there. I know we all have opinions, but you should wait a little to submit a post that blatantly disrespects another creation. I am sure many will argue that the Dark Bucket was not even LEGO, where as the Western Town is a use of LEGO elements to make an actual building.

Posted by Paul Boratko in United States, 08 Jun 2012 11:55

Posted by The Reviewer in United States, 08 Jun 2012 11:22
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!! I was so looking forward to this set. Curse you stupid Liscence regulations and company rules. This so deserves to be a real set. and yet the crappy modular western town made it. @$!%

@The Reviewer

No offense, but that is crazy talk... As a pure Technic guy, I think the Modular Western Town is Fantastic and is actually a "Set", however A bucket of Minifigs based those that already exists is hardly "A set"

I fail to see where the actual inspiration for a $400 Bucket of Minifigs even came from, let alone who felt this was worth Supporting in the first place.

Posted by Modok in United States, 08 Jun 2012 12:13

Posted by sharky in United States, 08 Jun 2012 09:28

I don't think the rejection was purely licensing. If they really felt like it would sell well enough they could have included some kind of vehicle or dio scene to go along with it.
--------

@sharky - I suppose that would've been possible, but in the end, I'd bet that Lego just doesn't want to get that involved in people's Cuusoo projects. It's up to the designer to propose something that fits within the guidelines, not just a general concept. Otherwise, it's not really Cuusoo.

It's one thing for Lego to just tweak a design a little bit, but forcing them to come up with entirely new buildable elements to save someone's project is asking too much. That's especially true when this isn't even within their regular product line.

@Huw - You probably know more about the licensing than I, but I think it's still speculative to say the Star Wars Ultrabuild project will run into the same problem as the Dark Bucket. The Ultrabuilds are at least actual building sets. As a comparison, Hasbro and Mattel have the license to produce Marvel and DC action figures, respectively, yet Lego can still produce its Superheroes Ultrabuilds. It's entirely possible that Lego's license with Lucasfilm is different or more restrictive, but so far, Lego hasn't commented on it. Let's hope for the best.

Posted by TooMuchLEGO in United States, 08 Jun 2012 12:42

Not really surprised. They should have archived it before it even hit 10000

Posted by SewerOctopus in United States, 08 Jun 2012 12:49

Dark Bucket had been doomed for a while. Haru was MIA for quite a while and showed up right at the end to lower the mini-fig count. It seems like a common theme on CUUSOO for people to think up easy ways to get more mini-figures Like the Dark Bucket or Droid Army projects. Other sets like Star Wars Mini-figure Pack ( http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/17785 ) and the Themed Brick Boxes ( http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/17150 ) make more sense and fit better into the LEGO product line-up. The Mini-figure pack is still a way to get mini-figs but the scale is more reasonable.

Posted by The Reviewer in United States, 08 Jun 2012 13:05

@Iron-man and Paul Boratko. Okay, I don't care if this wasn't classified as "Real Lego". I hate non-license lego, so I don't care about the modular western town. But at least stupid Harry Potter has reached the end of the line.

Posted by Graysmith in Sweden, 08 Jun 2012 13:44

LEGO need to be proactive and kill off the unreasonable, unrealistic projects. Allowing them to gather votes will only result in a lot of disappointed people and dashed hopes. Kill it off right away and you're only telling the original creator that his idea is unrealistic.

Posted by yys4u in United States, 08 Jun 2012 14:08

Haru, the creator, could have probably saved the project, but never did anything. at 5000 votes they told him it would need significant building elements. Similar to what was done with the Zelda idea. At first it was just a proposed theme with a lot of new elements and figures, but they told the creator to focus on one set, so he build a set and edited his post and it continued. They gave Haru plenty of time to do the same but he never did anything.

Personally I always thought the project was a dumb idea (no offense to people who supported it) I just don't see what someone would do with 100 storm troopers. I mean, imagine being a kid and trying to play with 100 figures at one time... And the price point would have been around 300 bucks, even lego acknowledged that early on, yet comments on the project still consisted of people saying "I'd probably pay up to 100 bucks for this set!!"

Posted by Squishypony in United States, 08 Jun 2012 14:09

@Modok
"...As a comparison, Hasbro and Mattel have the license to produce Marvel and DC action figures, respectively, yet Lego can still produce its Superheroes Ultrabuilds..."

But Marvel and DC are not Lucasarts, so it's possible that the action figure licence for Marvel and DC isn't exclusive to Hasbro and Mattel, while it has been made clear that Hasbro holds the Star Wars action figure license exclusively. But I could be wrong. Maybe the Ultrabuilds are classified as building sets after all. *shrug*

Anyways, this isn't really a surprise to me, and I'm sure not to many others, also. I never really cared for this project anyway, seeing as I'm not a Star Wars fan(although I have gotten a couple battle packs for the cool minifigures. Guilty as charged!).

Posted by madforLEGO in United States, 08 Jun 2012 14:20

Given that Build a Fig at a LEGO store is about 3 bucks a fig, AND not a licensed figure at that, Im guessing LEGO SW are more like 4-5 dollars a fig, which would make the bucket ridiculous in price

Posted by Ypres in Canada, 08 Jun 2012 14:34

Pfffft. Ideas like "lets release 100 of this minifigure" is such an over-rated subject it's not even deserving of the title "project". I could buy 100 storm troopers... but where the hell would I put them??? I've recently built/bought about a dozen hoth battle packs when they were half off in Canada, and I must tell you all, displaying that many figures isn't easy.

There's no way I'd pay +$300 in Canada for a bunch of minifigures which'll just sit in the bucket!!! You can't display them all unless you fave a wide open desk/battle field (how many of us honestly have the space?). Secondly, you can't possibly play with that many minifigures in one time, they take up way to much space on the floor and it's a jumbled mess!

Things like mass minifigure packages need to be special order only. I'd say 90% of the people here are even in way over their head if they imagine having 99 storm troopers is a wise purchase. Only 10% of collectors actually need that many.

Posted by Gandalf1 in United States, 08 Jun 2012 14:39

^^Minifigs in sets do NOT cost that much. BAM, as well as collectible minifigs are a lot more expensive than they would be in an actual set. I'm going to make a random guess that an average minifig costs about $1 or less for LEGO to make. Then they can profit from it. Even licensed figures only bring up set prices by about $2. And that was the original cost of collectible minifigs. Anyway, I was kind of rambling, but just remember, CMFs and BAMs are more expensive than ordinary minifigs in sets.

^ I agree... people supported it because they were thinking, "Oh, awesome! I totally want 99 stormtroopers!" but they weren't thinking about space and price. I did support it pretty early on, but I kind of knew I would never buy it. I just thought a lot of other people would.

Posted by Blockland in United States, 08 Jun 2012 15:05

Bullcrap, plain bullcrap. Lego could have modified the set so it was okay to sell. Either way, im pretty sure this would be 300$ to 400$.

Posted by CapnRex101 in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 15:09

A shame, but not a surprise, hopefully it will point out that the fans would like a battle pack with Stormtroopers or Phase 2 clones again if nothing else. I know we have the current Endor Battle Pack, but that is an expensive way of getting the new version of the Stormtrooper.

Posted by pitfall69 in United States, 08 Jun 2012 16:13

I would never buy this set if it ever came out.

Posted by pitfall69 in United States, 08 Jun 2012 16:20

I think Lego is doing fine by releasing "Battle Packs" even if the vehicle included is less to be desired. I think Lego would be better served by offering Battle Packs the way Gallon did with their Micro Machines Action Fleet line. I would mind a Lars family speeder with Aunt Beru, Uncle Owen and maybe an exclusive Luke and a Gonk Droid.

Posted by pitfall69 in United States, 08 Jun 2012 16:24

*Gallob

Posted by PocasNuckie in Portugal, 08 Jun 2012 16:53

The Ultrabuild figures are very similar to the Technic styled figures LEGO has done before. So if they could do the first, I think the second stand a good chance too. Hope so, they are cool.

Posted by Gandalf1 in United States, 08 Jun 2012 17:12

@Blockland: They stated in their comment that since it gained its supports for a bucket of 100 figs, they will not modify it. And that makes sense because that would greatly reduce its market potential. They couldn't be sure it would sell since 10,000 people hadn't supported it for that modified version.

Posted by meclo in Canada, 08 Jun 2012 17:26

@CapnRex101:

Exactly. I did vote for this set, knowing that it would be rejected, in the hope of letting Lego know that we need more Stormtroopers!! A battle pack with more than 1 Stormtrooper would be much appreciated, and would likely sell very well.

Posted by GothamConstructionCo in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 17:52

Why am i not surprised. £200+ for a LEGO set with no LEGO in it. Besides I don't think I would want to sit and build 200 minifigures (yawn).

Posted by The Derpy One in United Kingdom, 08 Jun 2012 18:09

This doesn't surprise me and I have to give LEGO some credit for rejecting this idea now rather than dragging it through the review process pointlessly, though I do wonder why they didn't archive the idea earlier... perhaps to give Haru the chance to amend the concept as per their comments at the 5000+ mark? I'm not personally into army-building and this wouldn't have been a set that I'd have purchased, though hopefully this has proven, if nothing else, that there is a market for more cost-effective ways of buying lots of minifigures, even if it involves larger battle packs or simply increasing the ratio of generic "soldier" figures in future sets.

Posted by dmetcalf in United States, 08 Jun 2012 18:43

UtarEmpire is right. This "set" had no creativity.

Posted by Ypres in Canada, 08 Jun 2012 19:13

Some of you are acting like Lego never made:
http://brickset.com/detail/?Set=7667-1
2008 wasn't that long ago.

Regardless of "why" some of you voted for the Dark Bucket, the only message Lego received from it was +1 supporters. Mission accomplished!!! *LOL*

Posted by itsaturkey in United States, 08 Jun 2012 20:03

Gandalf - Well I guess they made that rule after the Minecraft set :/

Posted by Isabella and Lego Liker in United States, 08 Jun 2012 21:35

Well, it looks like there will be no more to look at for now as the link http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/1786 is still 4300+ supports short of 10,000.

Posted by mshiels in Canada, 08 Jun 2012 22:36

The biggest problem with a bucket of 'figs only' for Star Wars - is the fact that Lucas Arts and Hasbro consider the figs by themselves as 'action figures' and Hasbro has the license for that. So that would kill this dead in the water.

Same reason the 3340/1/2/3 figure packs disappeared quick, once they hit the streets.

Posted by 1265 in United States, 08 Jun 2012 22:45

It's not rocket science why this set was axed on Cuusoo….the writing was on the wall. I like the concept…so I wonder if a Zombie type bucket would pass Cuusoo’s review. I understand this bucket concept…but, a Zombie bucket would be without restrictions and licensing problems.

Posted by johnnie_tee in Singapore, 08 Jun 2012 23:37

this idea only appeals to a niche market of army builders. and if it's $200 a bucket, i'm not sure parents will buy that. they'll tell the kids, why not go buy a big set?

Posted by Ypres in Canada, 09 Jun 2012 03:10

Johnnie_tee I'd say its more like a "niche-within-a-niche". Considering you're subtracting Lego buyers into adult collectors, then subtracting your market further into those who're actually in need of having those figures (like someone setting up a giant display). I personally went to great lenths in my original comment to explain why 99 of one figure clearly isn't for everyone here.

On an important note though, $200 is also wishful thinking! I'd bet my life on the fact that Lego would at least charge $50 more than that in the US.

Posted by Roborider in United States, 09 Jun 2012 08:50

Not at all surprised at the outcome, actually more surprised it was not axed earlier. I guess the only reason it was still around was for a opportunity for the creator to make it salvageable (which is much easier to do here than with the MLP one). LEGO not trying to change it to work makes sense. The LEGO Minecraft project was running on the concept of "a LEGO set based off Minecraft" which both the original and the actual set are, and the modifications were done to help the price and looks of the product. The Dark Bucket is running on the concept of "a set of only Star Wars minifigures" which is impossible (I din't think that Hasbro is going to lose this licence in the foreseeable future) and the any changes to make it salvageable would kinda defeat the purpose of that, as there really are not "minor" tweaks to easily fix this. These would also require more input form LEGO than is the intention of Cuusoo.

Posted by voypro in United States, 09 Jun 2012 09:33

lego has done everything they can to protect the value of the Star Wars Mini-Fig. Most recently by gluing figures on magnets, keychains etc.

This bucket was never going to happen. If it had the price would have been $600

Posted by The Reviewer in United States, 09 Jun 2012 10:51

They shouldhave made the count to 25 and added some speeder bikes and gun-carriers. Now let's make the Mos Eisley cantina a possibility

Posted by Legoguy29 in United States, 09 Jun 2012 12:51

UtarEmpire:Amen!

TheReviewer: Really... A bit mad, are we? Were you one of those blind hopefuls that actually thought this would make it through?

To the people who don't understand the concept. This isn't going to be bought by people who want to play with the figs, this is for Army Builders. Who would want 99 stormtroopers? Army Builders, that's who. Personally, I'd be more inclined to buy a Phase 1 clone bucket. I already have 100+ clones and would/am definitely wanting more.

Posted by madforLEGO in United States, 09 Jun 2012 13:22

@Gandalf1:
It does not matter what it costs LEGO to build a Figure.. it is what they CHARGE for a figure and licensing fees back to LucasArts as well.. 3 bucks a fig to the consumer, at least. That is what LEGO basically charges for a SW fig (ok MAYBE 2.50 and the rest of the parts in the battlepacks).
Ok, so at least 250-300 for the bucket, and like others said, no parent would buy this. LucasArts supposedly could not do it because of the Hasbro thing with Figure licensing (which may or may not be true), and there is really no playset involved.. it is simply a bucket of stormtroopers. Not many parents (outside of the people here that say they would) would say "...forget that Clone Turbo tank, Lets get you a bucket of 100 Stormtroopers for 2-3 times the amount of the TT." Its not like any figures are different, except for Vader.. Otherwise you have, well, 100 Stormtroopers.. They can stand around.. and fight each other I guess.. because unless you have 100 rebels, what is the point? Sorry to be blunt and if I offend some in this thread, but I do not believe that selling a bucket of ST just so a few 'army builders' can build a DS hanger display is what LEGO has in mind. LEGO wants something they can sell 10s of 1000s of.. This will simply not happen.. LEGO would list this, and no one would buy these.. no one (including army builders) Or VERY few, until they were put on sale. This means lower profits for LEGO and retailers (if they sold these in retail stores).

Posted by Modok in United States, 10 Jun 2012 23:44

Dangit, the Star Wars Ultrabuild project has been deleted, too.

Posted by Blockland in United States, 11 Jun 2012 01:06

I have worse news. If i am correct, Legend of Zelda didnt pass either.

Posted by Sparky Ham in Hong Kong, 11 Jun 2012 04:00

I'm kinda glad it didn't get approved. It would have made my last few years of collecting storm-tropers through different sets seem like a waste of time/money : )

Posted by Modok in United States, 11 Jun 2012 10:44

@Blockland - As far as I can tell, both Zelda projects are still alive and well. There's Mingles', which passed 10,000 and is under review, and Ragarau's, which has 1,320+ votes. Let me know if you've seen otherwise.

Posted by The Reviewer in United States, 11 Jun 2012 12:01

@Brickmommy. What do you mean the cantina will be rejected because of the licencing? Lego has the contract for Lucasfilm to make SW lego sets, so I don't understand what you mean.

Posted by ninjagoyo in United States, 11 Jun 2012 14:03

It is weird that SW UltraBuild was just deleted outright rather than archived. I hope the creator will comment here or somewhere about what happened. That was some primo Photoshop work he did, the models looked fantastic.

Posted by Tradeylouish in New Zealand, 11 Jun 2012 23:37

^
Yes, I am very confused as to why the SW Ultrabuild project was deleted. I think that the creator must have deleted it voluntarily (or accidentally), otherwise it would have been archived and received a comment. I suppose LEGO might have accidentally deleted it instead of archiving it... The only other explanation that I could think of is that the creator was deemed to be underaged, but that seems extremely unlikely. Hopefully someone will enlighten us soon enough.

Posted by Modok in United States, 12 Jun 2012 00:00

The Ultrabuild project is back, but it's been archived. They're too close to action figures for Lego to be able to produce them under their license. Major bummer. That Grievous was a must-have.
http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/15448

Posted by Tradeylouish in New Zealand, 12 Jun 2012 00:35

Following up from my previous comment: It seems that LEGO did in fact accidentally delete it instead of archiving it... The page is now archived rather than deleted, with an Official Comment on the page which discusses the Star Wars action figure license. I suppose it is good that LEGO did not wait for the project to reach 10,000 supporters before rejecting it, like they did with the Dark Bucket... But it is still disappointing that we won't see these becoming sets.

http://lego.cuusoo.com/ideas/view/15448

Commenting has ended on this article.