Subject:
|
Re: Lego and Disney, a continued future?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 5 Jun 2002 13:55:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1697 times
|
| |
|
|
Ahui makes some good and persuasive points, but I have a few counter
arguements.
First, the Disney toy monorail SUCKS! It's clear though that Disney is open to
the posibility of features of the park being modeled in toy stature. By the
way, a little know secret about Disney is that few products/souveniers are
conceived by Disney groups. Companies approach Disney with ideas and lobby for
licensing agreements and Disney sells them. Some are exclusive to the parks
where an unbelievable number are sold (some toys on American toys shelves sold
all over the country do not do as well as the limited distribution of just two
locations in the US, Anaheim and Orlando). [Personal research at a University
Library].
Second, I don't understand how setting up a marketing agreement between Disney
and Lego would stiffle children's imaginations. I am afraid you never got me on
you wavelength about this arguement. Maybe the issue is that LEGO Group's
recent licensing agreements are what is reducing the imagination potential.
Star Wars, Harry Potter, and now the NBA (with the yellow minifig heads) might
be what you suggesting is setting up the limitations? I might be able to see
that point, but I don't see how a child's imagination would be stiffled by
having all of the characters of Harry Potter and all of the scenes, which
previously only existed in the stories of a book, limit the potential of the
child to expand their imagination of Harry Potter "play."
I know I for one will buy the NBA sets hoping that they make a Magic Johnson,
Michael Jordon, Larry Bird, Doctor J, Shack, and other famous players to create
the "Match of the Century". My imagination will only be enhanced by trying to
imagine a Larry Bird and Michael Jordon going to the paint against each other,
each with yellow mini-fig heads. ;-)
But seriously, the idea for Disney sets came from what I perceive will be a
continued marketing by LEGO Group of licensed collaborations with other
established entities. They didn't group with soccer (except the ML or what ever
it was) because there is no really established body out there around the world
and no one LEGO Group needed permission from. Marketing surveys around the
world asked people to define basketball and the majority said NBA, Jordan,
Celtics, Lakers, etc. If you want to bring out Basketball Lego Sets, you simply
have to be in League (pun intended) with the NBA. You want to bring out
American Football you had better have a licensing agreement with the NFL. (Sad
really since colleges started the sport and the NFL doesn't have a
patent/copyright/intellectual protery/trademark on Football.) You want to come
out with hockey, you need a partnership (a cold one) with NHL. Besides what
sells about Basketball, Football, or Hockey will not primarily be the play
aspects of the sets (I for one can't wait to see how LEGO designers come up
with mini-figs that dribble [the ball]) but the different teams and the
collectability of team logos and roosters.
My Disney rant was how great I thought the marriage (pun here?) between LEGO
and Disney would be if done in a way that combined the best of both worlds. For
me the great part of Disney is that imagination meets reality at the park. They
have taken the imagination and made it a real place to visit. Disney is more
than the rides, just visit any other park in the world and go back to Disney
and you will understand what I mean. With LEGO I would like to model that
environment that I find so rewarding and special.
As for the castle line and other themed areas, what better way to bring back
older sets and themes under the guise of new than with a link to Disney. Think
of all the cool Space sets that could be wrapped around the Disney stuff. ETC.
Plus, I would like for the Disney/Lego partnership that started with brief
DUPLO sets come more into the early (dare I say Jack Stone level) sets. I want
a minifig Mickey, Minnie, and Donald. I want a Sebulba style Pluto minifig. I
want a goofy with NBA style hey-I'm-a-6-foot-mini-fig legs. It seems to me that
none of these concepts push the molding of Bricks beyond the path that LEGO is
going anyway.
By the way, if your a LEGO exec or designer, I give these ideas freely and hold
no claim to them whatsoever. Just make them so that we can buy them. And if you
need a Director of Imagination or a Worker Bee of Creativity, give me a call.
;-)
(All in fun)
Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Lego and Disney, a continued future?
|
| (...) well, it doesn't suck...it's not as good as it could be.:) (...) About 80-90% true. There are many licenses that are used (plush by Applause comes to mind, for example) for Disney Merchandise that is generally distributed. The park exclusive (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jun-02, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Lego and Disney, a continued future?
|
| (...) Not any more than having a town set or a vehicle set defeating the purpose of a child imagining his own version of those. Making sets more affordable is a good idea tho. The Disney sets were pretty expensive. (...) I dunno about that (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jun-02, to lugnet.general)
|
14 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
