Questions related to the Winter 2012, Spring, and Summer 2013 Review Results

Thanks everyone for your interest in the LEGO Review results shared on October 23. We covered three review periods at once, and have received some questions from our most active followers. We're happy to respond to them here.

Q: Why did you share the results of three review periods at once?

We’re aiming to shorten the length of time each review takes to complete, so we decided to combine these three periods. As a result, now only the Fall 2013 review period remains in our backlog, and we plan to deliver those results in early 2014.

Q: Why didn’t certain projects pass the LEGO Review? You didn’t give specific reasons this time.

For this and all reviews going forward, we've decided to no longer share specific reasons why a project wasn’t selected for production.

The LEGO Review Board evaluates each project according to the criteria we outline in our announcements and our Project Guidelines and House Rules. Each project that enters the LEGO Review receives a thorough and fair analysis. The contributing reasons to a decision on one project do not affect future decisions for any other projects positively or negatively.

Q: Does the fact that three review periods happened at once mean there was only one production slot to make a LEGO set, and only one set had a chance to be produced?

We’re not going to discuss our production capacity, as this is internal information related to our business operations. Each project in the LEGO Review results was thoroughly considered for release on its own merits, and the Review Board reached a decision on each project independently.

Q: When will there be a decision on the Land Rover Defender 110?

The LEGO Review Board is still evaluating the Land-Rover Defender 110 project as a potential LEGO set, but we’re not committing to a set timeframe for our decision. We’ll let you know once a decision is reached.

Q: Why was Thinking with Portals rejected after taking a longer time and being specifically mentioned in your announcement?

In the case of Thinking with Portals, we needed more time to evaluate and consider all options before making a final decision. 

In the end, sometimes our best hopes and plans end up not working out. We realize this is disappointing to some, so please know that this decision does not take away from the beauty and effort put into these projects by these talented builders.

Note that our decision to give more time to considering the Thinking with Portals! project has no implications for how we will or won’t evaluate future projects.

Q: This is the second time you’ve rejected a project based on the licensed property The Legend of Zelda. Does this mean you will reject future Zelda-related projects?

Each project that enters the LEGO Review is thoroughly considered for release as a set on its own merits. If another Legend of Zelda set qualifies for review, we will happily consider producing a LEGO set based on that project.

The contributing reasons to a decision on one project do not affect future decisions for any other projects, either positively or negatively. This means that each project related to the Legend of Zelda would be considered independently on its own merits.

The same reasoning above can be applied to other projects.

Feedback and Knowledge Base