Is there someone who's not into LEGO Star Wars?

atkinsar

^ You may be in the minority but you're not alone. I like the CW cartoon, I've seen every episode and it seems to get better and better, it's even getting a touch dark in certain episodes. Still prefer the OT and related sets of course but I rank CW as better than episodes 1 and 2 (not 3, that wasn't half bad). I'm interested to see if the live action TV series ever goes into production, apparently scripts are written but they have no idea how to make them at any reasonable cost.

Yellowcastle

If we ever get a Firefly-esque Star Wars tv show, I'll be so excited.

brickmatic

^ As long as it doesn't die a similar death.

prof1515

Lucas cancelled the plans for a live-action Star Wars show citing the impossibility of producing one on a television budget. I find this both believable and yet completely not. It's unbelievable because advances in CGI software have made it possible to do good effects on a much, much smaller budget than in the past and plenty of science fiction television shows (any of the Star Treks, Babylon 5, Farscape, the new BSG) have done well in the past. I find his claim believable though because Lucas has shown himself in recent years (ie, the prequels) to be far more concerned with visuals than with good storytelling. If all you have is a skeleton of a plot and characters so lean they make paper look robust than it's completely believable that a live-action show couldn't be created on a television budget since all you're left with is visual effects to fill that vast void of emptiness in the episodes.

atkinsar

^ I'd heard it was on hold but not cancelled. Where did you hear/read that? Wasn't it claimed that BSG cost something like 1 million dollars per episode, that seems quite a lot. I agree that a few recent sci-fi films like Monsters and Skyline have shown that good sfx can be done on a budget.

fox171171

I heard Star Trek TNG was coming in at $1 million per episode too, back in the day.

prof1515

Actually, "a million dollars an episode" has been cited for a lot of different shows. The ORIGINAL (1979) Battlestar Galactica was said to have cost "a million dollars an episode" as was Star Trek: The Next Generation (1987-1994). Heck, when you take cast salaries into the equation, there have been a LOT of shows which have cost far more than a million dollars an episode. Some actors alone have been paid more than a million per episode (Charlie Sheen was paid nearly $2 million per episode for a half-hour sitcom).

As for the live-action Star Wars series, I read somewhere about a month or two ago that while officially on hold it was for all purposes dead. It might have been via Blastr or io9 but I can't remember exactly. I'll see if I can turn up the comment which might have been made by Rick McCallum but I'm not certain.

atkinsar

"As for the live-action Star Wars series, I read somewhere about a month or two ago that while officially on hold it was for all purposes dead"

Well I for one, will be a very disappointed if that is the case. The premise of a more adult oriented and darker SW universe sounded very promising.

prof1515

Mind you, I'm not certain who the comment was by or its legitimacy. However, the excuse of "too expensive" does not really sound very legitimate itself. Lucas developed plenty of CGI technology that would reduce costs by eliminating large sets (one of the highest costs on a TV show). Additionally, any television series that is any good really concentrates on characters and story more than effects. That I suspect is the real reason the series is in trouble.

The Star Wars universe, for its visual depth, is a very, very, VERY shallow one. Its 7 films totalling almost 14 hours contain only enough material to make 3 films and even then not enough. The original trilogy benefitted from breaking new ground and flooding the screen (by the standards of the time) with visual depth which overshadowed just how light it really was in story and character. By the time of the prequels, it was no longer new and thus the shallowness was blatantly obvious. Worse yet, the prequels didn't even have the depth of the original trilogy characters, limited as they may have been. In the end, Star Wars has been the subject of seven theatrical and two television films (yeah, did you forget the Ewok adventures? I don't blame you!), a couple animated series, the worst television special in the history of the medium, dozens upon dozens of really bad books and lots of fan-related material and yet with all that, there's very little there of any substance or depth.

While that lack of substance could lend itself to further development it also means that to do so would be straying from the narrow confines already established. In other words, to make it anything with the depth necessary for 13, 22 or 26 episodes per season, they'd have to pretty much abandon most of what consitutes the familiar in Star Wars. I'd wager that they're stumped trying to turn the Star Wars universe into something other than the television equivalent of watching someone play a video game. It might work in the field of TV animation where standards are incredibly low but not in live-action where performance and story mean far more (well, except perhaps in sitcoms).

Simple fact is that doing a good television show doesn't require a huge budget unless what you're focusing on is visuals alone. Given the debacles of the prequels, that wouldn't surprise me. Someone earlier mentioned the Mr. Plinkett reviews (redlettermedia on YouTube). I highly recommend them for an examination of just why the Star Wars prequels suck so badly. When you consider that television is usually more about character development (again, excluding sitcoms), you can understand why it's very likely that the problem with the live-action show is probably far more than a matter of budget concerns.

atkinsar

^ Some good points made there. My reply will be somewhat shorter because, well I'm supposed to be doing something else! I don't see any reason why the universe cannot be expanded in new and character driven directions given a talented team of writers. I'd cite BSG as a good example, just look what what they did with that universe in the new series compared to the original source material.

Peppermint

Never. Oh, I enjoyed the sets I had when I was younger (Phantom Menace and a few classic trilogy sets) but since reaching AFOL, all I do is buy the useful battlepacks and anything on clearance, mainly for parts and the helpful Hoth torso prints that work so well for adventurer figures.

prof1515

@atkinsar: It's entirely possible for a good team of writers to create character-driven stories by expanding and revising an existing universe (BSG is not a good example since they reworked things and the original sucked so bad that anything would have been an improvement). The key here is still the fact that this doesn't require a large budget to achieve and the reason cited for the live-action Star Wars film being delayed, if not cancelled, is the cost. This points to either an unnecessary focus on elements not essential to storytelling or an excuse. I fear the former but would not be surprised by the latter. It's difficult to balance converting a popular film (or films) into a television series and be able to appeal to enough of an audience to be successful. Look at the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles. It had some excellent writing (Frank Darabont credited his work writing for the show as what prepared him to write The Shawshank Redemption) and good production values but could never muster a sufficient audience. Fans of the films were disappointed because some expected wall-to-wall adventure while non-fans were put off by the assumption of just that. Fanbois want their points of obsession to remain yet can't sustain a television show (just look at Firefly or The Sarah Connor Chronicles) and general audiences won't tolerate appeals to fanbois because, unlike films, they can just press a button and switch to something different. Star Wars, with its rabid fanboi base (if you don't believe that, just remember that there are people who actually think the prequels are good films, not just semi-entertaining but actually good films) has a much harder job of satisfying both groups because of the extreme differences in expectations and standards.

Sbowhive

I like most City and Castle sets. I have a few Star Wars Sets (about 5 % of my collection). Some models from Episode IV - VI, like one X-Wing. And some Battle Packs. Also some sets from Clone Wars. I have some ideas for Clone Wars MOC's...

wander099

I like the Star Wars sets and they make up the bulk of my collection thanks to my childhood collecting and recent Death Star purchase, but now I am very picky about which ones I get.

I won't buy clone wars stuff because it is cartoony and not part of the movies. The only time I consider buying that stuff is when there are just minifigs with helmets or the ship is really good (but so far, I have bought none).

I also have little interest in remakes. I only have interest in the second version of the MTT and ships I do not already have or have terrible versions of (if there was a movie accurate Gungan Sub...).

I do like the newer flesh coloured faces. I am very interested in replacing my old yellow ones and getting characters I missed the first time around (ex. Darth Maul).

MinifigsMe

I'm definitely not into SW and probably never will be. I'm working on living out my childhood fantasy of a the perfect city, with trains, a 'old/medieval" area as most british cities have :) Any SW sets I end up with from bulk buys are going back on ebay.
I hope I can resist the 'collection' impulse, though I suspect my first modular building wills suck me in when it arrives!

kor

I'm finding as time goes on I'm less and less interested in Star Wars. I don't have room to build and display all of the sets so I've been parting them out for my own inventory and for bricklink. I've been holding onto most of the minifigs because they're well done but I see myself ebaying them before too long to free up funds for things that are more interesting to me at the moment. I'll always think they are "cool" but as an AFOL they're not very useful for the things I want to do.

Yellowcastle

Robb

I admit to being almost completely ignorant of Lego SW sets. In the two months that I have been out of my dark ages, I have spend nearly $500 on Lego, but have never been tempted to buy an SW sets. They just seem full of ugly grey angles and pieces/minifigs that wouldn't be useful in the building activities I like to do (city/town). I suppose that I have purchased one or two of nearly all other current major themes (CMFs, HP, Atlantis, Creator, City, even Kingdoms/Castle) on sale, but not a single SW.

It's not that I hate the stuff, but I just don't see the general appeal. However, if I could get the Death Star for 50% off, I'd buy it in an instant. That is the only set that tempts me (in all its Original Trilogy goodness).

Duchessa

As an old FBTB staff member, I'm of course one of those people with a large SW collection. I have almost all of the sets released between 1999 and 2008 (and I plan to buy those that I don't have). But these days I'm not that interested in the sets that they produce. First of all, the Clone wars sets don't appeal to me at all. And the remakes of old sets.. I understand why they're done, but I'm not interested.

The SW sets I buy today are the UCS sets along with the small polybags. The mid-size sets don't appeal to me at all, with very few exceptions. But the problem is that the polybags - especially the Brickmaster sets (that never were available here in Sweden) - are so ridiculously expensive. $50 for set 20021? I don't think so.

But I have several other themes in my collection. Old castle stuff, pirates, Ninja, Western, Paradisa, Adventure Egypt, Vikings and PotC, to mention some of them. At the moment it's the old castle stuff that interest me the most, so Ebay and I have a close relationship :)

DavidBrickley

I've never been a fan of the prequels, so have never had interest in those sets. I had not picked up any Star Wars sets because I had just come out of my dark ages about a year ago, and the sets that interested me most were retired. The first sets I picked up were only because they were on clearance (Hoth troop packs and Wampa set).

The past few days, though, I've had a chance to go to a few Lego stores, and on the third and last one, I bought the death star. As a fan of the original trilogy, this will likely be my one set purchased at retail price. I have no interest in the super star destroyer, an I know it'll replace the death star soon. No buyers remorse yet...

macmon

I guess to each his/her own. If you like Star Wars like me... then go build. :) But if you prefer the other themes. Then go build it too. :) As for me... now that I pretty have the Star Wars sets I like... I am expanding to other themes like Ninjago and Castle. But of course selecting what I feel I like the best. Oh... also the Winter Theme for Christmas. :)

ryan498

I'm not interested in star wars lego, I never got interested in the films either .. to be honest I'm much more of a city person.

Leg_Godt_Gud

I only collect classic city, modern city, and a vehicle sets from other themes. Solely into city sets that can work in my city. Pretty much vehicles only. I'm not sure why but, I've never been interested in other themes. For that matter the only other toys I collected where Hotwheels, Matchbox, 1:18 scale cars, and a few RC trucks.

sonsofsceva

I used to have a huge Kenner SW collection growing up (all the figures except blue Snaggletooth, the missile-shooting Boba Fett, and a figure that only came out in Brazil, of all places).

But the prequels really burned that love out of me. They felt so contrived and I couldn't buy into that Anakin becoming Vader. As such, I barely bought any of the LEGOs when they first came out in 1999, and then nothing since then until recently.

Then, I saw the Clone Wars cartoon. This greatly reinvigorated my interest in the SW universe. Like the Zahn novels mentioned elsewhere in this thread, they really hit all the right notes on the character of that galaxy. The cartoons fill the gap that made Anakin a character who could become Vader and lived up to the words from Obi-Wan in the original film. Then I bought a bunch of the 2010 sets on clearance this summer. Now I am really glad to have a Plo Koon and Kit Fisto in minifigure form.

So, contrary to most comments here, the Clone Wars sets are actually very appealing to me.

snowgirl90

Im not that big of a fan of the SW sets. Dont own any of them. They are quit pricey :S... I collect the "realistic" once like City, Creator, Castel and so one. I like to keep it real :P

AlHazred

I loved the Star Wars movies (well, the original trilogy anyway) and love everything LEGO Space, but I can't get into the LEGO SW sets either. I think it has something to do with the lack of variety in craft, sure. But another part is that it seems mostly to be aimed at collectors. I see very little that I would have wanted as a child. The various spacecraft are variations on a theme, and the building sets are extremely sparse on detail.

For example, I challenge anyone to look at LEGO 4501-1 Mos Eisley Cantina and tell me how you would use it as a child to reproduce the scene in the movie; there are no aliens, and you only build one tiny corner of the building anyway! That should easily have been something the size of one of the old LEGO Space bases.

I'm sure the licensing deal is the reason most of the items are as expensive as they are. I'd rather see LEGO spending some effort on rebuilding interesting proprietary themes, like the cool-looking Alien Conquest line, than working on more licensed deals.

MayorOfNorthfield

I've never been into Star Wars, either as a movie franchise or a LEGO theme. In fact, the only Star Wars works I've seen have been the animated Family Guy parodies.

Yellowcastle

^ Oh no, that's Alan's dog!

Redbullgivesuwind

I'm a massive star wars lego fan but then i have been since watching the prequals. But i do like the castle sets as well. So I enjoy the future and the past.

boba_jagoda2

I don't care much about the SW sets,
but am, however, grateful that they've keept the company running during the harsh times.

My intersets are mostly in collecting castle sets,
but I do own a couple of SW ones:
snow trooper battle pack - bought during a snow blizzard as a joke,
and some minifigures.

bricksan

While I like the Star Wars Films, that is as far as it goes, I don't own any Star Wars LEGO Sets and probably never will, I prefer Pirates.

emilewski

I came out of my dark ages eight months ago and at first, I had to have EVERYTHING. It did not matter what it was (SW, City, etc). It was all cool. My first set was the ISD 6211 off of ebay and loved it. Then I realized I need to make a decision and start limiting my focus as I could never afford it. I decided to just get SW cruiser class ships only, which I now have all but the UCS ISD. I may get the new SSD, but other than that I am going to focus on large architecture, City and Modulars (and I told myself I would not get sucked into trains, but now I am sure I will buy the emerald night and maersk trains...but stopping there!).

Jezzatheshed

I love Star Wars lego..If you can find it cheap you can always trade it up for something you really want!

pantenkind

^^"and I told myself I would not get sucked into trains, but now I am sure I will buy the emerald night and maersk trains...but stopping there!"

Good luck with that :-)

Jasen

I've bitten the bullet and bought a few battle packs to make an animation, but that's where it ends.... oh I'll get @8092 as well. Purely for the minifigs :)

^^"and I told myself I would not get sucked into trains, but now I am sure I will buy the emerald night and maersk trains...but stopping there!"

Good luck with that :-)

He's got no hope! haha

Legosamleren

The last set I bought before the darkages was the UCS X-Wing, found it in a supermarked for around 70USD. I got into Lego as a hobby a year back, mostly because of set 10185. and started to collect on the modular houses. Then I saw the winter holiday sets, and had to get them + the train from 2007. Then 10193 MMV combined with 10000 remake and "soon" 10223 KJ. A month ago I could'nt resist on SW anymore so started to get the most Iconic things from the movies (for me mostly the original trilogy) I placed an order yesterday for the sandcrawler ^^.
Anywho I just collect things I like or missed out on as a child. I feel I'm in no urge to get it all. So basicly for me a good set is, the build it self, the realism and then unique pieces or minifigs.

Greetings from Denmark (glad we're known for something in the world ^^)

bluemoose

(glad we're known for something in the world ^^)

Being know for LEGO & bacon is pretty cool ;-)

wrong_generation

I've never had any SW set. I like Town/City, anything that is realistic - Pirates, Castle, Creator, and only some unrealistich themes - space [not all].
That was one of the reasons I lost interest in Lego around 1999, because City sets became ridiculously simplified and most of the "ordinary" themes was dropped.

same here. when i was younger i was majorly into lego's but around 99-2000 the town/city set's started to majorly suck and they still do. i don't care for any of the star war's sets and would never buy one.

LegoFanTexas

The common theme here seems to be anti-Star wars...

Allow me to toss another view into the mix... Being a huge fan of Star Wars from back before the extended universe existed, when it was just the three original movies, finding Lego making Star Wars sets is what got me back into this.

I'm not much for making my own creations, just not creative enough, but I love building things I know, and things like Vader's Tie Fighter, the Death Star, the Lambda shuttle, are just amazing to see done so well in Lego.

Something to consider, there are very few Lego sets over $200, almost all of them are Star Wars sets. After all, the UCS Falcon, Death Star 1 & 2, ISD, SSD, Shuttle, AT-OT/Dropship, etc are all Star Wars. What else is over $200? The Tower Bridge and Taj Mahal? Anything else?

There must be a reason they can sell $400 sets of Star Wars, but nothing else...

Just my thoughts...

August222

I do not collect Star Wars sets. I get all my space from classic and SPIII...

I did buy the most recent V-Wing fighter, though. It is just one of the most beautiful non Vic Viper star craft I have ever seen. It has the profile of a wolf and the spirit an F-14. And it broke my swishometer...

cavegod

i hate the lego star wars line!

collect_that

^ LOL! Not big enough for you?

Galidorneveragain

Star Wars is what got me interested in the whole lego sets scenery as a kid, before that I used to play with loose bricks.

I've found from around 2006 to 2008 to be the 'glory' years of the whole theme. But recently I have found from 2010-2011 the whole theme has gone down hill, forcing me to be intrigued with the all new Harry Potter, Alien conquest and some of the collectable minfigures have been superb.

I believe that Star Wars should be cut in 2016, as it has had its run and its only now you are starting to see they are dragging the theme on to increase their turnover and profit.

Its not that I don't like Star Wars, its just that I believe the theme should end soon.

BarbWire

I am definitely not a fan of Star Wars. I started collecting Lego because of the Pirates of the Caribbean and Harry Potter sets, which is about all I collect except for a few Indiana Jones minifigs and Batman. It is quite annoying in a way as everywhere I go shopping there seems to be more Star Wars Lego than anything else!

Yellowcastle

I can appreciate those that don't collect Star Wars the same way I can't be bothered with Bionicle Factory. ;o) That being said, these themes subsidize everything else. I thus find it pretty shortsighted to call for their end.

giraffefreckles

I hadn't thought of Star Wars subsidizing other themes, but you're right. It's certainly not the heavily-discounted Atlantis sets, much as I love them. (Oh, count me out on the grey-heavy SW bricks.)

brickupdate

I just heard about this, evidently a Star Wars live action TV show is in the works, meaning the Star Wars franchise has a loooooong life ahead of it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=b8wgUt5gO24

dougts

I thought this show had been cancelled? it was in the works on and off again for the last 5 to 7 years. Last I read just a few months ago was Lucas didn't think it could be done well on a typical weekly TV show budget.

LegoFanTexas

@dougts - I would think that a "typical" weekly TV show budget would not apply to Star Wars.

If George Lucas wanted to spend $15 million per 1 hour weekly show, I would think he has the means and the budget to do so. It might not make it back right away, but the rights to it for the next 30 years would pay handsome dividends for a long time to come.

Done poorly, it would damage the Star Wars brand, done right, I'm not sure it has to make money the first go around, it just has to make sense in the long run.

prof1515

I just heard about this, evidently a Star Wars live action TV show is in the works, meaning the Star Wars franchise has a loooooong life ahead of it:

I thought this show had been cancelled? it was in the works on and off again for the last 5 to 7 years. Last I read just a few months ago was Lucas didn't think it could be done well on a typical weekly TV show budget.

Read a little more of this thread as this discussion has been covered.