Speculation on the upcoming Death Star

stlux

Would love a part list for that outer shell. Great compromise between display/play set.
Would have been great if #75159 would have given us this, but alas. 

CapnRex101

It looks great but realistically I don't see how LEGO could have actually included an outer shell. It would be very difficult to create something of the required durability and it would also hamper play value unless it was easy to remove.

I think the only possible method would have been to use removable floors, akin to a Modular Building. However, that too might hinder playability as it is not always easy to access the interior from above.

playwell

I thought another way of doing it would be to do a half shell and then make the inside spinnable so that you could get to the back half with needing the shell to open.

TigerMoth

CapnRex101 said:

It would be very difficult to create something of the required durability and it would also hamper play value unless it was easy to remove.

I think it would be fair to say that the general attitude has been that the new version has changed little, and that it's likely to be expensive.

On that basis, it would seem to be reasonable that TLG should have justified the "expensive" bit by attempting overcome the "difficult" bit. Otherwise what are these "development costs" that feature in discussions about clones copying TLG designs?

brumey

the only good system is a soundsystem!

aaaand

we ve always had McRib here in austria! it was never gone!

Lyichir

CapnRex101 said:

It looks great but realistically I don't see how LEGO could have actually included an outer shell. It would be very difficult to create something of the required durability and it would also hamper play value unless it was easy to remove.

I think the only possible method would have been to use removable floors, akin to a Modular Building. However, that too might hinder playability as it is not always easy to access the interior from above.

Another possibility could be something that opens up along the middle (sort of like the Ghostbusters Firehouse). However, unlike the Firehouse it'd be hard to accomplish that with a hinged construction, since the hinge could only be placed at the widest point on the sphere.

Pretty much any solution would have its drawbacks, so perhaps that's why Lego opted for something so similar to their previous model. At least this way one of the biggest criticisms can be raised is "it's unoriginal", which, to be honest, only really matters to those who had already bought the original set. Better to go with a structure that has proven its sales potential regardless of its flaws than to change things up and potentially end up with something less popular.

CapnRex101

^ I agree to an extent, although there are some easy alterations which could have been made without any risk of making the set less appealing to its primary audience.

dougts

I can think of two things that might work other than a full skin like the picture posted:  

First, @SMC suggested a half shell that with a turntable type mechanism built in (think a lazy susan).  From the front, you would have an exterior.  From the back, it would be open to the vignettes. The inner globe (the official set) would spin around on the turntable so all compartments would be accessible.  This is a decent idea that I might get around to trying to implement someday.

Second, a modified clamshell where the hinged area turned from a sphere to a rectangular prism at the equator, extending all the way straight down to the bottom, lined with hinges and solid brick to support the weight.  since the completed set would be displayed would this portion facing the back, it would not be obviously visible at most front, side, and top angles

playwell

^ I might give the first one a try too but I have a few projects to do first so its well down on the list.

Lyichir

CapnRex101 said:

^ I agree to an extent, although there are some easy alterations which could have been made without any risk of making the set less appealing to its primary audience.

Oh, sure, no arguments there. I was just pointing out that that's probably the reason why there were no major structural or layout changes.

datsunrobbie

It will be interesting to see how a rotating shell gets around the main gun.

dougts

datsunrobbie said:

It will be interesting to see how a rotating shell gets around the main gun.

probably easiest to move the gun to the main outer shell (leaving the control room inside). same with the turrets

biggest challenge will be giving the shell enough strength to hold its shape without having interior strutting that would conflict with the inside diorama section

catwrangler

I'm really curious now to see how someone will pull this off! Because that's one thing I've learned about AFOLs and tricky logistics problems - it's not a matter of "if", but "when"...

SprinkleOtter

I just wonder... What would the average AFOL pay for a "shell" system?

catwrangler

Are we thinking "if included in the model/instructions/price from Lego themselves" or "cost of Bricklinked pieces plus fan-made instructions"?

SumoLego

brumey said:

the only good system is a soundsystem!

aaaand

we ve always had McRib here in austria! it was never gone!

I really need to move to Austria. McRibs and no loans.

cheshirecat

I think there's another issue regarding an outer shell than just complexity, its also ugly. The photo on the previous page is terrible imo. Closed its just a boring grey golfball with a laser. I know that's what its meant to look like but as a model it just doesn't work. DS2 works because its got interest in the shape.

cheshirecat

Of the ideas mentioned the lazy susan approach has the most potential, although I would be inclined to limit the shell to a thin segment just wide enough for the main gun than do half of it. Give the impression of the shell, without creating a bland wall of light bley.

SprinkleOtter

catwrangler said:

Are we thinking "if included in the model/instructions/price from Lego themselves" or "cost of Bricklinked pieces plus fan-made instructions"?

Either or. I'm just curious.

Paperballpark

There's a photo on facebook of it being built. By a Lego store employee. In a Lego store.

Yet TLG doesn't want photos to be posted on fansites yet? :/

Get your bricks in a row Lego!

TigerMoth

Paperballpark said:

There's a photo on facebook of it being built. By a Lego store employee. In a Lego store.

That doesn't mean it was officially sanctioned. The stores have to get the sets early so they are actually available on the launch day - maybe even with one already built behind the scenes. What the stores actually do with those sets may not correspond with TLG's wishes or instructions.

SumoLego

It wouldn't surprise me if a certain store manager got a note about posting the pics to Facebook in advance of the official release.

Huw

Could you post a link to the facebook page, please @Paperballpark?

TigerMoth

Huw said:

Could you post a link to the facebook page, please @TigerMoth?

Nope - I didn't post the comment!

But @Paperballpark might.

CCC

TigerMoth said:

Paperballpark said:

There's a photo on facebook of it being built. By a Lego store employee. In a Lego store.

That doesn't mean it was officially sanctioned. The stores have to get the sets early so they are actually available on the launch day - maybe even with one already built behind the scenes. What the stores actually do with those sets may not correspond with TLG's wishes or instructions.

Yet if a product is put up for sale early (unofficially) in either a lego store or another store and photographed then isn't it currently fair game for brick set and others to show the images? So if a Lego store released a product early in error it is OK, but not if the same store release photos in error?

Paperballpark

Huw said:

Could you post a link to the facebook page, please @Paperballpark?

Sorry @Huw, only just seen this! I see you found the photos though :)

xwingpilot

So the minifigs are updated but they're not fleshies?!

CCC

I can understand people saying that they could have used new techniques and updated more than just Minifigures. But then, if this was selling so well for 7-8 years and still selling well at the end of that period, then I totally understand rereleasing it with minimal change. It would probably look worse to have to reprice the old model, much better to release a 'new' set at the 'correct' current price. It is amazing to think that the set could go on for another 7-8 years with just a number change and minor minifigure detail changes. One design lasting 15 years almost continuously is amazing.

In a way it is also fairer on fans although I doubt this was a consideration. Who feels the need to buy this version if they have the old? Who would feel the need if much of the Death Star was updated?

Huw

@Paperballpark, yes I did but I wanted to post a full provenance in case of 'issues'. If you have it, please post.

Thanks!

Paperballpark

This is the group I saw it on @Huw. I suspect they found it elsewhere though: https://www.facebook.com/groups/352905241559070/

als-1971

Says link cant be displayed

Recce

I see the aim of this re-release is to markup the price due to inflation, after all the original price was set 8 years ago.

Hence all the bare minimum change efforts like an updated box printing and minor minifigure update. I'm sure TLG wouldn't want to spend any extra effort in redesigning the set which would take up the limited resources they have.

10188 previously retailed here at S$900, which is about US$650 at current conversion rate. With the US price increase, I wonder will it hit beyond S$1000!

CCC

It does also give a good view about now vs then prices, it is not often two very similar sets are issued. So it gives us an idea about what old sets of the same era would cost today if redone.

empire

I would imagine this set will be $599 CAD. Way too much money for a re-issue of a set that was cheaper just a few months ago.

fourstud

Huw said:

Could you post a link to the facebook page, please @Paperballpark?

It's from a LEGO Star Wars group I'm in from one particular person and I dunno if I can post? It's a private group,too. 

TigerMoth

CCC said:

Yet if a product is put up for sale early (unofficially) in either a lego store or another store and photographed then isn't it currently fair game for brick set and others to show the images? So if a Lego store released a product early in error it is OK, but not if the same store release photos in error?

No.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also if one web site showed pictures, it wouldn't make it right for everybody else to do the same thing.

Nor should TLG have to bear the consequences of the actions of a single employee who may well have been acting against instructions.

Recce said:

I see the aim of this re-release is to markup the price due to inflation, after all the original price was set 8 years ago.

I doubt that. Sets have been re-released, and prices changed, in the past. I suspect the changes here are an attempt to appeal to a wider market - perhaps to see how little work they need to do to appeal to completionists.

HokieJoe99

Glad to see that the instructions are still spiral bound. Unless she is building from the 10188 instructions they had laying around in the back. 

ryjay

.....and we see it...deja vu all over again! :)

Fauch

funny how lego is protective of pictures of a set released 8 years ago

CCC

TigerMoth said:

CCC said:

Yet if a product is put up for sale early (unofficially) in either a lego store or another store and photographed then isn't it currently fair game for brick set and others to show the images? So if a Lego store released a product early in error it is OK, but not if the same store release photos in error?

No.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Also if one web site showed pictures, it wouldn't make it right for everybody else to do the same thing.

Nor should TLG have to bear the consequences of the actions of a single employee who may well have been acting against instructions.

Recce said:

I see the aim of this re-release is to markup the price due to inflation, after all the original price was set 8 years ago.

I doubt that. Sets have been re-released, and prices changed, in the past. I suspect the changes here are an attempt to appeal to a wider market - perhaps to see how little work they need to do to appeal to completionists.

How do you know it is one employee? They are clearly building it in the store, with the public around (lack of uniforms), so at least the manager should know about such a public event in the store.

TigerMoth

CCC said:

How do you know it is one employee? They are clearly building it in the store, with the public around (lack of uniforms), so at least the manager should know about such a public event in the store.

The manager, or the supervisor, is one employee. Everybody else is just going to do what they're told.

If the decision was made higher up, I doubt it would be just one store doing it.

fourstud

Confirmed $500

mathew

$500 rehash that could be bought a year ago for $100 less?  Lego has officially jumped the shark. 

Dontcopythatfloppy

$500!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME!? This really proves that the Lego Star Wars team's quality standards have definitely gone downhill. I'm really happy that the Super Heroes lines are so great nowadays, because there's not going to be any more Star Wars purchases from me in the forseeable future.

dspigel

mathew said:

$500 rehash that could be bought a year ago for $100 less?  Lego has officially jumped the shark. 

Jumped the shark, I love it.

1x1

Does that mean it's going to be £400 in the UK?

Huw

^ At least £450 I reckon.

playwell

^ Don't give them ideas, I hope Lego consider it was £275 in the UK before so £350 seems fair. Hopefully they set the price pre-brexit, £400 max surely!

ryjay

lol, "fair" flew out the window a long time ago! :)

CapnRex101

A price of £449.99 would far exceed any other LEGO set released in the UK before and I struggle to believe that such a leap would be made so quickly. It would correspond with the typical ratio between prices in the UK and US but an increase of 64% over the cost of #10188 seems excessive and I think such a high price point would put off potential buyers, particularly given the prices of other sets which are packaged in boxes of a similar size.

I think £349.99 is more likely, although I would not be surprised to see a price point of around £399.99. We will find out soon.