Rumours about Star Wars UCS models

CCC

GothamConstructionCo said:

I suppose it would be good to see a UCS Batwing or Batmobile but which incarnation would you choose from? Film or comic book.

Errr .... #7784 http://www.brickset.com/detail/?Set=7784-1

Diggydoes

Somehow i'm curious to see a new try on the X-Wing with all the pieces that were produced after the first UCS one (i'm talking to you slopes in all kind of variety)! On the other hand it would be kinda lame if they start with rehashes even before some other iconic vehicles have been done!

LegoFanTexas

The_Mack said:

LegoFanTexas said:

What if the answer is...

Nothing...

?

Then I guess your not one of their customers.

And that is the whole point... their customers might decide... not to be...

The_Mack said:

I don't think releasing a new X-Wing UCS set 13-15 years later would be consider a rehash.

Perhaps not, but human beings are not rational creatures.

Retail businesses and consumer product companies make money and stay profitable by figuring out what illogical and irrational decisions consumers make.

The_Mack said:

Why buy a B-Wing now? Well, do you really want to wait a decade or longer for a newer improved one, if that would even happen? I don't see certain UCS sets being remade. But the X-Wing? Yeah, it really does need to be done again. So it can be sold to a new set of customers. Yeah that opens the door for remakes of the Star Destroyer and the MF. LEGO has the License why not remake them again.

You are making a logical and rational argument. I would agree that logically, you are 100% correct. But that isn't how most people work.

Bandit

Would a rehashed UCS X-Wing sell better (or make more profit) than a UCS AT-AT? Or a UCS Slave I? Or a UCS A-Wing? Maybe. Maybe not. But the point is, when there are still plenty of other sets begging to get the UCS treatment, that many of us have been patiently waiting for for 13 years, rehashing one that's already been done is a slap in the face to the very AFOL collectors this line is targeting.

ringleheim

y2josh said:

ringleheim said:

A new UCS X-Wing would blow the original out of the water most likely, especially if they did it in a much more realistic light gray color and not white.

X-Wings actually ARE white, though... they just seem darker because of the weathering and blaster bolt scoring.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. All we can do is look at the original source material and form our own conclusions. I'm well aware of the concept of weathering. The X-wings, like most things in the Star Wars universe, are a very light gray, which is then weathered to appear even darker.

I just watched the AT-AT scene from ESB on Blu-Ray a few days ago. The snowspeeders are absolutely a light gray...yet Lego has produced them as well in white, for some unknown reason.

LegoFanTexas

^ I would think it would depend on who is actually buying UCS sets... If it is mostly AFOL collectors, then it might be a wash. For everyone like me who owns a UCS X-Wing, there are probably 5 more who don't...

If a UCS X-Wing would be purchased by parents for their kids, then perhaps it would sell very well indeed. Probably better than a UCS AT-AT would...

So in that regard, I get why you might do it. But are those sales worth it when you'll upset so many long time collectors? Maybe or maybe not, but it is a risk. There is zero risk with a UCS AT-AT or Sandcrawler or Landspeeder or any of a dozen other ships that haven't been done.

Heck, for that matter, where is my UCS Slave 1?!? :) I think that would sell a lot better than the current SSD is selling.

ringleheim

A new UCS X-wing does not necessarily undermine the collectability of 7191.

For all those who oppose this idea, what exactly do you think Lego was selling you when you bought 7191? What unspoken agreement would they breach with a new UCS X-wing?

Do you think you received a promise from Lego to never do a big, highly detailed X-wing fighter ever again?

In my opinion, you received a promise from Lego that it will never do 7191 again. A new, revised, X-wing does not alter that.

Isn't collecting an entire range of products central to a lot of collectors? If you were a die-hard, you'd still have to have 7191, even if a new X-wing came out, b/c it's UCS and you don't have it. Or vice-versa.

For the other 99.9% of Lego buyers around the world, the new X-wing would just be the new, big, cool set you can actually buy without resorting to the secondary market and inflated prices.

For what it's worth, I think the X-wing specifically makes a big difference in the context of this discussion.

The X-wing is not just another Star Wars vehicle. It's unbelievably iconic and popular, and it has been at least a generation (in Lego terms) since the last UCS X-Wing was released.

Time for a new one if you ask me. And certainly 7191 can be improved upon, that is for sure. Eliminating the heavy use of stickers alone would accomplish that task.

pvancil27

Them redoing a UCS X-Wing does not equate to them suddenly moving to Re-hash every previously done UCS.

Like someone pointed out, in 2015 with the Star Wars 3d release, wouldnt re-releasing an updated X Wing along with a UCS TIE Fighter make sense?

When you collect something based solely or largely on perceived rarity and value, you are destined to eventually abandon it. If that sub segment of collectors goes away, Lego wont fail, not by a long shot.

ringleheim

pvancil27 said:

Them redoing a UCS X-Wing does not equate to them suddenly moving to Re-hash every previously done UCS.

Like someone pointed out, in 2015 with the Star Wars 3d release, wouldnt re-releasing an updated X Wing along with a UCS TIE Fighter make sense?

When you collect something based solely or largely on perceived rarity and value, you are destined to eventually abandon it. If that sub segment of collectors goes away, Lego wont fail, not by a long shot.

Amen brother. In my opinion, any true Lego fan would foam at the mouth upon hearing news of a new UCS X-Wing, if done well and an obvious improvement over the original.

Heck, just last week I finally acquired 10174 (UCS AT-ST) and finished building it last night! What a WONDERFUL set.

If Lego released a newer, better version next year that was bigger with more detail, I'd be incredibly excited. I'd run out and buy that one too.

Would that somehow hurt the value (financial or emotional) of my 10174? Who cares! That's not my approach to Lego. I love Lego sets and get excited about "the next one", not the already built models collecting dust on my shelves.

ringleheim

LegoFanTexas said:

^ I would think it would depend on who is actually buying UCS sets... If it is mostly AFOL collectors, then it might be a wash. For everyone like me who owns a UCS X-Wing, there are probably 5 more who don't...

If a UCS X-Wing would be purchased by parents for their kids, then perhaps it would sell very well indeed. Probably better than a UCS AT-AT would...

So in that regard, I get why you might do it. But are those sales worth it when you'll upset so many long time collectors? Maybe or maybe not, but it is a risk. There is zero risk with a UCS AT-AT or Sandcrawler or Landspeeder or any of a dozen other ships that haven't been done.

Heck, for that matter, where is my UCS Slave 1?!? :) I think that would sell a lot better than the current SSD is selling.

The SSD is an interesting set, isn't it? I own it and really like it, but I can see why others do not like this set. The very high price doesn't help things, for sure. The set is very well done and really looks like the SSD. It could have done with a proper angled bottom and bottom detail, but it's still quite nice.

Ultimately, I think the failure lies in the decision to make a UCS set of that particular vehicle in the first place. Something that is 19km long and fundamentally a basic geometric shape just doesn't really lend itself to Lego very well.

And for all the wonderful length the set has, it has very little width and height. It is not bulky at all and lacks visual impact.

If you are going to charge $400 US for a Lego set, it better hammer customers over the head with "wow" factor, and the SSD does not do that.

I completely understand why that set is apparently a bit of a sales failure for Lego.

lulwut

A redo of the UCS X-Wing is a must. The old one is way outdated, I'm not even touching it if a new one fails to come out.

And of course the anti-rehash whining crowd fails to see the bigger market. I have other collectibles and notice it all the time. For instance, diecast airplane models, there is that one company that continually pumps out the same squadron. It doesn't bode well with the 'community' but somehow every single one of those model ends up going nearly 2x retail after supply dries up with merchants.

The UCS X-Wing shouldn't be a one time deal given how many new people enter the Lego hobby every year. Collectors from the 1st UCS X-Wing era aren't going to sustain the line.

Bandit

ringleheim said:

Amen brother. In my opinion, any true Lego fan would foam at the mouth upon hearing news of a new UCS X-Wing, if done well and an obvious improvement over the original.

Would that somehow hurt the value (financial or emotional) of my 10174? Who cares! That's not my approach to Lego. I love Lego sets and get excited about "the next one", not the already built models collecting dust on my shelves.

There is no truer SW lego fan than me. I am not foaming at the mouth, and would be unhappy if they did this. This has nothing to do with value and possible depreciation of older sets. I couldn't care less what my old sets are worth -- that's not why I collect them. It has to do with TLG devoting time and resources, and one of the very limited 1-2 UCS slots a year, to something I already have, rather than something new that I don't.

Would I still buy it? Of course! But I wouldn't be happy about it. Now if we're talking a 2500+ piece model, I might change my story. Or a Dagobah version, or some kind of battle damaged version. Those might be different enough to get me on board. But a straight 1300 piece virtual clone of the previous one? Ugh, thanks for nothing TLG.

ringleheim

Bandit said:

ringleheim said:

Amen brother. In my opinion, any true Lego fan would foam at the mouth upon hearing news of a new UCS X-Wing, if done well and an obvious improvement over the original.

Would that somehow hurt the value (financial or emotional) of my 10174? Who cares! That's not my approach to Lego. I love Lego sets and get excited about "the next one", not the already built models collecting dust on my shelves.

There is no truer SW lego fan than me. I am not foaming at the mouth, and would be unhappy if they did this. This has nothing to do with value and possible depreciation of older sets. I couldn't care less what my old sets are worth -- that's not why I collect them. It has to do with TLG devoting time and resources, and one of the very limited 1-2 UCS slots a year, to something I already have, rather than something new that I don't.

Would I still buy it? Of course! But I wouldn't be happy about it. Now if we're talking a 2500+ piece model, I might change my story. Or a Dagobah version, or some kind of battle damaged version. Those might be different enough to get me on board. But a straight 1300 piece virtual clone of the previous one? Ugh, thanks for nothing TLG.

Why must we assume a new UCS X-wing would be a 1300 piece virtual clone of the original? I would assume Lego would not go in that direction.

The part of your comments that Lego cares about is the "of course I'd buy one" part. The "I wouldn't be happy about it" part is not nearly as important.

Lego may have an internal policy that says no UCS subject matter already created will ever be re-visited. Who knows. If they do NOT have such a policy, the "next" UCS is always going to be driven from a sales perspective.

I think they would sell WAY more UCS W-wings next year than almost any other unbuilt creation. If they feel the same way, they may well do one.

And don't get me wrong: I would love an A-Wing, Sandcrawler, and AT-AT. No doubt!

But an improved X-wing would work just fine as well.

Perhaps the better question here is why the heck were we offered the Jedi Starfighter when the A-wing, sandcrawler, or AT-AT could have been done instead! Ditto for the B-wing. The B-Wing set Lego has done appears to be really nice. But why a B-wing when we could have already had our new X-wing, or mind blowing unchartered territory like the AT-AT?

It will be interesting to see how Lego responds to the CUUSOO Sandcrawler. The fans have spoken. Will Lego give us one? Time will tell.

LegoFanTexas

ringleheim said:

Would that somehow hurt the value (financial or emotional) of my 10174? Who cares! That's not my approach to Lego.

It may not be your approach to Lego, but you are not the only customer Lego has. You're looking at this only from your own point of view.

This is fine for personal consumption, but very dangerous for business planning. A good recent example of this is Netflix, look at the public relations disaster they went though a year ago, with prices and splitting the company, then reversing course. I'm sure all their decisions made sense to them, but the public would have none of it.

y2josh

ringleheim said:

y2josh said:

ringleheim said:

A new UCS X-Wing would blow the original out of the water most likely, especially if they did it in a much more realistic light gray color and not white.

X-Wings actually ARE white, though... they just seem darker because of the weathering and blaster bolt scoring.

Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this point. All we can do is look at the original source material and form our own conclusions.

Just so we're clear, I absolutely agree that light grey would make a better looking model than what we get with the white pieces... but we can't agree to disagree on the color of the ship in film... as the studio models (the source material) were white and then weathered, scored, etc.

That said, it's particularly interesting to me that they continue to opt to do the X-Wings in white, given that Star Destroyers are also white, but every LEGO version of that model is done in grey.

y2josh

ringleheim said:

A new UCS X-wing does not necessarily undermine the collectability of 7191.

For myself, I could care less about the collectability of 7191. And truthfully, if they pass off a re-hashed X-Wing as next year's 'R2-D2' and we still get a new ship, that's great, too. My issue is if they stick to the one ship a year model and we get a set that's already been done instead of one of the dozens that hasn't.

LegoFanTexas

^ I would have to agree, this isn't a "agree to disagree" point, it is a fact. The X-Wings and the Imperial Star Destroyers are both white... If you watch both Ep 4 and 6, in multiple places you can see they are painted white in many places, only then are discolored due to use. Plus the studio shooting models for both are white.

In fact, there is an official paint color in SW called "Star Destroyer White", it is the only paint color made in large enough volumes to paint them all.

Ironically, both the studio models for the ISD and the SSD are both the same color of white, but they used different lighting when shooting them so the SSD appears to be dark blueish gray in the movies. Look at them in real life, and they are the exact same color. :)

Of course, debating the color of X-Wings and Star Destroyers on the Internet is kinda like debating who is the real Silver Surfer (Kirby or Moebius). ;)

Legofanscott

For me i think a UCS AT AT is a MUST, i imagine it will be extremely hard to get the final product sizeable, detailed and stable on a limited part count but if they do i bet the finished product will be amazing :)

We are Also forgetting Lego hasnt even released a standard Tie fighter in UCS so again that should be done before an X-Wing rehash

ringleheim

LegoFanTexas said:

^ I would have to agree, this isn't a "agree to disagree" point, it is a fact. The X-Wings and the Imperial Star Destroyers are both white... If you watch both Ep 4 and 6, in multiple places you can see they are painted white in many places, only then are discolored due to use. Plus the studio shooting models for both are white.

In fact, there is an official paint color in SW called "Star Destroyer White", it is the only paint color made in large enough volumes to paint them all.

Ironically, both the studio models for the ISD and the SSD are both the same color of white, but they used different lighting when shooting them so the SSD appears to be dark blueish gray in the movies. Look at them in real life, and they are the exact same color. :)

Of course, debating the color of X-Wings and Star Destroyers on the Internet is kinda like debating who is the real Silver Surfer (Kirby or Moebius). ;)

You have to be careful how you define "white". The moment you put some black in it, it's not white anymore. The X-wings from the films are a very light gray, but they are gray, not pristine appliance snow white. Lego white is WHITE and that's why it is the wrong color (in my opinion) for something like an X-wing. I should point out that medium bluish gray is not correct either...but I have said for a long time that Lego needs to come out with more gray tones including at least one that is lighter than medium bluish gray (what most Lego fans call "ligtht gray").

But that really has nothing to do with the next UCS set.

ringleheim

LegoFanTexas said:

ringleheim said:

Would that somehow hurt the value (financial or emotional) of my 10174? Who cares! That's not my approach to Lego.

It may not be your approach to Lego, but you are not the only customer Lego has. You're looking at this only from your own point of view.

This is fine for personal consumption, but very dangerous for business planning. A good recent example of this is Netflix, look at the public relations disaster they went though a year ago, with prices and splitting the company, then reversing course. I'm sure all their decisions made sense to them, but the public would have none of it.

If we are basing Lego's decision to make another UCS X-wing on broader concerns or what is good for business, I would imagine the X-wing is as solid a subject matter as they could pick for the next UCS.

LegoFanTexas

ringleheim said:

If we are basing Lego's decision to make another UCS X-wing on broader concerns or what is good for business, I would imagine the X-wing is as solid a subject matter as they could pick for the next UCS.

If you are suggesting that the X-Wing is the most reasonable set to rehash, I'd agree with you. It is old enough and mainstream enough that Lego could get away with doing that one, and I'm sure it would sell.

If we were talking about the TIE Interceptor, that would be another conversation. :)

Still, why rehash when we have so many good sets to do, like the Landspeeder, Pod Racer, AT-AT, and on down the list?

y2josh

Legofanscott said:

We are Also forgetting Lego hasnt even released a standard Tie fighter in UCS so again that should be done before an X-Wing rehash

Believe you me, I am NOT forgetting this. I find it stunning that this set hasn't been done, even in spite of many people here on the forums voicing concerns that the TIE Fighter would be a boring set.

Legofanscott

y2josh said:

Legofanscott said:

We are Also forgetting Lego hasnt even released a standard Tie fighter in UCS so again that should be done before an X-Wing rehash

Believe you me, I am NOT forgetting this. I find it stunning that this set hasn't been done, even in spite of many people here on the forums voicing concerns that the TIE Fighter would be a boring set.

Id say its the 3rd most iconic ship behind the MF and X-wing IMO, just like with those two show a none Star wars fan a Tie Fighter and theyll know what it is.

LegoFanTexas

Regarding "boring", I thought UCS Darth Vader's TIE Fighter was one of the better builds I have done. I was quite impressed with it.

ringleheim

LegoFanTexas said:

ringleheim said:

If we are basing Lego's decision to make another UCS X-wing on broader concerns or what is good for business, I would imagine the X-wing is as solid a subject matter as they could pick for the next UCS.

If you are suggesting that the X-Wing is the most reasonable set to rehash, I'd agree with you. It is old enough and mainstream enough that Lego could get away with doing that one, and I'm sure it would sell.

If we were talking about the TIE Interceptor, that would be another conversation. :)

Still, why rehash when we have so many good sets to do, like the Landspeeder, Pod Racer, AT-AT, and on down the list?

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. For all manner of reasons, I think Lego could do a new and improved X-wing and it would sell very well indeed.

It is interesting that Lego has done 2 UCS TIE-fighters, but not the traditional "standard" one. I have no idea what their thinking there is.

You would think the standard TIE would have come out before the Jedi starfighter or the B-wing. Plus a bunch of others.

Legofanscott

LegoFanTexas said:

Regarding "boring", I thought UCS Darth Vader's TIE Fighter was one of the better builds I have done. I was quite impressed with it.

It would be one of the more impressive looking sets if they made it, centainly more impressive looking than the B-Wing, i really don't understand where that release came from?, maybe they are trying to save the better ones for later :)

ringleheim

Why do a new UCS X-Wing before the pod racer or other sets are done? Well, b/c its more iconic and widely popular than anything Lego has not yet done, other than maybe the stock TIE fighter.

The overwhelming majority of Lego purchasers are not collectors, or dedicated Lego enthusiasts who already have a bunch of stuff and want the 13th most interesting vehicle from the movies. Most purchasers are just general consumers and the X-wing would reach a very wide audience.

Does anyone know any data or numbers regarding this type of thing? How many UCS sets are produced? What are the demographics governing their purchase? Does Lego have an idea of how many UCS sets are already owned by a UCS purchaser? I would find a lot of that stuff interesting.

Legofanscott

ringleheim said:

Why do a new UCS X-Wing before the pod racer or other sets are done? Well, b/c its more iconic and widely popular than anything Lego has not yet done, other than maybe the stock TIE fighter.

The overwhelming majority of Lego purchasers are not collectors, or dedicated Lego enthusiasts who already have a bunch of stuff and want the 13th most interesting vehicle from the movies. Most purchasers are just general consumers and the X-wing would reach a very wide audience.

Does anyone know any data or numbers regarding this type of thing? How many UCS sets are produced? What are the demographics governing their purchase? Does Lego have an idea of how many UCS sets are already owned by a UCS purchaser? I would find a lot of that stuff interesting.

Don't forget the AT AT, i know it was only in ESB for a minute or two but its uniqueness is what has made it so iconic, i don't think there would be many people on earth who wouldn't know what an at-at looks like

ringleheim

Legofanscott said:

ringleheim said:

Why do a new UCS X-Wing before the pod racer or other sets are done? Well, b/c its more iconic and widely popular than anything Lego has not yet done, other than maybe the stock TIE fighter.

The overwhelming majority of Lego purchasers are not collectors, or dedicated Lego enthusiasts who already have a bunch of stuff and want the 13th most interesting vehicle from the movies. Most purchasers are just general consumers and the X-wing would reach a very wide audience.

Does anyone know any data or numbers regarding this type of thing? How many UCS sets are produced? What are the demographics governing their purchase? Does Lego have an idea of how many UCS sets are already owned by a UCS purchaser? I would find a lot of that stuff interesting.

Don't forget the AT AT, i know it was only in ESB for a minute or two but its uniqueness is what has made it so iconic, i don't think there would be many people on earth who wouldn't know what an at-at looks like

No doubt an AT-AT would be great and probably super well received by Star Wars fans.

monkeyhanger

All this talk about why do the Jedi Starfighter first, Lego took a gamble on a PT set and it failed. UCS is mainly about the AFOLs, and there aren't many AFOLs who care too much about the PT. The kids who grew up with the PT still aren't old enough yet to be your typical AFOL ( I suspect most of us come out of our dark ages in our 30s). For that reason then, I think doing the pod racers would result in a flop right now. I don't think the pod racers would be good in UCS format that would dwarf system versions, they're open and the pilot is very much a part of them (and the landspeeder), I don't think they'd look good without a pilot in place.

The currently available system versions of pod racers and tie fighter are the main reason I don't expect to see them in UCS form right now. The current tie is a corker with its SNOT design.

cavegod

A-wing, Tie bomber, Tie Fighter, At-At, C3-P0 chrome gold, Speeder Bike, Cloud Car etc. There are loads to choose from before going back to an X-wing! My moneys on a C3-P0 ;-)

hantot

they should go back to doing the busts, sure a UCS Leia from RotJ "bust" would appeal to AFOL....

fourstud

Someone said on EB that LEGO confirmed they were making another Falcon..

Diggydoes

I'm pretty sure this wrote someone who wants to buy a #10179 and just spread this rumour in the hope that sellers react with lower prices on their MF stock!

LegoFanTexas

^ this..

If Lego were going to redo a UCS set, I think we can all agree it would be the X-Wing.

GothamConstructionCo

Diggydoes said:

I'm pretty sure this wrote someone who wants to buy a #10179 and just spread this rumour in the hope that sellers react with lower prices on their MF stock!

Good luck with that one. I don't think a generally intelligent community would panic offload sets cheap based on a rumour.

pvp3020

I don't have the UCS X-Wing and would love it if TLG were to release a new version, however I do have the UCS MF and would hate to see another version of that - so I can well appreciate the anti-X-Wing faction.

What I really would like to see, although I'm sure it will never happen, is retail versions of some of the models at SW Miniland. I'd be happy if they brought out the MF from Miniland. Anyone take a guess on how much that would cost??? :)

Coolsplash

I am not a AFOL or a collector of USC sets as I don't own a single one yet due to mainly no display space in my house or privacy with kids running around and stuff. But, I think, if LEGO does produce rehash versions of UCS sets, only to make them better (and a bit pricier) they will all be selling good. Because nowdays AFOLs are everywhere and they will buy those UCS for sure. And then there are newcomers to this hobby who are targeting either Lego buckets for their kids OR big display sets for themselves.

Now comes the part of 'what to do about the older ones we have OR the ones we have MISB?' Well, I am sure all those could be used as spare bricks or just sold off at a decent enough price :P just my 2 cents....

brickupdate

I bought the UCS X-Wing off eBay last year, and it came already built. I went to fix one small area that needed adjustment, and a domino effect happened where, another section had a problem. I went to fix that, and another. In the end, the ship was in a million pieces.

I think that nowadays, they can probably create a better, and more durable design.

Just like the printed Jabba being released, I would hate to "hold on" to an inferior and older product, just to keep the prices high on the secondary market.

And I agree with others, that a DECADE between releases is a long enough time to not significantly affect the aftermarket.

Lego_Lord_Mayorca

That's the thing about Lego; continuous improvement. I've only been upset with Lego when I know they could do better. Therefore, most of the remakes of Star Wars craft and scenes over the years I have welcomed openly as they are far better than what came before. I recently got the Jedi Interceptor set and as much as I loved the original yellow version that came out in 2005, this green one definitely has a leg up on it, even though it lacks the retractable landing gear. Could Lego do better? Probably, so that's why I look forward to a future remake!

Let's face it: the old UCS X-Wing is pitiful, and could benefit greatly from a remake. Heck, I personally thought it looked atrocious back in 2000 when it came out, but that was my minority opinion at the time. Now, everyone can look back with me in agreement, and if this rumor is true, then I can rest assured Lego is doing the right thing.

LegoFanTexas

^ I actually disagree with you... I think it holds up very, very well.

I have most of the X-Wing versions Lego has done, from the mini sets to the UCS set, along with all but the first two system X-Wings.

The UCS X-Wing still looks amazing on its stand, it is shaped correct, the wings split well, the lasers look nice, etc.

It isn't perfect, and it isn't very playable, but it was never meant to be. That being said, I have swooshed it around a bit and it holds together just fine.

mrseatle

But, but, but.... It's for, "the children"... ;)

Renny

Wow @lego_lord_mayorca, that's really harsh. I personally think the UCS X-Wing looks great and still does a decade later. One of the better looking UCS models in my opinion.

fox171171

I think the UCS X-WING #7191 looked fantastic when it came out, and I still really like it. Could they do it better now? Of course they could. (Wings that don't sag would be nice!)

I'd like to see a UCS TIE Bomber. An A-Wing could also be a good choice. Maybe TIE Defender. Marshall Banana's Sandcrawler?

Lego_Lord_Mayorca

I don't know, I was only ever impressed by the original's size and attention to detail (not to mention the parts utilized), but I still had this nagging voice in my head that said, "It could be better". Ironically, I felt the same way about the UCS TIE Interceptor, but I own that set. I only cherish it now because it was a gift from my parents for my birthday, so it holds sentimental value.

Differ'nt strokes fo' differ'nt folks, I guess.

pvancil27

What I really Wonder is why some people are taking the concept of a Redone UCS X-Wing or MF as meaning there would never be another original UCS Design. If they do two a year, if they redo the few major iconic ones that could be done say once every other year, you still get three new ones every two years. Or even one new a year with a redo every 2-3 years. Too many people putting the value of their item or stock over the idea of a healthy hobby. If they re-released the UCS MF Right now then I'd be 100% in the corner of "not good for the hobby" especially if it was a striaght re-release with no upgrade. But to do a X-Wing now and another MF in say 2017-2019 would not be a bad thing for the majority of the hobby.

Legofanscott

pvancil27 said:

What I really Wonder is why some people are taking the concept of a Redone UCS X-Wing or MF as meaning there would never be another original UCS Design. If they do two a year, if they redo the few major iconic ones that could be done say once every other year, you still get three new ones every two years. Or even one new a year with a redo every 2-3 years. Too many people putting the value of their item or stock over the idea of a healthy hobby. If they re-released the UCS MF Right now then I'd be 100% in the corner of "not good for the hobby" especially if it was a striaght re-release with no upgrade. But to do a X-Wing now and another MF in say 2017-2019 would not be a bad thing for the majority of the hobby.

I can only imagine how good a UCS set could look in 2017 and beyond especially an MF

In the meantime though i really can't see 10179 looking dated anytime soon :)

LegoFanTexas

I just finished 10179 tonight...

It is indeed impressive, I'll post some pics of it on display tomorrow next to everything else for scale.

One of the biggest reasons not to do it again soon, the first one didn't sell all that well, the $500 price tag probably took everyone by shock, if memory serves that was double the next highest prior Lego set, so it was really out there.

It is indeed beautiful and nice, very large and impressive once built, and very accurate overall. Not perfect, but very good all things considered.

However, I can already see areas of improvement, it does show some age in parts and design, compared to the newer models, which... lets face it... are 5 years newer in design now.

y2josh

fox171171 said:

I think the UCS X-WING #7191 looked fantastic when it came out, and I still really like it. Could they do it better now? Of course they could. (Wings that don't sag would be nice!)

I'd like to see a UCS TIE Bomber. An A-Wing could also be a good choice. Maybe TIE Defender. Marshall Banana's Sandcrawler?

This is another issue I have with a re-hash on the X-Wing. Though I'm certain a new one would be better than the original, the original still looks amazing. If we're not going to get a new ship, then at least redo that ridiculous UCS snowspeeder. That is, far and away, the most hideous OT UCS model, and barely resembles the ship in question. I know profits are TLG's number one motivation, but money is really the only reason to redo the X-Wing, which is a UCS set I would likely pass on.

monkeyhanger

If they did redo the UCS MF anytime soon (which they won't IMO), would it sell well? Lots of people who want it already have it and a lot for those, I would bet that some of them were only willing to pay that much out for a set because it was a given that it would not be worth less than they paid for it, ever. With a redo, especially one that is better (without necessarily being bigger), there will be a drastic softening of prices in the aftermarket. Just the anticipation (with a firm rumour)of a redo will bring MISB and used prices of the 10179 tumbling. I don't thinkyou can ever say never - after all, SW was been going for 35 years, if TLG keep renewing licenses with Lucas then they're really going to have to redo many times over, and UCS is one (so far) aspect that hasn't been redone at all yet. How would they top the 10179? There are newer elements out there that can be used, but in size terms at least, any bigger than the current model and you'd have to wonder where most propective buyers would display the thing once built, not to mention an even heftier price tag. TLG would most likely be looking for £800/$1000 for a 7000 piece set.