Rumours about Star Wars UCS models

Sherlockbones

I want to see a a UCS Cloud City or a new TIE Fighter

Picopirate

I would like to see a UCS C3P0 bust, if for nothing more than to get a huge collection of gold bricks.

Legoboy

^ Chrome gold.

Ardalis

UCS Nebulon-B would be nice.

bellybutton290

^Agreed, there are some great moc's out there of this ship and while not as iconic as other ships out there it did have more screen time than the b-wing and they did that in ucs style. This is yet another ship that's well worth a treatment in ucs form so I count 4 fairly promenent sets that could be done along with original tie,slave 1 and the At-At I'm sure others could come up with more, yet we are rumoured to get an x-wing redo of sorts, I don't get why they are doing that seems odd.

RazFallenAngel

I know there are a number of ships that haven't been created yet, and I would love to have a UCS Slave-1, but I've always thought that the USC series should branch out away from just Star Wars sets. I know they tried with the Batmobile, but they really didn't model it after one set car. They took a lot of aspects and then added their own. I would like to see The tumbler done to the detail of the MOC that's floating around, or take the level of detail they put into the architecture series and modular buildings and apply it to LotR places like Minas Tirith, Helm's Deep, Isengard. I know that UCS has been primarily a Star Wars series, but there is nothing that says it has to be. What do you guys think?

doriansdad

Is 10237 The Tower of Orthanc considered UCS?

BrickDancer

^^Other than the Batmobile, they've done it for the Boeing Dreamliner and VW Beetle, both sets have UCS plaques and are top models for their respective classes. But I agree and think they should release more sets of this caliber.

Vortex

I'm already thinking forward to 30th October 2013

bellybutton290

I think an MF re-release is entirly possible (now) based on the potensial desire for it but I'm not totally convinced TLG will do another 5000+ piece set if it even had to have that many pieces of course what with the advancements in element design and build techniques year on year. I wonder if we may see another Tie Fighter or something first. I'm not fussed about selling on UCS sets at all however I really don't agree with the re-release approach as I spent alot of money on my couple of UCS' and now there is a slim possibilty that they will be improved upon in the future rendering mine inferior (in my mind at least). This is all before we even consider ships never released in UCS and that they should be coming first. The only positive I can see for me personally is the option to get sets I missed before, case in point the MF, but I suppose TLG has considered all this and obviously decide to pursue regardless.

bellybutton290

jockosjungle said:

There is going to be a young han solo movie, so surely a new MF would tie in nicely.

Good point especially when you consider that han made modifications himself over the years perhaps the next lego release based potentially off this movie version could differ from the later episode 4 version in some fashion.

mountebank

The problem with this argument is that it's asking TLG to put the feelings of people who bought a set 10 years ago, or on the secondary market, ahead of its need to sell sets to people who want a version of that set now and thus remain in business.

bellybutton290

mountebank said:

The problem with this argument is that it's asking TLG to put the feelings of people who bought a set 10 years ago, or on the secondary market, ahead of its need to sell sets to people who want a version of that set now and thus remain in business.

True but it "might" make people think twice about buying new ucs sets as there is the possibility now that it will not stay ultimate indefinatly.

mountebank

bellybutton290 said:

mountebank said:

The problem with this argument is that it's asking TLG to put the feelings of people who bought a set 10 years ago, or on the secondary market, ahead of its need to sell sets to people who want a version of that set now and thus remain in business.

True but it "might" make people think twice about buying new ucs sets as there is the possibility now that it will not stay ultimate indefinatly.

It would be interesting to hear TLG's view of what the purpose of the UCS sets actually is. I have a suspicion that they're not launched to make TLG a fortune but are flagship sets to demonstrate the best of what LEGO can be as a commercial product. Tempting things to get AFOLs interested in LEGO.

bellybutton290

pvancil27 said:

Good option for those of us who dont want to spend 800$ on one of the most iconic ships from the movies. Lets wait and see what the next model is before we go all doom and gloom guys. If its another rehash then Doom and gloom it all you want.

There will likely be others, maybe not this year, maybe not next, but they will happen almost certainly. I'd be interested to hear from Lego themselves what the future holds for the UCS line I.e more re releases to get to new customers to supplement a new release each year. To be fair if we got one old redone set and one new one each year that would probably sit just fine with me, which could be the stance going forward. As you say lets see what happens.

mathew

pvancil27 said:

Gotta love the doomsayers. Oh noes, one remake 13 years later, the sky is falling, the ground it opening up and we are getting ruled by cats.

I personally think Lego should re-make all of the UCS sets just to tick off the resellers. Next up Cafe Corner and Green Grocer followed by the Taj Mahal.

The above is supposed to be both funny and a little true.

bellybutton290

@mountebank ucs' certainly played a major part in dragging me back to lego I have to say.

emmtwosix

pvancil27 said:

Gotta love the doomsayers. Oh noes, one remake 13 years later, the sky is falling, the ground it opening up and we are getting ruled by cats.

Good option for those of us who dont want to spend 800$ on one of the most iconic ships from the movies. Lets wait and see what the next model is before we go all doom and gloom guys. If its another rehash then Doom and gloom it all you want.

Funny you should joke about the sky falling on the very day Russia gets pelted with meteors and another 140,000 ton meteoroid skims within 17,000 miles of Earth... :-) But seriously people, all the more reason to get remakes of these UCS sets at a reasonable price and as soon as possible!

And also, Lego has more customers now than ever, why not sell their most popular sets to the largest audience possible?

pvancil27

bellybutton290 said:

pvancil27 said:

Good option for those of us who dont want to spend 800$ on one of the most iconic ships from the movies. Lets wait and see what the next model is before we go all doom and gloom guys. If its another rehash then Doom and gloom it all you want.

There will likely be others, maybe not this year, maybe not next, but they will happen almost certainly. I'd be interested to hear from Lego themselves what the future holds for the UCS line I.e more re releases to get to new customers to supplement a new release each year. To be fair if we got one old redone set and one new one each year that would probably sit just fine with me, which could be the stance going forward. As you say lets see what happens.

As I said in this thread before, if they do two UCS a year, and did one remake every other year, it'd be one remake for every three new models, something that isnt a bad ratio. It would make is si they have to be choosey about what sets to redo, which would be the iconic ships like the snowspeeder, Star Destroyer and yes, eventually Falcon. As long as they keep a roughly 10 yea gap between releases it should keep it from being overkill.

mathew said:

pvancil27 said:

Gotta love the doomsayers. Oh noes, one remake 13 years later, the sky is falling, the ground it opening up and we are getting ruled by cats.

I personally think Lego should re-make all of the UCS sets just to tick off the resellers. Next up Cafe Corner and Green Grocer followed by the Taj Mahal.

The above is supposed to be both funny and a little true.

More then resellers, I get why someone that dropped 700 on the old X Wing 6 months ago is a little tweeked about this, but those people, while vocal, also need to understand they are the extreme minority here. Even if that person rage quits and sells all their lego, the new UCS X Wing will bring in 150 new customers that become true AFOLs for each person like him.

Bumblepants

It would be a poor business model to only keep digging further into the vault of obscure SW ships that haven't been UCS'd yet. Yes, I know we need an AT-AT and a Slave 1 etc, but lets not pretend this new X-Wing will not outsell the B-Wing by leaps and bounds.

richo

I'll respond now!

emmtwosix

bellybutton290 said:

To be fair if we got one old redone set and one new one each year that would probably sit just fine with me, which could be the stance going forward. As you say lets see what happens.

I'm hoping this is the case. It might save some people's wallets (though not mine since I only have two UCS sets to date) while introducing new generations of Lego fans to their favorite ships.

Could you imagine in ten years if they were doing some obscure ship in UCS form and expected $200+ for, say, a cloud car, or a swoop bike, or something of that nature. Sure, the hardcores would get it, but I'm guessing those sets wouldn't attract much in the line of new fans.

bellybutton290

^attracting new customers and retension are both important to any company. I say this to tlg, bring on the 2 ucs' a year, do your remakes if you must but please continue to produce unreleased ships, then everyone's happy (well nearly everyone).

Basta

I agree come October i don't want to see another remake, I think they new X-Wing should be an exception not the rule when it comes to UCS sets.

Only do a remake once every 4-5 years where the subject is really iconic such as the X-Wing, or one that could be improved greatly such as #10215 Obi-Wan’s Jedi Starfighter.

rocao

The problem in general with redesigns is that they run the risk of making your customer base jaded. The effect might be small or easily offset by new customers, but it's certainly a real effect warranting consideration. That's why TLG has largely stuck to the most iconic of subjects when doing a redesign to make sure they're still maximizing their customer base, rather than redesigning an obscure ship and hope they can rely on the tried and true collectors to still bite.

But even with icons, I think there is a saturation point for collectors. It's complex because it varies by person and not everyone is at the same point of collecting. I own every AT-AT and Millennium Falcon design. At some point, enough will be enough and a redesign will not spark enough interest for me to pick it up off the shelf. Others might have already reached their threshhold. As more and more existing customers feel the same way, it threatens a tipping point where LEGO is better off with a completely fresh model that will once again interest as much of their customer base as possible. And the worst outcome is that it turns people off to the theme completely like the Harry Potter redesigns did for me.

I agree with @BrickDancer that the UCS line, above all others, should not be sullied; "Ultimate" means that the respective models should be the last word on the subject. Now, as it turns out, 7191 is merely the penultimate. I'm not ready to say that the UCS line is forever ruined. If this ushers in a flood of new redesigns, I will be though.

With all that said, I agree with TLG that a dozen year absence has been enough to generate enough interest in an X-Wing redesign. I agree that it will probably set the all time sales rate for UCS models. But I think this will just be a result of pent up demand and not because 7191 is outdated and irrelevant. The X-wing has a straightforward shape and doesn't necessitate many advanced building techniques.

samiam391

From someone who has been buying LEGO sets for a very long time, I'll say again that I'm sad to see a re-hash.

I've been shaking my head with the new re-hashes of normal Star Wars LEGO sets recently. Those include the new Jabba's Sail Barge, AT-TE, AT-AT walker, and numerous others. I realize that the Star Wars universe is not unlimited, but I've been really disappointed by the quality of the re-hashes.

I used to be primarily a set collector, and was always wanting to buy the next wave of Star Wars sets. However, the recent re-hashes turned me off, and have completely changed my LEGO collection. I'm primarily a minifigure collector now, of all themes, but I doubt I would've become like this if it weren't for the recent LEGO re-makes.

Re-making the normal Star Wars line was one thing, but when LEGO re-makes an UCS set, it truly bothers me. Like a comment mentioned above, the UCS line always held something above the other Star Wars sets. Now I feel as though it's nothing special. Just another re-hash in the Star Wars line. And another poorly made one too.

I see almost no difference in between the version of 2000 and this one released today. Sure, the colors are brighter, and the ship a bit sleeker. But really, what is the difference?

Now it'd be quite rude of me not to mention how happy I am that other people have the ability to purchase this set. It truly is iconic, and I can think of nothing else with the release of this set except that LEGO was attempting to basically re-release an ancient set, yet still maintain it won't re-release sets (because of a few minor variations from the previous model).

Again though, I'm very happy for all the people that are excited to purchase this set, and that they have this opportunity.

However, it's impossible for me to be completely happy, because "my" UCS line's exclusivity and rarity has been broken by this. I don't say that as a re-seller, because I collect UCS SW sets for my own personal collection.

I just hope that this does not become a trend of LEGO to continue to re-release old sets with minor variations. I haven't been buying as much the past few years, and won't be buying as much in the near future either if LEGO continues to do this.

I'm just one customer though, and seeing as how I didn't get a VIP keychain, I must not matter much to them anyway (sarcasm, don't worry, I'm not bitter!) ;-)

I'm very happy for everyone though that gets the opportunity to purchase this set!

But I'd be a poor LEGO SW fan if I didn't gripe about this at least a little bit. :-)

BrickDancer

I have 'zero' sets for resell, only the single one I have built and on display with the rest of the UCS ships. I wasn't around when it was released and only picked it up less than a year ago as a used set for 2.5xRRP. So I'm not coming from an acutely biased pov of profit, but as a true fan of Lego and SW.

When you look at the UCS line in its entirety as a whole over the past 13-14 years:

http://www.brickset.com/browse/themes/?theme=Star Wars&subtheme=Ultimate Collector Series

You'll see Lego's legacy of creating a truly Ultimate collection of SW that is impeccable. Never has there been a repeat. You will also see how few models we have been blessed with over such a long period since we get only 2 a year. Then you'll notice that there's still so much that can be done. Other than the obviously coveted AT-AT, Slave-1, Venator, etc. We have the potential of more groundbreaking models like R2-D2 and busts (Boba, Vader, Watto, Stormtrooper).

But instead that slot was used to rehash a model. A vehicle that has been rehashed many times at every scale (System, mini, micro). And it will also be available simultaneously as the System scale, which might be a first also(?). That also looks very similar in design, so bleh on that point too.

Then you wonder why? Have fans been demanding and chanting for one? No, they've been counting the days to TLG's announcement of a mind blowing new model. Instead, this is like re-releasing Ep. IV in 3-D. So anti-climactic and disappointing, now we have to wait for the Fall release for potential of something great.

Simply, they did it for the money. Low hanging fruit of a popular model that is easy to design and cheap to make so it's right price point for maximum market of buyers. Fast and easy, so business wise it's obvious and will yield great sales.

neomonkey

This is only the start. The UCS Millennium Falcon will be remade when the Han Solo movie is released in a couple years. Hopefully a UCS Slave I will be out when Boba Fett's movie is out.

mathew

Just curious, when did Lego ever promise that UCS sets would be a one off type deal? It's not like they are individually numbering each set as it leaves the packing line.

y2josh

It's in the branding. By definition, it's not ultimate if there's more than one (though a case could be made for the new model's inferiority and, thus, lack of diminishment of the original's labeling). Of course, as someone else pointed out, this one's not necessarily UCS branded anyway.

mathew

Why does it really matter? Yesterday's ultimate may be today's basic. It's a rather silly designation. That is unless you take this whole collecting thing a bit too seriously.

y2josh

Right. See how you just made the case for the presumed brand dilution people are concerned with?

mathew

Like I said, it's a silly marketing term. Lego was in dire financial straits back in 1999 so they probably thought that they had to go all out when coming up with a title for the theme. I think it's fair to forgive them thirteen years later for re-making it. Besides, everything is remade or re-released today. I used to collect movies and studios release a new 'ultimate' collectors edition every few years or when a new format comes out. George Lucas is famous for this.

Basta

Im all for collectables, and i have and do collect a few different things, but one difference with Lego is that it is a Toy first, collectible second so I think that they are less likely to run them self into the ground by re releasing sets.

I am ok with this release, as it's the most popular ship in SW which a lot of people missed out on, plus its 13 years old. My opinion may change if over the next few years we see new UCS Blockade Runner, Tie Interceptor, ISD etc TLG needs to keep fresh and innovate, constantly rehashing their flagship line is not the answer, but the one off in this case I think is ok.

samiam391

mathew said:

Like I said, it's a silly marketing term. Lego was in dire financial straits back in 1999 so they probably thought that they had to go all out when coming up with a title for the theme. I think it's fair to forgive them thirteen years later for re-making it. Besides, everything is remade or re-released today. I used to collect movies and studios release a new 'ultimate' collectors edition every few years or when a new format comes out. George Lucas is famous for this.

@mathew- Perhaps it was a silly marketing term back in 1999. Perhaps it meant nothing back than except to try and keep them from closing up shop. However, it was an idea, maybe one they didn't expect to catch on, but it did catch on. You see me and several others still holding onto the UCS line, so obviously it worked. And obviously it, wasn't silly. Even if they intended it to be initially.

rocao

mathew said:

Like I said, it's a silly marketing term. Lego was in dire financial straits back in 1999 so they probably thought that they had to go all out when coming up with a title for the theme. I think it's fair to forgive them thirteen years later for re-making it.

Presently, TLG is enjoying more prosperity than it ever has. Following your logic, now should not be the time to "go all out" and violate the uniqueness of the UCS line which they've maintained all this time to simply chase profit.

pvancil27

Basta said:

My opinion may change if over the next few years we see new UCS Blockade Runner, Tie Interceptor, ISD etc TLG needs to keep fresh and innovate, constantly rehashing their flagship line is not the answer, but the one off in this case I think is ok.

Exactly, Its humourous to see people act like this is the death bell on any new designs. I get why some people dislike the idea, I really do. I think a few people are putting to much on the ultimate thing. It like someone getting mad that they bought a Dodge Grand Caravan Limited in 1999 and are for some reason ticked there is a 2013 Grand Caravan Limited being made now. BUT IT SAYS LIMITED!!! Its a marketing term. Nothing more. If they start cranking out nothing but remakes, or more remakes then fresh models then I'll be 100% on your side of ruining a good thing, but there are some that should be redone so the next gen of people have a chance to get them at a fair price.

samiam391

pvancil27 said:

Exactly, Its humourous to see people act like this is the death bell on any new designs. I get why some people dislike the idea, I really do. I think a few people are putting to much on the ultimate thing.

If you don't understand why some people put so much on the "ultimate thing", than you really don't understand why some people dislike the idea. :-)

Of course, it isn't all dependent upon the term "ultimate". It's the fact that ultimate is paired with a re-hash. Something a few of us have been fearing for some time.

And comparing LEGO to a Dodge Grand Caravan is just simply an insult to LEGO bricks everywhere ;-)

pvancil27

I understand why they are, I just THINK (read: my opinion) is that they are putting too much on it.

And yea, Dogdge minivans are more like "Those bricks we shall not name." ;)

alexkidd

well I become an AFOL because my brother told me that a licensed lego set price will go up when the set is discontinued or lego didn't renew the license.
I didn't believe him 100% but interested to see the prices of the old lego set on brickpicker.com. My assumption is buy the set, play the set, make sure everything is in good condition and later when i don't like it or want a new set just sell the old set with higher price. But somehow I doubt that its all too easy.

and today lego has answered my question. NICE!

monkeyhanger

If there ever was going to be only one UCS remake then this would have been it. It is the most iconic SW ship out there IMO, and it is at a pricepoint that is acceptable to many Lego fans (and the people buying for them), not just the hard core that frequent forums such as ours.

Will we see a UCS MF? Don't forget it was a poor seller for Lego at the time it was out. The main reason it sells for so much is lack of supply in the reseller market - it took most by surprise. There are probably 3 times as many IS out there being stashed for resale. When you start setting a pricepoint that high you exclude a lot of people from buying it - either they can't afford it or they don't want to spend that much on one set. The average casual Lego buyer will scoff at the price, and it has only been out of circulation for 5 years. If they were to redo you'd still be waiting a canny while for it.

The new X wing will do well. Demand will be high (relatively, for UCS) at it's RRP. There are many sets that need doing for the first time before we get flooded with rehashes that seem hardly better than the original.

SiE

I think an issue with this is the value of the set once used. The UCS sets are expensive and to many these sets have to be saved for. A lot of people buy the sets knowing that in even a used state they can be sold later to fund the next set. Decisions like this can have a negative effect on future prices and may put off potential buyers. The collectability of ucs sets surely drive sales and people are prepared to pay as it is the ULTIMATE set.

If the falcon is rereleased it could be a fatal move by TLG. The collectors may feel duped, especially those who paid top dollar.

cheshirecat

^ Sorry but I think thats rubbish. You;ll still get your money back, just not 5x your money.

I agree with monkeyhanger, except for the 3x as many IS. I suspect its far more x as many.

Jverweij

I really don't feel any sympathy for people who want to make money of their UCS sets. For me it feels like you're making an investment. As loads of people who have invested in banks have found out, investments can go wrong. Seriously just deal with it.

I can't imagine any fan of LEGO (so not someone who wants to make money) will seriously be complaining if an iconic set is rereleased. Yes you may already have it, but others don't. Why are some collectors so incredibly selfish?

y2josh

Jverweij said:

I can't imagine any fan of LEGO (so not someone who wants to make money) will seriously be complaining if an iconic set is rereleased. Yes you may already have it, but others don't. Why are some collectors so incredibly selfish?

Yes. Stupid collectors wanting to give their money to LEGO without buying an inferior quality model (of a ship they already own). Very selfish indeed.

And again, no one's complaining much about the (hopefully) anomalous re-hash in and of itself. It's that something new was potentially sacrificed to make room for something that a lot of people already own.

SiE

As much as you may hate resellers or even hate collectors, they drive an obsession with these type of sets. Lego is extremely collectable even though a set is only a few years old. Its like the antiques business on acid. If suddenly collectors stop buying this type of set then TLG may stop creating them altogether. I fully realise that as many are on brickset lovers of lego and dont like to see high prices, But surely you accept that there are large numbers of collectors out there that want the prestige of owning classic one off ultimate sets.

pvancil27

y2josh said:

Jverweij said:

I can't imagine any fan of LEGO (so not someone who wants to make money) will seriously be complaining if an iconic set is rereleased. Yes you may already have it, but others don't. Why are some collectors so incredibly selfish?

Yes. Stupid collectors wanting to give their money to LEGO without buying an inferior quality model (of a ship they already own). Very selfish indeed.

Actually what you said is selfish because you are placing your personal want and desire over what others want. I'd love a UCS Falcon but if this was a re-release of it with it only having been out of print for what, 3ish years, I'd be right there with all of you claiming how bad of an idea this is, even though I would be benefitting from it.

And again, no one's complaining much about the (hopefully) anomalous re-hash in and of itself. It's that something new was potentially sacrificed to make room for something that a lot of people already own.

What was sacrificed though? At worst you can say it was pushed back a bit. I dont think they said "Oh, lets make an X wing, and scrap the Slave 1" and then never go back to it. If it bumped anything its the UCS Wampa That would have been made in 2022 because they had already released a UCS Ewok and a UCS Jar Jar bust was deemed too stupid.

I also wonder what your Definition of "a lot" is in terms of people who have one. I'd guess well under half this forum has one, maybe less then half the SW collectors. And this is the more fanatical people. In general terms, WAY more people are going to benefit from this re-release then get hurt, and it wont be close. the UCS X-Wing is going to make a lot more lego fans then ones who claim the company abandoned them and quit and sell everything. Look at it that way, It will create more lego fans which will allow them to try other things like a USC Speederbike or Venator.

There is really three reactions, those who like it, those who dislike it but understand the business reasons why it makes sense, and those who feel its the worst thing thats ever happened. the later group is the minority for sure but they also tend to be the loudest, as most complainers are. People dont tell a manager the waiter gave them great service (usually, some rare ones will) but those who are unhappy are sure as hell happy to tell the manager and usually anyone withing a 50 foot earshot how dissatisfied they were.

If in two years we are talking about 3 of the last 4 UCS models having been Remakes, I will stand right here with you guys and say how its a pretty bad idea. I'd benefit from being able to get cheaper versions, but I'd also understand that from a collecting point of view its fairly bad.

In the end, its all point of view. I look at it as a kids toy that I'm lucky enough to be able to still enjoy, and not as a collectible or investment.

CaptAPJT

Just for everyone's info, according to Brickset info on 7191

Everyone's collections
1386 people own this set
2068 people want this set

So it's clear to me that 10240 will do very well, just assuming that this ratio can be extrapolated.

y2josh

^^This is the problem. I agree with you on 99% of LEGO models... but the Ultimate Collector's Series is supposed to be collectible more than it is a toy. So you throw some terrible re-hash in the mix, and you diminish the perception that the series is special in any way. And yes, that's great for you, and it's great for people that want a larger-scale X-Wing, but if you think my wanting to spend my money on a new model in the 'series' is selfish, then it is equally (though preposterously so) selfish to want to waste the May release on a ship that already exists.

And here's a better analogy than the Dodge Grand Caravan, though it will hold equally little weight with you if you just can't come at this from the perspective of a collector or if you don't care for the series.

From 1986-1993, Hallmark put out reindeer ornaments corresponding to the eight reindeer from the beginning of Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer. So '86 was Dasher, '87 was Dancer, '88 was Prancer and so on and so forth. So this X-Wing would be equivalent to Hallmark getting to '92 and, instead of releasing Donder, they put out another Dasher ornament that was slightly inferior to the '86 version, but otherwise mostly similar.

But again, if you don't care about the collecting aspect of a hobby, it's not a sentiment you're likely to understand. In the end, no one's stopping you from buying the re-hash, just as no one's forcing me to buy it myself, and my distaste for this blemish on the UCS sets shouldn't stop you from being excited about it.

mountebank

TLG is in the business of offering to potential customers appealing high quality sets. As a business it really shouldn't decide not to offer particular sets for which there's considerable demand, with good potential for knock-on sales, because it could upset a tiny part of its customer base. Especially when to others, the upset looks slightly dog-in-the-manger.