Shopping at LEGO or Amazon?
Please use our links: LEGO.comAmazon
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.

10234 - Sydney Opera House (Unveiled at Brickworld June 14, 2013)

24

Comments

  • AFFOL_Shellz_BellzAFFOL_Shellz_Bellz Member Posts: 1,263
    Amazing . . . Now to find room for it!
  • SilentModeSilentMode UKMember Posts: 550
    Having seen the video, I am impressed! No doubt quite a few people will part these out. Did I spy 2x3 slopes in transparent black?
  • legoprodslegoprods SpainMember Posts: 440
    Looks like I'll be getting a couple parts pack soon! :-)
  • JenniJenni JapanMember Posts: 1,390
    @iccarus When they released Palace Cinema in January they had it out all weekend but it was just put on a random table with all the MOCs that didn't fit in any of the categories.
  • caperberrycaperberry LondonMember Posts: 2,226

    Having seen the video, I am impressed! No doubt quite a few people will part these out. Did I spy 2x3 slopes in transparent black?

    I hoped that too but I think they are part of the curved sloped wedges. Looking at it last night at an ungodly hour, most slopes looked black and not trans black to me. I best look again after some coffee... ;0)
  • bkprbkpr Texas, USAMember Posts: 295
    I won't be buying this set, but I just wanted to add: Australia: represent :)
    margot
  • caperberrycaperberry LondonMember Posts: 2,226
    Two coffees later... pretty certain the only trans black slopes are the 'shells' (left & right curved slope wedges) like the ones in #8156-1 :O(
    Was also really hoping for 1x1 brick in trans black but I don't think it's in there judging by what I could make out of the very poor view of the parts list on the top of the box. I guess it to be 1x1 and 1x2 plates, 1x2 1x4 and 1x2x5 bricks and the shells. But no complaints from me, looking forward to the quantities!
  • caperberrycaperberry LondonMember Posts: 2,226
    And look at that gorgeous 180 degree SNOT work! Might have to get this on the 15% AFOL day. Must...build...crazy...model...
    richobricksanprincedraven
  • rancorbaitrancorbait Manitoba CanadaMember Posts: 1,850
    It's HUGE! This thing makes the Architecture version look like something put together with spare pieces.
    stevenzhang
  • DougoutDougout Member Posts: 888
    Looks awesome, the designer seemed really excited at how this set is able to be snapped together and then moved. I guess that will help for everyone that has to keep rearranging their sets on their shelf space.

    They must not be exceeding large piece counts like this and the 1,990 piece Ewok Village for a reason. My guess is they want these sets to seem less of a daunting task to kids and parents in order to better convince them to buying.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129


    I thought the part count would be a tad higher, but that is ok. Wonder when we'll have something to pass Taj Mahal's 5,922 part count...

    '

    My guess is maybe never, or at least not anytime soon in the current LEGO pricing/cost/marketing model. Part counts have been going steadily down among the large models for several years now.

    What would LEGO charge for the TM if it was released right now? Easily $400 - $450 based on the price we see here with the SOH. the MF would be $650+. Those price points are just so unapproachable to the vast majority of the potential buying base. a 6000 piece set would be in the $500+ range. Not going to happen, as it is hard to think of a model that would be in demand enough at that price point.


  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    ^ Interestingly enough... TM fits into a standard modular box...

    TB is in the larger box that TH and B-Wing use...

    I happen to have a damaged box TB sitting here, taking the contents of the box and putting them into a modular box, they just barely fit. Stuffed would be the word, but then again, TM was stuffed into the box as well, but it did have the nice 3 white trays to keep it from floating.

    What does all that mean? I think TB has just as much, if not slightly more plastic than TM does.

    One of these days I should take the parts to both and weigh them, no instructions, no box, just the parts, and see what is what.
  • fy222fy222 Member Posts: 177
    edited June 2013


    One of these days I should take the parts to both and weigh them, no instructions, no box, just the parts, and see what is what.

    Bricklink weight data suggests 10189 is about 1.49 times as heavy as 10214.
  • dougtsdougts Oregon, USAMember Posts: 4,129
    Well if you want to bring TB into the conversation it holds its own side by side with TM. Both are going to dwarf SOH. For someone who owns neither, walking into a LEGO store, $240 for TB is definitely going to provide more value than $320 for SOH, personal preferences aside
  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002
    dougts said:

    Well if you want to bring TB into the conversation it holds its own side by side with TM. Both are going to dwarf SOH. For someone who owns neither, walking into a LEGO store, $240 for TB is definitely going to provide more value than $320 for SOH, personal preferences aside

    This is actually a good point, and something I've brought up with sets like Helm's Deep and the Rancor Pit in the past. Both those sets use empty space to tremendous effect.

    Helm's Deep and Jabba's Palace have similar weights (I believe HD is about .2 pounds heavier, if memory serves), but Jabba's Palace is so compact, it seems like a poor value next to HD in spite of the actual plastic value being very similar. The Rancor Pit LOOKS enormous next to Weathertop and makes Weathertop look like a lousy deal, but if you weigh the sets, they're nearly the same.

    I think the same thing could happen with SOH vs. Tower Bridge where, because SOH is more compact, and therefore 'smaller,' it's perceived to be the worse value. I'll obviously have to weigh SOH once I own it, but based on the number of plates it uses, not to mention those hulls, I'm guessing it's substantially heavier than TB... unless it's completely hollow, but I can't see it being as stable as it appears if that were the case.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    fy222 said:

    Bricklink weight data suggests 10189 is about 1.49 times as heavy as 10214.

    Yes, but that is for sealed sets, is it not?

    TM does feel heavier in the box, but I'm more curious what the actual weight of the plastic is.

    It has been said by a number of posters here that the price/weight ratio is more important than the price/part ratio, which is why I bring it up.
  • rancorbaitrancorbait Manitoba CanadaMember Posts: 1,850
    "Part counts have been going steadily down among the large models for several years now."

    And prices have been going up :(
  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,310
    I love this set! Can't wait to build it.
  • canuhandle23canuhandle23 Member Posts: 104
    Maybe something is wrong with me but Im not that impressed with a 320 dollar set. I actually think they should have made it 4000 pieces or more and made it bigger. They should have priced it for 400 added one exclusive minifigure and made it awe inspiring. I have also seen better sail design on some mocs. I did like the creators joy of showing off the set but it does seem like he was limited and stuck to a certain price point. I do think it will sell pretty decent
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    ^ Agreed...

    Make it $399 and up it to 4,000 parts. Then change the baseplates to 6x 32x32 stud plates, 2x3 arrangement, for a total of 96x64 studs, so it would be the same width as Eiffel Tower and Taj Mahal but 50% longer.

    Then it would be the proper shape, as it is it is too narrow.

    If you're going to go for it, do it right.
  • BuriedinBricksBuriedinBricks USAMember Posts: 1,367
    I was able to see it in person today and I was quite impressed. I will post some close up photos tomorrow when I get home.
  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002
    edited June 2013
    If you guys have seen the MOCs with 'proper' sails, you'd know that those models would be unachievable at a realistic price point. You're talking thousands of extra pieces in the sails alone.

    Additionally, I'm surprised at you, LFT. As many times as you've rebutted my assertion that TLG should have just bit the bullet and done a $250 Helm's Deep (if you're going to go for it, do it right, after all...), I'm a bit shocked that you would suggest such unrealistic dimensions for this model, or that you'd further suggest that expanding the surface area by ~40% would only call for a ~25% increase in bricks. A model of this quality with a footprint of 96x64 studs is going to be sitting somewhere in the neighborhood of 6,000 pieces. Likely more, given that the sails could no longer be constructed as easily as they are here.

    Obviously, I like the model quite a bit, but I'm a bit stunned by the unrealistic expectations being displayed here (and, again, this is coming from a guy who would have been thrilled at the prospect of a 'more realistic' Helm's Deep... which would have been much more achievable than some of what's been described here).
    itsnotmePaperballparkAnthonyC173
  • Jonn420Jonn420 Member Posts: 267
    no one geeked over the baseplate?
    Dougout
  • pharmjodpharmjod 1,170 miles to Wall Drug, USAMember Posts: 2,904
    ^this. I was pretty excited about a blue 48x48 baseplate. That's a first, right?
  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002
    Jonn420 said:

    no one geeked over the baseplate?

    I AM pumped for the baseplate, but I also hope it will be available separately. It would be pretty handy for water scenes, but I don't want to pay $320 every time I need one.
  • BuriedinBricksBuriedinBricks USAMember Posts: 1,367
    Yeah, that big blue has me pretty excited as well. Hopefully they will not go for ridiculous prices.
  • legoprodslegoprods SpainMember Posts: 440
    Never forget that part of the loveliness of this set is how the sales are made in an ingenuous way with wedges.

    Sure, it would look better with 5,000 parts, but after all, you can do every model you want using 1 x 2 plates. It has no... merit.
  • nkx1nkx1 Member Posts: 719
    edited June 2013
    Tower Bridge has almost 4,295 pieces. I wonder if some variation of the model in the link below could have been done with about that many pieces? If so, I'd rather have something like the below. It looks more realistic (better) to me. I still give the Lego designer a ton of credit for the new model he created, though. It still looks cool, even if slightly less realistic than it could have been.

    http://grrrsmind.blogspot.com/2011/05/sydney-opera-house-in-bricks.html
  • iancam33iancam33 Member Posts: 407
    An absolutely gorgeous model. If you've never seen the real opera house in person I HIGHLY recommend going.

    For those of you wanted it to be bigger, I have to ask, how much bigger would you want it....it's big enough as it is.
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    y2josh said:

    Additionally, I'm surprised at you, LFT. As many times as you've rebutted my assertion that TLG should have just bit the bullet and done a $250 Helm's Deep (if you're going to go for it, do it right, after all...)

    Are you sure that is me? I do think they should have done a $250 Helms Deep, I am not at all happy with the one they did.

    Do Helms Deep the same detail they did Ewok Village and I'd be much happier.

    I am of the opinion that there is a gap in the middle of the market where sets make little sense. Up to about $100 or so, there is a large market for sets for kids to have fun with and play with, and of course adults can too.

    Much beyond that price point, you leave the price sensitive part of the market behind and are now looking at the price-insensitive part of the market.

    Are you telling me that people who will spend $320 for SOH won't spend $400 for one with continuous curved sails?
    y2josh said:

    I'm a bit shocked that you would suggest such unrealistic dimensions for this model, or that you'd further suggest that expanding the surface area by ~40% would only call for a ~25% increase in bricks.

    It is only a hollow shell, and I'm not suggesting the building itself be made that much bigger, maybe 4 studs wider and 8 longer, but otherwise I'd use the extra space for grounds and a proper railing so that you can put minifigs around the building, as it stands, it feels "squished".

    Most of the extra parts would be in the sails, and making them the proper width. The rest of the building is fine, but it really looks off as it stands.
    y2josh said:

    Obviously, I like the model quite a bit.

    To each their own. :) I am not a fan... that might change with time, but the fact that my wife looked at it and shrugged her shoulders should be a huge red flag. It doesn't look right.

    TB is also too short, it should be longer, but it isn't obvious at first glance. SOH is obvious to anyone who knows the building that it isn't "right".

    Just our opinions. :) Carry on... :)
  • LegoPodcasterLegoPodcaster Member Posts: 115
    I saw the set in person today and was very impressed!

    Here is a video of the set being unveiled if anyones interested.
  • margotmargot Member Posts: 2,310


    To each their own. :) I am not a fan... that might change with time, but the fact that my wife looked at it and shrugged her shoulders should be a huge red flag. It doesn't look right.

    Have you been there before? As someone who took a tour of the Opera House less than 2 months ago I think it's a fantastic model.

  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002

    Are you sure that is me? I do think they should have done a $250 Helms Deep, I am not at all happy with the one they did.

    Apologies on that one, then. Clearly I have you confused with someone else there.

    Are you telling me that people who will spend $320 for SOH won't spend $400 for one with continuous curved sails?

    No, but I AM suggesting that making the sails continuously curved would take substantially more effort and require a greater number of parts than you believe it would.

    ...so that you can put minifigs around the building...

    I don't think minifigs have any real business being in these types of sets, but to each their own.

    It doesn't look right.

    Neither do Tower Bridge, the Eiffel Tower or the Statue of Liberty, but they are all still immediately recognizable. In fact, the only one that looks more-or-less 'exactly' like the real thing (and I say that while fully disclosing that, of the five, it's the one I'm least familiar with) is the Taj Mahal, and that's my least favorite model by a longshot (well... probably tied with the Statue of Liberty).

    I'm just saying, I think this is in line with the other models in the 'series' and is probably bested only by the Eiffel Tower. At least at first glance.
    AnthonyC173
  • DiggydoesDiggydoes Cologne/GermanyMember Posts: 1,079
    I agree that a minifigure would've been totally misplaced at this set,but maybe they could've done a mini scaled ship as some sort of size-comparsion model (like the cars they've added on TB!)! Besides that i kinda fell in love with this set,everytime i look at the pics/video even a little more!
    legoprods
  • samiam391samiam391 A Log Cabin in KY, United StatesMember Posts: 4,322
    Couldn't most every set be better with an extra 1,000 pieces added on? The Venator would have been more majestic, the B-Wing could have been a bit larger, the Taj Majal more glorious, etc..

    One has to remember that as piece count goes up, so does price. LEGO has to keep this in respectable range so that they can be confident a majority of buyers won't be scared off by the price. An extra thousand pieces is always nice, but doesn't it also scare off a number of people that cringe at the thought of a $400 set?

    I think LEGO prices (and keeps the piece count reasonable), with the intention that they won't scare off the market, and that they know the set can be customized.

    Is everything done and confined by a set of instructions? Lets not forget that LEGO use to be a bunch of 2x4s and 1x2s. Sets were boxes filled to the brim with plain bricks. There were no instructions. Instead it was all truly based off of LEGO's slogan "just imagine".

    I know I've said this quite a few times, but it seems to bear repeating. If you want to customize a set, do it. If you don't like the sails, change the sails. If you don't think the set is long enough, make it longer. For those who like it the way it is, keep it the way it is.That's the wonder of our tiny plastic brick. If we don't like it, we can fix it and make it our "perfect" set.
    BumblepantsSchwallex
  • mathewmathew Member Posts: 2,098
    I personally don't care for it but I think for the piece count it looks ok. It's just hard to do round objects with Lego.
  • y2joshy2josh Member Posts: 2,002
    samiam391 said:

    That's the wonder of our tiny plastic brick. If we don't like it, we can fix it and make it our "perfect" set.

    I assume you'll be building this entire set in chrome bricks, then? ;)
  • samiam391samiam391 A Log Cabin in KY, United StatesMember Posts: 4,322
    y2josh said:

    samiam391 said:

    That's the wonder of our tiny plastic brick. If we don't like it, we can fix it and make it our "perfect" set.

    I assume you'll be building this entire set in chrome bricks, then? ;)
    Dark tan just doesn't agree with me...
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    margot said:

    Have you been there before? As someone who took a tour of the Opera House less than 2 months ago I think it's a fantastic model.

    Yes, I have... My wife is Australian, she has taken me there before and of course she spent many years in Sydney.

    It is too tall, it looks compressed, the sails are not curved, etc.

    Just our opinion. :) Everyone is welcome to disagree. :)
  • LegoFanTexasLegoFanTexas TexasMember Posts: 8,409
    samiam391 said:

    Couldn't most every set be better with an extra 1,000 pieces added on? The Venator would have been more majestic, the B-Wing could have been a bit larger, the Taj Majal more glorious, etc..

    :) I get what you're saying... but the answer is no... I don't think adding 1,000 parts to UCS Falcon would have made a lick of difference, the set is about as accurate as LEGO is going to get.

    SSD badly needs another thousand parts, but we won't go there. :)
    samiam391 said:

    One has to remember that as piece count goes up, so does price. LEGO has to keep this in respectable range so that they can be confident a majority of buyers won't be scared off by the price. An extra thousand pieces is always nice, but doesn't it also scare off a number of people that cringe at the thought of a $400 set?

    No, I don't think so... I think that at $320, $400 is not a stretch. Anyone spending $320 on a LEGO display model would also spend $400, given an increase of that size.

    Frankly, I think it was a mistake to break $299 in price, I would think sales on this will be slower than Tower Bridge, but then what do I know? :)
    samiam391 said:

    Is everything done and confined by a set of instructions?

    To some extent, yes...

    Keep in mind that during the video Jamie talks about all the new shapes in dark tan. The thing is, you can't really build this using a bunch of 2x4 and 1x2 bricks, you need all these special parts to do it, which is why if LEGO is going to do that, do it right.
  • jockosjunglejockosjungle Member Posts: 701
    Looks great! Will be getting one as soon as I've got Tower Bridge
  • fy222fy222 Member Posts: 177
    edited June 2013

    fy222 said:

    Bricklink weight data suggests 10189 is about 1.49 times as heavy as 10214.

    Yes, but that is for sealed sets, is it not?

    TM does feel heavier in the box, but I'm more curious what the actual weight of the plastic is.

    It has been said by a number of posters here that the price/weight ratio is more important than the price/part ratio, which is why I bring it up.
    i think it just sums the weight of each piece, plus the weight of the instruction which should be similar.

    weight is more meaningful than pieces for sure. 214 has 560 tan cheeses boosted the parts number. This is why 9474 is a good value set due to it high weight per usd/gbp.
  • AnthonyC173AnthonyC173 Member Posts: 101
    i find it funny whenever some1 challenges LFT point of view he gets super defensive and try his best to his ability, explain his point of view with such great detail.
    overall when i first saw it i was shocked by how well it looks. a definite buy for me (when it goes on sale)
  • BastaBasta Australia Member Posts: 1,259
    edited June 2013
    I think one consideration that TLG has to make, which people who make awsome MOC's don't, is sturdiness and piece count. I would assume a lot of design ideas get the flick due to not passing some kind of strength test (I.e. falls apart to easy) or too many peices needed.

    In my opinion it looks pretty good and is a good representation of the real thing, baring the sails of course, but read my comment above as possible reason for that.

    I'll be in Sydney tomorrow and catching a ferry to Manly which goes right past the SOH so I'll get a chance to have a good look at it, as although I have seen it 100's of times before It's been a while since I have taken a good look at it.
    margot
  • iancam33iancam33 Member Posts: 407
    @basta: off topic: the ferry ride to and from Manly is such a nice, relaxing ride. Sydney is one of those cities that doesn't feel like a city. Ahh, the memories.

    As far as the sails go I do agree they don't fully match up to the original but there also comes a point when only so much detail can be instituted before things get out of hand. I wonder if TLG had attempted a slightly larger, more detail SOH....hmm.
  • BastaBasta Australia Member Posts: 1,259
    iancam33 said:

    @basta: off topic: the ferry ride to and from Manly is such a nice, relaxing ride. Sydney is one of those cities that doesn't feel like a city. Ahh, the memories.

    As far as the sails go I do agree they don't fully match up to the original but there also comes a point when only so much detail can be instituted before things get out of hand. I wonder if TLG had attempted a slightly larger, more detail SOH....hmm.

    Anywhere in Sydney close to the ocean is nice, and the city scape from the harbour is one of, if not the best in the world.

    Yeah, I think for TLG to do more detail with the sails would have been a challenge without going crazy with the piecie count or a new element or two.
  • itsnotmeitsnotme Member Posts: 111

    Yes, I have... My wife is Australian, she has taken me there before and of course she spent many years in Sydney.

    My wife is a Martian and she thinks the Curiosity Rover is a bit too small.
    LostInTranslationlegoprodsAnthonyC173LegoPodcasterFollowsCloselyGothamConstructionCo
  • caperberrycaperberry LondonMember Posts: 2,226
    To a degree, LEGO structures face the same engineering issues that real structures do and designing the Opera House sails in the '60s was a long complex challenge. So I'm not surprised the sails' proportions haven't been fully achieved in LEGO, especially given Jamie has pointed out how stable the final model needed to be.

    Architect Utzon (Danish, by the way) merely sketched the sails initially and it was from this that the engineer Arup had to make actual buildable designs. Comparing the original sketch to the finished building, it generally feels like the sails had to be 'squished' and rounded more. The LEGO version feels just a little more squished that the final building to me, so that may be down to what was possible structurally, or perhaps simply what could be achieved with the shapes of available LEGO elements.

  • adelineadeline Member Posts: 1
    Chiming in...

    I bet Jamie's design team had a lot of debate about accuracy/realism VS size, affordability, piece count, etc... i.e. the same things discussed in this thread. And no doubt there were compromises made.

    I think the end result looks very good considering the piece count and is a great achievement in terms of design/construction.

    I live in Sydney and have seen the real building many times - it's true the Lego model doesn't accurately replicate the real thing in proportion and shape. For instance, there are triangle shaped sections adjoining the bottom of adjacent sails, which I can't see in the Lego set. But it's a toy model, and accuracy is important but probably not the most important in Lego's opinion.

    It would make a lovely display piece. Fingers crossed the AUD RRP is not too crazy.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Brickset.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, the Amazon.com.ca, Inc. Associates Program and the Amazon EU Associates Programme, which are affiliate advertising programs designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.

As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.