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

General Star Wars Discussion

16667687072

Comments

  • BumblepantsBumblepants DFWMember Posts: 7,065
    Seems to me it would be hard to add much of value to #8038. It definitely needs to still be minifig scale.
    They can easily double the price though!
    SMCYellowcastlebpk2300
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,153
    edited July 16
    Could have said the same thing about 7666 lol

    They could make everything a bit bigger, add more trees/taps.
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    SMC said:
    Could have said the same thing about #7666 lol

    They could make everything a bit bigger, add more trees/taps.
    And we saw how popular that was :-/
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,153
    Agreed but the lesson Lego should take is that these sets need to be more cohesive and not just a bundle of past sets. Hoth could have worked if done differently.
    iwybs
  • BumblepantsBumblepants DFWMember Posts: 7,065
    SMC said:
    Agreed but the lesson Lego should take is that these sets need to be more cohesive and not just a bundle of past sets. Hoth could have worked if done differently.
    Weren't they also trying to callback to the old Hasbro playset as well with that one? Feel like a designer said that in an interview.
    SumoLego
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,337
    SMC said:
    Agreed but the lesson Lego should take is that these sets need to be more cohesive and not just a bundle of past sets. Hoth could have worked if done differently.
    Weren't they also trying to callback to the old Hasbro playset as well with that one? Feel like a designer said that in an interview.
    The three sections of the shield generator were theoretically intended to call back to that Hasbro playset, although I have no idea why.

    For me, the five most probable candidates for Master Builder Series sets are these:
    • Jedi Temple
    • Petranaki Arena
    • Base One (Yavin IV)
    • Jabba's Palace
    • Endor Shield Bunker
    I think they each provide opportunities for appealing minifigures and would be suited to scaling down. Echo Base seems likely too, albeit not perhaps for a few more years.
    SMC
  • SMCSMC UKMember Posts: 2,153
    I agree with 4 of these being in the 5 most likely. Sadly I think Jabba's Palace as the most well know is also the most unlikely. Just not including slave Leia might not be enough for Disney and you have the mosque issues too.


    KungFuKennyYellowcastlegmonkey76
  • The_RancorThe_Rancor Dorset, UKMember Posts: 2,048
    It’s not going to happen but I would bleed money for an MBS Naboo Plains battle, complete with Fambaa, Kaadu, a good group of warriors with shields, a midi-MTT and AAT and maybe one of those idol heads for scenery. It’s just not viable for MBS. However I still think a Mos Espa with multiple podracers could work.

    Hopefully a Petranaki Arena segment isn’t too much of a stretch considering TLG know the popularity of a key vehicle from Episode II.
    560HeliportBumblepants
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Northern VirginiaAdministrator, Moderator Posts: 5,238
    Outside of Naboo, I’m a bit underwhelmed.  How about an Intra-Tantive IV playset with the hallway of despair, astromech encoding and escape pod areas? :o). I’d be game for the same style set on Kamino.
  • autolycusautolycus US-SEMember Posts: 1,018
    From the OT, I think the best candidates might be Endor bunker and either Jabba’s Palace or A sarlacc scene with sailbarge, skiff and sarlacc. (Could leave off the last 2 since those are doable as small sets)
    560Heliport
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    edited July 17
    OT trash compactor with crushing action.

    And maybe a brick built sofa for Family Guy fans :D
    Yellowcastle560HeliportKungFuKennygmonkey76lowlead
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Northern VirginiaAdministrator, Moderator Posts: 5,238
    Pivot
    BrainsluggedKungFuKennySumoLegolowlead
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    Pivot
    ?
    SumoLegolowlead
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 3,087
    Pivot
    Different sofa.
    KungFuKennylowlead
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Northern VirginiaAdministrator, Moderator Posts: 5,238
    edited July 17
    MaffyD said:
    Pivot
    Different sofa.
    :o). Two words (Sofa and Pivot) that are, for better or worse, now forever intertwined for me.
    SumoLegolowlead
  • KungFuKennyKungFuKenny Somewhere between Ice Station Odyssey and FabulandMember Posts: 2,205
    MaffyD said:
    Pivot
    Different sofa.
    :o). Two words (Sofa and Pivot) that are, for better or worse, now forever intertwined for me.
    “OK, I don’t think it’s going to pivot anymore…”
    AstrobricksYellowcastle
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 3,087
    The comments on the review of the Gunship are all over the place. Seems to be really polarising (but depends on the audience, of course).

    I think it's a beautifully made recreation of a ship I know practically nothing about. So I can't really comment, except that I would never have thought it wouldn't have covered sides. Seems a bit unfinished. But that's just my impression.

    I don't think the designers could have done anything else but what we have here, based on the brief of a UCS ship requiring 2k+ bricks and focussing on the ship, not the 'playset and minifig' aspect. It certainly matches over UCS ships like the Y-Wing and X-Wing in that regard.

    I hope it sells though - nobody wants a high profile, publicly chosen model to fail. It would bode badly for anything else they might do in a similar vein (like the scale of a 90th anniversary set, for instance).
    BumblepantsMr_CrossFizyxstlux
  • BumblepantsBumblepants DFWMember Posts: 7,065
    @MaffyD the side panels don't close?! I guess I should have read the review more carefully. That would be a deal breaker for me if I was in the market for that set.
    Yellowcastle
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    ^ In the films, the gunship is (almost?) always seen with its sliding side doors open, and characters standing on the exposed floor inside. Thus the open sides and complaints about lack of minifigs and the scale.
    560Heliport
  • sipusssipuss PolandMember Posts: 62
    You either do it minifig-scale with minifigs standing inside, or you cover the sides. The way it is now is just... weird and imo unappealing.
    BumblepantsYellowcastle560Heliportgmonkey76Brainsluggediwybsdatsunrobbielowlead
  • BumblepantsBumblepants DFWMember Posts: 7,065
    ^ In the films, the gunship is (almost?) always seen with its sliding side doors open, and characters standing on the exposed floor inside. Thus the open sides and complaints about lack of minifigs and the scale.
    Right, it looked really hollow to me and I thought 'well just close the doors and no big deal'.
    YellowcastleBrainsluggedlowlead
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 3,087
    @MaffyD the side panels don't close?! I guess I should have read the review more carefully. That would be a deal breaker for me if I was in the market for that set.
    Not many reviews mention it outright. It's all in the comments. From what I've read, it's either assumed to be known by people who are fans, or of no consequence. I think @CapnRex101 went the former route.
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Northern VirginiaAdministrator, Moderator Posts: 5,238
    It’s very telling that neither the box .org the reviews show a closed configuration. The LAAT is one of my favorite ships and for a number of reasons this is an easy pass.
    Bumblepantsiwybslowlead
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    edited July 18
    @CapnRex101’s review says this about the doors: 

       “Additionally, the doors cannot close completely against the fuselage because their angles are inaccurate, unfortunately.”

    which makes me think they do close, but leaves this a bit vague. If they do close, it seems odd I haven’t seen a picture of them closed.
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 3,087
    ^ I think that's the rear swinging doors. They open up even further back, but the angles are awkward, so when closed they aren't aligned quite right.
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 3,087
    Open:

    Closed:

  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,337
    edited July 18
    I have observed some confusion about this issue and just wanted to clarify that the doors are closed in the majority of photos throughout my review. Here is an example with the doors closed:



    Unfortunately, the shaping of the fuselage and the integration of click hinges on these doors, with set positions, prevents the doors from closing perfectly against the bodywork. The designer has therefore included horizontal plates on the top of the doors, which are not present on the original vehicle. This is probably the weakest aspect of the set, for me.

    However, I also wonder whether the confusions stems in part from people forgetting that the doors only cover the rear section of the troop compartment during the movies.
    YellowcastleiwybsFizyxgmonkey76KungFuKennystluxlowlead
  • BrainsluggedBrainslugged England (the grim North)Member Posts: 1,855
    edited July 18
    ^ F me! I was thinking that the doors just didn't sit very flush with the rest of the ship when closed. But they don't come anywhere near closed! And when open they look even worse (from the angle shown in the pic above) if that's even possible.

    I don't even especially like the PT, the design of clone troopers or that ship especially, but having looked back at past renditions of the model, its making me really want an updated version (but complete with two pilots and a stack of clones, obvs). Any big troop carrier is gonna be pretty cool, but the troops make up an essential part of that coolness.

    edited by YC
    560HeliportYellowcastleSumoLegoiwybsgmonkey76lowlead
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 14,364
    This is a very strange choice.  A full minifigure-scale version would seem to be the most appropriate.  It's not a huge capital ship, and not a small-scale fighter.

    The Falcon is 37 meters, the Republic Transport is 18 meters, and the Automated Remote Retrieval Spaceship is 20 meters - so it should fit right in as a true-minifig sized ship.

    Looks like LEGO is zero-for-two on PT UCS sets...
    Yellowcastlegmonkey76lowlead
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Northern VirginiaAdministrator, Moderator Posts: 5,238
    @CapnRex101 thank you for the explanation.  For a UCS troop carrier that can’t fit troops, I was expecting something like the following: 

    SumoLegoiwybsAstrobricks560HeliportBumblepantsMaffyDpanchox1gmonkey76lowlead
  • The_RancorThe_Rancor Dorset, UKMember Posts: 2,048
    edited July 18
    I’m quite surprised from the review comments that people were suddenly expecting minifigure scale with additional detail and a selection of troop minifigs to fit inside. The original vote was for a UCS vehicle, not their new MBS designation (and even then MBS sets and similar configurations aren’t single vehicles, generally locations instead). It sounds like a lot of people thought we would get a circa £150-£180 top line general release set (similar to a system Millennium Falcon etc.) but as suggested by some others, that wouldn’t really be ‘UCS’. The days of quirky releases like the AT-OT & Dropship are probably long gone. I certainly wouldn’t describe that set as UCS either - great set - just not UCS.

    I personally remember the Republic Gunship as having the door configuration from the new UCS design, with a troop floor and open bays on either side, because that’s how many of the units flew into battle on Geonosis, particularly the heroes’ ship (rather than being fully enclosed). It is frustrating that there’s a horizontal top to the closed doors but it’s plausible some modding could add some more curves to blend into the rest of the bodywork. To be honest troop bay doors are not what I was focusing on initially but they seem extremely important to many. I was expecting the big price tag, general disinterest in the PT or display space to be the main issues, rather than most of the design choices also brought up.

    *Sigh* guess I’ll prepare for another OT UCS X-Wing or TIE I probably won’t buy if there’s not enough interest in the UCS Gunship - and by proxy any other PT UCS. (Be interesting to think if TLG would ever consider UCS ST sets, but I doubt it for the foreseeable future - most of the vehicles are OT vehicles anyway). There’s still the potential Autumn 2021 huge UCS that’s been mooted/allegedly leaked multiple times at least!
    CapnRex101gmonkey76pvp3020KungFuKennystlux
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    @CapnRex101 thank you for the explanation.  For a UCS troop carrier that can’t fit troops, I was expecting something like the following: 

    This is what I assumed "doors closed" would look like. It appears the UCS has two options: doors open, and doors even more open.
    YellowcastleBumblepantsBrainsluggedgmonkey76SumoLegolowlead
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,337
    edited July 19
    @Yellowcastle - That is the Star Wars: The Clone Wars variant, but LEGO decided to produce the movie design instead. For clarity, this is the movie vehicle with the doors closed:



    I have to agree with @The_Rancor concerning the reaction to the Republic Gunship. I thought some hesitancy about the Prequel Trilogy was probable and the poor minifigure selection was certain to become contentious*.

    However, issues surrounding the scale are bewildering. The existing LEGO renditions of the Republic Gunship are already slightly bigger than minifigure-scale and I would anticipate an Ultimate Collector Series design increasing the scale further, as normal. Having said that, this response has somewhat reinforced a belief that I already held, about people disliking models above minifigure-scale where the pilots or occupants should be clearly visible. Speeder Bikes and similar vessels might encounter the same reaction.

    *The issues concerning minifigures are particularly frustrating because the designers should have anticipated the fan reaction. I completely understand excluding Cody, since many people would justifiably complain about his exclusivity in an expensive set, but Jedi Bob should have been included. That alone would have softened the 'controversy' about LEGO seeming to ignore the fan suggestions.

    Another simple solution would be for LEGO to issue a press release, confirming their recognition that many LEGO Star Wars fans would like a Phase II Commander Cody minifigure and explaining their reasons for omitting him from #75309 Republic Gunship.
    iwybsgmonkey76KungFuKenny
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    edited July 19
    My "logical" brain says doors that do not enclose the interior of something aren't really doors. Thus, I asume even the movie version must've had the ability to be fully enclosed, whether they showed it or not. But I'm certainly no expert on all the "canon" media. I've never even seen SW:TCW yet.

    And, yes, my logical brain can find many things to complain about in SW, but I still love it :)
    560Heliportgmonkey76SumoLego
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Northern VirginiaAdministrator, Moderator Posts: 5,238
    edited July 19
    I realize that my hopes for a slightly larger, highly detailed minifig UCS LAAT may have been hopeful based on the majority of previous UCS sets being built to a larger scale.  I don’t however believe they were unrealistic or “bewildering” based on the AT-OT, Tantive IV, Slave 1, Imperial Shuttle or Falcon(s).

    Edit: oh and the Sandcrawler.
    gmonkey76
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    It's obviously time for Lego to introduce (or re-introduce?) midi-figs :)
  • CapnRex101CapnRex101 United KingdomAdministrator Posts: 2,337
    edited July 19
    I realize that my hopes for a slightly larger, highly detailed minifig UCS LAAT may have been hopeful based on the majority of previous UCS sets being built to a larger scale.  I don’t however believe they were unrealistic or “bewildering” based on the AT-OT, Tantive IV, Slave 1, Imperial Shuttle or Falcon(s).
    I mean no disrespect by describing that reaction as 'bewildering', only that discussion of the scale came as a surprise!

    The onscreen Republic Gunship measures either 17.40 or 17.69 metres in length, dependent on the source. Comparing this with the 34.75 metre-long Millennium Falcon and #75192 Millennium Falcon, that measures 84cm long, a minifigure-scale Republic Gunship would measure approximately 43cm in length.

    #75021 Republic Gunship, released during 2013, was 48cm long. That model is therefore already larger than minifigure-scale, although not noticeably so.
    YellowcastleSumoLegoKungFuKenny
  • YellowcastleYellowcastle Northern VirginiaAdministrator, Moderator Posts: 5,238
    No worries.  I just don’t see any reason that we should write off the possibility of getting larger, more expensive and highly detailed minifig-sized vehicles like LEGO has done in the past.  We’re ready, willing and able to spend money on amazing (and expensive) sets like Cloud City and Mos Eisley.  Hopefully lackluster sales for this won’t put LEGO off the PT.
    560HeliportiwybsSumoLego
  • 560Heliport560Heliport Twin Cities, MN, USAMember Posts: 2,678
    TLG should have made the Gunship the Clone Wars version, fully enclosed, with the doors built closed. Then the doors would look properly flush and the lack of troops in the troop compartment of a troop transport wouldn't have been so obvious. I voted for the Gunship, over the Nebulon-B and TIE Bomber, but I won't be buying it because I want minifig-scale stuff. The only UCS sets I own are Ewok Village, Slave I, and the second Y-wing. I also have Betrayal at Cloud City, so I'm willing to spend lots of money on LEGO sets. But to me, most UCS sets just aren't cool enough. 
    YellowcastleiwybsBumblepantsAstrobricksgmonkey76lowleadlkliment2
  • 560Heliport560Heliport Twin Cities, MN, USAMember Posts: 2,678
    Oh... I do have the large BB-8, Yoda, and Porg, and I'll get The Child too, so my collection isn't exclusively minifig-scale. 
  • Lego_the_HuttLego_the_Hutt Member Posts: 10
    SMC said:
    I agree with 4 of these being in the 5 most likely. Sadly I think Jabba's Palace as the most well know is also the most unlikely. Just not including slave Leia might not be enough for Disney and you have the mosque issues too.


    Jabbas palace would likely be based on the book of boba at this point...and not include Jabba or Slave Leia.
    panchox1
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    SMC said:
    I agree with 4 of these being in the 5 most likely. Sadly I think Jabba's Palace as the most well know is also the most unlikely. Just not including slave Leia might not be enough for Disney and you have the mosque issues too.


    Jabbas palace would likely be based on the book of boba at this point...and not include Jabba or Slave Leia.
    Except far far far more people know it from Ep6, and will obviously expect Jabba’s Palace to include Jabba.
    iwybsgmonkey76
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 3,087
    edited July 19
    Well, things are a little clearer now. Honestly, from looking at the reviews, the very first thing I noticed was how exposed the whole thing was, and I suppose that did mean I fixated on the doors a little bit (I also didn't know it wasn't a spaceship).

    Saying that, I'm surprised that both TBB and Brickset don't mention how crap the doors are, both in design (that flat ridge across the top) and in execution (they just don't close/fit properly). I'm assuming that the movie design doesn't have the 'front' doors at all rather than them just not being closed whenever we see it in shot? I'm dubious of that, but as I'm not a PT aficionado I'll not argue the point.

    I agree with @The_Rancor that some voters expectations about what they'd get would never match what a UCS model would ever be. And there are the PT fans that would vote for any UCS set - just because there have been so few of them.
    560Heliport
  • MaffyDMaffyD West YorkshireMember Posts: 3,087
    edited July 19
    ^ Whoops. Turns out Brickset did mention that they don't close properly. But not the flat ridge.
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    There’s always the problem that when you let people vote on something to select it, you give each individual the impression that they will get exactly what they want, and of course you can never achieve that.
    560Heliportgmonkey76stlux
  • BrainsluggedBrainslugged England (the grim North)Member Posts: 1,855
    edited July 19
    There’s always the problem that when you let people vote on something to select it
    Lego has gone and served up New Coke when everyone actually preferred Old Coke after all!
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    There’s always the problem that when you let people vote on something to select it
    Lego has gone and served up New Coke when everyone actually preferred Old Coke after all!
    Except no one ever said they wanted a new coke :-/
    560HeliportSumoLego
  • The_RancorThe_Rancor Dorset, UKMember Posts: 2,048
    edited July 19
    I voted for the Gunship, over the Nebulon-B and TIE Bomber
    Plot twist…

    I truthfully voted for the Nebulon B, knowing the scale would need to be tinkered to make a UCS set, but the shape and role in the films interested me (plus no official Lego renditions).

    However that blew up in my face because if I remember right the first Nebulon B model ever by TLG was almost immediately released as a North American exclusive.

    If I had to put my choices in order the Gunship would’ve been a very close second (I am planning to purchase/find display space) and the Tie Bomber a very distant last.

    Now I’m off to read Rex’s article on the front page! ;)
    560Heliport
  • SumoLegoSumoLego New YorkMember Posts: 14,364
    It's obviously time for Lego to introduce (or re-introduce?) midi-figs :)
    Take that back!  I don't want to see weirdish Jack Stone size Technic figures ever again!
    iwybsAstrobricksBumblepantsgmonkey76
  • AstrobricksAstrobricks Minnesota, USMember Posts: 4,692
    SumoLego said:
    It's obviously time for Lego to introduce (or re-introduce?) midi-figs :)
    Take that back!  I don't want to see weirdish Jack Stone size Technic figures ever again!
    OooooOOooooeeeeOOoooo! 
    They now haunt your dreams ;-)
    SumoLegoFizyxpanchox1gmonkey76
Sign In or Register to comment.

Shopping at LEGO.com or Amazon?

Please use our links: LEGO.com Amazon

Recent discussions Categories Privacy Policy Brickset.com

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

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.