LEGO Star Wars 2016 Pictures and Rumors

[Ceroknight]

Ouch

[Artanis I]

$660 AUD on conversion I guess $700 with the inflation tax for Australia...

$699.99 was the price for 10188. It'll be at least $799.99 or more.

I am expecting maybe $850 or probably $900. 4->7 translates as 5->8.75, and our prices have risen this year vs US prices.

[The_Chosen_1]

Yikes....

[Moshaka]

I bet the Admiral Yulareen figure would look nice on the new death star

[RetroInferno]

Even with inflation there is a solid 60$ added to the thing.

[Robert8]

Well well...

It seems it's not fake after all

[dr_spock]

Even with inflation there is a solid 60$ added to the thing.

Difference between a Lucas and a Disney license?

[RetroInferno]

Difference between a Lucas and a Disney license?

A mix of that and the "bend over" taxes.

Is light bley an expensive color to produce or am I missing something else?

[Fives]

Its all because of the hype for Rogue One. If LEGO had released this update 2 or 3 years ago, it probably wouldn't have sold as well as this will because there wasn't a movie coming out that Christmas season all about the Death Star. This will likely become the most popular Star Wars set this Christmas and LEGO simply wants to cash in on that hype.

Plus its getting close to 10 years since the first version was released (2008), so I can see why LEGO felt it necessary to update the ultimate mothership playset with current minifig detailing and slight changes. For all we know, there may be more structural improvements on areas not seen on the box art.

I most likely won't end up getting simply because I already have the first one and the most important minifig updates are easy enough to get online [Han's hair (which I suspect we'll see plenty of in the upcoming Han Solo Anthology sets), Leia's torso print, and Tarkin].

Overall I'm actually happy they stayed with the A New Hope/Return of the Jedi characters, but I find it a shame that LEGO didn't take the opportunity to give Ben a hood.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Fives

[Lobot]

Looking on the bright side, if TLG are content to 'refresh' a set that was still available until 9 months ago, then we might see a re-released 10179 at some point.

I'll be interested to see the UK RRP; it was £274.99 for 10188, but I can see this being £425+ That's quite a nice jump in the profit line, and I'm assuming that RO will help with festive sales. I'm genuinely surprised that they've done this; I can only describe it as lazy. I'm just hoping that 2017 brings some better news for OT fans

[nikhkin]

I'll be interested to see the UK RRP; it was £274.99 for 10188, but I can see this being £425+ That's quite a nice jump in the profit line, and I'm assuming that RO will help with festive sales. I'm genuinely surprised that they've done this; I can only describe it as lazy. I'm just hoping that 2017 brings some better news for OT fans

I am hoping it isn't more than £400, but I get the feeling it's wishful thinking

People keep saying it is lazy, but it's almost certain that Lego never wanted to retire the set, so they updated the minifigures and modified the build to account for pieces that were not produced any more. It's not laziness, it's the simplest way for them to continue selling it without incurring the costs of developing a new set. It's a good business plan.

[CedBricks]

Looking on the bright side, if TLG are content to 'refresh' a set that was still available until 9 months ago, then we might see a re-released 10179 at some point.

Right, now what I'm hoping big time, is a re-release of 10221 !

[Darth Malgus]

I am expecting maybe $850 or probably $900. 4->7 translates as 5->8.75, and our prices have risen this year vs US prices.

I hope not, clearly at that price it isn't pitched at children...

[Brikkyy13]

$699.99 was the price for 10188. It'll be at least $799.99 or more.

I don't know... the Sandcrawler, Ghostbusters HQ and Disney Castle are all $500. Obviously we're not getting matched US prices but I don't see us getting screwed over by that much. If it stays at $700 I won't be surprised.

[Sneakguest]

I hope not, clearly at that price it isn't pitched at children...

.

Well not most children, even in the richer countries. My parents, who have had pretty high income when I was a child would never have paid 600 usd (minimum price it b over here) for a present to me, thats for sure. N I dont know 2 many swedish parents who would do that, even if they can afford it, just by principle. But I dunno, maybe parents in US, Australia or South Korea are less concerned about materialisticly spoil your children, i guys tell me

[Dameronian]

Follows 4 fascinating pages on global economics, international exchange rates and tax philosophy....

Rant off....carry on...

Edited August 29, 2016 by Dameronian

[Brikkyy13]

RE: "Who buys their kid one LEGO set for that much money?"

I think I've mentioned this before but it went largely unnoticed, of all the stories I've read/heard, and of all children I know with 10188, all have spent (on average) over a year saving their pocket money just to buy it. When it comes to parents buying it for their kids - yes, that will happen, but from my experience it actually is the kids themselves who are buying the set.

[TheBrickHitHouse]

When I got the original Death Star (1st day of release), shop@home had a pricing error and I acquired it for just £200. The new one seems to be on track for £400. That's crazy.

With UCS sets I really expect the minifigs to be 'collector' versions too - the best, most detailed versions possible. C3PO is less detailed than his last polybag...

[AncientDayz]

The wife gave me permission months ago to get this set when it was first rumored. I never got the original. However, after all the hype, I definitely fall in the camp that's a bit underwhelmed. It's not a bad set, by any means. I just wish they improved upon the original set more as opposed to just the minifigures. While I was wanting a shell, I knew that was probably going to be too good to be true. I just don't care for the "blocky" nature of the sphere, in this one or the original. Even though I have the money and "permission" (when has she ever said no?), I think I'm going to pass on this and spend the money on the Disney castle. I'll BrickLink the three or four characters I want a year or more from now (after I see if any come out in cheaper sets in the future). I don't know. I don't want to completely bash LEGO, but for a guy who picks up everything (I have over 200 sets, mostly large ones like modulars, UCS, etc.), I've passed on Hoth and now the Death Star. LEGO Star Wars is letting me down a little lately. Anyway, it's a good set; I just wanted something that seemed more fresh, especially for $500.

[Forresto]

People keep saying in defense of the deathstar that it isnt lazy since the designers wanted to update the minifugres. Theres one big issue with that. The original set already had the figures updated once which was then manufactured instead of the original. I dont mind updating in the slightest, which is why this set dodsnt really bother me too much.

What I dont like is that they didnt just use the original set jumber and added a hyphen followed by a 1 or a 2 to mark that this is simply an update. The fact they fave it a new set number makes it seem like they want this to be viewed as a completely different set.

Edited August 29, 2016 by Forresto

[Brickdoctor]

What I dont like is that they didnt just use the original set jumber and added a hyphen followed by a 1 or a 2 to mark that this is simply an update. The fact they fave it a new set number makes it seem like they want this to be viewed as a completely different set.

From a manufacturing standpoint, it's probably a pretty different set. It's not without precedent; we've seen sets rereleased under different numbers before. What if they just wanted to change the number to reflect their new numbering scheme?

[benderisgreat]

Just got Star Wars Advent Calendar and its a pretty awesome set! First, the minifigure selection is great: Cloud City guard, OT Stormtrooper, Snowy Chewbacca, Death Star trooper, ep 2 C-3PO( best one of them all), Luke (repeat from 2015) and the rest. Builds are cool as well, especially Slave I and Tantive IV. Being my first Advent Calendar I love it, and hope to see some ep 7 stuff in next years calendar!

[randomwalk]

It seems as if there are two main reasons for retiring and quickly re-instating the death star

1. To increase the price

2. To slap on a Disney logo

Even as a "rerelease" this makes no sense since the original (10188) was available such a short while ago. Why not re-release something that has been off the shelves for at least 5 years?

Maybe they are getting orders from Disney executives who don't understand the meaning of the UCS brand, and are just interested in the bottom line and pushing the Disney name? This and the release of Assault on Hoth are setting a worrisome precedent for the future of the UCS line.

[nikhkin]

People keep saying in defense of the deathstar that it isnt lazy since the designers wanted to update the minifugres. Theres one big issue with that. The original set already had the figures updated once which was then manufactured instead of the original. I dont mind updating in the slightest, which is why this set dodsnt really bother me too much.

What I dont like is that they didnt just use the original set jumber and added a hyphen followed by a 1 or a 2 to mark that this is simply an update. The fact they fave it a new set number makes it seem like they want this to be viewed as a completely different set.

That update changed the eyes to have pupils. That's just a slight change in the print process. They didn't change the actual parts used to make those figures.

The new version will need the new Darth Vader helmet and far superior looking hair for Luke (I think going with the shoulder length female hair piece in the old one was a huge mistake).

[Cmay91472]

Just curious, has there been a set with a higher MSRP than the $499.99 that the Lego catalog shows for 75159 that was posted to Reddit? What was the price of the UCS Falcon when it originally came out?

Edited August 29, 2016 by Cmay91472