KimT

LEGO Star Wars 2011 Pictures & Rumors

9517 posts in this topic

(Insert any and all coments on there being no Executer in ESB or RotJ, no Bounty Hunters period, and minifigs never being in a UCS here:) _________ what are you, insane? Clearly you need to concentrate, as many of the best sceanes took aboard the Executer, the Bounty Hunters sucked the air from everyone, and there most certainly was minifigs in the Falcon and Shuttle. I mean, ESB without the bounty hunters and Executer is fairly empty, and I just find it shocking how many 'fans' say that niether of these existed.

But back on topic, that really is a huge set. Fitting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its more likely that Lego builds a set that they think looks good, then adds figs (if need be) to bump it into another price point. The x-wing for example, they likely realized they could sell just as many at $50 as they could at $40 so they added a few figs to make it "worth it." I doubt they ever decide "we want this set to have 5 figs so lets remove some bricks" after the set has been designed.

Another example would be the forthcoming (exclusive i think?) Mace Windu starfighter. They could have released it as a $25 set, but they already have another set just like it (more or less) and by adding the Droids and STAPs (or whatever they are) it "bumps" it into another price point.

Put another way, rather than further improving the set to bump it up to a higher price point (or in the case of 6212, actually thinking up a better design) they throw in a couple minifigures and call it a day.

(Insert any and all coments on there being no Executer in ESB or RotJ, no Bounty Hunters period, and minifigs never being in a UCS here:) _________ what are you, insane? Clearly you need to concentrate, as many of the best sceanes took aboard the Executer, the Bounty Hunters sucked the air from everyone, and there most certainly was minifigs in the Falcon and Shuttle. I mean, ESB without the bounty hunters and Executer is fairly empty, and I just find it shocking how many 'fans' say that niether of these existed.

Blame THE Clone Wars! :laugh::tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a shot in the dark but perhaps you can lift the central city and reveal a cockpit or possible meeting area? I mean why have minifigs with out any way of interacting with the UCS set?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's recall the image. Via Brickset

10221-1.jpg

Can somebody photoshop up a better picture of the micro-star destroyer?

Thanks!

Oh and did I say

TLG MY Wallet Hates you!

P.S. Thanks for the mistake on the 4th where you send me an extra 2 shadow arf troopers - lol ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that form the pic it is hard to tell what the new characters are (well, just the Officer), but from the distance it looks as if Vader might have a new helmet. It may just be the angle he was photographed, but the shape just looks... different. Maybe I'm just :wacko: !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a shot in the dark but perhaps you can lift the central city and reveal a cockpit or possible meeting area?

Then it wouldn't be any different from a System set, which would make you wonder why, if LEGO wanted to include minifigures, they didn't just market it as one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and there most certainly was minifigs in the Falcon and Shuttle.

I find the argument that there were figures in the Falcon and Shuttle a bogus argument. The sets were designed to be to scale with minifigures, so of course there were figures. What doesn't make sense about this set is that it is the first UCS set not to scale with minifigures that includes figures anyway. I'm not particularly surprised by it, but that's the argument. It doesn't really make sense to have a large display piece with a side helping of figures just for the heck of it, but that seems to be what is going on here.

It seems unlikely to me that the central part will lift off, just because the model doesn't look quite stable enough to have play going on in its center. Besides, since this is an AFOL-targeted set, LEGO probably does not feel the need to include a play area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What doesn't make sense about this set is that it is the first UCS set not to scale with minifigures that includes figures anyway.

Most large sets aren't to scale with the figures included default_laugh_new.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously doubt that including a few figs makes any noticable difference on the price point or piece count of a set this size in the way it might on a small scale set like 6212. In terms of the overall cost, they're going to be pretty negligable and large UCS sets like this carry something of a 'prestige' markup anyway.

More likely they were included to (attempt to) satisfy AFOLs asking for a set based on the bounty hunters on the executor bridge scene, which isn't really 'action oriented' enough to realistically market as a set to kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sense too much whining and complaining. I dont see any negatives. Sure there are a lot of "shoulda coulda" wishes but this set looks great. You get minifigs as a bonus (just remind yourself they are bonus figs) and you will be happy and at peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking that TLG didn't include Boba Fett with the Executor because they might be making a new Jabba's Palace or Cloud City with the latest Fett.

Edited by Lord Of The Fries

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most large sets aren't to scale with the figures included default_laugh_new.gif

Yeah, and that's why I wrote 'UCS.' Obviously playsets aren't to scale. Obviously most UCS sets aren't to scale. But when UCS sets aren't to scale, they have always not included figures, until now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course the other possibility is that TLG intentionally leaked a preliminary picture with a few figs thrown in to see what the reaction would be to a UCS set with minifigs in even if they aren't in scale. In case that's right, I'll just say that I'd happily buy it even if they left the minifigs out, but I also wouldn't complain about them adding 4-LOM and Zuckuss either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About this talk about the inclusion of the minifigs in this UCS set, seriously, do people really care about these minifigs considering how majestic the Executor model is already and how unoriginal and uninspiring the minifig line-up is? It is quite obvious that the selling point of this UCS set is the model itself, and not in anyway the minifigs. If there's anyone here who would buy this ultra-expensive set just for a bunch of minifigs is completely out-of-his-mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About this talk about the inclusion of the minifigs in this UCS set, seriously, do people really care about these minifigs considering how majestic the Executor model is already and how unoriginal and uninspiring the minifig line-up is? It is quite obvious that the selling point of this UCS set is the model itself, and not in anyway the minifigs. If there's anyone here who would buy this ultra-expensive set just for a bunch of minifigs is completely out-of-his-mind.

That's an opinion, yet I for one may buy this for parts, and maybe figs. BL is so ridiculous I wouldn't be surprised if people did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He can be seen exactly five times, watching both rancor scenes and watching Han and Luke get sentenced. Just because you didn't notice him doesn't mean he isn't there; it's not like he's ever the focus of any scene in RotJ.

Ye gads! There he is! You're completely right Stoutfiles! Time for me to get my Gen X eyes checked. I wonder if they used the same actor? Regardless, its definitely Dengar's costume and weaponry...

Positive things:

- It is significantly smaller than mine, so kudos to LEGO for adding so many details at a relatively small scale.

- 2 legs is a must for this set and hints at a slim frame, which again hints a very realistic depiction.

- No obvious bridge, which means they didn't oversize it. Yay!

- New bricks allow for a smooth front (unlike my zig-zag'ing)

- Lots of large plates with less studs. Ideally I would like it to be stud-free on the flanks, but this is good too.

- The upper wings consist of single planes, which is true to the original.

- The city looks well greebled, and it's impossible to redo the original which was more than 2 meters long (and made of smaller pieces than LEGO bricks)

Negative:

- The belly. It seems like it's flat, judging from the flat front.

- The sides are a bit high. Even my 1 brick high sides is a bit on the tall side compared to the original.

- With the big front leg, the city in the belly might be compromised :S

- With the flat front, the engine bay might not be shaped correctly.

- The sides don't get wider towards the rear of the ship. There should still be a slight wedge along the city.

Thanks Lasse!

I think your analysis of the one image available to us is as comprehensive as its going to get. I always admired how your MOC had only one brick high sides and managed to capture the profile of the studio model so accurately. Lego's UCS certainly hasn't done this. Hopefully its only because of stability concerns associated with releasing a commercial product and not because they wanted to create 'head room' for a bounty hunter play scene. I can live with 'stability concerns' sacrificing some accuracy in official sets but not a hybrid UCS/system set.

That 'flat belly' also has me really worried....

I'll just say that I'd happily buy it even if they left the minifigs out, but I also wouldn't complain about them adding 4-LOM and Zuckuss either.

I agree! I'm happy to have exclusive minifigs thrown in to add to the collectability of a traditional UCS set (although I wouldn't miss them if they weren't there). Having the whole gang with the set would have been nice.

If there's anyone here who would buy this ultra-expensive set just for a bunch of minifigs is completely out-of-his-mind.

Hey! You do regulate this forum! Surely you've noticed at least some detachment from reality with the denizens of this place? :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys! Analyze the picture closely. From what I see, the bottom isn't angled at all. It's completely flat. The top plates are angled, but the bottom plates are straight (on the X axis), so that is probably the floor. This is obviously a playset, and I just hope it has a detailed interior, like the death star. I really hope they do something about the flat bottom, or at least add the greebs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guys! Analyze the picture closely. From what I see, the bottom isn't angled at all. It's completely flat. The top plates are angled, but the bottom plates are straight (on the X axis), so that is probably the floor. This is obviously a playset, and I just hope it has a detailed interior, like the death star. I really hope they do something about the flat bottom, or at least add the greebs...

You're a bit late in coming to the party with these observations but welcome on board regardless. :wink: Cavegod noticed this detail a few pages back and the discussion since then has centered on whether this set is a UCS or large exclusive system/playset. The inclusion of figures has thrown a few UCS fans such as myself into confusion especially as the picture clearly has a UCS sticker. A detailed interior on a UCS set like this would be a very disappointing trend to see emerging in these kinds of models. I could understand it if it was like 10198 (UCS outside detailing, cute interior with minifigs but no UCS sticker i.e. playset exclusive) but not on what has come to be seen as traditional UCS sets like 10019, 10030, 10129, 10134 etc. It would really confuse the UCS badge and kinda kill it altogether as a cohesive (albeit differently scaled) collection of models! :thumbdown:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most large sets aren't to scale with the figures included default_laugh_new.gif

And they're all System sets.

Guys! Analyze the picture closely. From what I see, the bottom isn't angled at all. It's completely flat. The top plates are angled, but the bottom plates are straight (on the X axis), so that is probably the floor. This is obviously a playset, and I just hope it has a detailed interior, like the death star. I really hope they do something about the flat bottom, or at least add the greebs...

Yeah, the flat bottom is :thumbdown: . But I seriously doubt this is a playset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10221 looks like it will have a September 2011 release date (according to mrfootball at FBTB). Bring on more photos please Lego so as we can end this speculative talk and begin grumbling about it in a more informed manner! :tongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And they're all System sets.

Yeah, the flat bottom is :thumbdown: . But I seriously doubt this is a playset.

Hi,

I wouldn't be too bothered about the bottom being flat:

ROTJ Front-On View (Wookiepedia)

ESB Side View (Wookiepedia)

I don't think the bottom of the Executor's front has the prominent angles seen on the top. In fact, it looks almost flat in some shots. It seem to become more angled about half way along the base:

Side Profile

Personally, I wish I'd started collecting in time for the Star Destroyer UCS - the two together would look really snazzy!

Edited by gmask1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't be too bothered about the bottom being flat:

ROTJ Front-On View (Wookiepedia)

ESB Side View (Wookiepedia)

I don't think the bottom of the Executor has the prominent angles seen on the top. In fact, it looks almost flat in some shots.

That's a good point, and you probably wouldn't look at it that much anyways, but as obsessive Star Wars fans some of us are nitpicky about that kind of thing. :grin: It just doesn't look right, IMO. I still say it's pretty good, but I need to see a price to make a decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the bottom of the Executor's front has the prominent angles seen on the top. In fact, it looks almost flat in some shots. It seem to become more angled about half way along the base:

Side Profile

Me thinks you sunk your own observations with that side profile!

That's a good point, and you probably wouldn't look at it that much anyways, but as obsessive Star Wars fans some of us are nitpicky about that kind of thing.

Oops! Caught me out... :blush:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Me thinks you sunk your own observations with that side profile!

I dunno, even that looks basically flat right at the front. We've not seen enough of the UCS model to know whether or not it gets angled further in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, even that looks basically flat right at the front. We've not seen enough of the UCS model to know whether or not it gets angled further in.

Naahh! That angle which can be clearly seen at the rear follows all the way through to the front, just like a regular Star Destroyer. The underside 'cityscape' simply interrupts it and gives the illusion that its flatter. This image may help convey what I mean. I've also a heap of shots of the studio model on my hard drive which confirm it. Heaven knows how this UCS model conveys that angle on the underside....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.