97 replies to this topic

[Aeroeza]

Solscud007, on 27 September 2011 - 07:25 PM, said:

Meh on the B-wing. why not UCS RGS?

StoutFiles, on 28 September 2011 - 01:59 PM, said:

This has been discussed a thousand times. OT sets sell better than PT/CW sets in the UCS line. They are more valuable to collectors who's demographic appreciates the OT much more than the new stuff.

Aeroeza, on 11 April 2011 - 07:31 AM, said:

...AFOL who remember seeing Star Wars in 1977 are a breed which have shifted not only into higher income brackets over the past 10 years but more and more must balance lifestyle choices such as owning a home and raising children with their weakness for Star Wars Lego. Their purse strings may not be quite as versatile as 20 somethings wanting a UCS Venator or Republic Gunship and perhaps 10215 is indicative of these considerations by Lego...

StoutFiles, on 29 September 2011 - 11:44 AM, said:

...And it sold horribly (10215 Jedi Star Fighter), mostly because of its high price, but if it were an A-wing I guarantee it would have done better. I never said TLG doesn't take some shots with the PT, but each time they do is doesn't go well, just like when they try an EU set at System scale...

The 2012 Pictures and Rumors thread brought up an intriguing question regarding upcoming UCS releases which for me which seemed a little off topic from the main discussion so I thought it best to ponder it here with any interested parties...

The UCS Jedi Star Fighter was a surprise set last year which bucked the UCS trend for OT ships and seemed to cause some dismay from the odd member here and on other Lego sites when it was first announced. Negative comments focused not so much on the look and design of the actual build but more on the original source material being boring and uninspired compared to iconic vehicles of the OT. The price was also mooted loudly as a deal breaker for many (and others couldn't get over the slightly over sized astromech head).

Having built the set I'd say its a real beauty- not only was it clever but the end result looked fantastic and refreshingly colourful when sitting next to the usual bley monstrous and majestic UCS release. It has the no-nonsense feel of an air-superiority interceptor with a little old world elegance to match. Reviews from the Lego home site, FBTB, Brick Horizon and of course here tend to support this conclusion although concerns about its price lingered (even though it has three printed pieces, two of them unique, weighs almost as much as the UCS Tie Interceptor and even costs the same despite ten years of inflation).

That being said there appears to be a consensus among AFOL on this site (and others) that 10215 was a costly failure for Lego and that we're unlikely to see another PT UCS in a hurry. My questions are these given ideas the above quotations raise...

How do we know 10215 'sold horribly' as a fact? Do any members have access to privileged Lego marketing figures which justify this 'pervasive impression' of 10215's failure? Or are we believing our own hype? Has 'maintaining the rage' regarding 'high pricing policies' of Lego clouded our judgment and led us to ignore the fact that UCS sets are by their very nature aimed at a particular sub-branch of AFOL and sporadic Lego purchasers who are inclined to pay slightly more for their occasional Star Wars 'hit'?

Is 10215 perhaps a 'sleeper' set which gives TLC an indication of demographic changes in OT/PT UCS consumer interest over a two to three year period? Is it really that unlikely that 2013 or 2014 could have a major PT UCS release like a Venator or AT-TE?

For the last decade UCS's have really been the mainstay of Gen X OT fans with a little cash to burn but if Lego are going to have a continuing relationship with Lucasfilm then, well, the 'times they are a-changin'. It seems to me that what 'constitutes' a UCS set is currently evolving. The last few years in particular have either heralded the regular inclusion of minifigs or flirted with the PT in a significant way. Let's face it Gen Y'ers have rising incomes and a whole new trilogy they grew up loving so what do they want in a UCS? The same kind of detailed sets with a nod to accuracy, few play features and a lack of minifigs as in the past? Or would they prefer massive playsets like 10188 or the confused identity issues of 10221 with its miniature bridge and bounty hunter scene?

Are Lego successfully 'passing the torch' of their flagship Star Wars sets to the up-and-coming 'big spenders'?

[StoutFiles]

Aeroeza, on 30 September 2011 - 04:59 AM, said:

How do we know 10215 'sold horribly' as a fact? Do any members have access to privileged Lego marketing figures which justify this 'pervasive impression' of 10215's failure? Or are we believing our own hype? Has 'maintaining the rage' regarding 'high pricing policies' of Lego clouded our judgment and led us to ignore the fact that UCS sets are by their very nature aimed at a particular sub-branch of AFOL and sporadic Lego purchasers who are inclined to pay slightly more for their occasional Star Wars 'hit'?

Is 10215 perhaps a 'sleeper' set which gives TLC an indication of demographic changes in OT/PT UCS consumer interest over a two to three year period? Is it really that unlikely that 2013 or 2014 could have a major PT UCS release like a Venator or AT-TE?

It dropped to 25% off on S@H merely two months after its release.  While TLG would never announce a set is selling horribly, that's a pretty telling sign.  It's widely agreed that the set is a failure.

There's a very small demographic that can both afford 100 dollar display sets and that looks at Episode II fondly.  However, I know TLG will take more PT/CW shots as time goes on.  The kids who like the new material are growing up and getting more expendable income, and there's a wealth of ships to make there, the OT is starting to run out.

Edited by StoutFiles, 30 September 2011 - 03:51 PM.

[Ackbar]

Interesting post!

I’m a bit worried as well. The 10188 Death Star is not a real UCS, just a really cool big bad playset. The miniature bridge in the SSD can be a sign of TLG trying to include playset features into the USC models. I really don’t like that development, which blur the line between official sets and UCS’s. I guess I’m kind of a purist when it comes to UCS’s...

About the 10215, I must admit it is a really great set (bought it when the price dropped, of course). A fun build and the final result looks great. It has some vey UCS-ish features like a smashing cockpit interior, some interesting building techniques and of course the display stand (and NO play features). I usually only buy OT but I think this ship is a worthy member of the UCS series.

And I agree with StoutFiles, there will probably be more PT/CW USC-sets. But I’m afraid that the development is towards including more and more play features in those.

[Jedi master Brick]

They won't try a PT/CW UCS for another few years, ok they have risked a few EU testers but those are system, they can't risk a second PT/Cw test for a while.  The UCS line can't have 2 failing sets in the space of a few years,

[fyrmedhatt]

It will be interesting to see what happens with 10215 when it is gone, as you said it does have rare parts and so it will probably increase in value on the second hand market. The ship itself appears to be a decent design, but I haven't bought it for the single reason that is why should I buy this set when there are so many other great sets at the $100 price point that seem more interesting to me.

I have a feeling that with the release of one or two more PT UCS sets, this set will appreciate in value significantly. It's a funny thing about collectors (and I have noticed this about myself mind you), that things are more interesting when they are in a series. Just look at the explosion of popularity for the modulars, collectible minifigs and of course the UCS Star Wars sets, they are not truly legendary sets until they can be collected as part of a larger group. Now it's too easy to write off 10215, because you can rationalize that it doesn't really fit with the other UCS sets, but with a few more PT sets that will change. That of course is a moot point if Lego never releases another PT UCS set, but if another one is released in three years, then that one will be more popular, and the popularity of this one will explode, just as happened with the christmas train that was just ok whe released, but given a few more sets in the holidays line it not goes for price 3-4 times MSRP because of completionist collectors.

I do agree with others that the set isn't selling that well yet, it has an inflated parts per piece ratio and no minifigures, and it always appears as a sale item when Lego has a sale.

[Legoman]

This is a really great topic, thanks for dragging it out - I simply don't have the time to browse other topics like I used to.

I think 10215 was an intresting move to be honest, and I can't say I beleived it failed. While it's commonly accepted that the set hasn't sold very well, I don't think it was a failure. Overpriced, Yes. But I'm a proud owner of this set and it is actually rather nice. I think Lego was testing the waters with this, and it proved an intresting point. The people they were aiming this set at don't actually care about the quality of sets any more. It's all about the figures. There was a time, around 2006-2007 when Lego were getting sets perfect, Chargeing a reasonable amount, and having reasonable figures. But now The sets are quite average (May be my byass anti-CW stance, but still) and are rich in overly detailed useless Figures. I'd buy 10215 over that any day. But To be honest, I would have rather had a UCS A-wing, or even better, Tie. Although there are some sets that will make great UCS', They need to wait there turn. Once we have a UCS A-wing, B-wing, and TIE fighter, AT-AT and a few more, then mabye they could try an RGS. But until then, I beleive OT fans should get the first pick, Becuase they are the ones who will buy the set because it's actually well designed.

The new 10221 annoys me, to be honest. I'd much rather have had it $50 less without the figs and bridge which means nothing to me.

10212 Was the best UCS set since the Y-wing In my opinion. And I hope they continue to go with that sort of design in the future. I didn't mind the figs in the set because it was to scale and it didn't really ruin the set for me.

However, If they make a UCS A-wing with White instead of grey, I may just Die  

Edited by Legoman, 30 September 2011 - 08:32 PM.

[johnnyvgoode]

I don't know if this generational shift you are speaking about will be as strong, for a few reasons:

-Most fans of the PT tend to be fans of the OT. The converse is what doesn't seem to hold.

-Although the impact that SW had on newer generations with its PT films, does it really match up to the impact the OT had on the oldet generations?

That being said, I grew up with all these new films, and there's practically no ship that I love from the PT, except for the episode III Jedi Starfighters, which would look awesome in an UCS set. I find the OT ships to be more iconic. I know I might be wrong, but I think that there is no ship as iconic to the PT as the X-wing, the Millenium Falcon, and the Star Destroyer are to the OT, to name a few.

If they tried something else, such as character sculptures, that could be a different story. But this is what I think regarding ships.

[Aeroeza]

StoutFiles, on 30 September 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

It dropped to 25% off on S@H merely two months after its release.  While TLG would never announce a set is selling horribly, that's a pretty telling sign.  It's widely agreed that the set is a failure.

Jedi master Brick, on 30 September 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

They won't try a PT/CW UCS for another few years, ok they have risked a few EU testers but those are system, they can't risk a second PT/Cw test for a while.  The UCS line can't have 2 failing sets in the space of a few years,

fyrmedhatt, on 30 September 2011 - 06:16 PM, said:

I do agree with others that the set isn't selling that well yet, it has an inflated parts per piece ratio and no minifigures, and it always appears as a sale item when Lego has a sale.

Right! So it's the early discounting in the sales career of 10215 which suggests its poor performance. I wonder how widespread the sale was internationally given it didn't occur in the Southern Hemisphere. Obviously it was a marketing strategy for Lego in the States and has been discounted since for you guys but did the same thing happen in Europe and Asia as well? It would be intriguing to know if the discounting was a more isolated event skewing our perceptions of the set. Granted the USA is a 'big' market for TLC but if this marketing decision was a more 'targeted'  one then it might suggest 10215 sales figures were 'soft' as opposed to an outright failure.

The 'parts per piece ratio' has always bugged me. It's a very draconian way of establishing relative 'value added' comparisons between sets.  It's clear that weight and the nature of the constituent parts play an important and under-rated role in the costing of any given set so I can't help but feel we are using a very inaccurate kind of 'fuzzy logic' here which also skews our impressions.

Also UCS' are released with the collector in mind so a limited market for a (dare I say luxury) item denotes a higher price. So is the price the real issue here for Lego or was it it's choice to release a small PT UCS which appeared expensive? Is $25 really that much in the grand scheme of things for a collector?

Remember it cost the same as 7181 when it was first released. They also weigh about the same, the difference in piece count is negligible and they both have printed blocks. A decade in marketing separates them and from what reviews still exist about the Interceptor from 2000-2003 it was greeted with open arms by collectors.

fyrmedhatt, on 30 September 2011 - 06:16 PM, said:

I have a feeling that with the release of one or two more PT UCS sets, this set will appreciate in value significantly. It's a funny thing about collectors (and I have noticed this about myself mind you), that things are more interesting when they are in a series...

Too true! I found this out about myself with the UCS sculptures. I really hadn't intended to collect any of them until I found and purchased Grievous on sale. I was then compelled to track down Maul and Yoda and trust me when I say I didn't save any money with those two (nor do I have regrets). A companion model for 10215 might have made a big impact on its sales!        

StoutFiles, on 30 September 2011 - 02:17 PM, said:

There's a very small demographic that can both afford 100 dollar display sets and that looks at Episode II fondly.  However, I know TLG will take more PT/CW shots as time goes on.  The kids who like the new material are growing up and getting more expendable income, and there's a wealth of ships to make there, the OT is starting to run out.

Ackbar, on 30 September 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

And I agree with StoutFiles, there will probably be more PT/CW USC-sets...

johnnyvgoode, on 30 September 2011 - 11:33 PM, said:

I don't know if this generational shift you are speaking about will be as strong, for a few reasons:
-Most fans of the PT tend to be fans of the OT. The converse is what doesn't seem to hold.
-Although the impact that SW had on newer generations with its PT films, does it really match up to the impact the OT had on the oldet generations?
That being said, I grew up with all these new films, and there's practically no ship that I love from the PT, except for the episode III Jedi Starfighters, which would look awesome in an UCS set. I find the OT ships to be more iconic...

Now we're really getting into the sociology of it! Here we all are as part of a multi-generational phenomenon forking out hard earned cash for big trinkets which put smiles on our faces. I can thank Lucas for giving me so much common ground with my six year old nephew and 38 year old friends alike. It sure beats playing Cowboys and Indians and still manages to be politically correct (if you ignore racial stereotyping in the PT)!

I don't think any of us have met an AFOL who is only a fan of the PT so we can safely assume OT releases are somewhat safe for the immediate future! However I think it's harder to judge the impact of any given element of OT, PT & CW on kids and young adults today and compare it to how the OT knocked Gen X socks off (and just about every other age group) when they were knee high to a grasshopper. For Gen X that kind of hype can't be lived up to- it changed the experience of film forever afterwards, redefined what was possible with consumer mass marketing and spawned a thriving visual effects industry which proved a lot of fun for those who decided to get on board and make a living out of it.

But if I'd been hit with all six films at once as a kid and a half decent 3D animated cartoon which kept the old flame burning then I suspect I'd be dreaming of more than just UCS OT ships and vehicles right now . I'd have concluded that the 'Star Wars iconic imagery and design' list had expanded regardless of my own prejudices and poor 70s dress sense so I'm surprised to read Johnnyvgoode's take on growing up with the PT and his feel for OT ships being more iconic...

Maybe I really should put on those old flares again!  

It's also better to think of my suggestion of a 'generational shift' as more a merging of OT and PT UCS releases as opposed to the story of 'two households, both alike in dignity', battling it out. Although, as StoutFiles mentioned in the 2012 Pictures and Rumors thread, it will be interesting to see if we get a traditional UCS Cloud Car before another PT release! That would suggest 10215 really did bomb like a turkey...

Suffice to say I agree with you all that more PT UCS releases are around the corner. I guess the real question is what will a future UCS evolve into? What is the new consensus product if any?

Ackbar, on 30 September 2011 - 02:52 PM, said:

...The 10188 Death Star is not a real UCS, just a really cool big bad playset. The miniature bridge in the SSD can be a sign of TLG trying to include playset features into the USC models. I really don’t like that development, which blur the line between official sets and UCS’s. I guess I’m kind of a purist when it comes to UCS’s...

Anyone who's paid attention to the odd post I've made in these forums since I joined would also probably describe me as a 'UCS purist'. It was 10179 in early 2008 which pulled me back into Lego and since then I've limited my collection to UCS releases- past and present.

I've never seen 10188 as my kind of UCS nor recognized it as having ever been marketed by Lego to 'traditional' UCS collectors. Sure it's an excellent set but doesn't appeal to the modeler in me. 10221's 'blurring of the line' was complete anathema as far as I was concerned but at the end of the day there was no point being an old stick in the mud. It was plainly obvious TLC was wanting to broaden their sales demographics and pull in traditional UCS collectors and hardcore minifig fanatics within a single release. Whether I liked it or not the 'traditional UCS' was tinkered with and the truth is this new UCS product concept is likely to work.

I've just finished building the SSD, still processing its pros and cons, but it was a more satisfying experience than I otherwise thought it might be (although I'm still a little skeptical about its flat bottom).

Legoman, on 30 September 2011 - 08:31 PM, said:

...The people they were aiming this set at (10215) don't actually care about the quality of sets any more. It's all about the figures. There was a time, around 2006-2007 when Lego were getting sets perfect, Chargeing a reasonable amount, and having reasonable figures. But now The sets are quite average (May be my byass anti-CW stance, but still) and are rich in overly detailed useless Figures. I'd buy 10215 over that any day...

This is a potentially profound point and another reason why 10215 may have performed questionably!

That being said I need to be aware of my own bias here but if you're right then Star Wars Lego is currently having a product identity crisis or perhaps just losing touch with its 'building' roots a little as it tries to read and/or create demand for its licensed sets.

As a child I saw minifigs as 'ancillary' to my Lego experience. I generally built things in a scale which didn't work for the little guys (instead  I often  used three 1x2 plates snapped together so as I had two legs and a torso to represent my 'figures'). I'm not denying that minifigs added to the creative experience but it was 'building' that drew me into Lego not "dang I gotta play with my minifigs now".

Admittedly I had a whole bunch of 6 inch Kenner Star Wars figures for that...

As for AFOL who love the figures, well I can appreciate their geeky-cool-cute factor so that's all O.K. by me but they still remain 'ancillary' to my adult experience of building Lego. They don't play a role in my purchasing decisions and as far as I'm concerned they shouldn't get in the way of a UCS build (I hold the view that a UCS is aimed at AFOL and not just lucky kids with generous parents who view it as a toy). 10221 really walks a fine line here but it probably has pulled it off and that's not a bad outcome for most AFOL (and it's an even better outcome for Lego).

The fact that minifigs have become more and more detailed suggest Lego are making even  healthier profit margins from them than I'd first imagined. It's obvious that cash cow will be milked for a long time to come and collectors will be cherishing them for even longer. But have the quality of new sets really suffered from this whether they be system or UCS?

Your point could have a direct bearing on the future product identity of UCS sets, goes some way to explain Lego's 'tinkering' with the range over the past few years and may clue us in as to the future...

i.e. Continued inclusion of highly detailed minifigs; fewer printed pieces; compromised builds (when compared with the 'traditional' UCS set); less accuracy; more playsets; increased mix of PT with OT.

I try to make no value judgments in listing these tendencies I'm merely curious as to whether-or-not this is what AFOL want now and if Lego really have their fingers on the pulse with this one...

Edited by Aeroeza, 01 October 2011 - 07:01 AM.

[2maxwell]

I dont really want to get into the whole discussion of which direction the UCS sets will take. However, I do think something needs to be noted.

I grew up watching and loving the original trilogy. I was an early 90s kid. I was a fan of Star Wars before the Phantom Menace came out. As such, I loved the X-wing, Millenium Falcon, and the lot. Everyone I knew enjoyed the PT, but still recognized that it was worse than the OT, and we all preferred the OT ships. The people you are referring to, these Gen Y kids, are like me, but older. You might not realize this, but the only people who grew up on the PT are kids who are still in high school. They dont exactly have expendable income.

That being said, my friends and I all really loved the Jedi starfighters. I was a big fan of the Delta 7 and 7b, while some of my friends preferred the Eta 2. These ships had really nice design. I mean, look at the Delta 7; so sleek, so sexy. Damn. And I would suspect that that is why they made Delta 7 UCS set. Because it is a really good looking ship.

[johnnyvgoode]

2maxwell, on 01 October 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

I grew up watching and loving the original trilogy. I was an early 90s kid. I was a fan of Star Wars before the Phantom Menace came out. As such, I loved the X-wing, Millenium Falcon, and the lot. Everyone I knew enjoyed the PT, but still recognized that it was worse than the OT, and we all preferred the OT ships. The people you are referring to, these Gen Y kids, are like me, but older. You might not realize this, but the only people who grew up on the PT are kids who are still in high school. They dont exactly have expendable income.

I grew up on the PT and was a late 90s kid. You would think that I love more the PTs than the OTs, but no. I think that even us, the younger ones, like the OT ships better.

There are a few iconic vehicles from the PT that I'd like to see in UCS: namely, the Jedi Starfighter I already mentioned, and Anakin's Podracer. Other than that, maybe a few podracers, but the problem with the PT seems, to me, that you don't have vehicles that appear as consistently in the three movies as the Millenium Falcon, the Star Destroyers, and the X-Wings, just to name a few. Even the ones I named only appear in single films.

And although I do enjoy watching the Clone Wars series from time to time (but you could argue that that belongs to the generation that comes after mine), I don't find the ships to be more interesting at all.

Anyways, it'll be interesting to see what happens. I wonder if SW will ever wear out, and I also wonder how many more Lego SW years there are left.

[jamie75]

Personally, I think if Lego were to release an UCS RGS or AT-TE with 3000 to 4000 pieces, it would sell. Period! I am not a fan of the PT, but, these 2 vehicals are awesome, IMO! I'm 35 and I remember seeing Star Wars in theaters with my dad. I have been hooked from there.

The PT wasn't as strong as the OT in terms of story, but, did have some great looking ships, walkers, and vehicals.

Jamie

[Anio]

johnnyvgoode, on 01 October 2011 - 06:55 PM, said:

I already mentioned, and Anakin's Podracer. Other than that, maybe a few podracers

An instruction for a UCS Anakin's podracer does exist.  

And one day, an instruction for UCS Sebulba's podracer will maybe exist too.

[cavegod]

Anio, on 02 October 2011 - 11:01 AM, said:

And one day, an instruction for UCS Sebulba's podracer will maybe exist too.

now that would be great!

[Concept]

My opinion is that there is life left in OT UCS but that does not mean I wouldn't buy certain PT UCS. I like Star Wars and I like large detailed sets.

[Solscud007]

jamie75, on 02 October 2011 - 12:23 AM, said:

Personally, I think if Lego were to release an UCS RGS or AT-TE with 3000 to 4000 pieces, it would sell. Period! I am not a fan of the PT, but, these 2 vehicals are awesome, IMO! I'm 35 and I remember seeing Star Wars in theaters with my dad. I have been hooked from there.

The PT wasn't as strong as the OT in terms of story, but, did have some great looking ships, walkers, and vehicals.

Jamie

That was my idea too. RGS or AT-TE. But we still dont have a UCS AT-AT. I think a revist of the Sand Crawler is necessary. Similar to the Death Star while it is not exactly UCS, close enough.

[gotoAndLego]

I grew up on the OT, but have no problem with PT vehicles. A UCS ARC-170 would be great.

[Fallenangel]

fyrmedhatt, on 30 September 2011 - 06:16 PM, said:

I have a feeling that with the release of one or two more PT UCS sets, this set will appreciate in value significantly. It's a funny thing about collectors (and I have noticed this about myself mind you), that things are more interesting when they are in a series. Just look at the explosion of popularity for the modulars, collectible minifigs and of course the UCS Star Wars sets, they are not truly legendary sets until they can be collected as part of a larger group.

Legoman, on 30 September 2011 - 08:31 PM, said:

The people they were aiming this set at don't actually care about the quality of sets any more. It's all about the figures. There was a time, around 2006-2007 when Lego were getting sets perfect, Chargeing a reasonable amount, and having reasonable figures. But now The sets are quite average (May be my byass anti-CW stance, but still) and are rich in overly detailed useless Figures

While I agree with the point that 10215 and UCS sets in general may have sold better if they were part of a series, I feel it is also necessary to acknowledge that, contrary to Legoman’s point, sets have in fact been getting better since 2008, the modular buildings and recent D2C sets being the most obvious example. It could also be argued that Star Wars sets from the summer of ’08 onwards were of a distinctly higher caliber than those before – I doubt that anything along the lines of 7674, 7680, or 8019 would have been expected in ’06 or ‘07. The fact that many AFOLs spent those first few years griping about prices appears to be a mistake on our part, as it’s been established that a parts-to-price ratio is hardly the best indicator of how much you’re getting for your money.

Aeroeza, on 01 October 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

But if I'd been hit with all six films at once as a kid and a half decent 3D animated cartoon which kept the old flame burning then I suspect I'd be dreaming of more than just UCS OT ships and vehicles right now . I'd have concluded that the 'Star Wars iconic imagery and design' list had expanded regardless of my own prejudices and poor 70s dress sense so I'm surprised to read Johnnyvgoode's take on growing up with the PT and his feel for OT ships being more iconic...

Seeing as I watched all six films for the first time within a few years of each other, I think I can speak as someone who was more or less “hit with all six films at once”.

I won’t deny that the ‘Star Wars iconic imagery and design’ can be applied to just as many craft in the Prequels as in the Original Trilogy – in fact, that is the very reason craft from the Prequels aren’t considered as memorable as their ancestors from the ‘70s and ‘80s. Such concepts as the Radiant VII and the AT-TE bear a strong resemblance to their Original Trilogy counterparts, the Tantive IV and AT-AT respectively. Thus they lack an iconic status in themselves, relying on more famous counterparts to evoke the connection. They do not express an identity that is uniquely their own. The title ‘Attack of the Clones’ makes much more sense in this context.

The ARC-170 and the Venator are both nice-looking craft that possess the air of battle-worn warships. But I remember them more for their resemblance to the X-wing and Imperator than anything else simply because that is the only image they present themselves with in their appearance in Episode III ( if one has read the Clone Wars comics, this would be a different story – but  few people here seem to have done so). And when one remembers that Episode III was the Prequel in which starships received the most coverage, the possibility of Prequel craft being memorable at all becomes increasingly less likely.
Of course there are a few notable exceptions to this, and among them are the two Prequel craft that The LEGO Group has released as ‘UCS’ sets - the N-1 and the Delta-7. They don’t embody ‘Star Wars’ the way the subjects of other UCS sets do, but they possess unique identities, at least within the Star Wars universe. This could also explain why the B-wing was chosen to be recreated in UCS.

Aeroeza, on 01 October 2011 - 06:28 AM, said:

I've never seen 10188 as my kind of UCS nor recognized it as having ever been marketed by Lego to 'traditional' UCS collectors. Sure it's an excellent set but doesn't appeal to the modeler in me. 10221's 'blurring of the line' was complete anathema as far as I was concerned but at the end of the day there was no point being an old stick in the mud. It was plainly obvious TLC was wanting to broaden their sales demographics and pull in traditional UCS collectors and hardcore minifig fanatics within a single release. Whether I liked it or not the 'traditional UCS' was tinkered with and the truth is this new UCS product concept is likely to work.

It’s funny how even though FOLs are constantly confused as to how 10XXX sets and UCS sets are separate The LEGO Group gave us 10221 which really does embody aspects of both. Perhaps The LEGO Group is trying to eliminate the special status of the UCS?

[HJR]

I think the PT sets were not bad, it's just that the timing of them was lousy.  Had LEGO introduced the UCS Jedi Starfighter at the time of release of the movie, I'm sure it would have sold better than introducing it last year.  

UCS appeals to an older audience, as kids would want minifigs with their sets, or at least vehicles in the same 'size' as their other LEGO sets.  PT Star Wars was for 'a new generation of Star Wars fans', and so UCS sets should grow along with the age of these new Star Wars fans.  In that perspective, the UCS Jedi Starfighter either came too late (not in the year of the actual movie) or too soon (the potential buyer of PT UCS sets is just too young right now).  

So please, bring in the UCS AT-TE and RGS, but I'd wait for a few more years, as the kids who got the 7163 RGS back in 2002, would probably want the UCS version somewhere in 2015 - 2017...

Meanwhile, I don't think LEGO will have to be scared what to do in the years ahead. With the UCS AT-AT, UCS speederbike and / or Landspeeder on many AFOLs' lists, there's enough left to develop (from that perspective the choice for a SSD was a rather curious one, I think).

Just my 0,02$

[jamie75]

Solscud007, on 03 October 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

But we still dont have a UCS AT-AT.

My UCS AT-AT

There is an UCS AT-AT already?! But, I don't think Lego with go with a version as big as mine. I had alot of problems with the legs and hips. Making them strong enough to carry the weight of the body. The neck was another problem.

I don't see them releasing a set like this. I hope I'm wrong, I would love to see their solution to the problems I came across, but, don't see it happening.

And to expand on my original post, I forgot about the ACR-170. Out of the 3, AT-TE, RGS, and ACR-170. I think the ARC is most likely since it would probably be the "smallest" of the 3 sets. Lowest piece count. It would also be the easiest build of the 3. The AT-TE would be the hardest, IMO!

Jamie

[cavegod]

it was explained in detail at GWLS why the 10221 had an interior, it was not legos choice it was ordered from George Lucas, Lego was just going to have the minifigs stud next to the sticker.

[Aanchir]

I don't think we will see a huge influx of prequel-inspired UCS sets anytime soon, for several reasons. Some are reasons people have already stated: the fact that die-hard prequel trilogy fans tend to overlap into original trilogy fans but not vice-versa, and the fact that the prequel trilogy was somewhat derivative just by virtue of coming after the original trilogy and thus having to be "reverse-engineered" to fit the universe of the first three films. While I don't like the implication that the prequels are weaker than the original trilogy because of this, I have to admit that many of their ships don't hold as special a place in my heart as the OT ships like the landspeeder or X-Wing.

If you were to go back in time a couple decades, I'm sure you'd encounter people who felt the same way about Episode 5 and 6 ships compared to those in Episode 4. Heck, I'm an early 90s child and I hardly recognized the B-Wing when it first appeared as a set, simply because most of my memories of the original trilogy ships came from Star Wars: Rogue Squadron on the N64 (most of the missions in that game took place before Episode 6, with a few significant outliers).

Now, I think if you were to give the prequel trilogy a couple more decades to "ferment", so to speak, there would be fewer people who remembered it all that differently from the original trilogy, just as today there are a lot fewer people who impose a strict partition between Episode 4 and its sequels than there were in the 80s. It will take more than kids who grew up on the prequels reaching adulthood for that feeling of "new and different" to go away.

Now, this doesn't mean I don't think there's a market for UCS ships from the prequels. But it might be years before there's as strong a market for them as there is for ships from the original trilogy.

[Brickdoctor]

cavegod, on 04 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

it was explained in detail at GWLS why the 10221 had an interior, it was not legos choice it was ordered from George Lucas, Lego was just going to have the minifigs stud next to the sticker.

The set just made a lot more sense in my eyes.

"The fans are gonna love it!"  

Aanchir, on 04 October 2011 - 04:27 PM, said:

the fact that die-hard prequel trilogy fans tend to overlap into original trilogy fans but not vice-versa,

There's also the fact that none of the PT vehicles enjoy the iconic status of some OT vehicles. When you release a well-known vehicle from the OT, there's the chance that even those who are neither PT nor OT nor CW fans, but aren't Star Wars fans at all, will buy the set. They'll buy a T-65. Chances are, they won't have a clue what an ARC-170 is.

[lowlead]

Great thread, everyone.

Having grown up in the 80s, it certainly makes me cheer whenever a new OT 'UCS' set is announced, but at the same time I really enjoyed building 10195 - and 10215 for that matter.  Any well-designed 10xxx set will get a thumbs up from me, no matter which film it appeared in.

As for the recent trend regarding the blurry UCS classification:  TLG can load the thing up with minifigs, add a supremely off-scale interior, I don't care...as long as the vehicle itself is worthy of display alongside the earlier heavy-hitters like 10030 and the big Falcon.  The new SSD is a case in point: huge, great looking set, fun build, impressive on display despite the quirky interior - doesn't bother me one bit.  I would rather have 10221 come with minifigs and an interior than not have the set released at all.  I would even go as far as saying the minifigs in 10221 add a certain coolness factor even though I'm not a fig collector.  An enhanced experience for me, and quite possibly an attribute that could push the indecisive buyer over the edge to make a purchase instead of passing over a big grey ship.  Something for everyone, perhaps

.02

[johnnyvgoode]

cavegod, on 04 October 2011 - 04:21 PM, said:

it was explained in detail at GWLS why the 10221 had an interior, it was not legos choice it was ordered from George Lucas, Lego was just going to have the minifigs stud next to the sticker.

Funny how it got an out of scale interior, whereas the Millenium Falcon got none... Oh well, it would've been too expensive.

[Anio]

johnnyvgoode, on 04 October 2011 - 07:02 PM, said:

Funny how it got an out of scale interior, whereas the Millenium Falcon got none... Oh well, it would've been too expensive.

No.

An interior in 10179 would compromise the strength of the build.

On the contrary, an interior in 10221 does compromise the spirit of the UCS line.

Edited by Anio, 29 January 2012 - 10:46 AM.