LEGO Star Wars 2016 Pictures and Rumors

[PicnicBasketSam]

I played with the AT-ST from the Battle of Endor set at a friend's house today... it does make me want the new one even more, and although that walking function is really neat, it's not all that useful... I am now willing to except limited leg motion for the new version, I personally don't think it's all that important. I'd much rather have a sturdy physics-defying walker than a realistic one that falls over all the time.

[The_Chosen_1]

Are there any shots out there of Jyn Erso without the cloak piece on?

It's not the physical minifigure, but there is this: https://www.facebook.com/LEGO/photos/a.10150175674793403.303596.6665038402/10153631839193403/?type=3&theater

[ToaDraco]

I played with the AT-ST from the Battle of Endor set at a friend's house today... it does make me want the new one even more, and although that walking function is really neat, it's not all that useful... I am now willing to except limited leg motion for the new version, I personally don't think it's all that important. I'd much rather have a sturdy physics-defying walker than a realistic one that falls over all the time.

The thing is, There are pieces like the ratcheted joint being used in this new version that provide more than enough sturdiness without limiting poseabillity. The problem is that TLG doesn't seem to think it's a priority in walkers. There are also ball joints and friction extenders and pistons that are also options for stability. That said, at least it's very accurate and easily the best version yet, save the UCS one we got several years ago.

[nikhkin]

It's not the physical minifigure, but there is this: https://www.facebook...?type=3

Unfortunately that might be totally unrelated to the figure's actual printing. This version has leg printing whereas the one in the U-Wing set does not have any, so the torso could also be different.

[anothergol]

The thing is, There are pieces like the ratcheted joint being used in this new version that provide more than enough sturdiness without limiting poseabillity. The problem is that TLG doesn't seem to think it's a priority in walkers. There are also ball joints and friction extenders and pistons that are also options for stability. That said, at least it's very accurate and easily the best version yet, save the UCS one we got several years ago.

Having made an AT-ST myself, I can tell you that ball-joints, even with extenders, have to be excluded for kidproof stuff. Ok for an UCS, but here Lego doesn't have much choice. The ratchet joint is good, but can't be used for every joint. And even as strong as it is, Lego still feels the need to stack 2 of them, so it really has to be kidproof, to them.

That's what I keep telling to those nagging about SW stuff in Lego Ideas. "Lego has already made one". Sure, but Lego makes most of its sets for kids, the price to pay is always the look, there's always interest for better looking and more fragile versions.

Where you can blame Lego is the head, it could really have been made much better and still kidproof. The lack of room for 2 seats however, that's doable but rather hard for something that has to be very solid. It would be possible to make a strong one without all this bulk inside, though.

So this AT-ST isn't that bad, especially considering how bad the previous ones were. But it's not amazing either. Only reason I'm gonna buy it is that I need the pilot's printed helmet.

Funny that each AT-ST has to have that pseudo-walking-legs thingy, while the AT-DP didn't have it. Faking walking like this, especially now that kids have walking intelligent robots, isn't that for low ages?

Edited September 4, 2016 by anothergol

[Mymaker123]

I'm assuming that most here have seen Just2Good's new video on his thoughts of the set. I noticed that quite a lot of new images, both brand new and higher res versions of older ones, were used in the video. Anyone got any idea where he got them from? Any imgur albums out there or somethin?

[JekPorkchops]

I'm assuming that most here have seen Just2Good's new video on his thoughts of the set. I noticed that quite a lot of new images, both brand new and higher res versions of older ones, were used in the video. Anyone got any idea where he got them from? Any imgur albums out there or somethin?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/hothbricks/with/29322657101/ Well there is this…

[RetroInferno]

I'm analyzing what is a print or a sicker on those sets and I think I've pinned everything down except for Krennic's canopy piece.

Anyone knows if it's a sticker or a print?

[Forresto]

The exposed technic pieces on the back of the AT-ST are ugly but seem like they might be there for head stability and integrity.

Structural integrity is really all I want from this new walker. The head of the battle of endor variant is too flimsy relying on small hinges.

[BrickBob Studpants]

I'm analyzing what is a print or a sicker on those sets and I think I've pinned everything down except for Krennic's canopy piece.

Anyone knows if it's a sticker or a print?

I'd say it's a print It's the same mould as the canopy they've used for 8095 General Grievous' Starfighter and that was printed, so I'm 99.9% sure this one is printed as well

Edit: Now I'm 100% certain: if the canopy was stickered, you'd see the underside of the stickers through the transparent piece, which would be white. Since those areas are black instead, it's quite clearly a print

Edited September 4, 2016 by Lego-Freak

[anothergol]

Edit: Now I'm 100% certain: if the canopy was stickered, you'd see the underside of the stickers through the transparent piece, which would be white. Since those areas are black instead, it's quite clearly a print

I think all of these pics are 3D. Possibly heavily post-processed pictures, I don't know. Lots of hints that it's 3D and a few hints that it's not. But why would Lego post-process all the studs for them to look so fake?

[RetroInferno]

I hope you are right! I never want to see a sticker canpy since the resistance troop transporter one...

[JekPorkchops]

The new images are definitely not CG, they're nice actual pictures (which SW uses a lot, luckily).

[Brickdoctor]

At least in SW, I think they're just heavily processed real pictures. There have been product photos in the past that have minor imperfections, such as bricks that aren't quite completely pushed down, that TLG would have no reason to add to renders. I wouldn't be surprised if things like stickers are composited in later, since they're hard to apply precisely and cleanly, nor would I be surprised if a large amount of post processing went into cleaning up fingerprints and reflections and enhancing that pristine, new LEGO look, but I'm pretty sure it's all based on an actual photo.

[anothergol]

But why would Lego make every stud look so 3D-rendered?

I really can't tell, I can see as many clues that it's real (like, the cloth on minifigs, molding defects) as clues that it's rendered (that weird 3D feel, dirt specles that look fake).

Many have worked hard on making 3D renders look real, maybe Lego went ahead.

This one especially looks SO digital

But that texture on the side dish may also have been completely redone due to the reflections of the camera, proving that it's a picture.

Also this one, the texture on the horns is totally fake. Sure, the cloth looks real, but it's not like it's still an achievement to make cloth look real in 3D.

Also, on a real minifig you'd pinch the body better and there wouldn't be such a gap. To me it's 3D with more attention to details (that they usually do for some boxes)

[Brickdoctor]

But why would Lego make every stud look so 3D-rendered?

I really can't tell, I can see as many clues that it's real (like, the cloth on minifigs, molding defects) as clues that it's rendered (that weird 3D feel, dirt specles that look fake).

Many have worked hard on making 3D renders look real, maybe Lego went ahead.

This one especially looks SO digital

[snip]

But that texture on the side dish may also have been completely redone due to the reflections of the camera, proving that it's a picture.

Maybe I just don't know what to look for; that picture doesn't look overtly fake to me. I have no insider knowledge or anything to back this up, but it just looks like an extremely well lit photo that's been heavily retouched in certain places, such as the reflection on the Scala dish, as you said. Regarding the studs, they stand out more than I'd expect, now that you mention it. Maybe, since they're such a big part of TLG's branding, they were more heavily edited or replaced so that the logos would stand out more and they'd have more uniform shadows. Again, I wouldn't be surprised if some elements are rendered.

[nikhkin]

I think it's just that it is lit so brightly for the photos that it loses the realistic shadows we are used to seeing. It looks odd but your brain can't quite work out why so you assume it's just a rendered image.

[Gubi0222]

But why would Lego make every stud look so 3D-rendered?

I really can't tell, I can see as many clues that it's real (like, the cloth on minifigs, molding defects) as clues that it's rendered (that weird 3D feel, dirt specles that look fake).

Many have worked hard on making 3D renders look real, maybe Lego went ahead.

This one especially looks SO digital [snip]

But that texture on the side dish may also have been completely redone due to the reflections of the camera, proving that it's a picture.

Also this one, the texture on the horns is totally fake. Sure, the cloth looks real, but it's not like it's still an achievement to make cloth look real in 3D.

Also, on a real minifig you'd pinch the body better and there wouldn't be such a gap. To me it's 3D with more attention to details (that they usually do for some boxes)

[snip]

They use a lot of lights (as you can see), so i think it could make such unrealistic shadows

Edited September 4, 2016 by Brickdoctor
Please don't quote images.

[Mymaker123]

This isn't strictly relevant so apologies for that, but I find it a little bit spooky that a year ago today, the first wave of TFA sets came out...

My God this year has gone quickly. It's been a pretty good year both LEGO and otherwise (I joined Eurobricks around this time last year), but still....

Guess time flies when you're having fun

[ChiefPie]

I almost want to get two of those AT-ST's.

[RetroInferno]

Me too, but I'll start by getting one of each and see how that goes next.

I may try my hands at reviewing them too, if time allows :)

[ArrowBricks]

I'm just relieved Lego has produced a good wave. I was beginning to think we wouldn't be seeing one again after the year they've had...

[fire117]

The Rogue One sets are showing up on the Smyths website and are high priced.

75152 - Hovertank - 45 Euro

75153 - AT-ST - 55 Euro

75154 - TIE - 75 Euro

75155 - U-Wing - 85 Euro

75156 - Krennic's Shuttle - 95 Euro

The buildable figures are 25 Euro

Edited September 4, 2016 by fire117

[Tom Jurassic]

UK Prices

75152 - Hovertank - £29.99

75153 - AT-ST - £39.99

75154 - TIE -£59.99

75155 - U Wing - £69.99

75156 - Krennic's Shuttle - £79.99

With buildable figures at £19.99

Krennic's Shuttle for £79.99? What a steal!!!!

Thanks to Fire117 for letting us know Smyths Ireland had the pricing - that let me find the products on Smyths UK. :)

[fire117]

UK Prices

75152 - Hovertank - £29.99

75153 - AT-ST - £39.99

75154 - TIE -£59.99

75155 - U Wing - £69.99

75156 - Krennic's Shuttle - £79.99

With buildable figures at £19.99

Krennic's Shuttle for £79.99? What a steal!!!!

Thanks to Fire117 for letting us know Smyths Ireland had the pricing - that let me find the products on Smyths UK. :)

Your very welcome.