kamigawa Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 Maybe they read about the biggest complaints and thought it deserved a minor overhaul...? From the pics that appeared every time the page was reuploaded to shop.lego there didn't seem to be any changes, apart from some bugged stats (price not showing, available to "(Null)", etc). Quote
Larrynautik Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 Maybe they read about the biggest complaints and thought it deserved a minor overhaul...? From the pics that appeared every time the page was reuploaded to shop.lego there didn't seem to be any changes, apart from some bugged stats (price not showing, available to "(Null)", etc). I really hope they would rework it. Such a set must be legendary and perfect. Star Wars fans like me are waiting a good job about this massive ship. It's the Super Star Destroyer guys ! Not a basic Star Wars ship. Quote
Fallenangel Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 I really hope they would rework it. Such a set must be legendary and perfect. Star Wars fans like me are waiting a good job about this massive ship. It's the Super Star Destroyer guys ! Not a basic Star Wars ship. I doubt that a few AFOL nitpicks would lead The LEGO Group to rework this craft... especially if the flaws we pointed out require major design overhauls. The thing with UCS sets is that official LEGO renditions are almost always far from AFOL standards, for reasons mentioned earlier in this thread. As far as The LEGO Group is concerned, this IS a good job. Quote
Anio Posted July 29, 2011 Posted July 29, 2011 (edited) The thing with UCS sets is that official LEGO renditions are almost always far from AFOL standards, for reasons mentioned earlier in this thread. Wrong. TLG did some great ships/starfighters. And for some models, AFOLs never succeeded to make MOCs which are significantly better and not inspired from the official models : 7181, 7191, 10134, 10026, 10174, 10175, 10179, 10030, 10019. As far as The LEGO Group is concerned, this IS a good job. Arghhhhh... I'm so impatient to get this 10221. Not to get the model himself, cause I won't keep it built for a long time. But to make a comprehensive review and logically prove all his flaws. It will be so easy... Edited July 29, 2011 by Anio Quote
Goengar Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 This thing will be worth a fortune when it's retired. Quote
Aeroeza Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Arghhhhh... I'm so impatient to get this 10221. Not to get the model himself, cause I won't keep it built for a long time. But to make a comprehensive review and logically prove all his flaws. It will be so easy... From a certain point of view! ... please keep in mind that we designers have to build by a certain system because there´s a big difference between FAN-build and LEGO-build. We have much more rules to follow then you guys and sometimes that´s forgotten. On top of this, we also have an age-mark what means that not all solutions are possible. ...it´s sometimes forgotten that we - the LEGO designers - work every day hard to get the best possible solution within the LEGO rules. If you would know how many models are sometimes made for 1 set you all would be quite amazed...and of course also the ones that don´t make it into a set. With the following I absolutely don't want to offend anyone, because we and LEGO are blessed that you AFOL´s are out there - Respect with a big R, but we read sometimes comments that we think "has that person still all of his screws on a row"... ...Once again I don´t want to offend anyone but please think for a minute. There goes your full-time position with Lego Anio! Quote
22kane Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I'm very surprised by the amount of negativity on this set. It's a beautiful design and maybe it's not perfect but at least it's being offered. I remember back many many years ago when Lego didn't offer anything close to this. It's ok not to like a set and offer critique but to insult the designer seems a bit childish. I look at the SW sets as Lego's "arty" designs because they are truly beautiful in many ways. This is certainly one of them. Quote
The_Chosen_1 Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Well said, 22kane. I was (and still am) floored by images of this amazing set. The skill that went into designing such a monster of a set far surpasses my own, and I daresay, many of the building abilities in these forums. The flat bottom doesn't bother me- I'm just glad we're getting the Executor at all, and that they made the extra effort to make it minifig-compatible. Quote
Diamondback Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I tell you what, if some whinging nitpicker about one or two trivial things costs me the chance at my LEGO SSD, I'm gonna give a postdoctorate-level course on the meaning of "Go Postal". Personally, I think it could work just fine with the flat-ish bottom if LEGO also offered a "made to order" add-on belly kit through LDD. Quote
hockeyboy89 Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Well said, 22kane. I was (and still am) floored by images of this amazing set. The skill that went into designing such a monster of a set far surpasses my own, and I daresay, many of the building abilities in these forums. The flat bottom doesn't bother me- I'm just glad we're getting the Executor at all, and that they made the extra effort to make it minifig-compatible. A-men brother! Quote
Aeroeza Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I tell you what, if some whinging nitpicker about one or two trivial things costs me the chance at my LEGO SSD, I'm gonna give a postdoctorate-level course on the meaning of "Go Postal". Holy shit that's funny! Quote
AndyC Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 Personally, I think it could work just fine with the flat-ish bottom if LEGO also offered a "made to order" add-on belly kit through LDD. LEGO don't need to offer it, if someone builds one and shares the LXF file you could just buy one. Quote
Larrynautik Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 I doubt that a few AFOL nitpicks would lead The LEGO Group to rework this craft... especially if the flaws we pointed out require major design overhauls. The thing with UCS sets is that official LEGO renditions are almost always far from AFOL standards, for reasons mentioned earlier in this thread. As far as The LEGO Group is concerned, this IS a good job. This set is designed for AFOLs, so if it doesn't pleases to AFOLs, there will be a problem somewhere. As Anio said, Lego is quite often doing great job on their set design. But here it is not the case as a notable number of possible buyers are sceptic about this Super Star Destroyer. The Lego group knows that the SSD is a set everyone wants to be created. The question is not "Will they cancel the SSD or not ?", because it would be completely stupid and will never happen. The only question is "Will the Lego Group rework this set or not ?". I hope they would, but we don't know if this advice will be listened. About the Lego Group always doing good job because it IS the Lego Group, I hope you realize the curious thing you say. The Lego Group is doing good things, and more questionable ones too, such like this : To meditate... Quote
drdavewatford Posted July 30, 2011 Posted July 30, 2011 (edited) The Super Star Destroyer effectively disappeared from the Shop at Home. I remember it was there last month. I Lego rework this set ? Ha ha ha - you are joking, right ?! Of course LEGO will not rework this set just because a couple of Star Wars obsessives moan about aspects of the design. If you think it's OK but not perfect then buy it and mod it. And if you think it's terrible then MOC your own. D. Edited July 30, 2011 by drdavewatford Quote
Brickdoctor Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Well said, 22kane. I was (and still am) floored by images of this amazing set. The skill that went into designing such a monster of a set far surpasses my own, and I daresay, many of the building abilities in these forums. The flat bottom doesn't bother me- I'm just glad we're getting the Executor at all, and that they made the extra effort to make it minifig-compatible. I think that's the key statement there. I myself though the official sets were awesome back when I didn't do MOCs. Once you get good at MOCs to the point that you can build something better than the sets (in your point of view), your view of the sets will change. If you ever build an MOC with focus on accuracy designed from the beginning with images of studio models as reference, you'll start noticing the flaws in the sets that you previously didn't care about. After all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Quote
Larrynautik Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Ha ha ha - you are joking, right ?! Of course LEGO will not rework this set just because a couple of Star Wars obsessives moan about aspects of the design. If you think it's OK but not perfect then buy it and mod it. And if you think it's terrible then MOC your own. D. I'll wait for the complete reviews before deciding what to do. But I never MOC, so, not sure it could be a solution for me. Quote
Ceroknight Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I'll wait for the complete reviews before deciding what to do. But I never MOC, so, not sure it could be a solution for me. The one that you just replied to has a full review Quote
Riemen Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) Wrong. TLG did some great ships/starfighters. And for some models, AFOLs never succeeded to make MOCs which are significantly better and not inspired from the official models : 7181, 7191, 10134, 10026, 10174, 10175, 10179, 10030, 10019. Arghhhhh... I'm so impatient to get this 10221. Not to get the model himself, cause I won't keep it built for a long time. But to make a comprehensive review and logically prove all his flaws. It will be so easy... I don't know what's so wrong with this set. If you look at the pics of the studio model http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=1781, you can see that the bottom side is nearly flat. maybe in a small angle, but by far not as pointed as your moc. For example compare http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c1jTRJN3fsA/TfvPnjyEIGI/AAAAAAAABoQ/IX__NkiUSIY/s1600/10221_1.jpg and http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/kg-ssd-executor-reference-036.jpg with http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Anio/SeTechnic/Executor-UCS-ST05/a08.jpg. I would even say that the official model's bottom is more accurate than your's. Edited July 31, 2011 by Riemen Quote
Anio Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I would even say that the official model's bottom is more accurate than your's. Yes, your are right. No doubt about that. The 10221 is better than my Executor regarding a profil view. I'm aware of that. But if you look at 10221 with any other angle (the front, the back, the bottom, and the top) it is just a nightmare. Quote
Brickdoctor Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 I don't know what's so wrong with this set. If you look at the pics of the studio model http://www.modelermagic.com/?p=1781, you can see that the bottom side is nearly flat. maybe in a small angle, but by far not as pointed as your moc. For example compare http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-c1jTRJN3fsA/TfvPnjyEIGI/AAAAAAAABoQ/IX__NkiUSIY/s1600/10221_1.jpg and http://www.modelermagic.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/kg-ssd-executor-reference-036.jpg with http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Anio/SeTechnic/Executor-UCS-ST05/a08.jpg. I would even say that the official model's bottom is more accurate than your's. Yay, another member who appreciates studio models! I agree with you, but when working with a medium such as LEGO that has much less freedom than, say, custom model kits, sometimes compromises are necessary to make the model look good. For example, on my AT-ST, the angle of the side plating on the 'head' is slightly off, but it was necessary for the model to look good using LEGO angles. The official set may be closer to the accurate angle, but it's plain ugly. Quote
Larrynautik Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 (edited) The one that you just replied to has a full review In fact, I noticed this today and read his interesting review. I also spent some hours reading a lot on this website. The interesting part is the construction techniques of this Executor that we can see. But photos do not show some angles of view that are important, unfortunately. Edited July 31, 2011 by Larrynautik Quote
kamigawa Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Does anyone know the box's dimensions? The question may sound absurd, but the fact is I've had the boxes of my other UCSs around the place for a long time, and I'm wondering if they would fit in 10221's one. Quote
Fallenangel Posted July 31, 2011 Posted July 31, 2011 Yay, another member who appreciates studio models! Added to my friends list. The thing is, we already had this discussion. Brickdoctor is still right, though. Quote
P4trickvH Posted August 10, 2011 Posted August 10, 2011 (edited) It's back at S@H and now listed as available soon ! It's also in the september store calender, see the source for the store calender. Edited August 10, 2011 by P4trickvH Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.