LEGO Star Wars 2016 Pictures and Rumors

[nikhkin]

Like any parent is going to spend 500 bucks on a Lego set. They are just gonna buy them a smartphone or something.

Parents will buy their kids trainers that cost hundreds, when they are no better than ones that cost £30. Why wouldn't they do the same for a collectable Lego set. It's not going to be a regular thing, but there are some who would.

[joeyl19]

Guess you didn't look hard enough.

Aha, looked a little and found it. Thanks for that one. The minifigs look great! Glad they're using the new style capes.

Edited August 20, 2016 by joeyl19

[LegoFjotten]

I'm pretty sure LEGO had a look at the 10188 sales numbers before they decided to refresh it instead of retiring it. They know what kind of sales numbers to expect.

Sure, some parents/kids/afols will find this too expensive, just as sure as some parents/kids/afols will buy it for themselves or their kids.

[Justlooking]

I bought the 10188 Death Star to a 10 year old kid. I was thinking that LEGO are ment for kids, and since I knew no one else would buy it to him, I did. I'm not rich, but I think my priorities are good. When LEGO is too expensive for kids, some grown ups should buy it to them (instead of buying it to them selves). So some adults do actually buy $500 sets to 10-12 year old kids. :)

[x105Black]

I bought the 10188 Death Star to a 10 year old kid. I was thinking that LEGO are ment for kids, and since I knew no one else would buy it to him, I did. I'm not rich, but I think my priorities are good. When LEGO is too expensive for kids, some grown ups should buy it to them (instead of buying it to them selves). So some adults do actually buy $500 sets to 10-12 year old kids. :)

That's really nice of you! Some surely do, if they are as kind and selfless as you.

[Darth Malgus]

Parents will buy their kids trainers that cost hundreds, when they are no better than ones that cost £30. Why wouldn't they do the same for a collectable Lego set. It's not going to be a regular thing, but there are some who would.

Do you have kid? I have an 8 and a 10 year old and there is no way I would spend $500 (set will most likely be $700Aud at least here on lego) for that money I could pay for their whole year in music lessons, or ice hockey classes going to the movies amongst other things...

Not many parents buy a set that expensive for kids.

[Lunchietey]

All depends on your income and the occasion and also on the child. Many parents are NOT buying expensive smart phones for pre teens to avoid issues with what smart phones can do (internet, cameras and social media etc)

I don't see $500 as being a lot of money and I also wouldn't want a young child being in posession of an upmarket smart phone. I would easily buy a top end lego set for a 10-12 year old.

I mean the box does have 12+ on it...

Edited August 20, 2016 by Lunchietey

[nikhkin]

Do you have kid? I have an 8 and a 10 year old and there is no way I would spend $500 (set will most likely be $700Aud at least here on lego) for that money I could pay for their whole year in music lessons, or ice hockey classes going to the movies amongst other things...

Not many parents buy a set that expensive for kids.

I'm not saying everyone does, and I'm not saying they should do so over something educational. Just that it does happen.

Some people can afford to let their kids go out and spend a few hundred pounds on something.

[DEAD1974]

I am not sure but the parents / kids debate is a bit off topic... but maybe I am wrong

[Burning]

Has anyone else noticed the silhouetted falcon on the box art, which is very similar in style to the silhouetted B-Wing they put in the background of the Super Star Destroyer in catalogues when the SSD first released and before the UCS B-wing was released or even unveiled. Could Lego be hinting at a 2017 re-release of the UCS Falcon? Since it is Star Wars' 40th anniversary.

[legobagel]

When I was a kid, all I got was LEGO, and I didn't even get $500 worth of gifts for my birthday or Christmas. Maybe $400. Although, I have 2 sisters. Still, I don't see why LEGO thinks many people will be buying a $500 set. $400 was pushing it.

[Robianco]

Did the SSD have other vehicles on the box too? Just that on the DS there's also Y, B and X Wings as well as Tie Fighters silhouetted.

When I was a kid, all I got was LEGO, and I didn't even get $500 worth of gifts for my birthday or Christmas. Maybe $400. Although, I have 2 sisters. Still, I don't see why LEGO thinks many people will be buying a $500 set. $400 was pushing it.

They obviously have research that tells them it'll sell... And I'm sure it will. I'm sure in the next couple of years we'll have a £500+ model. That's why they have waves with sets from £8 upwards... There will always be people that can afford swts whatever the cost.

[ltzik]

Has anyone else noticed the silhouetted falcon on the box art, which is very similar in style to the silhouetted B-Wing they put in the background of the Super Star Destroyer in catalogues when the SSD first released and before the UCS B-wing was released or even unveiled. Could Lego be hinting at a 2017 re-release of the UCS Falcon? Since it is Star Wars' 40th anniversary.

I hope it's true. And I hope no one will complain about 600 bucks price tag, 700 is fine with me too =]

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

I don't see why LEGO thinks many people will be buying a $500 set. $400 was pushing it.

A very familiar and valid statement comes to mind…

If they can shell a measly $400 on piles of plastic bricks, yet an extra $100 is an automatic deal breaker, they should reevaluate dropping $400 on LEGO (paraphrased).

[nikhkin]

Has anyone else noticed the silhouetted falcon on the box art, which is very similar in style to the silhouetted B-Wing they put in the background of the Super Star Destroyer in catalogues when the SSD first released and before the UCS B-wing was released or even unveiled. Could Lego be hinting at a 2017 re-release of the UCS Falcon? Since it is Star Wars' 40th anniversary.

A lot of people have thought this, but I really don't think it's likely. The original didn't sell well, and whole some people pay a fortune for it second hand, I don't think it's as popular as people think. It's always for sale for a high price, but how many times has it actually sold for those prices?

Plus, there are loads of ships on the box, not just the Falcon.

A very familiar and valid statement comes to mind…

If they can shell a measly $400 on piles of plastic bricks, yet an extra $100 is an automatic deal breaker, they should reevaluate dropping $400 on LEGO (paraphrased).

This is exactly right. When I got back into Lego I thought anything more than £50 was a lot, but then I saw the modulars. I thought £120 wasn't too bad for an occasional purchase. Modulars then became a regular purchase (I picked up every one what was available). I didn't think I'd spend more than that, but then I saw the Simpson's House. It wasn't much more so I got it - only another £40 or so. I never thought I would spend nearly £300 on a single set, but I have a Helicarrier on my shelf. If it seems worth the money, I'll get it.

For example, I really like Lego space shuttles, but never got the Spaceport because, despite liking the set, it didn't seem like good value to me. There didn't appear to be a large amount of building due to the large cockpit piece.

If people are willing to buy a Death Star for $400, then buying another set for $500 is not far off.

Edited August 20, 2016 by nikhkin

[Ringsvulsion]

Yes, many 12 years olds will be standing in line at the LEGO store to eagerly spend the small amount of $500.

$500 now isn't $500 when I was 12. I'll be buying this set for my four year old as soon as there's a decent promo to go with it. And he'll use it as a play set, causing weekly rebuilds, but that's the fun.

Sure it looks the same, but I don't care, I much rather pay Lego $550 (tax) and get a fresh box, consumer protections, free minibuild, and 5% back, than pay some flipper $550 on eBay.

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

I hope it's true. And I hope no one will complain about 600 bucks price tag, 700 is fine with me too =]

[RetroInferno]

Took a closer look at the back of the box, really sucks Motti and Tagge are not present in this set.

Instead we have a stormtrooper officer ( all black uniform ) and a 2 second extra character passing in front of the elevator ( light grey uniform with black cap, with the exact same face as the 2014 star destroyer officer's face ).

[BucketWheelExcavator]

I hope they would make it very similar to the original UCS MF, how badly I want one.

Edited August 20, 2016 by BucketWheelExcavator

[Ringsvulsion]

Like any parent is going to spend 500 bucks on a Lego set. They are just gonna buy them a smartphone or something.

I guess I should have read the whole thread before posting.

I'm a parent, and although I like Legos a bit, my son really likes them and I buy him sets to hear him giggle and see the amazement in his face.

I'm not rich, solidly middle class, but not rich. But $550 for a toy he can play with for a decade is a not a bad expenditure.

We hit up the Lego store often (that is how I learned of this set, and this site) to build and browse, and it's full of parents buying their kids toys that cost more than my first car so I know I'm not alone in buying my kids such toys.

[Forresto]

A very familiar and valid statement comes to mind…

If they can shell a measly $400 on piles of plastic bricks, yet an extra $100 is an automatic deal breaker, they should reevaluate dropping $400 on LEGO (paraphrased).

And if ones willing to pay $500 why not pay $600 for it? See how open ended that arguement is?

Its not about the actual money but reather the value for the money. Where did that additional $100 go to improve the set?

Most of us can only see minimum changes. None of the figures have new molds or even dual molding and the only new thing for the figures is some new prints, and yet most of them dont even have leg printing.

For $500 why doesnt every figure have leg printing or arm printing or dual molding? This would have been the set to have a classic han solo figure with side of the leg printing as well as dual molded legs for boots.

[shaggysanchez]

Like any parent is going to spend 500 bucks on a Lego set. They are just gonna buy them a smartphone or something.

You should really just go hang out in a Lego store for a few hours and I think you would be surprised. At least at my local store I have seen many parents buy the old DS for their kids that ranged age 8-15. There is a reason a $400 set was on shelves for 8 years and it's not because of just afols buying it.

I bought the sandcrawler and the hellicarrier for my 6 and 9 year olds last year for Christmas. It does happen.

Edited August 20, 2016 by shaggysanchez

[LiLmeFromDaFuture]

And if ones willing to pay $500 why not pay $600 for it? See how open ended that arguement is?

Yes, and that is when it becomes unrealistic; didn't you see my comment before this?

[Juke]

Yes, many 12 years olds will be standing in line at the LEGO store to eagerly spend the small amount of $500.

Children now a days get iPads. Is it so far fetched to think that they will get a $500 dollar Lego set as well?

[CedBricks]

I agree with the ones saying that it looks a little bit high with the announced price, but let's see, there might be good reasons for that, better wait for the set to be released or even better reviewed, before arguing about its price etc.

What I'm particularly happy about is the minifigs lineup, which sounds promising.