LEGO Star Wars 2021 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[Balrogofmorgoth]

1 minute ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Nope, but it baffles me every time 

@everyone who didn't jump (gun)ship: Where/how will you display yours? Since the usual approach won't cut it, I'll put mine on a Detolf shelf in the middle of the room  The wingspan is a big larger than expected, so I hope it'll still work out 

 

Haven’t figured that out yet, but I’d better figure it soon because it’s definitely a day one purchase for me

[TeddytheSpoon]

1 minute ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Nope, but it baffles me every time 

@everyone who didn't jump (gun)ship: Where/how will you display yours? Since the usual approach won't cut it, I'll put mine on a Detolf shelf in the middle of the room  The wingspan is a big larger than expected, so I hope it'll still work out 

Probably on a coffee table (which also needs to be bought at some point...). I've seen people display UCS Falcons in custom display-cases-cum-coffee-tables, and I'm wondering if it's feasible to do the same with this behemoth.

[Brikkyy13]

1 hour ago, PreVizsla said:

1....
12. Sprinkle in some packaging errors. 

I’m sorry, I tried. I really did. But I couldn’t leave well enough alone.

1. That set isn’t terrible in the slightest, in fact I’d say it’s one of the better UCS sets because it’s pricepoint was lower than the others. Also minifigures in UCS sets didn’t become the norm until after this set. 

2. Not only do you not have the sales data to back up this point, looking at brickset will tell you that this set had an availability window that was larger than a few other UCS sets... most notably the B-Wing which is notorious for having been a poor seller.

3. Unfortunately there is nothing in this point for me to argue against.

4. They didn’t ignore the fan votes, they made the set didn’t they? They were never going to make everyone who voted happy so they most likely picked the safe options. We have no way of knowing what was actually written in those forms, but I’m willing to bet it all boiled down to some combination of the words “Jedi” and “clone” so it’s not off the mark.

5. Technically correct but still oh so very wrong. For starters those sets aren’t $200 everywhere... then of course there’s 75059, 75098, the death stars, the sculptures, the super star destroyer...

6. The ship is too big for a pilot so nothing is necessary (though I do agree that not putting a new pilot in the set is a massive missed opportunity).

7. From what I gather it was a generalisation about people who aren’t die hard lunatic fanatics about the movies. The idea that I could get two similar looking characters mixed up isn’t insulting in the least. 

8. LEGO never threatened anybody. If Hans Schlomer sent me a private message saying I needed to buy his gunship or otherwise he’d have the city designers use my likeness for a criminal minifigure that would be a threat.

Hans, if you’re reading this, I can provide my headshots for the city designers. All you need to do is ask.

9. Not exactly a virtue signal when the company has made their position on that matter very clear in the past. Also the cantina is $50 cheaper than the gunship. 

10. See my previous post. But while I’m on this point I really wanna know if this is MandR’s alt account because of how often you defend him on here (but then again I’m always on the other side of that fence and that doesn’t make me Jangbricks).

11. LEGOCon wasn’t the con everybody wanted. Get over it. But if it’s true that LAN members have had the set for 2 months then I really gotta get back into it.

12. This one I’m annoyed at too, because now I want both boxes and I know I can’t afford it. 

[ToaDraco]

23 minutes ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I’m sorry (not really) but anyone calling for the designer to be fired over not including the figures they want is an idiot.

Haha don't be, it's an incredibly extreme take to call for people to be fired over this. People may disagree about figure inclusions and design choices but I think most of us can agree that the SW sets themselves are usually stellar and pretty accurate, especially compared to other licensed themes. I can give the issues with the Gunship a pass because of how incredible the rest of the sets and figures are this year. I feel like people have already forgotten and those sets aren't even out yet.

[Brikkyy13]

8 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Nope, but it baffles me every time 

@everyone who didn't jump (gun)ship: Where/how will you display yours? Since the usual approach won't cut it, I'll put mine on a Detolf shelf in the middle of the room  The wingspan is a big larger than expected, so I hope it'll still work out 

 

My LEGO shelves are pretty deep so provided it doesn’t overhang too much it’ll go up there with the rest of my UCS sets. I’ll have to rethink my display a little though, right now I have it separated with rebel ships on one side and imperial ships on the other. 

[BrickBob Studpants]

8 minutes ago, TeddytheSpoon said:

I'm wondering if it's feasible to do the same with this behemoth.

Good question. The Falcon is pretty flat, so that one's a lot easier to handle in that regard 

6 minutes ago, Brikkyy13 said:

(but then again I’m always on the other side of that fence and that doesn’t make me Jangbricks).

That's definitely what Jang would say 

Oh btw, another magnificently fake 2022 set list has just surfaced on IG. Once again, from a user with one post. Getting desperate again, huh

 

[BacktoBricks]

2 minutes ago, Brikkyy13 said:

My LEGO shelves are pretty deep so provided it doesn’t overhang too much it’ll go up there with the rest of my UCS sets. I’ll have to rethink my display a little though, right now I have it separated with rebel ships on one side and imperial ships on the other. 

Buy it a soon as it comes out in the first production run and you won't have a problem.  

[Balrogofmorgoth]

3 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Good question. The Falcon is pretty flat, so that one's a lot easier to handle in that regard 

That's definitely what Jang would say 

Oh btw, another magnificently fake 2022 set list has just surfaced on IG. Once again, from a user with one post. Getting desperate again, huh

 

Yeah I saw that list. The attempt to sound moderately realistic is obvious but still not fooling anybody

[BacktoBricks]

12 minutes ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

Oh btw, another magnificently fake 2022 set list has just surfaced on IG. Once again, from a user with one post. Getting desperate again, huh

I love it - 'from credible source' 

[MKJoshA]

Alright, we've had enough conversation about the Gunship for a little while. Thank you for keeping things mostly civil. But the horse is dead. Please wait a day or two while we perform CPR before the beating continues.

[Falconfan1414]

48 minutes ago, lego_guyon02 said:

If this is the "fallout" of these 2 figures being included I don't even want to know what would've happened if people got their wish and P2 Cody and whatnot were included. 

Very similar arguments present now just reversed if that makes sense

instead of why didn’t they include Cody? People would say I can’t believe they gave in like that

Instead of for $350 they should include something special, people would say I can’t believe they included something special in a $350 set

The open suggestion box at the end was always going to create controversy no matter if they listened or didn’t listen 

 

sorry posted this same time as mods said that

Edited July 18, 2021 by Falconfan1414

[Balrogofmorgoth]

7 minutes ago, BacktoBricks said:

I love it - 'from credible source' 

I actually chuckled out loud when I saw that. “From credible source” too good

[THELEGOBATMAN]

I didn't expect that the set people wanted so much would tear this forum in half 

But why shouldn't I... it's Star Wars after all.

[Mandalorianknight]

1 hour ago, lego_guyon02 said:

What does MandR have to do with anything? He's a PR nightmare and was kicked from LAN months ago, why the hell would they pick him to do the reveal over a LAN member who doesn't have his head up his megablocks?

to paraphrase c-3po, I do believe they think he's some sort of god 

1 hour ago, Sarah_H7744 said:

I think the UCS Gunship is absolutely gorgeous!
Unfortunately for my purposes a system scale version would have been much better.

Same here. I'm telling you guys, download the part list of the 2013 one, see which one's you've got already, and bricklink the rest. There's a few tips for the more expensive parts I shared in a different thread somewhere.

1 hour ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

@everyone who didn't jump (gun)ship: Where/how will you display yours? Since the usual approach won't cut it, I'll put mine on a Detolf shelf in the middle of the room  The wingspan is a big larger than expected, so I hope it'll still work out 

I want to see someone mount this thing on the wall!  Could work nice on top of a large nightstand or small cabinet.

55 minutes ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

Yeah I saw that list. The attempt to sound moderately realistic is obvious but still not fooling anybody

I love the effort, they even add the "quad droid" thing and then add that they don't know what it means. Still super obvious though, I knew it was fake long before I saw that this was the only post on the account.

[AIex]

I have seen a lot of complaints about this being the first non-minifig scale UCS set above $200. While this is blatantly untrue (Sandcrawler, Death Stars, Star Destroyers, etc.) I think an even more important note is that, with the exception of the Naboo starfighter waaaaaay back before they knew what they were doing, no UCS set has EVER been the same size as its system scale counterpart. Every UCS set that has an existing system scale variant (star destroyers, all starfighters, falcon, slave 1, etc) is significantly larger than said system scale variant. In the case of the falcon, slave 1, and imperial shuttle, the upscaled version is more or less to scale with minifigures. In the case of everything else, it is a heavily detailed display model that would look silly when you put minifigures inside of it. The gunship falls into the latter category. Lego's system scale gunships are already built to minifig scale, so a UCS version at the same size would be redundant, and people would complain about getting a gunship that's the same size as the system scale one for more than double the price. Even accounting for the reduced price of a smaller UCS gunship, it would still be far more expensive than any system scale variant, while clocking in at around the same size.

 

If you want a minifig scale gunship, buy a system scale version or a moc

[hondohnaka]

Does anyone have a link to that list I just want to see it for the laughs and it seems to have been deleted

[Kit Figsto]

17 minutes ago, hondohnaka said:

Does anyone have a link to that list I just want to see it for the laughs and it seems to have been deleted

It's on #legoleaks on IG, has a pink background and white text.  It's sort of the classic formula of "A couple of sets that are plausible/logical in real life, an OT set due for a remake, a prequel set that would sell really well due to the minifigures, and then a few other price points where the set is conveniently unknown."

[Kdapt-Preacher]

1 hour ago, AIex said:

I have seen a lot of complaints about this being the first non-minifig scale UCS set above $200. While this is blatantly untrue (Sandcrawler, Death Stars, Star Destroyers, etc.) I think an even more important note is that, with the exception of the Naboo starfighter waaaaaay back before they knew what they were doing, no UCS set has EVER been the same size as its system scale counterpart.

You misunderstood those posts. They were saying it's the first one over $200 to be *larger* than minifig scale. Other than the Falcon, every large UCS has been much smaller than minifig-scale.

To break up the constant Gunship stuff, how confident are we that the AT-AT actually exists? It wasn't that long ago that people were thinking that the Gunship would be out on May 4th and the large UCS might be a Death Star, and I don't remember when it was confirmed that there'd be three UCS sets this year and that the next one was an AT-AT. What's the source on that?

[Kim-Kwang-Seok]

1 hour ago, AIex said:

I have seen a lot of complaints about this being the first non-minifig scale UCS set above $200. While this is blatantly untrue (Sandcrawler, Death Stars, Star Destroyers, etc.) I think an even more important note is that, with the exception of the Naboo starfighter waaaaaay back before they knew what they were doing, no UCS set has EVER been the same size as its system scale counterpart. Every UCS set that has an existing system scale variant (star destroyers, all starfighters, falcon, slave 1, etc) is significantly larger than said system scale variant. In the case of the falcon, slave 1, and imperial shuttle, the upscaled version is more or less to scale with minifigures. In the case of everything else, it is a heavily detailed display model that would look silly when you put minifigures inside of it. The gunship falls into the latter category. Lego's system scale gunships are already built to minifig scale, so a UCS version at the same size would be redundant, and people would complain about getting a gunship that's the same size as the system scale one for more than double the price. Even accounting for the reduced price of a smaller UCS gunship, it would still be far more expensive than any system scale variant, while clocking in at around the same size.

 

If you want a minifig scale gunship, buy a system scale version or a moc

There's different ways to view this. All of them are ok. I feel like a brickvault-style MOC in minifigscale would have made more sense (prequel set, troop transport). But the build we get is surely much more advanced and interesting. What you say all makes perfect sense as well.

I'm afraid though the debate has deteriorated into bashing and clickbaiting mixed with conspiracies. 

And I am ashamed that in Germany there are some of the worst influencers in this regard and they are quite popular. I have friends who don't care about Lego but they watch these videos (and talk about boycotting the company). Like this Mandy-Products influencer, they can be decent entertainers with a cool passion. But this willingness to resort to this behaviour is hideous. And they make money with it.

All opinions are ok; I share my overly critical one as well. But some people on social media are not "the fandom". Even if it's 20 people here - they don't finance the sets. And Lego making descisions I dislike doesn't mean they hate the fandom, hate the prequels or something. It's a toy company, trying to make money. You can buy cheaper Lego alternatives if you want. Designers are just employees doing their jobs. Who knows how many rules and regulations such a large company can have. Many things don't make sense to me from the outside, but I don't work there. I assume most here don't either? Then why are we so quick to know if something will fail, why they did it etc.?

[hondohnaka]

1 hour ago, Kit Figsto said:

It's on #legoleaks on IG, has a pink background and white text.  It's sort of the classic formula of "A couple of sets that are plausible/logical in real life, an OT set due for a remake, a prequel set that would sell really well due to the minifigures, and then a few other price points where the set is conveniently unknown."

There’s so much spam I can’t even find it 🙄

Idk why people even bother it’s so obvious at this point. 
edit: found it and oh my word that’s a hilarious list. 70 dollar Battle on Exogol? That’s a 40 dollar set with Palps’ harness and some chairs for the sith cheerleaders at best.

”Mandalorian battlepack” and it’s just storm troopers lmaoooo were they even trying 

 

anyway, y’all are crying way too much about a gorgeous ship with pretty appropriate figures that you’re getting all worked up over because one designer said something idiotic. Cue Thomas Jefferson: “can we get back to Lego leaks?”

on that note seeing as the Poe book leaked I wouldn’t be totally surprised if we got at least a shaky list for January soon. 

Edited July 18, 2021 by hondohnaka

[PreVizsla]

6 hours ago, ARC2149Nova said:

Ryan is his own worst enemy sometimes. Didn't he reveal the set before the official livestream or something? I think cutting ties with him is good on Lego's end. I think David's a better youtuber overall, but that's just my opinion.

Well David forgot about and left make a wish kid alone in a room and went to watch movies with his friends during one of the brickfairs so unless Ryan kills someone he will always be a better youtuber and a person in my eyes, even though his AAT review sucked and idk what he was thinking with fake lego designer interview, but it's his opinion and his channel and there is a reason almost 400 k people love and watch him.

5 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I feel like a broken record but UCS isn’t about the figures at all.

Sorry, but who are you to tell someone what UCS sets should be about for them? Some people are enjoying figures the most or displaying sets with figures. The entire thing would be perfectly fine if LEGO didn't ask us to write what we want and gave us all hope and made us all speculate for year and a half about it just to crush our dreams and hopes and then threaten us to still buy it or no more PT sets, they made it about figures. 

[Mandalorianknight]

13 minutes ago, PreVizsla said:

Sorry, but who are you to tell someone what UCS sets should be about for them? Some people are enjoying figures the most or displaying sets with figures. The entire thing would be perfectly fine if LEGO didn't ask us to write what we want and gave us all hope and made us all speculate for year and a half about it just to crush our dreams and hopes and then threaten us to still buy it or no more PT sets, they made it about figures. 

My guy, the UCS sets aren't for figures, that's the point we're trying to get to you. There are other sets meant primarily for figures or with figures as a large factor, but with UCS sets, no, they aren't.

Also, where are you getting all these ideas in the second half. They stated from the start that the figure vote was a side thing to "help them decide" or however they phrased it, and we have no evidence that mace and a cc weren't among the most voted figures that actually appeared in AOTC alongside the gunship. P2 cody was never an option, because the set was clearly based off AOTC from the start, and he wouldn't fit in such a set for very obvious reasons. And besides that, the figures aren't the main factor, the gunship is, and I haven't seen anyone say that the set isn't a good build. All the people saying lego "crushed our hopes and dreams" are either complaining about the figures, which aren't the point of UCS sets, or complaining that it wasn't the size of the system sets, which would literally make it not a UCS set. I also find "threaten" hilarious, like stating the obvious fact that they'll judge sales of the gunship when considering more prequel sets is some sort of malevolent attack. That's how business works. If you want more prequel UCS sets, buy the gunship. If you thought the gunship should have more figs/be smaller, you don't want more prequel UCS, you want prequel era system sets, and we're getting a good number of those.

[Graupensuppe]

19 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

P2 Cody was never an option, because the set was clearly based off AOTC from the start

But now that UCS boxes are just black and don't show a movie scene in the background anymore, the minifigure selection is basically the only thing that connects the set to a specific movie.

Edited July 19, 2021 by Graupensuppe

[Gremer2]

24 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

*snip*

To be honest, I don't think there's any point arguing with him. You'll never get anywhere, there's no real logic behind anything he actually says. He claims Lego hates making prequel sets while they're releasing several this year. He completely made up the statistic that 90% of people voted for the Gunship and then when it was said that 58% did, acted like a 32% difference isn't a big deal. He keeps saying that Cody not being in the Gunship is Lego attacking prequel fans, without any statistic on the actual figure vote. And I'm sure there's so much more I'm forgetting. It's probably best to just ignore him.

[ArrowBricks]

14 minutes ago, Graupensuppe said:

But now that UCS boxes are just black and don't show a movie scene in the background anymore, the minifigure selection is basically the only thing that connects the set to a specific movie.

You have the movie scenes on the back too. But the Gunship could have easily worked for episode 2 and 3 - all you need is to remove the ball turrets. The UCS Falcon had this with the radar dish and separate minifigures from completely different time periods let alone the following film like they do with AOTC/ROTS. I don’t mind no Cody at all but this is a fair argument I have heard recently.