10497 Galaxy Explorer 90th anniversary set

[Merlo]

I got this after finding it discounted at a price of 60 euros. That's a great price for a set of this size, if you ask me :)

I wanna say the build is nothing short of amazing. There's nothing spectactular in it per se, but it really puts all my efforts into perspective. It's professional through and through and has that "hold my beer, I'm an official Lego designer" feel that I wish all sets would have. Major props to the designer. Even better, it didn't have those steps where you have to put a million 1x1's in a row - and it didn't even need them to look sleek.

It's really a crying shame that such superb work went into a model that is so very plain. Pretty much what I've seen on the pics - that's it.

Just a boxy look, two canopies, clumsy to hold, too big to play with unless you're a grown up, not intricate enough for a prime spot on the precious shelf real-estate.

The most attractive parts of it, subjectively, being the striking color scheme and the rear end opening to let the buggy out, are so old they just might be older than I am.

On the other hand, if the point was indeed just modernizing the old model and nothing else (as seen from replicating many of its details), that's not been done very well. The new ship looks more like a fighter plane than a vessel to explore galaxies. It doesn't have the more closed-off feel or the double deck look that made it seem like what you had was an attempt to convey a big spaceship with many limitations, but still successfully enough to let your imagination take over.

Quote the opposite, the new Galaxy Explorer feels like a small scout ship, but one where brick count was of no issue, so it could be depicted with as much detail as needed.

 

[DrJimbo]

I have to say I am a bit disappointed in this after building it recently.

The build experience is fine, but the wing shaping that some were enthusiastic about is very similar to the recent space shuttle Discovery. Not a bad thing about the current set, but there was no new 'wow factor' for me there. 

The set is not swoosh-able. Pick it up by a wing one-handed, and tiles pop off as often as not. The other natural pickup point is the red bulges where the canopies meet - this does not reliably support the set weight. 

I realise it is true to the original, but there is a lot of wing area and grey in this. The 'lasers' at the front - let's face it, they are weapons - don't look great, not smooth or finished looking enough for me. 

I do really like the interior, the airlock, the ramp in the rear bay - these are really well-executed. But I think I will build the alt models and then use this for parts.

[danth]

On 7/26/2023 at 4:43 AM, DrJimbo said:

The set is not swoosh-able. Pick it up by a wing one-handed, and tiles pop off as often as not. The other natural pickup point is the red bulges where the canopies meet - this does not reliably support the set weight. 

I once tried to pick this set up by a single wing edge and it did not go well. 😱 I just tried using two hands under the wings on each side, and it felt light and swooshy enough for me, given the size. But I'm not sure I have many larger, recent space ships to compare too.

Also, people already complain about how sleek & jet-fighter-like this set is, so maybe it shouldn't be too swooshy.

The smaller two builds are super swooshy at least, IMO.

On 7/26/2023 at 4:43 AM, DrJimbo said:

I realise it is true to the original, but there is a lot of wing area and grey in this. The 'lasers' at the front - let's face it, they are weapons - don't look great, not smooth or finished looking enough for me. 

I'll grant you that. I even had the same thought, subconsciously. I think something like the gun here, but shorter and all gray, would look nicer:

Edited July 28, 2023 by danth

[ukbajadave]

13 hours ago, danth said:

 

Is the black part on the end a 2L axle connector? I thought they had a stop in the middle which would stop a bar going through.

[Lyichir]

8 hours ago, ukbajadave said:

Is the black part on the end a 2L axle connector? I thought they had a stop in the middle which would stop a bar going through.

It is and they do, but the dark grey part attached to it on the end is a 2M bar with center stop that does not extend through the middle of the axle connector.

[Merlo]

I don't imagine this was meant to be swooshy at all. I can pick it up by one wing no problem. The very edge of the wing - of course not. But with that, and especially the red bulges... I think it's obvious just from picking the set once that it has too much weight for you to even think about doing something like that. The guns - I've seen better. But the ships goes for a uniform elegant look throughout, so guns that look better by themselves might have made the entire ship look worse, or like they don't belong.

[SpacePolice89]

This set is perfect in every aspect. For many years I've been waiting for a set like this. Incredible detail and cool features.

[nyugvo6]

I believe this is one of the greatest things lego has created. period. The level of detail, sleekness, interesting building techniques, and it's very faithful to the original. I bet the creator has a great respect for classic space.

[Merlo]

On 8/23/2023 at 6:53 PM, nyugvo6 said:

I believe this is one of the greatest things lego has created. period. The level of detail, sleekness, interesting building techniques, and it's very faithful to the original. I bet the creator has a great respect for classic space.

If he did, he would have understood some basic concepts behind it. E.g. the fact that a ship called "galaxy explorer" was not supposed to look like a jet fighter or that the straight sides were due to the brick limitations and were not a highlight of the build.

He took something that was moderately interesting for the time (40+ years ago) and instead of updating it just made it sleek, like putting a new car body on an old race car. Not only is it not "faster" or "handles better" (it handles worse actually), it doesn't have neither the excitement of the new

(seeing, owning and playing with things you've never seen before) nor the excitement of the old (vintage, classic, piece of history). It's just sleek and soulless. It's a great build that's boring and I've just chucked it somewhere in the back. Same as 10305, which I think is from the same designer. Sleek and no imagination whatsoever.

[nyugvo6]

2 hours ago, Merlo said:

If he did, he would have understood some basic concepts behind it. E.g. the fact that a ship called "galaxy explorer" was not supposed to look like a jet fighter or that the straight sides were due to the brick limitations and were not a highlight of the build.

He took something that was moderately interesting for the time (40+ years ago) and instead of updating it just made it sleek, like putting a new car body on an old race car. Not only is it not "faster" or "handles better" (it handles worse actually), it doesn't have neither the excitement of the new 

(seeing, owning and playing with things you've never seen before) nor the excitement of the old (vintage, classic, piece of history). It's just sleek and soulless. It's a great build that's boring and I've just chucked it somewhere in the back. Same as 10305, which I think is from the same designer. Sleek and no imagination whatsoever.

https://brickset.com/sets/designer-Mike-Psiaki/page-1

You're right about him working on both. He also worked on one of the very few modular buildings I like.

I get where you're coming from with both complaints, but I think a real soulless build would have no play features(except stud shooters), or colors, had no detailed inner space. or space inside at all.

[Black Falcon]

On 8/25/2023 at 9:35 AM, Merlo said:

If he did, he would have understood some basic concepts behind it. E.g. the fact that a ship called "galaxy explorer" was not supposed to look like a jet fighter or that the straight sides were due to the brick limitations and were not a highlight of the build.

He took something that was moderately interesting for the time (40+ years ago) and instead of updating it just made it sleek, like putting a new car body on an old race car. Not only is it not "faster" or "handles better" (it handles worse actually), it doesn't have neither the excitement of the new

(seeing, owning and playing with things you've never seen before) nor the excitement of the old (vintage, classic, piece of history). It's just sleek and soulless. It's a great build that's boring and I've just chucked it somewhere in the back. Same as 10305, which I think is from the same designer. Sleek and no imagination whatsoever.

The Galaxy explorer doesn´t look like a jet fighter to me. Sure you could take the two antenna in the front as weapons if you like. But for a fighter there would be weapons on the side wings. I mean, in my opinion it would have been great if they would have made a new build like they did with the Lion Knights castle, the Galaxy Explorere is still quite true to his former model. Which isn´t neccesarily a bad thing. If you read all the comments about it, they made everything right with it, but sure you will always find people with other opionions about every set. 

About the 10305 I have to strongly disagree though. For me this is maybe the best Lego Set they made yet and there are so many details and ideas in it that I just don´t see how you can call it to have "no imagination". As mentioned above, not everyone has the same taste and you are ofc free to dislike it. ;)

[Merlo]

7 hours ago, Black Falcon said:

The Galaxy explorer doesn´t look like a jet fighter to me. Sure you could take the two antenna in the front as weapons if you like. But for a fighter there would be weapons on the side wings. I mean, in my opinion it would have been great if they would have made a new build like they did with the Lion Knights castle, the Galaxy Explorere is still quite true to his former model. Which isn´t neccesarily a bad thing. If you read all the comments about it, they made everything right with it, but sure you will always find people with other opionions about every set. 

About the 10305 I have to strongly disagree though. For me this is maybe the best Lego Set they made yet and there are so many details and ideas in it that I just don´t see how you can call it to have "no imagination". As mentioned above, not everyone has the same taste and you are ofc free to dislike it. ;)

I didn't mean the jet fighter comment quite so literally. The original GE didn't look so "fast". It looked like a multi-deck spaceship with some serious bulk that commanded respect. I mean, also not literally, of course, but it did what a lot of set did great back then - it implied scale that most definitely wasn't there. And I loved how Lego designers managed to do that back in the day. The GE wasn't even among the best ones at that, I immediately think of Cosmic Fleet Voyager and the Mission Commander. They used different techniques to add interest to the ship exterior so you didn't immediately know what was going on, adding mystery, intrigue and the possibility to imagine whatever you wanted. The new GE is a complete opposite of that. Instead of looking like the brick count demanded to scale down a big ship they could not realistically make, it looks like a small two-seater swooshable craft was enlarged so much it can now fit more than two.

10305 I've covered in its topic. When that first trailer thingy showed up and rumors that it might be the new castle I was thinking there is no way because it looked too simple to be interesting, too rough and, most of all, like the designer suffered from such sever lack of imagination that he just copied the layout of the creator castle: set on water, a big front part, tree to the right, a wattle and daub building, a mill wheel and even the single thing I like about 10305 - an irregular layout, like the one you get from connecting different side builds of the creator castle together.

It's a 4000 piece set with detail befitting a much smaller set. The ramp is ugly, the grey terrain is shaped below my own amateur standards as a bad MOC-er, let alone Lego standards. It contrasts the fairly detailed shingle roof with 1-piece trees scattered around.

The walls are just flat and gray and architecturally (besides the irregular shaping, which I love) it doesn't look that interesting. Because of this lack of texture it looks like a cheap plastic toy that was cast out in one big part, like a big dollhouse.

Did I mention the level of detail is inconsistent throughout? Because it is.

But even more than detail - color composition, the arrangement, combination and interaction of different colors. God, the composition... back in the day Lego sets had masterful composition. Some of them, I still can't believe... you can bring them to art class to explain to students what color composition is. Nowadays? It feels like if you did brought them to the art class and explained them to modern Lego designers - they still wouldn't get it.

Look at this image:

6080 is a castle with very boring shape, 10305 wins this, hands down, no contest.

But now look how 6080 deliberately places colors to both contrast and highlight, how they're spread around and repeat and play off of each other.

If you just told me "boring gray castle, a bit more colorful soldiers" I would have yawned. But the execution surpasses the idea so much.

The way the shields don't repeat, the helmets, the weapons, the way the wall pieces are same, but different.

All this makes that very boring castle look somehow irresistibly cute and playful. Look at the soldier's uniforms. A simple decoration next to a wall that also has - a simple decoration.

It's not a crazy detailed minifigure next to a wall that's just gray and flat with only very subtle highlights. It looks like it's all in the same ballpark, a part of the same world.

Not a 100 piece tree next to a 1 piece tree.

Not a flag design, next to a completely different flag design, next to a completely different flag design, all of them different thickness and shape and detail and supposedly representing the same flag fabric.

If you squint a bit there's clear logic to 6080's color distribution. If you squint with 10305 it looks like a gray thing that a child carelessly dirtied with paint, or a gray doll house with stuck modelling clay :)

Edited August 26, 2023 by Merlo

[Lyichir]

41 minutes ago, Merlo said:

I didn't mean the jet fighter comment quite so literally. The original GE didn't look so "fast". It looked like a multi-deck spaceship with some serious bulk that commanded respect. I mean, also not literally, of course, but it did what a lot of set did great back then - it implied scale that most definitely wasn't there. And I loved how Lego designers managed to do that back in the day. The GE wasn't even among the best ones at that, I immediately think of Cosmic Fleet Voyager and the Mission Commander. They used different techniques to add interest to the ship exterior so you didn't immediately know what was going on, adding mystery, intrigue and the possibility to imagine whatever you wanted. The new GE is a complete opposite of that. Instead of looking like the brick count demanded to scale down a big ship they could not realistically make, it looks like a small two-seater swooshable craft was enlarged so much it can now fit more than two.

10305 I've covered in its topic. When that first trailer thingy showed up and rumors that it might be the new castle I was thinking there is no way because it looked too simple to be interesting, too rough and, most of all, like the designer suffered from such sever lack of imagination that he just copied the layout of the creator castle: set on water, a big front part, tree to the right, a wattle and daub building, a mill wheel and even the single thing I like about 10305 - an irregular layout, like the one you get from connecting different side builds of the creator castle together.

It's a 4000 piece set with detail befitting a much smaller set. The ramp is ugly, the grey terrain is shaped below my own amateur standards as a bad MOC-er, let alone Lego standards. It contrasts the fairly detailed shingle roof with 1-piece trees scattered around.

The walls are just flat and gray and architecturally (besides the irregular shaping, which I love) it doesn't look that interesting. Because of this lack of texture it looks like a cheap plastic toy that was cast out in one big part, like a big dollhouse.

Did I mention the level of detail is inconsistent throughout? Because it is.

But even more than detail - color composition, the arrangement, combination and interaction of different colors. God, the composition... back in the day Lego sets had masterful composition. Some of them, I still can't believe... you can bring them to art class to explain to students what color composition is. Nowadays? It feels like if you did brought them to the art class and explained them to modern Lego designers - they still wouldn't get it.

Look at this image:

6080 is a castle with very boring shape, 10305 wins this, hands down, no contest.

But now look how 6080 deliberately places colors to both contrast and highlight, how they're spread around and repeat and play off of each other.

If you just told me "boring gray castle, a bit more colorful soldiers" I would have yawned. But the execution surpasses the idea so much.

The way the shields don't repeat, the helmets, the weapons, the way the wall pieces are same, but different.

All this makes that very boring castle look somehow irresistibly cute and playful. Look at the soldier's uniforms. A simple decoration next to a wall that also has - a simple decoration.

It's not a crazy detailed minifigure next to a wall that's just gray and flat with only very subtle highlights. It looks like it's all in the same ballpark, a part of the same world.

Not a 100 piece tree next to a 1 piece tree.

Not a flag design, next to a completely different flag design, next to a completely different flag design, all of them different thickness and shape and detail and supposedly representing the same flag fabric.

If you squint a bit there's clear logic to 6080's color distribution. If you squint with 10305 it looks like a gray thing that a child carelessly dirtied with paint, or a gray doll house with stuck modelling clay :)

See, I feel like I strongly disagree with this on all counts.

For Galaxy Explorer, I feel like it still feels wonderfully bulky and true to the spirit of the original. Yes, aspects have been made sleeker and more complex angles have been introduced, but not to the extent that the qualities of the original are lost. I feel like your criticisms of it speak more to your particular, individual perception of what the original was "supposed" to be like, rather than any actual deficits of the new version.

For the Lion Knight's Castle, I feel like the introduction of more complex texture and the reduction of more basic color-coding go hand-in-hand. The new version, for instance, doesn't need the scattered dark grey stonework to add detail because parts have been introduced that physically add actual texture. Yes, these features are subtle, and you can lose them if you squint—but why are you squinting instead of properly taking in the subject with your senses uncompromised? Why is the inconsistency between flags or types of trees a negative, rather than adding a realistic level of variety to the build?

I especially feel like your critiques of Lego's designers not understanding composition are harsh and unwarranted. The fact is that compositions have become more complex and interesting over the years, and while your subjective opinion that you preferred the older, simpler compositions is not invalid, the complexity and advancement of modern design and composition is something that takes more skill, not less, to achieve. Set design is a complex task, now more than ever, and it comes with the understanding that there likely is no way to please everyone. The designers of these sets understand that, and have done the best they can to create something that can satisfy a range of consumers, all with their own subjective tastes and preferences. And despite your insistence that they are "amateur" or have failed, I think the success of these sets speaks to the fact that the designers have succeeded at that challenge. Critiquing the results, based on your own personal preferences, is all well and good. But frankly I don't think you've done anything good enough to merit personally insulting their artistic skill as if you have done or could do any better.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Lyichir

[arnoldtblumberg]

*never mind*

Edited August 26, 2023 by arnoldtblumberg

[Black Falcon]

3 hours ago, Merlo said:

I didn't mean the jet fighter comment quite so literally. The original GE didn't look so "fast". It looked like a multi-deck spaceship with some serious bulk that commanded respect. I mean, also not literally, of course, but it did what a lot of set did great back then - it implied scale that most definitely wasn't there. And I loved how Lego designers managed to do that back in the day. The GE wasn't even among the best ones at that, I immediately think of Cosmic Fleet Voyager and the Mission Commander. They used different techniques to add interest to the ship exterior so you didn't immediately know what was going on, adding mystery, intrigue and the possibility to imagine whatever you wanted. The new GE is a complete opposite of that. Instead of looking like the brick count demanded to scale down a big ship they could not realistically make, it looks like a small two-seater swooshable craft was enlarged so much it can now fit more than two.

Well you could say the Galaxy Explorer is Galaxy Explorer II which of course looks faster because there have been years of research between both models. ;) But well its mainly because the old one has studs everywhere which the new one doesn´t. 

With all the stuff you wrote about the Lion Knights castle, the only thing I can agree with is the ugly ramp. Aside from that, for me, this set is just perfect the way it is. For you the walls are too grey. I am honestly happy they are, as I really dislike the most mocs that try to look more realistic using various colours such as olive. 

[Merlo]

"See, I feel like I strongly disagree with this on all counts." - when you open like this, it's hard to think you'll be objective or perhaps that you're so easily pleased that you'd be happy with anything.

"I feel like your criticisms of it speak more to your particular, individual perception of what the original was "supposed" to be like, rather than any actual deficits of the new version." - my criticism is not really related to the original GE as one would think. I am not particularly fond of that ship. However when one looks at the ship, one can notice it possesses certain qualities. It doesn't even matter whether you or me like what we see or don't, just a sum of things that can be said that the GE encompasses.

The new Galaxy Explorer adds very little to that overall sum, even losing some in the process, so it's hard not to think of it as lazy and uninspired.

It has the detail of an 18+ set paired with the complexity that wouldn't be enough for a 10 year old me.

I think the failure of imagination is most obvious in the fact that the designer felt that to make a childhood icon adult-friendly one needed only to up the size of the thing. But obviously as an adult you're not looking for the same ship. You can probably buy the same ship already if you haven't already.

What you're looking for is some artistic integrity... i.e. - give me your view of what made this ship wonderful to you. I don't have to be you and agree with you to respect you and your work. Just capture that feeling you had with childhood Lego in any way you can, as an artist would, as a musician would try to capture an emotion. It seems like this designer has long lost the contact with his inner child.

"For the Lion Knight's Castle, I feel like the introduction of more complex texture and the reduction of more basic color-coding go hand-in-hand. The new version, for instance, doesn't need the scattered dark grey stonework to add detail because parts have been introduced that physically add actual texture. Yes, these features are subtle, and you can lose them if you squint—but why are you squinting instead of properly taking in the subject with your senses uncompromised? Why is the inconsistency between flags or types of trees a negative, rather than adding a realistic level of variety to the build?" - this is the crux of the problem with a lot of modern Lego sets. What makes anything exquisite is having a strong vision and then reaching a certain level of mastery within that vision. Lego's artists today don't have that. Their work often seems like they had a dozen wildly different requests for the build and a very short time span to realize the whole thing and please everyone. So 10305 has a lot of everything, but doesn't excel at anything. Well, it kinda excels at looking sleek, which would work great for a more detailed set, but makes a set of this level of detail appear flat. I cannot look at it as a playful set, as a lot of it is too plain and reminiscent of an actual castle for that, and I cannot look at it as a depiction of an actual castle either, as a lot of it lacks detail to support that. Not sure how you can argue 1 piece trees add realistic variety to an 18+ set. The larger the difference between elements the less it feels like a Lego set (brick-made) and more like any other plastic toy that just happened to be built from several parts. Having things like the same flags creates in your mind an image of what the representation of a flag (or the basis for it) is in a Lego world. Having factions with different colored flags of similar design philosophy activates that "gotta catch em all" center in our mind that's primarily what leads us to collect minifigures, etc. The old Lego flags can also be thought of as pieces that just represent cloth of any kind, to be colored and used as appropriate. A faction flag is a one-off piece and it breaks that philosophy. If it was more similar in material and size to the other elements, it would be less of an offense or maybe a necessary evil of sorts. 

As far as composition goes, I was expecting this to get mentioned but sets absolutely do not have to be simple to have good composition. I can name quite a few that still do.

"And despite your insistence that they are "amateur" or have failed" - you're not being honest here when depicting my thoughts on the matter. You can go to brickset, etc, and look at who designed each set and try to conclude what their contribution was. This particular designer, I have quite a few sets of his and I absolutely love them. I think he's supremely skilled and have already praised the build of the new GE extensively. In fact, looking at all the sets I have and looking at which ones are his, I don't think I could claim any other designer did a better job than he did. It seems to me that he excels at reproductions and depicting objects in an aesthetically pleasing way, but not in eliciting a childlike sense of wonder. And these two sets in particular were representations of what was possible in Lego Castle/Space lines 30-40 years ago. And when someone tells you "imagine what it would be possible in those lines today after so much time and so many improvements", if you answer "the sets could be same(-ish), but much bigger and with smooth edges!" that can only be a failure of the imagination.

"I think the success of these sets speaks to the fact that the designers have succeeded at that challenge" - as I've said, Lego is on a high right now and they're lowering standards all around. Upping set counts, brick counts and set turnaround times and in turn lowering both design quality and brick quality. Not in terms of designer skill, but in terms of having a vision to put the skill to good use.

"But frankly I don't think you've done anything good enough to merit personally insulting their artistic skill as if you have done or could do any better." - as a side note, a lot of what you write does not seem logical and seem to be emotional reactions more than anything. If you were under an oppressive dictatorship, would you defend your supreme leader to everyone simply based on the fact all the people suffering have never even ran a state of any kind, not even a tiny small insignificant one? :)

 

 

 

[Merlo]

11 hours ago, Black Falcon said:

With all the stuff you wrote about the Lion Knights castle, the only thing I can agree with is the ugly ramp. Aside from that, for me, this set is just perfect the way it is. For you the walls are too grey. I am honestly happy they are, as I really dislike the most mocs that try to look more realistic using various colours such as olive. 

I'm not super fond of olive as Lego sets are not usually detailed enough to offer a smooth transition like the one that would exist IRL, but I can appreciate when it's done well.

With 10305, if looking only from a personal perspective, I'm not going to put that thing on my most prized display space as it's a bit too plain looking for that.

Even 31120 - not plain looking. As seen here - with a bit of an effort to add actual texture even completely gray walls can look interesting and reminiscent of actual weathered castle walls. I don't like everything about this, sure, but I love that.

And it also does not work as a set to play with (other than in a dollhouse way) because of the sheer size of the thing. I can remake 6081 into a different build each day, it'd only take an hour :)

Btw when googling that I got a hit for this:

https://www.bricklink.com/v3/designer-program/series-1/482/Mountain-Fortress

As I just mentioned, I don't like a lot of what this castle has. But at the same time... it looks more like a real castle than 10305 if you want to pretend it's a real castle.

It has a more interesting shape and look if you want to pretend is a fantasy castle built for play.

It has enough little touches of novelty to give it just a little bit of oomph to make it stand out.

So it seems that this castle, I've randomly stumbled upon a minute ago and have never seen before in my life, is at least somewhat better than the 4000 pcs official Lego castle everyone has been waiting for ages. And rather than spending a fortune on MOC's I would not be able to resell, I'd like for Lego to reach at least this level of: "okay, it's not my thing exactly, but darn it, it's good enough to buy it".

 

 

 

[Black Falcon]

1 hour ago, Merlo said:

I'm not super fond of olive as Lego sets are not usually detailed enough to offer a smooth transition like the one that would exist IRL, but I can appreciate when it's done well.

Olive was more example. The same goes for other colours used such as tan.

Quote

With 10305, if looking only from a personal perspective, I'm not going to put that thing on my most prized display space as it's a bit too plain looking for that.

Even 31120 - not plain looking. As seen here - with a bit of an effort to add actual texture even completely gray walls can look interesting and reminiscent of actual weathered castle walls. I don't like everything about this, sure, but I love that.

Well. I really don´t like the right one, to me the original design seems just so much better.

Quote

And it also does not work as a set to play with (other than in a dollhouse way) because of the sheer size of the thing. I can remake 6081 into a different build each day, it'd only take an hour :)

Well you can open it to play, and I do think kids wouldn´t have a problem to play with it even if they don´t open it. Plus you can always rebuild it to be more playable if you like. The real problem I see with this set is just it´s lack of minifigures, horses etc. 

Quote

https://www.bricklink.com/v3/designer-program/series-1/482/Mountain-Fortress

As I just mentioned, I don't like a lot of what this castle has. But at the same time... it looks more like a real castle than 10305 if you want to pretend it's a real castle.

It has a more interesting shape and look if you want to pretend is a fantasy castle built for play.

It has enough little touches of novelty to give it just a little bit of oomph to make it stand out.

So it seems that this castle, I've randomly stumbled upon a minute ago and have never seen before in my life, is at least somewhat better than the 4000 pcs official Lego castle everyone has been waiting for ages. And rather than spending a fortune on MOC's I would not be able to resell, I'd like for Lego to reach at least this level of: "okay, it's not my thing exactly, but darn it, it's good enough to buy it".

Actually, as part of the Bricklink designer programm you wouldn´t have any problem to resell that. ;) Also, it sounded earlier as if you own both the Galaxy Explorer and the Lion Knights castle. So apparently it was good enough to buy it, wasn´t it?

For me, the Lion Knights Castle is just so much better than this castle. I mean it is not bad, but when they revealed the sets that will be released I was just kinda hoping for other sets that were more my favourite. It still has some good details, I really love the oriel of the main tower for instance.

[SpacePolice89]

On 8/25/2023 at 10:35 AM, Merlo said:

If he did, he would have understood some basic concepts behind it. E.g. the fact that a ship called "galaxy explorer" was not supposed to look like a jet fighter or that the straight sides were due to the brick limitations and were not a highlight of the build.

He took something that was moderately interesting for the time (40+ years ago) and instead of updating it just made it sleek, like putting a new car body on an old race car. Not only is it not "faster" or "handles better" (it handles worse actually), it doesn't have neither the excitement of the new

(seeing, owning and playing with things you've never seen before) nor the excitement of the old (vintage, classic, piece of history). It's just sleek and soulless. It's a great build that's boring and I've just chucked it somewhere in the back. Same as 10305, which I think is from the same designer. Sleek and no imagination whatsoever.

I think the design of the new Galaxy Explorer is true to the original. To just make a larger version of the original wouldn't be that much fun. Now we have two great spaceships that share the same overall design and looks but are not just up scaled copies of each other. I've been waiting for a set like this since 1996, that year I got the Explorien Starship and since then I've been just waiting and waiting and waiting for a new spaceship that I like and feel excited to buy and build, The new Galaxy Explorer made me and so many other people very very happy.

[arnoldtblumberg]

It's so tiring seeing people determined to be miserable about the things they supposedly love.

 

[Ruthin Road]

Sorry, fairly late to this set now I am out of my "Dark Age", but unfortunately it feels like less than the sum of its parts to me as well. There should be so much to like: classic spacemen, printed pieces, a reasonable price, and clearly a lot of thought and care went into the design.

However, as many have commented, it is too big and fragile for effective "swooshability". OK, it is a marketed as an adult set but surely many will want to enjoy the set with children. It is such a big flaw.

While some of the building techniques are interesting (the slanted double cockpit, the arrows, the cargo door mechanism), they also feel over engineered to me; complicated and big for the sake of being complicated and big rather than adding to the form and function of the set.  I actually prefer the alternate models. Some of the interior details like the airlock are well done though.

The biggest drawback for me is that it doesn't feel like "Classic Space". While it is hard to define, there is something practical but idealistic about most of the original designs. They appeared designed for scientific endeavour and exploration (and to be played with!!), rather than to necessarily look sleek and streamlined like the new Galaxy Explorer, to some extent I am sure due to limitations in parts and cost. The new set does feel soulless in comparison.

I accept this will seem like nitpicking. I think it demonstrates how difficult it is to recreate old sets. Too faithful and it is hardly worth doing; too many changes and you risk losing whatever it was you were trying to recreate.

[Merlo]

Quote

Well. I really don´t like the right one, to me the original design seems just so much better.  For me, the Lion Knights Castle is just so much better than this castle.

I noticed there's a number of people on eurobricks that don't really like bricks/designs so much as they like Lego - the brand. So no matter what the set is like, it's better because it's Lego.

Compare just the wall on the right one to the wall of 10305. 10305 badly needed to take at least a half-hearted stand on whether it wants to look cool and like an imposing castle or fun and playable. Obviously 31120 doesn't need such a wall as it's meant to be fun. 21322, I think, was a good example where they knew what they wanted. They were having none of the brown seriousness of the idea and just made it a colorful fun playful set. I thought that would set a precedent of sorts and we'd have no more sets that are neither as cool nor as fun as they could be, but I was wrong, sadly.

Quote

Plus you can always rebuild it to be more playable if you like.

Not realistically, no. Maybe if you're a MOC maker already, then sure. But if you're just a regular "I like Lego" guy, you'll never have the time or the skill to rearrange 4000 pieces.

Quote

The real problem I see with this set is just it´s lack of minifigures, horses etc.

IIRC still much better than we had with castle sets of old.

Quote

Actually, as part of the Bricklink designer programm you wouldn´t have any problem to resell that. ;)

I have problems selling regular sets, let alone BDP ones :) I set the price just a smidge lower than the currently cheapest available used set for sale on Bricklink and obviously the shipping is cheap or free if a local buyer meets me, and yet no one is interested.

Quote

Also, it sounded earlier as if you own both the Galaxy Explorer and the Lion Knights castle. So apparently it was good enough to buy it, wasn´t it?

Pic, or it never happened ;)

Quote

It still has some good details, I really love the oriel of the main tower for instance.

That was also kinda my point. I am not THAT picky about sets that have something. I might want something different, but I'll appreciate what they have as well.

The oriel is cool, but look at how many different windows and arches and small decorations it has. It has snow, actual water tiles, it has a certain vibe, like mildly gothic, set in a harsh environment, there's an angled wall. It has a lot of visual points of interest that are aesthetically pleasing more than just providing a function. Now look at 10305's walls - all straight and uniform surrounded by terrain that looks woefully inadequate. And by "decorations" I don't mean it should have been a later period castle that has ornaments, I mean just little touches that break the illusion of everything being molded out.

Quote

I think the design of the new Galaxy Explorer is true to the original. To just make a larger version of the original wouldn't be that much fun.

Isn't that what the new GE is? I've seen many fan remakes before the Lego set came out that were not as good design-wise as the Lego set, but that had a certain vision. Lego GE is lacking that. It's either a cool looking play set that is too big and clumsy to be swooshable or it is a display set that's not intricate enough for one to be able and feast their eyes on it.

Quote

that year I got the Explorien Starship and since then I've been just waiting and waiting and waiting for a new spaceship that I like and feel excited to buy and build

Imma let you finish, but for all it's faults I don't think many people are realistically saying "Explorien Starship? So boring!" :)

That goes in line with what I was saying - Lego used to try and make things crazy, fun, interesting or some combination of similar attributes. They didn't always manage this, of course, but they sure tried. I don't feel the new GE is "fascinating!" "intriguing!" or anything like that. It's a very pedestrian version of a fantasy ship that has the vibes of someone taking an X wing and cutting off 2 wings to make it more realistic :)

Quote

The biggest drawback for me is that it doesn't feel like "Classic Space". While it is hard to define, there is something practical but idealistic about most of the original designs. They appeared designed for scientific endeavour and exploration (and to be played with!!)

Yes, so much so. They felt like they were celebrating a spirit of invention, discovery and exploration. Other sets even more so than the GE. You could clearly see this vision when looking at the set lineup, it was almost palpable. The main vision behind the new GE seems to have been "ship goes vroom".

[jodawill]

I think 10497 suffers from the same problem that most adult sets do. If it was someone's MOC, I would think it's really cool and I'd be impressed. But I don't want to buy a MOC. I want to buy a Lego set.

I'm not a sophisticated builder. With the original classic space sets, and even with Benny's Space Squad and the other ship that was released in the same wave, it was easy for a person like me to use the same parts to build something new that's just as cool as the set. That's how Lego always was until only a few years ago.

The new Galaxy Explorer looks really cool, but it's too fragile to play with. It starts crumbling every time I move it. And although it contains a lot of useful parts, it isn't the kind of selection where I can easily make my own ship in 20 minutes. (That's why the 2x4 tile replacing the original slope is so frustrating for me.)

I would be a lot happier with sets that are in the same spirit as the original. I want small ships that are easy not only to build but to reimagine into other things. I don't have the time or skills to make a MOC at the 10497 scale, and neither do I want to to be honest. The scale of the original was a lot more charming.

I was really excited about this set when it was announced, and the more time I've actually spent with it, the more I've soured on the entire concept. I bought a lot of them because they were cheap at Walmart and I wanted the minifigures. But I kind of wish I had used that money to buy real classic space sets. That's kind of where I'm at with these Icons sets in general. I prefer the originals over the imitations.

[danth]

One set can't be all things to all people.

It's okay if 10497 doesn't scratch your particular itch. It's okay if it's not your favorite set ever. It's okay if it wasn't custom designed to your particular tastes. 

The real problem is we get ONE Classic Space set every 10 years. So we all hang all of our hopes on one set, and of course some people are disappointed.

It also means even if 10497 is basically perfect it's still going to get all kinds of criticism for not being something else.

[jodawill]

3 minutes ago, danth said:

One set can't be all things to all people.

It's okay if 10497 doesn't scratch your particular itch. It's okay if it's not your favorite set ever. It's okay if it wasn't custom designed to your particular tastes. 

The real problem is we get ONE Classic Space set every 10 years. So we all hang all of our hopes on one set, and of course some people are disappointed.

It also means even if 10497 is basically perfect it's still going to get all kinds of criticism for not being something else.

Exactly. If there was a new wave of space sets every year and there was a set that didn't cater to my personal preferences, it wouldn't matter. I would simply buy the ones I like and move on. When it comes to all of these classic themes, we were starved for decades and now they're giving us these gigantic "take it or leave it" adult sets. When you're spending $400 for a castle, which is really the equivalent of buying an entire wave, people are bound to be upset when it isn't exactly what they want because there are simply no other options. With the smaller sets, we could buy several of the ones we prefer and it was a lot easier to come up with some simple MOCs. Honestly, for me, the smaller sets from the past are just a lot more fun because they aren't gigantic projects. Most people are busy, but if I can sit down for an hour on a Saturday afternoon with a 300 piece set, I could come up with a really fun creation.

There's nothing wrong with this set. It's a great set for what it was meant to be. It really is. What's wrong with this set is that it's the only set. But.... that's apparently changing next year. The leaked info says that next year, every theme is going to have a space wave. So it's possible that there will be something for everyone. At least, I hope so. I really want there to be some classic space sets that are under $30, not really because of the affordability factor, but because I want simpler designs.