10497 Galaxy Explorer 90th anniversary set

[Horation]

8 hours ago, Merlo said:

Yes, architectural details. What you're talking about is playability, which I never complained about. Architecturally the only point of interest is the irregular design of it (which is great!) and of course the fact that the rooms are now furnished instead of us just having a hollow castle with like a spear and a torch attached somewhere is nothing short of wonderful! But if you have the castle somewhere as a display piece and you don't intend on playing on it - meh.

 "Don't give me a big expensive set that's neither detailed enough nor it can be played with and rebuilt easily, and 10305..." is what you said, if you were talking about a different set, it wasn't very clear, so you were presumably complaining about it, now if you would please point me to a better castle, I'd love to see it, but most people tend to quite like it, sounds to me like you just don't like castles all that much (or that you expect a 10 000pcs+ MOC which has way too much structurally-unstable detailing), does it use some interesting techniques? yes it does. Does it use a variety of colours, most of which are also used in kid's sets? Yes, but that's part of what Lego does, reuse similar parts across different themes. Please do tell me what it should have looked like, because it sounds like complaining is easy for you, but are solutions as easily proposed? Just point me to other manufacturers' builds or to MOCs which fit the bill, or otherwise I fail to see the substance of your complaints.

[Merlo]

Quote

This comment feels unnecessarily mean to me.

I think "bro..." summarized that much more succinctly ☺ Joking aside...

 

Quote

I agree that the Galaxy Dropship would not be a good Classic Space set from my perspective, and it's way more of a departure from the design language I prefer for Classic Space MOCs and sets (namely the heavy use of curved and streamlined elements instead of straight lines and angles, bumpy uneven surfaces with heavy greeble instead of smooth geometric ones with light greeble, and industrial-looking exposed Technic frames).

I feel like clasic space actually had a lot of curved and round elements and the fact that it didn't have more was due to the fact that was not possible at the time. I do like straight lines more, but that is probably because I grew up with them.

In fact, for me Galaxy Dropship is more in line with what I personally thought the Classic Space philosophy is than the new Galaxy Explorer is. What's that? Well, classic space looked strange and futuristic. Sometimes it looked just straight awkward. Like it was depicting something that might not entirely make sense to us because it was so far ahead of what we considered normal. The sets often had some combination of odd shape or layered colors and/or bricks, so that when a kid's eye would look at them, it was not immediately obvious what you're looking at and like the sets had secrets that your imagination can feed off of. It was almost like simulating greebling without having any greebling whatsoever.

The old Galaxy Explorer was not one of the sets that had many of these features other than the basic quirkiness of its look (almost a double decker, with oversized engines and a big rear spoiler, etc). The new Galaxy Explorer has only a subset of inherited features, losing some in the process, while the Galaxy Dropship correctly presents some of the features that classic space indeed had.

 

Quote

To pull this back to the topic of the new Galaxy Explorer, some of its biggest strengths in my opinion are how strictly it emulates the Classic Space aesthetic while still introducing the higher level of detail expected of today's adult-targeted models. Even compared to 70816 from The LEGO Movie, this set goes out of its way to avoid use of streamlined or curved parts, and to stick closely to the color scheme of the sets that inspired it. It also sticks much closer to the chunky look of the original Galaxy Explorer, with only a slightly sharper nose and slightly shallower slope for the cockpit slope.

To me it seems like the old GE was a spaceship that might have been fast, sure, but that equally well presented a bulky, imposing look. It was sort of a best of both worlds. You could pretend play it was a huge ship, much bigger than it actually was because the interior was partially a mystery when closed. The new GE always looks like a very fast combat vessel of some sorts thanks to the really pointed look and the two canopies.

 

Quote

staying true to the very flat roof, wall, and wing surfaces of the original build.

Often when I say I would have liked reimagined sets, people think I would like an X-wing with the galaxy explorer name and colors. In fact when I look at these old sets I have two images in my mind: what the set actually looks like, and what it might have looked like if the original designer had a way of realizing that vision with today's bricks. So when a designer stacks a flat wall 4 bricks high in 1979, that's very normal to me. When a designer stacks a 7 bricks high flat wall in 2022 that almost feels like a caricature to me: not looking at the set as what it could have been but looking at it at what it was only because it couldn't have helped it, like painting a pretty person with some normal imperfections and leaning real hard into the imperfections for no reason.

Quote

Even the buggy is small and utilitarian — in keeping with the original build, which took clear inspiration from the lightweight and utilitarian moon rover from NASA's Apollo program (and as such, primitive-looking even compared to a modern LEGO quad bike or ATV) rather than a more futuristic take on what planetary vehicles could potentially look like

Yes, the buggy alongside Dropship is cool, but seems more like it will go racing that like an exploration vehicle :) But, also, the ways in which you could make a buggy back then were quite limited. I doubt they would make them like that if they could have helped it.

 

Benny's spaceship I think has very little to do with classic space, other than the colors, of course. It works great for what it was designed for, but doesn't work at all in terms of classic space. I think the new Explorer perhaps looked too much at that ship instead of the legacy of classic space and then masked this radical change in design philosophy by staying drastically close to some visual elements that carry over the look, but not the soul of classic space.

 

Quote

As someone mentioned earlier, the criticism of this set isn't really about this set in particular. It's about the lack of variety. I've said before that this set is fine for what it is. I'm personally not into sets that are built for "build it and stick it on your shelf." As far as that goes, the set is pretty cool. I wish there was as much variety in original space themes, castle, and pirates as there has been for Star Wars for so many years. If I was a Star Wars fan, I wouldn't care whether the UCS Millennium Falcon exists as long as there's a regular sized one. For the classic themes, it's kind of like we're getting UCS sets only and the people who either prefer the smaller sets or can't afford the bigger ones are just left by the wayside. I wish we could get a wave of 5-10 sets in each of these themes every year or two.

My original criticism for a lot of sets its that Lego wants to have its cake and eat it too, so the sets end up being okay from a play perspective and okay from the looks perspective. I'd love them to be great at both but I'm not sure that is possible. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the way I see it the set can be smaller, rebuildable, playful (which GE is not) or it can be a full blown grown up set with wonderful details, greebling, etc (which GE is also not).

 

Quote

"Don't give me a big expensive set that's neither detailed enough nor it can be played with and rebuilt easily, and 10305..." is what you said, if you were talking about a different set, it wasn't very clear, so you were presumably complaining about it, now if you would please point me to a better castle, I'd love to see it, but most people tend to quite like it, sounds to me like you just don't like castles all that much (or that you expect a 10 000pcs+ MOC which has way too much structurally-unstable detailing), does it use some interesting techniques? yes it does. Does it use a variety of colours, most of which are also used in kid's sets? Yes, but that's part of what Lego does, reuse similar parts across different themes. Please do tell me what it should have looked like, because it sounds like complaining is easy for you, but are solutions as easily proposed? Just point me to other manufacturers' builds or to MOCs which fit the bill, or otherwise I fail to see the substance of your complaints.

I'm not sure where the disconnect here is. Maybe it's because I used "played with" in a way that I think of when I think of playing with Lego - rebuilding it and letting your imagination run wild. The way you can play with 10305 is not that, you can play with it like it was a dollhouse. And if you're of the age where you'd play with it like that, it's not likely you will be rebuilding a 4000 piece set.

Oh I like most castles. Creator castle was cool for what it was. I've even built that 3xMOC of the same. I've recently posted some other castle in the appropriate topic if I'm not mistaken. So, as I said for the GE, I'm fine if they look very playful and fun from the outside like the creator castle. I'm fine if they're interesting only in a way that you could put it on a shelf and have it as an ornament. But if they're exactly halfway between these two, then they don't really excel at anything.

Edited September 4, 2023 by Merlo

[jodawill]

I don't think curves fit the classic space aesthetic at all. Consider the real life vehicle designs the '80s. They had lots of straight lines, rectangular headlights, etc. That's beautiful to me. I love how simple they are.

I've never been a fan of the more recent trend of curved hoods and headlights. They look balloon-like, like they followed the obesity trend in America. To me, it seems like some of the new classic space MOCs are following this trend, which isn't really in the spirit of the futuristic designs of the '80s. This is something the designers of 10497 got right.

Someone mentioned the City space sets earlier. Aside from the bland color scheme, the curvature is what turns me off from those. They seem futuristic from the perspective of the depict things no one has actually done yet, but they seem to depict people in the present day achieving realistic goals (like going to Mars) as opposed to an idealized future where we can achieve anything, like Star Trek.

[Merlo]

The thing is, classic space designs looked weird and futuristic. They looked nothing like 1980's cars and that's what made them interesting.

The new Galaxy Explorer, however, looks very contemporary. It's very much made to appeal to our present day sensibilities.

However, I've never really argued for sets having to be curvy, just that reasonably curvy looks less strange than perpexingly square.

Also, if we're drawing car comparisons - classic space originated in the 1970's. It took some time in the 1980's for ridiculously square car models to gain traction, by which a common set of elements was already in usage.

So this:

seems to me much more similar to this:

than to this:

 

Edited September 4, 2023 by Merlo

[Horation]

8 hours ago, Merlo said:

I'm not sure where the disconnect here is. Maybe it's because I used "played with" in a way that I think of when I think of playing with Lego - rebuilding it and letting your imagination run wild. The way you can play with 10305 is not that, you can play with it like it was a dollhouse. And if you're of the age where you'd play with it like that, it's not likely you will be rebuilding a 4000 piece set.

Oh I like most castles. Creator castle was cool for what it was. I've even built that 3xMOC of the same. I've recently posted some other castle in the appropriate topic if I'm not mistaken. So, as I said for the GE, I'm fine if they look very playful and fun from the outside like the creator castle. I'm fine if they're interesting only in a way that you could put it on a shelf and have it as an ornament. But if they're exactly halfway between these two, then they don't really excel at anything.

There are many people that have rebuilt or modified 10305, if you haven't seen any you haven't looked, you are correct that it is a large build, so fewer people will take it apart, but that doesn't make it any worse at that job than any other similarly large set (ex: 3x the creator castle, which would be a similar number of parts), the set can also absolutely be expanded upon without too much difficulty if you have the means (space and parts) to do so. Now if you are saying that TLG should only make smaller sets so that people can rebuild them very easily, say so or else make your actual opinion clear.

So the set has to look "playful", it looks as such to most people here, if you feel like there is too much grey or the likes, you should look at the interior and the foliage, which really help solve that problem. Now onto the GE, you are correct that it is a jack of all trades, but neither of those two option appear to please you anyways ("I'm fine if" is rarely used to say that you really want something, it sounds more like "I tolerate if"), so even if it excelled at one of these, you would only be fine with it, so why should any company try to cater to a customer who, at best, will be OK with a product of theirs when they can make a product that is halfway between these two criteria and sell way more copies, you still haven't made it clear what you want the set to look like...

 

"My original criticism for a lot of sets its that Lego wants to have its cake and eat it too, so the sets end up being okay from a play perspective and okay from the looks perspective. I'd love them to be great at both but I'm not sure that is possible. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the way I see it the set can be smaller, rebuildable, playful (which GE is not) or it can be a full blown grown up set with wonderful details, greebling, etc (which GE is also not)."

I agree it is not small, but it does have quite a lot of detail, except of course if you want a UCS millennium falcon style set with tons of wonderful details, greebling (and grey...), which would be hard to rebuild afterwards, and wouldn't meet your "small and playful" criteria at all, I quite enjoy spaceships which don't look like if someone vomited greebles on them, but if you, the guy complaining that 10305 is hard to rebuild want a set with so much detail from small parts, which would make it even harder to rebuild, and which is a small set with tons of playability, which would have less detail and greebling (where 10497 is not fitting that category but the creator castle is, despite them both having a similar amount of features...), sure sounds to me like you are the one trying to have your cake and eat it too, or else we'll need Schrodinger's Merlo's Lego set : simultaneously small (easy to rebuild) and large (hard to rebuild), simultaneously playful (with less detail but more rebuild ability) and displayable (with more greebling and less rebuild ability).

You are absolutely correct that this is probably not possible, although if you connect your set to a decaying atom, and when said atom decays it breaks a vial which releases the first type of set but when it doesn't it breaks another vial which releases the second type of set, and you put your contraption in a box, the superposition of the two states will create the two sets simultaneously, now you only need a quantum physics degree and a bit of cleverness to pull this off, good luck, and see you at your Nobel prize ceremony in ~20 years!

[danth]

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

Benny's spaceship I think has very little to do with classic space, other than the colors, of course. It works great for what it was designed for, but doesn't work at all in terms of classic space.

Not sure I'm following you. A space ship in classic space colors, with detachable smaller spaceships (a gimmick ever present in Classic Space) and a wing extension that revealed weaponry (present in 6886 and others), the LL designation, the double decker configuration, a body shape similar to 6931 and others, robots in the old style...the list goes on. How does any of that not work in terms of Classic Space?

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

My original criticism for a lot of sets its that Lego wants to have its cake and eat it too, so the sets end up being okay from a play perspective and okay from the looks perspective. I'd love them to be great at both but I'm not sure that is possible. I'd love to be proven wrong, but the way I see it the set can be smaller, rebuildable, playful (which GE is not) or it can be a full blown grown up set with wonderful details, greebling, etc (which GE is also not).

IMO, 10497 was exactly this. Great at play and looks. Maybe not a ton of greebling but that's more of a SW thing anyway. I loved building the Galaxy Explorer AND both amazing alt builds. All of them have great play features. All of them look awesome. And the set is perfect for MOCing. Check out my signature for two MOCs I did just with the leftover parts from the alt builds.

@Merlo, I gotta thank you...people used to think I was a picky Space fan that couldn't be pleased. Now you're taking all the heat for me! 😁

Edited September 4, 2023 by danth

[icm]

@Merlo:

The 10497 Galaxy Explorer is plenty playful. It's stuffed with play features: three-point retractable landing gear, four seats in the cockpit, two beds in the back, two storage compartments, a sliding door on the inside, reaction control thrusters that spin around, two big windscreens that can be opened and closed, a big cargo bay in the back that opens wide on both sides, a chunky little rover to carry in the cargo bay, an innovative two-stage ramp that not only reaches the ground but launches the rover down the ramp at some speed, and two detachable space-motorcycles/speeder-bikes with fun little control levers. It also has a fun little robot to serve the astronauts coffee.

The 10497 Galaxy Explorer is plenty rebuildable. It has official instructions for B and C models to rebuild it into modern remakes of the 924 Space Transport and 918 One-Man Spaceship. I would argue it is the Classic Space 3-in-1 Creator set that @danth has called for. Besides those two official alt builds (which are two more alt builds than most sets get), you can find alt builds on Rebrickable that turn it into a remake of the Classic Space Cosmic Cruiser, a great big mining mech, a Classic Space version of the U-wing from Star Wars, a Classic Space version of the Republic Gunship from Star Wars, a geoscience survey rover, a remake of the Classic Space Alien Moon Stalker, and many other spaceships. With two or three copies, you can make a Classic Space version of the Nebulon-B frigate from Star Wars, a remake of the Classic Space Galaxy Commander, a remake of the Classic Space Cosmic Fleet Voyager, and several other large spaceships. If you search Reddit, Flickr, or Instagram, you can find a number of other alt builds for the 10497.

Quote

In fact, for me Galaxy Dropship is more in line with what I personally thought the Classic Space philosophy is than the new Galaxy Explorer is. What's that? Well, classic space looked strange and futuristic. Sometimes it looked just straight awkward. Like it was depicting something that might not entirely make sense to us because it was so far ahead of what we considered normal. The sets often had some combination of odd shape or layered colors and/or bricks, so that when a kid's eye would look at them, it was not immediately obvious what you're looking at and like the sets had secrets that your imagination can feed off of. It was almost like simulating greebling without having any greebling whatsoever.

To me it seems like the old GE was a spaceship that might have been fast, sure, but that equally well presented a bulky, imposing look. It was sort of a best of both worlds. You could pretend play it was a huge ship, much bigger than it actually was because the interior was partially a mystery when closed. 

Emphasis added.

You imagined the old Galaxy Explorer set as representing a scaled-down version of a much larger vessel, the way the playscale Millennium Falcon is a scaled-down version of a much larger vessel. That's fine, and you're not alone in imagining that. There are many fan builds on Flickr of much larger vessels built as Galaxy Explorers. Where you annoy me, and others, is your seeming insistence that the way you imagine the Galaxy Explorer is the correct way, or the only way, or that Lego (the company) or Mike Psiaki (the set designer) lacked imagination in not conforming to your imagination of the way a Galaxy Explorer remake should be. Personally, I never imagined it that way. I've seen enormous upscaled Galaxy Explorer fan builds and I appreciate the skill and imagination of the fan builders, but I've never wanted them as retail sets, nor imagined that that's the way the real ship must be.

Ask yourself: would you really want an $800 UCS supersize Galaxy Explorer retail set, along the lines of the UCS Millennium Falcon or UCS Razor Crest? Do you really think that would sell? How accessible would that be? In the modern Lego lineup, $100 for the 10497 is a very accessible midrange price point.

It's true that the 10497, with its lack of ornate exterior greebling, can look somewhat plain. But that's an intentional stylistic choice. Not everything has to be covered in greebling to look good - to some eyes, heavy greebling doesn't look good. As for the design and build of the 10497, it's actually startlingly innovative when you compare it to all previous Galaxy Explorer MOCs on the internet. I've made it a personal project since about 2017 to pay close attention to all the Galaxy Explorer MOCs I can find on the web and try to recreate most of them in Studio. My jaw dropped when I saw the first pictures of the 10497 because it had so many design features and building techniques I'd never seen before in any Galaxy Explorer MOC, and its overall design language was completely fresh compared to all other Galaxy Explorers I'd ever seen - not an easy feat in a crowded building space. Just because it looks plain doesn't mean it lacks imagination. There's so much imagination in that build - and also in the design brief. It requires a lot more imagination to scale up the old ship 1.5 times with modern parts and stuff it full of play features the original didn't have, than to simply scale it up twice with old parts (as several fan builders have done) or to simply upgrade the original ship with modern parts at close to the original scale, without adding many play features (as most fan builders have done, including myself).

As for whether the 10497 reflects the design language or visual aesthetic of Classic Space, you and @Aanchir both have good points, but I agree with Aanchir more. The subtlety, I think, is that there's a shift in the design language of the 1978-1980 Classic Space versus the later 1981-1987 sets. The first sets, including the Galaxy Explorer, have a much simpler aesthetic than the later sets, and I think that the 10497 captures that simpler, highly angular, look quite well. The later Classic Space sets had much more complex shapes and many more lights, antennas, trusses, nozzles, fins, and other specialty elements breaking up their outer mold lines. The later windows and windscreens with multiple facets can much more plausibly be taken as approximating curves than the simple sloped windscreens of the 1978-1980 sets. All those specialty elements also can be much more plausibly taken as representing greeble areas in a modern remake than the flat, unadorned wings of the Galaxy Explorer and its smaller siblings. In that regard, the Galaxy Dropship on Ideas does represent the look of later Classic Space quite a bit better than the 10497. Similarly, the 70816 Benny Spaceship is an attempt (successful in the eyes of many people, unsuccessful in your eyes) to blend the bells, whistles, and widgets of later Classic Space with the wedge planform and the color scheme of the 1978-1980 sets.

If your objection to the 10497 is that it "looks very contemporary" and is "very much made to appeal to our present day sensibilities," what would you do differently? Every single Galaxy Explorer MOC on the web looks very contemporary and is very much made to appeal to our present day sensibilities, except ones that are made as makeshift attempts to approximate the size and shape of the original set on the smallest budget possible, and those generally look far too primitive to sell as retail sets in the 2020s. Would you resurrect the long-retired 3/7 wedge plates? Would you resurrect the long-retired 2x3x2 tail fins with four studs on top? This is my attempt to remake the Galaxy Explorer as close to the original set as possible, but using modern wedge plates and modern windscreens. Would you do this?

 - - - As long as I'm on my soapbox, I'll note that however much I like the 10497 as released, I would also have very much liked to get a smaller spaceship along with a moonbase and landing pad, if that could be made to fit into a single $160 or $170 set like the largest sets in the City exploration lines. Aka, something like this (see left half, ie the old spaceship on the landing pad made from City road plates, and the Wonder Woman satellite dish):

or this (entirely my own design):

I was being rude when I called the Galaxy Dropship one of the ugliest Classic Space MOCs ever designed, and I apologize for that. Even though I think it is ugly, I don't have any objection to curved windscreens and curved slopes in modern Classic Space remakes. I agree that the curved design language can work for a Classic Space aesthetic. There are many Classic Space MOCs that use modern curves quite successfully. For instance, remakes of the Cosmic Fleet Voyager in your last post are usually quite curvy, including my own version (the picture is outdated, I've removed the stickers from the windscreen and made some other changes). But I don't think a curvy style works very well with the Galaxy Explorer, especially not at a small scale.

I also like this curvy Galaxy Explorer-style ship a lot, and it's small enough that I can imagine it being released as a retail set. But I wouldn't want a retail set version of this model to be named "Galaxy Explorer."

Ok - sorry for the extra-long post. I'll get off my soapbox now and stop blowing my own horn. I sincerely don't mean to invalidate your perspective on the stylistic choices of the 10497, etc. We're all allowed our own different tastes and preferences and certainly Eurobricks should always be a safe space to criticize Lego sets and say exactly what we don't like about them and why! It's just that we have such different visions of Classic Space that I too have a lot to say about this one set, but I hesitated to rejoin the conversation because I've pretty much already said everything I have to say about it several times over. (To whoever has read all this stuff from me before, sorry for the repetition.)

Have a nice day! I should get back to work. :)

15 minutes ago, danth said:

Not sure I'm following you. A space ship in classic space colors, with detachable smaller spaceships (a gimmick ever present in Classic Space) and a wing extension that revealed weaponry (present in 6886 and others), the LL designation, the double decker configuration, a body shape similar to 6931 and others, robots in the old style...the list goes on. How does any of that not work in terms of Classic Space?

IMO, 10497 was exactly this. Great at play and looks. Maybe not a ton of greebling but that's more of a SW thing anyway. I loved building the Galaxy Explorer AND both amazing alt builds. All of them have great play features. All of them look awesome. And the set is perfect for MOCing. Check out my signature for two MOCs I did just with the leftover parts from the alt builds.

This. So much this.

16 minutes ago, danth said:

@Merlo, I gotta thank you...people used to think I was a picky Space fan that couldn't be pleased. Now you're taking all the heat for me! 😁

😁

[Aanchir]

12 hours ago, Merlo said:

To me it seems like the old GE was a spaceship that might have been fast, sure, but that equally well presented a bulky, imposing look. It was sort of a best of both worlds. You could pretend play it was a huge ship, much bigger than it actually was because the interior was partially a mystery when closed. The new GE always looks like a very fast combat vessel of some sorts thanks to the really pointed look and the two canopies.

I don't really get that same impression at all from the new Galaxy Explorer. To me, the fuselage seems plenty bulky, even if the fuselage has less of that zigzag "double decker" look that the original got from having a large, flat "sunroof" in between the upper and lower windscreens. And it feels way more like a mobile base to me than any sort of combat vessel, particularly with its chunky wing profile, comfortable-looking interior, large crew, extremely limited armaments, and chunky engines which seem more designed for power than speed.

12 hours ago, Merlo said:

Often when I say I would have liked reimagined sets, people think I would like an X-wing with the galaxy explorer name and colors. In fact when I look at these old sets I have two images in my mind: what the set actually looks like, and what it might have looked like if the original designer had a way of realizing that vision with today's bricks. So when a designer stacks a flat wall 4 bricks high in 1979, that's very normal to me. When a designer stacks a 7 bricks high flat wall in 2022 that almost feels like a caricature to me: not looking at the set as what it could have been but looking at it at what it was only because it couldn't have helped it, like painting a pretty person with some normal imperfections and leaning real hard into the imperfections for no reason.

Okay, but couldn't you just as easily argue that the "double decker" look of the Galaxy Explorer was the designers' way of making the transparent cockpit canopy as large and sharp-looking as was possible at that  time? And that consequently, the sharply inclined fuselage and large windscreens of the new one are in fact todays' designers ways of staying true to that?

After all, back in the 70s, LEGO didn't HAVE any larger or steeper windscreens than the 3x6 ones that the original Galaxy Explorer used, so the only way to simulate a huge transparent cockpit with a sharp side profile was to alternate between shallow sloped windscreens and flat plates. Even so, the result was obviously much larger and sharper than the windscreen shapes used for LEGO Town cars, trucks, and even airplanes of the time! And it's no surprise that soon as big 4x10 windscreen pieces with sharper inclines were introduced in the first wave of Space Police sets, they became a staple of large spacecraft sets for many years to come.

I also don't think it's reasonable or realistic to act as though big flat walls or boxy shapes are implicitly an imperfection that classic sets only included because it was unavoidable. Buildings and vehicles in both real life and fiction often DO have plenty of big, flat surfaces! If you go out of your way to add textural/sculptural detail to a model just to avoid any portions of it seeming simple or plain, it can result in a messy or cluttered appearance. And that's especially true if those details don't serve any particular purpose and are just "detail for detail's sake".

2 hours ago, icm said:

As for whether the 10497 reflects the design language or visual aesthetic of Classic Space, you and @Aanchir both have good points, but I agree with Aanchir more. The subtlety, I think, is that there's a shift in the design language of the 1978-1980 Classic Space versus the later 1981-1987 sets. The first sets, including the Galaxy Explorer, have a much simpler aesthetic than the later sets, and I think that the 10497 captures that simpler, highly angular, look quite well. The later Classic Space sets had much more complex shapes and many more lights, antennas, trusses, nozzles, fins, and other specialty elements breaking up their outer mold lines. The later windows and windscreens with multiple facets can much more plausibly be taken as approximating curves than the simple sloped windscreens of the 1978-1980 sets. All those specialty elements also can be much more plausibly taken as representing greeble areas in a modern remake than the flat, unadorned wings of the Galaxy Explorer and its smaller siblings. In that regard, the Galaxy Dropship on Ideas does represent the look of later Classic Space quite a bit better than the 10497. Similarly, the 70816 Benny Spaceship is an attempt (successful in the eyes of many people, unsuccessful in your eyes) to blend the bells, whistles, and widgets of later Classic Space with the wedge planform and the color scheme of the 1978-1980 sets.

Yeah, you make a very good point about there being a big difference between "early" Classic Space and "late" Classic Space sets. Mind you, both have their charms! Looking at old advertisements and catalogs has given me a lot of appreciation for how HUGE and EXCITING a development it was when minifig-sized robots/androids were added to the theme in 1985 to provide assistance to the astronauts. Likewise, I have quite a fondness for the science-fantasy flair of "walkers" like 6882 and 6940, some of the earliest forerunners of the elaborate articulated mecha sets that captivate so many kids and adults today. And I love the sheer whimsy of 6806, even if zipping around on a chair propelled by vertically mounted rockets hardly seems like the most efficient means of locomotion!

But by comparison, the older Classic Space stuff was, by the designers' own admission, more heavily influenced by the "space race" era that had done so much to spur their own youthful fascination with space travel. Those sets featured a lot of overtly real-world-inspired unmanned rockets with detachable radio satellites — two types of subject matter that you rarely see featured as prominent motifs in more fantastical or futuristic sci-fi adventure series like Star Wars or Star Trek! In set 483/920 in particular, the rocket was even launched from a similarly real-world-inspired launch tower and platform, and fueled by a relatively mundane-looking tanker trailer. Contrast with set 6930 released a few years later — not only does it include fantastical "flying saucer" shaped hovercrafts instead of just real-world-inspired "space-planes", rovers, and rockets, but they seem to draw power from a futuristic docking platform, rather than needing any sort of fuel hoses or charging cables.

The shifting design philosophy of Classic Space sets was also apparent in the gradual shift in color schemes — particularly the introduction of sets with white and transparent blue as their main colors. The designers did this in order to help streamline the transition from Classic Space to Futuron, a new chapter in LEGO Space that was meant to portray what kids of the 80s believed the future of space travel might look like, rather than the sort of future the designers envisioned back when THEY were kids. Some of the signature features used to communicate that distinction Epcot-inspired monorail, colorful dome-shaped canopies, and other features that portrayed extraterrestrial civilizations rather than just untamed frontiers.

[Merlo]

Y'all write too much for one person to answer

@Horation

Yes, people have rebuilt 10305, but it's not a job for the majority of fans, or even a significant number I would think. I'm not saying TLG should only make smaller sets. I just think it would be better if they opted for one thing at a time and really nail it instead of making multiple things with only moderate success at each. The set is plenty playful on the inside, but as I said, it's a dollhouse kinda playful not a rebuild kind. So if it's not a rebuild type set I'd prefer it to look more attractive as a display piece. Since they sacrificed a bit of that to add play features that I'm not going to use, it feels like a waste to spend 400 euros on it. Or, in other words, it's an epic set, that's not epic enough to be epic :)

 

Quote

if you feel like there is too much grey or the likes, you should look at the interior and the foliage, which really help solve that problem.

I feel the interior is not for me, it's more for kids. And the foliage and the rocks I feel are too rough for me and too rough for some of the more detailed castle parts.

 

Quote

Now onto the GE, you are correct that it is a jack of all trades, but neither of those two option appear to please you anyways ("I'm fine if" is rarely used to say that you really want something, it sounds more like "I tolerate if"), so even if it excelled at one of these, you would only be fine with it, so why should any company try to cater to a customer who, at best, will be OK with a product of theirs when they can make a product that is halfway between these two criteria and sell way more copies, you still haven't made it clear what you want the set to look like... 

Why do you think neither of those options would please me? I bought plenty of kid friendly Lego sets for their simplicity and cheerful nature. I did, however, buy more 18+ non Lego sets, for the previously mentioned reason. If the set is 18+ and it's meant to please grown ups, but can't match non-Lego offerings because it has to be a playset accessible to little kids as well, that's a shame. I wish I had the time and the skill to just MOC them a bit as people have MOC'd 10305, but I don't. Many ideas sets I would have bought day one were changed in this way.
 

Quote

 

I agree it is not small, but it does have quite a lot of detail, except of course if you want a UCS millennium falcon style set with tons of wonderful details, greebling (and grey...), which would be hard to rebuild afterwards, and wouldn't meet your "small and playful" criteria at all, I quite enjoy spaceships which don't look like if someone vomited greebles on them, but if you, the guy complaining that 10305 is hard to rebuild want a set with so much detail from small parts, which would make it even harder to rebuild, and which is a small set with tons of playability, which would have less detail and greebling (where 10497 is not fitting that category but the creator castle is, despite them both having a similar amount of features...), sure sounds to me like you are the one trying to have your cake and eat it too, or else we'll need Schrodinger's Merlo's Lego set : simultaneously small (easy to rebuild) and large (hard to rebuild), simultaneously playful (with less detail but more rebuild ability) and displayable (with more greebling and less rebuild ability).

 

Wait, what? I kinda can't follow from the middle point onwards :) If it was greebly, presumably it wouldn't be a set primarily meant for play and rebuilding, but more for display, and the other way around. It's okay if a set does one thing great and I don't like that thing. Tough luck for me, but still a great set. I just don't like it when sets are missed opportunities to really add anything substantial other than "it will sell". And I can hardly imagine something Lego makes would not sell, too many people are desperate for their favorite themes.

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Merlo

[Merlo]

Quote

Not sure I'm following you. A space ship in classic space colors, with detachable smaller spaceships (a gimmick ever present in Classic Space) and a wing extension that revealed weaponry (present in 6886 and others), the LL designation, the double decker configuration, a body shape similar to 6931 and others, robots in the old style...the list goes on. How does any of that not work in terms of Classic Space?

Ah, sorry, is the consensus that Benny's ship is very true to the classic space formula? Because to me that set and the new GE have very little in common. So it would make sense if one of them was true to it and the other wasn't, but not both. Unless we're just thinking "classic space colors" + "set in space" = classic space! In which case, yes, I probably am asking too much and everyone thinks I'm off my rocker :)

As far as Benny's Spaceship is concerned, I think you could've seen from my previous comments why I wouldn't find in it the parts of classic space I liked and why I never bought it and why I would find those parts in, e.g. 6931, now that you've mentioned it.

6931 looks weird! It has an uneven mass/color/layer distribution and makes the child in me say: "wait, what is this??" I can easily roleplay it being from another world, let alone from the future.

Benny's Spaceship does not - like, not at all. It looks sleek and badass and perhaps a bit comedic in how over the top it is. It's far more like a ship straight out of a superhero movie (which I guess it is) than out of classic space.

It's like a cool kids' set, but might be too complex for rebuilding. Just like the new GE is like a cool grown up set, but might be too simple for prime shelf real-estate.

 

Quote

IMO, 10497 was exactly this. Great at play and looks. Maybe not a ton of greebling but that's more of a SW thing anyway. I loved building the Galaxy Explorer AND both amazing alt builds. All of them have great play features. All of them look awesome. And the set is perfect for MOCing. Check out my signature for two MOCs I did just with the leftover parts from the alt builds.

10497 I can only appreciate from a technical standpoint, i.e. look at how the designer has solved this, look at this technique, look at the execution here, etc. If I'm a child and Benny's Spaceship is in sight, I won't look twice at 10497.

 

Quote

I gotta thank you...people used to think I was a picky Space fan that couldn't be pleased. Now you're taking all the heat for me! 😁

Well after this whole 10497 thing I find it hard to believe you wouldn't just wholeheartedly accept any and all space remakes that just meet the basic criteria of "looking like the Lego designer can design Lego", and I believe there are plenty of people who work for Lego and can indeed do a solid job of designing Lego xD

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Merlo

[Merlo]

Quote

I don't really get that same impression at all from the new Galaxy Explorer. To me, the fuselage seems plenty bulky, even if the fuselage has less of that zigzag "double decker" look that the original got from having a large, flat "sunroof" in between the upper and lower windscreens. And it feels way more like a mobile base to me than any sort of combat vessel, particularly with its chunky wing profile, comfortable-looking interior, large crew, extremely limited armaments, and chunky engines which seem more designed for power than speed.

Well, maybe it's me, but somehow this whole elongated cockpit thing doesn't remind me of a big spaceship. I would find a glass roof covering the majority of an intergalactic spaceship a truly odd sight. Maybe great for tourism, but still :)

Quote

Okay, but couldn't you just as easily argue that the "double decker" look of the Galaxy Explorer was the designers' way of making the transparent cockpit canopy as large and sharp-looking as was possible at that  time? And that consequently, the sharply inclined fuselage and large windscreens of the new one are in fact todays' designers ways of staying true to that?

Yes, but you could argue anything. I could argue the designer used the original GE images with an AI tool, asked for something sleeker, got something perhaps not too logical, but looked badass enough to make it :)

 

Quote

After all, back in the 70s, LEGO didn't HAVE any larger or steeper windscreens than the 3x6 ones that the original Galaxy Explorer used, so the only way to simulate a huge transparent cockpit with a sharp side profile was to alternate between shallow sloped windscreens and flat plates.

Ah, but a part of the cockpit already was transparent. They could've designed the 2nd "deck" in the same way as the first and get as big as a windscreen as they wanted. Isn't it more likely that the way the new GE was built was easier and just better looking than trying to emulate how it looked in the original? Lego today is not brave enough to make something that looks weird. Heck, it's doubtful if anyone would buy it. All I'm saying is I loved weird. Classic space was anything from a little to a lot of weird and the new GE instead Benny's Spaceship-ized the old GE. I would have preferred if someone instead old Galaxy Explorer-ed the Benny's Spaceship. Make it all angular and awkward. But again, that's just me.

 

Quote

I also don't think it's reasonable or realistic to act as though big flat walls or boxy shapes are implicitly an imperfection that classic sets only included because it was unavoidable. Buildings and vehicles in both real life and fiction often DO have plenty of big, flat surfaces! If you go out of your way to add textural/sculptural detail to a model just to avoid any portions of it seeming simple or plain, it can result in a messy or cluttered appearance. And that's especially true if those details don't serve any particular purpose and are just "detail for detail's sake".

The opposite of "flat wall" is not necessarily mad detail or greebling. I kind of feel like you wrote this part more because it makes for a good addition to the debate, but I'll bite :)

The flat wall in the classic set wasn't really an imperfection because it was close enough to what the author wanted to make (whatever it was). There was no need to make a wall that height non-flat and probably if you tried with those parts it wouldn't look as good. But if you look at the old Galaxy Explorer and try to describe that part, precisely because of this you would not say "and the walls are really really flat". It kinda feels more like it was practical for them to be flat and they weren't tall enough to bring particular attention to that fact than like it was a particularly important part of the design.

So instead you would probably describe it as "it has the part with the cockpit and then in the rear it suddenly gets both taller and wider" (and, heck, even falls again). Now, it doesn't matter what that means to me if I'm remaking the GE. It doesn't matter what it means to you either. But surely we both have our unique takes on "how this solution back then would translate into the design language of today".

But what happened instead was that we got a literal, unidiomatic translation between the two design languages. And through that an idiom of old became a slightly broken expression of new :) It's a bit like not seeing the forest for the trees. The designer, for whatever reason, chose to partially google translate the old GE into the new - and hilarity ensued :)

It would be similar had the wings of the new GE been just a flat plate like the old one had. Luckily, that part was properly translated into the present.

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by Merlo

[icm]

11 minutes ago, Merlo said:

Ah, sorry, is the consensus that Benny's ship is very true to the classic space formula? Because to me that set and the new GE have very little in common. So it would make sense if one of them was true to it and the other wasn't, but not both. 

They can both be true to the Classic Space formula in different ways. That's what we're trying to say. There is no "one true way" to make a modern Classic Space build. There is no "one true" Classic Space. Your opinions on Classic Space are just as valid as anybody's. The problem is when you seem to think that your version of CS is the one true way. It's like insisting that thin-crust New York-style pepperoni pizza is the one and only, one true pizza and nothing else can properly be called pizza, and then saying all the other pizza chefs who make different styles of pizza don't know how to cook.

[danth]

1 hour ago, Merlo said:

Ah, sorry, is the consensus that Benny's ship is very true to the classic space formula? Because to me that set and the new GE have very little in common. So it would make sense if one of them was true to it and the other wasn't, but not both. Unless we're just thinking "classic space colors" + "set in space" = classic space! In which case, yes, I probably am asking too much and everyone thinks I'm off my rocker :)

I think of Benny's Spaceships as being the other end of the spectrum (that you proposed) from 10497. Benny's Spaceship has more whimsy, weirdness, messiness, and is arguably easier for rebuilding or MOCing from a kid's point of view (large single wedge piece wings vs wings build of smaller wedges).

[danth]

1 hour ago, Merlo said:

Well after this whole 10497 thing I find it hard to believe you wouldn't just wholeheartedly accept any and all space remakes that just meet the basic criteria of "looking like the Lego designer can design Lego", and I believe there are plenty of people who work for Lego and can indeed do a solid job of designing Lego xD

Not sure what you mean. I was pretty unimpressed with the Blacktron Cruiser remake.

My complaints about Lego Space sets are like, way simpler and easier to understand than yours. Like, in Space Police 3, they literally used aviation helmets in the first wave. Whether you liked those helmets or not, the complaint is simple and easy to understand.

I don't think anyone is going to understand you without very specific breakdowns of what aspects of a set you like and don't like, with pictures. When you used multiple versions of El Dorado fortress, with links to pictures of each, and a breakdown of your complaints, it made sense to me. I know you've posted pics with regards to Galaxy Explorer, but for some reason I (personally) feel like I'm still missing something. EDIT: I do understand and sympathize with some of your complaints (e.g. it could have been more "double-deckery") but that will have be enough for you; I don't agree that 10497 is a failure in some way for being what it is.

And of course most people are going to flat out reject any arguments that say "10497 was like this, but it SHOULD have been like this!" The majority of people here think 10497 was a home run. We like it for what it is.

Like that dropship MOC you posted. Should the next Space set look like that? Maybe, I don't dislike it, and I appreciate its very different take on the Space aesthetic. Is that what 10497 SHOULD have been? Well, almost nobody is going to agree with that.

I'll repeat what I said before. We need more Space sets! Then you can pick your favorite.

Edited September 5, 2023 by danth

[icm]

@Merlo - Okay, so your main objection to 10497 is how the windscreen, sunroof, and rear windscreen were handled. How would you do it better? Don't just tell me, show me. Mock up your design in Studio and let's see how you would do it.

It's not as easy as it looks to recreate the vintage sunroof. Thanks to the windscreen designed for the Batmobile in The Lego Batman Movie, we have a drop-in replacement for the main, front windscreen in trans-yellow. Thanks to the new 3x6 wedge slope in trans-yellow from The Lego Movie 2, we have a drop-in replacement for the secondary, rear windscreen. We can use 1x4x3 panels in trans-yellow as nearly drop-in replacements for the side windows, and certainly a retail set could use 1x2x2 panels or 1x4x2 panels in trans-yellow as a perfect drop-in replacement. But the sunroof isn't so easy. In 928 it's a transparent 4x10 plate. Lego doesn't make transparent plates larger than 1x2 anymore, and they don't make transparent tiles larger than 1x4. The largest window glass panel is for a 1x6x6 frame, and the largest flag pieces are 4x6 and 3x6. None of those are drop-in replacements for the sunroof. You're going to have to use more imagination to figure that out.

So let's see what other MOC builders have done, before the 10497.

You can simply have an opaque blue roof, like I did, but that's not satisfactory. You won't settle for anything less than a flat transparent sunroof.

You can build up a trans-yellow sunroof from smaller trans-yellow 1x2 tiles or trans-yellow 1x1 round tiles on top, and trans-yellow 2x2 boat studs on bottom, but that's not satisfactory either. It's fragile, complicated, and you can't see through it very well. (The 918 by Constender illustrates the technique.)

 

You can build up a sunroof from transparent 1x4 bricks, and if you're designing a retail set you can transparent 1x2x5 bricks, but that's a clumsy solution that reduces minifig headroom and doesn't blend in very well with either the front or back windscreen:

 

 

You can use a segmented roof, like The Brick Artisan / Guido Martin Branduis, or this concept from Elephant-Knight:

If the double-decker aspect is critically important to you, you can use two bubble cockpits in a retail set, but those parts don't actually exist in trans-yellow for a MOC build:

 

Continued from previous post:

The easiest way to get a transparent ceiling for the entire cockpit is to use the trans-yellow UCS X-wing windscreen. But then you have to abandon the idea of the separate windscreen and sunroof, and the much shallower slope of the UCS X-wing windscreen severely reduces headroom and usable volume in the cockpit. Many MOCs have done this:

 

 

So, those are the sunroof or double-decker solutions that MOC builders have used in the past before 10497 was released. As MOC builders, all these people have been free to use every bit of creativity and imagination they possibly can, not limited by the requirements of retail sets.

[icm]

But note, none of these are the windscreen + sunroof combination you're looking for. Now let's take a look at how Mike Psiaki did it, which is completely differently than how anyone else has done it.


Problem: There is no existing transparent plate or flag that is large enough to cover the "sunroof" area on its own.
The usual solution: Use the existing UCS X-wing windscreen.
Problem with that solution: The UCS X-wing windscreen has far too shallow of a slope to recreate the lines of the Galaxy Explorer or to easily accomodate multiple minifigures underneath.
Solution: Mount the UCS X-wing windscreen at an elevated angle so that now it has the proper slope, with enough headroom underneath to accomodate a large crew, while still covering a large area on top. Also, mount another UCS X-wing windscreen at the opposite angle - and, hey presto, now it's nearly flat on top, and can cover the entire sunroof area with a single, transparent, part.
It's an astonishingly elegant and simple solution that kills two birds with one stone, and is utterly and completely unique in Galaxy Explorer builds. I hadn't seen anything like it when the 10497 debuted.

Also, note the thick, flat wing with attached leading edges. When I heard rumors about the Galaxy Explorer remake, I wondered how they would do the wings. Would they use wedge plates to build up a thin wing, like about half of the MOCs out there? Would they use slope bricks to build up a single-brick-thick wing, like the other half? Would they use stud inverters to have a sandwich wing with bottom greebles, like a few MOCs? No - Mike Psiaki did something completely different. Nobody else had done a five-plate thick studs-up wing with attached leading edges. Again, it's astonishingly innovative. After the 10283 Space Shuttle Discovery was released in 2021, I'd contemplated adapting its five-plate-thick wing with attached leading edges into a new Galaxy Explorer, but I never took the time to work that out. So I was tickled pink when the 10497 was released and Mike Psiaki had done that for me!

The greebling is minimal and understated compared to most Galaxy Explorer designs, but I like it that way. The wing engines have a clean, sleek look that's unlike any other Galaxy Explorer engines. Nobody else had done the retroactively-obvious Classic Space move of having the wing engines detach for use as space scooters. Nobody else had done those nice brick-built RCS nozzles or that clever brick-built arrow on the back. The landing pads on the 10497 are so much larger and more robust than on most fan builds. And nobody else had done that clever two-stage ramp either.

Again, I should get back to work and stop writing my love letter to the 10497. My point is just that the double-decker cabin with sunroof, of which you complain so much for the 10497, is actually nowhere near as simple as you think it is, and the 10497 has, in my view, the simplest and most elegant solution to the exact requirements you want: a nice big flat sunroof area, and a nice big flat front windscreen with just the right slope. I can accept the lack of a distinct rear upper-deck windscreen as a fair trade for that astonishingly elegant solution to the sunroof problem.

Now that I've said my piece, how would you do the sunroof? Pictures and Studio mockups, please.

Edit, from what you've written in your other posts I get the impression that your ideal Galaxy Explorer is probably close to this one by Guido Martin Brandis / The Brick Artisan:

PS - Since you claim to want a weird and quirky look to the Galaxy Explorer, I do think the 10497 qualifies. The way the windscreens are handled is quite unconventional, and to my eyes pretty weird and quirky.

But the weirdest and quirkiest Galaxy Explorer of all was also released in 2022. I would have been satisfied if it was the only non-licensed Spaceship released in 2022, even though I like the 10497 so much more. Is this what you're after? I think it's a pretty great Spaceship too!

 

 

Edited September 5, 2023 by icm

[Aanchir]

3 hours ago, Merlo said:

I feel the interior is not for me, it's more for kids. And the foliage and the rocks I feel are too rough for me and too rough for some of the more detailed castle parts.

Why do you think neither of those options would please me? I bought plenty of kid friendly Lego sets for their simplicity and cheerful nature. I did, however, buy more 18+ non Lego sets, for the previously mentioned reason. If the set is 18+ and it's meant to please grown ups, but can't match non-Lego offerings because it has to be a playset accessible to little kids as well, that's a shame. I wish I had the time and the skill to just MOC them a bit as people have MOC'd 10305, but I don't. Many ideas sets I would have bought day one were changed in this way.

I get that you might not care for those types of "playset features". But for me, the interior details were perhaps the biggest thing that attracted to me about 10305 Lion Knights' Castle — and I'm 32 years old, so well past my own KFOL years. And the same was true of some of the other 18+ or otherwise adult-targeted sets I'd previously sought out and enjoyed, like the Modular Buildings Collection, Ninjago City collection, and LEGO Ideas Medieval Blacksmith. In general, I feel like a lot of AFOLs tend to treat some features of a set design as "stuff kids like" and others as "stuff adults like", but from my experience, it doesn't break down nearly so neatly.

Aside from the actual complexity of a build, one of the things I've found about AFOL-targeted sets compared to KFOL-targeted sets is that they often tend to be more well-rounded. A lot of traditionally "boy-targeted" sets in themes like City, Castle, Pirates, and Ninjago are really heavy on action-focused subject matter and play features, but their interiors tend to be rather sparse, and they often have relatively little focus on everyday slice-of-life role-play scenarios. They've gotten better about this in recent years, (and generally about targeting both boys and girls rather than overwhelmingly prioritizing features that boys respond to in play tests), but prior to the mid-2010s, these shortcomings were EXTREMELY apparent.

Conversely, "girl-targeted" KFOL sets have traditionally excelled when it came to interior furnishings and everyday role-play features/accessories, but had a lot fewer action play features or dangerous/high-intensity conflict scenarios (though again, beginning in the mid-2010s they started showing more balance in that regard). They've also often had extremely "open" designs with incomplete walls and roofs — even beyond the traditional open-backed design of LEGO Town/City buildings — in order to ensure that all these detailed interior elements are fully accessible for play and storytelling.

Adult-targeted sets often seek to strike more of a balance between action and slice-of-life elements. Consider how the Medieval Market Village from 2009, Kingdoms Joust from 2010, Haunted House from 2013, and Temple of Airjitzu from 2015 contrast from the high-intensity conflict scenarios of their parent themes, even without focusing strictly on harmless "civilian" characters and accessories. Moreover, even when they DO have well-furnished interiors, adult-targeted sets still tend to be more display-oriented than KFOL-targeted sets. While some do still include an open back wall, like those in the Winter Village Collection, many others are fully enclosed, and utilize either hinges or modular floor construction for interior access.
 

In my opinion, there's nothing contradictory about including detailed and playable interiors like this in a display-oriented set. Even if as adults we tend to make less time for play and storytelling with these sets than we did when we were kids, these features still enrich the building experience, and act as awesome surprises to show off when they draw the attention of family, friends, and colleagues while on display. Sometimes we may even pull them down from the shelf just to open up and marvel at the details all over again (I certainly do, at any rate, even if they spend most of their time on display). And of course, details like these are a great source of inspiration for our own creations!

And frankly, if LEGO made a castle that was somehow even more gorgeous and impressive on display than 10305, but that did not include a detailed furnished interior? I would not have any interest in that whatsoever. Even as an adult, it would not be to my personal taste, particularly since the lack of authentic medieval interior details like thrones, bedchambers, and banquet halls in old-school Castle sets was often a little disappointing/frustrating to me even when I was a kid!
 

Galaxy Explorer is not quite as exemplary in this regard, by virtue of being a vehicle set rather than a building, and it's for that reason that I opted to get the Lion Knights' Castle instead despite its much higher price. But even so, the new Galaxy Explorer still has a much more elaborate interior than most other large spacecraft sets. Within its relatively narrow fuselage, it manages not just the gleaming white bridge (with extensive control panels, computer screens and seats for a crew of four), a garage/repair bay for the rover, and a sliding airlock, but also a living area with beds — a feature nearly unheard of in KFOL-targeted Space sets!

As such, I consider it a great example of what could be possible with other large, adult-targeted sci-fi sets in the future. If LEGO could do work all that detail into a large space cruiser set at a $100 price point, just imagine the possibilities for a retro-inspired 18+ moonbase or space station!

4 hours ago, Merlo said:

Well, maybe it's me, but somehow this whole elongated cockpit thing doesn't remind me of a big spaceship. I would find a glass roof covering the majority of an intergalactic spaceship a truly odd sight. Maybe great for tourism, but still :) 

But… the original set ALSO had a big glass roof? How are you simultaneously claiming that the new one feels like a smaller, speedier class of ship compared to the original, AND that bigger classes of ship can't/shouldn't have a big transparent roof like the one the original had? I'm genuinely confused at what you're trying to argue here.

3 hours ago, Merlo said:

Ah, but a part of the cockpit already was transparent. They could've designed the 2nd "deck" in the same way as the first and get as big as a windscreen as they wanted. Isn't it more likely that the way the new GE was built was easier and just better looking than trying to emulate how it looked in the original?

LOL, no. There is nothing at all "easy" about building the entire front portion of the fuselage at such an unusual angle, especially while still maintaining a fully enclosed design. The easiest approach would have been to keep the fuselage "on-grid" and just used sloped windscreens like many of the Galaxy Explorer MOCs that @icm has shared in this thread. Here, the designers instead went out of their way to emulate both the double-windscreen design of the original AND the sleekness it seemed to be aspiring to (but held back from by its limited 1970s parts palette).

But I do find this approach "better-looking" than the earlier stepped design, which still strikes me as a pretty obvious compromise meant to make the most of the limited window and windscreen elements available at the time. And why wouldn't the designers go with the approach that they feel looks best? After all, between the design work they did and the stuff they've said in interviews, it doesn't seem as though they share your viewpoint that the "soul" of Classic Space sets like the original Galaxy Explorer was intrinsically about looking "weird" or "awkward". In fact, I think you're maybe the only person I've ever seen try to assert that looking weird/awkward was a strength of the classic sets rather than a weakness, let alone a core aspect of what made them great.

4 hours ago, Merlo said:

The opposite of "flat wall" is not necessarily mad detail or greebling. I kind of feel like you wrote this part more because it makes for a good addition to the debate, but I'll bite :)

The flat wall in the classic set wasn't really an imperfection because it was close enough to what the author wanted to make (whatever it was). There was no need to make a wall that height non-flat and probably if you tried with those parts it wouldn't look as good. But if you look at the old Galaxy Explorer and try to describe that part, precisely because of this you would not say "and the walls are really really flat". It kinda feels more like it was practical for them to be flat and they weren't tall enough to bring particular attention to that fact than like it was a particularly important part of the design.

So instead you would probably describe it as "it has the part with the cockpit and then in the rear it suddenly gets both taller and wider" (and, heck, even falls again). Now, it doesn't matter what that means to me if I'm remaking the GE. It doesn't matter what it means to you either. But surely we both have our unique takes on "how this solution back then would translate into the design language of today".

But what happened instead was that we got a literal, unidiomatic translation between the two design languages. And through that an idiom of old became a slightly broken expression of new :) It's a bit like not seeing the forest for the trees. The designer, for whatever reason, chose to partially google translate the old GE into the new - and hilarity ensued :)

It would be similar had the wings of the new GE been just a flat plate like the old one had. Luckily, that part was properly translated into the present.

The wings in the new Galaxy Explorer are built differently from the original set, but so are several portions of the walls (most notably the angled front portion and the white arrow motifs). In any case, my point wasn't about what specific parts or techniques are used to create a smooth, clean-looking surfaces, but rather that it's not a fault to HAVE smooth, clean-looking surfaces like that in the first place, no matter how they're built

As I see it, both the walls and wings of the original set were were fairly flat, planar, rectilinear surfaces in the original set. The new set kept them that way, with low-relief textural details applied only sparingly. The designers certainly could have added curves or high-relief protrusions (like the various bumpy surfaces of the Galaxy Dropship) to either the walls OR the wings. To me, the fact that they didn't seems both deliberate and purposeful, and shows that it was important to them to modernize the original set without deviating too far from the rectilinear, geometric design language which set it apart from LEGO spacecraft of later decades.

Your priorities would clearly be different, and that's perfectly okay, but it bugs me that you keep acting as though the designers' choices indicate either a lack of understanding of Classic Space, or a lack of care/effort, when from all appearances the designers are just as passionate about classic Space as any of us, and it was that passion which informed their design decisions.

In general, it seems their efforts paid off — the vast majority of feedback to this set has been glowingly positive, whether from reviewers or from ordinary buyers. Some folks had minor gripes with the design, and modified their own copies of the set accordingly, but you're the only person I've seen who thinks it was a ridiculous failure at what it set out to do.

And it honestly seems kind of arrogant to keep acting as though your perspective only differs from other Space fans like @danth or myself because you're the only one willing to think critically and not just accept whatever's thrown at you. Even if you're relatively new to this community, you should know better than to make those sorts of assumptions. We ALL have our own likes, dislikes, and expectations, and we ALL evaluate new sets in accordance with those. Sure, some of us are easier to please than others, but that's usually a matter of which likes and dislikes are the highest priority to us, not a sign that any of us are less willing or less able to make honest and thorough assessments before deciding which set designs we approve of.

4 hours ago, icm said:

They can both be true to the Classic Space formula in different ways. That's what we're trying to say. There is no "one true way" to make a modern Classic Space build. There is no "one true" Classic Space. Your opinions on Classic Space are just as valid as anybody's. The problem is when you seem to think that your version of CS is the one true way. It's like insisting that thin-crust New York-style pepperoni pizza is the one and only, one true pizza and nothing else can properly be called pizza, and then saying all the other pizza chefs who make different styles of pizza don't know how to cook.

Thank you for putting this much more concisely than I could have (although you're gonna make me hungry with comments like that )!

 

[icm]

I'd just like to apologize to everybody reading this thread. It seems that me, @Merlo, @danth, and @Aanchir are simply repeating the same arguments/discussion we already had fifteen months ago, on pages 2-4 or so of this very thread! So, sorry for the repetition.

[danth]

2 hours ago, Aanchir said:

7 hours ago, icm said:

It's like insisting that thin-crust New York-style pepperoni pizza is the one and only, one true pizza and nothing else can properly be called pizza, and then saying all the other pizza chefs who make different styles of pizza don't know how to cook.

Thank you for putting this much more concisely than I could have (although you're gonna make me hungry with comments like that )!

I can't help but to post a link to this.

17 minutes ago, icm said:

I'd just like to apologize to everybody reading this thread. It seems that me, @Merlo, @danth, and @Aanchir are simply repeating the same arguments/discussion we already had fifteen months ago, on pages 2-4 or so of this very thread! So, sorry for the repetition.

Yep. Sorry everybody!

[Merlo]

Quote

The 10497 Galaxy Explorer is plenty playful.

Might be my bad English then. I meant playful as in full of wonder and whimsy and such, not playable as in you can easily play with it. I think 10305 is likely more playable than any previous castle with its detailed interior, but the outside look is almost halfway to a real castle, and not one of the interesting ones either. But most of 10497's play features have been inherited and/or improved, rather than invented.

Quote

The 10497 Galaxy Explorer is plenty rebuildable. It has official instructions for B and C models to rebuild it into modern remakes of the 924 Space Transport and 918 One-Man Spaceship. I would argue it is the Classic Space 3-in-1 Creator set that @danth has called for.

Ah, don't get me started on this. Remember when Lego had alternate models on boxes that were often more imaginative than the main model? The second sentence I think it's an exaggeration. The Creator 3-in-1 rover - I think that could've been in classic space colors and I'd like that very much. It was a good set.

Speaking of which, Mike Psiaki also designed 31052 Creator 3-in-1 set and absolutely crushed it. Not only is the main model great (the things he might not do as well are not as crucial here), but both B and C models could have been sold as is and no one would have even noticed they were made from the parts of something else. And the models are entirely different -a camper, a house and a boat! I think that set surpasses my expectation for what a 3-in-1 set can be by quite some margin, unlike 10497's alternate models.

 

Quote

Emphasis added.

This is almost akin to quote mining.

 

Quote

Where you annoy me, and others, is your seeming insistence that the way you imagine the Galaxy Explorer is the correct way, or the only way, or that Lego (the company) or Mike Psiaki (the set designer) lacked imagination in not conforming to your imagination of the way a Galaxy Explorer remake should be.

This is just a strawman that goes against everything I've ever talked about and that probably anyone would consider insulting just on the basis of how deluded I would have to be to even entertain such a thought.

As I've repeated many times, I don't mind and would not insult anyone's vision of the GE. I would not like all of them, sure, but I would not consider their taste inferior to mine because that makes no logical sense.

My only complaint was that the new GE is what over here we'd call an alibi-job. I.e. you hire a professional, the professional look at all the superficial aspects of the product and absolutely nails them and doesn't really care or feel or think it's his job to try and reach the heart of the matter. Instead of thinking how to translate between two design languages or just admitting that it's not possible to know what every part of every ship meant to every person and just taking a stand on whatever the designer likes, or maybe consulting with his colleagues, the solution here was not to take any stand, not to translate anything and just do a "oh, it's a ship that goes vroom, so now it can be a ship that goes vroom and looks more badass and contemporary".

And that's okay, I guess? I would just argue all these old sets were, even if it was by accident, just a little bit more than that.

Quote

Ask yourself: would you really want an $800 UCS supersize Galaxy Explorer retail set, along the lines of the UCS Millennium Falcon or UCS Razor Crest? Do you really think that would sell? How accessible would that be? In the modern Lego lineup, $100 for the 10497 is a very accessible midrange price point.

No, why? I think GE had a good size and price for what it was. I'm not an expert in these things, but looking at it as a consumer, it seemed fine to me. When I say something's a tad too plain, I don't mean it should be huge and greebled all over. I think that it's perhaps a bit of a rice cracker. It might still be tasty, well priced, filling, and all that, but at the end of the day it's a bit of a rice cracker :)
 

Quote

 

It's true that the 10497, with its lack of ornate exterior greebling, can look somewhat plain. But that's an intentional stylistic choice. Not everything has to be covered in greebling to look good - to some eyes, heavy greebling doesn't look good.

 

I love the look of the 10497. I've already praised the fact that it doesn't have nearly as many tiny pieces as some of the other sets I've built before and since, but absolutely doesn't need them to look good. In fact, the only thing I don't like about Lego is when it tries to look detailed and fails. I believe this designer could make a toilet bowl look stunning. I would just prefer it if the first question that comes to mind when seeing a space set that's supposed to be in the vain of classic space (and even the factions that came after) is less "bro, did you work on this for 12 years?" and more "bro, are you 12?" In my experience adults have much fewer issues making something technically sound than they do finding their inner child. Also, I do not find this opinion of mine controversial, especially not amongst comparisons between the new GE and 6931 and other takes.

 

Quote

its overall design language was completely fresh compared to all other Galaxy Explorers I'd ever seen - not an easy feat in a crowded building space.

Ah, maybe because other designers attempted to highlight and emphasize what they liked about the original GE, while this one just inflated it and smoothed it. Also, I think you're still exaggerating when you try and make it seem like you were in awe with all the features because my initial reaction after the build was disappointment that this set is one of those rare sets that you build and find nothing really surprises you. What you see on the box - is what you get. What really surprised me instead was how cleverly it was built and how the build process was more fun and less of a chore than usual with Lego.

 

Quote

Just because it looks plain doesn't mean it lacks imagination. There's so much imagination in that build - and also in the design brief. It requires a lot more imagination to scale up the old ship 1.5 times with modern parts and stuff it full of play features the original didn't have, than to simply scale it up twice with old parts (as several fan builders have done) or to simply upgrade the original ship with modern parts at close to the original scale, without adding many play features (as most fan builders have done, including myself).

I cannot quantize these things. I can just say if a remake contains something truly new that would excite me or perhaps translates the original idea differently than I would have imagine, thus surprising me.

 

Quote

As for whether the 10497 reflects the design language or visual aesthetic of Classic Space, you and @Aanchir both have good points, but I agree with Aanchir more. The subtlety, I think, is that there's a shift in the design language of the 1978-1980 Classic Space versus the later 1981-1987 sets. The first sets, including the Galaxy Explorer, have a much simpler aesthetic than the later sets, and I think that the 10497 captures that simpler, highly angular, look quite well. The later Classic Space sets had much more complex shapes and many more lights, antennas, trusses, nozzles, fins, and other specialty elements breaking up their outer mold lines. The later windows and windscreens with multiple facets can much more plausibly be taken as approximating curves than the simple sloped windscreens of the 1978-1980 sets. All those specialty elements also can be much more plausibly taken as representing greeble areas in a modern remake than the flat, unadorned wings of the Galaxy Explorer and its smaller siblings. In that regard, the Galaxy Dropship on Ideas does represent the look of later Classic Space quite a bit better than the 10497. Similarly, the 70816 Benny Spaceship is an attempt (successful in the eyes of many people, unsuccessful in your eyes) to blend the bells, whistles, and widgets of later Classic Space with the wedge planform and the color scheme of the 1978-1980 sets.

This all goes hand in hand with the lack of vision I've mentioned with Lego these days. Everything is a one-off. Look at the creator castle, 10305, medieval blacksmith, forestmen GWP.

In this case, much more so than with the sets that don't even match in scale or product line, I would think someone would say "okay, let's look at what classic space meant to us. we can then unify that into a design language we could reuse if we ever delve into the sets from this rough era again". Instead over the next x years we're bound to get a few more sets than don't match one another in any way because that's the easy way out and everyone here will be praising them and I'll be feeling kinda sad inside that I imagined Lego 30 years in the future would be so much more than what I have imagined not really "failing to meet some of the standards I foolishly took for granted".

 

Quote

If your objection to the 10497 is that it "looks very contemporary" and is "very much made to appeal to our present day sensibilities," what would you do differently? Every single Galaxy Explorer MOC on the web looks very contemporary and is very much made to appeal to our present day sensibilities, except ones that are made as makeshift attempts to approximate the size and shape of the original set on the smallest budget possible, and those generally look far too primitive to sell as retail sets in the 2020s. Would you resurrect the long-retired 3/7 wedge plates? Would you resurrect the long-retired 2x3x2 tail fins with four studs on top? This is my attempt to remake the Galaxy Explorer as close to the original set as possible, but using modern wedge plates and modern windscreens. Would you do this?

Let's get back to the Galaxy Dropship for a while - that doesn't look contemporary. It has a design that's kinda hard to place or at least the kind that'll look like a good classic car with time. And it's not because it's greebled or because it has round edges. It's because it has a uniform vision. It's not like borrowed ideas that would make the final set be easier to make or sacrifice logic for looks. The old GE also had a uniform vision, Lego back then often had. This vision can differ wildly and doesn't have to be anything even remotely similar to the Dropship.

 

Quote

or this (entirely my own design):

Same. But that's also what I've been saying: things that are attractive to AFOL's are not being specifically catered to. They're kinda there partially so instead of being able to completely enjoy something, you end up partially enjoying and partially feelings the sadness of a lost opportunity.

 

Quote

I also like this curvy Galaxy Explorer-style ship a lot, and it's small enough that I can imagine it being released as a retail set. But I wouldn't want a retail set version of this model to be named "Galaxy Explorer."

I dig this. All except the printed parts on the roof.

I wouldn't hugely mind a curved classic space set (if it's consistent!) but I do prefer square lines myself. Not only on the aesthetic front, but also because I feel it takes a lot more bricks and effort to make an attractive curved vessel, and it would equally take more effort and skill to build such sets.

 

Quote

but I hesitated to rejoin the conversation because I've pretty much already said everything I have to say about it several times over. (To whoever has read all this stuff from me before, sorry for the repetition.)

If 10497 is any measure, I think we should all find great pleasure in saying the exact same thing, but shaping it smoother this time and making the posts much larger

Edited September 6, 2023 by Merlo

[Merlo]

16 hours ago, danth said:

Not sure what you mean. I was pretty unimpressed with the Blacktron Cruiser remake.

My complaints about Lego Space sets are like, way simpler and easier to understand than yours. Like, in Space Police 3, they literally used aviation helmets in the first wave. Whether you liked those helmets or not, the complaint is simple and easy to understand.

I don't think anyone is going to understand you without very specific breakdowns of what aspects of a set you like and don't like, with pictures. When you used multiple versions of El Dorado fortress, with links to pictures of each, and a breakdown of your complaints, it made sense to me. I know you've posted pics with regards to Galaxy Explorer, but for some reason I (personally) feel like I'm still missing something. EDIT: I do understand and sympathize with some of your complaints (e.g. it could have been more "double-deckery") but that will have be enough for you; I don't agree that 10497 is a failure in some way for being what it is.

And of course most people are going to flat out reject any arguments that say "10497 was like this, but it SHOULD have been like this!" The majority of people here think 10497 was a home run. We like it for what it is.

Like that dropship MOC you posted. Should the next Space set look like that? Maybe, I don't dislike it, and I appreciate its very different take on the Space aesthetic. Is that what 10497 SHOULD have been? Well, almost nobody is going to agree with that.

I'll repeat what I said before. We need more Space sets! Then you can pick your favorite. 

What's wrong with the Blacktron Cruiser? Isn't it close to the original?

Aren't aviation helmets more Star Wars-y and more space-y?

Weren't the helmets before that just bike helmets?

I'm not trolling, I genuinely don't know.

 

I think I can describe my complaints about Eldorado Fortress and 10497 easily. For example:

Look at the Eldorado Fortress? You did? OK.

Now look at the new Galaxy Explorer? You did? OK.

Did you notice how the Galaxy Explorer design is so much better than that of Eldorado Fortress that it almost hurts to look at the Fortress in comparison even though it would seem logical making all those shapes in a spaceship would be much more difficult than making a squareish fort, which already looked good in 1992 and was easier to modernize?

You did? GREAT!

You didn't? Well then we can agree to disagree and there is probably such a big gap in our tastes that it would be a waste of our time to try and bridge it :)

 

My complaint about 10497 is that it's a bit of a rice cracker in space. If anything, the original GE needed more flair, not less.

However, related to your conclusion, I do feel Lego space sets of the past had plenty of models that were just... too much. Too many colors, shapes, details, everything.

If someone with such great taste as Mike Psiaki took those models instead and made them more rice crackery and boring, I think the end result might be... perhaps not more "inviting to play" but definitely prettier and more display-worthy than the originals were. I'd be excited to see that = more interesting ships getting the GE treatment. As I said, I bought the GE, I'd be 1000% buying those too.

Edited September 6, 2023 by Merlo

[Aanchir]

9 hours ago, Merlo said:

This is just a strawman that goes against everything I've ever talked about and that probably anyone would consider insulting just on the basis of how deluded I would have to be to even entertain such a thought. 

As I've repeated many times, I don't mind and would not insult anyone's vision of the GE. I would not like all of them, sure, but I would not consider their taste inferior to mine because that makes no logical sense. 

My only complaint was that the new GE is what over here we'd call an alibi-job. I.e. you hire a professional, the professional look at all the superficial aspects of the product and absolutely nails them and doesn't really care or feel or think it's his job to try and reach the heart of the matter. Instead of thinking how to translate between two design languages or just admitting that it's not possible to know what every part of every ship meant to every person and just taking a stand on whatever the designer likes, or maybe consulting with his colleagues, the solution here was not to take any stand, not to translate anything and just do a "oh, it's a ship that goes vroom, so now it can be a ship that goes vroom and looks more badass and contemporary".

Do you even see what you're doing here? You're accusing @icm of a strawman fallacy by misunderstanding/misrepresenting the perspective you're coming from — but then you follow that up with a load of baseless assumptions about what Mike Psiaki's thought process and perspectives were when designing 10497.

Just because he designed the set in a way you disagree with, you're now throwing out accusations that he didn't "really care or feel or think it's his job to try and reach the heart of the matter" and that he didn't bother "thinking how to translate between two design languages" or "taking a stand on whatever the designer likes" or "consulting with his colleagues". And then you conclude by fabricating a condescending summary of what YOU think his process was ("oh, it's a ship that goes vroom…"). Not only is that a strawman fallacy itself, it's also arrogant as heck. Moreover, it outright contradicts things that Mike Psiaki has described about the set's development process in interviews!*

You claim you "would not insult anyone's vision of the GE" and "would not consider their taste inferior to mine", but you continue to do exactly that — both by insinuating that the set didn't reflect any sort of vision or careful consideration on the designer's part, and by insinuating that anybody whose vision of the Galaxy Explorer aligns with 10497 is simply settling for a soulless "inflated and smoothed" version of the original, as opposed to actually recognizing and appreciating specific creative decisions the designer made with the set.

I'm gonna try not to prolong this any further, because as icm has pointed out, we're just relitigating disagreements from months ago. So if you're still determined to assume the worst about the set designer's level of care and effort after all this time (and against all evidence to the contrary) then this whole conversation seems like a waste of my OWN care, effort, and time.

*Here are some links to interviews about the set you can read/watch, if you truly want to know about the actual thoughts and considerations that went into the set's design, instead of just the version of the design process you've made up in your head:

https://brickset.com/article/78875/interview-with-mike-psiaki-designer-of-10497-galaxy-explorer
https://www.theverge.com/23173235/lego-galaxy-explorer-90th-anniversary-birthday-price-release-date
https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/28/lego-90th-anniversary-interview-rebuilding-nostalgia-for-retro-sets-17082366/
https://youtu.be/onr3JQICOi4?si=8bQ5z2eE7NQEif5g

Edited September 6, 2023 by Aanchir

[Horation]

On 9/5/2023 at 10:34 AM, Merlo said:

[MODIFIED SLIGHTLY TO MAKE RESPONDING EASIER-NO WORDS CHANGED]

[A]-Yes, people have rebuilt 10305, but it's not a job for the majority of fans, or even a significant number I would think. I'm not saying TLG should only make smaller sets. I just think it would be better if they opted for one thing at a time and really nail it instead of making multiple things with only moderate success at each. The set is plenty playful on the inside, but as I said, it's a dollhouse kinda playful not a rebuild kind. So if it's not a rebuild type set I'd prefer it to look more attractive as a display piece. Since they sacrificed a bit of that to add play features that I'm not going to use, it feels like a waste to spend 400 euros on it. Or, in other words, it's an epic set, that's not epic enough to be epic :)

-I feel the interior is not for me, it's more for kids. And the foliage and the rocks I feel are too rough for me and too rough for some of the more detailed castle parts.

[C]-Why do you think neither of those options would please me? I bought plenty of kid friendly Lego sets for their simplicity and cheerful nature. I did, however, buy more 18+ non Lego sets, for the previously mentioned reason. If the set is 18+ and it's meant to please grown ups, but can't match non-Lego offerings because it has to be a playset accessible to little kids as well, that's a shame. I wish I had the time and the skill to just MOC them a bit as people have MOC'd 10305, but I don't. Many ideas sets I would have bought day one were changed in this way.
 

[D]-Wait, what? I kinda can't follow from the middle point onwards :) If it was greebly, presumably it wouldn't be a set primarily meant for play and rebuilding, but more for display, and the other way around. It's okay if a set does one thing great and I don't like that thing. Tough luck for me, but still a great set. I just don't like it when sets are missed opportunities to really add anything substantial other than "it will sell". And I can hardly imagine something Lego makes would not sell, too many people are desperate for their favorite themes.

 

[A]- so you want either a 400$ playset which is playable and easy to rebuild or a 400$ hyper-detailed MOC and anything not corresponding to one of those two criteria exactly is a waste, correct?

- interesting how the one part you can easily rebuild is "not for you", it appears that you only like playfully rebuildable sets when they don't exist, because when a set does have rebuildability, you don't like it (and you conveniently "forget" that you could modify it, in a way that somehow makes your argument stronger, hum...interesting

[C]- why do I think that neither of those options would please you? Here, let's look at you comment :

On 9/4/2023 at 5:39 AM, Merlo said:

 So, as I said for the GE, I'm fine if they look very playful and fun from the outside like the creator castle. I'm fine if they're interesting only in a way that you could put it on a shelf and have it as an ornament. But if they're exactly halfway between these two, then they don't really excel at anything.

Now you yourself admitted that 10305 is full of play features, but because it is "dollhouse style", you suddenly really dislike it, so a playful set displeases you because of a minor issue (and it goes from : you are fine with it to : you don't like it)  

When talking about 10497, you once again admitted to it using somewhat advanced techniques, but because it doesn't do this in just the right way and doesn't make just the right kind of windscreen and what not it displeases you (and it goes from : you are fine with it to : you don't like it)  

Notice a pattern? Here let me spell it out for you : you are a never-satisfied chronic nitpicker (I generally have the same issue, believe it or not). 

Those MOCs that won an Ideas vote were often too unstable or used new colours for parts, so they were modified a little to make them more market-friendly, in other words : to target a BROAD AUDIENCE that isn't just FINE WITH but actually LIKES the product, which is why they will aim for a balance of the two, a set that has no play features isn't going to remind adults of their childhood fun and a playset which looks bad on display is rarely "cool-looking" to kids, so it has to go for a middle point of the two aspects.

[D]-Let me re-explain for you : you said you wanted a set that is ideally playful and rebuildable but also full of little details and greebling, while wondering if such a thing was possible, the answer is clearly not, because you didn't like the lack of certain details on 10497 (which would have entailed more parts-hence less rebuildability), all the while complaining that the set is not playful (aka rebuildable), so you, in other words, want to make an already hard to rebuild set harder to rebuild so it has more detail but would also like it if it had more rebuildability, I'll give you a moment to think about that...even I am confused, and I'm the one typing this sentence

To give you another example, you want more detail on 10305, because it is too much dollhouse-like, and the rockwork displeases you, so you want more detail, but you also want that set to be more rebuildable/playful (you use those words interchangeably), which can only be done with fewer details and less parts.

See the issue yet? Here's a good summary of it : https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/what-is-schrodingers-cat

Have fun @Merlo!

Edited September 7, 2023 by Horation
Formatting

[Merlo]

On 9/5/2023 at 7:11 PM, icm said:

@Merlo - Okay, so your main objection to 10497 is how the windscreen, sunroof, and rear windscreen were handled. How would you do it better? Don't just tell me, show me. Mock up your design in Studio and let's see how you would do it.

Thank you for the interesting breakdown. I think for me the roof was just a way to demonstrate what I was talking about, not the main point. If I did a MOC for myself, I think I would actually skip the sunroof entirely. "Better" was never an issue, the official set is plenty good. But in all these images you posted designers take a stand/guess on what the original designer meant or where the beauty lies in their eyes. Lego set stays as far away from this as possible and does literal translation of design styles. It tries hard not to take any kind of stand so it ultimately doesn't say much at all. It's not very brave and I'd think it'd be easier to argue that the entirety of the classic space period is just ugly and dated compared to the new GE than it would be to argue that classic space is boring compared to this. As good as this looks, we have other great looking sets, we don't have many weird and wonderful sets like those from the classic space era.

[icm]

Shrug. Whatever floats your boat, bro.