10497 Galaxy Explorer 90th anniversary set

[Merlo]

I think what you're talking about has more to do with Lego deciding to make it an 18+ set.

As for the waves of sets you can easily build and rebuild, the preponderance of tiny pieces might have made that a part of history already.

That being said, I would love a wave of smaller sets that are a part of the bigger whole. This way I feel Lego has peaked in 1992 with modular castle sets you could rebuild and connect any way you wanted.

Honestly, my bar goes as low as "remakes but that have some detail in them". Like this, if we disregard the fact the front part is too different:

Edited August 28, 2023 by Merlo

[Black Falcon]

On 8/28/2023 at 8:39 AM, Merlo said:

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

Well, not sure if it is a good style of discussion to imply that people only like stuff because there is the name Lego on it. I like the Lion Knights Castle, because I just like the style, the functions, the details. Aside from the ugly ramp, I can´t mention that thing often enough. You don´t like it, ok. It is fine, people have different tastes and the world would be boring if it was any different ;).  But you should just accept that others still can like the set and have different opinions about it.

 

That beeing said, there are more than enough Lego Sets I don´t like. And actually way to many I actually do like ;). 

 

Quote

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

You have to show me the old castle that had only 3 minifigures. All of them had way more than that. And most of them had one or more horses. 

[Classic_Spaceman]

On 8/28/2023 at 2:39 AM, Merlo said:

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

11 minutes ago, Black Falcon said:

Well, not sure if it is a good style of discussion to imply that people only like stuff because there is the name Lego on it. I like the Lion Knights Castle, because I just like the style, the functions, the details. Aside from the ugly ramp, I can´t mention that thing often enough. You don´t like it, ok. It is fine, people have different tastes and the world would be boring if it was any different ;).  But you should just accept that others still can like the set and have different opinions about it.

Additionally, even if someone dislikes all of LEGO’s current set offerings, the overall quality, variety, availability, building-techniques, and decades-long consistent system of LEGO pieces far exceeds anything that competitors offer! 
 

[Ruthin Road]

On 8/28/2023 at 12:26 PM, jodawill said:

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

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

As another time-limited builder I sympathise. I would hope there would be a middle ground between the sometimes excessive use of panels, LURPs and BURPS in the 90s, and the preponderance of small fiddly pieces that are more difficult to reuse in modern sets. I suppose the Creator 3 in 1 sets try and fill that gap although they seemed to have moved away from classic themes this year. I would have loved a Creator 3 in 1 Classic Space set that could build a spaceship, a ground vehicle and a moon base. Fingers crossed that the new wave of Space sets will have something fun.

It would be a shame if Icons sets become synonymous with big expensive sets that are meant for display rather than rebuilding. Hopefully the rumoured Lego Moments subtheme can bridge that gap between models that look good on display but can be easily modified and rebuilt.

[Merlo]

Quote

Well, not sure if it is a good style of discussion to imply that people only like stuff because there is the name Lego on it. I like the Lion Knights Castle, because I just like the style, the functions, the details. Aside from the ugly ramp, I can´t mention that thing often enough. You don´t like it, ok. It is fine, people have different tastes and the world would be boring if it was any different ;).  But you should just accept that others still can like the set and have different opinions about it.

How so? These are Lego-themed forums so something like that is all but expected. I can't tell you how many times people asked me why I don't play a Fender guitar even though my guitar was much more versatile and much more expensive to buy.

Quote

You have to show me the old castle that had only 3 minifigures. All of them had way more than that. And most of them had one or more horses. 

I thought we were talking about 10305. Creator castle I imagine was technically not from the castle line but just a creator set that happened to be a castle and creator sets seem to focus more on brick building things and thus don't have generous minifigure offerings.

[Merlo]

9 hours ago, Classic_Spaceman said:

Additionally, even if someone dislikes all of LEGO’s current set offerings, the overall quality, variety, availability, building-techniques, and decades-long consistent system of LEGO pieces far exceeds anything that competitors offer! 
 

Thank you for proving my point. Even though I do not know of a manufacturer that has Lego's brick quality yet (some are close, though) and individually none of them measure up to Lego, if we look at just Lego VS the entire rest of the market, in 2023 it's a fight Lego cannot win.

Eldorado Fortress, the colorful mess that it is, trying to imply detail with an inadequate brick count (love the ramp this time for a change) doesn't really measure up to the perhaps equally uninteresting, but none the less much more tasteful and elegant BlueBrixx offer. It even snatched the modular idea from it.

https://www.bluebrixx.com/en/pirates/105181/Governors-Island-Harbour-BlueBrixx-Special

As others have mentioned, give me a set I can rebuild easily (Creator castle was not that bad in this regard) or give me a big elegant "grown up" set for display purposes. Don't give me a big expensive set that's neither detailed enough nor it can be played with and rebuilt easily and 10305 has the colors and the details of a smaller set for a younger audience on a non-rebuildable scale.

If we ignore the scale (bigger is not always better, especially for the wallet), it has a 6081 vibe, but without the ability to rebuild it easily as you please.

And the BlueBrixx 105181 ironically looks like what Eldorado Fortress might have looked liked if the Galaxy Explorer designer got that assignment as well.

So whatever my criticism for the new GE were, that set does some things great, top notch, loved it. EF does nothing great. It lacks both skill and inspiration and feels like one of the weaker fan made remakes and tributes online. It basically survives out there only due to the fact it's Lego and whatever other offerings exist - are not Lego or call for ordering parts.

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by Merlo

[MAB]

On 8/26/2023 at 6:23 PM, Lyichir said:

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

It is interesting what others do and do not like about this set (referring to all posts, not just this one). I think Mike Psiaki did a brilliant job of taking an old set that people may have had as a kid and turned it into something they would expect now. To me, it just feels more finished than the original. The way the neat trim has been added to the edges through tiles, the way the blue middle section is now sleek and angled as essentially a single slope, rather than the slope - flat - slope necessary decades ago. The cockpits are still comically large and bulky compared to the wings and the overall shape is similar. I find (as an adult) that I can pick it up and fly it around, but doing it in a more adult way in the sense that I understand it will fall apart if I grab it by the end of the wing. It is like picking up any (primarily) display object, you understand it needs to be held roughly in the middle under the centre of mass. That is something that 8 year olds might not have thought about with the original. To me, it doesn't matter if bits fall off if you don't pick it up carefully, as if I pick it up, I pick it up carefully.

I don't think this is a set for kids at all or really designed to be played with like a toy by a kid. An older teen maybe, but not for 8-12 year olds. But then I don't think kids of today would find the original very interesting either. If they had recreated it at the same original size and similar design, I think most adults that have bought the bigger version would find it a little lame now, and most kids would not be interested. In the mind of a kid, compare that to some of the much more interesting shapes, colours, play features and designs for space ships (or even underwater craft that are played with in a similar way) from the LEGO movies, Ninjago, Monkie Kid, etc. I saw the new Spacebus from Dreamzzz in store the other day, and the small sample of younger kids looking at it seemed to think it was great. Essentially a space shuttle design, with a bit of cartoony wackiness with the American style school bus in the middle. Change the colours and a few decorative parts, and it would equally well fit into Ninjago or Monkie Kid. There are so many of these swooshable ships these days, so much choice for kids, and they all fit into whatever theme they like.

[jodawill]

3 hours ago, MAB said:

I find (as an adult) that I can pick it up and fly it around, but doing it in a more adult way in the sense that I understand it will fall apart if I grab it by the end of the wing. It is like picking up any (primarily) display object, you understand it needs to be held roughly in the middle under the centre of mass.

It's not just the wings. The entire section that holds the windshields comes off constantly too. This is one of the reasons the whole thing just comes off as a MOC to me, not a polished Lego product. Yeah, it's fine if you're going to put it on a shelf. But that's not the point of Lego. You're supposed to play with it and use your imagination to build other things with it. It fails on both of those fronts.

Personally, I've always been a big fan of the smaller ships. Xenon X-Craft is probably my favorite classic space set. And that's not nostalgia talking. It was discontinued before I was born and I didn't discover it until I was an adult. It's just a great set. It has a wonderful, colorful part selection. It has a lot of depth to it, lots of fun shapes, and bright colors. Benny's Space Squad and Emmet and Benny's 'Build and Fix' Workshop are perfect examples of what I think modern classic space should look like. They're brilliant because you could spend less money buying several copies of each set, have a lot more minifigures, and enjoy a lot more time building smaller ships, which I have done with my son for many hours. They just perfectly embody the essence of Lego. Just remove artificial wear on the blue minifigure and everything related to Emmet, and you have a great start to a new wave of classic space sets. I want to see entire waves of things like this, then move onto more factions in a similar spirit.

Edited August 30, 2023 by jodawill

[MAB]

29 minutes ago, jodawill said:

It's not just the wings. The entire section that holds the windshields comes off constantly too. This is one of the reasons the whole thing just comes off as a MOC to me, not a polished Lego product. Yeah, it's fine if you're going to put it on a shelf. But that's not the point of Lego. You're supposed to play with it and use your imagination to build other things with it. It fails on both of those fronts.

 

I can't say I've had a problem with the windshields area. Are you picking it up by the blue bit, or from underneath? Or is it when you are opening and closing the windshields?

I can understand it not being possible to play with it for a child as it is probably too big and heavy, just like most UCS SW sets and some other older teen / adult sets. Personally, I find the Tumbler (76023) is one of the worst for bits falling off when played with, not surprising really given how many odd ways the plates are connected and angled to give it the unique shape. I cannot really see how it fails on the second point though, being able to use imagination and building other things with it. I haven't taken mine apart but it would be a pretty good parts pack, any failure here is surely on the user and not the set.

 

Edited August 30, 2023 by MAB

[jodawill]

5 minutes ago, MAB said:

I can't say I've had a problem with the windshields area. Are you picking it up by the blue bit, or from underneath?

I can understand it not being possible to play with it for a child as it is probably too big and heavy, just like most UCS SW sets and some other older teen / adult sets. Personally, I find the Tumbler (76023) is one of the worst for bits falling off when played with, not surprising really given how many odd ways the plates are connected and angled to give it the unique shape. I cannot really see how it fails on the second point though, being able to use imagination and building other things with it. I haven't taken mine apart but it would be a pretty good parts pack, any failure here is surely on the user and not the set.

 

The windshield section comes off just by trying to open the cockpits. The clicky hinges require a lot of force to move, and it puts a lot of strain on that section with the double-stud configuration.

Sure, there are a lot of useful generic pieces in the set. I bought mine for $40-$50. It's a great value for the parts. But compare the number of interesting parts to Xenon X-Craft. In that set, you get trans-yellow antennas, trans-red radar dishes, a smaller windshield useful for smaller afternoon builds, a big gray rocket, a big 

• Trans-red radar dishes
• Trans-yellow antennas
• Trans-red antennas
• Smaller windshield that's useful for small, afternoon builds
• Big black rocket engine
• Big gray rocket engine
• Two small gray thrusters
• Two black flexi-hoses
• Two printed arrow tiles
• Printed computer tile (the smaller ones, again, being more useful for shorter builds)
• A gray bracket that allows you to hold a minifigure under the windshield in a much smaller space
• Four trans-yellow cones
• Robot and yellow minifigure

These are the kinds of parts that give classic space sets so much flair. And this is all in a tiny set that would only be $10-$15 today. The new set has a few interesting parts. The 2x4 space logo tile is cool to have, but it's also very difficult to use in a way that looks good. There are several cool printed tiles. There are two windshields. Personally, I'm not a fan of the shape or size of them. But that's just my personal preference. You get the printed brick also. And, of course, you get four minifigures. But really, that's pretty much where the interesting, unique parts end. There's not a lot of bling.

The original Galaxy Explorer didn't have a blinged out appearance like Xenon X-Craft, but it had a lot more interesting parts, such as trans-yellow bricks and plates, the smaller windshield (which can be used for both big and small builds), a crater baseplate, a 1x2 space logo brick, a TV antenna, a large radar dish, and rockets.

If I had a choice between buying 10497 at $100 or 497 for whatever its inflation-adjusted retail price would be, the original would win, hands down. I don't see this new set as an improvement over the original in any meaningful way. It's just larger.

Having said all of that, I'm glad we got this set. I'm extremely happy to have new red classic space minifigures. I hope we get some more interesting sets next year with this big space anniversary they're celebrating.

[danth]

I'm not sure where all these complaints about this set falling apart are coming from.

I can open the windscreens over and over with no issues.

The ONLY time I had parts pop off was when I tried to lift up the entire 1000 piece set from a single wing tip. I only did this because I had shoved the set deep into a huge drawer in the bottom of a storage closet in my Lego room. I was too lazy to crouch down and pick it up right. I knew it was dumb as I did it. A small chunk of wing edge came off. So I got down and picked it up right, popped the chunk back on, and all was good.

It's a Lego set. Parts are going to pop off sometimes. It's also a 1000 piece set, and an 18+ set at that. If you run around the room going "brrrmm" holding it by a wing tip, it's not going to end well.

But with two hands a competent adult can carefully swoosh it around no problem. Despite being an 18+ beautiful display piece, it's remarkable sturdy.

56 minutes ago, jodawill said:

But compare the number of interesting parts to Xenon X-Craft.

Xenon X-Craft is an amazing set. For all the reasons you gave.

I didn't have it as a kid, though I had other space sets. When I got the set as an adult, I loved it. It had everything that made Galaxy Explorer great, but in a tiny package. Plus all the great parts. It was like Classic Space distilled perfectly into a single set.

I still think we need a CLASSIC. SPACE. CREATOR. SET. with all kinds of good trans parts and prints and rocket bits. And chunky wheels.

[MAB]

2 hours ago, jodawill said:

The windshield section comes off just by trying to open the cockpits. The clicky hinges require a lot of force to move, and it puts a lot of strain on that section with the double-stud configuration.

Yes, I thought it might be that. I edited my post to include that probably at the same time you were responding to it.

[icm]

2 hours ago, jodawill said:

The windshield section comes off just by trying to open the cockpits. The clicky hinges require a lot of force to move, and it puts a lot of strain on that section with the double-stud configuration.

Sure, there are a lot of useful generic pieces in the set. I bought mine for $40-$50. It's a great value for the parts. But compare the number of interesting parts to Xenon X-Craft. In that set, you get trans-yellow antennas, trans-red radar dishes, a smaller windshield useful for smaller afternoon builds, a big gray rocket, a big 

• Trans-red radar dishes
• Trans-yellow antennas
• Trans-red antennas
• Smaller windshield that's useful for small, afternoon builds
• Big black rocket engine
• Big gray rocket engine
• Two small gray thrusters
• Two black flexi-hoses
• Two printed arrow tiles
• Printed computer tile (the smaller ones, again, being more useful for shorter builds)
• A gray bracket that allows you to hold a minifigure under the windshield in a much smaller space
• Four trans-yellow cones
• Robot and yellow minifigure

These are the kinds of parts that give classic space sets so much flair. And this is all in a tiny set that would only be $10-$15 today. The new set has a few interesting parts. The 2x4 space logo tile is cool to have, but it's also very difficult to use in a way that looks good. There are several cool printed tiles. There are two windshields. Personally, I'm not a fan of the shape or size of them. But that's just my personal preference. You get the printed brick also. And, of course, you get four minifigures. But really, that's pretty much where the interesting, unique parts end. There's not a lot of bling.

The original Galaxy Explorer didn't have a blinged out appearance like Xenon X-Craft, but it had a lot more interesting parts, such as trans-yellow bricks and plates, the smaller windshield (which can be used for both big and small builds), a crater baseplate, a 1x2 space logo brick, a TV antenna, a large radar dish, and rockets.

If I had a choice between buying 10497 at $100 or 497 for whatever its inflation-adjusted retail price would be, the original would win, hands down. I don't see this new set as an improvement over the original in any meaningful way. It's just larger.

Having said all of that, I'm glad we got this set. I'm extremely happy to have new red classic space minifigures. I hope we get some more interesting sets next year with this big space anniversary they're celebrating.

Sounds like the Mars Missions set from City is exactly what you're after. Go get that set and have a lot of fun with it, then come back and enjoy the Galaxy Explorer for what it is, not what it isn't. Personally I think it's a great parts pack, and I've never liked the blinged-out look of the Xenon X-craft. Give me clean lines and basic parts I can build with, not a lot of specialty parts I can't build with, any day.

[NoOneOfImportance]

3 hours ago, jodawill said:

It's not just the wings. The entire section that holds the windshields comes off constantly too. This is one of the reasons the whole thing just comes off as a MOC to me, not a polished Lego product. Yeah, it's fine if you're going to put it on a shelf. But that's not the point of Lego. You're supposed to play with it and use your imagination to build other things with it. It fails on both of those fronts.

First off, I've never dealt with parts falling off issues on this set, at least to any extent beyond my own fault picking it up in a way that isn't sound, etc. While I understand all situations are subjective for that, I don't think it's a widespread issue in that way. 

Second, most big 18+ sets are meant to be put on a shelf and displayed anymore. You're not buying the 18+ Chewbacca (not that anyone is, but) to play with it. It's a display piece that might have some functionality. Same is true with the Tallneck, the Modulars (to great extent), UCS ships, etc. No one is complaining that their $850 Falcon isn't swooshable without parts falling off, because that's not the point of the set - it's for display with some minifig accessible functions/areas for flair. 
In the best way, if you're looking for sets that are all about playing and rebuilding, those are system sets, not 18+ $100 display models. Sure, you can do that with whatever sets you want at the end of the day, but there is a difference between design intent and ability. This set is one of the most polished LEGO sets of late in so many ways - it's generally very sturdy, is a remake of a classic favorite that can be rebuilt into two others, and has a really good ratio of studs and slopes to make it look very clean as a finished build, moreso than many other 18+ models. 

I'd also argue that this set, given how rebuilds have sprung out of it, has generated a good bit of creativity with the available parts (such as the 10497 U-Wing, etc.) 

[danth]

1 hour ago, icm said:

Sounds like the Mars Missions set from City is exactly what you're after. Go get that set and have a lot of fun with it, then come back and enjoy the Galaxy Explorer for what it is, not what it isn't. Personally I think it's a great parts pack

Yes! This is great advice. It's a great set, and I've seen it on sale for $20 at multiple major retailers (no idea what the Europe situation is though).

I wish it had more Space-y colors, but despite that it's pretty nice.

[Aanchir]

4 hours ago, jodawill said:

The windshield section comes off just by trying to open the cockpits. The clicky hinges require a lot of force to move, and it puts a lot of strain on that section with the double-stud configuration.

Sure, there are a lot of useful generic pieces in the set. I bought mine for $40-$50. It's a great value for the parts. But compare the number of interesting parts to Xenon X-Craft. In that set, you get trans-yellow antennas, trans-red radar dishes, a smaller windshield useful for smaller afternoon builds, a big gray rocket, a big 

• Trans-red radar dishes
• Trans-yellow antennas
• Trans-red antennas
• Smaller windshield that's useful for small, afternoon builds
• Big black rocket engine
• Big gray rocket engine
• Two small gray thrusters
• Two black flexi-hoses
• Two printed arrow tiles
• Printed computer tile (the smaller ones, again, being more useful for shorter builds)
• A gray bracket that allows you to hold a minifigure under the windshield in a much smaller space
• Four trans-yellow cones
• Robot and yellow minifigure

These are the kinds of parts that give classic space sets so much flair. And this is all in a tiny set that would only be $10-$15 today. The new set has a few interesting parts. The 2x4 space logo tile is cool to have, but it's also very difficult to use in a way that looks good. There are several cool printed tiles. There are two windshields. Personally, I'm not a fan of the shape or size of them. But that's just my personal preference. You get the printed brick also. And, of course, you get four minifigures. But really, that's pretty much where the interesting, unique parts end. There's not a lot of bling.

The original Galaxy Explorer didn't have a blinged out appearance like Xenon X-Craft, but it had a lot more interesting parts, such as trans-yellow bricks and plates, the smaller windshield (which can be used for both big and small builds), a crater baseplate, a 1x2 space logo brick, a TV antenna, a large radar dish, and rockets.

I mean, I feel like there are a LOT more cool/interesting parts in this set than you're giving it credit for:

• Four Tr. Red 3x3 radar dishes
• Two Tr. Red 2x2 round bricks
• Ten Bright Blue and eight Md. Stone Grey 1x4x3 tail fins
• Four Bright Red and two Md. Stone Grey 3x3 Technic weapon barrels
• Four Md. Stone Grey 5x5x2 Technic wheels
• Four Md. Stone Grey washtubs/exhaust cones
• Six Md. Stone Grey buckets/thruster cones
• Four Md. Stone Grey octagonal handle plates
• Two Md. Stone Grey 2x2 nose cones
• Two Md. Stone Grey 4x4 and 2x2 radar dishes
• Three Md. Stone Grey 4x4x2/3 tiles with rounded corners
• Two  Md. Stone Grey storage boxes and lids
• Two 4x4 round bricks with recessed center
• TWELVE printed computer console/control panel tiles with SEVEN different patterns.
• and on top of all that, a brick-built robot

I get that "interesting" is subjective, and some of those parts might not appeal to you as much as they do to me. But to me, many of them seem much more interesting and useful for MOCs than some of the ones from classic sets that you brought up like the specialized TV antenna, 2x8 vehicle cockpit bracket, and combination tail fin/rocket cone piece. Most of them also seem like they'd be plenty useful in small builds, which you seem to care a lot about. Of course, these parts aren't all new/unique — but then, neither were a lot of the "interesting parts" you mentioned from the Xenon X-craft.

Obviously, I get that none of that eases your frustrations with the set's overall size or complexity. But I feel like a lot of the time, how easy or difficult it is to MOC with certain parts has less to do with how "sophisticated" you are are as a builder than with how much practice/experience you have working with those sorts of parts. For instance, a lot of folks primarily used to System sets find Bionicle parts utterly perplexing to MOC with… but conversely, a lot of Bionicle builders struggle more attempting to get into System MOCs, even for models with similar subject matter like ball-jointed mechs, robots, and fantasy creatures.

My experience is that the more time you spend building with different types of parts, the easier it becomes to think of different uses for them, and to then consider them as options when trying to think of parts for a particular use. But if you dismiss parts as too complicated to use in MOCs just because you don't think you're a "sophisticated" enough builder to do anything with them, you'll miss out on opportunities to learn how they could be useful to you — even for the sort of simple, 15-minute MOCs you enjoy!

[Classic_Spaceman]

16 hours ago, Merlo said:

Thank you for proving my point. Even though I do not know of a manufacturer that has Lego's brick quality yet (some are close, though) and individually none of them measure up to Lego, if we look at just Lego VS the entire rest of the market, in 2023 it's a fight Lego cannot win.

I was just pointing out why people feel loyalty to LEGO, aside from just the sets that they offer. 
 

7 hours ago, danth said:

I still think we need a CLASSIC. SPACE. CREATOR. SET. with all kinds of good trans parts and prints and rocket bits. And chunky wheels.

Definitely! A nice 3-in-1 with options for a rover, a ship, and a mech or base would be amazing! 
 

[Horation]

 

On 8/30/2023 at 2:04 AM, Merlo said:

As others have mentioned, give me a set I can rebuild easily (Creator castle was not that bad in this regard) or give me a big elegant "grown up" set for display purposes. Don't give me a big expensive set that's neither detailed enough nor it can be played with and rebuilt easily and 10305 has the colors and the details of a smaller set for a younger audience on a non-rebuildable scale.

Wait, 10305 has the colours and details of a kids' set? Did you even look at it? Are we really talking about the same set here? It's a set with dozens of strange angles, multiple hidden, but easily accessed, rooms, many easter eggs to older themes (shields, the little  yellow castle, etc...), a working threadmill, multiple frogs (including a cleverly hidden one...), a drawbridge (cleverly positioned so that it doesn't make the build uglier) that drops enemies into the dungeon, a back entrance that's only accessible through an angled staircase leading to a door opened by a hidden mechanism, a trap door inside the castle, a lot of fancy printed parts (and NO STICKERS), a number of detailed rooms, including : an armoury filled with weapons, a dining hall, a children's room, a kitchen, etc...  and did I mention that it comes with 20 printed minifigs (plus a wizard and skeleton), most of these with leg printing? Yeah sure sounds like a sparsely detailed set if you ask me, but sure, point me to a similar set that does it better : so no stickers, a similar (or better) amount of playability and better details (though I must really question your sanity if you find that set under-detailed), and of course it must have better colours (though please do show me a kid's castle from any toy company with so much grey and we'll be talking).

 

[Operacion Saturno]

On 8/28/2023 at 11:42 AM, Merlo said:

I think what you're talking about has more to do with Lego deciding to make it an 18+ set.

As for the waves of sets you can easily build and rebuild, the preponderance of tiny pieces might have made that a part of history already.

That being said, I would love a wave of smaller sets that are a part of the bigger whole. This way I feel Lego has peaked in 1992 with modular castle sets you could rebuild and connect any way you wanted.

Honestly, my bar goes as low as "remakes but that have some detail in them". Like this, if we disregard the fact the front part is too different:

One of the best Classic Space MOCs ever designed. Please don't let it die in oblivion. Please support it so we can have one at home.

 

 

[Merlo]

On 9/2/2023 at 5:23 AM, Horation said:

Wait, 10305 has the colours and details of a kids' set? Did you even look at it? Are we really talking about the same set here? It's a set with dozens of strange angles, multiple hidden, but easily accessed, rooms, many easter eggs to older themes (shields, the little  yellow castle, etc...), a working threadmill, multiple frogs (including a cleverly hidden one...), a drawbridge (cleverly positioned so that it doesn't make the build uglier) that drops enemies into the dungeon, a back entrance that's only accessible through an angled staircase leading to a door opened by a hidden mechanism, a trap door inside the castle, a lot of fancy printed parts (and NO STICKERS), a number of detailed rooms, including : an armoury filled with weapons, a dining hall, a children's room, a kitchen, etc...  and did I mention that it comes with 20 printed minifigs (plus a wizard and skeleton), most of these with leg printing? Yeah sure sounds like a sparsely detailed set if you ask me, but sure, point me to a similar set that does it better : so no stickers, a similar (or better) amount of playability and better details (though I must really question your sanity if you find that set under-detailed), and of course it must have better colours (though please do show me a kid's castle from any toy company with so much grey and we'll be talking).

 

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.

21 hours ago, Operacion Saturno said:

One of the best Classic Space MOCs ever designed. Please don't let it die in oblivion. Please support it so we can have one at home.

Way ahead of you, I'd be buying this day one. But then again I said that for so many Lego Ideas that Lego subsequently turned into something that's "okay, I guess" :)

https://ideas.lego.com/projects/bcc52725-df48-4522-aeee-a34dba13889a

 

[icm]

2 hours ago, Merlo said:

Way ahead of you, I'd be buying this day one. But then again I said that for so many Lego Ideas that Lego subsequently turned into something that's "okay, I guess" :)

Taste, taste, it's all a matter of taste. To my eyes the 10497 is way up there with the best Classic Space MOCs ever designed, and it was a day one pre-order. I bought four copies. To my eyes, that Galaxy Dropship is one of the ugliest Classic Space MOCs ever designed, and I most likely wouldn't buy it at all. Classic Space is so many different things to so many different people. Now that we've had what is the perfect Classic Space set for people whose tastes align with mine, maybe in a few years we can get the perfect Classic Space set for people whose tastes align with yours, and then we can both be satisfied :)

[Merlo]

I think the officially mandated reply to all such statements is: "Bro..." :)

[Aanchir]

1 hour ago, icm said:

Taste, taste, it's all a matter of taste. To my eyes the 10497 is way up there with the best Classic Space MOCs ever designed, and it was a day one pre-order. I bought four copies. To my eyes, that Galaxy Dropship is one of the ugliest Classic Space MOCs ever designed, and I most likely wouldn't buy it at all.

This comment feels unnecessarily mean to me.

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).

But calling it "one of the ugliest Classic Space MOCs ever designed" feels needlessly insulting to the builder. It already bothers me when people say that sort of thing about the work of set designers, but it feels even ruder and more uncharitable to say that kind of thing about the work of our fellow AFOLs (and fellow Eurobricks members, for that matter). Most of us aren't doing this sort of thing professionally — we're just enjoying a hobby we're passionate about, and learning and growing as builders in the process.

Moreover, I feel like it's a mistake to equate beauty/ugliness with how well/poorly a model meets our expectations for a particular type of subject matter. If I look at the Galaxy Dropship outside the context of what I think a Classic Space set ought to look like or how well it meets those expectations, it strikes me as an immensely cool, creative, and visually interesting space model, with a very unique design language of its own! And I would probably be pretty impressed if I saw it on display at a fan convention.

But it wouldn't get my support on LEGO Ideas because that unique design language is not what I would want to see in a Classic Space set specifically. Just like how I might feel a piece of art or furniture is beautiful, but wouldn't buy it for my home if I didn't think it was a good fit for what I wanted or needed in that setting. Whether something is beautiful is different from whether it's "fit for purpose".

Apologies for rambling a bit as usual — I've tried to condense my thoughts here as best I can. And apologies if it seems I'm picking on one word/sentence in your comment, but I feel like it kind of casts the rest of the comment in a bad light, even if I get where you're coming from.

 

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.

The set's limited greebling consists primarily of vents, antennas, or slightly raised/receessed surfaces, rather than elaborately textured pipes or exposed machinery like those on the Ultimate Collector Series Y-Wing — staying true to the very flat roof, wall, and wing surfaces of the original build. 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

The biggest change from the original set in terms of subject matter and design language, IMO, was the introduction of a clean, white look for the interior wall — perhaps inspired by old-school LEGO Space marketing materials such as the Jim Spaceborn comics or the elaborate space station interiors from the LEGO World Show . But even with those, it still opted for the classic steering wheel piece like original Galaxy Explorer, rather than a more realistic control yoke or a futuristic holographic interface, and retro green computer screens with color-coded buttons, rather than touch-screens or an HUD projected onto the front windows.

All these features differentiate the set nicely from the appearance of more modern Space sets (whether sci-fi and real-world-inspired). Such sets naturally tend to deviate strongly from those sorts of old-school LEGO Space aesthetics to better emulate what modern kids and adults expect space travel technology to look like. They do this both by taking full advantage of parts that didn't exist in the 70s, like streamlined curved slopes and windscreens, and by taking inspiration from modern technologies that didn't exist in the 70s, like flat-screen computer monitors with integrated webcams, touchscreen tablet computers, solar-powered electric vehicles, and remote-operated drone aircraft.

By eschewing those sorts of modern details, the Galaxy Explorer emulates a much older vision of the future, based around hypothetical projections from the technological possibilities of the "space race" era — firmly contextualizing it in the world of Classic Space. Some neo-Classic Space MOCs like the Galaxy Dropship, for all their grandeur, could just as easily pass as Space Police 3, Galaxy Squad, or Mars Mission MOCS if you replaced the colors, graphics, and figures with the ones typical of those themes. Not so with the Galaxy Explorer redesign, which is heavily Classic Space inspired not just in its colors and graphics, but also its shaping, furnishings, and play features.

[jodawill]

On 8/30/2023 at 5:04 PM, Aanchir said:

I mean, I feel like there are a LOT more cool/interesting parts in this set than you're giving it credit for:

• Four Tr. Red 3x3 radar dishes
• Two Tr. Red 2x2 round bricks
• Ten Bright Blue and eight Md. Stone Grey 1x4x3 tail fins
• Four Bright Red and two Md. Stone Grey 3x3 Technic weapon barrels
• Four Md. Stone Grey 5x5x2 Technic wheels
• Four Md. Stone Grey washtubs/exhaust cones
• Six Md. Stone Grey buckets/thruster cones
• Four Md. Stone Grey octagonal handle plates
• Two Md. Stone Grey 2x2 nose cones
• Two Md. Stone Grey 4x4 and 2x2 radar dishes
• Three Md. Stone Grey 4x4x2/3 tiles with rounded corners
• Two  Md. Stone Grey storage boxes and lids
• Two 4x4 round bricks with recessed center
• TWELVE printed computer console/control panel tiles with SEVEN different patterns.
• and on top of all that, a brick-built robot

I get that "interesting" is subjective, and some of those parts might not appeal to you as much as they do to me. But to me, many of them seem much more interesting and useful for MOCs than some of the ones from classic sets that you brought up like the specialized TV antenna, 2x8 vehicle cockpit bracket, and combination tail fin/rocket cone piece. Most of them also seem like they'd be plenty useful in small builds, which you seem to care a lot about. Of course, these parts aren't all new/unique — but then, neither were a lot of the "interesting parts" you mentioned from the Xenon X-craft.

Obviously, I get that none of that eases your frustrations with the set's overall size or complexity. But I feel like a lot of the time, how easy or difficult it is to MOC with certain parts has less to do with how "sophisticated" you are are as a builder than with how much practice/experience you have working with those sorts of parts. For instance, a lot of folks primarily used to System sets find Bionicle parts utterly perplexing to MOC with… but conversely, a lot of Bionicle builders struggle more attempting to get into System MOCs, even for models with similar subject matter like ball-jointed mechs, robots, and fantasy creatures.

My experience is that the more time you spend building with different types of parts, the easier it becomes to think of different uses for them, and to then consider them as options when trying to think of parts for a particular use. But if you dismiss parts as too complicated to use in MOCs just because you don't think you're a "sophisticated" enough builder to do anything with them, you'll miss out on opportunities to learn how they could be useful to you — even for the sort of simple, 15-minute MOCs you enjoy!

Yeah, there are a few pieces I forgot about. I also hadn't realized that some of those parts are somewhat rare, like the trans-red 2x2 round bricks and the radar dish. I should stock up on those while they're available. I guess they didn't immediately come to mind because they're not prominently featured in the set compared to the amount of gray and blue. I like the smaller sets because parts like that stick out a lot more. It makes it look a lot more interesting to me personally.

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.

[icm]

1 hour ago, Aanchir said:

But calling it "one of the ugliest Classic Space MOCs ever designed" feels needlessly insulting to the builder.

I'm sorry, I was unnecessarily rude. I'll just note that the past few pages on this thread have been pretty hostile towards the design and builder of the 10497, in great detail, and I have no intention of tearing that MOC apart in the same way. I was simply and briefly stating my contrary opinion without going into further detail.

Thank you for your post, I agree with everything you said. I wanted to write something similar, but I didn't have time.