10497 Galaxy Explorer 90th anniversary set

[icm]

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

I was a fan during the classic space era. It was already when sets became white instead of grey, but my friends with older siblings often inherited older sets too and I remember thinking about them as if they were these ancient Lego sets from the past, which from a grown up perspective is very silly since it was just a few years before my time.

Ok, cool - nice to hear your perspective as a kid in the Classic Space era, then! I guess I'm a young buck ten or fifteen years behind you, you're perfectly free to tell me to get off your lawn! I got into Lego in the late 1990s, so I learned about Classic Space from seeing the Galaxy Explorer in Dorling Kindersley's "The Ultimate Lego Book". For me, its sleek, simple form was an amazing contrast from the overly busy, weird, ugly, incomprehensible (to me) flagships of Exploriens, UFO, and Insectoids, and I wondered why Lego didn't make spaceships like that anymore. So for me, what immediately attracted me to the Galaxy Explorer was its simplicity and sleekness in contrast to the weird, quirky, hard-to-understand design language of later Lego Space, whereas that's what you initially disliked about it. And that entirely accounts for our two different perspectives in this thread, over which much digital ink has been spilled! :) I understand you now, thanks! :)

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

As far as my claim about the Galaxy Explorer, it was not made based on some special property of mine, but rather the fact that the MOC designers saw what I saw in it (and likely more, that I'm not yet able to see or at least describe), while 10497 stopped short of those things. It's a simple common experience, just like you can hear music theory and chord resolutions and common practices in songs even if you don't actually know anything about it, but just go by ear.

That's a good analogy, since the way different people hear the same piece of music can be completely different! My simple common experience at any concert, or listening to any musical recording, will have very little in common with your simple common experience! And that's the beauty of musical tastes, that's why there are so many different types of music in the world.

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

Validity was never a subject of conversation, well, unless someone was implying that I feel only my take is valid.

All I said was that I wish the designer saw what other MOC makers saw. It's possible that he did, but that he trimmed away the things that would work against making the ship as sleek as possible.

I also see younger people (get off my lawn!) have a much more modest knowledge of the events preceding their lifetime than my generation and many others did before, where it was common knowledge. If I have to guess, it's that the modern world has too many things vying for our attention, and really fun, engaging, even addicting things. So a lot of people are a little bit of an expert when it comes to their specific interests, but don't really have a more superficial wide view on the most important happenings outside of that. And this disconnect is evident at Lego as well, on many fronts. It was evident with every imaginary generation change and is even more evident now. Sets had certain qualities, other sets had certain qualities, latest sets have certain qualities, etc. But once you go far enough you stop seeing the qualities of what came a lot before your time. This is because you don't need to look hard to look what was lacking, but often you would have to look hard to look for the subtle things that made something excel.

Sorry for misreading you, the impression you gave me was that you felt only your take was valid. You didn't mean it that way.

Well, the designer saw what some MOC makers saw, but not what other MOC makers saw. Certainly he didn't see it in the heavily greebled way that many MOC makers did. Certainly he did trim away the things that would work against making the ship as sleek as possible. Which is what some other MOC makers (like me) saw. That's life.

Sorry sorry sorry, I'll get off your lawn! Don't sic your dog on me! I'm going! - - - Eh, the kids are alright. Sets have certain qualities. I can equally say that once you go far enough you stop seeing the qualities of what's coming out now. This is because you don't need to look hard to see what is lacking, but often you have to look hard for the subtle things that make something excel. (Changed to present tense.)

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

This also ties in with the designer interviews, where it's clear they're oriented towards technical aspects and thus would do great recreations of existing objects. If 10497 had the same number of detail but was smaller - it would look more detailed. Another thing I liked as a child is having different ships, builds, etc. and contrasting them for play then and for display now. As much as I'd like a lot of old space remakes, it's going to be difficult to find space for them if they're this big. And by being that big, without the real need for it, the level of detail per square cm will suffer, making them less appealing as display items.

To be fair, Mike Psiaki does excel at recreations of existing objects. Take a look at his designer Bricklist: https://brickset.com/sets/list-9961. And, to be fair, everything else being equal, bigger sets are harder to swoosh and harder to find space for. The original Galaxy Explorer is both easier to swoosh and easier to find space for on the shelf or in the play area.

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

No, I just somewhat overemphasize the points. Enough to make them clearer, but not so much that they would be obvious lies and one wouldn't be able to take them as is and adjust the ratios in their head. The original presumably meant a lot in the time it came out but not primarily due to its size. The size was there to give decent proportion to everything it had to include, the interior, etc. The remainder of the space, which would then constitute just boring necessities (wings and the rest of the exterior) were then spiced up with huge engines and an impressive rear spoiler.

So the question is just "what's the best galaxy explorer we could make in 1979" (not in terms of size, but overall experience) and "what's the best galaxy explorer we could make in 2022". In this my only claim is that the original was closer to achieving its full potential in 1979 than the new one was in 2022.

I've written about how in my opinion, the 10497 is pretty darn close to "what's the best Galaxy Explorer we could make in 2022", so I'll agree to disagree.

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

Is it? I thought it was meant for adults. As we've talked before, it's not very swooshable and demands care not fall apart, that the children wouldn't have. At least one of the previous posters claimed that it falls apart anyways, but I don't agree with that. I feel that as an adult you sort of have an idea where you could and where you couldn't grab the ship in order for it to stay in one piece. I might be wrong, don't have any data on this.

I'd say that the 10497 is aimed at adults in terms of nostalgia and build sophistication, but aimed at kids in terms of playability and price. It's true that you can't pick it up from literally anywhere for swooshing and expect it to stay in one piece, but that's also very much true of things like the latest playscale Millennium Falcon (the 75257 from 2019), and that one is indisputably aimed at kids.

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

Sure. I don't mind things being upscaled. Just, as I said, there should be a need for it. The large Lego spaceships of old had a lot of ugly (for today's standards, as described before) detail in terms of overlapping shapes and colors or the design paired with the size made them seem like big space vessels with a little imagination. Both the "smooth" design of 10497 (separated colors, straight lines, no greebling) and the fact that the glass parts are completely separated from the hull of the ship and open like airplane canopies makes it seem like a small, simple vessel that has very little detail by itself, but was enlarged to an extent where the few details that it has were able to be reproduced faithfully. We got a boost in size, but not a boost in size-related boons - or in other words, a cool playset that got stretched and by that accidentally dilluted.

Again we'll agree to disagree. I think the 10497 takes full advantage of its boost in size to do all sorts of fun stuff. Shrug.

11 hours ago, Merlo said:

I don't really feel anyone is wrong about this. I'm glad if people enjoy these sets and since I'm just a single person and Lego is not my entire life, I feel the ideal situation would be if the sets would appeal to as many people as possible, instead of just me. And since Lego has many designers whose ideas gel differently to each set, there are many combinations possible. This is a positive side effect to the fact that there are no space/castle/pirate lines but just a string of unrelated sets. I'll keep buying those sets because at the end of the day I hope for the string to continue and I'm sure to like some of them.

@Merlo, I want to say thanks a lot for your last post. I'd been totally misunderstanding your intentions, and so I was responding to a mistaken idea of you in my big long posts. You're not a crank shouting into the void "EVERYTHING IS AWFUL BECAUSE IT'S NOT EXACTLY HOW I WANT IT AND THIS IS WHY", you're just a perfectly normal Lego fan stating your opinions like anybody else, and, yes, just a little bit of a get-off-my-lawn type. Now that I know where you're coming from, I can totally understand your perspective - and I hope you can understand mine, now that you know where I'm coming from. We can get along, yay! Let's be friends. Shake hands?

BTW, I like the chameleon in your profile pic. Much more fun than the boring old blank placeholder I've left as mine!

 

[Ruthin Road]

Interesting debate, thank you all for your insights and photos.

I also do not think the remade Galaxy Explorer has captured the spirit of the original, although it is clearly a very considered and polished design. Thinking about it, I suspect the decision to make the set predominantly for display made this inevitable, turning the Galaxy Explorer into something it was never meant to be. It actually makes me feel a little sad to think of it sitting lifeless on a shelf, like seeing a stuffed animal in a museum. It is supposed to be out there exploring galaxies, while being played with and rebuilt! I hope future nostalgia sets move away from being display pieces.

While the Galaxy Explorer has quite a few play features, it is too fragile for regular play by children. While I can understand that display sets designed primarily to be as realistic or faithful to an original as possible may have some compromises in stability, for example architecture sets or sets based on film props, it seems inappropriate that a remake of an actual Lego set is not more robust. In the same way that "The Lego Movie" was a family film that could be enjoyed on different levels, I think the Galaxy Explorer should have been a more fun and family-orientated set.

I wonder what sort of set we might have got if the designer had been given a freer hand, for example being told he could build any spaceship he wanted as long as it was gray and blue, and had a classic space logo and a trans-yellow cockpit? For me, the Creator 3-in-1 medieval castle and pirate ship actually get closer to the spirit of the original castle and pirate sets despite (or as a result?)of not being remakes of specific sets. Mind you, the Galaxy Explorer is such a legendary set that it would be difficult to create something entirely fresh.

[Merlo]

Quote

I got into Lego in the late 1990s, so I learned about Classic Space from seeing the Galaxy Explorer in Dorling Kindersley's "The Ultimate Lego Book". For me, its sleek, simple form was an amazing contrast from the overly busy, weird, ugly, incomprehensible (to me) flagships of Exploriens, UFO, and Insectoids, and I wondered why Lego didn't make spaceships like that anymore. So for me, what immediately attracted me to the Galaxy Explorer was its simplicity and sleekness in contrast to the weird, quirky, hard-to-understand design language of later Lego Space, whereas that's what you initially disliked about it.

Oh, I'm partially with you on that actually. Having grown up with simpler Lego, I am to this unable to see some of the later sets as beautiful. I don't like seeing specialized parts and details shown with stickers. For me 6984 was the first time when I thought "what is this"? It was messy and complicated in a way that didn't seem artistic to me but just "thrown together" somehow. Yes, Lego space was kinda like that in that time, but for me 6986 was still on a level where it looked appealing. And it even had a more interesting design in my eyes, whereas 6984 was just rough. Ice Planet had an interesting color scheme but by the time we got to the UFO line, it didn't even feel like Lego to me. It started to be more like a cheap overly colorful plastic toy or a Lego knock-off at best. No offense to the fans, this is just my perspective.

But for me complexity and weirdness are great if the design language and color scheme support it. You can get away with more architectural complexity if the color scheme is subdued and vice versa. But at some point it becomes too much.

Quote

Eh, the kids are alright. Sets have certain qualities. I can equally say that once you go far enough you stop seeing the qualities of what's coming out now. This is because you don't need to look hard to see what is lacking, but often you have to look hard for the subtle things that make something excel. (Changed to present tense.)

Sure, isn't that the case with our views of later Lego space lines? :)

Quote

To be fair, Mike Psiaki does excel at recreations of existing objects. Take a look at his designer Bricklist: https://brickset.com/sets/list-9961

Oh, I know. I've commented before that some of his sets are among my favorites. But personally I would've given this to someone who would've made it a bit more whimsical rather than looking like a real ship. When they said they wanted to make the Galaxy Explorer be like the ship you remember it being back then - that to me is equal to a chance to buy the original Galaxy Explorer, even though now I can appreciate it more as a piece of Lego history than I think it's a better spaceship than a lot of other Lego spaceships.

Quote

I've written about how in my opinion, the 10497 is pretty darn close to "what's the best Galaxy Explorer we could make in 2022", so I'll agree to disagree.

I think for me the new GE is very much like the old one. So if the original designer was still making Lego sets and was told "make a Galaxy Explorer 2" and he made 10497, I would think "what happened? You had all these ideas for one ship, but for the sequel you just repeated yourself".

Quote

I want to say thanks a lot for your last post. I'd been totally misunderstanding your intentions

Oh I didn't think worse of you based on anything you wrote. I know for a fact that I lack social skills and thus can be annoying :) But, yes, if you would suddenly claim here you think UFO is the best Lego space line, we could "argue" for the fun of it, but obviously I'm aware these things are entirely subjective and if we did a poll it might have turned out that whatever I happened to like was much less popular than the UFO line.

[Merlo]

17 hours ago, Ruthin Road said:

Interesting debate, thank you all for your insights and photos.

I also do not think the remade Galaxy Explorer has captured the spirit of the original, although it is clearly a very considered and polished design. Thinking about it, I suspect the decision to make the set predominantly for display made this inevitable, turning the Galaxy Explorer into something it was never meant to be. It actually makes me feel a little sad to think of it sitting lifeless on a shelf, like seeing a stuffed animal in a museum. It is supposed to be out there exploring galaxies, while being played with and rebuilt! I hope future nostalgia sets move away from being display pieces.

 

Good point, but I'm not sure that is possible if Lego is counting with adults buying the sets on the account of nostalgia. Would a one of a kind "generic Lego space ship" stand a chance next to the Star Wars ships?

 

Quote

I wonder what sort of set we might have got if the designer had been given a freer hand, for example being told he could build any spaceship he wanted as long as it was gray and blue, and had a classic space logo and a trans-yellow cockpit? For me, the Creator 3-in-1 medieval castle and pirate ship actually get closer to the spirit of the original castle and pirate sets despite (or as a result?)of not being remakes of specific sets. Mind you, the Galaxy Explorer is such a legendary set that it would be difficult to create something entirely fresh.

Yes, it was a safe bet Galaxy Explorer would not stray far from the original. However, unlike the Star Wars ships, where every new iteration can come closer to a known real reference, there is no real reference here in terms of a more complex ship this one could try and emulate so it feels like a reprise. I liken it to seeing an old show I enjoyed as it gives me a feeling of "this was a great show back at the time, too bad I've seen this episode so many times I can't properly enjoy it anymore".

I agree about the Creator castle and pirate ship. For me a big part of the Lego fantasy was "see something new, build something playful". There's plenty of both in those sets, the castle especially. I think when the design is good Lego almost never gets it wrong with something that's trying to be fun.

Problem is that "fun" and "realistic" often don't gel. Imagine if 31120 was just all grey like real medieval castles. It would hardly be an upgrade over the Lego castles of old. A more interesting shape would be needed to give those flat gray walls something for the eye to catch onto. Alternatively, the shape could be functional and not very interesting but it might look just like the real thing, prompting a different kind of interest.

But when you merge things whose qualities are on the opposite sides of the spectrum, e.g. 54321 and 12345, you get a 3/5 set. Plus the effect supersizing a set has on you :)

[danth]

On 9/12/2023 at 6:49 AM, Yoggington said:

This was a fun throwback set. I've built it twice since release plus each of the alt-builds once each. Thoroughly enjoyed all builds, and learned a few tricks. The alt-builds were a neat bonus - unnecessary to include, but even the idea of them brought me back to trying to re-create the 'suggested' back of box models.

It looks great when complete and really tickles the nostalgia bone. It has become my four yo nephew's go-to Lego item when he's over. That's good enough for me.

Thanks for sharing what you thought of the set. I echo all of your praise. Now I'm wondering if I should have shown my nephew when he visited. He's kind of a rascal though, not sure I trust him around my Space sets!

On 9/12/2023 at 6:49 AM, Yoggington said:

It's threads like this that keep me away from the classic space ends of the Lego community at large. The gatekeeping and high-horsery verges on toxic. Sometimes you gotta step back and ask yourself if you enjoy Lego or you just enjoy your own idea of what it's supposed to be.

Tiresome, repetitive, dominated by the same people? Yes. Toxic, I hope not.

I think the criticism is mostly because everyone hung all their hopes on this one set, which could never be all things to all people. We need more Space sets!

On 9/12/2023 at 8:24 AM, arnoldtblumberg said:

All of this. But just watch, someone will be here momentarily to explain in great detail to you why you're wrong to be happy with it.

I still want to hear what you think of the set!

[TeriXeri]

Looks like LEGO changed status of this set to retiring soon / last chance.

While this was already known from sources before, it's definately official now, so just a reminder.

Edited September 17, 2023 by TeriXeri

[Lion King]

I think it makes sene that Galaxy Exploer makes departure from shelves soon to make space. For new Space-themed Icons Moment set next year. 

[Bornin1980something]

I'm sorry, I did a bag by bag review of this when it was new, but if you think I stopped short of the last bag, that's because I did! The set might already be gone, and I never finished reviewing it. I still have it, but it's missing some wing edge detail, lost during a haisty reorganisation. 

Would anyone still be interested in my final thoughts?

 

 

[icm]

I finally managed to snag another 10497 for $50, but I feel like a dirtbag for buying it on the heels of a few weeks of heavy Christmas spending.

[legoturtle]

That price! Please buy me 2 more,,, alternative builds are great. Only sad thing is that they did not include instructions in the box.

 

[Space78]

Surprisingly, 10497 is currently available on U.S. Lego.com at regular price ($99.99).  It will be interesting to see how long Lego will have stock.