LEGO Star Wars 2023 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[Balrogofmorgoth]

17 minutes ago, Alex_South said:

This is a big reason I am personally against the notion of highly exclusive mini-figures in UCS sets, it just translates to LEGO always having an excuse to do bare minimum for play-scale minifigs, it's consumers playing themselves. IMO the UCS line is primarily about vehicle accuracy which means large scale and tons of pieces and $$. Play-scale stuff is more for play features and minifigures and all that fun stuff we enjoyed as kids. I will grant that exclusive minifigures make sense for UCS sets designed with a full interior like the razorcrest or a master builder series set like the cantina.

The Venator is a beautiful model though, I forgot how much I love the design, it makes me wish Thrawn's ship was something unique and custom like an old venator instead of a boring ISD.

Honestly I miss when UCS sets didn’t include any minifigs just so people can stop complaining about what figures do or don’t get included. When the Gunship came out everyone complained that it didn’t have Cody. Now everyone is mad that this has Rex. It was just simpler when UCS sets had no figures

[ForgedInLego]

4 hours ago, Iperial_Fleet_Commander said:

Maybe if/when someone designs a mod to allow for opening doors, I might pull the trigger, but I guess I'm back to looking for a Venator MOC that has opening doors...

I'll definitely be giving it a try, I've already mocked up a rack and pinion side hangar door that looks like it'll fit

1 hour ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

If you have to have a lot of different play functions, UCS sets aren’t for you. If a full interior is non-negotiable, UCS sets aren’t for you.

Don't tell me how to live my life  

[Iperial_Fleet_Commander]

1 hour ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

I think people are still missing the point of UCS sets. If you don’t have display space, then UCS sets aren’t for you. If you have to have a lot of different play functions, UCS sets aren’t for you. If a full interior is non-negotiable, UCS sets aren’t for you. Seems like people are always so shocked and upset when all these different play set criteria aren’t met for a large scale display model 

I don't really want a "full interior" or anything, but the Venator's big gimmick IS the main hangar strip. It's like a WWII Aircraft carrier in space, launching waves of fighters and bombers from that central strip. Without the main doors opening, it loses a lot of the charm, at least for me. I do appreciate the side hangars being open, and the tiny gunship, but still, missing out on the Venator's main *thing*... idk, it feels inexcusable to me.
I'd rather display it with the doors open, but thats not really an option if they can't open lol. It's not really a "play feature" to expect it to at least have the option to look like it does in the shows. I'd say a "play feature" would be something like it having flickfire missiles in the gun turrets or something, not it doing the main gimmick the ship is based on. It's like calling the Eta-2's wings a "play feature".

[Horation]

2 hours ago, Iperial_Fleet_Commander said:

I don't really want a "full interior" or anything, but the Venator's big gimmick IS the main hangar strip. It's like a WWII Aircraft carrier in space, launching waves of fighters and bombers from that central strip. Without the main doors opening, it loses a lot of the charm, at least for me. I do appreciate the side hangars being open, and the tiny gunship, but still, missing out on the Venator's main *thing*... idk, it feels inexcusable to me.
I'd rather display it with the doors open, but thats not really an option if they can't open lol. It's not really a "play feature" to expect it to at least have the option to look like it does in the shows. I'd say a "play feature" would be something like it having flickfire missiles in the gun turrets or something, not it doing the main gimmick the ship is based on. It's like calling the Eta-2's wings a "play feature".

That's a bit of a strawman. See, the opened hangar is an interior feature, what @Balrogofmorgoth is saying is that UCS sets rarely focus on the interior, which is definitively true. Just because a particular feature feels like it is the decisive part of a vessel for you doesn't make it such for all others, while the Eta-2's wings being removed make it into a completely different vehicle, the lack of a way to see the interior of the Venator is just one fewer way to display it, so it's not as big of a deal.

[Kdapt-Preacher]

52 minutes ago, Horation said:

That's a bit of a strawman. See, the opened hangar is an interior feature, what @Balrogofmorgoth is saying is that UCS sets rarely focus on the interior, which is definitively true. Just because a particular feature feels like it is the decisive part of a vessel for you doesn't make it such for all others, while the Eta-2's wings being removed make it into a completely different vehicle, the lack of a way to see the interior of the Venator is just one fewer way to display it, so it's not as big of a deal.

I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse here. Obviously yes, in the most literal sense, the hangar is inside the ship, but when people talk about a model having an an interior in this context they mean something like the small internal playset the UCS Executor has. That's what UCS sets (typically) don't have. They do typically cover the features that're visible from the outside of the ship, as the Venator's hangar frequently is. What @Iperial_Fleet_Commander is pointing out is that for many people the iconic image of a Venator, especially the TCW-style version, is of the ship with the doors open disgorging a cloud of fighters, and it's not unreasonable for them to be disappointed that this model can't be displayed in that posture. When Iperial mentiones the Eta-2's wings they're not talking about them being removed, they're talking about them being fixed in position instead of hinged as in the movie--the better example might be if they released a UCS X-Wing that could only be displayed with the s-foils in the closed position. It wouldn't be *wrong*, it just means there's one fewer ways to display it, but not being able to show the wings in the classic X posture would make the model obviously less interesting. In the case of the Venator doors the ratio of improved displayability to increased structural complexity isn't very good, which is why most UCS-style MOCs don't bother with that feature either, but given the scale here it would've been a nice thing for them to include. I do have it on the UCS Venator I'm working on, for example, so I know they could've done it in this space.

I'm mildly amused (but not surprised) to see that LEGO couldn't come up with a better solution for a nanoscale LAAT/i than I did. At least I assume that's supposed to be a LAAT. Theirs has the advantage that it sticks together, and the wings are a better shape, but I think mine is more recognizable overall.

Edited September 13, 2023 by Kdapt-Preacher

[Iperial_Fleet_Commander]

2 hours ago, Kdapt-Preacher said:

I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse here. Obviously yes, in the most literal sense, the hangar is inside the ship, but when people talk about a model having an an interior in this context they mean something like the small internal playset the UCS Executor has. That's what UCS sets (typically) don't have. They do typically cover the features that're visible from the outside of the ship, as the Venator's hangar frequently is. What @Iperial_Fleet_Commander is pointing out is that for many people the iconic image of a Venator, especially the TCW-style version, is of the ship with the doors open disgorging a cloud of fighters, and it's not unreasonable for them to be disappointed that this model can't be displayed in that posture. When Iperial mentiones the Eta-2's wings they're not talking about them being removed, they're talking about them being fixed in position instead of hinged as in the movie--the better example might be if they released a UCS X-Wing that could only be displayed with the s-foils in the closed position. It wouldn't be *wrong*, it just means there's one fewer ways to display it, but not being able to show the wings in the classic X posture would make the model obviously less interesting. In the case of the Venator doors the ratio of improved displayability to increased structural complexity isn't very good, which is why most UCS-style MOCs don't bother with that feature either, but given the scale here it would've been a nice thing for them to include. I do have it on the UCS Venator I'm working on, for example, so I know they could've done it in this space.

I'm mildly amused (but not surprised) to see that LEGO couldn't come up with a better solution for a nanoscale LAAT/i than I did. At least I assume that's supposed to be a LAAT. Theirs has the advantage that it sticks together, and the wings are a better shape, but I think mine is more recognizable overall.

Yes, thank you. 

You worded it better than I had, but yes, that was what I meant. To me, the Venator's opening hangar bay is it's one biggest gimmick, and for a set that cost six hundred and fifty damn dollars to not include that? Just seems absurd.

[TeddytheSpoon]

I'm a little torn on the bay doors thing. On the one hand, I'm surprised that the lack of a feature that didn't even exist until TCW showed it is a deal-breaker for so many. Especially when it would have likely been pretty complicated while retaining the structure of the ship, which presumably has a big Technic spine running down the middle.

But then again this ship is very clearly from TCW, so if any Venator was going to have it, it should be this one. Other UCS sets have had moveable features implemented: the X-wing's S-foils open and close, so do the flaps on the Snowspeeder, the Gunship has opening doors and turrets that can be folded away inside. These are hardly play features, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have expected some form of hangar door here.

For me it's not a deal-breaker; if I can ever justify spending that money, it's just going to sit there looking pretty anyway. But it could have sat there looking pretty with teeny-tiny gunships coming out the middle.

Edited September 13, 2023 by TeddytheSpoon

[Iperial_Fleet_Commander]

9 minutes ago, TeddytheSpoon said:

I'm a little torn on the bay doors thing. On the one hand, I'm surprised that the lack of a feature that didn't even exist until TCW showed it is a deal-breaker for so many. Especially when it would have likely been pretty complicated while retaining the structure of the ship, which presumably has a big Technic spine running down the middle.

But then again this ship is very clearly from TCW, so if any Venator was going to have it, it should be this one. Other UCS sets have had moveable features implemented: the X-wing's S-foils open and close, so do the flaps on the Snowspeeder, the Gunship has opening doors and turrets that can be folded away inside. These are hardly play features, so I don't think it's unreasonable to have expected some form of hangar door here.

Well, if you wanna get real pedantic about it, the 2003 Clone Wars show also showed the bay doors opening. But yes, it is more prominent in TCW, which this one is based on.

[TeddytheSpoon]

30 minutes ago, Iperial_Fleet_Commander said:

Well, if you wanna get real pedantic about it, the 2003 Clone Wars show also showed the bay doors opening. But yes, it is more prominent in TCW, which this one is based on.

I'm all for a bit of pedantry! I stand corrected, I'm not so familiar with Tartakovksy's Clone Wars.

Out of curiosity, were there any differences between the Venators in the 2003 show and those in TCW?

[Kdapt-Preacher]

4 hours ago, TeddytheSpoon said:

I'm all for a bit of pedantry! I stand corrected, I'm not so familiar with Tartakovksy's Clone Wars.

Out of curiosity, were there any differences between the Venators in the 2003 show and those in TCW?

The 2003 Clone Wars is so stylized that it's hard to point at specific differences. It's obviously the same ship, but it's basically a line drawing. There are some pictures here for reference. But the Complete Cross-Sections book, which is a much better source, also showed the doors open on an RotS-style one in 2007, so I think it's reasonable to say that that was always the intention even if the movie itself doesn't make it obvious.

[Old Master]

Spoiler

Well I rescind some of my comments about the upcoming Rex figure. After his little cameo last night, the huge ammo pouch and visor match up quite well to live action Rex. 

 

[SquirrelArmy]

16 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

Honestly I miss when UCS sets didn’t include any minifigs just so people can stop complaining about what figures do or don’t get included. When the Gunship came out everyone complained that it didn’t have Cody. Now everyone is mad that this has Rex. It was just simpler when UCS sets had no figures

I agree with you. It’s not great forcing people to purchase a £650 set for a specific exclusive figure. I’m sure there’s a huge market for specific figs with a microfighter. Which I’m sure which was the original point of the microfighter range.

[Balrogofmorgoth]

10 hours ago, Iperial_Fleet_Commander said:

Yes, thank you. 

You worded it better than I had, but yes, that was what I meant. To me, the Venator's opening hangar bay is it's one biggest gimmick, and for a set that cost six hundred and fifty damn dollars to not include that? Just seems absurd.

It would definitely cost more of it had that function

[Alex_South]

17 hours ago, Balrogofmorgoth said:

Honestly I miss when UCS sets didn’t include any minifigs just so people can stop complaining about what figures do or don’t get included. When the Gunship came out everyone complained that it didn’t have Cody. Now everyone is mad that this has Rex. It was just simpler when UCS sets had no figures

I completely understand and I mostly agree, but I do think certain UCS sets built to feature minifgures should have them: Razorcrest, AT-AT, and the Falcon all three of which also have top tier interiors, they're super play-sets really.

Also IMO a $300-ish UCS is sorta the only hope we have at this point to get a better T-6 with an actual interior and certain minifig recolors, I fall more and more in love with that ship each episode. I wish they had given the $130 slot to the T-6 instead of the skeleton crew ship. I am still going to buy the 80$ one for now but I need Lego to make a better version down the road.

[mirkwoodspiders]

22 minutes ago, Alex_South said:

I completely understand and I mostly agree, but I do think certain UCS sets built to feature minifgures should have them: Razorcrest, AT-AT, and the Falcon all three of which also have top tier interiors, they're super play-sets really.

Also IMO a $300-ish UCS is sorta the only hope we have at this point to get a better T-6 with an actual interior and certain minifig recolors, I fall more and more in love with that ship each episode. I wish they had given the $130 slot to the T-6 instead of the skeleton crew ship. I am still going to buy the 80$ one for now but I need Lego to make a better version down the road.

So, not knowing much about the build except what we can see from the LEGO release video, I wonder if there isn't a relatively simple modification to have a hangar bay.

Creating an opening mechanism for a portion of the hull doesn't seem like it'd be that complicated - just re-work some of the plates onto hinges or something similar.

As far as the hangar bay, that's more tricky. The "backbone" of the interior structure looks like a series of consecutive beams running from the back of the ship to the front, all connected and heavily dependent on each other to maintain the integrity of the overall structure. However, if you could find a way to create a "gap" in the flow as I've crudely outlined below, you might be able to maintain the structural integrity while creating a space for a partial hangar underneath the modified panels above. I guess it depends on how much weight the center beams are supporting where you want to change the structure.

Sorry for the novel, I just think it might not be that difficult to mod this thing and make at least part of the hangar bay. We will have to wait and see what the build is like to know for sure, though.

                             ________________________   <---- displaced beam

__________________            Hangar           ____________________   <---- center beam

__________________              Bay              ____________________    <---- center beam

                             ________________________    <---- displaced beam

[Horation]

14 hours ago, Kdapt-Preacher said:

I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse here. Obviously yes, in the most literal sense, the hangar is inside the ship, but when people talk about a model having an an interior in this context they mean something like the small internal playset the UCS Executor has. That's what UCS sets (typically) don't have. They do typically cover the features that're visible from the outside of the ship, as the Venator's hangar frequently is. What @Iperial_Fleet_Commander is pointing out is that for many people the iconic image of a Venator, especially the TCW-style version, is of the ship with the doors open disgorging a cloud of fighters, and it's not unreasonable for them to be disappointed that this model can't be displayed in that posture. When Iperial mentiones the Eta-2's wings they're not talking about them being removed, they're talking about them being fixed in position instead of hinged as in the movie--the better example might be if they released a UCS X-Wing that could only be displayed with the s-foils in the closed position. It wouldn't be *wrong*, it just means there's one fewer ways to display it, but not being able to show the wings in the classic X posture would make the model obviously less interesting. In the case of the Venator doors the ratio of improved displayability to increased structural complexity isn't very good, which is why most UCS-style MOCs don't bother with that feature either, but given the scale here it would've been a nice thing for them to include. I do have it on the UCS Venator I'm working on, for example, so I know they could've done it in this space.

I'm mildly amused (but not surprised) to see that LEGO couldn't come up with a better solution for a nanoscale LAAT/i than I did. At least I assume that's supposed to be a LAAT. Theirs has the advantage that it sticks together, and the wings are a better shape, but I think mine is more recognizable overall.

It sounds to me like you are the one being intentionally obtuse here, since I wasn`t intentionally pretending not to get it, and you knew this, so you are accusing me of lying for no reason at all.

For many more people, that`s just a detail, and the Eta-2`s wings not being movable would be different, since you can see the wings from the outside, so you can hide an opening mechanism on the inside, while the hangar opening feature would weaken the interior.

Now you then proceed to be intetionally obtuse (funny that you were projecting about me doing that when you`re clearly doing so repeatedly). Comparing an outside feature like the X-wing`s X-foils to an inside detail is quite the comparison, now you then pretend that you don`t know that an Iconic feature of a ship (the foils) is more important to replicating the ship than a somewhat important, but not iconic, detail. To then add insult to injury, you are again intentionally obtuse by pretending that TLG could`ve done it since you did it, while admitting that your version`s gunship, though better looking, doesn`t even stick together! I`m going to presume the hangar you`ve got is probably making your version less structurally stable (if you even have a physical copy of it...). In other words, I see only one person pretending to not get it, and it ain`t me...

Edited September 13, 2023 by Horation

[McMurder_them_softly]

This video has a first look at the interior box art, wow! Looks like it pulls from ROTS. 

[ForgedInLego]

6 hours ago, mirkwoodspiders said:

I guess it depends on how much weight the center beams are supporting where you want to change the structure.

The Venator's front stand is relatively far forward, which creates an overhang of what, 8-10 inches? not too difficult to deal with. If you want to use the gap in the structure technique, I'd recommend using wedge plates (regular plates will work just as well) on the top and bottom of the stack going from the end of the displaced beam to a ways down the center beams fwd or aft to prevent the center beam to displaced beam connection from bending.

I'm going to completely gut the inside of mine, though I am worried abut how little space there is between the top and bottom hulls. I guess we'll see in 2 and a half weeks!

[mirkwoodspiders]

4 hours ago, ForgedInLego said:

The Venator's front stand is relatively far forward, which creates an overhang of what, 8-10 inches? not too difficult to deal with. If you want to use the gap in the structure technique, I'd recommend using wedge plates (regular plates will work just as well) on the top and bottom of the stack going from the end of the displaced beam to a ways down the center beams fwd or aft to prevent the center beam to displaced beam connection from bending.

I'm going to completely gut the inside of mine, though I am worried abut how little space there is between the top and bottom hulls. I guess we'll see in 2 and a half weeks!

Yeah, super excited to purchase and tinker with this thing. The outside is amazing, even if the guts can't be altered much. 

[Kaijumeister]

I love that Venator. As much as I’d like to pick it up, I simply don’t have the space!

I was initially disappointed to see the lack of an opening hangar and some more microscale ships, but upon looking at how comparatively tiny the LAAT/i is, it’s hard to see how ships like the Jedi Starfighters etc. would even be handled.

It’s a clear a lot of effort went into this set and I sincerely hope it sells well enough. With the glut of Clone Wars-related sets we’ve been getting, I just hope we do finally get Anakin / Obi-Wan in their Season 1 armour next summer, with arm printing for the latter like Mace Windu has.

Ahsoka is knocking it out of the park every week. I am once again imploring Lego to release more sets on the show next summer.

[BrickBob Studpants]

While opening the bays would have been a nice feature, I don’t think they could’ve done it without sacrifing stability, so they made the right choice.

[Alex_South]

I know nobody likes the Yavin Base very much but I feel like it might go well with the ghost or the falcon, definitely the falcon since you get the entire OT crew. I also love the midi scale Y-wing it probably works well with the freighters and shuttles, I wish we would get an entire line of fighters at that scale. I also expect the Yavin base to go on huge sales in a year.

 

6 hours ago, Kaijumeister said:

It’s a clear a lot of effort went into this set and I sincerely hope it sells well enough. With the glut of Clone Wars-related sets we’ve been getting, I just hope we do finally get Anakin / Obi-Wan in their Season 1 armour next summer, with arm printing for the latter like Mace Windu has.

Ahsoka is knocking it out of the park every week. I am once again imploring Lego to release more sets on the show next summer.

IMO Ahsoka will wind up being the most pivotal D+ show as far as setting up an era for more star wars movies, and I really hope we get more sets from the show, Baylan absolutely needs a do-over, he needs to be taller, and have some sort of dedicated beard/hair piece haha. Also his and shin's hair should be a matching white imo, sometimes it's really frustrating how many little details they miss out on from having to work off of early art, because they also based Huyang off his animated appearance because his coloring in live action is significantly different. This is all nitpicky stuff but it's just kinda frustrating since it's gotta be easy to adjust these things and Lego has been incrementally improving mando stuff since that line started, each new set sees 1 improvement to the figure or one of his accessories.

I also think it's safe to say more clone wars era stuff is coming, judging by whats retiring this year I think next year will put most if not all of the Clone Wars cast back on shelves, but we will see. A lot of stuff is retiring this year, it has me excited.

[McMurder_them_softly]

Hold up, is it just me or does the Venator use magnets to hold up the bottom side? 

 

 

[Flieger]

On 9/13/2023 at 5:37 PM, Balrogofmorgoth said:

It would definitely cost more of it had that function

Yeah, it is almost like people consider Lego to be a premium, top of the line brand with the highest quality standards.

Seriously, I for one do not mind the absence of opening bay doors that much but we are talking about an insane amount of money either way.

...which makes objective mistakes like Yularen's misprinting and objective negligence like Yularen's lack of arm printing all the worse. And yeah, the minifigs are not the main purpose of a UCS set. But here is the deal: if you choose to include them, you better do it well. Thus it is a deal breaker.

[TeddytheSpoon]

19 minutes ago, McMurder_them_softly said:

Hold up, is it just me or does the Venator use magnets to hold up the bottom side? 

 

 

Don't think so. There's a lifestyle video on S@H which shows it partially built, and you can see that at least the back half has Technic pins holding in the lower panel. The last LEGO set to use magnets structurally I believe was the 2002 ISD, and by all accounts it wasn't a great solution.

On a related note, the same shot I mentioned is also great for a look at the internal structure - as expected it's a big ol' block of interlocked Technic bricks.

Just now, Flieger said:

...which makes objective mistakes like Yularen's misprinting and objective negligence like Yularen's lack of arm printing all the worse.

Does Yularen have anything on his arms that would warrant arm printing? I thought it was just plain gray sleeves.