LEGO Star Wars 2011 Pictures & Rumors

[Tamamono]

Good grief, advent calendar haters. Who do you think it was designed for? Grumpy old men with a stick up their trash compactor about accuracy and price-per-piece, or children that might actually use it as an advent calendar and have some fun, rather than open everything at once and put it in a box for display/storage?

It was never going to be a parts pack, and it was certainly never going to have a full-fledged mini model behind every door. Splitting the models would be a massive failure - what kid wants half a B-wing in his calendar one morning?

I know, and they did pretty well with the calendar. I just don't think that their "target audience" is very interested in mini models.

[Praiter Yed]

Speak for yourself, Yed. That's $35USD that could, imho, just be better spent elsewhere. Now, if they'd included some new and exclusive OT minifig, that's another story. Santa Yoda is cute and all, but not necessary. Nothing against anyone who loves it, but this is easy for me to turn down.

It's a fair point. But IMHO $35USD isn't too much for something that will no doubt be a collectors item.

[Walter Kovacs]

Speaking of which, I really hope the radar dish on the Falcon will be the printed one from the keychain. That would make the model look much better. In fact, I agree with others here that all of the models would really benefit from stickers, but they aren't necessary IMO.

No such luck, Oky. The dish on the MF keychain is a 6 x 6. The one on the Advent Calender MF is a 4 x 4. Of course, that doesn't preclude TLC printing the 4 x 4 dish in the Advent Calender...

The Clone Pilot is a big draw. They currently go for around $9 USD on BL, which is a bit pricey for me, as I could use 6 or 7 of them. My AT-TEs, AT-OT, TX-170 and CTT just don't look right with Gunners driving them.

[Muddy]

The advent calender is extremely disappointing. Not only are the ships poorly made, but only 5 figs? And most of them are CW at that. Will it even have 100 pieces? I'll pass.

This is only a preliminary image - it is missing 12 days of advent doors

Currently with 13 subsets known (Supposing the Rebel Pilot is included)

Then the total is no less than 125 pcs so far.

See my previous post.

Just like the previous advent sets, the cover does not show all the included doors.

It would have been funny to have the ships in place of reighn deer with Yoda on a sleigh being pulled by them.

:-D

Seriously though try building your own advent style set using lego's rules.

It is harder than it looks.

[slimninj4]

What is the big deal with the calendar? maybe they are not showing all 24 items on the cover. I looked at last years and they do not show all 24 items on the kingdoms. Maybe there will be 8 figs and the rest accessories like robots or a jedi training bot, etc.

[Brickdoctor]

What is the big deal with the calendar? maybe they are not showing all 24 items on the cover. I looked at last years and they do not show all 24 items on the kingdoms. Maybe there will be 8 figs and the rest accessories like robots or a jedi training bot, etc.

Of course they aren't showing everything. If they did you'd know what all the models were. But they usually put the best stuff up front. Last year's castle calendar had the Kingdoms Prince and Queen front and center.

Honestly, I realize how hard it is to design stuff at this scale. But I don't like how they've decided to make the model anyways when they can't do it justice. Last year's CITY calendar had lots of really small models, but their shape was recognizable. If they can't make a TIE/ln that has hexagonal wings (and that's one of the dominating features of that craft), then they shouldn't make a TIE/ln at all. It could be replaced with, say, a Y-wing, which Legostein has already proved can be built at that size and with few pieces.

[Muddy]

Of course they aren't showing everything. If they did you'd know what all the models were. But they usually put the best stuff up front. Last year's castle calendar had the Kingdoms Prince and Queen front and center.

Honestly, I realize how hard it is to design stuff at this scale. But I don't like how they've decided to make the model anyways when they can't do it justice. Last year's CITY calendar had lots of really small models, but their shape was recognizable. If they can't make a TIE/ln that has hexagonal wings (and that's one of the dominating features of that craft), then they shouldn't make a TIE/ln at all. It could be replaced with, say, a Y-wing, which Legostein has already proved can be built at that size and with few pieces.

Like this one?

I did that one myself...

The problem comes when you start to realize just how many pieces are used.

The model I made has 4 plates to make the shape, 4 to hold those together 2 dots for extensions, 2 dots for canopy, and one brick for center

If you look at the cost analysis of the pieces you realize that the center piece is .39 just for it.

The price adds up quickly

You also have to factor in the cost of the license and get Approval from GL and the SW team.

I am so crossing my fingers for the MechanoChair...

[Brickdoctor]

Like this one?

I did that one myself...

The problem comes when you start to realize just how many pieces are used.

The model I made has 4 plates to make the shape, 4 to hold those together 2 dots for extensions, 2 dots for canopy, and one brick for center

If you look at the cost analysis of the pieces you realize that the center piece is .39 just for it.

The price adds up quickly

You also have to factor in the cost of the license and get Approval from GL and the SW team.

That was my point. If you can't make a TIE/ln without using up that much money, don't make a TIE/ln. Better to leave it out that to issue something that doesn't work so well. Sometimes the only way to win is not to play. It this case, without molding a new wedge plate, a good, cheap TIE/ln at that scale simply isn't possible.

[Muddy]

That was my point. If you can't make a TIE/ln without using up that much money, don't make a TIE/ln. Better to leave it out that to issue something that doesn't work so well. Sometimes the only way to win is not to play. It this case, without molding a new wedge plate, a good, cheap TIE/ln at that scale simply isn't possible.

I like the simple design, I agree that the shape isn't right, but still it is only prelimary pictures, I am assuming alot closer to finish will be shown this weekend...

The advent I designed had 333 total pieces 350 if you include spares....

Each piece in each color has a value. personally I agree that it could be better, but I am sure the kids won't mind to much...the same basic bow tie shape is there and the ones the set is focused toward will like it...

If it was geared toward AFOL I would say they would have included

8 MF - 1 jedi, 1 sith, 1 bad guy trooper, 1 good guy trooper, 1 protocol droid, 1 Astromech, 1 bounty hunter, and 1 civilian

It would have cost a little more but would have included characters that aren't assocaited with major vehicles

Roron Corrob for example - what ship is he best suited for?

[famman47]

Continuing to ponder the nature of the size difference between the two prelim Millenium Falcon models for set 7965, I'm thinking that perhaps the size difference I percieve is just as result of the perimeter detailing being a bit more built-up on the first prelim versus the second. This by itself might not justify the higher piece count compared to 4504, if in fact we end up with a set model closer to the first prelim than the second. So hopefully either would have a considerable portion of that high piece count contribute to a well executed interior.

Hmmm....

I've analyzed to the best of my ability both of the possible preliminary 7965 Falcon models, and it appears that they are actually significantly different from each other. The first preliminary model of which a picture appeared seems to be approximately two studs wider than the last released system scale Falcon, 4504, as well as about three studs longer overall, while the most recently released prelim pic of 7965 is almost exactly the same width as 4504, while the new mandibles will make it about one stud longer than 4504. All three models have the same six stud gap between the mandibles. If set 7965 has a total of 1238 pieces, while set 4504 had just 985 pieces, there must be some sort of significant difference. It could be that it is a slightly larger model, as the first prelim image suggests, or if it is the same size as 4504, then it might have significanly more interior detail. "Detail" trends have been inconsistent with recent starwars sets; the latest Tantive 4 owes its high piece count to it's relatively hight detail, utilizing many of the smallest elements. On the other hand, the new AT-AT is almost the same size as 4483, but uses significantly fewer parts, and has much less detail in certain areas, especially the legs.

So... all things considered, something different definately seems to be up with the new Falcon. Worst case scenereo in my mind would be that the prelim piece count turns out to be on the high side and the actual model appears as the most recent exterior box shot shows (same size as 4504,) and has little improvement on the interior compared to 4504. Given all the evidence, I'm inclined to predict, based especially on the print-ready appearance of the box art in the most recent prelim pic for 7965, that we will be getting a falcon that is almost exactly the same external dimensions as 4504. I just hope it has a kick-butt interior. My favorite part of modding 4504 was creating the access coridor to the cockpit, but that may be a bit much to ask for as an interior feature. I'd like to at least see the layout of the main hold be more accurate--seating booth and game table on the right side instead of the left, etc.

Overall, I'm happy for rehashes like this, since it introduces diversity into the line and makes it possible for newcomers to have relatively easy access to models of the iconic starwars ships and locations.

On a different topic, is there anyone else like me who would like to see a revisiting of Yoda's Hut? I love the model from the years-back x-wing set. I think it would be an awesome stand-alone set. I also really prefer the original yoda mold to the new one with oversized clone-war eyes.

Who else want's a new Yoda Hut?

[IAmWillGibson]

It this case, without molding a new wedge plate, a good, cheap TIE/ln at that scale simply isn't possible.

To be the devil's advocate a bit here, I think it's more accurate to say a screen-accurate TIE isn't possible at that scale within those restrictions. But that's in the opinion of you, an adult SW fan. I hate to have to take it back to it, but the target for Advent Calendars is definitely and specifically the kids. And to the kids, the definitive shape of a Tie Fighter is that it looks like a bowtie, not that it has hexagonal wings.

[Brickdoctor]

Roron Corrob for example - what ship is he best suited for?

This would, of course, be discussed in the Future sets topic, but to answer your question, an Ithorian herdship. (think of all the Ithorians we'd get in that)

To be the devil's advocate a bit here, I think it's more accurate to say a screen-accurate TIE isn't possible at that scale within those restrictions. But that's in the opinion of you, an adult SW fan. I hate to have to take it back to it, but the target for Advent Calendars is definitely and specifically the kids. And to the kids, the definitive shape of a Tie Fighter is that it looks like a bowtie, not that it has hexagonal wings.

Okay, from that point of view, maybe. And admittedly, it is a pretty good solution, but only if you have to build at that scale. (I know Marshall Banana used that design before, but he was confined to TIE at that scale, and TLG is not) But I just think that even if the kids won't notice, you shouldn't put out a product that is so noticeably inaccurate. And noticeable to adult fans and dedicated TFOL/YFOLs only, maybe, but TLG's designers are all AFOLs. Actually, what really puzzles me is how Lucas Licensing could approve of that model.

[George G.]

Okay, from that point of view, maybe. And admittedly, it is a pretty good solution, but only if you have to build at that scale. (I know Marshall Banana used that design before, but he was confined to TIE at that scale, and TLG is not) But I just think that even if the kids won't notice, you shouldn't put out a product that is so noticeably inaccurate. And noticeable to adult fans and dedicated TFOL/YFOLs only, maybe, but TLG's designers are all AFOLs. Actually, what really puzzles me is how Lucas Licensing could approve of that model.

I do agree that the wings should be hexagonal, they look plain silly!

However, I was watching Star Wars epIV the other day and from some shot angles, it did look like the TIEs had rectangular wings

[BrickArtist]

Nice to see some good discussion going on here, everyone I think the advent calender is going to be quite controversial, obviously. I will be buying it, though. Ever body brings up good points about the pros, and cons of the calender. I think some models are a tad bit lacking, yet some are nice models. There are some little things that could be done, like sticking a pair of binoculars on top of the MF to represent guns. However some models are quite nice, like the x-wing. I will be posting a mini lamba shuttle soon, with 15 parts or so....

Lets hope that the two figs we are yet to get are good ones.

[Fallenangel]

I hate to have to take it back to it, but the target for Advent Calendars is definitely and specifically the kids. And to the kids, the definitive shape of a Tie Fighter is that it looks like a bowtie, not that it has hexagonal wings.

Kids nowadays don't know or care what a TIE fighter looks like because they're all too busy watching "The Clone Wars". And a TIE/ln needs both of those traits* to look like a TIE fighter.

*You know the people on these forums are being too lenient with LEGO when you have to remind them that hexagonal wing panels are a key feature on a TIE fighter. It's like reminding them of the X-wing's hexagonal fuselage or the Falcon's stubby cockpit...

And nobody said these advent calendar things had to include mini models. They could have been little accessories or something. After seeing some of the neat little minifigure-scaled things they've included in past advent calendars, the micro models really are disappointing. (I hate the mini X-wing.) StoutFiles said it best:

It's like TLG just mailed in it on this. "Hey, people will buy this regardless of the set quality, so let's just put no effort into these mini models and keep the piece count ridiculously low for mass profit. Ooh, and let's throw in mini figs that nobody really needs to make sure it doesn't hurt sales of any other sets. Oh, and let's give Yoda a Santa torso to make sure all the 'gotta catch 'em all' collectors buy it."

[Oky]

To all those who are complaining that we are getting mini models instead of little minifig-scale accessories: Think about your argument for a second. What kind of minifig-scale things could you put into an advent calendar? A weapons rack? A turret? A computer? An under-scaled walker/speeder? All those are things that you can get from affordable Battle Packs or make out of the pieces of one. These micro models are things that you would never see in normal sets, and they are actually kinda clever since they have movable wings and therefore playability.

As for the minifigs, would you really rather have another copy of a main character that you only need once than one of these rare pilots?

[XimenaPaulina]

I may not be a fan of this SW Advent calendar, but criticizing the accuracy of the mini-models is really getting ridiculous. These are mini-models for crying out loud! And as what others have previously stated, there are "X" parts limitation on creating these, and certainly you wouldn't expect it to be accurate to the real thing. I wonder why some people get overboard crazy when they see inaccurate models. Sheez, if you don't like them, then simply don't buy them, instead of constantly bashing TLG when they dissatisfy your accuracy paranoia like you're some sort of "God of the SW universe".

[Brickdoctor]

To all those who are complaining that we are getting mini models instead of little minifig-scale accessories: Think about your argument for a second. What kind of minifig-scale things could you put into an advent calendar? A weapons rack? A turret? A computer? An under-scaled walker/speeder? All those are things that you can get from affordable Battle Packs or make out of the pieces of one. These micro models are things that you would never see in normal sets, and they are actually kinda clever since they have movable wings and therefore playability.

As for the minifigs, would you really rather have another copy of a main character that you only need once than one of these rare pilots?

I think we all expected the MINI models. (or at least I did) and the minifigs... well Nute Gunray isn't exactly the greatest choice, but we aren't complaining about them.

I may not be a fan of this SW Advent calendar, but criticizing the accuracy of the mini-models is really getting ridiculous. These are mini-models for crying out loud! And as what others have previously stated, there are "X" parts limitation on creating these, and certainly you wouldn't expect it to be accurate to the real thing. I wonder why some people get overboard crazy when they see inaccurate models. Sheez, if you don't like them, then simply don't buy them, instead of constantly bashing TLG when they dissatisfy your accuracy paranoia like you're some sort of "God of the SW universe".

Like I said,

Honestly, I realize how hard it is to design stuff at this scale. But I don't like how they've decided to make the model anyways when they can't do it justice. Last year's CITY calendar had lots of really small models, but their shape was recognizable. If they can't make a TIE/ln that has hexagonal wings (and that's one of the dominating features of that craft), then they shouldn't make a TIE/ln at all. It could be replaced with, say, a Y-wing, which Legostein has already proved can be built at that size and with few pieces.

That was my point. If you can't make a TIE/ln without using up that much money, don't make a TIE/ln. Better to leave it out that to issue something that doesn't work so well. Sometimes the only way to win is not to play. It this case, without molding a new wedge plate, a good, cheap TIE/ln at that scale simply isn't possible.

[BrickArtist]

I may not be a fan of this SW Advent calendar, but criticizing the accuracy of the mini-models is really getting ridiculous. These are mini-models for crying out loud! And as what others have previously stated, there are "X" parts limitation on creating these, and certainly you wouldn't expect it to be accurate to the real thing. I wonder why some people get overboard crazy when they see inaccurate models. Sheez, if you don't like them, then simply don't buy them, instead of constantly bashing TLG when they dissatisfy your accuracy paranoia like you're some sort of "God of the SW universe".

KDM speeks the truth, they aren't thinking OMG the s foils are undersized! They're thinking this is gonna look like a MF, the kids will love it!

And the pilot is a gift guys! As well as gunray!

[XimenaPaulina]

Like I said,

That's where the problem lies, some of you have VERY HIGH accuracy standards, in your eyes the mini-models are not recognizable? I may have lower standards than yours, and for me those look instantly recognizable as the mini-representations of the actual vehicles. But guess what, you (and a few others) might be the only ones who think that way, and I'm pretty sure MAJORITY will see these mini-models are acceptable, which is the target market of this SW advent calendar, not some minority "super accuracy buffs".

[Fallenangel]

movable wings and therefore playability.

This makes me laugh for some reason.

I wonder why some people get overboard crazy when they see inaccurate models. Sheez, if you don't like them, then simply don't buy them, instead of constantly bashing TLG when they dissatisfy your accuracy paranoia like you're some sort of "God of the SW universe".

I don't think I ever complained about these micro models being inaccurate, only about them being insubstantial. And I'll have you know I've only bought two sets since '08 (7778 and 8099).

KDM speeks the truth, they aren't thinking OMG the s foils are undersized! They're thinking this is gonna look like a MF, the kids will love it!

What are you talking about? The Millennium Falcon doesn't have any S-foils that I know of.

That's where the problem lies, some of you have VERY HIGH accuracy standards, in your eyes the mini-models are not recognizable? I may have lower standards than yours, and for me those look instantly recognizable as the mini-representations of the actual vehicles. But guess what, you (and a few others) might be the only ones who think that way, and I'm pretty sure MAJORITY will see these mini-models are acceptable, which is the target market of this SW advent calendar, not some minority "super accuracy buffs".

Well, you have to admit that some people here have incredibly low standards for accuracy (anyone who praises the most recent X-wing, T-47, or Falcon, for example). And the models are only vaguely recognizable. And I have high accuracy standards because I like the way they look in the movies. Don't you?

[Brickdoctor]

That's where the problem lies, some of you have VERY HIGH accuracy standards, in your eyes the mini-models are not recognizable? I may have lower standards than yours, and for me those look instantly recognizable as the mini-representations of the actual vehicles. But guess what, you (and a few others) might be the only ones who think that way, and I'm pretty sure MAJORITY will see these mini-models are acceptable, which is the target market of this SW advent calendar, not some minority "super accuracy buffs".

Well I don't have the highest standards of anyone here. The only one I really have a problem with is the TIE/ln. (even if the MF, RGS, and Slave 1 aren't exactly my favorites, they're instantly recognizable) I really feel that the TIE needs those hexagonal wings. An MF can get away with a long skinny cockpit. A Slave 1 can get away with no guns. An (sorry fallenangel) X-wing can get away with a square nose. They can all do that because they have other defining features to identify them. The TIE/ln doesn't. It's just a cockpit dwarfed by two enormous hexagonal panels, which makes those panels the only defining feature. (and the only part unique to it, even if you only take into account the movies; the TIE/in has the same ball cockpit design)

Anyways, that's just my view, but I suppose some kids might not care. And my view on that would be that if they don't care and will accept what's wrong as what's right, then that's even more reason to give them what's right, lest they decide that AnH is wrong and all TIEs should have square wings.

[XimenaPaulina]

Well, you have to admit that some people here have incredibly low standards for accuracy (anyone who praises the most recent X-wing, T-47, or Falcon, for example). And the models are only vaguely recognizable. And I have high accuracy standards because I like the way they look in the movies. Don't you?

Is there anything wrong with "people having incredibly low standards for accuracy"? Count me in to those who think the 6212 X-Wing is a pretty good model. Yes, I like the way the models appear in the movies, but I certainly don't expect TLG to give me the exact super-accurate version in brickbuild form. Like I said, it all boils down to the accuracy standards of the FOLs. For your extremely high standards of course it won't satisfy you, but to the majority with medium standards (like me), we're all pretty much content with what TLG gives us.

And since this is getting out of topic, let's drop this accuracy discussion now.

[Fives]

Well I don't have the highest standards of anyone here. The only one I really have a problem with is the TIE/ln. (even if the MF, RGS, and Slave 1 aren't exactly my favorites, they're instantly recognizable) I really feel that the TIE needs those hexagonal wings. An MF can get away with a long skinny cockpit. A Slave 1 can get away with no guns. An (sorry fallenangel) X-wing can get away with a square nose. They can all do that because they have other defining features to identify them. The TIE/ln doesn't. It's just a cockpit dwarfed by two enormous hexagonal panels, which makes those panels the only defining feature. (and the only part unique to it, even if you only take into account the movies; the TIE/in has the same ball cockpit design)

Anyways, that's just my view, but I suppose some kids might not care. And my view on that would be that if they don't care and will accept what's wrong as what's right, then that's even more reason to give them what's right, lest they decide that AnH is wrong and all TIEs should have square wings.

What if you just rotated the wings like diamond shreddies. But seriously, it might look better, a bit.

[The Legonater]

And to the kids, the definitive shape of a Tie Fighter is that it looks like a bowtie, not that it has hexagonal wings.

Really? When I was a kid I saw two black rectangle plates connected to a black bacll with a cockpit.

Well I don't have the highest standards of anyone here. The only one I really have a problem with is the TIE/ln. (even if the MF, RGS, and Slave 1 aren't exactly my favorites, they're instantly recognizable) I really feel that the TIE needs those hexagonal wings. An MF can get away with a long skinny cockpit. A Slave 1 can get away with no guns. An (sorry fallenangel) X-wing can get away with a square nose. They can all do that because they have other defining features to identify them. The TIE/ln doesn't. It's just a cockpit dwarfed by two enormous hexagonal panels, which makes those panels the only defining feature. (and the only part unique to it, even if you only take into account the movies; the TIE/in has the same ball cockpit design)

Anyways, that's just my view, but I suppose some kids might not care. And my view on that would be that if they don't care and will accept what's wrong as what's right, then that's even more reason to give them what's right, lest they decide that AnH is wrong and all TIEs should have square wings.

Yes- the square wings are wrong. But IMO they could have done it with 1x2 smooth plates. As I said above, the plate are similar to rectangles, so they could've gotten away with that. Why the choose square instead is beyond me.