LEGO Exclusive 10221 - Super Star Destroyer

[Aeroeza]

So when we dont like the sizes given to us in official publications we just make up figures ourselves?

Ohh the executor is 17km!

Okay, if we're going to be stupid about this I now proclaim the Death Star is the size of a tennis ball. From now on anyone that disagrees is somehow wrong, including Lucasfilm.

I have spoken!

...wait, do I need some saggy MOC before I can make stuff up?

Indeed you have spoken!

I'm really not sure what all this fuss and heated debate is about when it comes to SSD scale issues and forgive me for not being overly confident about understanding the point of your post as a riposte to mine. At the end of the day I'd suggest picking your scale (or lack thereof) based on what makes you happy and build away. If it matters to you then Wookiepedia does give a thorough explanation regarding the history of the ever changing dimensions of the Executor and if you haven't already read it then I suggest you do. It certainly leaves me with the impression that the only 'made up' figures come from official publications. Here's some highlights BrickHitHouse...

On 19 km.

Nearly twenty years after the release of the original A Guide to the Star Wars Universe in 1984, which first provided the approximate length of eight kilometers, James Luceno's Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy, published on August 1, 2004, finally provided an Executor length more befitting of the Super Star Destroyer model seen in the films. Luceno described the Executor as being "almost 12 times as long" as a "common Star Destroyer," suggesting a length around 19 kilometers....

...the process of changing the Executor's length involved a discussion of rationale, comparing previous Star Wars sources to what was seen in the film, and then waiting for an author to submit a draft of to-be published material that would officially change the Executor's length, with Lucasfilm's permission. He also noted that, although unlikely, another size change is not impossible.

So for the purposes of story and narrative the size of the SSD is somewhat subject to an author's imagination, 'other sources' and an interpretation of what was seen in the films. Regardless the dimensions can't change without the blessing of Lucasfilm. Suffice to say they all agree that it's big! 8 km, 12.8 km and finally but not definitively 19 km (for the foreseeable future pending a change in mind).

On 17.6 km.

In fact, the behind-the-scenes book From Star Wars to Indiana Jones: The Best of the Lucasfilm Archives, published in March 1995, was the first Star Wars-released item to contradict the established eight-kilometer length, though not in any official manner, revealing that the Executor "was conceived as eleven times the size of the original Star Destroyer…For a reference, the conning tower that rises from the Executor was supposed to be as big as the original Star Destroyer's conning tower." This implied that the in-universe Executor measured approximately 17.6 kilometers long.

... in 1998, at the personal behest of Saxton for use in his own Executor length Web site, Lucasfilm employee David West Reynolds took measurements of the original Executor model in the Lucasfilm archives. By scaling the measurements with the constant command tower found on the standard Star Destroyer, Reynolds determined that the Executor's length was between 17.4 and 17.8 kilometers, with 17.6 being the most likely.

The concept artists, production designers and visual effects model makers responsible for the creation of the SSD seemed to keep their 'facts' consistent over the years and this is no surprise because that's what a good production team does. What they 'concieved' of in 1979 as the size of the Executor was reported in 1995 in 'From Star Wars to Indiana Jones: The Best of the Lucasfilm Archives' and then 'proof' tested three years later in 1998 by an ILM employee.

For myself (as a professional visual effects guy) I model from plans at consistent scales all the time so of course my preference is to choose a 17.6 km Executor as was originally envisaged by the ESB production team ('cause that's my job). 'Narrative' is not my job, that's for the script writers, directors and producers to worry about. If they want to change their minds afterwards then so be it- or even license out their product so others can contribute and muddy the waters further and write more books, get that RPG out, make more money and 'expand' the Star Wars Expanded Universe 'till their cup runneth over! That's all great merchandising stuff and call it 'official publication' if you must!

Now I'm not saying 19 km is wrong, after all Lucasfilm seem happy with it (for now), but the physical (or virtual) model remains and I prefer to respect the original creation, designed and built by a team of artists who worked hard to convey a particular and intended 'reality'.

As for the Malevolence dimensions, well I've already explained my preference for the larger scale in my earlier post and perhaps I can be accused of choosing the more convenient of the two, but so what? There are competing sources here, one from the 3 inch Star Wars Titanium Die Cast series (so not to scale with each other) which Wookiepedia footnotes and another from 'Star Wars: Republic at War'. I'm happy to say that for now I'm satisfied with a 7.8 km Malevolence and not only because of what I mentioned in my first post (the CW cartoon script)- I've a personal bent toward gaming artists here- its a matter of professional pride for 3D modellers (in this case a computer game) to ensure their work is as exacting as possible in the time frame they have to complete a project, especially if they have to build a series of models to scale with each other- its simply the nature of the job. In fact its a discipline which requires the same mindset that SFX artists and modellers had in the pre-digital era!

So there is no plucking of 'figures' out of thin air here when it comes to demonstrating that the UCS SSD and 'Quest for R2' Malevolence sets are pretty much to scale with each other.

Now I too have spoken!

Edit:

Will we see "First Edition" (CoA) with this set or unknown as of yet?

No it doesn't look like it. Shame really...

Edited June 27, 2011 by Aeroeza

[cavegod]

Ok so what pictures do you want of the SSD, you name it i will take it.

[P4trickvH]

Ok so what pictures do you want of the SSD, you name it i will take it.

Pictures of the new parts/minifigs if there are any and if you have nothing to do the entire manual (each page) :D

[Mr Man]

OK so what pictures do you want of the SSD, you name it i will take it.

The underside and the bridge Please .

[StoutFiles]

Excellent!! Two baddey dreadnoughts in scale with each other , perfect.

Why would anyone want to showcase two ships right next to each other that are from different eras?

[Mr Man]

Why would anyone want to showcase two ships right next to each other that are from different eras?

To compare and contrast them.

[Aeroeza]

Why would anyone want to showcase two ships right next to each other that are from different eras?

What? Like an X-wing and a Y-Wing?

I guess it depends on what you consider an 'era' given the Malevolence and a more 'refined' Y-Wing spring from the same artists work.

More to the point my original post was to highlight the possibility that MOCers may enjoy using the UCS SSD scale to build new Lego fleets - much like what the UCS ISD scale was used for by Brickcommander. The UCS ISD has also often been displayed by fans of the scale Lego 'craft' next to similarly considered Nebulon Bs, Acclamators and Venators. These are wonderful examples of what have been accomplished representing not only a mix of 'eras' AFOL have been happy to exploit but also different Sci-Fi universes. A further example of the art of scale Lego modeling is Legostein who enjoys utilizing varying scales for his fleets with a similar goal.

And if you doubt the potential check out Jeff Russel's guide to Starship Dimensions. I reckon it provides fuel for thought!

Hope that answers your question!

Ok so what pictures do you want of the SSD, you name it i will take it.

Actually I wouldn't mind knowing what pieces make up the mini Star Destroyer- I'd like to have an additional four escorts for my command ship when it arrives on my doorstep!

Edited July 6, 2011 by Aeroeza

[joopsta]

Actually I wouldn't mind knowing what pieces make up the mini Star Destroyer- I'd like to have an additional four escorts for my command ship when it arrives on my doorstep!

That's a good one! Order some loose bricks for more mini Star Destroyers around the SSD.

Also please let us know how the mini is attached to the SSD.

The SSD got to be surrounded by mini's like a bunch a bees!

[Anio]

Also please let us know how the mini is attached to the SSD.

2 x

[StoutFiles]

What? Like an X-wing and a Y-Wing?

I guess it depends on what you consider an 'era' given the Malevolence and a more 'refined' Y-Wing spring from the same artists work.

There's over a 20 year gap between the end of the Malevolence and the building of the Executor. They were never together so displaying them like they were is just odd. I'd also argue that few people would appreciate the arrangment as well as a good amount of OT fans do not acknowledge the Cartoon Wars. Just my opinion though, do what you want.

[Aeroeza]

There's over a 20 year gap between the end of the Malevolence and the building of the Executor.

Sure, but there's nearly a twenty year gap between a Y-Wing (which is from the same era in the Star Wars universe as a Subjugator Class cruiser) and the newer X-Wing. There's even less than a decade between the X-wing and an A-Wing (and the B-Wing's even newer). What's too big a gap?

They were never together so displaying them like they were is just odd...

O.K. let me use fighter aircraft scale models as a real world simile here...

Why wouldn't you have a Spitfire Mk V sitting next to an F 15 Eagle? You'd be right in saying that historically they were never used in conjunction with each other for strafing 'enemy insurgents' in Iraq but by displaying them side-by-side you'd certainly be able to appreciate the differences in size and technology over different historical eras of fighter design!

Displaying different classes of warship to scale with each other from the Star Wars universe is simply the same gambit and also a pretty funky Lego challenge. I reckon there's nothing 'odd' about it unless you have a narrow definition of what constitutes a vehicle from the Star Wars universe- understandable given the polarization of fans between different age groups and various incarnations of old and new Star Wars films- in which case, to those particular fans, the whole exercise doesn't really matter ....

... I'd also argue that few people would appreciate the arrangment as well as a good amount of OT fans do not acknowledge the Cartoon Wars. Just my opinion though, do what you want.

Absolutely true!

...but this comes down to just what you enjoy appreciating...

Not every OT fan would care a whit for a Clone Wars vessel sitting next to an OT ship but as you say "do what you want". At least (even to those who wouldn't care for the exercise) the Malevolence is a rejected design for Grievous' flagship from Revenge of the Sith (being dropped in favor of the smaller 'Invisible Hand') rather than 'just' a Clone Wars cartoon ship. This might give it a little more punch for the OT fan who didn't mind PT ships- especially if they appreciated the overall design rational for the six films attempting to link two time periods seamlessly (something I quite admire regardless of the production design team's varying shades of success).

I'd say it's an appreciation of that Star Wars design ethos encompassing several generations of vehicles and thousands of years of architecture from various alien cultures across six films, four seasons of an animated series and twenty-five years of effort, which leads to something like the UCS SD scale being used for Lego MOCs in the first place. The fact you can build a 'to scale' Venator and sit it next to your UCS Star Destroyer and say 'Whoopee' is just plain fun not to mention a great homage! As a whole its the entire Star Wars design ethos which proves to be great fodder for inspiring model builders (scale or otherwise) and concept artists alike! If you can appreciate that then it doesn't matter which film or fantasy time period a model comes from or even whether they were ever seen together on screen in the first place.

[gratefulnat]

I'd say it's an appreciation of that Star Wars design ethos encompassing several generations of vehicles and thousands of years of architecture from various alien cultures across six films, four seasons of an animated series and twenty-five years of effort, which leads to something like the UCS SD scale being used for Lego MOCs in the first place. The fact you can build a 'to scale' Venator and sit it next to your UCS Star Destroyer and say 'Whoopee' is just plain fun not to mention a great homage! As a whole its the entire Star Wars design ethos which proves to be great fodder for inspiring model builders (scale or otherwise) and concept artists alike! If you can appreciate that then it doesn't matter which film or fantasy time period a model comes from or even whether they were ever seen together on screen in the first place.

Thanks for that post Aeroeza!

Reading this was balsam for my understanding of creativity! I wholeheartedly agree, there are no do's and don'ts as to what works except each individuals' own likes and dislikes. Perception is a very individual thing. Certainly, the collective tries(and often succeeds, and often with justifiable reasons) in instilling a sense of what is correct, even if the collective is usually a few individuals who believe they know how to think for everyone else, but I just don't see a reason for this with something like star wars. It's about fanstasy, and what that fantasy triggers in each of us. And don't even get me started on LEGO...there are no boundaries, except the one's I implement for myself, period!

My freeco speeder is parked outside the modular firestation right now, and I like it like that

Rant over.

By the way, I also happen to like this new UCS set a lot, even with all it's faults and inaccuracies. My fanatsy (and some modding) will take care of those issues

[Brickdoctor]

As much as I'm an OT fan and accuracy stickler, I have to agree with Aeroeza here. As long as they're just displayed as craft just sitting there and not craft doing battle or something that would require them to interact, I don't see anything wrong with it.

[Mr Man]

As much as I'm an OT fan and accuracy stickler, I have to agree with Aeroeza here. As long as they're just displayed as craft just sitting there and not craft doing battle or something that would require them to interact, I don't see anything wrong with it.

.

[kamigawa]

Could anyone check the SSD's page on shop.lego? Up to a few days ago it was still available to my country (Italy) as an item to be added to the wishlist, but now the item is "Unavailable to your country". WTF?

Is it available for pre-order for the other countries? Or maybe it's just a mistake?

I've also noticed the item has been removed from my wishlist

Edited July 8, 2011 by kamigawa

[cavegod]

http://www.gimmelego.blogspot.com/

[Praiter Yed]

'snip'

Even though this has more detail, I think I preferred the previous torso. I absolutely the head and head-piece though. I wonder how much this figure is going to set me back . Any pics of IG-88?

[Brickdoctor]

Even though this has more detail, I think I preferred the previous torso.

Agreed. The old one was nice and simple. This one's a complicated design that, in my opinion, doesn't fit in with the rest of the 'fig.

[drdavewatford]

Even though this has more detail, I think I preferred the previous torso. I absolutely the head and head-piece though. I wonder how much this figure is going to set me back . Any pics of IG-88?

Sure - enjoy !

Cheers,

D.

[cavegod]

this is just wrong though

[drdavewatford]

this is just wrong though

Agreed - printed parts would be better.

I've posted Part 1 of my review of Set 10221 Super Star Destroyer here

I've not completed the build yet, but have thoroughly enjoyed it so far. It is absolutely huge !

D.

[Aeroeza]

this is just wrong though

Hey! At least they employed the Lego community as proof readers for the UCS sticker 'name plate'!

[drdavewatford]

Hey! At least they employed the Lego community as proof readers for the UCS sticker 'name plate'!

Yep - LEGO took on board feedback from the community and quickly rectified the error - can't ask for much more than that.

D.

[Aeroeza]

Yep - LEGO took on board feedback from the community and quickly rectified the error - can't ask for much more than that.

D.

... and thanks for the review! Its looking really thorough. The more I look at this set the more 'epic' a build it seems to become...

Edited July 11, 2011 by Aeroeza

[bensl]

cant wait to build this. i missed out on the other large UCS sets so i will definately grab this.