Redesigning old UCS sets

[gratefulnat]

This information has been posted by yellowcastle over at Brickset:

Billund, Denmark - In a surprising development, The LEGO Group (TLG) announced today that production of The Ultimate Collector's Millennium Falcon (10179) would recommence later this month. Via a telephone interview with media outlets, Vice President of Manufacturing, Louis Friend said that, "(we) definitely keep an eye on the secondary market and it's just astounding how this set is performing. It just made too much sense to revisit." This announcement comes as quite a surprise to the community as this was one of the few sets ever that TLG had ever actually predicated its departure with a notice of discontinuation. Many collectors are sure to greet this news with skepticism if not animosity as the value of the first run sets is sure to drop with any rerelease. This response from the community, though, was not unforseen by TLG as Louis Friend made sure to point out in the news release. "We do realize what effect this could have on the aftermarket and we did not come to this decision lightly or quickly. That being said, and to quote Spock, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one. I have been, and will always be, your friend," writes the VP.

Sound good?

Ohh, wait a minute, what day is today?

[Aeroeza]

And He's off .

Like three month old blue cheese!!

You can't disregard the definitions of words and then state that they have an explicit meaning of something else.

Hmmm.

I don't believe I've done this, merely pointed out that by isolating 'ultimate' you'd committed an unintentional logical fallacy, hence inadvertent wordplay by ignoring the rest of the title in the brandname. Which is not to suggest you should now define each word in isolation either.

You've stated there is no implicit promise of exclusivity as the UCS X-Wing is not the conclusive vehicle of that type made by Lego nor the final. You use 4502, 7140 and especially 9493 to illustrate your reasoning.

...I am not divorcing it form its marketing context, merely taking it through a 'marital guidance councillor' to take it back to basics to understand its fundamental meaning

But you have divorced 7191 from its marketing context by comparing it to system sets as though they are equivalents and part of the same collection. (Although I don't doubt your worth as a marriage guidance councilor )! How can this reasoning be related to your stated aim of 'fundamental meaning' if you've so muddied the waters? Not only is 7191 part of a collectors series of models it's the only UCS model X-Wing within it...

The marketing? As something that is by all expectations greater in everything (detail/size[usually] etc). But as exclusive? If you could point me out to where it says/is clearly indicatively marketed they are exclusive in the vehicles used in the UCS line,

It has to be exclusive ('by definition') as its the only UCS X-Wing in the UCS collection! Within that context, brandname and targeted clientele it is the one and only X-Wing worth considering.

I really don't collect system X-Wings toys! I really don't collect cute minifig action figures. What on earth do they have to do with my UCS models and sculptures? That's pretty exclusive to me and yet another factor reinforces this exclusivity- to date there has been no re-issues or redesigns of any UCS models. Why is that?

The clue is in the name people Ultimate Collectors Series. It is not called that for nothing. Now if it was called the Casual Collectors Series then maybe these points would be valid

...A 10 year history does only on precedence imply, not by statement nor is it in the name.

Only precedence? Why would you disregard one tenth of a century??? That's like saying the GFC only lasted a few years so lets forget about it, forge ahead and write our doctorate in recent global financial history anyway!?! (I'm up for help on that one BTW ).

Basically you are attempting to define UCS by ignoring its historical/cultural context, it's marketing drive, the singular nature of the models within the collection as well as the other two initials in its brandname? What's left?

Just 'ultimate'.

In which case you would be completely right! It's just that what you conclude has little to do with the models in my cupboard!!

Im not playing with definitions to give an argument for saying that TLG *should* make re-designs etc, I am simply stating that the definition of the name leaves it open ended should they wish to visit that, and not as decisively closed as some are stating.

As your stated intent that's really fair enough.

We can't claim to know exactly what Lego defines as UCS (they obviously have problems with that too!), so yes it is 'open ended'. An exact 'fundamental' definition is beyond our grasp but many customers have understandably purchased these models with certain impressions of exclusivity. The entire title of the brand 'implies' as much and to date that expectation has been met 'explicitly' by the content of the collection itself.

But you're right they could change their mind however as Lyichir asks us- is it...

A 'good' move?

Our discussion indicates it would alienate some, possibly attract others, definitely be controversial and (I would hazard to guess) probably do little to significantly influence sales figures. This seems to imply more risk than gain. So again what's the point? Especially given these 'new' consumers would probably have bought a UCS regardless of it being a re-release or not.

So I'd call it a 'strange' move...

I think we can let go of pinning down an exact definition of UCS as an indicator of Lego re-making the UCS X-Wing. They could do so but that would not only fly in the face of what's gone before but also obviously upset many peoples understanding (rightly or wrongly) of what the brandname has come to mean to them- the valued customer- TLG's lifeline...

As soon as I saw this thread I knew that it would start a heated debate!

Too right!!!

This information has been posted by yellowcastle over at Brickset:

january 1st is awesome!!!

... I don't see how making something accessible to more collectors negates "the collector part" - quite the opposite, if anything. It might negate the investment / speculator part

Now that's interesting! But I'm smelling like a four month old cheese now so I'm exiting binary stage right...

P.S. Fluppylodders so sorry about your brain...honest! I should remember this is a 'discussion' forum and not a 'conclusion' forum...

[Brickadeer]

Yet each word still retains its underlying definition to summarily conclude, as you rightly mentioned in greater definition to the whole. I am not divorcing it form its marketing context, merely taking it through a 'marital guidance councillor' to take it back to basics to understand its fundamental meaning

If you see a car on the street that was produced in Japan you'll hardly conclude that it cannot be there or should not there because it once was produced elsewhere.

Of course you can trace its way all back to Japan. But this will only explain how it got where it is now (and since you already know where it is now, that'd be quite an arbitrary enterprise). It cannot change the fact that now, it is on the street, right before your eyes, and no longer in Japan.

The point is that whatever meaning UCS may have ever had, is totally irrelevant to the meaning it has now, and it is equally irrelevant to the choices Lego will make. The only relevance a discussion of "the original meaning" can have is to discuss the current meaning with regards to the original meaning. The only thing that such a discussion can show is that both meanings are different, and the only conclusion that can be drawn upon this observation is that the original meaning has changed, pretty much as the location of the car has changed.

Whatever anyone thinks of these changes is pretty much irrelevant, just as the current location of the car is a fact that exists independently of opinions about its current location anyone may hold.

I have expressed this already a week ago.

What you basically do is to repeat your point of view, but you don't come up with any arguments. What you've proven so far is that you are not able or not willing to understand what's relevant and what's not, and that's why the repetition of your point of view is, well, pointless.

[Aeroeza]

If you see a car on the street that was produced in Japan you'll hardly conclude that it cannot be there or should not there because it once was produced elsewhere...

Dude! I am so up for the metaphysics of UCS!!!

[Fuppylodders]

1) You've stated there is no implicit promise of exclusivity as the UCS X-Wing is not the conclusive vehicle of that type made by Lego nor the final. You use 4502, 7140 and especially 9493 to illustrate your reasoning.

But you have divorced 7191 from its marketing context by comparing it to system sets as though they are equivalents and part of the same collection. (Although I don't doubt your worth as a marriage guidance councilor )! How can this reasoning be related to your stated aim of 'fundamental meaning' if you've so muddied the waters? Not only is 7191 part of a collectors series of models it's the only UCS model X-Wing within it...

2) It has to be exclusive ('by definition') as its the only UCS X-Wing in the UCS collection! Within that context, brandname and targeted clientele it is the one and only X-Wing worth considering.

3) I really don't collect system X-Wings toys! I really don't collect cute minifig action figures. What on earth do they have to do with my UCS models and sculptures? That's pretty exclusive to me and yet another factor reinforces this exclusivity- to date there has been no re-issues or redesigns of any UCS models. Why is that?

4) Only precedence? Why would you disregard one tenth of a century??? That's like saying the GFC only lasted a few years so lets forget about it, forge ahead and write our doctorate in recent global financial history anyway!?! (I'm up for help on that one BTW ).

5) Basically you are attempting to define UCS by ignoring its historical/cultural context, it's marketing drive, the singular nature of the models within the collection as well as the other two initials in its brandname?.....

6) I think we can let go of pinning down an exact definition of UCS as an indicator of Lego re-making the UCS X-Wing. They could do so but that would not only fly in the face of what's gone before but also obviously upset many peoples understanding (rightly or wrongly) of what the brandname has come to mean to them- the valued customer- TLG's lifeline...

P.S. Fluppylodders so sorry about your brain...honest! I should remember this is a 'discussion' forum and not a 'conclusion' forum...

1) You misunderstand. I am not comparing it, I am saying "**could** it be classed as the final version of an X wing produced?" Because ultimate would imply it is the biggest and/or last of the series. You are separating this statement out of its own context I used it in, which 'appears' to give your argument a valid (but incorrect) basis to argue on, but when you put my statement back into context; (one of the other examples) "How can something be the last in a series when they keep producing more to go in the series?" I was creating situations, fitting them into the definitions to discover (imo) which definition fits the best.

But it is pointless us both debating this point because you disregard the point that words still have the same definitions when words are 'married' with other words, and they suddenly gain this other random definition from somewhere.

Whereas I believe words are used in particular places to express meaning from the definitions behind them, no matter what group of words they end up being used with.

Could you point me to another word which when married with a couple of other words suddenly loses its original definition and gains a new one? I might be able to understand your point of view more if I could see many other existing examples.

2) You are making this assumption on the fact that you yourself only collect UCS and not the other 'toys' of lego.

You have yourself, seperated the UCS range out of LSW system completely saying they are not comparable.

Only to a point. (and that be in size/detail)

The system/UCS sets are made out of lego.

They are both themed on star wars.

They are both built with playability-strength.

Many *other* people collect both system and UCS. For them, that *would* be the ultimate X-wing to have for all their other versions of X-wing. Just because you distance yourself from system sets to collect UCS doesn't mean others do.

They are ALL toys (UCS to a point). If I really wanted to, I could play with an ISD and swoosh it around (albeit very carefully ). I could put the Executor on a skateboard and slowly roll it alongside me swooshing some mini scale ISDs to replicate some scenes. Minifig scale shuttle? I don't even need to explain that one. (but yes, as I mentioned before, *to a point*. I do recognise the fact they come with a display stand which does indicate that they are more suitable for displaying. But are built strong enough that they *can* be played with if wanted to). 10188, Specifically designed to be a playset. Associated with UCS line due to its designated number.

3)mostly refer to my above answer, but also:

http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/Imperial-Shuttle-10212

http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/Super-Star-Destroyer-10221 Look at the'Tags' section of both these.

http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/R2-D2-10225

http://shop.lego.com/en-GB/Town-Hall-10224 And now at these.

But I can almost see it now... That's just the website, people always get things wrong on websites... or websites are often misleading...

But I do see they have the sith infiltrator and nightspeeder 'package' listed as exclusive. Are they boxed paired up in a single box, or do they arrive in both their given boxes, but just 'together' in the same parcel? So perhaps depending on the answer to this, we could question the websites own list of 'exclusives' because at least the Infiltrator isn't an exclusive.

Some UCS may well be exclusive, and are marketed as such, but not all of them as a whole UCS line as you would suggest. (unless my above dilemma proves their 'exclusive' marketing incorrect)

4) I do not know off the top of my head, but I am most definitely certain that greater things have been disregarded after a precedence of much longer than 10 years. If you really would like me to, I'll go find some (mars bar new taste/snickers re-branding etc), but I think you could agree my point is valid. Your own expressed knowledge proves to me you would know more than I

5) So basically, you are saying that they came up with a random 'uber' sounding but meaningless name, and then decided to let the preceding years dictate its own definition? I somehow believe that they came up with the name first, with a definition/intention behind the name, and then let the preceding years happen however they were to happen. @your stated marketing drive, again, refer to my reply #2+3.

As for ignoring the other 2 letters, I have not ignored them, if you read my previous posts you shall see that I have also debated other peoples perceptions of the word 'collector/collection'. As for the word series, it has not come into question so there was no need to visit that word other than to randomly create fuss when there is no fuss needed. If you would like me to, then I shall. But I personally don't think there is any issue with that words meaning between any of us.

6) I think we can both agree on this.

@Brickadeer

How in the hell do you manage to get that situation to compare?!

That is in no way similar, what would be similar, is saying how a Ford Focus mark 1 was made/designed, and then how a Ford Focus mk 3 is made/designed and yet is so different than the original mk 1 Focus.

Your 'argument'?! More complies with how a UCS set was made in a factory in Denmark, and then how it ended up in my house.

How the hell can you even believe that I am 'repeating' myself with invalid points when yours are totally incorrectly done in the first place?

[Fuppylodders]

.... it appears I can not edit my posts anymore

Just for clarification, on my apparent 'repetitiveness'...

my above post...

point 1) only repeated because I am trying to clear up what I perceive is a misunderstanding between my intention of the original statement.

Point #s 2,3,4,5 and 6.

You show me where anywhere I have repeated them answers.

RE: my response for point #3. If the last bracketed sentence typed in #3 is true, then my point #3 becomes moot and even TLG website have their own interpretation of the word 'exclusive' different than the 'defined' meaning, whereas it is not coupled with a few other words to create a 'greater' meaning but is individually used in this case. And if this is so, and my point #3 does become moot because of this, then I seriously will give up discussing/debating because they themselves are using/marketing words misleadingly, to which there is no point in arguing against for obvious reasons.

[Brickadeer]

@Brickadeer

How in the hell do you manage to get that situation to compare?!

That is in no way similar, what would be similar, is saying how a Ford Focus mark 1 was made/designed, and then how a Ford Focus mk 3 is made/designed and yet is so different than the original mk 1 Focus.

Your 'argument'?! More complies with how a UCS set was made in a factory in Denmark, and then how it ended up in my house.

How the hell can you even believe that I am 'repeating' myself with invalid points when yours are totally incorrectly done in the first place?

A discussion of the "original meaning of UCS" doesn't lead to anything, it cannot contribute to the question posed by the OT, that's a fact you constantly deny.

My comparison covers the relevant points pretty well, and if you fail to see that, you lack the will or the ability to distinguish between what's relevant and what's not, and that's precisely what I wrote already. Of course you can state the different. But in order to prove me wrong you have to show in what way a discussion of "the original meaning of UCS" contributes to the question. I cannot see that it does nor that it can, and that's what I have illustrated in my last post.

[Fuppylodders]

A discussion of the "original meaning of UCS" doesn't lead to anything, it cannot contribute to the question posed by the OT, that's a fact you constantly deny.

My comparison covers the relevant points pretty well, and if you fail to see that, you lack the will or the ability to distinguish between what's relevant and what's not, and that's precisely what I wrote already. Of course you can state the different. But in order to prove me wrong you have to show in what way a discussion of "the original meaning of UCS" contributes to the question. I cannot see that it does nor that it can, and that's what I have illustrated in my last post.

I beg to differ, but in your opinion, I am only lacking ability to distinguish etc.

I would like you to explain the relationship between your 'comparison' and the relevant points please, rather than dismiss it as my inability to distinguish. Because I still fail to see the relationship. Perhaps if you could enlighten me, I may see the light? If you really do feel your comparison is correct, then you would have no problem whatsoever in ability to discuss its relationship.

Fact I constantly deny?

I'm sorry, but you show me where it is explicitly a fact that it is implicitly exclusive? Hard evidence please, not circumstantial/hearsay. And as I said, a 10 year precedence can not be considered either, as per the examples I gave, let alone the abundance of examples that are out there I have not mentioned.

As for showing a way in which the original definition meaning of UCS contributes:

They haven't changed the name/term slightly, to suit its apparent current new meaning behind its name. Thus the original term should still be implied because it is still used. Companies often change brands/names to suit modern times for fear of 'not keeping up with the times'.

UCXS/UXCS? Nothing much to change on it really apart from add one letter. It is also not too dissimilar from the original UCS that people would think it something different altogether. It isn't too long either, so not like its 'too long of a name', but that would clear up a lot and implicitly stated exclusivity.

I do have one question though, or rather, a ponder in my mind...

UCS are primarily designed for AFOLS. For their high detailed-ness, size etc. Aeroeza, do you have the 10188? Because TLG broke the UCS mould with that set. It is more of a 'toy' than one of the usual display pieces. It is also, an intended 'toy'. Again, they have broke the mould with the executor, by adding in it, the stupidly small and almost pointless removable part so that there is a 'play room' for the minifigs. This, they done which some owners of the Executor have pointed out, makes that particular area prominent and does detract from its shape, albeit only slightly.

They compromised the usual pattern which a decent amount of years precedence had set, to start catering for other people...?

Edited April 1, 2012 by Fuppylodders

[Fuppylodders]

@Brickadeer

My inability has reduced!

I believe I do see where you were heading with your metaphorical comparison now, looking into it over and over, although personally I feel it isn't the best one to use, mainly because you are comparing perception with reality.

'"these changes" is pretty much irrelevant'.

Perceived/opinionated changes. Yes, I do agree there are changes. But it is what these changes are, which I feel are the 'perceived/opinionated' part.

But even with these changes, I do still feel that *currently* the line still falls under the UCS definitions even of the original. Nothing so far proves otherwise. So it still holds a solid relationship to its original meaning as it does now.

It is only if they re-designed already made UCS sets that would contradict the (imo perceived) (new)meaning/definition of UCS.

'just as the current location of the car is a fact that exists independently of opinions about its current location anyone may hold.'

That is due to physical evidence the car is physically there in all state and matter/molecules. It can't be argued in any way it is not there.

[Lyichir]

See, I always assumed the "Ultimate" in Ultimate Collectors Series meant not that it was the only version of a ship they would ever make, but that it was the best, most accurate version of a model they would make. Going by that definition, the UCS X-Wing and TIE Interceptor are set to become less "ultimate", as the accuracy of the System sets begins to surpass that of these early models.

The brand loyalty argument confuses me. If anything, I imagine that the redesign of older UCS sets might spoil the mood of speculators, but do you really think they'll stop buying these sets as a result? I don't, and whether or not they continue to buy sets is what matters to TLG. Besides, I reckon the classic UCS sets will remain valuable if they are redesigned. They're still massive sets, and rare ones, and sets that chronicle a specific period in TLG's history. Even if newer versions are released, the old ones remain the very first UCS sets, giving them a collectible status that none of the others have.

As for whether or not we fall into a "cycle" of remakes like the standard-scale line has, I'm not arguing that TLG release a new UCS X-Wing every three or so years. But it's been over a decade since the UCS line debuted, and since those first sets LEGO has changed considerably, with the switch to bley, the introduction of such parts as curved slopes and cheese wedges, and more. Would it be a crime for TLG to release "updated" versions of these two ships, say, for the fifteenth anniversary of the UCS line? I think not.

I understand some of the other, non-semantic arguments, like how redesigns of older UCS sets would require putting off releasing UCS versions of ships never-before-depicted in the UCS line. But I think this would be a worthwhile price to pay to see shiny new versions of these classic vehicles.

[Fuppylodders]

1) See, I always assumed the "Ultimate" in Ultimate Collectors Series meant not that it was the only version of a ship they would ever make, but that it was the best, most accurate version of a model they would make. Going by that definition, the UCS X-Wing and TIE Interceptor are set to become less "ultimate", as the accuracy of the System sets begins to surpass that of these early models.

2) I understand some of the other, non-semantic arguments, like how redesigns of older UCS sets would require putting off releasing UCS versions of ships never-before-depicted in the UCS line. But I think this would be a worthwhile price to pay to see shiny new versions of these classic vehicles.

1) I understand where you are coming from, however I do not feel they will ever become less 'ultimate' regardless of how detailed the system sets become, mainly for the fact that there will only ever be a set amount of detail you can manipulate onto a system set which is largely designed for minifigs. The system sets will never (in my opinion) match the majority of UCS sized sets (disregarding the N1 Starfighter). This if it were to be kept that way, would keep them just as ultimate. The current N1 already surpasses the previous UCS version in detail/aesthetics (in my opinion). The chromed parts do not do too much for it other than offer the current N1 an opportunity to be 'ever closer to being perfect'.

2) Im not sure I'd be willing to miss out... What of the B-wing? Would you be happy to miss out/hold off on that release for an updated X-wing? I have to say, I'd be more than happy bricklinking the X-wing (minus the canopy) in order to keep a new set on track for release. (I'm desperate for the B-Wing to come out ) The way things currently are, Im not opposed to them staying that way at all. We do have opportunity to design our own versions of MF's/Slave 1's/X-wings/Y-wings and make them reality through bricklink also. But with the limited releases, Id have to say Id be more than happy letting them release new ones and attempt to make mocs to cover re-designs than have no option but to moc something that hasn't been released yet.

[mrklaw]

2) Im not sure I'd be willing to miss out... What of the B-wing? Would you be happy to miss out/hold off on that release for an updated X-wing? I have to say, I'd be more than happy bricklinking the X-wing (minus the canopy) in order to keep a new set on track for release. (I'm desperate for the B-Wing to come out ) The way things currently are, Im not opposed to them staying that way at all. We do have opportunity to design our own versions of MF's/Slave 1's/X-wings/Y-wings and make them reality through bricklink also. But with the limited releases, Id have to say Id be more than happy letting them release new ones and attempt to make mocs to cover re-designs than have no option but to moc something that hasn't been released yet.

I don't think this is an issue really. There is a level of familarity and popularity that is required of a SW vehicle to justify releasing a UCS of it. While a few AFOLs might want a UCS version of an obscure rebel ship only seen fleetingly in RotJ or maybe only in the EU, I doubt there are enough fans to warrant a UCS. Some of the examples you give - B-wing, Slave 1 etc are good solid sets though

Still plenty of scope for redesigns of the more popular classic vehicles - they have another 10 years, maybe 2-3 UCS a year?

Edited April 2, 2012 by mrklaw

[Aeroeza]

... it is pointless us both debating this point because you disregard the point that words still have the same definitions when words are 'married' with other words, and they suddenly gain this other random definition from somewhere.

Whereas I believe words are used in particular places to express meaning from the definitions behind them, no matter what group of words they end up being used with.

Mate, I'm not 'disregarding the meaning of words' as though its a fundamental paradigm of my communication! What I've said repeatedly in this thread is that words defined in isolation lose context and with this our broader understanding of their role in a sentence, title, slogan, saying, simile, metaphor, euphemism or indeed any alliteration and cadence they bring to the whole can be lost.

There is nothing 'random' here!!

Yes I have stated it is 'possible' to disregard the definition of individual words but only to help us account for our understanding of their broader subtexts, meanings and cultural ramifications within particular sentences or phrases in our language. NOT the value of their definitions in our everyday use!

Again, the WWII euphemism I mentioned earlier is a good example of how defining individual words can sometimes do little to illuminate us. I felt your academic analysis fell short of explaining the true horror of the phrases cultural context- a deplorable period in history with far reaching ramifications beyond just the simple definitions of these three otherwise perfectly harmless and ordinarily unrelated words.

'War is peace!' is also a phrase which cannot be understood out of context so defining it's individual words simply leaves the reader baffled as to how it could ever make sense...

Try "There is no spoon!" Defining these individual words is pointless. It doesn't lead us anywhere without Neo in the room!!!

... Nor does this practice apply well to marketing slogans like 'Ultimate Collectors Series'. Sure you can gleam something from 'ultimate' like 'it's the best'. You can gleam something from 'collector' to suggest it's 'desirable only to the initiated'. You could gleam something from 'series' like 'you probably won't get to see another sequence of models of this ilk again'!

But as a literary construct this phrase is much more. It's intent is pure, deliberate manipulation in attracting AFOLs to Lego's purchasing altar! It is as you say an 'uber' title, full of promise, intending to excite and titillate with the very best Lego Star Wars models and sculptures our sweaty hands can grasp and palpitating hearts could desire!! And succeeded in this they have with glorious builds and often hugely ambitious sets!

That's the meaning behind the slogan- a tool for pushing our purchasing buttons- to emotively grab our geeky behinds and furiously inspire our 'brick built' minds. Own one of these babies and Lego's telling you you're owning something special so trying to tell me or others that 'exclusivity' can't be read into this is just plain crazy talk!

It's primal and often irrational emotions like desire, lust and need which marketing strategists target and TLC is no innocent here- the company promises and the company delivers. So we're all brick junkies looking for our 'hit' regardless of what 'UCS' means or doesn't mean to us.

That's the pact! That's the brand name and it matters emotionally to the collector and monetarily to the manufacturer.

Lyichir your topic is a big one. The 'loadedness' of your question is apparent when you acknowledge that a re-release or remake could devalue and violate the sanctity these classic models. Clearly a move like this would for a significant proportion of collectors.

Is it a good move?

I concluded in my first post that...

You can't label something 'Ultimate Collector's Series' and expect people not to 'value' their purchase accordingly (and each in a very personal way). You can try and define each of those words in isolation and test their flexibility but this logic amounts to 'word play' that ignores the 'explicit' meaning of the entire title and all associated prestige 'implicitly' attached to it and every one of its models.

Our discussion indicates it would alienate some, possibly attract others, definitely be controversial and (I would hazard to guess) probably do little to significantly influence sales figures. This seems to imply more risk than gain...

So I'd call it a 'strange' move..

.

Admittedly I can envisage Lego releasing a new version of the UCS X-Wing in a decades time but only to cap off the UCS line and entire Star Wars license...

... A second X-Wing as a final ever UCS would give closure to the collectors journey over some twenty years in a way no other set could...

Indeed the more I imagine a redesigned UCS X-Wing as the final model in the series the more I like the concept. But it better be a bloody good one!

[Fuppylodders]

1) Mate, I'm not 'disregarding the meaning of words' as though its a fundamental paradigm of my communication! What I've said repeatedly in this thread is that words defined in isolation lose context and with this our broader understanding of their role in a sentence, title, slogan, saying, simile, metaphor, euphemism or indeed any alliteration and cadence they bring to the whole can be lost.

2) Yes I have stated it is 'possible' to disregard the definition of individual words but only to help us account for our understanding of their broader subtexts, meanings and cultural ramifications within particular sentences or phrases in our language. NOT the value of their definitions in our everyday use!

3)Again, the WWII euphemism I mentioned earlier is a good example of how defining individual words can sometimes do little to illuminate us. I felt your academic analysis fell short of explaining the true horror of the phrases cultural context- a deplorable period in history with far reaching ramifications beyond just the simple definitions of these three otherwise perfectly harmless and ordinarily unrelated words.

4) 'War is peace!' is also a phrase which cannot be understood out of context so defining it's individual words simply leaves the reader baffled as to how it could ever make sense...

5) Try "There is no spoon!" Defining these individual words is pointless. It doesn't lead us anywhere without Neo in the room!!!

6) ... Nor does this practice apply well to marketing slogans like 'Ultimate Collectors Series'. Sure you can gleam something from 'ultimate' like 'it's the best'. You can gleam something from 'collector' to suggest it's 'desirable only to the initiated'. You could gleam something from 'series' like 'you probably won't get to see another sequence of models of this ilk again'!

But as a literary construct this phrase is much more. It's intent is pure, deliberate manipulation in attracting AFOLs to Lego's purchasing altar! It is as you say an 'uber' title, full of promise, intending to excite and titillate with the very best Lego Star Wars models and sculptures our sweaty hands can grasp and palpitating hearts could desire!! And succeeded in this they have with glorious builds and often hugely ambitious sets!

7) That's the meaning behind the slogan- a tool for pushing our purchasing buttons- to emotively grab our geeky behinds and furiously inspire our 'brick built' minds. Own one of these babies and Lego's telling you you're owning something special so trying to tell me or others that 'exclusivity' can't be read into this is just plain crazy talk!

It's primal and often irrational emotions like desire, lust and need which marketing strategists target and TLC is no innocent here- the company promises and the company delivers. So we're all brick junkies looking for our 'hit' regardless of what 'UCS' means or doesn't mean to us.

That's the pact! That's the brand name and it matters emotionally to the collector and monetarily to the manufacturer.

1) Sorry, my apologies. 'Disregarding' was too much of an exaggeration beyond reasonable use of the word in the sentence on my part. The rest of #1 I totally agree.

2) OK, that clears your statement up for me, so its not being totally disregarded. Only in a sense, 'temporarily' disregarded to gain the full understanding.

3) I understand what you mean, but perhaps you are confusing definition with explanation? I do understand what you mean about illumination, but you asked for a definition of those words, which is exactly what I done, and when applied, gave a very blunt and unexplained shallow definition of the euphamism. Sure I didn't explain anything to illuminate the atrocities to give the 'listener/reader' a greater understanding of the intensity of the period, but that would not fall under defining it, but more so, explaining it. What you further said, about its atrociousness and horror of that deplorable period etc, is an explanation after a definition. But I do see how you mean to compare this under a similar context for the UCS.

4) I understand how this applies now. Out of context the 2 simply do not make sense together, but in context, they show the correlation between the 2 opposite words. But surely this is different, as there is no confusion with the UCS words defined in or out of context? Simply, the 'illumination' created from the marketing to create the exaggerated image of it?

5) I never truly did understand that

6) OK here goes... Surely this is no different than (metaphorically speaking) our sun? It is illuminated and intensely bright creating all wondrous images/different opinionated views/different beautiful sights etc, but at the end of the day, it is still just a constant nuclear fusion of hydrogen and helium regardless of what is seen from down here?

7) They hit me hard while I was down and unemployed with no income but just savings left... They're a manipulative bunch!

RE: your conclusion, after all this, I don't feel that there is perhaps an 'explicit' meaning, more so a 'greatly' basic meaning which is left open to interpretation to the end customer to whatever suits their lust/desires to justify buying the set. Perhaps similar to Law? Which is in itself hugely open to different interpretation whenever particular situations of similar but slightly different circumstances arise...? If people feel it means exclusive, then so be it, as long as TLC get their customers money, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, as long as they don't break away and change their strategy of only releasing new sets. (Even though they are currently not proving exclusivity wrong, I still don't feel it is intended as one of the meanings behind UCS, but left as an interpretation.)

@mrklaw

I'm personally not too fussed how obscure they are, as long as they don't release Anakin's butt ugly Twilight ship >.<

[Brickadeer]

RE: your conclusion, after all this, I don't feel that there is perhaps an 'explicit' meaning, more so a 'greatly' basic meaning which is left open to interpretation to the end customer to whatever suits their lust/desires to justify buying the set. Perhaps similar to Law? Which is in itself hugely open to different interpretation whenever particular situations of similar but slightly different circumstances arise...? If people feel it means exclusive, then so be it, as long as TLC get their customers money, it doesn't matter whether it's true or not, as long as they don't break away and change their strategy of only releasing new sets. (Even though they are currently not proving exclusivity wrong, I still don't feel it is intended as one of the meanings behind UCS, but left as an interpretation.)

You are beginning to approach my position

Meaning is not exactly open to interpretation, since "interpretation" is a bit artificial here. Absent an explicit definition, people will give the term meaning by different sources. That's simply pretty much how the brain functions; we can't prevent it from giving meaning to objects, and these attributional processes usually operate below the sphere of our awareness. Usually, we are only becoming aware of the results of these processes if the attributes might be wrong: until recently, it was totally irrelevant what anyone understood of "UCS". But confronted with the possibility that "UCS" may be given a different meaning by Lego, people immediately realize that that's not what they understand by "UCS".

As for your example of laws, the point is not so much that a law is open to different interpretations. Rather, the problem is that a reader of the text of a law cannot conclude from the meaning of the words to the intentions of its framers.

[Fuppylodders]

I think I've finally come to a mutual agreement Brickadeer/Aeroeza

Sorry if I've appeared (perhaps unintentionally aggressively) stubborn, it's just that when I have a particular belief, I need to have it completely argued into the ground and proven beyond all reasonable doubt in my mind to me that what I initially thought was not 'necessarily' the case, until I come to a mutual understanding with those I am debating with.

I do have to say though, I picked up some interesting knowledge along the way

[StoutFiles]

So what did we decide on? Keeping the current trend (collectors happy, people who want new ships) is good for TLG, but there's hope that before the license ends that they revisit some popular ships (X-wing, Falcon) before the license expires (people who missed out, people who enjoy accuracy)?

To be honest, either one is fine with me as long as the UCS line continues, especially at two sets per year.

[Sir_Basil_Ashton]

So what did we decide on? Keeping the current trend (collectors happy, people who want new ships) is good for TLG, but there's hope that before the license ends that they revisit some popular ships (X-wing, Falcon) before the license expires (people who missed out, people who enjoy accuracy)?

To be honest, either one is fine with me as long as the UCS line continues, especially at two sets per year.

Well put. Two sets per year will keep me very happy.

[Fuppylodders]

Well put. Two sets per year will keep me very happy.

Im all for this as well. Although I wouldn't be heartbroken if they didn't revisit some to top the series off, but it would be a bonus.

[Sam892]

I would much rather see some new UCS sets than remakes. We get maybe two UCS ships a year.I would rather that they continued down the line of ships made to minifig scale like they did with the Falcon and Imperial Shuttle. Maybe a few years down the line if they released more UCS sets a year like 4 or 5 then I would feel ok about releases. Don't get me wrong I would love to see some of the early ucs sets remade with some of the new bricks we've been given over the last 12 years but I think that there's so many more great ships or places that need to be created that it would be wrong to remake them just yet.

[Aeroeza]

I think I've finally come to a mutual agreement Brickadeer/Aeroeza

Sorry if I've appeared (perhaps unintentionally aggressively) stubborn...

Dude you've been a great sport! You've done the whole nine yards and stayed up for the count! If more members cared half as much as you have about their posts then we'd probably be making lot's of dosh in the publishing business!!!

... I understand what you mean, but perhaps you are confusing definition with explanation?... What you further said, about its atrociousness and horror of that deplorable period etc, is an explanation after a definition. But I do see how you mean to compare this under a similar context for the UCS.

Don't forget I asked if the 'phrase' had anything much to do with the definition of any individual words within it. A euphemism substitutes taboo words and subjects in language and as such say more about us as a community than they do about any particular word used in their expression.

As for 'War is peace', don't focus on the individual words, focus on the message. It's yet another slogan who's actualization as a political instrument converts society into a sick, twisted and controlled moral wasteland.

My overall point was that...

...in isolation words have meaning (even strength) yet in phrases they have power. In this case the power to influence buying decisions through the use of a brand name. This is a very clear and 'explicit' intention of Lego and a valuable commodity for it to own and exploit...

I'm not suggesting UCS is 'taboo' or even a 'political stratagem for dis-empowering the masses' but an understanding of its use as a marketing slogan goes a long in allowing us to appreciate why we each perceive and invest in it differently. Accepting that means we can move past the lost causes of absolute definition, illusive meaning and contorted logic in an informed manner by appreciating the significance of the UCS brand name and instead focus on other aspects of Lyichir's topic i.e. Is it a good idea for Lego to redesign old UCS' and how would the fandom feel about it?

Besides, definition and explanation are both the handmaidens of knowledge!!!

Surely this is no different than (metaphorically speaking) our sun? It is illuminated and intensely bright creating all wondrous images/different opinionated views/different beautiful sights etc, but at the end of the day, it is still just a constant nuclear fusion of hydrogen and helium regardless of what is seen from down here?

You refer to an absolute/concrete/knowable definition of natural phenomenon verses the relative/emotional/irrational/poetic understanding of the same thing and liken it to an explicit definition of 'UCS' verses our individual emotive and therefore arguable position to that definition?

I like it! Let's explore...

The Sun is 'a thing' we can observe, empirically test hypotheses on and form theories from which we further enhance our understanding of the universe. 'UCS' is a slogan that promotes a collection of plastic brick models designed to appeal to fans of an old Sci-Fi film saga.

Well, I'm all for applying scientific methodology and empirical evidence for understanding the world around us but we are after all just talking about a marketing slogan made up by some exec over a business lunch!

But seriously, the problem with the metaphor is that 'UCS' is just pure human invention, culturally specific and rather pliable when compared to 4.5 billion years of hot gases and generations of our best scientific minds analyzing them. So one is somewhat more absolute in character than the other...

However the metaphor does suggest that applying empirical evidence to Lyichir's topic would be rather useful...

The most likely 'evidence' that can help us understand what UCS is beyond being an exciting marketing slogan are the models in the collection it promotes. i.e. what is the product!

Knowing the product helps us understand the market and understanding the market helps us make informed predictions about what manner of UCS models Lego could release next...

... and given the evidence, is it likely we'll ever see a re-designed UCS model released in the future? Furthermore does the 'nature' of the collection itself ever make a re-release or re-design a 'good idea' anyway?

[Fuppylodders]

6) OK here goes... Surely this is no different than (metaphorically speaking) our sun?......

OK, there goes... a fail

You've helped me understand many things Aeroeza with your logical explanations and in-depth analysis. It has been nice to have a debate which ended in my gaining more knowledge than the usual (not on this forum) trolls that just end up throwing back wobblers and pointless name calling, I applaud your effort and shared knowledge in responses :)

[mrklaw]

I would much rather see some new UCS sets than remakes. We get maybe two UCS ships a year.I would rather that they continued down the line of ships made to minifig scale like they did with the Falcon and Imperial Shuttle. Maybe a few years down the line if they released more UCS sets a year like 4 or 5 then I would feel ok about releases. Don't get me wrong I would love to see some of the early ucs sets remade with some of the new bricks we've been given over the last 12 years but I think that there's so many more great ships or places that need to be created that it would be wrong to remake them just yet.

two sets a year is 20 more sets. Are there 20 more Star Wars vehicles they could do without revisiting previous ones? Vehicles that would appeal to a broad enough range of people to justify an expensive UCS set?

I want a new X-wing, ISD and Falcon, but thats partly me being limited in funds (Falcon) and hesitant to buy something flimsy (current ISD) when I can see what they've done with the SSD and Venator.

[StoutFiles]

two sets a year is 20 more sets. Are there 20 more Star Wars vehicles they could do without revisiting previous ones? Vehicles that would appeal to a broad enough range of people to justify an expensive UCS set?

Naboo Royal Starship

Anakin's Podracer

Sebulba's Podracer

(a whole bunch of clone/separatist ships/vehicles used in the clone wars)

Class-6 escape pod

TIE Fighter

AT-AT

Probe Droid

Nebulon-B

Slave I

Cloud Car

TIE Bomber

Sail Barge

A-wing

Home One

Speeder Bike

[Brickadeer]

two sets a year is 20 more sets. Are there 20 more Star Wars vehicles they could do without revisiting previous ones? Vehicles that would appeal to a broad enough range of people to justify an expensive UCS set?

I want a new X-wing, ISD and Falcon, but thats partly me being limited in funds (Falcon) and hesitant to buy something flimsy (current ISD) when I can see what they've done with the SSD and Venator.

Yes, there are at least a few from the OT.

EF76 Nebulon-B escort frigate

Rebel Transport

Mon Calamari Star Cruiser

Since we've seen R2-D2, I expect that we'll see C-3PO as well sooner or later.

Plus, there are several vehicles from the PT.

The point is that technically, Cloud City is a UCS set. I think we'll see a remake, though, just like we've seen a UCS- and a normal versions of the ISD and the Corvette.

Technically, 10131 is a UCS set, but measured by 2012 standards, the models are pretty pathetic. So to some degree, UCS sets are open to innovation and change. As a general rule I'd say that the more they are "playable" or "usable" for minifigs, the more likely is a remake. For that reason I think that it's much less likely that we'll see remakes of 7191, 7181, 10129, or 10134.

Edited April 4, 2012 by Brickadeer