Merlo

Pretty and kinda relaxing to look at as well haha

Damn, son. Asha set is cute, but this is adorable!

Tasteful, lovely!

Nice one. Autumn never fails to impress.

I love that tower. Relatively simple, yet so effective. Not real at all, but somehow feels real.

Great idea and a wonderful final product.

Too cute. Love the seats.

Amazing work.

That's cute, I like it very much. Now they should redo ALL the classic space sets in baby format, would be more fun to collect than minifigures imho 😅

Well, the Galaxy Explorer was not what I wanted but it was very sleek and elegant. This is indeed more like something I would wish for myself, but it seems random, like there's no philosophy or direction present in the design neither in the shape nor the colors. It has that certain "ChatGPT design me a new Blacktron Renegade" quality to it. HP_Brixxter, Combat_Armor_Dougram and others have made sets that look like something Lego should've come up with. It seems this is an 18+ set that looks like a 5-12 set. I'm not the kind to play with my Lego, and design-wise it's not good enough to put on display. Sure, a lot of sets from that era might not be either, but they were better for play, and even if I displayed them, there'd be a big nostalgia factor present that the new set doesn't have. I don't know anymore you guys. I guess Lego has got it so good they just churn out products without much thought or effort and everyone buys them anyway.

I want to support the line and see more of those kind of sets in the future. Also, I have disposable income. If it weren't the case, I definitely would not buy them. You're either not serious or you're missing the point. Designing your sets takes a lot of time and money and no one guarantees you would get picked. Besides, the themes dictate which sets get picked much more than the "quality" of the sets does. On the other hand there are plenty of Lego sets and every time that I watch reviews of new sets there is a big overlap between what I thought initially and what the reviewers notice. This seems to indicate a lot of the stuff we're talking about is kinda obvious but slips by Lego as they might be churning out the sets too fast to have them perfected. This in turn eliminates all the guesswork and guarantees your effort would not be futile.

I was not a big fan of the castle, so it's good that Lego put out this set to make the castle look good in comparison. It partially lacks detail, looks like it's aimed at a younger audience, has a bit of that Eldorado Fortress "I don't quite know what I'm doing" feel at places and is generally too big next to the castle. The plain "oops, I'm nearing the allowed brick count" roof is harshly contrasted against the new detailed roof introduced with the castle. There are nice parts too, though. It has some colors, for a change, and finally we have two sets that tie in together, even if it's in a clumsy way that seems like they were made by designers of different skill sets. The price seems better for what you get? I'll know more when I finish the build. Hey, psst, wanna get rich? Make a youtube channel about improving Lego's priciest offerings. Just scour all the reviews and systematically address the criticism and improve the sets wherever possible without breaking the bank.

It looks all right, I guess. Not as bad as I imagined it would be. I like that it's colorful. I love that the tower is straight from 10305, finally bringing together some elements instead of making each set stand on its own. Design-wise it sadly suffers from the same inconsistency that 10305 suffers from: some parts look really elegant and others look something I'd MOC myself, my lack of skill included. But worse than that, once again, is the inconsistency in detail with parts of the scene that are rather detailed and parts that look like they're from a set for a younger audience. The roofs on the left catch my eye immediately with regards to this. I understand that there might be added value in breaking the consistency of detail to depict something you otherwise could not, but one should not drop below the baseline level of detail assumed for each set as that just makes it look rough and unfinished. If the suggested price remains, I might buy it.

I dig it. Some of the classic space sets really did all they could to be round or round-ish, actually.

Interesting, do you have a photo of these newly made figures?

Exactly. And I didn't even see that bump above the zipper the first time. That torso is a big no-no for me.

I both agree and disagree on the account of minifigure changes. I believe that minifigure changes would be good if done well. The space police guy looks great, not so much because of the design, but simply because he has a badass outfit. But the design is also simple enough to be effective. If any old space factions were given a similar treatment, not in terms of looks, but in terms of approach, that would be great. But if they would be changed to be as 10305 minifigures, I wouldn't like that. The beauty of old minifigures is that they're simple and elegant and the lack of detail means the user can just imagine and project anything onto the blank canvas, they're sort of like the Keanu Reeves of the Lego world. The space police guy works because he adds new objects and shapes more than anything. If however, everything is drawn on the minifigure, like creases in the fabric and such then the blank canvas of what you imagine it to be is replaced by something very specific, and that specific thing is drawn, thus looking like a sticker and not like something that's built or molded or brick-y in any way. And for me minifigures are fun as a cute, blocky representation of something real. If they get closer to something real than that not through 3d detail, but through prints, they become like every other toy out there depicting the same thing, only more Lego-shaped on the outside, instead of feeling like Lego through and through. P. S. Another important thing I forgot to mention is that for maximum cuteness factor the visual complexity of the minifigures has to match the visual complexity of the build (at least as much as it's possible). The minifigure on the left surpasses the majority of details on 10305 by a big margin and thus looks like it doesn't belong or it's not "Lego enough". 10497 didn't have this issue, obviously. It looks like the figures needed more details if anything, but then again if something truly has no detail, you can't show it no matter how much you up the resolution. This is why "overly simple" figures can work, but "overly complex" look out of place. P. P. S. And if Lego would produce a MOC-looking set with some crazy over the top greebling, etc., then yes, a complex looking minifigure might match that more than an overly simple one, even if it's all prints.

The Galaxy Explorer, sure. But was the Intruder really angular or just the best approximation of curves they had? I love the original canopies as angular looks "bricky" to me. But even if they could remake those, would they be useful outside of this set? And is the ship big enough not to get a boost in size? Curved and angles can also be combined. They could also just print a bubble piece to make it look more similar to the original piece. The monkey kid canopies are not angular either. I don't think details will matter as much if the final product is attractive, just like with 10497. Renegade seems much easier to make, though. It's possible to retain the same shape but just dress it up a little. It would be awesome though (and AFOL aproppriate) if they leaned a bit into the greebly mechanical/insectoid nature of it.

Yes, please. But could/would they create a ship that's merely inspired by SP and still make it feel authentic or, alternatively, do they have all it takes to remake one? Also, with how safe Lego has been playing, is SP popular enough to be the 2nd entry in this theoretical space remakes list, or would it be more of a B-side?

I'm not sure if the designers would be tasked with adding new features, but if we draw parallels to 10497 it's clear this set has a more unusual shape that I feel works even to this day when looking at the silhouette, while the original GE perhaps has that "old car" look nowadays. But since the hull/cargo area here is much bigger it would make sense and probably be a lot of fun to fill out the previously "empty" parts with bricks, actually outlining a ship that was only hinted before on the account of brick limits and younger intended audience. Given that the ship already comes with some level of visual badassery despite the limitations, giving it the 10497 treatment might make it truly wicked looking. Same. But I am not really aware of all the available parts nor of all the methods skilled designers might use. I do not think they really need to be polyhedral though. Don't we have some round or round-ish canopies from SW sets, etc?

Aerial Intruder could be upscaled.

Good point, but I'm not sure that is possible if Lego is counting with adults buying the sets on the account of nostalgia. Would a one of a kind "generic Lego space ship" stand a chance next to the Star Wars ships? Yes, it was a safe bet Galaxy Explorer would not stray far from the original. However, unlike the Star Wars ships, where every new iteration can come closer to a known real reference, there is no real reference here in terms of a more complex ship this one could try and emulate so it feels like a reprise. I liken it to seeing an old show I enjoyed as it gives me a feeling of "this was a great show back at the time, too bad I've seen this episode so many times I can't properly enjoy it anymore". I agree about the Creator castle and pirate ship. For me a big part of the Lego fantasy was "see something new, build something playful". There's plenty of both in those sets, the castle especially. I think when the design is good Lego almost never gets it wrong with something that's trying to be fun. Problem is that "fun" and "realistic" often don't gel. Imagine if 31120 was just all grey like real medieval castles. It would hardly be an upgrade over the Lego castles of old. A more interesting shape would be needed to give those flat gray walls something for the eye to catch onto. Alternatively, the shape could be functional and not very interesting but it might look just like the real thing, prompting a different kind of interest. But when you merge things whose qualities are on the opposite sides of the spectrum, e.g. 54321 and 12345, you get a 3/5 set. Plus the effect supersizing a set has on you :)

Oh, I'm partially with you on that actually. Having grown up with simpler Lego, I am to this unable to see some of the later sets as beautiful. I don't like seeing specialized parts and details shown with stickers. For me 6984 was the first time when I thought "what is this"? It was messy and complicated in a way that didn't seem artistic to me but just "thrown together" somehow. Yes, Lego space was kinda like that in that time, but for me 6986 was still on a level where it looked appealing. And it even had a more interesting design in my eyes, whereas 6984 was just rough. Ice Planet had an interesting color scheme but by the time we got to the UFO line, it didn't even feel like Lego to me. It started to be more like a cheap overly colorful plastic toy or a Lego knock-off at best. No offense to the fans, this is just my perspective. But for me complexity and weirdness are great if the design language and color scheme support it. You can get away with more architectural complexity if the color scheme is subdued and vice versa. But at some point it becomes too much. Sure, isn't that the case with our views of later Lego space lines? :) Oh, I know. I've commented before that some of his sets are among my favorites. But personally I would've given this to someone who would've made it a bit more whimsical rather than looking like a real ship. When they said they wanted to make the Galaxy Explorer be like the ship you remember it being back then - that to me is equal to a chance to buy the original Galaxy Explorer, even though now I can appreciate it more as a piece of Lego history than I think it's a better spaceship than a lot of other Lego spaceships. I think for me the new GE is very much like the old one. So if the original designer was still making Lego sets and was told "make a Galaxy Explorer 2" and he made 10497, I would think "what happened? You had all these ideas for one ship, but for the sequel you just repeated yourself". Oh I didn't think worse of you based on anything you wrote. I know for a fact that I lack social skills and thus can be annoying :) But, yes, if you would suddenly claim here you think UFO is the best Lego space line, we could "argue" for the fun of it, but obviously I'm aware these things are entirely subjective and if we did a poll it might have turned out that whatever I happened to like was much less popular than the UFO line.

My friend, I don't think you have thought this through. If you are on a/your high horse, "you are talking or behaving in a way that shows that you think you are better than other people". Yet you came here to say that you keep away from this thread because you're free of the accusations you throw at others. Additionally, if you're toxic you're "causing social tension or unpleasantness", yet I cannot see this quote of yours as providing anything other of value than that. One of the rare acceptable forms of social tension in today's society comes as a side effect of free exchange of thoughts and ideas, because we recognize that it's a small price to pay in order to avert single-mindedness, yet you seem almost offended by that. Where I'm from we humorously call that behavior "everyone has the right to my opinion" :) In any case, it'd be nice if we kept this thread 10497-adjacent. What do we know about that rumored Renegade? Is it a rumor? Someone described something looking like a Renegade in production? Any guesses on possible release or if it'll happen for sure?

I was a fan during the classic space era. It was already when sets became white instead of grey, but my friends with older siblings often inherited older sets too and I remember thinking about them as if they were these ancient Lego sets from the past, which from a grown up perspective is very silly since it was just a few years before my time. My claim about seeing things in the context of the time they were made in was not addressed to you or the designer, but the person I was replying to. From one perspective all things that are different are ugly. At its very core, this is why have racism and many other needless things. It takes getting to know something to start seeing it as something other than the initial gut reaction. So old Lego sets (and everything else) can easily look ugly if you want to look at it that way. As far as my claim about the Galaxy Explorer, it was not made based on some special property of mine, but rather the fact that the MOC designers saw what I saw in it (and likely more, that I'm not yet able to see or at least describe), while 10497 stopped short of those things. It's a simple common experience, just like you can hear music theory and chord resolutions and common practices in songs even if you don't actually know anything about it, but just go by ear. Validity was never a subject of conversation, well, unless someone was implying that I feel only my take is valid. All I said was that I wish the designer saw what other MOC makers saw. It's possible that he did, but that he trimmed away the things that would work against making the ship as sleek as possible. If we're getting into the age thing, on the other hand, I feel the world here has many "disconnects". E.g. every day I see millenials discovering things that were not possible for anyone not to know perhaps just 15 years ago. I also see younger people (get off my lawn!) have a much more modest knowledge of the events preceding their lifetime than my generation and many others did before, where it was common knowledge. If I have to guess, it's that the modern world has too many things vying for our attention, and really fun, engaging, even addicting things. So a lot of people are a little bit of an expert when it comes to their specific interests, but don't really have a more superficial wide view on the most important happenings outside of that. Of course, I imagine there are many many times more of those (or we have a lot more information and disinformation about those) to make that possible. And this disconnect is evident at Lego as well, on many fronts. It was evident with every imaginary generation change and is even more evident now. Sets had certain qualities, other sets had certain qualities, latest sets have certain qualities, etc. But once you go far enough you stop seeing the qualities of what came a lot before your time. This is because you don't need to look hard to look what was lacking, but often you would have to look hard to look for the subtle things that made something excel. We're just wired that way as people. If you switch from 60 hz to 240 hz monitor you may or may not be able to see the difference right away. If you try switching back later, your eyes will bleed. I disagree with that approach too, that's why I haven't suggested it. The first thing you quoted just states that each time period comes with its own expectations. A set that might have had everything anyone thought of in the 1980's might be very basic by today's standards because bit by bit we did think of many ways to improve upon them. I don't also compare them to the fanciest MOCs expecting them to be the same. The designer of 10497 is more to "blame" when it comes to reaching for grandeur than I am. 10497 I feel looks great as a simple recreation of the original (visually), but for whatever reason is inflated by 50 %. This makes it non swooshable and less rebuildable. I don't agree with their idea of "to make something for adults make it 50 % bigger". My guess (only) is that adults would probably like something more sophisticated because their tastes are now more refined and that is, in fact, a much bigger change that happened in their life than the fact they become 50 % bigger. This also ties in with the designer interviews, where it's clear they're oriented towards technical aspects and thus would do great recreations of existing objects. If 10497 had the same number of detail but was smaller - it would look more detailed. Another thing I liked as a child is having different ships, builds, etc. and contrasting them for play then and for display now. As much as I'd like a lot of old space remakes, it's going to be difficult to find space for them if they're this big. And by being that big, without the real need for it, the level of detail per square cm will suffer, making them less appealing as display items. No, I just somewhat overemphasize the points. Enough to make them clearer, but not so much that they would be obvious lies and one wouldn't be able to take them as is and adjust the ratios in their head. The original presumably meant a lot in the time it came out but not primarily due to its size. The size was there to give decent proportion to everything it had to include, the interior, etc. The remainder of the space, which would then constitute just boring necessities (wings and the rest of the exterior) were then spiced up with huge engines and an impressive rear spoiler. So the question is just "what's the best galaxy explorer we could make in 1979" (not in terms of size, but overall experience) and "what's the best galaxy explorer we could make in 2022". In this my only claim is that the original was closer to achieving its full potential in 1979 than the new one was in 2022. I hear you. I wasn't crying for an inflated GE to start with. Maybe if it needs to be bigger to incorporate new details or functions, but not just so it could be more like the star wars ships in size, but not in detail. Is it? I thought it was meant for adults. As we've talked before, it's not very swooshable and demands care not fall apart, that the children wouldn't have. At least one of the previous posters claimed that it falls apart anyways, but I don't agree with that. I feel that as an adult you sort of have an idea where you could and where you couldn't grab the ship in order for it to stay in one piece. I might be wrong, don't have any data on this. Sure. I don't mind things being upscaled. Just, as I said, there should be a need for it. The large Lego spaceships of old had a lot of ugly (for today's standards, as described before) detail in terms of overlapping shapes and colors or the design paired with the size made them seem like big space vessels with a little imagination. Both the "smooth" design of 10497 (separated colors, straight lines, no greebling) and the fact that the glass parts are completely separated from the hull of the ship and open like airplane canopies makes it seem like a small, simple vessel that has very little detail by itself, but was enlarged to an extent where the few details that it has were able to be reproduced faithfully. We got a boost in size, but not a boost in size-related boons - or in other words, a cool playset that got stretched and by that accidentally dilluted. I would go for that. These days everything is a marketing decision for Lego. I guess at some point they had to work hard to stay afloat. With the popularity they have today, letting us have more than the sum of the parts that we all expect to see (10497) and maybe even less than that (Eldorado) would be a waste of resources and designer time. I don't really feel anyone is wrong about this. I'm glad if people enjoy these sets and since I'm just a single person and Lego is not my entire life, I feel the ideal situation would be if the sets would appeal to as many people as possible, instead of just me. And since Lego has many designers whose ideas gel differently to each set, there are many combinations possible. This is a positive side effect to the fact that there are no space/castle/pirate lines but just a string of unrelated sets. I'll keep buying those sets because at the end of the day I hope for the string to continue and I'm sure to like some of them.