icm

I guess in addition to the Great X-wing/Snowspeeder Color Debate, we now have the Great Colosseum Color Debate.

I never build Technic or Creator Expert/Model Team-style MOCs anyway, so my comment isn't as relevant to this specific topic, but for what it's worth: I haven't been building as much in the past year, year and a half, partly because I moved to another state for school and took a 50% pay cut, so I don't have as much money for Lego; partly because the city I moved to is much poorer than the city I moved from, so I'm less comfortable buying Lego at the store anyway; partly because of pandemic and election anxiety; and partly because I've come to the point where building MOCs in Studio without ordering physical parts for them just seems vain, yet I can't bring myself to order the parts because of the previously mentioned reasons.

The lower wings of my 4502 X-wing didn't sag after over 7 years of being assembled nearly the entire time. That model uses six white rubber bands, so their elastic properties may be different. The lower wings of my 9493 X-wing didn't sag after about 2 years of being assembled the entire time, but I mostly kept it sitting on its tail so the rubber bands weren't under as much stress. I haven't kept any newer X-wings assembled for more than a few days at a time, so I don't know how their rubber bands age.

Based on what you wrote in the first post I wasn't sure if there was really a problem, but those videos make it clear that those parts are as loose as you say they are. They do look quite a bit looser than most modern parts, even accounting for the fact that modern parts are deliberately manufactured with a bit less clutch power than they had back in the 70s and 80s. Bad luck! You should definitely get in touch with Customer Service.

The model is designed to use four blue rubber bands, two on each side. Do you have two blue rubber bands on each side?

I second everything @koalayummies just said. The walls of the captain's cabin aren't designed to open, and the Mixel joints that hold them together are designed to be very stiff and hard to take apart. If the walls of the captain's cabin fall apart when you open them, it's not because the clutch of the bricks is too weak, it's because the clutch of the bricks (the Mixel joints) is strong. If you want a pirate ship with opening cabin walls, buy 31109. (I highly recommend it, it's a great set.) The only play access to the cabin on 21322 is the removable roof.

The garden is amazing, and the Duplo house is quite impressive too.

My favorite TIE fighters are the 2016 TIE Advanced from the Rebels subtheme and the 2018 basic TIE fighter from the Solo subtheme.

I vote Denny.

I don't know that Coast Guard has ever officially been declared "guaranteed," but Coast Guard sets date back to the mid-1970s at regular intervals, so it's a pretty safe bet to imagine that 2021 or 2022 will have another round of Coast Guard. Space, Castle, and Pirates disagree with using "dates back to the 1970s" as precedent, of course.

Glad to see we're on the same page now!

No, what I'm trying to say is that point C is the flaw in the logic. Star Wars, taken in its entirety, is not just some 40-year-old movie that's kept culturally relevant by pure nostalgia, as if it were a cult film. Star Wars is an ongoing franchise with large volumes of new content being generated nearly continuously for the past 24 years. The new content, in turn, keeps the old content relevant. So Star Wars is not pure nostalgia, it is new and ongoing. It's not that point C refutes point B, it's that point C itself is flawed because point C, inasmuch as it specifically addresses Star Wars and/or the X-wing, is refuted by point D. Point C, as in "nostalgia totally sells," is true. In the circles that these topics always follow, you usually stake your position as insisting on point C1, which is that Star Wars is "40 years old and pure nostalgia." I really am not arguing against an unlicensed Space them! I don't, as a matter of principle! I don't want people in the Sci-Fi forum to feel invalidated, quite the contrary! But point C1 is so flawed given the fact that the past 24 years have seen nine theatrical releases (plus three theatrical re-releases), five TV shows, and any number of major video games, etc., etc., etc., that I have to challenge it simply as a point of fact.

The difference, of course, is that Star Wars has been kept continuously in the public awareness by new releases of various media, including many extremely popular video games, since 1996. Classic Space is a niche within Lego fandom that has not been similarly maintained. Maybe you (using the general plural you and not the specific singular you) don't like that, but if we are looking strictly at continuous cultural relevance of this one thing (1977 SW vs 1979 CS), there is a much stronger argument for producing sets related to the one than the other. Please (speaking to the general plural you) don't take this as an attack in any way, shape, or form, nor as any comment on the right-to-exist or potential-for-success of any modern Space theme, including a direct remake of 1979 CS. It is simply a fact that there has been nearly continuous production of transmedia SW content since 1996 that keeps the X-wing, TIE Fighter, Millennium Falcon, etc, culturally relevant in a way that simply is not so for the 918, 924, 928 spaceships, etc. Edit - yes, just a couple posts above Danth rightfully pointed out that the question of directly reviving CS79 is a straw man when the larger question is reviving Space in general. As I've said earlier in this thread, I think another Space theme would be great and is likely to come along within another couple of years. I was simply responding to TeriXeri's offhand comment, is all.

This is such a fun take on the Razor Crest that I just had to build it in Studio last night. Thanks for posting!

Here are some things I would like to see more of in threads like this: Data-driven lines of reasoning about product sales. Data-driven lines of reasoning about interests of different demographic segments, accompanied by firsthand, or close to firsthand, anecdotes and experiences. Here are some things I would like to see less of in threads like this: Broad, sweeping generalizations about sales and demographics that, without data, conveniently reflect the biases and personal preferences of the individual(s) making those generalizations.

I think that's a bit of a "get off my lawn" post, right there. Personally, I don't think "get off my lawn" posts are very ... um, insightful? Not that I have any access to sales data myself, but I've seen forum members talk themselves in circles on this topic until they're blue in the face, and most of that just comes down to who is on whose lawn.

There's a very good play reason to put the whole droid in there, not just the head, regardless of whether the rest of the body lives in hammerspace onscreen. The whole droid gets out of the ship and moves around in Episode 3 and in the Clone Wars episodes with Jedi Interceptors, so without the whole droid in the set you can't play similar stories. The reason the first-generation Jedi Interceptor sets only had the head was because the set designers were probably working from concept art when they made set 7256, and at the time it would have been a very reasonable inference that the new ship only had the head, since the ship in Episode 2 only had the head.

I bought a secondhand copy of 70700 Space Swarmer and 70701 Swarm Interceptor a couple of years ago. They're both very fun little spaceships. I like the bug aliens from Galaxy Squad a lot, but I wish the humans had happier faces - maybe not full-on smiles, since they're busy fighting swarms of bug aliens, but not unrelenting grimaces either. Swarm Interceptor is really packed with play features, it's got a nice spacious cockpit, and it's easy to mod. I think it looks a little ungainly and ill-proportioned from some angles, so the play features come at the expense of the looks to some degree, but that's ok. It's not out-and-out ugly like a lot of other in-house designs that focus on play features, nor is it boring like some in-house designs that focus on looks to the total exclusion of play features (i.e. the Vic Viper in the Alien Conquest mobile base set - but that's ok there because the rest of the set is so full of play features). Unfortunately, the larger Galaxy Squad sets start to get ugly, and some reviews say their play features don't work very well either. The Galactic Titan, for instance, isn't a great looker in my eyes, and reviews say that despite the look of the crawler tracks it really can't handle any terrain but a perfectly flat floor. The medium-large orange spaceship that splits in two is also one of those sets where I don't know what I'm looking at until you tell me what it is. But that's just my aesthetic sense, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I still have the red Galaxy Squad minifigure and robot on my wanted list. Someday I'll get around to buying them.

I wonder if this X-wing might be the first official set to feature true center-pivot wings. Probably not, but at least in the potato quality bootleg preliminary image I don't see the usual hardware of wing jacks and rubber bands that go with the four-pivot design, and the actuator tab on top does look like maybe it moves from side to side instead of front to back like the wing jack lever on 75218 and 75273. I like how the laser guns have sections with three distinct thicknesses; that's an accurate detail we haven't seen since 9493 in 2012. The droid also sits higher relative to the cockpit than in any previous model, which is more accurate. The engines extend ahead of the wing leading edges, unlike on 75218, and unlike 9493 it looks like they probably have no gap between them when closed. The back end of the wedges by the engines is stepped, which is an accurate detail we haven't had before, and it's nice to see the first new nose cone design since 2004. There's a lot to like here, but I'm wary about the nose and fuselage overall. I hope they're not just square blocks. The way the nose is built without taper for nearly the whole length reminds me of one of the oldest X-wing MOCs I've ever seen on the web, circa 1993. The aft fuselage looks as blocky as X-wing MOCs circa 2003. ... Ok, that's all I can get out of that picture. Time to wait for official images! On the X-wing, they sacrificed detail but not size, so the proportions look right. On the TIE Fighter, they sacrificed size but not detail, so it looks chibified. I'll probably get a copy to go with the X-wing, but at first glance I don't like it. The Imperial Shuttle looks pretty good except for the big assembly underneath the cockpit shell. I'll wait for more pictures on that one before passing judgment. The 4+ Resistance X-wing is a yawn. I hoped it would be more different than the T-65 but it's a pass. The microfighters are cute as usual but I probably won't get them, since I haven't bought any others in that line. Going off topic now just to record all my comments on the leaks in one post ... Creator giraffe: cute! More pictures, please! Creator lion, motorcycle, robot: yawn. City road system: Cool! More pictures, please! City jet transport: Interesting to see a Cityfied take on a fifth generation jet fighter, most closely reminding me of the Sukhoi PAK FA or the Northrop YF-23, but too simple and ungainly to interest me. It's City, so that's ok. The rest of City: Nice tractor, the rest isn't for me. Ninjago, Minecraft: Yawn. Sesame Street: I wouldn't have considered buying the fan model, but I love the way they've brought it down to a smaller build at a more accessible price point that is still recognizable and fun. I can never bring myself to buy a Modular Building, but this looks like a lot more fun than one of those. More pictures, please! Colosseum: Yawn. If I was a savvy traveler I could probably go see the real thing for close to RRP. Marvel Super Heroes: Yawn. Harry Potter classroom books: What a great idea! They look colorful and big and substantial, like a real classroom and a fun build. More pictures, please! Definitely interested in these.

There are a number of reasons that Space Slug vs Millennium Falcon wouldn't work very well, the landscape being one of them. It just came to mind because the Space Slug is one of the large iconic beasts of Star Wars, whatever else it may be. I would much rather see Fathier vs Canto Bight Speeder, Boga vs Wheelbike, or Reek vs Acklay.

Wampa vs Snowspeeder, Luke and Snowspeeder Pilot. Space Slug vs Millennium Falcon, Princess Leia and TIE Fighter Pilot.

Hoth Han in a ten dollar set will be a must buy for sure. I need Han Solo to go with my 75257 Millennium Falcon but the cheapest minifigs with the modem hairpiece go for more than that on Bricklink.

If we're going to beat this dead horse of a topic yet again, can we please get some actual sales data, preferably with demographic information? Otherwise let's just merge this thread with a previous iteration of the topic.

The official story is that the set was developed from a big gray T-Rex that Mike Psiaki built for fun shortly after being hired, which then sat on the shelves for years until it was picked up for development into the Jurassic Park D2C.

Yeah, the new claw is more of an analogue than a replacement for the old one. It's a lot clunkier, that's for sure.