icm

Yup, that's the problem, isn't it? So that's a good reason why Star Wars should go, if we understand that "should" varies subjectively between individuals. I totally understand your point of view and agree, from your point of view. "If I Ran the Zoo" I would have a rhinoceros exhibit and "If You Ran the Zoo" you would have a hippopotamus. The zoo doesn't have the resources to keep rhinoceri and hippopotami at the same time, so we could argue ourselves blue in the face about which animal is more deserving of a place at the zoo, considering populations in the wild, poaching, climate change, ease of captive breeding, popularity with the youngsters, and so forth, but there wouldn't be any point in arguing because neither of us runs the zoo. Drat, now I want a zoo instead of Star Wars.

Not to get to deeply into an internet argument, but the frequent repeats of subject material (especially material from the original trilogy) are what I like about Star Wars and are, in my view, exactly why it should continue! I remember when the first LSW waves came out. My brother got the X-wing for his birthday and I got the Naboo Fighter for mine. I was so jealous! My parents wouldn't buy me the X-wing because my brother already had it, so I saved my pennies ... and then, before I had enough money in that slowly-filling childhood piggy bank, it was gone! I was overjoyed when the second-generation X-wing (4502) came out in the first wave of LSW remakes, and I made every effort to get that kit as quickly as I possibly could. Now imagine if 7140 was the only Lego X-wing ever released! Wouldn't kids (and adults) today want an X-wing? Wouldn't AFOLs today complain just as loudly about the lack of repeated material in the Star Wars line if there was none as they do with the abundance of repeated material that there is? I think they would! So, even if the 20th anniversary sets are all remakes, there's been plenty of time between versions for kids (and adults!) to have missed the last version and begin to despair of getting another version. Six years between standalone AT-RT sets, 8 between podracers, five between standalone ESB snowspeeders, 9 between standalone System-scale Slave Ones - that's a long time! I understand the reasons why so many adults are so tired of Lego Star Wars. I really do. Sometimes I get tired of it from an adult perspective, when I've been following Lego ever since the Star Wars line began, so I'm familiar with all the remakes and re-releases of the same tired designs over and over. But then I remember how glad I was to get that X-wing after waiting so long, and I say: yeah, it's about time for a remake of [insert vehicle here], isn't it?

If you look through the Brickset database, especially in Space, you will see MANY sets from the pre-licensed era and early licensed sets that, to my eyes, look like trashy builds that are nothing but minifigure delivery systems - and even a lot of sets that are just minifigure packs, without any scenery or auxiliary build of any kind. This is nothing new. Edit: back then and today a kid who gets a set with a boring, bland build and good minifigures is likely to dismantle the set and use it for parts. (I did). Even many or most boring old adults will do that too. In that case, the trashy sets are the ones that stimulate creativity the most, because they're the ones that prompt us to build our own creations instead of just keeping together the car or airplane or spaceship that we wanted. That's what you call caring more about the minifigures than the thing used for play. Edit: In the adult fan community, it's true that the spectacular display sets prompt more modding and companion builds than the bland thirty dollar sets, but that's because adults have resources to create alternate versions or accompanying creations that look just as good or better than the set, and kids don't.

I'm not sure whether this fits best in Sci-Fi, Creator, or even City, but here's tonight's build. I look at 31066 and say: Spaceship! Moonbase! Rover! If Lego released as separate sets a space shuttle similar to the 31066 A model, a Moonbase similar to the 31066 B model, and a rover similar to the 31066 C model, I would buy one copy of each. Since 31066 is a 3-in-1 set and its base and rover are clearly sub-optimal alt builds of the shuttle, I've only bought the one copy. Another reason to stick with only one copy of 31066 is possible overlap with this summer's City space sets, which have a Moonbase and rover. But what if I combined two copies of 31066? If one copy is only good for a Moonbase of B-model quality, would two copies let me build a Moonbase of A-model quality? After a few hours on Studio, I'd say no - the result is maybe a B+. Here's a picture anyway; again, there are more pictures on Flickr. Has anyone reading this post managed to build a good Moonbase from two or three copies of 31066 without using any parts from other kits?

Thanks for posting this. I see that the back is completely open, and I'll take you at your word that it's easy to spin, but to me it still looks a little tricky to get fingers in there, because there's not much clearance between the disk and the plate above it. Regardless, it's quite a nice build.

@danth I agree, the curved roof of the last version looks better from some angles. It also raises the height of the rear fuselage by one plate, which makes it easier to fit things like loaded trailers into the cargo bay. @Digger of Bricks The previous version had a nice smooth cockpit hatch, but the top hatch over the cargo bay was messy despite my attempts to give it a smooth surface. Moving the front of the cockpit forward two studs let me lengthen the cargo bay, which in turn made the hatch a lot simpler and improved the studded/smooth balance.

Thanks for your reply - could you just post a picture of the back? No need to work on a new version if the disc is already easy to spin; I'd just like to see it.

@Lego David, please ignore my previous post in this thread. I have too much spare time on my hands at work today, and I apologise for reflexively dismissing your comment. I better get back to work now.

Two things - 1 - $30 went a lot farther in 1979 and in 1999 than in 2019 because of inflation. I think it's actually quite remarkable how the price-per-part ratio has gotten smaller with time despite inflation, and even more so how accounting for inflation the $30 sets today are often (not always, but often) just as massive as the $30-equivalent sets from 40 years ago. For example, compare the 924 Space Transporter from 1979 ($10 then = $30 now) and the Royal Talon Fighter Attack from 2018. The two ships are nearly exactly the same size. 2 - Everything you've said about minifigures and builds here could have been said, and probably was said, about the original Star Wars line way back in 1999. In that respect, things haven't changed at all in 20 years. The individual desirability or collectability of individual minifigures in lines before the licensed era is an entirely different question.

The 7131 Anakin's Podracer was the second "big" Lego set I got, right after the 7141 Naboo Fighter. I'll definitely pick this one up. It looks pretty good and I like all the figures, but it's a little disappointing that it's so similar to the 2011 model.

Looks like all of Danth's and Digger of Brick's wildest dreams have come true: this is from the Zusammengebaut ticker: LEGO City Space: Mars mission, following 50 years of Apollo moon landing, will be released in late June, a major station: »LEGO Mars Mission Space Research Rocket Control Center 60228, 99.99 Euro RRP, has integration with the LEGO Life App, smartphone can be integrated into the station and is then the control screen. In addition: Gray roller coaster rails, but not a full loop »LEGO Mars mission maintenance mission shuttle 60224, 9,99 Euro UVP » LEGO Mars mission rover test drive 60225, 19,99 Euro UVP »LEGO Mars mission Mars research shuttle 60226, 29,99 Euro RRP » LEGO Mars mission moon station 60227 with luminous stone , 49,99 Euro RRP These are NOT license sets, but "inspired by NASA"

Glad you like it! How do you think it could be improved? By the way, I don't remember if I commented in your thread or not, but I'm really impressed by how well you were able to recreate Starfleet Voyager with just a few copies of 70841 and 70821. I am almost persuaded to buy several more copies myself for that purpose.

Fair enough. I got the previous version partly built, but it turned out to be poorly balanced when landed. I started to redesign it to correct the center of mass location and took the occasion to refine the design in a lot of other ways. That's a feature I would really like to see in digital building programs: a center of mass marker for the entire build and individual center of mass markers for assemblies and subassemblies. That seems like it ought to be easy to implement: it's just a bunch of addition, multiplication, and division of part masses and locations, not anything more complicated like stress and stability analysis or kinematic simulation. The only hard part would be defining the center of mass of each part as a property. Now I'm getting off topic, so I'll stop.

I'm glad you like that ship. I took it apart after about a week, but I've thought about rebuilding it. What do you think of the Galaxy Explorer?

Thanks! But are you referring to the ship in the first post based on 6931, or to the Galaxy Explorer I posted a few minutes ago?

Here's another revision of my updated Galaxy Explorer. There are three main goals: preserve the wing and cabin dimensions of the original, keep the lines clean and the build simple, and fit as much cargo as possible. The interior features a set of folding gates between the cockpit and the front cargo area, another set of gates between the front cargo area and the rear cargo area, removable racks in the rear cargo area from which to hang tools, and a door on either side of the front cargo area to allow access to the cargo from the wing without having to open any of the four large rear hatches (top, bottom, left, right). Fully loaded, the ship can hold four 3x4 crates and six 2x2 crates, or two rovers, or a rover and a light trailer loaded with one 3x4 crate, or a rover and a heavy trailer loaded with two 3x4 crates. I've got a lot of ideas for builds to go with this, but of course there's not enough time to bring them all to fruition. Please comment and critique. As always, more pictures are on Flickr.

^ See: 3723, 3724, Modular Buildings, 10193, 10210, 10223, 10228, Winter Village, Fairgrounds, 70810, 70751, 70620 (and arguably 70618), 70840. Those are all D2Cs based on original, in-house ideas that don't attempt to model any specific real-world or licensed subject. Thanks to the UCS line, Star Wars does get a disproportionate number of D2Cs compared to other themes, but it's not accurate to say that we never get a D2C for an original theme.

It looks very good, but the point of the original set was that the printed disk was easy for little fingers to spin. The disk in this build can still be swiped on the top surface, but I don't see anywhere to spin it by flicking the edge.

Good idea. This could really work as a City subtheme, appealing to new audiences by appealing to kids who want to work in the movies when they grow up, and still keeping the usual target demographic of kids who like to play cops and robbers. The sets are well done too; they look like real City sets. I'd add a few more studio trappings (lights, mics, cameras, etc) to the helicopter rescue and Jack Stone car chase kits, though - if there are any cues that those are "studio" sets, I don't see them.

I saw this when it was featured on the Brothers Brick a few months ago, but I haven't taken the time to play it yet. Maybe that's something to do tonight after work. This is a really impressive piece of work, here. Thanks for posting.

^ Exactly. Amen to every word of that.

Frankly, I just hope Speed Champions continues. It's all I ever wanted in a Racers theme as a kid; I never liked the wacky cars in the Drome, Technic, Tiny Turbos, or World Racers subthemes; the large Ferrari and Lamborghini models were nice for their time but were too big to fit in my town and relied too much on stickers; and I wanted to see more well built, realistic, real-world cars like the minifig-scale Ferrari Formula One cars. I also wondered why Lego never did any real-world/Town racecars besides Formula One cars - why not NASCAR, Le Mans, etc. - and now they're showing up in Speed Champions. The only original Racers theme I'd like to see would be a line of cars inspired by the circuit bosses from the original Lego Racers video game.

Just be patient. Buy all the old sets you like for now, and I guarantee that in another few years there will be another cluster of original themes that you like just as much as the original themes between 2007 and 2014. When I was a kid, all I wanted was a Lego space shuttle that could carry a couple of minifigures and a satellite, had the external tank and solid rocket boosters, and looked reasonably good. But I was too young to get the 1995 model, even though it was still in the catalogs when I was introduced to Lego, and the 1998 model was terrible, and the 2003 model was too big and didn't come with the boosters or launch pad. I was worried that Lego would never release a space shuttle again. Then seven years later! (2010) Lego released the amazing Shuttle Adventure, and there's been a steady sequence of space shuttles ever since: two in 2011, two in 2015, one in 2017, one in 2018, three in 2019 already (sort of) and one or two more later this year! From my perspective as a kid when I thought Lego was going down the tubes, this is an embarrassment of riches.

The third set of four finalists is up. There's finally something I like: a nice 2000-part castle. I'm still hoping for a spaceship in the last set ....

"Half of my advertising dollars are wasted," said the marketing executive. "The only problem is, I don't know which half." I think many people on this forum would agree that the sheer number of sets released each year is bewildering, and that a large portion are pretty mediocre - so wouldn't it be better if Lego just focused on quality instead of quantity, and made fewer, better, sets? The problem is that one AFOL's really good, well-made set is another AFOL's overpriced cash grab. For example, you really like the Bugatti. A lot of Technic gearheads would tell you in great detail why it's an overpriced trashy cash grab. You probably think the Overwatch line is an overpriced cash grab; I mostly agree, except that I think the spaceships are pretty cool. There's a lot of diversity in what people on this forum do and don't like, so I hesitate to make value judgments about the way Lego is going as a company except in my own personal opinion. That said, by all means keep explaining why you don't like the choices the company has made in 2018 and 2019. These kinds of conversations are valuable so that we can all hear each other's perspectives on the product, and some of what we talk about might even make its way into design/pricing/marketing decisions by the company.