Fallenangel

You're a spammer, right?

Best discussion we’ve had on Eurobricks in a while... I’m afraid I’ll simply be echoing a few key points, though. I’ll dismiss the Internet rage and instead focus on the articles. As others have stated, the thinking behind the Friends sets make perfect financial sense as they appear to be based on the reinforcement of existing gender stereotypes. Where does the whole ‘pink = feminine’ thing even come from? On the one hand, I echo vexorian’s sentiments on this – boys aren’t concerned about aesthetics? Boys don’t have to ‘identify’ with minifigures? - but on the other, I hope that this trend at least leads to nicer Friends sets – I’d say this car looks pretty good. I would also agree that this in part continues the trend of the LEGO Group taking ideas from other toy companies. In that context, this disappoints me. Things like the Ninjago spinners, the Collectable MInifigures, and LEGO Universe really downplay the building aspect of LEGO, and to see the group take another step in that non-creative direction is to see part of the company’s core principles die. I’m hoping that the parts introduced in this line will bleed into other lines, so that boys can have their puppies too. Seems like it would make more sense to have both ‘girly’ and ‘manly’ elements of a set, so that a given set will appeal to a wider sense... and I’m sure the parts will come in quite useful.

Red Five, forward view 9493, head-on 4502, forward view From this picture, the difference doesn't appear too substantial, which makes sense since the pivots appear to be situated in the same places. The wings are definitely too splayed in some of the CGI shots, though - that probably owes to the fact that it's CGI. Please note that the angle of the wings on 6212 didn't bother me too much. I hadn't noticed the change in the function of the opening mechanism; thanks for pointing that out - it certainly constitutes an improvement in my book.

It looks like they went for form over function with the cargo bay area on 9493 - I think it may be this piece. Also, either it's just me or the wings on this X-wing open wider than they did on 6212. I'm amused by the fact the The LEGO Group appears to have placed the TIE/ln's ion engines on the pylons rather than the cockpit ball.

Here's one that's not a toy: http://astromech.net/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2230&g2_serialNumber=1 And another: http://astromech.net/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=2511&g2_serialNumber=1 Going off the above pictures, the feet seem about right for me. If anything, I think that the gray piece in the middle is causing the body to look too thin. And yes, I think the legs could use a bit of beefing up as well. Nice use of the faucet piece, by the way. It's simple, but it adds that little bit of detail.

It's a flashgun, not a pipe.

EDIT: My apologies to the staff for acting out of line.

Uninspired trash, really?

You may find this hard to believe, but in spite of the consensus here, there actually exist a substantial number of LEGO Star Wars fans who are sorely annoyed by overpriced figures, such as myself. Until recently I saw no need for them and thought of them as an excuse for lazy set designers to avoid putting effort into set design, which as I soon learned was a gross misconception. There is definitely a lot of minifigure hype involved, yes, but not for all of us. 7778 and 8099 remain two of my favorite Star Wars sets simply because they include no minifigures and instead focus on a good build with a nice-looking result. This could also be said for 10030, 10019, 10175, and plenty of other sets. Furthermore, when many see a rehash without a redesign, like 6212, they are annoyed, because there was a set that so obviously fit your description. We like to see improvement over time, which usually corresponds to better set design. And the minifigure issue is hardly exclusive to licensed sets. Minifigures have been overrated and overdone for quite some time now in response to demand by the general LEGO audience, not just fans of licensed themes. Were the latter the case, the Collectable Minifigure Series wouldn't be as immensely popular as it is. The most absurd of your points would have to be your comment on the Hassle of building things. The fact that AFOLs prefer a licensed doesn't necessarily mean that they lack a LEGO passion. Really... I can't even begin to list all the Star Wars MOCs that were made out of dissatisfaction with the official sets (though the dissatisfaction stemmed more from the MOCer's being an AFOL than with poor design in the set itself – of course a kids' toy wouldn't meet AFOL standards). Where would I start? A terrible generalization indeed... Also the Rebel fleet trooper's and Rebel pilot's helmet. And as for those 'silver legs', we Star Wars fans have a name for those... they're called lightsabers. The droid torsos only help to prove my point... yes, they are used in many non-licensed themes, but they proliferate in Star Wars sets. The fact that they are as widespread as they are only illustrate how their versatility improves the build experience. Other examples include this piece, this piece, and this piece. That's beside the point; with that particular MOC I was trying to illustrate how unrestricted the realm of Star Wars actually is. There was also a contest on FBTB a few years back for 6208 alternate models; you may want to take a look at that...

Yes, among other things, 2x4 wings don't seem to be the best choice fo the body. The moving bay doors definitely make up for it, though.

I fail to see how Lyichir has taken your comment personally, nor do I see how it has anything to do with how many people like THE Clone Wars heads. Or just stay with the movies like they used to, especially with Menace coming out in 3-D next year...

Probably this guy or his captain.

The back... it needs to be more conical rather than spherical. Those SNOT panels are just too thick:

And I'm sure I've seen Alliance flight helmets on some of your pilots, Ralph. I'm honestly more impressed with a Star Wars MOC when it's built without using parts exclusive to Star Wars sets (as shown in this recent example). And as I've illustrated above, licensed parts have many applications in other themes. I know the cockpit piece from 7256 showed up in a recent Indiana Jones set...

The best thing about this MOC is the brickbuilt approach to the cockpit viewport, which I sincerely hope to see continued in future TIE MOCs – it's leaps and bounds over the SPUD. From a distance, the SNOTed cockpit ball works as well - if there have been any other TIEs using this many cheese slopes, I haven't seen them. That being said, I do feel that some important details have been omitted from the cockpit ball (e. g. the back could use some reshaping), but I suppose that's understandable given the techniques used. As for suggestions, I would recheck the angles on the wing panels. The pylons could also use some work, as they seem rather plain.

*Notes all the kids on Xbox Live* *Laughs* What do people think 'appropriate' even is, anyway?

I must applaud the use of the 1x2 cheese slopes with the inverted plates, which pulls off the look of that area more or less perfectly. Just one minor nitpick... the wheels need to be closer together in the front. I haven't looked at the .lxf, but I'm assuming you couldn't use grilles on the sides to give it some texture (as opposed to the 2x2 tiles). On that note, I've been looking at each and every one of these in LDD (to get a semblance of what it would look like in real bricks), and all the builds are impressive.

Looking at the Elite clone in the battle pack, I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing the possibility of a Bacara minifigure anytime in the future.

Nah: There was actually a discussion on this some time back, to which I feel I left a good final word (excuse the self-plug ): A label. When one takes into account the ever-expanding scope of the Star Wars universe, one will find that it is just as generic as City or Castle. The same goes for Harry Potter, Pixar, and other franchises that have been licensed. What it all comes down to is creativity.

Licensed sets give us licensed parts. Licensed parts allow MOCs like these: They can also be used in other ways: For that, if not for anything else, I endorse the continuation of Licensed themes.

To what extent, then.

It depends. In this particular case, it was just my luck that the exact picture I was thinking of turned up on the first page of Google search results. Someone else brought this up on a PM, so I'll just quote from that... ... A certain degree of previous knowledge is assumed when people join a franchise-oriented forum like this one. As for how I keep track of my Star Wars trivia, it’s never struck me as anything particularly impressive, just bits of information gathered over time... so I suppose ‘super memory’ is one way to put it. With the studio models I do have a page that keeps them all together, but in honesty I don’t use it much as I have most of the URLs and page layouts memorized at this point... my accuracy-based critiques have led me to refer to the sources and work with the given information often enough and in sufficient detail that they stick in my mind, which is how learning happens anyway ... It works much the same way for MOCs – probably even more so, as many MOCers provide instructions and in-build pictures and to go through the various techniques used and compare them with each other is simply fascinating. And of course something profound created using a medium as unconventional as LEGO elements isn’t easily forgotten, even when they have long since been outdone by more recent MOCers utilizing new developments in the hobby. So you’ve got me clinging to relatively older and cruder MOCs like Kyle’s X-wing or Dibal’s T-47 while most of the people on this site probably think of marshal_banana’s and Larry Lars’ respective renditions of those ships when they hear ‘LEGO X-wing’ or ‘LEGO snowspeeder’. Honestly, I think the real "SW super computer" of Eurobricks is Brickdoctor. How he finds time to be so active on the forums and make so many clever MOCs is beyond me. But enough about us. Back to the humor (courtesy of Brickdoctor)! @Huntleyfx: I'm not sure. The eyes might have something to do with it.

Very nice! I'm reminded of an old Christmas promo I think I came across in one of the 'Making of' books. That and, for some strange reason, Muten Roshi...