Fallenangel

While there is no definite answer to that question, I think it is safe to say that, based on the reasons put forth in this thread, the more iconic craft are from the Original Trilogy. It was never explicitly stated in this thread that the LAAT/i wasn't as memorable as certain Original Trilogy craft - indeed, the consensus appears to be that in due time it could very well become somewhat representative of the Prequels. As for how one would be executed, Anio said that there just isn't an interesting way to build a UCS LAAT/i. I would have to disagree with that claim - I for one would welcome a LAAT/i along the lines of psiaki's with a predominantly SNOT build. 10212 demonstrated that The LEGO Group was willing to use techniques that deviated from their usual, heavily studded approach - hopefully this trend will continue and the superior build quality of the UCS line will be upheld.

It should be blockier in the back. I do like the change you've made, though.

Allow me to reaffirm my position on Prequel craft in general:

I knew you were active on FBTB, but I never thought I'd see you here as well! It's always neat when MOCers from the old FBTB forums show up on other LEGO sites. I'm a big fan of your Special Edition TIE fighter, by the way.

What I was getting at was whether a 45-degree angle wedge couldn't be used, as seen here.

Keeping in mind the concept of a ship having its own identity, I feel that it is necessary to distinguish between the sequels to Star Wars (Sequels?) and the Prequels. I feel that craft from Empire and Jedi were given unique personalities in their respective movies, whereas in the Prequels ships merely resembled other ships. The AT-AT is ‘iconic’ because it constitutes a symbol of Imperial power in itself, not because it looks like some other ship that also symbolizes Imperial power. The X-wing and Falcon were similarly given roles in the film separate from those assigned in Star Wars. Having said that, the aforementioned N-1 and Delta-7, as well as a few other craft (J-type 327 Nubian), do possess qualities that don’t merely mimic those of others, thus not being unworthy candidates for the UCS label within the Prequels. In due time… Surely you can’t be this lowlead? What you’re saying is that minifigures and play features are acceptable in a build so long as the aesthetic quality and generally superior quality of a UCS build is retained, which I agree with. The standards for LEGO sets have been steadily increasing, the gap between System and UCS shrinking. And that is definitely a good trend. What I don’t like is that with 10221 the LEGO Group lowered UCS standards – rather than only the sets approaching an established higher quality, they appear to want fans of the upper range to compromise as well.

Indeed – why the set is even considered a standard anymore is beyond me! Couldn’t he have used 3x3 wedge plates for the in place of the oversized 3x6 wings? Or are there simply no slope bricks that fit that angle?

Perhaps there simply aren't any experts on the matter among us...

While I agree with the point that 10215 and UCS sets in general may have sold better if they were part of a series, I feel it is also necessary to acknowledge that, contrary to Legoman’s point, sets have in fact been getting better since 2008, the modular buildings and recent D2C sets being the most obvious example. It could also be argued that Star Wars sets from the summer of ’08 onwards were of a distinctly higher caliber than those before – I doubt that anything along the lines of 7674, 7680, or 8019 would have been expected in ’06 or ‘07. The fact that many AFOLs spent those first few years griping about prices appears to be a mistake on our part, as it’s been established that a parts-to-price ratio is hardly the best indicator of how much you’re getting for your money. Seeing as I watched all six films for the first time within a few years of each other, I think I can speak as someone who was more or less “hit with all six films at once”. I won’t deny that the ‘Star Wars iconic imagery and design’ can be applied to just as many craft in the Prequels as in the Original Trilogy – in fact, that is the very reason craft from the Prequels aren’t considered as memorable as their ancestors from the ‘70s and ‘80s. Such concepts as the Radiant VII and the AT-TE bear a strong resemblance to their Original Trilogy counterparts, the Tantive IV and AT-AT respectively. Thus they lack an iconic status in themselves, relying on more famous counterparts to evoke the connection. They do not express an identity that is uniquely their own. The title ‘Attack of the Clones’ makes much more sense in this context. The ARC-170 and the Venator are both nice-looking craft that possess the air of battle-worn warships. But I remember them more for their resemblance to the X-wing and Imperator than anything else simply because that is the only image they present themselves with in their appearance in Episode III ( if one has read the Clone Wars comics, this would be a different story – but few people here seem to have done so). And when one remembers that Episode III was the Prequel in which starships received the most coverage, the possibility of Prequel craft being memorable at all becomes increasingly less likely. Of course there are a few notable exceptions to this, and among them are the two Prequel craft that The LEGO Group has released as ‘UCS’ sets - the N-1 and the Delta-7. They don’t embody ‘Star Wars’ the way the subjects of other UCS sets do, but they possess unique identities, at least within the Star Wars universe. This could also explain why the B-wing was chosen to be recreated in UCS. It’s funny how even though FOLs are constantly confused as to how 10XXX sets and UCS sets are separate The LEGO Group gave us 10221 which really does embody aspects of both. Perhaps The LEGO Group is trying to eliminate the special status of the UCS?

Well, for starters, the gun in the middle of this picture looks to be made from a minifigure power drill, a minifigure hand, a screwdriver, and a Technic bush, all black. Not sure whether that's what you're asking...

Something like this?

Has anyone else seen the new official Databank? Apparently it was completely redone when the site was overhauled a few weeks ago. It's not nearly as useful as the old one, which isn't surprising since Wookieepedia now has all that info and more.

Regardless of which side was winning, the Clone Wars were bad because the civilians suffered. Remember the poisoning of Honoghr and the subsequent enslavement of the Noghri. ? It's been established that many of the characters in the Prequels behave in a manner that is nonsensical, making proper analysis of their character difficult. Obi-wan is an obvious example. Retcons abound!

After seeing the new review on FBTB... You know what this is, don't you?* *I know it isn't Ackbar, but someone who doesn't watch the show could be inclined to make that connection.

Searching the number of this fake set on Brickshelf gives us what appears to be another fake set.

Right you are - the longer I look at the Essential Guide schematics, the more warped they appear to me. The engine nacelles should not be that long...

Thanks for the LXF file, Hollander. Try these... Side view Another one Top view (different Y-wing, but I'm assuming the proportions are about the same) Also, a secondary source: Fine Molds Y-wing coloring guide

This Version II is a huge improvement over the original, Hollander. The construction of the head is very unique and easily the best approach I've seen - lots of nice SNOT. Flex tubing for the canopy also works very well, and the use of claws to represent the struts is quite clever. I see the connection between the engines and the main fuselage has also been corrected (and nicely greebled). Any chance you'll be sharing the LXF file with us?

The conventional explanation for that is that Lucas purposefully gives Jar Jar big roles as a statement toward fans who hate his character.

I was thinking more of how elements of the Original Trilogy such as Jedi, lightsabers and the Force feature prominently in the Prequels and The Clone Wars but are portrayed in a way that's very unlike Star Wars, as well as how scenes in the former are less emotionally gripping and more visually diverse. But I suppose the point of 'rushed and made up' can also be made (though I'm not trying to bash the Prequels or The Clone Wars here, just highlight how their styles differ from that of the Original Trilogy).

Was it this book, by any chance? If so, I must say it was a rather fun read. Finding out that the male sarlacc degenerates into the female in the fashion of the anglerfish was neat. I believe Wicket allied himself with a rebel since he was offered food, which I suppose is as divine an influence as an Ewok could experience. That's an interesting rationalization, as if one were combining the aliens of Clarke's 2001 series with the Star Wars universe. I can see the black monoliths now...

And your stance has already been rebutted. And before somebody brings up what they think UCS is, The LEGO Group has already spoken on the matter.

I don't think that the episode about the Trandoshan hunters would be the best example for your stance. I won't say it isn't all made up shit (with unoriginal plotlines at that), but the bundle of made up shit known collectively as the Original Trilogy has a certain feel to it, and when there are parts of the bundle of made up shit known as 'fanon' that don't have that same feel (like Trandoshan hunters), people don't approve. That's what we're discussing here. Canonicity doesn't really have anything to do with it - it is merely the shit that is bundled by Lucas, regardless of whether any one part of it resembles another. The Clone Wars (and, while I'm at it, much of the Prequels) would be fanon if not for the fact that Lucas wrote it.

If someone wants to go against the consensus, I say go ahead. What are forums for if not discussions? Granted, the way the heretic in question defends his position will determine whether or not he is simply trolling. Out of curiosity, where are you getting this? (The original source or sources, not Wookieepedia). I don't remember any of this being implied in the film... I'm not so sure whether you could argue that the Ewoks' being realistic is an appeal factor, though. If that were true, the fact that most sentient alien species in Star Wars (from the movies or otherwise) are bipedal humanoids would be a major turn-off.