Fallenangel

My friend, will you be? @Churchill: It does appear that the legs of the droid are in fact tilted back, but I doubt that would make enough of a difference in height for it to fit into whatever shallow crevice exists there - just look at Hasbro's solution. EDIT: After taking another look at the Exhibition photo, I think it may also be possible that the droid's body is simply obscured by the fighter's wing in that shot.

What I find strange is how people are saying that Slave I is iconic now when only last year they were arguing that it was relatively obscure:

Hmm, seems like rash posting on my part then... in hindsight my statement was directed less at you personally than the people on this thread who were wishing the new X-wing was more different. It's apparent that your stance on 6212 is similar to mine, but then somebody brought in the question of the target audience, which skewed things.

It doesn't seem like 'iconic' would be the best word for either a 'specific visual symbol of one film' or an 'instantly recognizable by anyone as something from (franchise)'. Any language experts here? What would the best word be?

I'm guessing it's sticking out of the bottom of the ship but was edited out of the scene. Sometimes the fighter magically fits the droid's entire body, sometimes not.

I don't know about the studio model, but the canon length of the Eta-2 is 5.47m and the scaling of the Revell kit suggests a length of 4.88m. The size of the cockpit bulb relative to a minifigure should be a dead giveaway that the current rendition is oversized, though. I actually tried making one to scale some time back, and ended up with this: I also find it bothersome that LEGO renditions the X-34, T-47, BARC, Delta-7, and speeder bikes in general are so large, even if overscale builds are the only option for a presentable final product. So in short, you are not alone...

At the very least, I would consider any ship in the Prequels that played some kind of critical role in the plot of the film somewhat iconic relative to the other twenty thousand craft. I only chose those four ships because they were the only ones I could think of as being even vaguely important. Also keep in mind the fact that I haven't seen the first two Prequels in several years. I suppose if I were to sit on it a while, I would probably come to the conclusion that iconic starships don't exist in either the Prequels or the Clone Wars, especially since the films and series focus more on character development (or at least some semblance of it - but that's a debate for another thread).

On the contrary, LEGO X-wings are what got me into this hobby in the first place. Why else would my first five attempts at MOCing it have looked like crap? I was extremely inexperienced and ignorant of MOCing standards at the time. But enough about me. Back to new sets... @White Cat: I agree that 9494 doesn't really look all that bulky. I think some of the stuff they stuck under the wings (e. g. flick-fire missiles) is going to add some unnecessary 'lumpiness' to the set, though. But the picture is so preliminary at this point that one can't really be sure.

Lucrehulk, MTT, Subjugator, Providence...

Are you not aware that you are in the majority here? The point I was trying to make was why people were griping about the fact that The LEGO Group didn't substantially change the Almighty LEGO Star Wars Set, Perfect in All Its Ways, All Who Oppose Shall be Cast Into the Burning Pit of Best Locks.

Why are people complaining that a good set is not getting a substantial redesign? 4502/6212 has been around for over half the span of the license and it still sells well. It doesn't make sense for The LEGO Group to change the design (even if it is hideous) because kids love it and AFOLs love it! Some have even gone so far as to say "the LEGO designers did a great job getting the look of the ship right" and that it is "very well designed and very sleek". It would only make sense that The LEGO Group would retain such a popular design! What's the problem? Are there actually people on this forum who agree with me that the set is ugly? If so, why haven't you said so? I know this is absolutely the worst time to bitch about toys, but Orukaia just isn't making sense.

Yes, 10025. Probably a sculpture, like this. Off-topic: Zurg got a cape while Grievous didn't...

Ask johnyvgoode - he seems to know a thing or two about making lots of threads. It seems like most of your threads are of the hypothetical variety but don't seem to have enough relevance to spark interesting discussion. That is, they're not really things that can be argued for or against. Perhaps telling us just what kind of "very different forum" you normally post in would offer some insight...

So... does anyone else feel that the thing in the battle pack is a sad, puny attempt at an AV-7? (It's not unlike that pitifully scrawny IG-227 we got back in '08...)

In one of the Special Editions (not sure which) Sebastian Shaw's eyebrows were digitally removed.

Want an Artoo sweater?

We have got to follow up Oky's comic with a "nitpick" edition. Instead of 'Han Shot First', we need t-shirt slogans like 'Cover up Cloud City' and "Darth Vader's eyebrows". Oh, and "Artoo tastes good" is a must.

I do like that this new set makes a better effort to capture the shape, but the area around the boosters looks to be far too scrawny. That, combined with the fact that the thrusters look to be grossly oversized, makes this look too aerodynamic for the bucket-like Class-6.

I definitely agree with Brickdoctor here. 12+ sets are impressive but are hardly any more accurate than their 8-12 counterparts and should not be mistakenly thought of as such. I mean: In the end the limitations that The LEGO Group places on their designers seem to hit the sets hard as far as aesthetics go. Obviously if someone with the same level of skill went all out and weren't trying to sell a toy the result would be much more like this. Someone who wants a truly accurate X-wing need not settle for anything less than this: By the way, none of the X-wings in this post are actual studio models.

As far as The LEGO Group is concerned, 6212 is a decent X-wing. That's why the darn thing was available in stores for as long as it was.

So Anio saved the pictures... Was anyone else reminded of 8128 when they saw the new escape pod? They both have that elongated look to them.

Sadly, it looks like they are still those ugly 8L bars.

The fact that you're younger than most people here hardly gives us the right to treat this site like it's Facebook. Here is (at least in my opinion) what could be considered a "good" post:

So you choose to overlook: - slope bricks that give shape to the rear fuselage and do a much better (though still less than ideal) job of covering up the worm gear mechanism than the god-awful job you see on 4502 (though to be honest, anything is preferable to that sloppy Technic mess) - Non-printed greeble behind the droid socket (it's about time!) and Artoo put in sideways* - Slightly larger wingspan and engines that are more accurate and fleshed out, with different (possibly new?) pieces used for thrusters - Inverted bottom wings and more effectively integrated S-foil mechanism (though click hinges would have been preferable) - 3-wide nose that is noticeably shorter in height relative to the nose on 4502, also possibly being less studded - Roomier (and boxier) cockpit without a trench run screen and with SNOTed sides that are plates and tiles instead of wedge bricks (i. e. thinner "armor" ). - Flatter bottom Considering how long 6212 has been on the market a change this drastic is honestly quite surprising. Obviously we haven't seen the whole of the set, but it's much more different from 6212 than people here make it sound. *@StoutFiles: That isn't necessarily a bad thing; it means that the fuselage may be more dimensionally accurate (a LEGO astromech droid would be too bulky to actually fit in that space). It's weird how that area is only 4 studs wide, though - shouldn't be less than six at the thinnest. More pictures...

StoutFiles is right.