Fallenangel

I don't feel that a release of a unique vehicle in a new scale (we haven't had a MINI Plug-F Mammoth since 2003) at an affordable price including a minifigure that was only available in one large, pricey set merits a complaint. Certain rehashes such as this one might seem restrictive, pointless, and increasingly minifigure-centered, but they set new standards and keep the license going, and at the end of the day, I'd rather see twenty new T-47s than no Star Wars sets at all. EDIT: What redundancy manifests itself in only two years!

We already have a thread for this.

If Comrade Brickdoctor says it, it must be right. In that case... 8089: 7964: 8089 has better shaping, but 7964 is solid and swooshable. My vote goes to the latter.

The Windu punch is back! Does anyone know the name of the ship in the far right of the screen at 1:18? I'm not sure whether it's a new concept or an existing one. I really think they overdid Grievous' whole 'four arms' concept - in the original Clone Wars series he showed impressive lightsaber skills even with two arms and didn't reveal the second pair until the very end when it was absolutely necessary. I was under the impression that Filoni, having good knowledge of the Expanded Universe, was on the side of the fans and tried to leave the tampering of the canon to a minimum. Ah, and in response to Oky's recent post in the LEGO Star Wars forum... I'm honestly wondering why the scriptwriters are so careful about that one particular tidbit (Anakin meeting Grievous) when they've more or less gone overboard with everything else regarding the Kalee general.

I think this question would most appropriately belong here.

Speaking of stands, how do you plan to display this set? It would be interesting to see it in a forced-perspective shot with 8099 (in accordance with the film, the Tantive IV model would be massive in comparison to the Devastator ).

Back on the old FBTB forums, there were a series of small contests in which members were asked to provide humorous captions for a given image. That was where I got this idea... * "Now that I have my coffee I'm ready to watch radar!" Alternately: "Your taste buds can't repel flavor of this magnitude!" I presume most people here will recognize these two lines... *Lumix's pic

All in all, a wonderful review of a great set! This is certainly one that The LEGO Group put commendable effort into, and you have done a thorough job of highlighting its various pros and cons. I have a feeling you will make a great Reviewers' Academy teacher and set the bar even higher for future reviews. The set looks quite nice with its wonderful greebling and dark red trim. I think that the office, while not exactly good-looking, is fairly well done with its healthy supply of printed parts (always useful when building pretty much anything space-themed). You don't even notice how off the whole thing is until you compare it to the original source material! Which reminds me - the small stand with the wheels you mentioned is an accurate representation of what is there - it serves as a cap for the hole while the model is held up via the docking pods. I'm glad they didn't opt for the 'Essential Guide' version and stick another sensor array there! That terrible gap on the bottom is atrocious, though - definitely one of the first places to mod if I ever decide to get this.

It's MOCs like this that explain why many AFOLs would be dissatisfied with sets... I'm building an X-wing in LDD and the wings alone are around 400 pieces.

Either it's just me or this kind of thing has been happening more often lately.

I've just recently discovered this amazing classic...

Not to mention that it would give The LEGO Group an excuse to charge us more. Things like giving us the turntables in two parts instead of one was a good decision in my opinion.

Well, from the looks of his signature...*hint hint*

Well, there was also 7163...

The first panel is hilarious, Oky! I think you definitely need to follow this up with another bad minifigure joke - I'm sure we all remember Gasgano... The Phantom Menace.* :roflmao: *No flame wars, please! =)

Depending on how accurate or detailed you like your ships, I think utilizing a solid black canopy could prove to be less effective than a no-glass canopy or even a SPUD. Among other things, the cockpit detail that would normally be visible in a studio model with a clear canopy would be lost (though that's not to say it isn't a good decision).

I was just looking for that MOC. Some wonderful studs-up work there (though those perfectly hexagonal wing panels are unacceptable ).

First of all, Juladrius, that nuclear waste scene looks fantastic! That's a very clever use of the cannon, and the green skeleton to the left of the minifigure is a nice touch. You're quite the quality MOCer. If you were to have some smoke coming out of those cannons, it would be even better. @Siegfried: Although you're right about the orientation of the canopy, there is a shot in the film when Vader is looking out at Luke's X-wing where the canopy actually does rest on a flat edge. ILM fudged there, I guess. With Star Wars MOCs (or any MOcs for that matter) in which it would be unnecessarily difficult or aesthetically unpleasing to have 'glass' in a canopy, I don't think I would really mind if the canopy were 'open'. The canopies in many of the studio models have real glass but leave the pilots looking fully visible (the Fine Molds TIE/ln even gives you the option of leaving the glass off), so there are instances in which you could skimp on the glass but still maintain resemblance to the source material: On the other hand, when it is difficult for the concept to be recognizable without 'glass' (as in the case of the Slave I or RZ-1) and brickbuilt solutions just won't do, one generally finds it more convenient to use a canopy piece, or even a SPUD: That being said, if I were to attempt an RZ-1 or an N-1, I would experiment with varous brickbuilt solutions before using the generic canopy piece. I think Julandrius brings up a good point in wanting to use and develop new techniques - they often end up becoming something far better than the conventional method (the canopy construction on roguebantha's X-wing comes to mind). And for the record, I think using droid arms and flagpoles as a TIE canopy solution at the UCS scale would look great, if executed properly. As nice as all of Walter Kovacs' TIEs look, a more innovative approach would certainly be welcomed.

I think they're pneumatic T pieces.

We've all seen this piece before: As well as this piece: I've seen relatively few TIE MOCs that don't utilize one of these two parts. Which brings me to the subject of parts that are molded and/or printed for a single purpose, or which are frequently utilized among less experienced builders as a conventional solution, which I suppose would fall into the category of SPUDs (according to our EB Glossary, 'Special/Single Piece/Purpose Ugly/Useless/unLegoish Designs/Decoratives'). Obviously there are a few other parts in the Star Wars theme that fit this description (the Y-wing canopy comes to mind). So my question is, would you use SPUDs when designing or building an MOC, and why? I suppose this kind of question is probably more of a case-by-case thing, but I think it could also be like a specific building style. For example, perhaps someone who prefers MOCs that look like official sets would opt for SPUDs more often, while those wishing to deviate more from the set look would use a more unorthodox solution.

I'm pretty sure I've seen another thread like this. Give me a minute... EDIT: And apparently I was wrong. In that case, I'll throw in my two cents. If someone is more accustomed to MLCad I can't help but think they would find LDD rather simplified - all attachments are via drag-and-drop, and only if they're legal at that, meaning commonly used techniques such as wedging plates between studs and studs into pin receptacles are impossible. On top of that - and please don't think I'm bashing the program here, I like it and use it - LDD tends to remove certain elements during parts updates, meaning that important portions of any saved MOCs you have may be missing after a recent update. Which reminds me - MLCad has a larger parts inventory, including some very unique or obscure elements (printed tile from 4487, anyone?) Of course, LDraw parts updates make even less sense than the LDD updates because they consist mainly of adding more of said obscure pieces. And the wider versatility in parts usage means you could accidently have parts melding into each other or floating during a build and not realize it (which leads to problems down the road).

Agreed. Personally I think 7255 was a rather <insert that tiresome argument> set that had the potential to be far better, and a remake after 6 years would do the vehicle justice.

Which is why we're getting one next year...

There are various negative points, but one particular addition I found bothersome was the way they added in so many more vehicles and scenery into various scenes that really should have been more focused on the characters (the obvious example being Ben's Jedi mind trick sequence in Mos Eisley). As simonjedi mentioned, they don't really add much to the storytelling element and ultimately clutters up the screen. As fitting as starship wreckage and Jawa humor may have seemed to Lucas when he was remaking these films, they don't really need to be there. The same goes for all the huge windows they put into Cloud City and dancing CGI aliens.