Fallenangel

From what I've heard you can get most anything from Japanese vending machines. Apparently there's an urban myth that in one district they vend used underwear. Is it true?

It doesn't seem like it would support a hyperdrive though...

I would have to agree on this point, as I too felt that Aeroeza’s statement was not entirely agreeable as the primary market of The LEGO Group is not AFOLs, but kids (somebody once said that we only make up about 5% of their audience). Obviously what a kid would want in a set would differ from what an AFOL would want, so of course our opinions on these sets may not be valid. Take flick-fire missiles, for example – I know there are quite a few members here that dislike them (myself included), but some kid out there may have fun flicking them at his cat or something. However, I feel there is a need in your argument to differentiate between “mainstream” sets, which are kid-oriented, and other sets (such as the UCS or Architecture lines) which are more AFOL-oriented. Granted, it does seem like there isn’t as much communication between LEGO and AFOLs, but it’s there... 10221, as far as I can tell, is part of a line traditionally aimed at AFOLs. And a UCS Executor is something I've seen on AFOL wishlists for years - who's to say LEGO didn't take a hint? Now I don’t understand why you had to stick this paragraph in. If all we did was rave about the good points there would hardly be any discussion. Our standards would drop miserably. Besides, I think you’re overgeneralizing. We do not “[jump]” straight for the negative points” (at least, most of us don’t); we weigh the merits and demerits of any particular set. For example, in spite of the fact that I am not a big fan of 6212 I can say that the set itself has several good points such as the assortment of minifigures and the inclusion of a mix of both basic and Technic elements that allow more versatility in building. And personally I don’t feel there’s anything wrong with complaining – it’s part of any fanbase (the Prequels being only one obvious example). I think you may be contradicting yourself here. As I stated above, AFOL-oriented sets are only a small part of The LEGO Group (mostly they sell kids’ toys) so it’s obvious that AFOL satisfaction wouldn’t necessarily correlate with their success. One could almost say that the AFOL market is such a minority that The LEGO Group could afford to cut the entire UCS line if AFOLs aren’t interested in them and instead focus even more on their primary market (as LEGO Otaku suggested). There is certainly some market-driven economics taking place, but as is evident from what you had pointed out about The LEGO Group listening to AFOLs we don’t seem to be the market in question at all.

Be sure to double-think instead of doublethink, because the latter will get you in trouble with the moderators.

Thank you. But I think KielDaMan would prefer this thread be less about me and more about the fall 2011 lineup.

I was going to edit that point in later because I forgot when I posted it. Oops. If you have a problem with someone you can send them a PM by clicking on the magnifying glass next to their username and pressing the button on the bottom of the window that pops up.

Let's hope it will look better than their last attempt. EDIT: But 10144 wasn't aimed at AFOLs, so I really shouldn't be complaining, and who would actually display their 10144 like that anyway?

Alternatively: Changes the meaning of the sentence doesn't it now? Maybe more people need to read this.

I think we're talking about the interior, not the minifigures. And 10221 already has a UCS plaque.

And this is yet another reason why UCS sets and playsets should not mix.

The Legonater does:

Haven't we been saying all this time that UCS sets are aimed at AFOLs rather than kids? Actually, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

I guess not. I was going off of the assumption that minifigures and a structured, substantial interior would be far more expensive than a couple hundred greebling pieces. A minifigure costs more to produce than a 1x1 plate with clip, after all.

Precisely. I concur. Besides, making major modifications to a UCS set (such as rebuilding most of the underside) is laborious - at that point it's really more efficient to start from scratch. Now that you mention it, AndyC, how many MOCs have you posted here? According to your member profile, you've made zero topics...

Nah, stick to totalitarian dictatorship - that way we're all happy. Remember, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.* I had thought that minifigures and an interior would have increased the price: *This is not a premise to begin a political debate. While I consider Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four to be one of the most important books ever written, this does not actually reflect my political views.

Going off of the comments in this thread LEGO could have completely BSed the bottom and no one here would have cared aside from a select few. Actually, I'll bet most people here would actually have preferred a big playset over a UCS. A minority within a minority...

If I recall correctly, Ben was 56 during the events of Star Wars. Also remember that he is in part a parallel to Tolkien's Gandalf, who really was ancient.

You're missing the point. The minifigures and MINI Imperator don't really mean anything on their own. Because of the minifigures, LEGO put in an interior, which makes all the difference. Aeroeza put it best: Furthermore: I doubt it. 10188 didn't have an outer covering, which would probably affect how much you could put in there. Considering that the exterior detail and framework on this UCS alone would justify a price of several hundred dollars, I wouldn't look forward to much more than this.

Ways to hurt Jack Sparrow, eh? From this thread. Why, LEGO, why?

Simply put, I was INSPIRED.

I knew I had seen something like this before!

An interior in a display model is a waste of bricks unless you're talking about cockpit detail. If sets without an interior bore you, then clearly you would find playsets more appealing than UCS. As Aeroeza mentioned, those two shouldn't have to cross. Consider the amount of kitbashed detail on the bottom of the Executor as opposed to the top. Then tell me whether the former isn't significant. An MOC that's well done should look good from many angles, not just the top. This is true for UCS sets as well - just compare the underside of 10030 to that of 6211.

Eh, to each their own...

One can do what one can... Although I do like the modified A-wing concept, the engines could have been executed better. Perhaps you could attach them to the dark green structure rather than having them plopped onto some plates. Actually, now that I think about it, getting rid of the plates and rounding out the bottom with some sloped bricks might look good as well.

Not necessarily.