Fallenangel

About 8:00 on. A quick look at the source material reveals that the walls of the rancor's cell are, in fact, lined with rock formations, so to answer your question, yes. And in any case, ACPin has taken his fair share of creative liberty as far as accuracy goes, with results that are often stunning.

My mistake, I guess. I don't think I've ever heard anyone else really focus on the accuracy of this set, other than Millacol88, so I assumed you were talking about me. I had forgotten that 8089 and 6205 had undergone similar scrutiny. Sorry about that. Ah, glad you made that clear. An opinion's an opinion regardless of how many people think it. I don't think you're wrong, but a consensus view doesn't necessarily justify a particular stance. Besides, the whole accuracy thing is over and done with, as is the minifigure argument and the understanding that people like LEGO sets regardless of whether or not they actually look like what they're supposed to be, so I doubt I'll be raising hell over this anytime soon. There is nothing more left to say on my part other than my personal opinions on the aesthetics of this set, and something so subjective cannot be properly argued.

I'm sure the moderators will agree with me when I recommend that in the future you refrain from bumping old topics unless you have something substantial to contribute. On the other hand, here's a nice opportunity to talk about an old set. Now, I'm honestly not sold on the how this set looks (it's too large and clunky, and doesn't feel like a Delta-7 should), and the landing gear is flimsy, but like most of the older sets the build is very solid, very good for swooshing, and I guess the exclusive Obi-wan minifigure is nice for minifigure collectors.

While I'm not entirely happy with the way you've presented my own views of this set (everyone has an agenda I guess), this is a very good review, as it highlights the various pros and cons of this set while not being as cuddly as the other reviews were. Furthermore, it makes me feel a little better knowing that there's someone on Eurobricks who acknowledges in a reasonable way that this set has flaws rather than acting like anyone who's not kissing up to LEGO about this is some kind of freak, something that's reflected in others' comments on this set - they sound less like sheep and more like people. (Well, except for Haruhi-chan, but whatever.) KielDaMan, may I kindly ask that your stance on this be more tolerant of the opposite view? Although I am fully aware that I am one of maybe two or three people on this board that does not think this set is the greatest LEGO Star Wars set ever, that doesn't mean that my only reason for not liking this set is that I'm a spergy nitpicker who enjoys "constantly knocking into others for failing to achieve perfection and... [being] overtly negative about work which is not [mine]." I feel that Brickdoctor, while certainly having good intentions, may have slightly misrepresented my stance regarding the accuracy of a LEGO Star Wars anything, as I have long since moved away from bashing something solely based on how movie-accurate it is (though that's not to say you're justified in calling a toy "spot-on accurate") . Furthermore, even though I may have been somewhat unreasonable in presenting the argument that this set isn't good-looking, there's nothing wrong with someone having that opinion. As I do seem to be viewed as quite the nitpicker, I feel I should also point out that contrary to what Brickdoctor said, if my sources are correct, the six-stud length of the Star Wars engine piece is actually pretty close to what it should be relative to the rest of the craft at this scale (taking the size restrictions posed by studs into account). In other words, kudos to LEGO, because they got it right. And in my opinion, the hexagon looks better too.

Not to mention that a midi-scaled Executor would be about 2.67m long. According to Anio 10221 is around half that size. This reminds me the MIDI-scaled MOCs I made some time back, though they didn't turn out very good... Don't even bother asking what they're supposed to be. I guess MINI just isn't my thing.

I know, right? While you’re certainly entitled to your own opinion, I think that what sets UCS and UCS-esque sets apart from System and other non-UCS sets, other than the label, is the noticeably higher quality of the design. Perhaps this is what Aeroeza may have meant in referring to the “prestige of the label”. As an example, take one of the very first UCS sets, 7191 X-wing, and compare it to the current rendition, 6212. The wing-opening mechanism on the former is more complex than what you would expect in your average brickbuilt LEGO set; what’s more, the set is designed such that the entire Technic mess is concealed within a clean white hull with some nice greebling to top it off. There was obviously a little extra work put into making the set functional as well as aesthetically pleasing. On the contrary, the same feature on the latter could have been far better. The design is generally simpler and not as well thought-out, consisting of a rotating T-shaped strut that simply pushes the wings into position rather than having them open of their own accord, and as System sets usually include Technic more for functionality than for aesthetics, there is little attempt to cover up the exposed Technic, and the end result is what I can only describe as (to quote FBTB’s dWhisper) “a representation of what it would be if our LEGO bins could vomit”. Of course, the gaps and holes don’t matter as much in a System set because the target audience wouldn’t care. However, as an AFOL who would like an LEGO X-wing that looks good, I feel that 6212 is of a lower quality in this respect than 7191 (regardless of whether or not I am part of the intended market). I don’t feel there’s anything wrong with Aeroeza being passionate about this issue, so long as he remembers to respect others’ opinions (and he does). And Ouija boards are also marketed to children, are they not? That I can. And because I can, I can say that while accuracy doesn’t seem to be the point of a UCS set, The LEGO Group certainly does make a considerable effort toward having it be one of the selling points. Again, this relates back to the “prestige of the label”. Brickdoctor brings up a good point here; if either aesthetic appeal or “accuracy” in a UCS set are compromised for the sake of including a play feature, that juniorizes the set, making it less aesthetically pleasing and thus less distinct from a child-oriented set, which in turn may be less appealing to a UCS fan used to the slightly higher caliber that these sets typically offer (as Aeroeza appears to be). What? They left out the original 1:28 UCS sets!

Not that you're wrong, but I thought it looked nice. The detailing adds a steampunk feel to the MOC, as does the gold coloring.

Now before you ask why LEGO costs more in your country again

I guess it depends, then, on how much "LEGO-ness" you want in an MOC. Personally I feel that straying from the restrictions The LEGO Group imposes on set design can make for a better MOC (e. g. LEGO would never market something like this), but on the other hand, I suppose it could pose more of a challenge to stay within LEGO regulations and still make a great model (this comes to mind). When I brought up AFOL MOCs I guess the point I was trying to make was that we all have different conventions for MOCs; e. g. in some AFOL circles things like tiling over your model and filling in large gaps are a given (when I made the statement I was unaware that a 'LEGO Master Builder' is actually used to describe a type of LEGO employee - my mistake). That being said, I do agree with mikey on this: It does say it's a multi-year program, but it doesn't specify how many years it encompasses. Perhaps the program is intended to last within the normal time frame for set production? As Aanchir mentioned, it is aimed at kids, so I would expect some sort of 'graduation' within a few years, with far less levels than 10.

Some time back, I remember that someone, upon seeing , had speculated on what Order 67 might have been, and someone else joked that it would be for a clone to make Palpatine a sandwich.

I concur on this point, though I can't help but put forth the counterargument that simply "knowing" rather than trying to "understand" something relatively frivolous, whether it's American Idol or LEGO MOCs, could possibly be conceived by some as less engrossed and therefore closer to whatever is defined as a social norm. It's all relative if you ask me. Many people may think Anime otakus, doll collectors, and AFOLs are weirdos, but many of these are the same people who fuss over Facebook statuses, profile pictures, and Charlie Sheen. Come on, Miss Conventional, nothing you are into could possibly be perceived as any more "normal" to me or anyone else than what I am into to you or your definition of the general public.

Huh, I guess I've made myself my own example. I guess the point I want to make here is, As for Mr Man's X-wing, the point I wanted to make with that thread was the fact that when somebody says something different people will interpret it differently (this is irrelevant to the fact that I was in the minority there).

Sorry. It's just that certain members of this forum can be ever so slightly overreactive when someone could possibly be being assertive. Now, I'm not saying this justifies my actions, and I am aware that Fellows act as moderators here, but Mr Man is hardly someone to be corrective about. I mean, come on, he made a hell of a great X-wing (though my reaction could admittedly have been more reserved ). The funniest thing about that MOC is that the wingtip laser cannons are actually kind of the right length - they extend past the canopy, reaching to somewhere around the proton torpedo launch tubes (that is, where they would be located if this were a 'real' X-wing).

As someone used to AFOL MOCs I find the idea of The LEGO Group setting up some sort of 'Master Building Academy' rather humorous. The various 'kits' don't really strike me as any more advanced than what you get in a typical Creator set and the conventions of most AFOL MOCs I've seen (fewer studs and gaps, cleaner surfaces, etc) just aren't there. Hey, kids, want to learn how to make better MOCs? Go to [recognized AFOL MOCer's name here]'s brickshelf/Flickr/MOCpages and study his/her designs. It's a lot cheaper than $100 and doesn't include 'Experience Points' or 'Skill Tests', just a lot of fun building. \\ :laugh: Of course, I could be wrong and kids would be able to make something that looks like Reto made it by the end of the program. But I don't see anyone else taking this seriously, so... eh. Am I going to buy this? Well, I'm not too much for minifigures, so I'll pass...

Chill, Fellows, Mr Man didn't mean any harm. Besides, heresy can be beneficial - remember Hegel's dialectic. I was waiting for someone to say that. Eta-2s in The Clone Wars? Where? So long as this discussion continues, shouldn't it be here?

Answered. Perhaps we should include this in the first post.

Muunilinst, Fordo, V-19s, Ginivex, Asajj Ventress, Grievous, Eta-2s, Providence carriers, Octuptarra Tri-droids, Battle of Coruscant, Outer Rim Sieges, Nelvaanians? Anyway, we should stop before KielDaMan and brickartist show up.

So how is this Star Wars again?

Um... come on guy, I already let it go.

The horror! The horror! The engines on the Y-wing in the Advent calendar kind of reminds me of nnenn's MINI.

Yes, the MOC in his signature was Curtis Black's. He did make a more dimensionally accurate Providence in LDD, though I don't think he actually built it.

Oh right, hence the Juggernaut and AT-AP. At the very least, we know that the models themselves will look great.

Now this is one interested fan! Unfortunately, I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to point out with the doorways. I can say, though, that most of the Executor's bridge was a matte painting. I think that what you're trying to say is that the center of the doorway lines up with the central corridor in the bounty hunter scene while in the last scene from Empire it's off to one side. I don't quite think that's the case, though; if you look at the first picture you used as reference it's evident that Vader is standing well off to one side of the central corridor, just over the edge of the portside crew pit.

I was going to address that as well. Given that psiaki's X-wing runs circles around this Miniland model in terms of accuracy (I'm an amateur compared to this guy) one wouldn't necessarily have to make it that big. I guess I share Anio's opinions on this. On the other hand, there's this: I wish I had enough parts or LDD skills to build something that big...

No need to be a conformist!* So how is it an MTT again? *As long as you're civil...