Fallenangel

Yes, the 1/11 length has already been pointed out, as well as the fact that the bridge towers on the two are exactly the same. The intended length of the Executor studio model was about 17.6km, which is roughly eleven times the intended length of the Imperial (about 1.6km).

That's what I was getting at. With something as relatively ordinary as a variety of clone trooper (and not even the somewhat more well-known 501st trooper) having arm and leg printing, it just loses its flair.

Seems like there have been an awful lot of "crazy thought" lately ( the Executor was retconned into Empire?!)

And DobbyClone, and Fallen, right? Anyway. on to the MOC... I can see some good things as well as some points that could be improved. The use of dark gray as a base color is great, and the wings appear to be a good size. 1.I would agree with Mr Man that the TIE cockpit could be done away with - it's just too clunky. The use of would be greatly preferred. SNOTing the cockpit to better approxmiate a sphere is also recommended, as seen on Robo Man's MOC. 2. What you've done with the wing pylons is good, but they make the fighter look a little too chubby. Using 33 slopes rather than 45 slope would help the look there, and replacing the Technic bricks with 2x2 bricks (or Technic wheels, or something of the sort) would help round out the pylons. Losing the large inverted slope pieces would help as well - in my opinion they don't look very good, nor are they accurate. 3. I see what you're trying to do with the wings, but it's a tad thick. Perhaps something like this? Also, some steering wheels for the central hubs would make for good greebling. Oh, and I'm sorry if this sounds too nitpicky, but... Anio's UCS demonstrates that 2x4 wing plates are closer to the actual angle. It just looks better to me.

Hmm...

The number of people that don't bother to check the first post is staggering.

I doubt you'll be able to get very far with either of those sets in the way of modification. The best thing to do would be to start from scratch - if not with real bricks, at least with a CAD program. Why? There are interracial relationships in Star Wars all the time; Off the top of my head I can remember human-Bothan relationships in the X-wing books as well as the fact that Jabba and Xizor are attracted to human females. Of course, the term 'official canon' is highly ambiguous...

Sorry for the double post, but... can anyone identify this ship? What about this?

Yes, we can see that. I wonder where all the people complaining about the gap in the middle went.

The third leg was Pepa Quin's idea. I thought the swivel dome might have been as well, but he cut the studs off the body piece instead of the ends of the dome piece as in Pepa's.

Depends how roughly you want it. A non-Star Wars fan probably wouldn't know the difference, but if a Star Wars fan happens to see it, it would be quite embarrassing for you. The same goes for the TIE. And for that matter, you can't convert a Theta into a Lambda; to assume so is a gross simplification. It would be like that guy who asked whether you could pass off a Venator as a Victory cruiser.

I realize I'm being really nerdy here, but... is this intended to be the Tyrant? If so, the rounded lump and rectangular indents on the bridge tower clearly identify it as an Imperial II, as do the presence of eight heavy turbolaser turrets (as opposed to Imperial Is, which have six). Unfortunately, that site uses canon dimensions as the basis for scaling, so... The 'canon' information supplied by West End Games tends to be completely off the mark, so it's not a reliable source when it comes to things like this. Frankly, I don't know how many tractor beam projectors there are, and since they are not evident from the studio model it's safe to assume that any number is fabricated. I do think, though, that the domed structures on the bridge are sensor arrays, because that's what they are on 'real' naval craft.

Who started the whole 'UCS=10XXX' thing anyway? (Other than S@H, that is.) Indeed. Back on topic, did anyone notice that the bridge on the Executor in 10221 and the bridge on the Imperial are exactly the same? I think that's great.

Oh, come on. A guy on a road could be anything. And there was no cap, so...

Night at the Museum.

Not to mention an incestuous rapist. But this is hardly decent.

You wouldn't expect any 'functions' in a display model outside of those that contribute to features on the 'real' ship (hence the rotating quad lasers on 10179, opening hatch on 7181, etc.), so as Aeroeza said play features in a set like this would just be unnecessary use of bricks. Also, remember why there is no cockpit in 10174. Now 10212 is the oddball since it did have something akin to a play feature (flip-open head), but I suppose we could just dismiss that as a way for the casual observer to appreciate the cockpit detail. Agreed. LEGO already makes S@H exclusive sets with great playability; that aspect doesn't need to spill over into AFOL-oriented sets. I guess this means that I have to change my mind about the minifigures; since they are collector's items to many AFOLs it in fact does make sense for LEGO to include them. Let's all try and remember what a UCS really is: EDIT: The Devastator WAS in Empire.

Assuming this is correct, the length looks to be right, it's just that some angles need fixing.

Citing the Essential Guide as a reliable source - hey, that's pretty funny. Here are some shots of the 277cm Executor studio miniature used in Empire and Jedi: Can you see the angle? (I know I can.) Agree, see pictures above.

Then it wouldn't be any different from a System set, which would make you wonder why, if LEGO wanted to include minifigures, they didn't just market it as one.

Put another way, rather than further improving the set to bump it up to a higher price point (or in the case of 6212, actually thinking up a better design) they throw in a couple minifigures and call it a day. Blame THE Clone Wars!

Sorry that it came across as harsh. Effective argumentation mandates denunciation of counterclaims (though you’re right in that I wasn’t very good at that). As far as I am concerned, LEGO sets are built to a certain price point, so every time you stick in a minifigure you lose the opportunity for a better build (especially with minifigures being as detailed as they are nowadays) . For example, if they had not included the entire Classic lineup with 6212 X-wing I’m sure the $50 price point would have allowed them to make that set look a lot better. An interior in a display model doesn’t really count as great use of pieces anyway. Kind of like why there’s no cockpit in 10174; no one’s going to rip apart a perfectly good model to show off some dinky playset interior. What’s more,in several cases the recent attention to minifigures almost seems to undermine attention to the constructed models themselves (something that is quite evident in 7965). For the record, I don’t buy UCS sets because, as someone who appreciates the studio miniatures over toys I wouldn’t be able to hold my head up around here if I spent $200+ on a very deformed rendition. (It’s not too obvious in this as far as I can see, but with sets like 10175 and 10129…) THIS!

Indeed. My worst fear about this is that LEGO will do a terrible job on the underside as always and the set will be a big letdown. Well, the Devastator did appear in Empire, but Vader wasn't on it, as he had begun using the Executor as his flagship long before the Battle of Hoth. I would presume they opted for something more similar to 10030 and 6211 simply because the angle between the top and bottom halves don't seem to match up with what you would typically see with a Technic hinge. In any case, the sheer size could mean that it, like 10030, could also be held together with magnets, which would make the inclusion of an interior difficult. I find your lack of innovation disturbing. There are very many different ways to construct an angled, triangular hull.

Really? Next thing you know someone's going to call it a Super-class star destroyer and say that it's only supposed to be 8km long. You're forgetting 10212, which has a head that flips open for access to the cockpit. I really hope they didn't stick any playset garbage into this. And the Executor is very densely greebled, so I don't think the detail is something that can be appreciated from this small picture. Blech, the amount of curvature on the Malevolence would make for an absolutely terrible brickbuilt rendition. We all know large curves don't translate well into LEGO.

On the contrary, the amount of greebling on the Executor model puts the 3-foot-long Devastator to shame. Considering how much greebling there is on the Executor's ventral surface (certainly more than the top) it would be pretty disappointing if they didn't include it. All that gives this the potential to be the most detailed UCS ever along with 10179.