Aeroeza

The UCS label defines everything about these sets otherwise what the hell have I been collecting throughout these years! 7181, 7191, 10019, 10026, 10030, 10129, 10134, 10143, 10174, 10175, 10179, 10212 and 10215 are all a consistent collection of vehicles with the UCS sticker that are built for display purposes only and have no real play features to speak of. 7194, 10018 and 10186, although they don't sport the classic vehicle UCS sticker, remain sculptural in nature, also lack play features and consequently fit quite easily into the collection as display pieces in their own right. These are all products which were generally large and highly detailed with some attempt (often successful) at sculptural accuracy regardless of varying scales, subject matter and whether-or-not 'Ultimate Collectors Series' was printed on the box. 'UCS' has quite a clear definition and as a result of this definition the sets are often critiqued for their 'pretense' to accuracy by collectors who wish they were more so. Consequently the label has come to mean something to AFOL such as myself. Heck! there's a whole bunch of MOCers out there who dedicate an amazing amount of time and talent to creating and modifying UCS builds so I'm pretty sure the label means quite a lot to people. It would be nice for me to feel the same way but unfortunately I have no interest in System sets and minifigures (apart from minifig scaled sets like 10179 and 10212). Lets face it 10221 looks awesome but if the 'sculptural integrity' of this UCS set is somewhat compromised by the inclusion of play features then it really does change the prestige of the label for me. It simply becomes a glorified playset and if all future UCS sets are like this then my Star Wars collection has probably come to an end and I can look forward to building more 'Landmark' releases. Now obviously most of our posting here is jumping the gun, afterall we have yet to see detailed images of the set, but this is the 'Pictures & Rumors' forum afterall and so we should feel obligated to wax lyrical and discuss some Lego stuff based on very little. My simple point is this. Why make a UCS playset at all? Why not just release it like 10188 or 10198 as an exclusive or funky limited edition piece i.e. a big, spectacular playset without the UCS badge. It would sell just as well and keep the UCS line consistent even if we never see another UCS vehicle or sculpture again.... EDIT: ...that's me!

I guess I shouldn't have become a passionate collector in the first place then! Could someone please direct me to the 'not so passionate AFOL forum'?

This advent calender looks perfect for kids and the specialist collector. Slave 1 and the Radiant look particularly good (although it's lacking any republic red). All fussing aside my nephew will love it!. Good one Lego. But, as for this little bombshell... 10221 looked to be a set to purchase for myself in 2011. However I can personally CONFIRM without any hint of denial from an Aeroeza employee (i.e. me) that if 10221 is a playset (with a UCS sticker) then my own 'specialized' collecting of Star Wars Lego sets could well be over (apart from the odd Midi but then there isn't one of those this year anyway). This is sad for me but I guess its been a good decade long run. Don't get me wrong, I'm happy for there to be big sets with play features for AFOL who collect them and of course for their kids but its the lack of brand consistency with this UCS product which is losing me. Put simply a playset has no place in a traditional UCS collection! Why give it a UCS sticker when (for all rumored appearances) it isn't a UCS? Just release it like 10188 or 10198 without the sticker and stop messing with the heads of UCS affectionardos!!! Rant mode on... Perhaps, to inject more consistent inconsistency across all Lego themes, we could suggest to TLC the need for them to include Minifigures and play features with their Architecture range. That consequently could sell better as well! Just imagine hot dog stands and sellers for the Guggenheim, bungie jumping mini figs for the Seattle Space Needle (with system scaled ambulance of course) and a 'King Kong' for the Empire State Building (actually that's not a bad idea) complete with a bi-plane and pilot. The Landmarks range deserves similar abuse and I've got some great ideas for the themes dumbing down and repackaging but I'm too demoralized by Cavegods post to write anything more for now... Rant mode off!

Maybe TLC can't afford their own inflated prices with AFOL oriented sets nowadays?

I can't believe I'm saying this but the idea of a 'super' UCS set just scares the bejeezus outta me! I need room in the house to sleep after all... Thanks CopMike, these images are great!

May the accurate 'n' sided polygon be with you (in that TRU limited edition kinda way)!

Actually the main part of the fuselage has a seven sided cross section (only the nose has six)! But what's an irregular-sided symmetrical heptagon between friends?

Fantastic news! About time we got some real Lego action downunder!

Awesome! Thanks. Now my dinner guests are really in trouble... As far as this kind of conjecture is concerned I've only ever paid attention to what's scripted in the first three films as so called 'canon'. I'm only aware of one of the Star Destroyers in ESB being named at all (Avenger). Are the other names from the ESB novel or EU? 'Cause if this thread ends up being a discussion about that sort of thing then I'm not your man... Having got that off my chest then I think you've made a good point about theforce.net. Given also that the Tantive IV model was upgraded for scenes as multiple blockade runners in ROTJ then it is a bit of a stretch of the imagination to think that said 'christened' ship also attacked the Death Star II especially as it presumably remained Imperial property after its capture in episode IV.

That would save me drawing a picture!!! Opps! Topic...

Yep! I reckon so. I think the inclusion of the ISD really hammers the scale of the SSD home. Its great thing when you think about it! Imagine the dinner parties you could host where you'd place 10019, 10030, 10221 and 10143 on display all at once and educate trapped and hungry guests on their scale differences i.e. 'This my friend is the 'big version' of the Rebel Blockade Runner, there is its 'mini' hiding under that big Star Destroyer, whose own mini representative (with four others of course just to complete the fleet) is next to that huge model of the Super-duper Star Destroyer, whose mini is actually dangling off the side of that mammoth half completed Death Star (please don't touch that without first washing your hands)! And how large is a human being in relation to that Blockade Runner I hear you ask? Well let me draw you a picture and yes there will be a test on this before you leave...' Can't wait!

... and to avoid long posts which unnecessarily debate the matter I'd like to point people to what Sweeden and KimT surmised about the murkiness of it all in May of 2010. Shop@Home has renamed its 'UCS' section as 'Exclusives'. Which would seem to suggest that they realized calling everything UCS was messing with our heads!!! Some TLC from TLC after all! (Sorry but that pun was a long time coming...)

You've made some fair points but I feel your position maybe a bit of a slippery slope or as they say 'the thin edge of the wedge'... The UCS range to date has been aimed at AFOL who enjoy model making, so their purpose is not simply 'play' but form, aesthetics, detail and a level of accuracy achieved within the confines and choices made available with bricks supplied by TLC. Its sculpture pure and simple! If you throw in little play scenes then the purpose of the set changes, becoming more of a toy than a rendition of the studio model meant only for display. An analogy might be going to your favorite up market restaurant only to find they're serving fast food (Hey, it looked great on the outside but gave me heart disease anyway)! No more sushi for you, only KFC!!! On a less emotive level its just a waste of bricks. If a UCS is meant only to be a sculptural piece then utilizing bricks for any other purpose is compromising detail elsewhere on the build and adding to the cost unnecessarily. So keep playability, interiors and figures for system scale vehicles and playsets or get rid of the UCS label altogether. Don't mash the two together unnecessarily....

Thanks FA, they're actually some of the shots I was talking about on my hard drive. I've a few more which show the profile in grand detail but I think you saved me the trouble of uploading those.... We could all start donating a trillion bricks if you like!

Naahh! That angle which can be clearly seen at the rear follows all the way through to the front, just like a regular Star Destroyer. The underside 'cityscape' simply interrupts it and gives the illusion that its flatter. This image may help convey what I mean. I've also a heap of shots of the studio model on my hard drive which confirm it. Heaven knows how this UCS model conveys that angle on the underside....

Me thinks you sunk your own observations with that side profile! Oops! Caught me out...

10221 looks like it will have a September 2011 release date (according to mrfootball at FBTB). Bring on more photos please Lego so as we can end this speculative talk and begin grumbling about it in a more informed manner!

Yeah, if you picked up one produced in late 2004 to early 2005 then you'd have had a mix of both colours. Mine came with 5 light bley technic gear racks. ZO6's excellent review of 10030 here on Eurobricks also notes this brief production phase of the set.

You're a bit late in coming to the party with these observations but welcome on board regardless. Cavegod noticed this detail a few pages back and the discussion since then has centered on whether this set is a UCS or large exclusive system/playset. The inclusion of figures has thrown a few UCS fans such as myself into confusion especially as the picture clearly has a UCS sticker. A detailed interior on a UCS set like this would be a very disappointing trend to see emerging in these kinds of models. I could understand it if it was like 10198 (UCS outside detailing, cute interior with minifigs but no UCS sticker i.e. playset exclusive) but not on what has come to be seen as traditional UCS sets like 10019, 10030, 10129, 10134 etc. It would really confuse the UCS badge and kinda kill it altogether as a cohesive (albeit differently scaled) collection of models!

You only took three photos!?! You tease! Thanks for sharing!

Ye gads! There he is! You're completely right Stoutfiles! Time for me to get my Gen X eyes checked. I wonder if they used the same actor? Regardless, its definitely Dengar's costume and weaponry... Thanks Lasse! I think your analysis of the one image available to us is as comprehensive as its going to get. I always admired how your MOC had only one brick high sides and managed to capture the profile of the studio model so accurately. Lego's UCS certainly hasn't done this. Hopefully its only because of stability concerns associated with releasing a commercial product and not because they wanted to create 'head room' for a bounty hunter play scene. I can live with 'stability concerns' sacrificing some accuracy in official sets but not a hybrid UCS/system set. That 'flat belly' also has me really worried.... I agree! I'm happy to have exclusive minifigs thrown in to add to the collectability of a traditional UCS set (although I wouldn't miss them if they weren't there). Having the whole gang with the set would have been nice. Hey! You do regulate this forum! Surely you've noticed at least some detachment from reality with the denizens of this place?

I'm not so sure about about this statement. I can't say that I've ever noticed Dengar in any scene outside of his briefing in 'Empire'. In fact the only times you get a hint of costumes or characters associated with these bounty hunters from the ESB (apart from Boba) outside the 'briefing scene' is a flight suit worn by an extra in the canteena (which looks similar to Bossk's) and parts of an IG88 mold resting next to a furnace when some Uganaughts play piggy in the middle with Threepio's head. I really don't think Dengar ever made it into ROTJ... Anio estimated it was about 120 centimeters and the 'four foot' figure does seem to be the general consensus.

You're so right! People who like to build very large Lego sets (and can afford them) are very, very selfish. They should always consider downtrodden and monetarily oppressed Lego fanatics and therefore never indulge in such guilty, indulgent pleasures... BTW Don't even think about coming between me and an 8000 piece AT AT!

Instructions!!! I'm flabbergasted by your generosity! This is a stand out MOC done by a stand up guy! Thank you Lars.

Lasse's has a studs up lower hull also and from this similar angle also looks somewhat flat (although it isn't). But then perhaps I'm grasping at straws here and this will be some weird set with a UCS sticker and a playground for an interior. If the lower hull is flat then I'd have a hard time calling this Executor anything other than a glorified system set....