Aeroeza

Of course! Sorry. I see what you mean now! I guess I'm happy to lug the vehicles and statuettes together but I simply can't conceive of any playsets as a part of that equation. And just to throw my own curve ball into the ring I'm not adverse to adding a set like the Malevolence from the 'Quest for R2' computer game into my idea of UCS. It isn't far off 10026, has it's own stand and more pieces than 7181 and 10215 (it also looks great parked beside 10186). Suffice to say regardless of what Lego has 'confirmed' with their promotional poster we AFOL have our own ideas about what constitutes our collections. Stubborn though we are this doesn't make us 'right' merely passionate about our own concepts of the brand name. As already noted... Lyichir you've thrown your hat into the ring with your own understanding of UCS... Your point of view is as much a leap of if faith as those collectors who feel the brand name suggests 'exclusivity'! Probably more so given we haven't seen any remakes to date. But I guess we've all assumed a lot about what a UCS collection was supposed to entail anyway... Well said and well worth quoting! I like how you too see these sets as chronicling specific periods in TLG's history. Mind you I'm a little nervous about the rest. I do know that as a collector myself I'd be very disappointed by another Tie Interceptor, Star Destroyer etc. I'm no Lego speculator but I like to think my collection has a high market value regardless of the personal stake I place on it. This collection isn't a 'rational' one, it won't make me rich, it's (again) personal and brings me great pleasure to own and I simply can't justify it beyond that! As for the after market well my old 70's and 80's Star Wars Kenner toys aren't worth anywhere near as much as they used to be because of re-releases and re-makes since the 90's. I think Lego knows this and places its own 'value' on my good faith as a result which no doubt reflects many of the customers who also invest in this range. After all it is a prestige product that their marketing slogan promotes (even if it includes playsets) and I think it unlikely they'll bite the irrational hand which feeds them. Besides they've got plenty of models and sculptures left to explore! Remember, the AFOL market isn't large (10% or so) and probably can't absorb both remakes and new 'traditional' UCS' in any given year. The Brickset post StoutFiles found even suggests (between the lines) that demand for these sets would be pretty slim, despite only talking about re-releases. Basically you just can't escape the fact that playsets always sell better (Lego is really for kids after all) and that minifigures threaten to take over the world! Most traditional UCS' don't have either of these winning qualities so the fact they are limited to just one or two releases a year (and on one occasion in 2009 none at all) is no surprise... We're probably lucky to get them at all! You could also liken some of these models to concept cars! After all they promote the creativity of their designers and the novelty of a product itself rather than just reflecting a quest for pure profit! (I'm imagining here of course that they could make money regardless by catering just for children or churning out more minifigs rather than make UCS' like 10179). Why stifle a companies self expression and threaten the chance for something new by wanting them to release a set which has nothing much to add to the overall chronicles of TLG? Surely it's our duty instead as AFOLs to follow their lead, embrace the brick and build on, rather than revisit, what's gone before?

Congratulations! What a real stunner. The lights look fantastic and the old grey works. I'm looking forward to a few more shots though...

It does say 'UCS' on Yoda's box art so that's kinda, well indisputable! Although your distinction, 'statuettes', sounds most collectable...

Yes, it's been fun! Thank you. Oh no! It's the old 'what the hell is a UCS collection anyway' conversation! Maybe I don't need to summarize the following for many of you but for the sake of clarity... I'd say most AFOL consider UCS models to be the 'sculpture sets' and those with name plates. Mind you only some of these sets have 'Ultimate Collector's Series' on their boxes but the slogan can also appear in the product description instead. A few have no such UCS 'badge' but their name plates and 'build theme' obviously tie them in with the rest of the collection. Besides MOCS of UCS builds within our community aren't in anyway 'system' related or abundant with play features so basically the people have spoken with their bricks! Clearly we primarily perceive them as adult oriented 'faithful models' or 'artistic sculptures' akin to the 'Landmarks' theme. They represent an opportunity for Lego to show off what's possible with their product while appealing to particular consumers rather than the usual target group for system sets (however creative and clever they are, large or small or limited in release). Most members posting here must be assuming the same given our discussion has focused on models such as the X-Wing, Tie Interceptor & Star Destroyer. To many of faithful collectors, MOCers and admirers out there this series is limited to, shall I say, the 'traditional' UCS releases such as... 7181, 7191, 7194, 10018, 10019, 10026 (despite the size), 10030, 10129, 10134, 10143, 10174, 10175, 10179, 10186, 10212, 10215, 10221 (despite the bridge), 10225 and hopefully 10227 (despite Cavegod's hints that it will have power functions- what a stirrer! ). ... as opposed to large playsets or unique builds like 10123, 10131, 10144, 10178, 10188, 10195 and 10198- these are the confusing 'Exclusive' releases or the rest of the 10,000's range. KimT avoided any controversy by lumping 'UCS' and 10,000's together in our Star Wars Review Index but some members have assumed this means they are one and the same thing. Dare I say that to the average collector of UCS sets they aren't! So why the mess in the first place? To the best of my knowledge confusion as to what a UCS model was didn't set in until Shop@home started advertising what had otherwise been referred to as 'exclusives' on its website's UCS page some years ago. None of these exclusives make mention of being UCS' in their product description or box art and obviously lack any unifying characteristics with traditional UCS sets other than also being Star Wars themed. I didn't start paying attention to Shop@home until 2008 so I can't confirm when all this began (possibly in 2004 with 10131, the Tie Collection- even though Lego's press release had referred to it as a "SHOP at HOME exclusive"). At the time I'd already established an idea of what a UCS model was from other sources like Brickset, Bricklink and, well, all the other collectors out there!!! Since then Shop@home's UCS page has been dropped in favor of an 'Exclusives' category so the whole saga seemed like an open and shut case of web site managerial decisions rather than any major change in brand name identity for the theme... BUT! Back in June 2006 there was a Star Wars.com poll to establish a future UCS set for 2007. The winner was 10178 (the Motorized Walking AT-AT)- a set which many of us still call an exclusive! ...and then! This poster in 2010. Obviously Lego's marketing department has no problem mentioning 'ultimate' with 10123, 10131, 10144, 10188, 10195 and 10198 alongside many of the other traditional UCS sets. In fact all of the 'exclusives' make it onto the 10th anniversary UCS poster art. There you go! For at least the last six years UCS has meant a broader product concept to Lego than some of its customers have cared to accept (including myself) and AFOL online communities have promoted this fine piece of self-deception rather effectively. So Brickadeer, Mr. Man you're both right! Brickadeer's just more in line with TLG's ideas and Mr. Man's got the people's vote (and mine 'cause I'm all for self-delusion)!

Dude you've been a great sport! You've done the whole nine yards and stayed up for the count! If more members cared half as much as you have about their posts then we'd probably be making lot's of dosh in the publishing business!!! Don't forget I asked if the 'phrase' had anything much to do with the definition of any individual words within it. A euphemism substitutes taboo words and subjects in language and as such say more about us as a community than they do about any particular word used in their expression. As for 'War is peace', don't focus on the individual words, focus on the message. It's yet another slogan who's actualization as a political instrument converts society into a sick, twisted and controlled moral wasteland. My overall point was that... I'm not suggesting UCS is 'taboo' or even a 'political stratagem for dis-empowering the masses' but an understanding of its use as a marketing slogan goes a long in allowing us to appreciate why we each perceive and invest in it differently. Accepting that means we can move past the lost causes of absolute definition, illusive meaning and contorted logic in an informed manner by appreciating the significance of the UCS brand name and instead focus on other aspects of Lyichir's topic i.e. Is it a good idea for Lego to redesign old UCS' and how would the fandom feel about it? Besides, definition and explanation are both the handmaidens of knowledge!!! You refer to an absolute/concrete/knowable definition of natural phenomenon verses the relative/emotional/irrational/poetic understanding of the same thing and liken it to an explicit definition of 'UCS' verses our individual emotive and therefore arguable position to that definition? I like it! Let's explore... The Sun is 'a thing' we can observe, empirically test hypotheses on and form theories from which we further enhance our understanding of the universe. 'UCS' is a slogan that promotes a collection of plastic brick models designed to appeal to fans of an old Sci-Fi film saga. Well, I'm all for applying scientific methodology and empirical evidence for understanding the world around us but we are after all just talking about a marketing slogan made up by some exec over a business lunch! But seriously, the problem with the metaphor is that 'UCS' is just pure human invention, culturally specific and rather pliable when compared to 4.5 billion years of hot gases and generations of our best scientific minds analyzing them. So one is somewhat more absolute in character than the other... However the metaphor does suggest that applying empirical evidence to Lyichir's topic would be rather useful... The most likely 'evidence' that can help us understand what UCS is beyond being an exciting marketing slogan are the models in the collection it promotes. i.e. what is the product! Knowing the product helps us understand the market and understanding the market helps us make informed predictions about what manner of UCS models Lego could release next... ... and given the evidence, is it likely we'll ever see a re-designed UCS model released in the future? Furthermore does the 'nature' of the collection itself ever make a re-release or re-design a 'good idea' anyway?

Mate, I'm not 'disregarding the meaning of words' as though its a fundamental paradigm of my communication! What I've said repeatedly in this thread is that words defined in isolation lose context and with this our broader understanding of their role in a sentence, title, slogan, saying, simile, metaphor, euphemism or indeed any alliteration and cadence they bring to the whole can be lost. There is nothing 'random' here!! Yes I have stated it is 'possible' to disregard the definition of individual words but only to help us account for our understanding of their broader subtexts, meanings and cultural ramifications within particular sentences or phrases in our language. NOT the value of their definitions in our everyday use! Again, the WWII euphemism I mentioned earlier is a good example of how defining individual words can sometimes do little to illuminate us. I felt your academic analysis fell short of explaining the true horror of the phrases cultural context- a deplorable period in history with far reaching ramifications beyond just the simple definitions of these three otherwise perfectly harmless and ordinarily unrelated words. 'War is peace!' is also a phrase which cannot be understood out of context so defining it's individual words simply leaves the reader baffled as to how it could ever make sense... Try "There is no spoon!" Defining these individual words is pointless. It doesn't lead us anywhere without Neo in the room!!! ... Nor does this practice apply well to marketing slogans like 'Ultimate Collectors Series'. Sure you can gleam something from 'ultimate' like 'it's the best'. You can gleam something from 'collector' to suggest it's 'desirable only to the initiated'. You could gleam something from 'series' like 'you probably won't get to see another sequence of models of this ilk again'! But as a literary construct this phrase is much more. It's intent is pure, deliberate manipulation in attracting AFOLs to Lego's purchasing altar! It is as you say an 'uber' title, full of promise, intending to excite and titillate with the very best Lego Star Wars models and sculptures our sweaty hands can grasp and palpitating hearts could desire!! And succeeded in this they have with glorious builds and often hugely ambitious sets! That's the meaning behind the slogan- a tool for pushing our purchasing buttons- to emotively grab our geeky behinds and furiously inspire our 'brick built' minds. Own one of these babies and Lego's telling you you're owning something special so trying to tell me or others that 'exclusivity' can't be read into this is just plain crazy talk! It's primal and often irrational emotions like desire, lust and need which marketing strategists target and TLC is no innocent here- the company promises and the company delivers. So we're all brick junkies looking for our 'hit' regardless of what 'UCS' means or doesn't mean to us. That's the pact! That's the brand name and it matters emotionally to the collector and monetarily to the manufacturer. Lyichir your topic is a big one. The 'loadedness' of your question is apparent when you acknowledge that a re-release or remake could devalue and violate the sanctity these classic models. Clearly a move like this would for a significant proportion of collectors. Is it a good move? I concluded in my first post that... Indeed the more I imagine a redesigned UCS X-Wing as the final model in the series the more I like the concept. But it better be a bloody good one!

Dude! I am so up for the metaphysics of UCS!!!

Like three month old blue cheese!! Hmmm. I don't believe I've done this, merely pointed out that by isolating 'ultimate' you'd committed an unintentional logical fallacy, hence inadvertent wordplay by ignoring the rest of the title in the brandname. Which is not to suggest you should now define each word in isolation either. You've stated there is no implicit promise of exclusivity as the UCS X-Wing is not the conclusive vehicle of that type made by Lego nor the final. You use 4502, 7140 and especially 9493 to illustrate your reasoning. But you have divorced 7191 from its marketing context by comparing it to system sets as though they are equivalents and part of the same collection. (Although I don't doubt your worth as a marriage guidance councilor )! How can this reasoning be related to your stated aim of 'fundamental meaning' if you've so muddied the waters? Not only is 7191 part of a collectors series of models it's the only UCS model X-Wing within it... It has to be exclusive ('by definition') as its the only UCS X-Wing in the UCS collection! Within that context, brandname and targeted clientele it is the one and only X-Wing worth considering. I really don't collect system X-Wings toys! I really don't collect cute minifig action figures. What on earth do they have to do with my UCS models and sculptures? That's pretty exclusive to me and yet another factor reinforces this exclusivity- to date there has been no re-issues or redesigns of any UCS models. Why is that? Only precedence? Why would you disregard one tenth of a century??? That's like saying the GFC only lasted a few years so lets forget about it, forge ahead and write our doctorate in recent global financial history anyway!?! (I'm up for help on that one BTW ). Basically you are attempting to define UCS by ignoring its historical/cultural context, it's marketing drive, the singular nature of the models within the collection as well as the other two initials in its brandname? What's left? Just 'ultimate'. In which case you would be completely right! It's just that what you conclude has little to do with the models in my cupboard!! As your stated intent that's really fair enough. We can't claim to know exactly what Lego defines as UCS (they obviously have problems with that too!), so yes it is 'open ended'. An exact 'fundamental' definition is beyond our grasp but many customers have understandably purchased these models with certain impressions of exclusivity. The entire title of the brand 'implies' as much and to date that expectation has been met 'explicitly' by the content of the collection itself. But you're right they could change their mind however as Lyichir asks us- is it... I think we can let go of pinning down an exact definition of UCS as an indicator of Lego re-making the UCS X-Wing. They could do so but that would not only fly in the face of what's gone before but also obviously upset many peoples understanding (rightly or wrongly) of what the brandname has come to mean to them- the valued customer- TLG's lifeline... Too right!!! january 1st is awesome!!! Now that's interesting! But I'm smelling like a four month old cheese now so I'm exiting binary stage right... P.S. Fluppylodders so sorry about your brain...honest! I should remember this is a 'discussion' forum and not a 'conclusion' forum...

Don't be! I appreciate the time a considered post takes to write and I hope members enjoy the ride. Being 'right' or 'wrong' in a debate isn't the point for me (although it's nice to be as accurate as possible). It's about all parties learning something along the way... (cue 'lesson of the week' South Park' music), learning things like 'you're not quite as right as I might be!' Or that 'I hope I'm less wrong than I think!!!' Nahh, seriously I may PM you regarding your last post. It could lead to interesting places. I would however start with why the sky is also 'by definition' actually black on a clear sunny day... ...back on track! ...yet when placed in a sloganistic phrase or belonging contextually within a title it gathers more meaning and contributes greater definition to the whole. This influences the buyer in making their purchase. You can't just look at the definition of 'ultimate' in UCS, divorce it from its marketing context, 10 year history, customer loyalty and trust, then conclude there is no implicit 'exclusivity' in that brand name. What do any system sets have to do with UCS releases? Why would you mention them out of context and somehow in the same league as 7191? These are rhetorical questions but I hope you get my drift about the sustainability of some of your points... I'm just not convinced but I applaud your 'disagree' clause! ...which makes two of us so I can't be completely mad! Especially because it was so eloquently put Brickadeer! I stated earlier that it would be a 'strange' move for Lego to mess with the range in the way Lyichir is asking us to speculate upon. The types of UCS sets which have been released over a decade say otherwise and have created a product identity which both company and consumer value. Nothing since 2000 suggests Lego is about to change that (not even with the odd minifig thrown in) and wishful thinking, playing with definitions or arguing 'UCS' doesn't necessarily mean what a lot of people 'should' think it means is likely to change a successful marketing strategy.

Thanks Fuppylodders! I like a Lego topic with a bit more than minifigures on the agenda! That said... Of course you can disregard the definition of individual words and state they have an 'explicit' meaning of something else when used in context with other words (as we are doing so in this discussion) - such an act of treacherous 'wordsmithing' can be the penultimate point of any phrase or collection of words. For example... 1. Define 'final' 2. Define 'solution' 3. Define 'final solution' So does the phrase 'final solution' have anything much to do with the definition of any individual words used in it? Of course not. (Hey it's an online discussion! Someone has to bring up Nazis eventually)!! How about 'War is peace'? Orwell did a great number on that one! However, using less emotive terminology which conjures up a somewhat more banal euphemism is the Lego marketing term 'Ultimate Collectors Series'. 1. Define 'ultimate' 2. Define 'collector' 3. Define 'series' 4. What does the combination of all these words within an 'entire title' (namely UCS) suggest to the enthusiastic Lego customer? More than the sum of its parts I daresay. My point was/is that in isolation words have meaning (even strength) yet in phrases they have power. In this case the power to influence buying decisions through the use of a brand name. This is a very clear and 'explicit' intention of Lego and a valuable commodity for it to own and exploit which is why I think it unlikely we'll get a re-release anytime soon. Besides 'words' are just filters for describing our environment, feelings and thoughts, they aren't fixed culturally in time. Their 'meanings' are just seven headed hydras, difficult to grasp, pin down and grope for despite the best efforts of the OED. So it's no surprise UCS means something a little different to many of us posting here. That being said I hope the entirety of my sentences, paragraphs etc. convey to you all more than the sum of their individual parts, and that I am at least a little clearer than what the 'Ultimate Collectors Series' has come to mean to some but not all of our parts...

As a diehard UCS man the prospect of a re-release would bore me (sorry). As many have quite rightly already stated the fact remains plenty of designs and ideas for other UCS sets remain to be explored. So what's the point with a re-release? New techniques and bricks! Hardly, new techniques and bricks are applied to new UCS sets anyway which begs the question 'why cover old territory'? TLC could attract new collectors with a brand new old set! Also some present collectors want re-releases because they missed out and can't afford secondary markets. Finally, some want an up-graded design because they feel the old one isn't up-to-scratch! Maybe... However, the problem I have with these statements are they underestimate the value companies place on 'brand' loyalty and the existing 'mean' of that brand's consumer base. Risking the brand with a radical strategic rethink could only come about if the product concept was failing and for UCS it quite obviously isn't. 10 years have shown it to be a fairly consistent and popular product among AFOLs and that's a big deal! A formula which works! Reading this thread also reveals a strong message i.e. even though loyal collectors might not mind a new X-Wing (and would probably buy it) in actual fact many would rather see a completely new set first! Bingo!! I'd say there's your main consumer base right there and why it ain't worth Lego upsetting the apple cart. A 'good' move? Our discussion indicates it would alienate some, possibly attract others, definitely be controversial and (I would hazard to guess) probably do little to significantly influence sales figures. This seems to imply more risk than gain. So again what's the point? Especially given these 'new' consumers would probably have bought a UCS regardless of it being a re-release or not. So I'd call it a 'strange' move... Yes. You can't label something 'Ultimate Collector's Series' and expect people not to 'value' their purchase accordingly (and each in a very personal way). You can try and define each of those words in isolation and test their flexibility but this logic amounts to 'word play' that ignores the 'explicit' meaning of the entire title and all associated prestige 'implicitly' attached to it and every one of its models. Admittedly I can envisage Lego releasing a new version of the UCS X-Wing in a decades time but only to cap off the UCS line and entire Star Wars license. I've always suspected 10179 may have been conceived of in a similar fashion given Lucasfilm rights for Lego were meant to have originally expired back in 2007. A second X-Wing as a final ever UCS would give closure to the collectors journey over some twenty years in a way no other set could...

Nice dude! Subtely respects the original set while contributing to its aesthetics. Limited Edition UCS Falcon #1605 just became #0001!!!

Genius!!! ... I wish them luck cleaning those old greys! Then don't forget the safe word!!!

Argument? I'd call it more an observation of technological phenomena inherent to pre-digital film production pipelines and general considerations associated with practical set construction. You presuppose a viewer's perception as the 'factual' imperative to otherwise logical speculations associated with mathematical certainties and volumetric constraints. However, what the viewer believes they see on screen is a relative illusion of the senses. The 'fact' still remains if you want the Wookiee to actually fit... ...then give him a shoe size to match! Now if its pretty film frames you want done to time and budget you can drop just about any hope of our joyfully pedantic fan-boy questions having any realistic answers whatsoever. In which case I should just kill myself now or at least throw my keenly edged keyboard at the nearest scriptwriter who thinks they're the next biggest thing to hit the silver screen since Rudolf Valentino discovered DAT - just so as we can save ourselves the trouble of messes like this in times to come!!! ...and I think a printed dish would be a much more awesome idea than a printed dish! Ha! Anathema! I curse thee to a brickless hell full of flick-fire missiles. 10179 has such a nicely done cockpit achieved with nothing but the use of standard pieces. Shame on you Mr. Man, you're off my Christmas card list... for now. EDIT: Hang on! That's my conclusion from an earlier post!! You can't have my conclusion!!! I had to think of that all by myself and it hurt!!!!

Yes! Please BobBongo! Save me from myself with another update before we head down the root of mass vs. thrust vs. displacement and mattress size ratios in relation to gravitational acceleration in outer space!! Wasn't Star Wars meant to be fun!!! Besides rocket science was never my strong subject...

It's a great release! Perhaps, short of a UCS Darth Vader bust, you could not have a sculpture which screams more Star Wars while dragging the little kid out of you as effectively as an Artoo like this one. I say 'bravo' to the guys at Lego. Please enjoy the three legged standing ovation...

Dammit! You're off your game! O.K. then, the metaphorical gloves are off! Film historians have to dig deep and shift through 'primary' historical documentation in order to deduce reasonable hypotheses for odd and esoteric musings like the length of an imaginary spaceship in a film like Star Wars! 'Canon' may hold up well for the novels (or quick 'after the horse has bolted' answers from someone in Lucafilm merchandising) but demonstratively fall well short of the answer when you ask simple and essential practical prop and on set questions like 'how the hell does that guy in the Wookiee suit fit in there anyway?'. A little 'academic' scrutiny can go a long way... Realistically, if the Millennium Falcon was 26 meters long, then the external diameter of the cockpit and tube leading to its saucer would only be about 1.85metres (or around six foot). Alarmingly, at this scale, the cockpit entrance is now only 1.3 meters (or four foot high)! Headroom inside the cockpit becomes about 1.5 meters (or just five foot). Good luck with that Wookiee because even Solo is losing his head (and his shoulders) when making a mad dash to the cockpit, so I'm not sure a ship quite this cramped fulfills Lucas' vision of a 'lived in' universe... (However your 'duck' could still 'quack' with plenty of room left for outstretched wings )! True, it's size does vary a lot between shots and this is due to 'SPX' being a pre-digital art form. There's no simple 'scale tool' or re-rendering available to the artist. Being analogue it's imprecise and prone (as you note) to many limitations. Limitations such as available prop sizes and the ever present danger of degrading photographic elements through 'over' compositing (and so losing the shot altogether). Even less apparent to us are problems as simple as effective and efficient communication between various departments of a film (especially before the convenience of more modern telecommunication solutions). Extrapolate that over several years of production time and even across a large geographic obstacle like the Atlantic Ocean and you can easily have a concatenation of errors and inconsistencies for us fans to note! So 'approximation' is the best case outcome for an analogue SFX element which explains why we have so many variations in measurements for the Falcon in the first place! However this doesn't make a logical deduction of length from full sized sets an arbitrary one! I think this method gives us a figure about as 'correct' and 'realistic' as Mr. Man could hope for... Oops! Sorry! Go the 'dutch tilt'! I'm liking the mix of old and new grey evident in these shots. I must admit I'm not a fan of 'mixing the streams' normally (next thing you know you've got cats and dogs living together and the whole Lego world goes completely crazy with off yellows and hints of steely blue)! But this looks like it's going to work aesthetically as well as financially for you! If you can I'd suggest buying the printed navigation dish. Your Falcon could look a little naked without this detailing...

So long, farewell and thanks for all the moderation! Hopefully in your absence the denizens of this Star Wars Lego forum will remain mostly harmless. Regardless I know they will look back and say when asked... KimT's just this guy! Have a safe and improbable journey!

I like the printed pieces! Good call. Also cool depth of field! Gotta tell the admiring public where to look after all!!

A beautiful, bouncing, baby Astromech! What a joy to behold! Lot's of display features which work within reasonable model dimensions and a handsome overall result. What more could you ask for? Well I guess you could note that there's little detail on the back but 'fair cop gov' it's on the back (and it's not as though it's flat)! What else? I think it's fair to say 'Little Artoo' might have been 'nicer' for the collectors who'd want something a little more unique or hard to find (I get that even if it's not my personal beef). That's it! Close inspection may surprise me more or grate me slightly over some small detail but it's sure looking good in HD. Concerned it's too 'gimmicky'? Well does it shoot water or stick to walls?!? Nope. Concerned it's too 'blocky'? That's crazy talk! It's Lego! How else do you build a big dome on top of a large cylinder? Concerned it's missing a display feature like a radar or even a (heaven forbid) Flick Fire Lightsaber? Well, we could hold a MOD competition to see who can fit the most features in the most ingenious way! R2 begs for value added fun!! I think we have here a sculpture to rival any other UCS figure with this release, if not exceed previous standards set. Mind you the Darth Maul bust is quite magnificent so we'll just have to see...

You're welcome! As for the precise issues with consistency, well they tried, but after Lucas rejected the original Millennium Falcon design (too much like an 'Eagle Transport' from Gerry Anderson's 'Space 1999')... (Citing Brown) ...the designers were totally lost, needing a key vessel in just a few short weeks, where to turn for inspiration? the story goes that Lucas waved his lunch at them, a hamburger with a bite taken from it, and said "Use this!". Lucas initially visualised the ship flying in the VERTICAL plane, like a giant sunfish, with the cockpit rotating a bit like the later B-Wing design... ...once the current saucer-with-mandibles concept became adopted, there was still work to do, just no time to do it in! The model was a rushed job, carried out jointly by a number of modellers, each with his own style. The result gives us the 'modified-patchwork' look we all associate with the Millennium Falcon. ...as well as stuffing up how the central corridors and floor levels lined up with the boarding ramp, docking rings and cockpit. Given time constraints 'looks' took precedence over any 'internal logic'. Our scale issues on the other hand aren't actually a production mistake but a necessary byproduct of the external sets being accommodated within the limited floorspace of sound stages and of course by budgetary constraints. Whereas the internal sets were actually built at the right size (otherwise our heroes simply couldn't fit)! This is why you can extrapolate an accurate length from the blueprints used for building the original cockpit set. -or at least a length which stands up to primary source historical film documentation (and of course logic)! Remember, prior to the release of an RPG from West End Games there were no ILM or Lucasfilm blueprints (or surviving props) which existed (or were even conceived of) to support the 'canon' dimensions established by the WEG licensed product. Everything 'official' points to the Falcon being over 30 meters in length. Close scrutiny of this material gets it closer to 35 meters. Ha! You are such a 'heightest'!!! I bet you're a card carrying member of the 'World Dwarf Tossing Association'! 'Width' my big fat a#@$!!! I'm sure you wrote that to goad me you swine! On the other hand you're also suggesting the UCS Falcon, if one considers only the shoulder width of a mini-fig, is 'canon' length or, if you consider only the height, then it's production length! Awesome!! A UCS for all seasons. Genius Lego designers. I can live with that! But you're still... Now where's our next update? I need a fix.

...or you could simply replace the use of 'wallets' in this sentence with 'women'!

... and I'd hate to disappoint!!! The Falcon is like the TARDIS- 'tis bigger on the inside! The apparently full sized stage props in ANH and ESB were relatively smaller (and necessarily so given limited set space) than the studio model they represented (the ESB prop was also larger than ANH's). The studio model and its schematics were designed at the last moment in a huge rush (over a fortnight I recall) so big issues emerged with their particulars when trying to match them up. Refinements simply couldn't be addressed given ANH's production timeframe and the last minute change in direction away from the original Falcon 'Blockade Runner' design. So again the internal sets were built larger than the external set and neither sized up well when compared to the final 5 ft SFX model. The Falcon is simply broken (which suits its personality quite nicely)! Although I'd been aware of the vagaries of these details before I'd never come across a more comprehensive and well researched article detailing all the particulars until a certain chap likened to a 'clumsy halo being dropped from heaven' found the following here... It's a real keeper. Here's a summery that gets to the meat of the Falcon's dimensions... Data:------------Saucer-Diam:----Length:--------Height:--------+%: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Elstree Set--------19m/62'-------24.3m/80'------4.9m/16'------datum WEG Source-------20.5m/67'----- 26.7m/87.6'-----5.2m/17'------+ 7 % LASE------------24m/78.8'------30m/102'-------6.27m/20.4'---+27.5% R.Brown 1st Calc---24.5m/80'------32m/104'-------6.3m/20.6'----+29 % 1982 Plans-------26.2m/87.4'-----36.9m/122.9'---8.85m/29.5'----+52 % XWvsTIE-----------------------------37m/120.25'-----------------+53 % 1:100 Model-Kit---35m/116'------46.5m/152'------8.97m/29.4'---+84 % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- R. Brown Final Calc--27m/89'-------34.8m/114'-----6.9m/22.4'-----+40 % ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edit: damn couldn't get the table to space right!!! The article is written and researched by one Robert Brown. His summary given for the various Millennium Falcon sizes above are as follows (allow me to paraphrase)... Note: The Elstree set size is taken as the datum, since it is known. 1. "WEG" refers to the 'West End Games' SW-RPG Millennium Falcon size as recorded in numerous of their publications, most notably the 'StarWars RolePlaying SourceBook'. 2. Update 2001: Wizards of the Coast, the new licence holders for the SW:RPG did NOT correct WEG's errors regarding the Millennium Falcon. 3. "LASE" refers to the 'LucasArts Screen Entertainment' screen-saver 'blueprints' of the Millennium Falcon. It gives a total length of 30metres (100'). 4. R. Brown's first calculation is based on the Millennium Falcon attached to the bridge of the ISD. 5. The Model Kit has been based on a 1:100 scale, deduced from the size of the included pilot figures. R. Brown believes the kit is actually closer to the classic 25mm scale (1 inch = 2 metres). 6. XWvsTIE refers to YT-1300 specifications given in the "X-WingsvsTIE Fighter" computer game. (source: Bradley J Wilson). The figure of 73m/237.25' is wrong. There is an error here. ALL the ship stats in the game have ALL been DOUBLED. If you halve the Millennium Falcon length you get: 37m(120.25') - which is in perfect accord with the 1982 deck plans - but greater than the 30m figure given by a LucasArts screen saver (LASE). 7. Neither the 'StarWars Technical Journal' nor 'The Essential Guide to StarWars Vehicles' give any size. 8. Mr Bob Long of Calgary, Canada scanned a copy of the blueprints for the full sized cockpit set. From this he has calculated (using a plan view of the plastic model kit as a reference for spatial relations) a length for the Millennium Falcon of 110' (33m). This is in very close accord with R. Brown's own estimates and the small variation may be accountable purely on the slight errors in SHAPE in the ERTL model kit. Long calculated a size for the kit of almost exactly 1:72, but as noted by the replacement parts that the cockpit of the model is slightly stunted. 9. R. Brown's final calculation is based on the size of the cockpit access tube, and its comparison with the diameter of the internal 'ring-corridor' tube. This sizing sits best with the internal layout of the Millennium Falcon, the known size of the Star Destroyers, the top-hatch lift well, the size of the internal corridors, the original design concepts, the 25mm scale model kit, and as he says, sheer bloody-common sense! So 34.8 meters if you apply a lot of hard work and a little logic! Ask a tricky question why don't you Mr. Man!!!

Don't put off for tomorrow what 'epicness' can be purchased and built today!

10179 popped my Lego cherry back in January 2008! It was all champagne and caviar come each new UCS set after that... Having built them all I'd say 10212 is an absolute classic. It's up there in the stratosphere with 10179 and even 7191 (whose positively orbital brilliance and antique good looks always bring a chill to my spine). The shuttle is bound to always be looked back upon with fondness by collectors and enthusiasts alike over the ensuring years. By all means have fun with 10221, it's big, ballsy and eye popping (especially when used as a spear), but just don't miss the shuttle... ...'cause you'd be missing the proverbial boat. Have a UCS blast my friend!