Aeroeza

Cool! Oops! I had a 'brain fart'. Of course it's engines 'n other stuff! Thanks for the clarification! As for 10179 I'd always supposed that it may have been conceived of as a swansong for the Star Wars Lego license in case it did expire in 2007 as first anticipated.

Such as the 3x12 wedge plates for a 1.24 meter SSD!

Holy crap! Couldn't they have filmed it stereoscopically. I want to reach out and touch them!!!

True! So Let's be clear on who the 'Gen Y kids' are! Born between 1982 and 2001 (approximately) Also known as the 'Millennials' (which let's face it sounds cooler) of whom the earliest are about to turn 30, so the idea of a shifting generational focus, a mixing of OT and PT UCS sets is reasonable. You're right though, its probably slightly too early to have a dramatic impact as HJR suggests... ...and of course those who grew up on PT have yet to flex their financial weight which does suggest 10215's timing was 'odd'. Really good point. ...which hammers it home. As for the awesome 'iconic Star Wars design' discussion- who'd have thought ABBA could have made such a cultural return in the mid 90s after disco was so universally panned and sent to the dust-bin of musical history only a few years before? A 'cultural icon' can only be defined retrospectively, being slowly absorbed over time or torched into the psychi by a sudden traumatic or dramatic event. It has to be a generational phenomenon which evolves and shifts in understanding as we age with it before becoming associated and defined within a broader period in history. ...which is an assumption you should consider more closely given a whole new generation of digital modellers and special effects people would question your statement about 'passion'... The shift in the art of modelling for film & TV, from practical to digital effects, means there are clearly identifiable 'digital' frontiers being breached from time-to-time which industry practitioners associate with particular production pipelines and achievements. Designs associated with these new achievements are loved by visual effects people who are by their very nature fanatical fans of the genre and industry they work in. A vehicle such as the Earthforce Starfury from Babylon 5 is a perfect example- it's an iconic digital design from a groundbreaking visual effects sci-fi series (and also loved by NASA for its practical space worthiness)- the first TV series using 3D effects so comprehensively and effectively as a production technique. So there's plenty of passion for 'cold digital models' out there! The 'old' modelers craft is also being augmented by new technology and virtual skill-sets are beginning to merge with more traditional methods. Model kit builders are evolving in kind and this new breed will have much more versatility in pursuing their craft and what is/will be iconic to them will also broaden and change as a consequence... Emerging 3D printing technology available for home computers is shifting virtual model making into the 'warm fuzzy' real world. 3D modellers are now able to 'scratch' build their own designs in addition to any preexisting ones. You don't need 'Revel' kits anymore. So any 3D hobbyist can go nuts building their Nu-class Shuttle or Starfury in 3D Max or Maya, exporting it as an OBJ file and printing it off piece by piece so as it can then be snapped or glued together in whatever manner they designed it to be and paint away to their heart's content. Now that's ownership! As for the impact of 3D printing on Lego over the next 10 years, well here's a prediction... End of TLG. At least in its present incarnation so enjoyed by AFOL for the last 50 years... and remember they couldn't copywrite 'the brick'! So get ready to 'print' your own Lego bricks dear MOCers in the privacy of your own home using a plastic or resin of your choice in any shade of colour you need using easily downloadable un-patentable designs you can get from your friends or family alike!!! In fact print any plastic household, consumer or industrial implement you want! Don't know how to design one and it isn't available online? Talk to your local 3D modeller for a quote! Want a Lego model of a SSD without a flat bottom? Talk to Anio, he'll be making a business on the side selling his instructions online while refining a new UCS Slave 1 using, printing and selling his own brick designs... ...and a future UCS product from TLC may consist of a lone downloadable instruction book... 3D Printer. Iconic? Will be. Fair call about accuracy! 10212 was amazing (the cockpit is a small compromise toward 'toy-like' but really not a biggie) and 10215 was pretty darn good (even if some of you insist on its astromech having a big head). Which brings us back to what Stoutfiles had to say regarding 10221 and its toy feature and this is really where the standard may have suffered... ...but if Mr. GL is responsible for the bridge then perhaps it will simply be a one off? It's nice to know he's an AFOL, BTW I remember reading somewhere his favorite Star Wars toy of 2007 was 10179- shame he changed his tune on the UCS concept though...

Fair enough. It certainly is a display piece by anyone's definition. I guess I called it a 'hybrid' because I'm still coming to terms with its flat bottom. It makes me wonder whether this design choice was necessary for a stable, strong consumer product (i.e. to reduce the stress on the framework and base plating due to its length) which I'm happy to accept or if it came about because the depth of the bridge interfered with the 'ideal' of an angled underside combined with a needle-like profile. In which case one of these three needs to go i.e. bridge, angled underside or slim profile (and Mr L eliminated one of these options). The resulting set's accuracy would then appear 'compromised', for the sake of a play feature, and therefore could be considered a hybrid between what most consider a UCS and others a playset. I wouldn't mind the bridge if its inclusion didn't impact on the build... ...but if it has... Grrr. I withdraw the term then if its confusing- its just that 10221 confuses me... -I'm of a tender and sensitive predisposition afterall... Edit: Still, whatever we call 10221 (display, hybrid or 'the one which broke the mold') it certainly changed the rules of the UCS game...

Play nice Apps The whole point of this thread is to define what members want in a UCS i.e. whether it should be a traditional build or something more akin to a playset, hybrid product, OT or PT and broadly speaking what members find 'iconic' in the Star Wars universe and whether Lego are targeting their probable 'changing' UCS market group appropriately. Complaints about a UCS' product identity or lack thereof are therefore welcome... Now that is a real eye opener! Remember that up until recently a UCS tended to present 'accuracy' and 'detail' (in particular) as their selling points. I think its fair to say a majority of UCS collectors in the past craved as much accuracy as possible with these sets given the necessary 'abstraction' a Lego model imposes. The question (among several others in the thread) is whether this 'hybrid' set (10221) currently appeals to most UCS collectors or potential collectors (i.e. they would buy it in a flash if they could) and if people would like this 'hybrid concept' to continue...

Right! So it's the early discounting in the sales career of 10215 which suggests its poor performance. I wonder how widespread the sale was internationally given it didn't occur in the Southern Hemisphere. Obviously it was a marketing strategy for Lego in the States and has been discounted since for you guys but did the same thing happen in Europe and Asia as well? It would be intriguing to know if the discounting was a more isolated event skewing our perceptions of the set. Granted the USA is a 'big' market for TLC but if this marketing decision was a more 'targeted' one then it might suggest 10215 sales figures were 'soft' as opposed to an outright failure. The 'parts per piece ratio' has always bugged me. It's a very draconian way of establishing relative 'value added' comparisons between sets. It's clear that weight and the nature of the constituent parts play an important and under-rated role in the costing of any given set so I can't help but feel we are using a very inaccurate kind of 'fuzzy logic' here which also skews our impressions. Also UCS' are released with the collector in mind so a limited market for a (dare I say luxury) item denotes a higher price. So is the price the real issue here for Lego or was it it's choice to release a small PT UCS which appeared expensive? Is $25 really that much in the grand scheme of things for a collector? Remember it cost the same as 7181 when it was first released. They also weigh about the same, the difference in piece count is negligible and they both have printed blocks. A decade in marketing separates them and from what reviews still exist about the Interceptor from 2000-2003 it was greeted with open arms by collectors. Too true! I found this out about myself with the UCS sculptures. I really hadn't intended to collect any of them until I found and purchased Grievous on sale. I was then compelled to track down Maul and Yoda and trust me when I say I didn't save any money with those two (nor do I have regrets). A companion model for 10215 might have made a big impact on its sales! Now we're really getting into the sociology of it! Here we all are as part of a multi-generational phenomenon forking out hard earned cash for big trinkets which put smiles on our faces. I can thank Lucas for giving me so much common ground with my six year old nephew and 38 year old friends alike. It sure beats playing Cowboys and Indians and still manages to be politically correct (if you ignore racial stereotyping in the PT)! I don't think any of us have met an AFOL who is only a fan of the PT so we can safely assume OT releases are somewhat safe for the immediate future! However I think it's harder to judge the impact of any given element of OT, PT & CW on kids and young adults today and compare it to how the OT knocked Gen X socks off (and just about every other age group) when they were knee high to a grasshopper. For Gen X that kind of hype can't be lived up to- it changed the experience of film forever afterwards, redefined what was possible with consumer mass marketing and spawned a thriving visual effects industry which proved a lot of fun for those who decided to get on board and make a living out of it. But if I'd been hit with all six films at once as a kid and a half decent 3D animated cartoon which kept the old flame burning then I suspect I'd be dreaming of more than just UCS OT ships and vehicles right now . I'd have concluded that the 'Star Wars iconic imagery and design' list had expanded regardless of my own prejudices and poor 70s dress sense so I'm surprised to read Johnnyvgoode's take on growing up with the PT and his feel for OT ships being more iconic... Maybe I really should put on those old flares again! It's also better to think of my suggestion of a 'generational shift' as more a merging of OT and PT UCS releases as opposed to the story of 'two households, both alike in dignity', battling it out. Although, as StoutFiles mentioned in the 2012 Pictures and Rumors thread, it will be interesting to see if we get a traditional UCS Cloud Car before another PT release! That would suggest 10215 really did bomb like a turkey... Suffice to say I agree with you all that more PT UCS releases are around the corner. I guess the real question is what will a future UCS evolve into? What is the new consensus product if any? Anyone who's paid attention to the odd post I've made in these forums since I joined would also probably describe me as a 'UCS purist'. It was 10179 in early 2008 which pulled me back into Lego and since then I've limited my collection to UCS releases- past and present. I've never seen 10188 as my kind of UCS nor recognized it as having ever been marketed by Lego to 'traditional' UCS collectors. Sure it's an excellent set but doesn't appeal to the modeler in me. 10221's 'blurring of the line' was complete anathema as far as I was concerned but at the end of the day there was no point being an old stick in the mud. It was plainly obvious TLC was wanting to broaden their sales demographics and pull in traditional UCS collectors and hardcore minifig fanatics within a single release. Whether I liked it or not the 'traditional UCS' was tinkered with and the truth is this new UCS product concept is likely to work. I've just finished building the SSD, still processing its pros and cons, but it was a more satisfying experience than I otherwise thought it might be (although I'm still a little skeptical about its flat bottom). This is a potentially profound point and another reason why 10215 may have performed questionably! That being said I need to be aware of my own bias here but if you're right then Star Wars Lego is currently having a product identity crisis or perhaps just losing touch with its 'building' roots a little as it tries to read and/or create demand for its licensed sets. As a child I saw minifigs as 'ancillary' to my Lego experience. I generally built things in a scale which didn't work for the little guys (instead I often used three 1x2 plates snapped together so as I had two legs and a torso to represent my 'figures'). I'm not denying that minifigs added to the creative experience but it was 'building' that drew me into Lego not "dang I gotta play with my minifigs now". Admittedly I had a whole bunch of 6 inch Kenner Star Wars figures for that... As for AFOL who love the figures, well I can appreciate their geeky-cool-cute factor so that's all O.K. by me but they still remain 'ancillary' to my adult experience of building Lego. They don't play a role in my purchasing decisions and as far as I'm concerned they shouldn't get in the way of a UCS build (I hold the view that a UCS is aimed at AFOL and not just lucky kids with generous parents who view it as a toy). 10221 really walks a fine line here but it probably has pulled it off and that's not a bad outcome for most AFOL (and it's an even better outcome for Lego). The fact that minifigs have become more and more detailed suggest Lego are making even healthier profit margins from them than I'd first imagined. It's obvious that cash cow will be milked for a long time to come and collectors will be cherishing them for even longer. But have the quality of new sets really suffered from this whether they be system or UCS? Your point could have a direct bearing on the future product identity of UCS sets, goes some way to explain Lego's 'tinkering' with the range over the past few years and may clue us in as to the future... i.e. Continued inclusion of highly detailed minifigs; fewer printed pieces; compromised builds (when compared with the 'traditional' UCS set); less accuracy; more playsets; increased mix of PT with OT. I try to make no value judgments in listing these tendencies I'm merely curious as to whether-or-not this is what AFOL want now and if Lego really have their fingers on the pulse with this one...

The 2012 Pictures and Rumors thread brought up an intriguing question regarding upcoming UCS releases which for me which seemed a little off topic from the main discussion so I thought it best to ponder it here with any interested parties... The UCS Jedi Star Fighter was a surprise set last year which bucked the UCS trend for OT ships and seemed to cause some dismay from the odd member here and on other Lego sites when it was first announced. Negative comments focused not so much on the look and design of the actual build but more on the original source material being boring and uninspired compared to iconic vehicles of the OT. The price was also mooted loudly as a deal breaker for many (and others couldn't get over the slightly over sized astromech head). Having built the set I'd say its a real beauty- not only was it clever but the end result looked fantastic and refreshingly colourful when sitting next to the usual bley monstrous and majestic UCS release. It has the no-nonsense feel of an air-superiority interceptor with a little old world elegance to match. Reviews from the Lego home site, FBTB, Brick Horizon and of course here tend to support this conclusion although concerns about its price lingered (even though it has three printed pieces, two of them unique, weighs almost as much as the UCS Tie Interceptor and even costs the same despite ten years of inflation). That being said there appears to be a consensus among AFOL on this site (and others) that 10215 was a costly failure for Lego and that we're unlikely to see another PT UCS in a hurry. My questions are these given ideas the above quotations raise... How do we know 10215 'sold horribly' as a fact? Do any members have access to privileged Lego marketing figures which justify this 'pervasive impression' of 10215's failure? Or are we believing our own hype? Has 'maintaining the rage' regarding 'high pricing policies' of Lego clouded our judgment and led us to ignore the fact that UCS sets are by their very nature aimed at a particular sub-branch of AFOL and sporadic Lego purchasers who are inclined to pay slightly more for their occasional Star Wars 'hit'? Is 10215 perhaps a 'sleeper' set which gives TLC an indication of demographic changes in OT/PT UCS consumer interest over a two to three year period? Is it really that unlikely that 2013 or 2014 could have a major PT UCS release like a Venator or AT-TE? For the last decade UCS's have really been the mainstay of Gen X OT fans with a little cash to burn but if Lego are going to have a continuing relationship with Lucasfilm then, well, the 'times they are a-changin'. It seems to me that what 'constitutes' a UCS set is currently evolving. The last few years in particular have either heralded the regular inclusion of minifigs or flirted with the PT in a significant way. Let's face it Gen Y'ers have rising incomes and a whole new trilogy they grew up loving so what do they want in a UCS? The same kind of detailed sets with a nod to accuracy, few play features and a lack of minifigs as in the past? Or would they prefer massive playsets like 10188 or the confused identity issues of 10221 with its miniature bridge and bounty hunter scene? Are Lego successfully 'passing the torch' of their flagship Star Wars sets to the up-and-coming 'big spenders'?

Dang those technicalities! Wake me when we're sure of something...

Ha! Now we truly have something to talk about regarding this rumored set. I'd hate to have gotten excited about something like a UCS B-Wing only to find out later that it was nothing other than an exclusive system set with a few extra perks. Bring it on 'UCS LARGE' Lego! ...and another addition to Maul, Yoda and the General! Nice to see UCS sculptures being given another tilt at the proverbial windmill once more.

Thanks Dcflake! For a first review you couldn't have picked a more challenging build. Good stuff! I look forward to building it myself sometime soon... ... and of course the set is detailed. Obviously not to everyones taste but so be it, diversity is a spice in life afterall! Love of 'greebles' is a noble thing but overkill with it at this scale could detract from the overall 'abstract' form and shape of the model. I think it works well- if 10221 were another 30 or 40 centimeters longer then it would have benefited from a different greebling approach altogether- something more like what is found on 10030 or 10179. Same goes for 10143 which is a wonderfully ambitious build in its own right but might have benefitted from having a larger circumference. 'More' is not necessarily 'better' and 'less' can quite often get the point across (without making you feel like you've been forced to listen to an obnoxious talk back radio host labour a poorly expressed opinion again and again and again...)

It's refreshing to see organic shapes captured so well in Lego. Your tree design is elegant and actually quite beautiful providing the centerpiece for a well executed minimalist Star Wars theme. I really like it! Thanks for sharing this one...

You've hit another home run Anio! Smack right out of the ball park into the centre stump and also first past the post! Awesome job

Thanks for the review Parchioso! This release really is a cut above the average system set. I can't wait to buy the Pod Racer for my nephew and build it for him! Honestly some of these six year olds don't know what they're doing!

Well when I've made another 7000 posts I'm gonna get my deus ex machina to swear at anyone who types 'Legos'- That'll learn 'em. As for the fall of Midi's I say a pox on all who failed to buy one. Selfish so and so's the lot of ya!

Arch Dukes get powers of censorship if they 'coin' a phrase? Well blow me sideways and call me Roger 'cause this is one for Wikileaks...

What's the 'suspected' bit in particular?

That's the one. Let's give it a go again... Keep on brickin everyone! Edit: Frack! Didn't work. Must need the 'g'.

Dang it! Midi and UCS- that's all I got going for myself in this crazy Lego collecting world. Now half that equation is gone and dusted while the other is being invaded by out of scale mini figs! Oh well, guess I'll have more money for beer and vindaloos again!!! Ahh! that 'conformist' thing. That happened to me once when I was quoting 'Lightning Tigers' old sign off a while back.

Holy shit that's funny!

..and in the short run cheaper than the couch! B.T.W. I charge by the sentence.

Definitely nuts! Try buying two of everything or just one psychiatrist's couch.

From a certain point of view! There goes your full-time position with Lego Anio!

Dammit! So how are new girls legs just gonna 'have fun' now huh? It seems there's an intriguing philosopical divide in our posts and in considering that, it would be unfair of me to summerise what you're been trying to say so I'll just clarify mine and then perhaps look forward to moving on... I'm not a huge MOCer so I'm not prepared to build my own UCS SSD, however I am fascinated by and appreciate the projects of AFOL who do build great designs. I am also a collector of certain Lego products like 10221 and enjoy deconstructing and understanding their builds. Having said that I'd like you to bare in mind that my perspective is that of a designer whose job it is to 'create' within time and budget to an employer's brief. There is much problem solving and many compromises made along the way and some fixes work better than others. It is not so much that these 'choices' are wrong or right its that they often represent a necessary compromise between what is possible and what is ideally achievable given the brief at hand. So I don't see 10221 as just another MOC nor compare it unnecessarily to one. Its altogether a different creature built for an altogether different kind of horse race... Now I've stated (and restated) that constructive criticism of a creative commercial endeavor is ideally derived from a position which appreciates the demands of the original 'brief'. So it would be nice to see that same level of respect and objectivity applied to commercial MOCs in our own forum (that's my bias). After all individual MOCs have design briefs which differ widely to one another and so do commercial ones. However (and this is not an attack) I wasn't convinced your posts reflected that kind of objectivity and I'm still not. Just to reiterate- I didn't say you were 'wrong' in expressing a particular opinion merely 'harsh' and then outlined why I thought that. I was curious to understand how it was you didn't seem to be considering a broader view. Confusingly you've still not really addressed the core of my comments which I've underlined in my previous posts. That being said you don't have to explain yourself to anyone but obviously dropping posts on a forum tends to encourage a certain social etiquette and its been fun to date. As for my opinion on 10221 I think I've been pretty clear regarding my own thoughts on the set since first seeing preview images several months ago and I've certainly expressed my reservations about it. I'm quite happy to 'admit' to that! I've also been happy to comment on what appear to be compromises in the build and whether they're too 'compromised' for my own preferences regarding what's important in a UCS. Like you I would consider it 'unfair' to have those views ignored or dismissed inappropriately so I hope you don't feel that way. But for me to say Kurt has made 'wrong choices' in a commercial product is probably a value judgement best left for the sales figures to answer. They are after all the ultimate arbiter for a retail product as opposed to a MOC and let's face it the set certainly looks like an exciting UCS to many AFOL out there. So there appears to be a philosophical divide between us which has been enjoyable to post about and I hope just as enjoyable for others to read. No doubt it will crop up again in future and we can continue to draw a line in the metaphorical Lego sandbox! Thanks for the banter and I'm always happy to reply but probably won't be able to for a few days- I've got some commercial design work to do and the brief is calling...