Blondie-Wan

I still don't get what's wrong with including them. It's better with them than without.

I haven't posted any MOCs yet, for a variety of reasons. First of all, I admit, I'm just not building as much as I'd like; my collection is too disorganized and I'm working on the "fun room" (the room I intend to use for building, displaying and playing with my creations), and until I get it all sorted out I'm just not able to do as much as I'd like. More importantly, though, I think I don't regard my MOCs in quite the same way others here do. I'm frankly not particularly looking forward to subjecting my creations to criticism - not so much because I "can't handle it," but mainly because in my case I want to build to different aesthetic standards than others here, and in particular I want to make things that are very "Star Wars-y" without necessarily being screen accurate in the way some of the builders here strive for. Part of me does love absolute accuracy, but part of me finds it often somewhat off-putting when applied to LEGO (as opposed to, say, traditional model-making or prop-making, fine arts, etc.). In LEGO, large expanses of grey, say, can often look, well... boring. I also want my creations to strike a balance between the aesthetics of Star Wars and those of LEGO. Sometimes that may mean intentionally playing with the proportions of a craft, or being a little adventurous with the color scheme. I frankly don't know whether others here would always appreciate or even understand what I'm trying to achieve. I don't mean that as an insult or anything like that; it's just that I get the impression my goals may be so different from those of others here as to seem completely alien. (Beyond this, there's also a part of me that just doesn't want other people telling me how to play with my toys, which at the end of the day is how I really view what I'm doing, even if it can also be seen as artistic endeavor.)

I don't believe this one-time, two-day sale is going to make the set decrease in value over the long haul. A year after it's discontinued, it'll routinely sell for substantially above MSRP, I'm sure. Moreover, even if it isn't, speculators aren't "owed" some sort of secondary market value increase. They're already handsomely rewarded for being better off already in that they get to buy and enjoy this nice LEGO set. Even if its value plummets to five bucks, they at least have the building experience, the display piece that results, the getting to swoosh it around, etc.... which is what TLG actually sells it for; I don't see "massive investment potential" touted in the product description at Shop at Home, just "rotating, self-levelling cockpit" and the like. Anyone who buys it gets those construction and play features; anyone who also gets aftermarket appreciation is getting an additional bonus. That's fine and dandy (for them) if it happens, but I don't think they're entitled to it, especially given that people who can afford this set at full price are frankly doing a lot better financially than a lot of other people to begin with. Well, I wouldn't consider it a "trend," exactly, just a one-time sale. Things go on temporary sales all the time, and then go back to full price (as this set has); I don't see why LEGO UCS sets should be exempt from this. And you can never be sure when (or if) a set will go on such a sale, either; anyone who sits around waiting for a set to drop in price below MSRP risks having to pay above MSRP, or missing out on it entirely. It's your call, of course, as it is for all of us.

I was wondering whether anyone else was planning on using that Bionicle base piece in any Star Wars (or Indiana Jones) creations; I now see I'm not the only one who thought of it. It actually doesn't look too bad, does it? :) Nifty little build, Oky!

I don't consider it an issue, for a variety of reasons. First of all, it still has "investment potential," regardless of the fact one was momentarily able to get it for 50% off. Plenty of sets that now command exorbitant prices on the secondary market were offered at prices well below MSRP at one point or another during their product lifetimes. Secondly, I frankly don't think TLG should be making decisions about sales, availability, etc. primarily to please investors and speculators. If such persons (who tend to be already well-off anyway) are able to benefit from buying LEGO sets as investments, great for them, but I really don't want them dictating all market conditions for the rest of us. Moreover, it's by now well-known that TLG will have some sort of Star Wars promotion on May 4th each year, typically including discounts on at least some sets in the theme. Also, everyone who bought it at full price still got what they presumably consider a nice set at what's arguably a reasonable price for a set of that size. Finally, the sale was quite temporary; the set is now back at full MSRP.

Wow, I'm delighted - partly because it's a nice set (though I'd have preferred a different new canopy element), and partly because it means that a Star Wars vehicle can receive the UCS treatment more than once. Those of us who missed out on 10179 can dare hope for another, even better rendition of the Millennium Falcon.

Aw, man, I didn't even realize they'd had an official track planner - of course I find out only after it's gone. Ah, well...

I must admit I just don't get the contempt for the new Spider-Man; from all the pics I've seen, it looks really good, though I have a hard time deciding whether I like it or one of the older versions (2002-2004) more. I haven't actually seen the actual figure in person, though, just in photos and renderings; perhaps my opinion will change when I finally get one of my own. My "best" choice: Indiana Jones, specifically the "classic" Indy found in all sets from the first year. It has just the right amount of detail, and introduced new parts (fedora, whip and shoulder bag) that have all gotten additional uses outside the theme. I will admit to a certain amount of favoritism in my selection (in that I'm simply a huge Indy fan anyway), but it really is an excellent minifigure, IMO. See, I'm largely the opposite - not only do I think Captain America looks really good, but I'm also not entirely sure the newer versions of Boba Fett are all that good. I do appreciate being able to turn his head now that the helmet is no longer attached to the backpack, but it looks too top-heavy, especially with the huge range finder, and I like the older print a bit more, too. I'm considering sticking with the older versions of Boba in my own builds, even though I have a couple of the newer figures already and will get more from some of the current sets I have yet to pick up. I could see a case for choosing the last couple years' versions of Boba Fett for the worst licensed minifigure, though I'm not quite sure I'm ready to go that way myself just yet.

I agree with most of what Aanchir says above, though I do doubt anyone at LEGO really thinks The Lone Ranger is going to be a long-running theme. It looks very much to me like another single-wave licensed theme along the lines of Speed Racer and Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time.

It appears that what they're doing with the Winter Village line is introducing a new set each year in time for the holidays, producing just enough to keep it available throughout the season (or a healthy chunk of it, anyway), letting it sell out and then doing another run the next year, and then one more time the year after that, so that each WV set is available during the holiday seasons of three consecutive years. The first one was the Winter Toy Shop, introduced in 2009 and brought back for 2010 and 2011; 2012 is the first year it wasn't brought back. 2010 brought the Winter Village Bakery, alongside the reissued Toy Shop, and they were available together for a short while before selling out. 2011 brought reissues of both - this was the third time the Toy Shop was available, and the second time for the Bakery - alongside the brand-new Winter Village Post Office. Last year was the first year the Toy Shop wasn't reissued. The Bakery and Post Office both were, alongside the latest addition, the Winter Village Cottage. I believe 2012 will have been the last year for the Bakery, this year will be the last for the Post Office, and so on, while the Cottage should be available again this year and next (I certainly hope so, since I wasn't able to get the Cottage in time last year). _____________________ The City Mining sets, being part of a "main" line rather than the seasonal Winter Village one, will probably be gone for good once they're gone.

Wow, that's really interesting; thanks for sharing! I'd have to agree with TLG here - the boxes with the huge "SAMSONITE" dwarfing the LEGO logo next to it just look wrong, to my eyes. Not too many years ago they did have some more bulk sets aimed at clearing parts inventory, and what a fantastic deal they were. My favorite was 4679, a bulk tub containing 1000 pieces, with a box strapped to it containing another 513; the tub contained standard, basic elements of the sort found in any typical bulk brick set, while the box contained a random assortment of things - standard bricks in rare colors, odd bricks produced for one or two specific sets and no longer in production, all sorts of rare or unique elements from sets produced over the two or three years right before 4679's release. As far as I know, no two of them would have the same assortment of parts, and it could have anything - I remember somebody posting on FBTB about getting twelve pizzas (those 2x2 round tiles with the pizza prints) in one of them, while I got three of the printed 6x1x5 slope brick used as the top of the T-16 Skyhopper's main fin in one of mine. Price-wise, they were fantastic - 1513 pieces for $20, which works out to less than one and a half cents per piece, and that included lots of large and/or "special" parts. I wish I'd gotten a bunch more than the four I did.

Man, I've been away from EB too long over the holidays - so much great news! The new Palace Cinema, this... too much LEGO stuff to keep up with! It's unfortunate that beautiful-looking western town didn't make it, but honestly I'd have been shocked if it had. I don't quite get the reasoning; the "conflict" with an ongoing project (presumably The Lone Ranger) seems to me to make sense only if there's some sort of contractual stipulation in their license agreement with Disney that they won't do other Western-themed stuff at the same time they're doing the Lone Ranger sets, and even then I'd have thought they could just wait - it's not as though The Lone Ranger is going to be around forever anyway; they could just hold this western town back (or even release it alongside the theme, as a complementary set). However, Disney could very well want no other Western LEGO sets out at the same time. I think the bigger issue is that it's, well... big. Really big. Seriously, that model is essentially a whole collection of modular buildings; it would surely have to be insanely expensive, dwarfing even the UCS Millennium Falcon in price. Could they possibly make a case for doing a set that might list for $800, $900, $1000 or more? But it is interesting that the reason they cited is conflict with an ongoing project, rather than its sheer size. Does this mean they could revisit it once they're no longer doing The Lone Ranger (assuming that's the conflicting project)? Or are CUUSOO proposals a one-chance-only thing, even if the reason for rejection isn't a permanent condition? It's bizarre to me that you'd think so. There's a huge difference between Back to the Future and Night Rider; the former was then and still is much more popular, and yes, it does continue to enjoy a huge following. I also don't understand your statement "it was up there with the A-Team," followed by a thumbs-down (!). Are you saying BttF was/is as bad/cheesy as The A-Team? That's... well, art is subjective and all and of course you're entitled to your opinion, but Back to the Future is widely regarded now as a classic, which The A-Team is not. I fully expect this model to be the best-selling CUUSOO model yet, actually.

That I don't know. I'm sure all the first editions (the ones with the certificates) have something on the outside of the box noting that, but I'm not sure if they were offered in all countries. It could be that the first edition was offered only in the US, for example; I'm afraid I don't know whether that's the case or not. This being Eurobricks, someone else here should know...

That sounds like a non-US set. Other countries don't have the same product labeling requirements, and so many LEGO sets will be sold in Europe, for example, in a box with much less text on it than the same set sold in the US. US boxes include things like the set name, the piece count and the suggested/recommended age range, but the European boxes might omit all that and feature just the LEGO logo, the theme name (Star Wars, City, Monster Fighters, whatever), and the set number.

Do you two mean unopened boxes - sets you bought but still haven't opened? I have well over a hundred of those, some of them from as much as ten or eleven years ago (some older Star Wars sets from near the beginning of the theme, plus a couple Adventurers - Orient Expedition sets). Yikes!

If you say so. I actually do in fact use some of those things together. I also feel obligated to note the yellow / fleshie minifigure distinction isn't simply a matter of old vs. new, but rather one of original vs. licensed. They still make yellow minifigures in abundance, and can be expected to do so for as long as they stay in business. I do understand your point about having more specialized molds, but I still don't think that having newer molds necessarily obviates using any older ones. It may in some cases (in which one wants a uniform look, for example), but one can always find a reason to use a part if one so wishes. Suit yourself! I think TLG does a more than decent job of keeping sets (and even whole themes) to specific color schemes, and of course the availability of a wide range of colors doesn't mean a given MOC has to use all of them; it just means a builder has a wider range of possible palettes from which to choose. I do treasure my own memories of '80s (and '70s) LEGO, but I'm certainly glad there are more colors available now. When I first started playing with LEGO as a kid, I couldn't even get parts in such basic colors as orange or green (unless they were baseplates or trees or the like), never mind different shades of those colors. __________________________ Getting back to the main discussion... of course, pooling all one's parts from different eras together also just gives one the largest possible piece inventory from which to build, which is a reason I do it with mine. But of course, that's not everyone's concern. There's no one "right" answer to this question; everyone is free to mix or not mix his/her own parts and sets as he/she sees fit.

It's been almost a year since I made the last post, and nothing has happened yet. Did we just forget? This is still my choice for forum description, but other possibilities are good, too. If nothing else, though, could we please at least change "Toy Story 3" to "Toy Story" (since the LEGO theme covered the series in general) and "Spiderman" to "Spider-Man" (since that's the correct spelling... although if "Spiderman" is changed at all, it might as well be to "Superheroes," so that it covers everything from both Marvel and DC)?

You mean the Day 6 minifigure? I don't see why it can't be either one. I'd say it's whichever sex you want it to be.

Indeed, though it'd mean quite a bit more if the UCS sets were actually marketed as "limited editions."

At the moment I don't have much older LEGO. Alas, I believe I parted with my childhood bricks and sets a few years after entering my Dark Ages. The oldest material I have now are some small sets offered in the early '90s through a mail-in Kellogg's promo, plus a single early/mid-'80s knight and horse given to me by a friend. However, I do have some sets from the late '90s, and lots from throughout the 2000s up to the present day. Everything I have can get mixed together. I do wonder how much I'd be willing to mix in older sets, if and when I ever get some. I don't have any qualms about the parts getting mixed together and using older with newer bricks; the only thing that gives me pause is the fact that much of the older packaging was so lavish and beautiful compared to what we get now - all those clear plastic trays with compartments and so on - that it really invites using the box to store the parts that come in the set. But I think I'd want to do so, anyway. I don't understand why you "can't" use them together. Personally, I'd be very happy to use different pistol designs together - it's not as though everyone in the real Old West would have had exactly the same guns anyway.

I like the minifigure designs, but I'm irritated that the pilot doesn't match the one in Home One, and that one will needlessly spend a part of one's money on multiple Han Solos and Admiral Ackbars if buying multiples of these (even more so if one already has Home One). Nevertheless, even though I personally don't think an updated Han was absolutely necessary I do appreciate him getting one, and of course the pilot is great. I just wish I could easily get more pilots than "unique individual" characters like Han and Ackbar. If it had to have other minifigures than the pilot, I wish it had come with a Rebel technician (like the previous A-Wings), and/or a "generic" Mon Calamari (or other Rebel) officer instead of the two specific characters it comes with, but oh well. The ship itself is nicely done, but like nearly everyone else here I do wish it weren't so reliant upon stickers, especially for the cockpit canopy. But these qualms aside, I'd still love to get at least a couple.

I, too, prefer the older one, though I admit that's largely because I already have dozens of older stormtroopers, and now that they're no longer in new sets I can't expand much further upon the army I've been expanding for a while (the only sets still available that have them are the UCS Imperial Shuttle and the Death Star, and as much as I'd love to get multiples of both it's not terribly likely). I'm therefore faced with a choice of either a) forever contenting myself with the 70 or so stormtroopers I have now, plus whatever I might get from the Shuttle and Death Star; b) building a mixed force of both old and new stormtrooper torsos, and trying to overlook the non-uniformity of my uniformed troops; or c) starting over from scratch, and hoping I'll be able to get more of these new stormtroopers than I already have of the old ones. I think I'm ultimately going to go with a), though I'll at least use some of the parts from these to update certain aspects of the older troops (like using the later helmet print in place of all those earlier, simpler helmets from the early 2000s, with the "split lip" / "moustache" look).

It was (er, and still is)! It's one of the two largest Friends sets I've gotten myself (the other being this year's limited-production Advent Calendar), and it's a delight. If I had more funds I'd get a second copy (and a lot more of the other Friends sets, and more LEGO in general, of course, but anyway...). It's a well-designed little cafe / malt shop, and can go nicely into any LEGO City, not just a Friends layout.

It is, and I'd agree it should be noted in the general Friends 2012 discussion topic, but the distinction you note ("best toy," not just "best toy for girls") probably also warrants a mention in this thread as well. Of course, it's been mentioned now, so... all's well, I guess!

Yikes, seeing this review's original post date reminded me of just how long this set had been around - it feels to me like it's been out just a couple months, but I guess it's almost a year old now. I'm perpetually behind on getting sets I want, alas; I should probably move on this one quickly, especially since I'd like more than one...