-Tilius-

And so blocking me is more/less childish?? Point is, this BrickQ idea is just doing what forums do but attempting to pass it off as original. If the problems are to do with the software or whatever, then an Invisionfree board is an easy and free alternative. And no, I'm not that angry in real life, lol. I just get worked up when I see blatent stupidity.

It's just frustrating because I was being helpful. There was one review of some magnetic-type toy that a company sent them to 'review', but it just turned into an advertisement for a shoddy product. I assume that they were paid to do this - or at the very least they got given a product for free, which they then probably sold on (since they seem to do that with everything they review). I get frustrated by stupidity. So, when I get blocked for being critical, I get annoyed because it means that the stupid people think they have 'won'. And the irony of them calling me a 'little child' angers me as well. So I'm trying to find out if people agree with me, or if how they were to me is a 'one-off'.

Because I'm allowed to talk about what I want to.

Opinions? They recently launched their new site 'BrickQ.com', a site that is solely for asking inane questions on, and whilst it rewards you for answering them (regardless of whether your answer is right or wrong) it also punishes you for asking them. Hardly a friendly community. It's essentially are more linear and less friendly version of a forum, the discussion method that the whole internet has used for years, because it works. BrickQ seems to only exist so that TBS can act as if they have something amazing and unique, when in reality it's a massively flawed premise. I only bring this discussion here because I was blocked on Youtube for pointing out these gaping flaws. And was then accused of acting like a 'little child'. The people of The Brick Show seem to have no understanding of how to construct a friendly community, nor are they able to cope with criticism, even if its constructive. This 'block if someone disagrees with me' system seems to have plagued many sites now, and caters for the minority of people who aren't strong or clever enough to cope with criticism, which is a huge personal flaw to have when you're putting your videos and reviews online for people to comment on. I just wondered what other peoples views on The Brick Show were, and whether anyone else has had bad experiences? The show is not limited to Lego sets, however, as they often review second-rate products that manufacturers send to them to promote, which rather demonstrates how keen to make money TBS is. They'll review just about any old tat if they get paid for it. Noble. Anyway, OPINIONS?

Cool story bro, but not relevant to the topic at all. :D Anyway, I'd probably say Graveyard Duel would be my favourite set.

Thanks for the attitude. Really megablocking helpful. The first post doesn't list the price, which is why I asked. No need to be a douche.

So, any info on the summer 2011 Millenium Falcon? I assume it'll be bigger than the midi scale, but smaller than the UCS, right?

I am being patient, and trying to be helpful....

Nope, there's clear grammatical errors in there, and poorly worded sentences. Just trying to help you improve. Example: if you ran what you just said through MSWord, it'd likely suggest 'I've done that', rather than 'I done that'. :-)

Nice photos and all, but do run reviews through MSWord before posting, just to fix spelling and grammar errors. :)

I'm a big fan of casual sexism, and I'd appreciate if I didn't have my beliefs criticised. I don't go around saying CHRISTIANITY PROMOTES HATE, so people should respect my beliefs too. :) Oh and btw this is a completely pointless discussion. And people shouldn't start saying they're 'enraged' by it. I'm 'enraged' by poverty and war and so on. Not by some sloppy writing in what amounts to little more than an online fanfic. Also, I second the point about arguing on the internet being like the special Olympics. - Tilius

He's clearly saying he does want a Rancor....

Lol, take a joke. I was mocking the pettiness of my own criticisms with that bit. - Tilius

Eh? So what are we supposed to be talking about? 'Cause giving opinions on sets is the point of having a topic for discussion of 2011 sets, isn't it? :S

I'd have probably swapped Woody and Buzz around, because Buzz should be Han and Jessie should be Leia. Stinky Pete would also make more sense as a mentor to a Woody Skywalker, too. I'd probably also make Sarge Yoda, and the Aliens Stormtroopers, and Lotso Darth Sidious. For that reason, 0/10.

8038 Battle of Endor is now £65 at Argos, a saving of £10 (technically £20 seeing as the price recently went up to £85 everywhere else).

I always wanted a new Boba with seperate jetpack and helmet and generally more accurate, but actually now that we have it I think prefer the original one. It looks more adorable, with the fat-face helmet and stuff. Leg and arm markings are also quite welcome, so I'd say the Cloud City Boba would be the best - but I'm perfectly happy with my existing Boba.

The Lego messageboards are like any other messageboard - anybody can post there, just because it's the official site doesn't mean what randomers say is official or holds anything of note at all....

That's absolutely no indication as to how well a theme did, though. E-F selled well - well enough to continue for a few years. It perhaps had less popularity among AFOLs, but was still a pretty profitable line for Lego for the first two years at least. It's also silly to be talking about whether a theme is 'good' - that's subjective, obviously, but also has nothing to do with how well the theme sold. To 'tank' means to sell badly - and it sold well. - Tilius

Hm, I actually prefer the stud-y look - it makes it more Lego-y, and flat tiles would have given it another layer so could've messed up the head shape. All a matter of taste I suppose. - Tilius

Sadface. Obviously, I disagree. The new JSF is my definition of over-simplification, this AT-ST is perhaps as complex as it could be. Looks really great in person, IMO. Just out of interest, what sort of changes would you have like to this set? Haha, thanks, glad you enjoyed it. I'd definitely pick it up while you still can. :) I'd agree with your points about inaccuracies, actually, but they don't bother me too much. Personally, I almost prefer this AT-ST look to the others, and loads of pictures I see of AT-STs all look slightly different. The one in the comparison picture is different to the one in ROTJ, for example. Also, the model could have had an interior, but then what's the need? It can't really be seen unless the head is dismantled, and, when on display, you don't really want a dismantled head, lol. Plus, an interior would probably mean a part increase, and also a price increase, which would make this less of a bargain. As with the UCS MF, the interior is all build, to keep the outer appearence together and to look accurate - so an AT-ST interior could harm the outer appearance/stability, even if they found a new way of constructing it. And UCS sets are all about the outer appearance, for display and to look impressive, so an interior isn't something I'd be too bothered by. I'd have liked a better way of connecting the panels together, though. But I'm obviously biased because I love this vehicle and I love this set representation. :) - Tilius

10175 Imperial AT-ST Set Name: Imperial AT-ST Set Number: 10174 Year of release: 2006 Price: £59.99 (Still available on eBay, sometimes for less than the original RRP!) Parts: 1068 I noticed we don't have a review of this set, so here we go. The box is really rather nice, with the AT-ST stood on Endor. Flipping it over, we get another shot of the model, along with a couple of front and side photos with measurements. 42cm tall, 24cm wide, and 30cm long. It's a pretty big set, especially for £60. Inside are two instruction books (rare for a £60 set), and the build is pretty simple. Leg, leg, lower 'body' in the first book, then the head in the second. This is the head, with the front taken off to show the insides. An elastic band holds together the two side panels, though it's not essential - it just keeps the plates held in a little tighter, making it look better. Now, this is my one complaint with the set. This whole area is pretty fragile. I pulled the set apart in chunks for storage, and, when I got it back out, it took forever to put this all back together. You fix on one side, another falls off. You reach in to rejoin some pieces inside the head, and another panel falls off and I HAVE FURY. It's incredibly frustrating. But, follow the instructions and you should be pretty much fine. It's just trying to rebuild it from chunks that has proven difficult. That's the construction of the body/lower head, with the turning wheel thing which lets the head move, and some nice detail at the back as well. Now, the finished set. It's beautiful. Seriously. You know with most sets, you glance at them and that's it? With this set, you look at it and get an inner feeling of 'that's awesome' every time. Perhaps that's just me. But it looks very, very impressive in the plastic. I've compared it to some art of the actual AT-ST, which I expect this model was based off, and it's pretty much spot-on. The legs look great, though naturally cause a little repetitive build (they're not the exact same, obviously, but they're 'mirror images' of eachother, as you'd expect). They're quite stable, too. A little notch stops the body from swinging down under the legs - it keeps the body at 180°, basically. The set is a little wobbly, but it's not going to fall over or anything. A couple of head closeups. One gun sticks out a lot, but that's accurate to the actual thing, so I can't really complain. The window flaps can also be adjusted to a close position. The back of the head. It's quite pretty for something that isn't really going to be seen whilst on display. The designers could have easily been quite minimalistic here, but they weren't - I suppose that's what you get from a UCS set. The top of the head, with the hatch open and closed. I hear that this is inscale with many regular Star Wars figures, though I don't own any so I can't say. Of course, you get the usual UCS info stand. A few flat plates with a sticker on. So, to conclude. Build 8/10 - It's fine, but loses a couple of marks for the head which falls apart quite a bit (only if you're meddling - it'll be fine for display or moving from one place to another.). Also, the leg build is inevitably repeated, but that can't be helped. Functionality 10/10 - It's meant to be displayed, and it looks awesome. The two things work well together. Design 9/10 - The elastic band in the head is a little odd, but everything else holds up. Parts 8/10 - It's a lot of grey plates, really. If you're into grey, you'll likely love this, though. Personally, I didn't buy this for parts. But even if you did, it's 1068 of them for £60. Price 10/10 - It's £60. For 1068 parts. For a set that looks awesome. This is pretty much the biggest bargain OF ALL TIME. Especially considering that there's one going on eBay for £50 right now. The price hasn't flown up over the years like it did with 6210, so you've no excuse not to go and buy this set. Final Rating: 93% Not gonna lie - this is perhaps my favourite Lego set EVER. I love the AT-ST design anyway, and this set captures it perfectly, AND looks big and awesome on display. I got it for £40 on a S@H sale, too, so it really was a steal. I can't recommend this set enough. Really, I can't, and it's still available on places online for around the original RRP. Please, go buy it. It's beautiful. Thanks. - Tilius

Awesome, can't wait to see more. I expect we'll get a version of Jack without the hat, too. I just have an inkling. I also expect we'll get a wave before the film comes out, with sets from the previous movies, like we had with Toy Story. I'm not actually sure when it's coming out, but since the minifig has already been shown we'll probably get a wave in early 2011, then another when the film is released.

I believe it was you who jumped into a discussion which you had not previously been involved in, so please don't try to act like I'm the 'aggressor' when you began commenting on me/my degree of education for no reason at all.

I think calling someone 'uneducated' because they disagree with you is pretty disrespectful. All I said was that this set doesn't seem as UCS-like as you'd expect from a 2010 UCS set. EDIT: I'm not ignoring other people's opinions at all. People provided counter-arguments to my view, so I'm giving counter-arguments to theirs. It's discussion. I'm simply getting frustrated by it because it's going round in circles, and people don't seem to be understanding me. Anybody can tell that this set is not as blatently UCS as, say, the Millenium Falcon was. And that's essentially what I was saying to begin with, and at no point has anybody implied that they at least see this. Instead, people have been trying to 'prove wrong' my observation. But it was just an obvious observation. Really obvious.