Aanchir

Oh wow! I was surprised to see that somebody else had submitted a Lagoon Lock-Up design that I hadn't noticed earlier in the entry period, but I now see you posted this pretty close to the deadline. I'm very glad I've seen it now! Especially after trying to redesign the same set, it's very exciting to compare my take on it with your own! From the get-go, it's clear you succeeded in a couple areas where my own entry failed: creating a functional "bridge" between the two rooftops and coming up with a way for the model to connect seamlessly to the new Eldorado Fortress. I included compatible connection points in the back and on the right side of my model, but the lower dock height means that you'd need another custom module in between it and any of the Eldorado Fortress modules you attached it to if you wanted the docks/walkways to line up. I never even considered the possibility you arrived at of creating walkways between the models via the rooftops instead of the docks, nor of making something that would connect to Eldorado Fortress when it's displayed in a traditional (enclosed) layout! For that matter, you also added a second "level" to your dock, another idea I wish I'd considered (since that way the dockfront is still low and close to the water, but the floor level in the back is high enough that it would be just a short step up to Eldorado Fortress's narrow walkways if you had included connections in the back). This change also allowed you to add a more interesting and detailed rocky foundation here than was possible in my take on this set. I now kind of wish I had thought of that possibility for my own entry! You took less of a "dollhouse-style" open backed approach to this than I did, and honestly you did a beautiful job with that! While a huge back window/balcony like this might not be entirely realistic, as you acknowledge, the addition of a short railing and terra cotta awning certainly makes it feel very natural and very tasteful! It reminds me of the sort of luxurious ocean view that you might see at a seaside resort, and it's a bit of a shame there's no room for indoor seating so patrons of the tavern could enjoy the view and sea breeze from the comfort of indoors! The same goes for the rooftop, where not only did you add parapets in the back, you also put the cannon on a turntable and curved the parapets around the left side of the tavern around it to create a very strategic-looking fortification! That said, I do sort of wish there were a ladder from the rooftop to the dock below so that the rooftop areas weren't solely accessible from Eldorado Fortress — especially so that soldiers on lookout on the rooftop can respond quickly if they see pirates stirring up trouble down below! One aesthetic choice you made for the tavern that I'm not so keen on is using the elaborate 1x4x2 decorative art nouveau fences in place of the 1x4x2 diagonal lattice fences from the original set. Don't get me wrong, that is a beautiful part that I've been a huge fan of ever since it first showed up in the LEGO Elves theme, and I'm always happy to find new excuses to use it! However, I feel like a diagonal lattice pattern is a better match for the texture of the lattice window panes you and I both chose to use in the front window and on the door. That was my main reason for using 1x2x2 windows for the railings in my own remake, so that it could keep that same visual motif while still allowing for a more robust tiled "handrail" on the top. Making these fences/railings black also means that they don't contrast as well with the dock and floor as the ones in the original set. It's possible that would be less of an issue in real life than in a render (which tends to make dark colors kind of smush together and lose contrast in a lot of places unless you're very specific about the angle of your light sources). But I think white railings might be a better fit, even if you stick with this decorative wrought-iron look. After all, even wrought-iron fences can be painted! On the interior, I also noticed that because you added a back railing, the barkeep appears to be kind of trapped behind the counter unless she vaults over either the countertop or the railings or squeezes through a narrow one-stud gap! Perhaps you could remedy this by replacing the 2x4 countertop with some hinge plates so part of the countertop can "swing" upward to clear a walkway for her when it's time to open or close the tavern for the day? I'm not sure if I'm describing this clearly but you can do a Google search for "flip top countertop" to see some non-LEGO examples of the sort of hinged opening I'm talking about. All these suggestions are your choice, of course — since you plan to build and display this alongside Eldorado Fortress in real life, it's more important for it to suit your tastes than anybody else's! And I know that when it comes to designing and furnishing smaller buildings, it's sometimes simpler to suspend your disbelief about how a minifig gets from point A to point B than to get hung up on the details of how each and every area is accessed. Most of these nitpicks of mine are just stuff that I already had a lot of thoughts about when working on my own model — some of which I never quite managed to resolve to my own satisfaction anyhow. And while your model obviously is not gonna be exactly the way I would've done it, I still feel like you still did an amazing job overall, to the point of making me rethink a number of the choices I made with my entry! Best of luck in the voting!

Since this was such a late submission I didn't end up seeing it until I was browsing the entry list to pick what to vote for, but I'm glad I did! What an impressive redesign! You stayed true to the the style of the BSB remake from Barracuda Bay in terms of the hull construction, but for the most part that works nicely! The one detail of the hull I feel kind of iffy about is the use of 1x4 double curved slopes and 1x2 slopes for the black vertical stripes in between the white side walls — since the sides of this ship aren't as steep as those of the updated BSB, the "bulging" shape here feels a little more obtrusive. I also wish you'd used smaller tiles on both sides so the gunports can open freely, even if it disrupted the lines a bit. The owl piece is a great choice for the figurehead, even if it's not quite a perfect match for the ship's British name "Sea Hawk". Its outstretched wings give it a much more dynamic look than the old parrot piece, while still matching the angle of the bowsprit. And the functional rudder is quite an ambitious improvement to the original model. You did a beautiful job matching the level of decorative detail of Barracuda Bay's sterncastle exterior without simply mimicking that set's specific decorative details. The lattice railings likewise contrast nicely with the cone-and-tile construction of the Barracuda's railings, while looking no less ornate. I also love some of the clever ideas you had for details on the deck like the bell and the ladders to the poop deck! The interior is often one of my main areas of interest for both sets and MOCs at this high level of detail, and yours certainly doesn't disappoint! The captain's cabin is beautifully furnished. The cozy, decorative bedspread/comforter contrasts nicely with the tiny cot in Redbeard's cabin from the BSB, and speaks to the level of luxury high-ranking Imperial officials might be accustomed to, far unlike the lifestyle of pirates or lowly Imperial sailors! The desk chair, desk and curtains also speak to this sort of lavish lifestyle. That said, I feel like the 90s fish pieces are an odd choice for the arms of the chair, since most of the other details of this MOC are the sort of thing that might show up in a modern set, while that piece has been retired for over a decade. If I might make a suggestion, the Flame Yellowish Orange/Bright Light Orange seahorses from the marine life accessory pack might be a good modern substitution, and you could maybe even find uses for some other animals from that pack elsewhere in the model (either as actual sea creatures or as decoration)! Moving on to the gun deck, it's ridiculously impressive to me that you managed to design the beds with so much detail while still ensuring that their "peacetime" function is completely hidden when the cannons are in place — no swapping around necessary! And also having hidden storage underneath the mattresses? Truly wild! The rack for the soldiers' caps and backpacks is another nice detail on the other side, although I'm less keen on how the hat rack blocks the gunports. After all, even if guns aren't being used on that side, I'm sure the soldiers would still appreciate being able to open up the gunports as windows when not in battle! Great work overall! I'm glad you were able to finish this in time for the contest deadline, and the amount of creative thought and effort you put into it definitely shows in the final product!

Wow, what an amazing slate of entries in every category! There are even a few i had missed while the entry period was open, some of which I'll definitely be giving feedback for in their respective topics after I finish submitting this reply. My votes go to: Main Building Category The Lost Lagoon by The Brick Stop Caribbean Brig by Stoertebricker Cross Bone Clipper Remake UPDATED! by Elephant Knight Caribbean Clipper by TomSkippy 6278/6292 Enchanted Island Remake by Danny_Boy4 Mini Set Building Category Shipwrecked Survivor by Nyugvo6 Shark Cart by TomSkippy 1872 Imperial Guard Camp by Thewatchman Renegades Raft by Thewatchman 6232 Skeleton Crew Remake by Jack Sassy

In any case, it does sort of surprise me we've never seen a pharmacy in a set, especially since pharmacies so often tend to carry "convenience store/general store" type goods in addition to medications and other medical products. I suppose part of the issue is that they wouldn't offer contents and play features as varied and interesting to kids as the sort of businesses that show up most often in LEGO sets. A restaurant/cafe can have kitchen appliances, different ingredients, drink machines, dining tables, etc. A convenience store can be integrated with a larger service station, and can potentially also sell similar stuff to a restaurant/cafe (e.g. pizza, hot dogs, coffee, slushies, popsicles, etc). A bike/ski/surf shop offers products that can be used for action play outside the shop itself, and in some cases can even have a dedicated space for repairs in addition to sales/rentals. Banks usually tend to show up as the target of bank robberies, which obviously adds loads of potential for action play. By comparison, a pharmacy interior mostly consists of a bunch of identical shelves stocked with miscellaneous boxes and bottles, and most of those probably wouldn't even be printed with any specifics about their contents, since you'd have to stock a whole store's worth of them! It's sort of the same reason why I imagine it took so long to a see a record store in sets, and why we never got a video store in sets (though those are a less common thing in real life anymore than they were when I was a kid). Identical shelving units full opf near-identical products don't tend to be all that fun to build OR to play with. That said, I could imagine a small pharmacy being a small secondary business in a Modular Buildings Collection or Ninjago City set in the future, especially if they include other contents that would tie in with it to add further play/storytelling/building potential — such as a clinic/doctor's office, or a florist shop and a shopper with spring allergies. After all, as a small part of a larger set like that, you wouldn't need to fill as much floor space, or to work as many points of interest into the pharmacy on its own.

Neat work! I apologize that it took me so long to comment on this! I'll admit, I'm not quite as fond of this as I am of the Galaxy Roadster. In particular I feel a little iffy about the way the SNOTted slopes on the sides leave a horizontal gap at window level, and also with the jagged shape and uneven colors/textures of the radio antenna. At the same time, I realize that a lot of that was probably unavoidable, since this is honestly restricted in even more ways than the Galaxy Roadster was: not only is it likewise built from the parts left over from one of 10497's alternate models, but this model is also aiming to re-imagine a specific Classic Space model, and one with a very different sort of subject matter than the original (vehicle-focused) set! I think this model is helped a lot by your willingness to take creative liberties from the original model, such as by making the supports for the command base perpendicular to the front window instead of parallel, and using a ladder for access instead of stairs. You did a good job "upscaling" the design to match the official 10497 builds, referencing distinctive details like the old-timey TV antenna, and making use of leftover grey parts (especially larger ones) for the lunar landscape. And the command center interior looks fantastic with its big picture window, clean white floor, and dazzling array of screens and gauges! Even so, I think my favorite parts of the model are the ones that you DIDN'T base on 497/928. The power station is a fantastic design that fits perfectly with this modernized Classic Space design language — if non-vehicle "side builds" were as common in 70s and 80s sets as they are in modern ones, then I could definitely imagine a smaller and simpler version of this power station being one of them! The taps also seem like they could be a place to hook up charging cables for an electric power supply vehicle, perhaps similar in design to the fuel tankers from set 920/483 or 6980 Galaxy Commander, so that larger ships don't have to dock directly next to the power station. The rover is also a great design, adhering closely to the utilitarian colors and textures of early Classic Space ground vehicles, but with a shape that evokes the whimsy of later sets like 6883 Terrestrial Rover (which you may have been intentionally referencing with it?) and 6952 Solar Power Transporter. It also somewhat calls to mind the elevated bed of the rocket transport trailer from set 897/462. While the tall and narrow proportions might seem a bit wacky, I suspect they would be more practical in a low-gravity environment than they would be here on Earth! And when fully loaded with supplies, having the cargo bay low and centered also probably be more likely to prevent rollovers (which would be the main issue for a vehicle with these proportions in real life) than to cause them. I almost overlooked the little speeder since it is so small compared to the other models in the main image! But it's quite lovely in its own right — the 1x4 offset plates make great fixed landing gear, the tap pieces are cleverly used as compact thrusters, and it maintains the familiar wedge/arrowhead shape of so many Classic Space vehicles but in a unique way. Between the "legs", dual wings, and the antenna-like control levers, it almost reminds me of a mechanical cricket or grasshopper!

Oh awesome! That's a detail I hadn't picked up on! Very cool to know that similarity was an intentional part of the design — though honestly it's cool enough, and distinct enough from any of the "official" 10437 builds, that I'd appreciate it even if it didn't have any parallels/inspirations in actual Classic Space sets. I think the best LEGO builds (either as sets or MOCs) are the sort that offer plenty of "story starters" as a creative jumping-off point, and the parking robot really excels at that! I'm glad it doesn't annoy you for me to share silly asides about the sort of ways I imagine models like this being played with. I sometimes worry about how stuff like that comes across, especially with my tendency to ramble.

Do you even see what you're doing here? You're accusing @icm of a strawman fallacy by misunderstanding/misrepresenting the perspective you're coming from — but then you follow that up with a load of baseless assumptions about what Mike Psiaki's thought process and perspectives were when designing 10497. Just because he designed the set in a way you disagree with, you're now throwing out accusations that he didn't "really care or feel or think it's his job to try and reach the heart of the matter" and that he didn't bother "thinking how to translate between two design languages" or "taking a stand on whatever the designer likes" or "consulting with his colleagues". And then you conclude by fabricating a condescending summary of what YOU think his process was ("oh, it's a ship that goes vroom…"). Not only is that a strawman fallacy itself, it's also arrogant as heck. Moreover, it outright contradicts things that Mike Psiaki has described about the set's development process in interviews!* You claim you "would not insult anyone's vision of the GE" and "would not consider their taste inferior to mine", but you continue to do exactly that — both by insinuating that the set didn't reflect any sort of vision or careful consideration on the designer's part, and by insinuating that anybody whose vision of the Galaxy Explorer aligns with 10497 is simply settling for a soulless "inflated and smoothed" version of the original, as opposed to actually recognizing and appreciating specific creative decisions the designer made with the set. I'm gonna try not to prolong this any further, because as icm has pointed out, we're just relitigating disagreements from months ago. So if you're still determined to assume the worst about the set designer's level of care and effort after all this time (and against all evidence to the contrary) then this whole conversation seems like a waste of my OWN care, effort, and time. *Here are some links to interviews about the set you can read/watch, if you truly want to know about the actual thoughts and considerations that went into the set's design, instead of just the version of the design process you've made up in your head: https://brickset.com/article/78875/interview-with-mike-psiaki-designer-of-10497-galaxy-explorer https://www.theverge.com/23173235/lego-galaxy-explorer-90th-anniversary-birthday-price-release-date https://metro.co.uk/2022/07/28/lego-90th-anniversary-interview-rebuilding-nostalgia-for-retro-sets-17082366/ https://youtu.be/onr3JQICOi4?si=8bQ5z2eE7NQEif5g

I get that you might not care for those types of "playset features". But for me, the interior details were perhaps the biggest thing that attracted to me about 10305 Lion Knights' Castle — and I'm 32 years old, so well past my own KFOL years. And the same was true of some of the other 18+ or otherwise adult-targeted sets I'd previously sought out and enjoyed, like the Modular Buildings Collection, Ninjago City collection, and LEGO Ideas Medieval Blacksmith. In general, I feel like a lot of AFOLs tend to treat some features of a set design as "stuff kids like" and others as "stuff adults like", but from my experience, it doesn't break down nearly so neatly. Aside from the actual complexity of a build, one of the things I've found about AFOL-targeted sets compared to KFOL-targeted sets is that they often tend to be more well-rounded. A lot of traditionally "boy-targeted" sets in themes like City, Castle, Pirates, and Ninjago are really heavy on action-focused subject matter and play features, but their interiors tend to be rather sparse, and they often have relatively little focus on everyday slice-of-life role-play scenarios. They've gotten better about this in recent years, (and generally about targeting both boys and girls rather than overwhelmingly prioritizing features that boys respond to in play tests), but prior to the mid-2010s, these shortcomings were EXTREMELY apparent. Conversely, "girl-targeted" KFOL sets have traditionally excelled when it came to interior furnishings and everyday role-play features/accessories, but had a lot fewer action play features or dangerous/high-intensity conflict scenarios (though again, beginning in the mid-2010s they started showing more balance in that regard). They've also often had extremely "open" designs with incomplete walls and roofs — even beyond the traditional open-backed design of LEGO Town/City buildings — in order to ensure that all these detailed interior elements are fully accessible for play and storytelling. Adult-targeted sets often seek to strike more of a balance between action and slice-of-life elements. Consider how the Medieval Market Village from 2009, Kingdoms Joust from 2010, Haunted House from 2013, and Temple of Airjitzu from 2015 contrast from the high-intensity conflict scenarios of their parent themes, even without focusing strictly on harmless "civilian" characters and accessories. Moreover, even when they DO have well-furnished interiors, adult-targeted sets still tend to be more display-oriented than KFOL-targeted sets. While some do still include an open back wall, like those in the Winter Village Collection, many others are fully enclosed, and utilize either hinges or modular floor construction for interior access. In my opinion, there's nothing contradictory about including detailed and playable interiors like this in a display-oriented set. Even if as adults we tend to make less time for play and storytelling with these sets than we did when we were kids, these features still enrich the building experience, and act as awesome surprises to show off when they draw the attention of family, friends, and colleagues while on display. Sometimes we may even pull them down from the shelf just to open up and marvel at the details all over again (I certainly do, at any rate, even if they spend most of their time on display). And of course, details like these are a great source of inspiration for our own creations! And frankly, if LEGO made a castle that was somehow even more gorgeous and impressive on display than 10305, but that did not include a detailed furnished interior? I would not have any interest in that whatsoever. Even as an adult, it would not be to my personal taste, particularly since the lack of authentic medieval interior details like thrones, bedchambers, and banquet halls in old-school Castle sets was often a little disappointing/frustrating to me even when I was a kid! Galaxy Explorer is not quite as exemplary in this regard, by virtue of being a vehicle set rather than a building, and it's for that reason that I opted to get the Lion Knights' Castle instead despite its much higher price. But even so, the new Galaxy Explorer still has a much more elaborate interior than most other large spacecraft sets. Within its relatively narrow fuselage, it manages not just the gleaming white bridge (with extensive control panels, computer screens and seats for a crew of four), a garage/repair bay for the rover, and a sliding airlock, but also a living area with beds — a feature nearly unheard of in KFOL-targeted Space sets! As such, I consider it a great example of what could be possible with other large, adult-targeted sci-fi sets in the future. If LEGO could do work all that detail into a large space cruiser set at a $100 price point, just imagine the possibilities for a retro-inspired 18+ moonbase or space station! But… the original set ALSO had a big glass roof? How are you simultaneously claiming that the new one feels like a smaller, speedier class of ship compared to the original, AND that bigger classes of ship can't/shouldn't have a big transparent roof like the one the original had? I'm genuinely confused at what you're trying to argue here. LOL, no. There is nothing at all "easy" about building the entire front portion of the fuselage at such an unusual angle, especially while still maintaining a fully enclosed design. The easiest approach would have been to keep the fuselage "on-grid" and just used sloped windscreens like many of the Galaxy Explorer MOCs that @icm has shared in this thread. Here, the designers instead went out of their way to emulate both the double-windscreen design of the original AND the sleekness it seemed to be aspiring to (but held back from by its limited 1970s parts palette). But I do find this approach "better-looking" than the earlier stepped design, which still strikes me as a pretty obvious compromise meant to make the most of the limited window and windscreen elements available at the time. And why wouldn't the designers go with the approach that they feel looks best? After all, between the design work they did and the stuff they've said in interviews, it doesn't seem as though they share your viewpoint that the "soul" of Classic Space sets like the original Galaxy Explorer was intrinsically about looking "weird" or "awkward". In fact, I think you're maybe the only person I've ever seen try to assert that looking weird/awkward was a strength of the classic sets rather than a weakness, let alone a core aspect of what made them great. The wings in the new Galaxy Explorer are built differently from the original set, but so are several portions of the walls (most notably the angled front portion and the white arrow motifs). In any case, my point wasn't about what specific parts or techniques are used to create a smooth, clean-looking surfaces, but rather that it's not a fault to HAVE smooth, clean-looking surfaces like that in the first place, no matter how they're built As I see it, both the walls and wings of the original set were were fairly flat, planar, rectilinear surfaces in the original set. The new set kept them that way, with low-relief textural details applied only sparingly. The designers certainly could have added curves or high-relief protrusions (like the various bumpy surfaces of the Galaxy Dropship) to either the walls OR the wings. To me, the fact that they didn't seems both deliberate and purposeful, and shows that it was important to them to modernize the original set without deviating too far from the rectilinear, geometric design language which set it apart from LEGO spacecraft of later decades. Your priorities would clearly be different, and that's perfectly okay, but it bugs me that you keep acting as though the designers' choices indicate either a lack of understanding of Classic Space, or a lack of care/effort, when from all appearances the designers are just as passionate about classic Space as any of us, and it was that passion which informed their design decisions. In general, it seems their efforts paid off — the vast majority of feedback to this set has been glowingly positive, whether from reviewers or from ordinary buyers. Some folks had minor gripes with the design, and modified their own copies of the set accordingly, but you're the only person I've seen who thinks it was a ridiculous failure at what it set out to do. And it honestly seems kind of arrogant to keep acting as though your perspective only differs from other Space fans like @danth or myself because you're the only one willing to think critically and not just accept whatever's thrown at you. Even if you're relatively new to this community, you should know better than to make those sorts of assumptions. We ALL have our own likes, dislikes, and expectations, and we ALL evaluate new sets in accordance with those. Sure, some of us are easier to please than others, but that's usually a matter of which likes and dislikes are the highest priority to us, not a sign that any of us are less willing or less able to make honest and thorough assessments before deciding which set designs we approve of. Thank you for putting this much more concisely than I could have (although you're gonna make me hungry with comments like that )!

Oh, lovely! Thank you for gathering these links! I'd just finished commenting on Brickset's review but it's good to jump right from that to reading these other reviews and seeing the set from some different perspectives. A lot has been said about the horned helmets, but truth be told, it doesn't bother me too much. In general, LEGO "historic themes" tend to be based more on how their settings and subjects are perceived in the popular imagination (as informed by traditions from folklore, literature, film, etc, not just by relatively recent archaeological evidence). Same with the "shield-maidens" in this set and the Creator Viking Ship, which is even more explicitly inspired by mythology and folklore with its multiple mythological monster builds. To me, that sort of thing is not much different from how Captain Redbeard/Roger has the Jolly Roger emblazoned on his cap and bears the pop-culture pirate's familiar trifecta of battle scars — an eyepatch, peg leg, and hook hand — despite how unlikely it'd be for a real pirate captain to sport such a multifarious array of narrative signifiers! So while I'm sure pop-culture-influenced creative liberties like this are a point of frustration for historical scholars, especially when they overshadow the realities evidenced by archaeological finds and historical primary sources, I feel like they are acceptable compromises in the context of a toy like LEGO, which is as much about imagination and storytelling as it is about accurately recreating details of the world we live in. On another note, while commenting on Brickset's review I pulled up the original Viking Village project that the set was primarily based on, and was surprising to realize that the proposal in question had only called for THREE minifigures. Compared to that, the four minifigs in the final set feel like a pretty decisive improvement. Including a fourth minifigure also means the final minifig count is comparable to other rustic-looking Ideas sets like the Medieval Blacksmith and A-Frame Cabin, despite having a lower price point. I appreciate how some of these other reviews point out ways the set pulls a few ideas from BrickHammer's later, updated proposal (which had six minifigures, but also much brighter colors and a very different layout): some particular examples that stand out to me include the coniferous trees, the hidden cave in the back, the golden ornamentation on the longhouse/great hall, the choice to include a stone staircase instead of a wooden one, and the curling plume of smoke from the smithy's chimney. Even so, it's clear that the overall layout/composition, color scheme, and figure selection were primarily influenced by the original Viking Village proposal, which was also the one pictured in the LEGO Ideas x Target poll that led to this set getting approved for production. Hopefully if this set sells well, we might see similar contests that give second chances to other Ideas projects that were passed over in their initial review!

Oh, what a neat, zippy little spaceship! The wedge-shaped wing is a great fit for the Classic Space design language while standing out beautifully from the sharper arrowhead shapes of 10497 and its "official" alternate models. The center-mounted rocket cone reminds me of a lot of smaller "speeder" sets like 6820 and 6824… but of course, this ship has a much more robust design and an enclosed cockpit! The parking enforcement robot is not only a delightfully creative concept, but its design is also brimming with personality! I can definitely imagine it driving around a spaceport ticketing small parked on landing pads reserved for larger space cruisers, or zipping around after rover-driving hooligans trying to use the spaceport runways as an improvised racing circuit! And of course, most likely making all sorts of cute high-pitched siren noises while doing so. The beacon and crater are also a very clever way to use up some of the remaining parts while also providing some nice lunar scenery.

I don't really get that same impression at all from the new Galaxy Explorer. To me, the fuselage seems plenty bulky, even if the fuselage has less of that zigzag "double decker" look that the original got from having a large, flat "sunroof" in between the upper and lower windscreens. And it feels way more like a mobile base to me than any sort of combat vessel, particularly with its chunky wing profile, comfortable-looking interior, large crew, extremely limited armaments, and chunky engines which seem more designed for power than speed. Okay, but couldn't you just as easily argue that the "double decker" look of the Galaxy Explorer was the designers' way of making the transparent cockpit canopy as large and sharp-looking as was possible at that time? And that consequently, the sharply inclined fuselage and large windscreens of the new one are in fact todays' designers ways of staying true to that? After all, back in the 70s, LEGO didn't HAVE any larger or steeper windscreens than the 3x6 ones that the original Galaxy Explorer used, so the only way to simulate a huge transparent cockpit with a sharp side profile was to alternate between shallow sloped windscreens and flat plates. Even so, the result was obviously much larger and sharper than the windscreen shapes used for LEGO Town cars, trucks, and even airplanes of the time! And it's no surprise that soon as big 4x10 windscreen pieces with sharper inclines were introduced in the first wave of Space Police sets, they became a staple of large spacecraft sets for many years to come. I also don't think it's reasonable or realistic to act as though big flat walls or boxy shapes are implicitly an imperfection that classic sets only included because it was unavoidable. Buildings and vehicles in both real life and fiction often DO have plenty of big, flat surfaces! If you go out of your way to add textural/sculptural detail to a model just to avoid any portions of it seeming simple or plain, it can result in a messy or cluttered appearance. And that's especially true if those details don't serve any particular purpose and are just "detail for detail's sake". Yeah, you make a very good point about there being a big difference between "early" Classic Space and "late" Classic Space sets. Mind you, both have their charms! Looking at old advertisements and catalogs has given me a lot of appreciation for how HUGE and EXCITING a development it was when minifig-sized robots/androids were added to the theme in 1985 to provide assistance to the astronauts. Likewise, I have quite a fondness for the science-fantasy flair of "walkers" like 6882 and 6940, some of the earliest forerunners of the elaborate articulated mecha sets that captivate so many kids and adults today. And I love the sheer whimsy of 6806, even if zipping around on a chair propelled by vertically mounted rockets hardly seems like the most efficient means of locomotion! But by comparison, the older Classic Space stuff was, by the designers' own admission, more heavily influenced by the "space race" era that had done so much to spur their own youthful fascination with space travel. Those sets featured a lot of overtly real-world-inspired unmanned rockets with detachable radio satellites — two types of subject matter that you rarely see featured as prominent motifs in more fantastical or futuristic sci-fi adventure series like Star Wars or Star Trek! In set 483/920 in particular, the rocket was even launched from a similarly real-world-inspired launch tower and platform, and fueled by a relatively mundane-looking tanker trailer. Contrast with set 6930 released a few years later — not only does it include fantastical "flying saucer" shaped hovercrafts instead of just real-world-inspired "space-planes", rovers, and rockets, but they seem to draw power from a futuristic docking platform, rather than needing any sort of fuel hoses or charging cables. The shifting design philosophy of Classic Space sets was also apparent in the gradual shift in color schemes — particularly the introduction of sets with white and transparent blue as their main colors. The designers did this in order to help streamline the transition from Classic Space to Futuron, a new chapter in LEGO Space that was meant to portray what kids of the 80s believed the future of space travel might look like, rather than the sort of future the designers envisioned back when THEY were kids. Some of the signature features used to communicate that distinction Epcot-inspired monorail, colorful dome-shaped canopies, and other features that portrayed extraterrestrial civilizations rather than just untamed frontiers.

This comment feels unnecessarily mean to me. I agree that the Galaxy Dropship would not be a good Classic Space set from my perspective, and it's way more of a departure from the design language I prefer for Classic Space MOCs and sets (namely the heavy use of curved and streamlined elements instead of straight lines and angles, bumpy uneven surfaces with heavy greeble instead of smooth geometric ones with light greeble, and industrial-looking exposed Technic frames). But calling it "one of the ugliest Classic Space MOCs ever designed" feels needlessly insulting to the builder. It already bothers me when people say that sort of thing about the work of set designers, but it feels even ruder and more uncharitable to say that kind of thing about the work of our fellow AFOLs (and fellow Eurobricks members, for that matter). Most of us aren't doing this sort of thing professionally — we're just enjoying a hobby we're passionate about, and learning and growing as builders in the process. Moreover, I feel like it's a mistake to equate beauty/ugliness with how well/poorly a model meets our expectations for a particular type of subject matter. If I look at the Galaxy Dropship outside the context of what I think a Classic Space set ought to look like or how well it meets those expectations, it strikes me as an immensely cool, creative, and visually interesting space model, with a very unique design language of its own! And I would probably be pretty impressed if I saw it on display at a fan convention. But it wouldn't get my support on LEGO Ideas because that unique design language is not what I would want to see in a Classic Space set specifically. Just like how I might feel a piece of art or furniture is beautiful, but wouldn't buy it for my home if I didn't think it was a good fit for what I wanted or needed in that setting. Whether something is beautiful is different from whether it's "fit for purpose". Apologies for rambling a bit as usual — I've tried to condense my thoughts here as best I can. And apologies if it seems I'm picking on one word/sentence in your comment, but I feel like it kind of casts the rest of the comment in a bad light, even if I get where you're coming from. To pull this back to the topic of the new Galaxy Explorer, some of its biggest strengths in my opinion are how strictly it emulates the Classic Space aesthetic while still introducing the higher level of detail expected of today's adult-targeted models. Even compared to 70816 from The LEGO Movie, this set goes out of its way to avoid use of streamlined or curved parts, and to stick closely to the color scheme of the sets that inspired it. It also sticks much closer to the chunky look of the original Galaxy Explorer, with only a slightly sharper nose and slightly shallower slope for the cockpit slope. The set's limited greebling consists primarily of vents, antennas, or slightly raised/receessed surfaces, rather than elaborately textured pipes or exposed machinery like those on the Ultimate Collector Series Y-Wing — staying true to the very flat roof, wall, and wing surfaces of the original build. Even the buggy is small and utilitarian — in keeping with the original build, which took clear inspiration from the lightweight and utilitarian moon rover from NASA's Apollo program (and as such, primitive-looking even compared to a modern LEGO quad bike or ATV) rather than a more futuristic take on what planetary vehicles could potentially look like The biggest change from the original set in terms of subject matter and design language, IMO, was the introduction of a clean, white look for the interior wall — perhaps inspired by old-school LEGO Space marketing materials such as the Jim Spaceborn comics or the elaborate space station interiors from the LEGO World Show . But even with those, it still opted for the classic steering wheel piece like original Galaxy Explorer, rather than a more realistic control yoke or a futuristic holographic interface, and retro green computer screens with color-coded buttons, rather than touch-screens or an HUD projected onto the front windows. All these features differentiate the set nicely from the appearance of more modern Space sets (whether sci-fi and real-world-inspired). Such sets naturally tend to deviate strongly from those sorts of old-school LEGO Space aesthetics to better emulate what modern kids and adults expect space travel technology to look like. They do this both by taking full advantage of parts that didn't exist in the 70s, like streamlined curved slopes and windscreens, and by taking inspiration from modern technologies that didn't exist in the 70s, like flat-screen computer monitors with integrated webcams, touchscreen tablet computers, solar-powered electric vehicles, and remote-operated drone aircraft. By eschewing those sorts of modern details, the Galaxy Explorer emulates a much older vision of the future, based around hypothetical projections from the technological possibilities of the "space race" era — firmly contextualizing it in the world of Classic Space. Some neo-Classic Space MOCs like the Galaxy Dropship, for all their grandeur, could just as easily pass as Space Police 3, Galaxy Squad, or Mars Mission MOCS if you replaced the colors, graphics, and figures with the ones typical of those themes. Not so with the Galaxy Explorer redesign, which is heavily Classic Space inspired not just in its colors and graphics, but also its shaping, furnishings, and play features.

oh yeah, I definitely do feel genuinely disappointed/frustrated in cases where parts are misaligned to the point of not actually attaching where they should be. That said, in this case, the arm IS correctly attached on the box art, making me think that maybe the problem was noticed and corrected before release, but then LEGO accidentally released an older version of the main image to their site instead of the updated/corrected version. That same sort of thing can happen with actual photos, in cases where a new photoshoot has to be scheduled to correct for assembly errors in the previous photoshoot, or for last-minute design changes. There have also been cases where a set was photographed with extra bricks or radar dish pieces (besides those included with the set) to support the minifigs or other parts of the build with a dynamic pose or angle, which are then digitally edited out — but then LEGO accidentally uploaded an earlier version of the photo to their website with those "supports" still showing. The main difference with renders like the Gorilla Legend Beast one you shared is that they carry the added risk of assembly errors that AREN'T possible with physical bricks, like ones where parts are totally detached from any connection point, or where multiple parts are intersecting and occupying the same 3D space.

I honestly appreciate some of these imperfections, if only because a lot of folks these days assume ALL official LEGO product photos (aside from the lifestyle photos shown in real-world scenes) are renders, and this makes it easier to more accurately assess which ones are renders and which are not! But obviously, that has nothing to do with what's in the best interest of LEGO or of LEGO fans/buyers in general. You're right that ideally, product renders like this would look as close to the real product as possible, and that these are one of the areas where they haven't quite reached that point yet. I wouldn't consider it a problem or false advertising, though, unless there were a set where these inaccuracies actually made a huge difference in how buyers expect the assembled set to look. For example, some brick-built characters like Keko and his cousin from the first Jim Spaceborn comic book use the underside texture of a plate to represent important details (in this case, their eyes and nose). But in other cases, the little divots underneath each stud are unlikely to add to or detract from the appearance of a model any more than the anti-studs themselves.

I think it's for having a third stage of weight checks (i.e. per-bag, per-inner box, and per-outer box) to minimize the chance of missing parts in sets with extremely high piece counts? But that's mostly speculation on my part. I don't remember if I've ever read anything specific about the reason for some sets having inner boxes like that.

That really isn't too major an increase in the number of bags — Detective's Office originally included 18 bags of parts: four marked "1", four marked "2", five marked "3", and five marked "4" (and that was a set with a lot fewer pieces overall). A few years ago, a lot of sets switched to having just one or two main bags per number, instead of a whole bunch of different "Bag 1"s, "Bag 2s", etc. My guess is that this is for quality assurance reasons, so that if a bag is found to be incorrect or missing (either by an employee on the packaging line or by the end user), the problem can be quickly identified without the added complication of each section of the build having several bags of parts with identical number markings, but entirely different contents. The first set I remember getting with this new approach to bag numbering was 70618 Destiny's Bounty from 2017, but the change wasn't rolled out for all sets and themes right away — the Police Station was the first set in Modular Buildings Collection to adopt it.

I suppose LEGO could do something like 10184 that hearkens back to the mid-century modern architecture of pre-minifig Town models, but at minifig scale. Or they could make a new version of a large and highly specific model like 1589, 1592, or 6390 without the degree of "modernization" that City "main square" type sets tend to entail, and at a more adult-targeted level of complexity. But I think some of that carries the risk of seeming too much like the sort of subject matter featured in the Modular Buildings, but without the back walls and modular connections that fans of those sets have come to expect. I suppose there's also plenty of potential for LEGO to make a smaller "throwback" set as a GWP: for example, a more adult-targeted redesign of iconic but otherwise simplistic sets like 6595 or 6350. That said, most of the 18+ GWP sets covering modern/20th-century subject matter have been either vehicles to accompany the Modular Buildings or Ideas contest winners like Sailboat Adventures. One "throwback" set with 20th-century subject matter which we HAVE already seen at that sort of GWP size/budget is 40409, though it was referencing a much larger Model Team set (but at minifig scale) rather than a classic Town set, and preceded the introduction of the classic-inspired box art we've seen for subsequent "throwback" sets based on other themes. I think that's a good sign that a re-imagined Town set could exist as a GWP in the future without conflicting too much with other product lines. But I also feel like the decision for more recent "throwback" sets of this sort to focus primarily on sets and themes that don't correspond as neatly to current themes (like Castle, Pirates, Space, and Bionicle) is not accidental. So a classic Town redesign might have to "wait in line" a bit behind other, less City-ish set redesigns that LEGO is considering for future exclusives and GWPs.

Ah, the pics from the LEGO site are just what I needed to take in the details of the set! The minifig designs look really lovely. The metallic blue war paint on the archer is an especially cool and unique detail. The printed legs also add a lot of flair even to the figures that reuse face and torso prints from other sets. I also appreciate the printed details on other elements of the build, particularly the recurring Midgard serpent motif on the barrel lids and the stone carving next to the smithy. Even the blacksmith's hammer is printed with metallic copper ink, which really feels like going "above and beyond" even the most demanding of AFOL expectations! I'm sure there are some folks who would have preferred more minifigures or printed shields in place of some of these other printed elements, but I quite like that the balance the designers struck. I had noticed one unprinted shield even in the smaller picture, but it's exciting to see here that it is in the process of being painted with an included paintbrush! This is a nice detail, although it would have been preferable if the shield were a shade of brown to represent unpainted wood, rather than the silver color used to represent the metal rim and boss on the printed shields. Seems I was wrong about the poultry cooking on a spit — it's in a suspended pan instead, which I don't terribly mind. The hearth is very nicely constructed, with a great stone texture on the sides and enough flame pieces to really fill out the space. The chieftain's throne also makes outstanding use of those new mech finger pieces from this year's Ninjago and Marvel sets for its armrests and backrest! And the throne's 3x3 size is very fitting — more impressive than a 2x2 or 2x3 throne, but not nearly as oversized as the 4x4 thrones that were typical in the 90s when I was growing up. The aforementioned mech finger piece is also used to great effect as a detail element on some of the roofs, as is the minifig torso armor from last year's Ninjago "Golden Dragon" minifigs (which i didn't even recognize at first glance)! I'm also impressed with the use of 2x2 curved wedges for the little peaked roofs above the tower windows, which meet up nicely with the cheese slopes and inverted 1x2 slopes on either side. The SNOTted Medium Nougat wood slats of the blacksmith's back wall and the stacked Reddish Brown and Dark Brown plates forming the longhouse's front wall are also very impressive building techniques for this rustic sort of pre-modern architecture. This is also the first set to use part 2630 (previously used for string lights/fairy lights or climbing ropes in various themes) for a rope bridge! I am also pleased with the little monitor roof on top of the longhouse with windows for ventilation. While fairly simple in construction, this is a very authentic representation of one way medieval buildings would vent smoke from a hearth back before chimneys and smoke hoods were popularized for domestic use (rather than just for industrial forges and kilns like the one in this set's smithy). The lifestyle video on LEGO.com confirms my suspicions about how the forge function works. It's simple but very effective, and is even set up so it resembles the bellows being squeezed rather than just pushed in and out like the bellows function in the Medieval Blacksmith (though there are some trade-offs, since these bellows are less compact and can't be removed and held by a minifig). I definitely remain very impressed with the designers' work here! Very true to the original project, but taking advantage of opportunities to add new functions/details, improved building techniques and color blocking, and creative use of newer parts where possible. The price also seems very reasonable IMO — considerably lower even than the prices of the Medieval Blacksmith or A-Frame Cabin! Hopefully it will be a very big hit both with fans of historic themes and with new LEGO fans drawn to its unique subject matter.

I mean, I feel like there are a LOT more cool/interesting parts in this set than you're giving it credit for: Four Tr. Red 3x3 radar dishes Two Tr. Red 2x2 round bricks Ten Bright Blue and eight Md. Stone Grey 1x4x3 tail fins Four Bright Red and two Md. Stone Grey 3x3 Technic weapon barrels Four Md. Stone Grey 5x5x2 Technic wheels Four Md. Stone Grey washtubs/exhaust cones Six Md. Stone Grey buckets/thruster cones Four Md. Stone Grey octagonal handle plates Two Md. Stone Grey 2x2 nose cones Two Md. Stone Grey 4x4 and 2x2 radar dishes Three Md. Stone Grey 4x4x2/3 tiles with rounded corners Two Md. Stone Grey storage boxes and lids Two 4x4 round bricks with recessed center TWELVE printed computer console/control panel tiles with SEVEN different patterns. and on top of all that, a brick-built robot I get that "interesting" is subjective, and some of those parts might not appeal to you as much as they do to me. But to me, many of them seem much more interesting and useful for MOCs than some of the ones from classic sets that you brought up like the specialized TV antenna, 2x8 vehicle cockpit bracket, and combination tail fin/rocket cone piece. Most of them also seem like they'd be plenty useful in small builds, which you seem to care a lot about. Of course, these parts aren't all new/unique — but then, neither were a lot of the "interesting parts" you mentioned from the Xenon X-craft. Obviously, I get that none of that eases your frustrations with the set's overall size or complexity. But I feel like a lot of the time, how easy or difficult it is to MOC with certain parts has less to do with how "sophisticated" you are are as a builder than with how much practice/experience you have working with those sorts of parts. For instance, a lot of folks primarily used to System sets find Bionicle parts utterly perplexing to MOC with… but conversely, a lot of Bionicle builders struggle more attempting to get into System MOCs, even for models with similar subject matter like ball-jointed mechs, robots, and fantasy creatures. My experience is that the more time you spend building with different types of parts, the easier it becomes to think of different uses for them, and to then consider them as options when trying to think of parts for a particular use. But if you dismiss parts as too complicated to use in MOCs just because you don't think you're a "sophisticated" enough builder to do anything with them, you'll miss out on opportunities to learn how they could be useful to you — even for the sort of simple, 15-minute MOCs you enjoy!

Oh, this looks lovely! It seems very true to both the overall composition and the mottled earth tones of BrickHammer's original submission, while also reducing the "blockiness" of the cliffs somewhat using BURPs and wedge slopes, and improving the color blocking in some areas like the walls around the tower windows (which now clearly differentiate the darker wooden frame from the lighter wall planks, instead of using a mix of dark and light colors for both). It would indeed be nice if there were one or two more figs (there seems to be room for them, as long as you're not trying to fit everybody in the longhouse for a banquet), but those that are included seem to be rather nice designs. I'm always a sucker for medieval sets focusing on everyday life scenarios rather than on battles and action scenes, and this set certainly delivers in that regard! The landscaping is very strong, both in terms of natural elements like the rocky cliffs and coastlines, and man-made elements like the stone steps up to the tower. I'm not entirely satisfied with the evergreen tree build out front, though it is a very creative build. There is also a smaller evergreen tree in the back built from the new fern pieces (including white ones for snow-covered branches) which I find a lot more visually appealing. And it's neat that the base separates into three sections — while I'm not sure whether that allows for multiple layouts or is just for ease of carrying, it does present a prime opportunity for MOCs that connect in between the sections to expand the village further! The lower floor of the tower appears to be a storeroom with some fruits and veggies, including one using the pumpkin mold in Dark Orange (not sure if it's meant to be a "New World" species in reference to pre-Columbian Viking settlements in the Americas, or an "Old World" species like the muskmelon). Below it is a small cave with Dark Orange mineral deposits, which pairs nicely with the smithy. The entire back wall of the tower is removable for interior access, which I prefer to the separate floor modules in the original since it means a larger opening for big adult hands, and also a "minifig's eye view". The set description makes it sound as though the smithy's forge has some kind of function to make the flames move — I'm curious to see what that's like, though I assume it's something fairly simple since I don't see a lot of space for a more elaborate mechanism. EDIT: It looks like it's activated by pressing the bellows. My guess is that it raises the flames up when you press and lowers them when you release. The biggest drawback of the final set compared to the original model, in my opinion, is that the smithy and the adjoining house have been combined into one larger structure — which means losing the cozy little bedroom. I'm also very eager to see the back of the box at a higher resolution, since one of the photos there shows the longhouse interior in more detail (with all four figs inside). Even at this low resolution, some of the details visible include a throne for the chieftain with colorful banners on either side, and some poultry roasting on a spit. It's certainly a more spacious interior than in the original proposal, which is a plus in my book! All in all, I feel like the designers have done a really good job here! Excited for the official reveal, and whatever pics and info will come with it!

I believe one of the LEGO Friends magazines this year eventually confirmed that Trevor and Joshua ARE a couple (and Maya's dads)! Also, I wouldn't say it's really a big deal that LEGO "came under fire" for diversity in this year's Friends sets, since a lot of the media outlets attacking them for that are essentially "outrage mills" that find any excuse to present innocuous stuff as symptoms of a "culture war". Several of those same outlets later went on to attack LEGO Dreamzzz for the scandalous crime of… being designed to appeal to both boys and girls. Fringe sites/networks/publications of that sort are often not only nigh-impossible to truly satisfy, but also so far out of step with what actual LEGO buyers are likely to care about that their bellyaching can potentially bring plenty of positive attention to those products from people who see that sort of inane fearmongering for what it is. Basically free advertising! I mean, there are unfortunately a lot of people even within the AFOL community for whom even a detail as harmless/innocuous as a female scientist, knight, soldier, or construction worker minifig constitute "storyline issues that could be controversial". Same with sets that portray disabled characters, characters with unnatural hair colors, Chinese culture, wind turbines, or stay-at-home dads. Heck, there's an entire chain of toy stores in the UK that (last I heard) refuses to sell any toy with supernatural elements which the owners consider "occult". Do you honestly think LEGO should get rid of every product in their portfolio with fantasy elements to avoid "controversy"? Needless to say, LEGO does not actually waste their time trying to satisfy people with these sorts of irrational hangups. And yes, they've even had a few sets at this point representing the LGBTQ+ community — including the "Everyone is Awesome" set, which is still available on LEGO.com to this day! As such, anybody who actually has enough fear, hate, or revulsion of gay people to actually boycott LEGO for taking an LGBTQ+ inclusive stance is already doing so. So why would LEGO have any reason to fear that sort of bigoted backlash which has already proven itself ineffectual? If you're going to make posts like this, at least acknowledge the reality of what you're saying. You're not asking LEGO to remain neutral, you're asking them to prioritize your viewpoints over their own. And that isn't going to happen. Mind you, they can't and won't "dictate" their viewpoints "to the whole community", because they don't control the community. If AFOLs choose to be homophobic or transphobic, that's their own problem. If inclusive LEGO products then make those particular AFOLs unhappy, they brought that on themselves by choosing to be homophobic or transphobic (and unreasonably expecting LEGO to follow along). And frankly, that inevitable disappointment is the least such people deserve.

Yeah, my feeling is that LEGO learned from feedback to some of their previous Space sets and minifigures that to a lot of AFOLs, the Classic Space minifigure's minimalist design (no visor, no torso decorations except a simple logo, and no distinguishing facial features) is practically synonymous with the faction, and see anything else as a compromise. Figures like the Minifigures Series 1 Spaceman and Series 6 Intergalactic Girl may be Classic Space inspired, but Classic Space fans didn't respond nearly as strongly to them as to Benny and his squad from The LEGO Movie and its sequel. One possible reason for this distinction between Classic Space and other themes (or even many later LEGO Space subthemes) is that the Classic Space uniforms were not based strictly on any sort of real-world clothing. Moreover, they were simple and cartoonish even compared to any real-world spacesuits of their time, and lacked any details aside from their molded helmets and air tanks which would suggest any sort of "materiality". Were they meant to be soft cloth, rigid body armor, shiny latex, rugged pleather, or stretchy spandex? Were they fastened with zippers, buckles, or elastic? Were they made up of discrete articles of clothing like boots, belts, shirts, gloves, and trousers, or were they a one-piece bodysuit? All of those details were left up in the air, and as such any modern, "realistic" take on the Classic Space uniform would also require a level of specificity that would likely alienate (no pun intended) a significant number of old-school fans. By contrast, LEGO Castle and Pirates minifigures took a lot of inspiration from clothing and accessories from particular real-world historical contexts. As such, it is understood that the Lion Knight and Black Falcon torsos (even with minimalist printed patterns not unlike the Classic Space torso) represented tabards or tunics (sometimes with a silver breastplate over top), not tank tops or T-shirts. LEGO Pirates minifigures, by virtue of being introduced over half a decade later, went even further with their level of detail. Even the original Captain Redbeard/Roger minifigure's torso can be clearly understood as a layered outfit consisting of a black double-breasted overcoat with gold trim and six buttons, a green shirt and ascot, and a waistbelt and shoulder belt with gold buckles. As such, while there is little room for LEGO to add greater detail or authenticity to Classic Space minifigures without them inherently becoming less recognizable as such, there are plenty of opportunities of that sort for LEGO Castle and Pirates. Beards can be textured more realistically (even with multiple print colors to add shading or uneven greying, as in the case of the latest Captain Redbeard minifigure). Fabric details can be wrinkled or stretched to give it a more three-dimensional appearance. And of course, some of the obvious drawbacks of the classic Imperial Soldier/Imperial Guard minifigures — that their waistcoat plackets lack a line to indicate where the right and left sides separate, and their coat colors terminate abruptly at their sides — can be addressed. As for the reason LEGO didn't just reuse the 2015 torsos, which previously addressed these same issues? My guess is that since the 2015 torsos are already long out of production (and thus, any imperial soldier torso would be a brand-new element in terms of manufacturing cost and logistics), the design team saw this as an opportunity to redesign them with more detail (including classic-inspired details), just as they'd done with Redbeard's face and torso in Barracuda Bay. For example, Eldorado Fortress gave the imperial soldiers a square gold buckle/plate where the two belts cross, a feature of the 1989 Imperial Soldier uniform that was omitted from the 2015 version. They also give the governor a Bright Blue coat with white lapels over a white waistcoat, matching the color scheme of his soldiers and officers.

Absolutely outstanding work, especially for a set that originally left so much to be desired! While most of the play features are direct reflections of ones from the original model, you have modernized and even improved on them in some lovely ways. I especially appreciate that you gave the suspension bridge rigid logs for support so that it can be more believable as a drawbridge, instead of the way the original set awkwardly implied a bridge made of ropes that were somehow just as rigid and inflexible as the plastic LEGO piece used to represent them! You also did a great job giving the rolling trap a strong enough balance of curves and angles that it feels believably hewn from stone. It's hard to be sure in a digital model how smoothly it would roll with so many angular surfaces along its perimeter, but truth be told, the trap is probably just as dangerous (and no less believable) if it bounces or veers off course a bit before finally toppling over. The spike trap looks very nice, especially with the spikes sticking out at different angles, but I kind of wish that the spikes were a metallic color — while there's nothing unrealistic about the spikes being coated in brown rust, brown horn pieces like this almost look more like flimsy wooden twigs/branches than rigid iron spikes at first glance. In terms of aesthetics, you've really kept it true to the design philosophy of Barracuda Bay and the new Eldorado Fortress with its balance of classic colors and more naturalistic modern ones, as well as its stylish brick-built cliff faces. That said, you also made impressive use of brick colors like Sand Green and Olive Green (as well as extensive flower and plant pieces) to make this island seem believably wild and overgrown. I also love the crystal formations in the prison cave and the skeleton's niche, which both brighten those areas up a bit with their sparkling reflections, and present a very different sort of nature motif than we've seen in any other recent Pirates sets. Likewise, I love that you kept the little waterfall from the original raised baseplate pattern! And the brick-built skull carvings on the mountain are a very creative addition — I'm impressed how convincing they look at such a small size! Your redesign of the shipwreck is brilliant in its own right, although while the brick-built sail is extremely impressive from the front, the back looks rather messy (and not in a realistic tattered way). I understand that you were limited by the parts you had access to in stud.io and the challenge of digitally creating custom sails, though (I encountered the same issue in my own entry). Hopefully it won't cause you too many issues during the contest voting, considering how outstanding the rest of the model looks. While the palisade wall motifs were already a distinctive feature of the original set, I like that you also extended them to the small platform attached to the bridge! That said, I'm a little iffy about the use of the 5x5 facet brick there, since that mold has not appeared in sets since 2002, and I feel like a different building technique using modern parts (such as attaching a palisade wall at an angle with either an A-frame plate or some type of hinge) would be both more believable for a modern set and more visually distinctive. The interior furnishings of the pirate hideout are lovely! The throne in particular is a fantastic build. The only thing I'm surprised at is that you didn't change the color of the head holding the golden crown to something like Warm Gold/Pearl Gold, Brick Yellow/Tan, or even White that reads more clearly in this context as a statue/mannequin color instead of a minifig skin color! All in all, you did an amazing job making this tropical island hideout look as beautiful as it is deadly! Fantastic work, and best of luck in the contest!

Lovely work! I agree with the folks who'd compared it to the Ironram. I especially love the unique details like the spritsail and sprit topmast — they really help it stand out from other LEGO sailing ships! While you've clearly been very conscientious about adhering to the parts and techniques characteristic of the classic LEGO Pirates era, the end result is a model which is impressively close to the features would be expected from this set as a modern-day set: a full main deck, a well-furnished captain's cabin, etc. In fact, I didn't entirely realize this was built for the "new Classic-Style set" category until I noticed that you used the old-school mast pieces — before that, I was nearly ready to question why the lack of smoother curves/angles for the quarterdeck railings! It really gives a great taste of what might have been possible if "premium", AFOL-targeted sets like Barracuda Bay had existed in the 90s! With all that in mind, the one biggest criticism I have is that the two stern cannons make the quarterdeck look really cramped. Smaller brick-built guns might be more fitting there, like the ones from the quarterdeck of 6286 Skull's Eye Schooner or the bow of 6296 Shipwreck Island (unless the latter was meant to be a spyglass/telescope? I was never certain about that, and I don't think any of the catalog descriptions ever provided much clarity). After all, with nine full-size working cannons already, the model is hardly lacking for play value in that regard! Outstanding work overall. While many of the more modern-style Imperial vessel entries draw a lot of appeal from how long it's been since one of the imperial factions got a full size ship, you've done an amazing job making a model that stands out as a masterpiece even for an era that DID have multiple other imperial ship sets to compare it to!

Nifty work! You did a great job retaining the play features and decorative details from the original set, but with a substantially bigger and more naturalistic-looking design. The colors are very lovely and well balanced, and a great fit for the tropical setting. I also love that you added some fun new details like a parrot and a clip for the Lieutenant's gun! Obviously, LEGO would be unlikely to identify the contents of the bottles as any type of liquor in an official set name or description in this day and age. But I personally wouldn't hold that against this model, particularly when it's being submitted to a contest on an AFOL-targeted website like this, and isn't going out of its way to be mature/crude/scandalous. I am a little unsure about the use of that old Belville jug/bottle in a MOC designed to resemble a modern set, since that particular piece is long retired, and if LEGO made a modern jug piece, I feel like it would be a lot smaller and simpler to maximize its compatibility with minifig- and minidoll-scale sets. I do appreciate the value of including a larger and more distinctive bottle/flask for variety's sake instead of just several identical bottles. However, a brick-built design (perhaps using similar parts/techniques to the potion bottles from the LEGO Minecraft sets) might be more fitting. I also agree with @iragm that the coin feels a bit incongruous since you changed the treasure stash to a rum stash, and it might be more fitting to have the Lieutenant holding a gun or sword in the main image (as with the pirate in the original set). That said, you did a great job with this I feel — it fits in nicely with the style of other recent LEGO Pirates throwback sets, but presents a very different subject and scenario, and at a nice compact size. Best of luck in the contest!