LEGO Star Wars 2016 Pictures and Rumors

[CM4Sci]

Han Solo in the black vest is in the set, he's just not in the photos.

[bootz]

Children now a days get iPads. Is it so far fetched to think that they will get a $500 dollar Lego set as well?

Video game consoles are similarly expensive.

[Ringsvulsion]

And if ones willing to pay $500 why not pay $600 for it? See how open ended that arguement is?

Its not about the actual money but reather the value for the money. Where did that additional $100 go to improve the set?

Most of us can only see minimum changes. None of the figures have new molds or even dual molding and the only new thing for the figures is some new prints, and yet most of them dont even have leg printing.

For $500 why doesnt every figure have leg printing or arm printing or dual molding? This would have been the set to have a classic han solo figure with side of the leg printing as well as dual molded legs for boots.

Even if they changed nothing, it is a better value than what was available on the secondary market before it was leaked.

[nikhkin]

Its not about the actual money but reather the value for the money. Where did that additional $100 go to improve the set?

As a lot of people have said before, $400 when the set came out is $470 now due to inflation. Plus 200 more pieces would add another $20 at 10 cents per piece. Not difficult to see how Lego could reach this new price

[LegoFjotten]

Han Solo in the black vest is in the set, he's just not in the photos.

Cool. So 3 more minifigs than in 10188 then.

[ltzik]

As a lot of people have said before, $400 when the set came out is $470 now due to inflation. Plus 200 more pieces would add another $20 at 10 cents per piece. Not difficult to see how Lego could reach this new price

That's right but lets not forget that the DS also sold for 400 dollars lately(one year ago) and it's maybe 405 dollars due to inflation.

[x105Black]

The one good thing about the Death Star minifigures not being updated to dual molding and limb printing is that for people like me who will not be buying the set, we don't have to worry about buying them at a huge markup on BrickLink due to exclusivity. Hopefully, the updated minifigures will come in smaller sets later.

Also, the set would have cost about $275 back in 1990 (when I was 9-10). The biggest set I would have gotten back then was King's Mountain Fortress, which retailed for $58. Or in 1992 it would have been $290, when the biggest set I actually got was Imperial Trading Post for $85.

Granted, they didn't make sets of this size back then, but I guess it's not completely unrealistic to imagine a wealthy parent or grandparent buying their child a set that was 3-4 times as expensive as the sets I begged for in my youth.

Edited August 20, 2016 by x105Black

[Metanoios]

I don't think many Bothans would have risked their lives to get the plans for this second Death Star^^ The Rebellion could have just used the instructions of the first...

Edited August 20, 2016 by Metanoios91

[LL924]

I noticed that the 3 section bar structure attachment around the chasm where Luke and Leia swing has been redesigned. It appears that it now clips onto bricks which are securely anchored in the floor plate sandwich which should make this point much more secure than the previous design. These bar segments were always a repair that I had to make after my kids played with 10188. Hope there are more such improvements.

[BricksAtSpeed]

I don't think many Bothans would have risked their lives to get the plans for this second Death Star^^ The Rebellion could have just used the instructions of the first...

You sir have won the Internet

[Alexastor]

As a lot of people have said before, $400 when the set came out is $470 now due to inflation. Plus 200 more pieces would add another $20 at 10 cents per piece. Not difficult to see how Lego could reach this new price

Yes. But on the other hand, if you compare it to the new Disney Castle...

- The Castle has 4080 pieces, that is 64 pieces more than the new DS.

- The Disney Castle only costs $350, that's $150 less than the new DS.

- Don't tell me that the amount of minifigures in the new DS (which are already part of the piece count!) costs Lego $150 to produce - and few parts of the minifigs are actually exclusives.

- Given that the Disney Castle is from the same license giver, the StarWars tax cannot really account for it either.

- Last but not least, the Disney Castle objectively looks more modern and elaborate than the 2008-style DS.

I'm not saying the new DS isn't worth the 500 bucks, but I definitely see why someone could have issues with it.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Alexastor

[nikhkin]

Yes. But on the other hand, if you compare it to the new Disney Castle...

- The Castle has 4080 pieces, that is 64 pieces more than the new DS.

- The Disney Castle only costs $350, that's $150 less than the new DS.

- Don't tell me that the amount of minifigures in the new DS (which are already part of the piece count!) costs Lego $150 to produce - and few parts of the minifigs are actually exclusives.

- Given that the Disney Castle is from the same license giver, the StarWars tax cannot really account for it either.

- Last but not least, the Disney Castle objectively looks more modern and elaborate than the 2008-style DS.

I'm not saying the new DS isn't worth the 500 bucks, but I definitely see why someone could have issues with it.

I agree entirely. I don't agree with the price, I can just see how Lego could arrive at the price. Compared to the Disney Castle it seems like very poor value.

[La Chupacabra]

I would like to see that side with minifigures.

[Steph 104th]

Two sets I was hoping to purchase have now disappointed me in the last fortnight. Sounds like the things dark ages are built on.

There is nothing much wrong with the original, so logic would dictate that Lego would try create a more appealing product and when they realised the could not do so, at least make the price something that can rival the original.

Now you can go out and buy the original (used) and bricklink the figures you want from the new set.

You'll save a couple of bucks left over and have double the minifigs. So you can see how far we have gotten with minifig printing and how we didn't go anywhere with designing the sets those figs populate.

[Justlooking]

Yes. But on the other hand, if you compare it to the new Disney Castle...

- The Castle has 4080 pieces, that is 64 pieces more than the new DS.

- The Disney Castle only costs $350, that's $150 less than the new DS.

- Don't tell me that the amount of minifigures in the new DS (which are already part of the piece count!) costs Lego $150 to produce - and few parts of the minifigs are actually exclusives.

- Given that the Disney Castle is from the same license giver, the StarWars tax cannot really account for it either.

- Last but not least, the Disney Castle objectively looks more modern and elaborate than the 2008-style DS.

I'm not saying the new DS isn't worth the 500 bucks, but I definitely see why someone could have issues with it.

According to Bricklink the Disney Castle is 5700 gram, and the Death Star (10188) is 8060 gram, that's an advantage for the DS. If you're going to compare stuff, you can't just compare the things that support your opinion. And Disney probably know that they can charge more for Star Wars UCS-sets,than for a Disney Castle-set. (not a fact, just my opinion)

[Alexastor]

According to Bricklink the Disney Castle is 5700 gram, and the Death Star (10188) is 8060 gram, that's an advantage for the DS. If you're going to compare stuff, you can't just compare the things that support your opinion. And Disney probably know that they can charge more for Star Wars UCS-sets,than for a Disney Castle-set. (not a fact, just my opinion)

I just wasn't aware of the weight differences. That definitely does help to explain the price.

[merman]

not a fare comparison: the DS has inner boxes and a very hefty binded instruction book

Also I noticed the new DS no longer has transparent stickers, but darker ones...

[analogkid81]

Just showed my seven year old son the new Death Star. He said isn't that the old Death Star and walked away. Thought that was funny lol

[eldiano]

I personally have never understood the obsession with 10179, it's probably due to its limited existence. It hasn't aged well and is overrated.

Me neither, I mean it's cool and all, but if they do plan to re-release it, I'm all for it. I told you guys many times over the real reason I want this Death Star was just for that Tarkin mini figure, in all reality he's the most vindictive Star Wars villain to me and that means a lot to

Edited August 20, 2016 by eldiano

[AFOLguy1970]

I guess the new DS is good for people who (a) can come up with the money and (b) who are either new to Lego Star Wars or have not yet had the chance to purchase the set. Honestly, this set is exactly what I expected: updated minifigs, generally the same design, and a higher price. I had hoped they would have just made it the first Death Star and omitted the Emperor's Throne Room since it is now redundant with Final Duel. We might decide to eventually save up for it, it just depends on vacation plans and what else Lego comes up with in the meantime.

[hachiroku]

Well, it's easily the best off-screen representation of the Falcon that has been made in LEGO, and the only one in true mini-figure scale. Also it's the actual building aspect: I'd imagine it's the most rewarding model you could build.

That isn't correct. The 7965/75105 is in true minifig scale.

I recreated shots from the movies with it and fits perfectly:

The problem is the under part. If it were a little more higher (and detailed), it would be perfect.

Edited August 20, 2016 by hachiroku

[Richpepperell]

With regard to comments about dual molded legs on the imperial officer minifigures. I've just been watching ANH and obviously paying particular attention to the Death Star scenes. I noticed (particularly in the scene where the lads are catching the turbo lift) that none of the imperial officers in the traditional olive-grey uniforms are wearing the long black boots - they all have trouser visible right down to the ground. This is the scene it's most obvious in due to the high camera angle.

In the same scene, black-uniformed stormtrooper officers clearly are wearing the knee-length boots as you can see the shine on them.

My point is (I do actually have one) that maybe dual molded legs aren't appropriate for all officers as many of us think. That said, other than Tarkin, who should have boots (or maybe slippers ), we're not actually getting of this coloured officer, so I don't know why I'm going on about it!

That isn't correct. The 7965/75105 is in true minifig scale.

I recreated shots from the movies with it and fits perfectly:

The problem is the under part. If it were a little more higher (and detailed), it would be perfect.

These look fantastic - where can I see more of your shots? With regard to the height of the system-scale falcon, I've extended the landing gear substantially (I can't say how much by exactly as I'm not at home to measure it - maybe by 2 bricks or even more) and it doesn't look at all out of proportion. I've also bulked up the landing gear so maybe that helps.

Anyway - love the pictures!

[hachiroku]

With regard to comments about dual molded legs on the imperial officer minifigures. I've just been watching ANH and obviously paying particular attention to the Death Star scenes. I noticed (particularly in the scene where the lads are catching the turbo lift) that none of the imperial officers in the traditional olive-grey uniforms are wearing the long black boots - they all have trouser visible right down to the ground. This is the scene it's most obvious in due to the high camera angle.

In the same scene, black-uniformed stormtrooper officers clearly are wearing the knee-length boots as you can see the shine on them.

My point is (I do actually have one) that maybe dual molded legs aren't appropriate for all officers as many of us think. That said, other than Tarkin, who should have boots (or maybe slippers ), we're not actually getting of this coloured officer, so I don't know why I'm going on about it!

These look fantastic - where can I see more of your shots? With regard to the height of the system-scale falcon, I've extended the landing gear substantially (I can't say how much by exactly as I'm not at home to measure it - maybe by 2 bricks or even more) and it doesn't look at all out of proportion. I've also bulked up the landing gear so maybe that helps.

Anyway - love the pictures!

Thanks!

Here's my gallery: https://www.flickr.com/photos/91426193@N02/

[Cmay91472]

This new Death Star follows Disney's "vault" strategy of retiring a movie, causing panic from those who missed out, causing huge secondary market mark-ups, re-releasing the movie a couple years later with a couple extra features, slapping a new edition name such as platinum edition, ultimate edition, collectors edition, etc and charging a premium for the 'new' edition.

All kidding aside, I missed out on the original Death Star. If it wasn't being released so close to having just bought the Disney castle, I would most likely bought it even though I'm not a fan of playsets preferring display pieces instead.

[TheNerdyOne_]

That isn't correct. The 7965/75105 is in true minifig scale.

I recreated shots from the movies with it and fits perfectly:

The problem is the under part. If it were a little more higher (and detailed), it would be perfect.

Just because it looks like it fits doesn't mean it's actually minifigure-scale. A true minifigure-scale falcon would be 100 studs, or 80 cm, in length. This makes the UCS Falcon just 4 cm too long, and the usual system-scale Falcon 33 cm (or 41 studs) too short.