LEGO Star Wars UCS 75060 Slave I

[rollermonkey]

I think it's a matter of the tone people are using.

As I mentioned, people have been wishing / begging for this set for at least as long as I have been out of the dark ages.

Now that it's revealed, many people are focusing on the things they find wrong with it and ignoring that it's been a long wished-for set, and done pretty well, overall. That by itself isn't the issue that I take with recent comments.

...It is the statements people are making to the effect that a (relatively) minor cosmetic disparity, such as blue engine bells/flames instead of orange, or the wing connection points are red instead of a shade of orange that doesn't even exist in LEGO, absolutely RUINS the set completely for them to the point they won't even consider buying it, is absolutely ridiculous.

Another way to say that you think something isn't to your taste, or accurate enough in your opinion, that isn't so melodramatic, would be to say, "I think I'll MOD it so the engines are trans-orange instead of blue."

...and leaving off the bit about what a tragedy the color choice made by the designers is for you. (collective you, I'm not singling anyone out.)

Is that fair?

Maybe all that trans-blue made for Ultra Agents this year meant there wasn't enough trans-orange in the pipeline, so a substitution was made to save on excess costs or avoid delays. We'll never know, but I'm sure the designers had a reason.

All that said, I think it's a gorgeous set. I've actually never been a fan of Slave I, but this is amazing design IMO, and absolutely a day 1 purchase if I can afford it / get my hands on it.

And if I were to make any MODs, I think I would try to close off the cargo area so carbonite Han can't fall in, and maybe try to add a sleeping berth under the cockpit, which I think would block the line-of-sight through the canopy and out the bottom.

But even if I don't do either, it wouldn't end my world that those 'problems' exist.

Edited October 8, 2014 by rollermonkey

[LoRd AmUnRa]

The wing gravity rotation is fine. But in the video I posted it looks like the the wing is not able to rotate a full of 90° exacter like the cockpit, but this will be solved when the first review here will shoe up :)

I am not blaming the Lego designers, I am pretty sure the y did a good job an all what they can do in the time/cost situation in witch they are but I want to know whyyyyyyy thy did is this way and not that way (I know never going to know ^^) same with e.x. blue engines ?!

Are you saying that I am not allow to dislike it because it was a wish of mine??

Am I not allowed to be disappointed because I hoped fore more?? A company has to match there product to the costumer not the other way around! Sure I can mode it but that’s not the point... and the wing attachment is not the only point if you cant see the other mistakes good for you, but I can see them, Yes I am picky for 200 Euro for a toy but isn’t that my right??

Edited October 8, 2014 by LoRd AmUnRa

[Robianco]

I think we're all entitled to an opinion... and this forum is the place to give them (if not here then where else?!)

I actually spotted that side canopy issue straight away and in my head I though... 'Wow... that's wrong.' But then again I've loved Slave 1 since I was a kid... So many of the SW ships are favourite of mine... the Falcon, TIE Fighter, Snowspeeder, Slave One...

I'm sure there'll be a way of extending that canopy to dover the support beam in a similar way to 8097 (although on there it just kind of reached it rather than covered it) but I agree... it should at least be open rather than a closed off area... however shallow we can make it.

The rest of the ship more than makes up for this though... one, the fact it's happening. Two, the scale of it as it's pretty much minifig scale give or take a couple of studs and Three, the overall design and shaping of quite a difficult array of slopes and curves. That's before we mention the minifigs which are just a nice addition to a set of this kind. Although I do have my Arealight jetpack just to make the Fett figure definitive (if people don't have one of these I recommend picking one up) along with a Brickarms replica of Fett's blaster.

Normally I just kind of let people's criticism of sets wash over me... especially on smaller £10-£20 sets... it's a kids toy. If Kids like it then that's actually all that matters. I made vehicles for my SW figs out of cardboard, lollyice sticks and glue when I was a kid.. it didn't matter they never appeared in a SW film... something I've seen people comment on here.

But UCS sets are a little more of a nod to AFOLs and as such should meet our 'standards'.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Robianco

[Anio]

The more poorly executed part is the skirt for me. And I am surprised that non still pointed it out in this thread.

I mean those stacked bricks, slopes and wedges make a terrible shape. Absolutely terrible.

And yes, I think it really ruins the model.

[LoRd AmUnRa]

^Yes you are right, it is a terrible design choice, but in the other hand a extremely difficult shape,

I did pointed it out when the first images leaked. But no one seems to care... don’t know why?!

I can fully agree with yours positive/negative summary on techlug, you nailed it

Edited October 8, 2014 by LoRd AmUnRa

[Mencot]

The more poorly executed part is the skirt for me. And I am surprised that non still pointed it out in this thread.

I mean those stacked bricks, slopes and wedges make a terrible shape. Absolutely terrible.

And yes, I think it really ruins the model.

Okay (not ok-ey) I can agree it does look little strange but do you have any better brick options they could had used?

[Anio]

Okay (not ok-ey) I can agree it does look little strange but do you have any better brick options they could had used?

It is quite simple.

TLG produced new arches for 8097 which are IMO very specialised parts.

They used it in this Slave again, and it does look good, but still, I do not consider that part very useful.

They could have produce a new sort of sloped wedge. Something like a wedge 2x3 sloped 45° left and right or similar. Anyway, you get the idea.

This part would have been very useful and versatile.

I can fully agree with yours positive/negative summary on techlug, you nailed it

[Something_Awesome]

why the wings should rotate via gravity anyway? I mean, this is an UCS set (although you can play with it) but the main purpose of this is to display this thing on a shelve

Oh ok, I thought the designer himself said it was also a playset that could be swooshed around.

Edited October 8, 2014 by Something_Awesome

[GallardoLU]

Oh ok, I thought the designer himself said it was also a playset that could be swooshed around.

New term needed for sets of this type: Play-Display! that's right its a display piece you can play with!

[Bob De Quatre]

The more poorly executed part is the skirt for me. And I am surprised that non still pointed it out in this thread.

I mean those stacked bricks, slopes and wedges make a terrible shape. Absolutely terrible.

And yes, I think it really ruins the model.

*snip*

To me that's the reason I won't buy it...

[LoRd AmUnRa]

New bricks would be the best solution. Other wise maybe something between this and this, with new rounder slope bricks

the main Issues with the hole wings/cockpit rotation them is that people believes those have to rotate^^ but they DONT, yes the wings rotates from landing to fly mode and this may be a cool play feature, but once in fly mode they stay fix and the cockpit never rotates there is not one source in the movie where it dos that, on the contrary: on Bespin you can see the cockpit trough the window in “fly-mode”

[gratefulnat]

I will buy this probably day one, if not, day two

After watching the video I am positively surprised at how structurally sound the model is (or seems to be), maybe this caused for comprises in other areas I like less.

The cockpit cover's allingment with the main structure isn't completely flush, but I can live with that.

As others have pointed out, the wing connection at the shoulder is wrong.

Maybe the skeleton structure was getting in the way here?

Have to wait until the set's in front of me to see how that can be modded.

But I have to agree with Anio & LoRd AmUnRa, the skirt is really... wierd, jarring, thrown together, ugly

From further away I'm sure it won't be that noticable, but when you examine the model up close... uugh.

Maybe using something along the line of wedge plates and hinges (UCS Tumbler comes to mind) could be a solution, although it wouldn't be as sturdy.

I think the critcism voiced here has been valid, and I for one am glad to have read them. I really hadn't been too aware of how (IMO) awful the skirt looks until now.

And I am excited at the prospect of trying to change the elements I don't like to one's I do!

Overall, I find the fluidity of the shape of the model exceptional - great work from the designer.

And a great addition to UCS LEGO SW sets.

[irispen]

Oh ok, I thought the designer himself said it was also a playset that could be swooshed around.

I also did say that by saying you can play with it, what i mean is, that thing is not a major concern, making it rotate by gravity (which actually it is) is just a bonus feature

Edited October 8, 2014 by irispen

[Robianco]

Looking at that tail section in isolation doesn't make it look great. But given the patched up nature of Slave One I actually don't mind it as part of the whole set.

The best thing about parts of the SW Universe (At least the OT) was that vehicles looked worn... like they were actually being used... and Slave One was no exception.

Yes it's blocky but this is Lego... and despite the best efforts of some great Lego designers (and MOCers) there are going to be some issues in generating a smooth flow over that curved shape... with the exception of creating specific curved pieces as mentioned.

I think the brief being to make it sturdy right throughout it's shape meant that things such as angled plates were ruled out of the design process.

[gratefulnat]

* snip *

Good points.

Definitely a day 1 purchase now

[Cosworth3d]

Cant wait to get this set a.s.a.p. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[mortesv]

The is an excellent model, and the best UCS Slave I, I have seen:

The size is just great, big eough to be considered minifig size - will look great next to the Falcon :)

It is sturdy enough to be swooshable :)

New cockpit element :)

Overall proportions :)

The price, while not cheap, it is cheap for a UCS with this brick count :)

The EXACT minifigs this set should have :)

Will I tweak it? Of course I will :) But overall this looks to be one of the best official UCS sets since the Falcon :)

[Hartfan]

I want this set so much. Love it !

[Jacob_9821]

Sleek, large, and swoosh-able. Looks like a day one purchase for me! I do hope that cockpit piece is printed... I would like it to have some sort of interior space to add lights if one would like to do so. But of course that wouldn't be a deal breaker for me. My favorite design element would be the ship's base. Considering their limitations of part inventory, I think they did the best they could do without introducing new pieces. Originally my major concern was the stability of the model, however thanks to the technic frame, it shall be solid as a rock. I love seeing technic being used in these larger models, such as the more recently released Sandcrawler and Red-Five X-Wing, because they really keep me engaged in a long building session. Don't get me wrong of course, I love the normal brick building. It is just that sometimes after building for a five to nine hours, it can become somewhat dull.

[peffour]

Slave 1 is announced at 219.90€ on the French S@H...

[Gongoro73]

^ 199,99€ on the spanish S@H.

Weird.

[Mencot]

It is 229.90 on the finnish.

Pretty much but I will buy it any way.

[kr-lik]

899,99 PLN on Polish S@H.

that's about 209 euro.

[WarSquirrel]

Now we just need a UCS cloud city

[BobaFett1337]

199€ in the German shop. Yay \o/