LEGO Star Wars 2021 Set Discussion - READ FIRST POST!!!

[CF Mitch]

10 hours ago, lego_guyon02 said:

Do you guys reckon the Dark Trooper will reappear in a battlepack like how the Death Trooper, Praetorian Guard and Sith Trooper were all introduced in a large/expensive set and later popped up again in a BP? Absolutely adore the figure.

I surely hope so 
Since there's only one in the set, any seperate extras on BrickLink will probably be ridiculously expensive, but I would really like to own a few, not just the one.
I'd be okay with three, though, and I do think that if they appear in an upcoming battlepack, there'll be two, not four.

Regards,
Mitch

[Thebrickstandard]

On 6/26/2021 at 8:02 PM, 2lazeetomakeaname said:

That entire thing was a massive (and cringey) failure. 

what a joke

Agreed, what a joke..

[TheMainBricker]

6 hours ago, MKJoshA said:

His argument was valid. One article does not make it irrefutable fact. And the wording was vague. Now please get back on target.

The final thing I will say on this is, which is what infuriates me is that Lego have said it was not their decision it was Disney, yet people still want to blame Lego because it doesn't fit with their theories. It is the licence holder (Disney), for whatever reason, behind the decision. So there is no reason to be blame Lego.

[storskogen]

Why is 75312 Boba Fett's Starship not named Slave I?

https://brickset.com/article/60208/why-is-75312-boba-fett-s-starship-not-named-slave-i

Hopefully end of discussion :)

Once the ship is on your shelf, or in your kid's hand, the name on the box (which in most of the cases will be thrown away) doesn't really matter that much.

[THELEGOBATMAN]

6 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

I didn't watch LEGO Con, but it seems like AFOLs set themselves up for disappointment putting too many eggs in the Gunship basket. As far as LEGO is concerned, the Mandalorian sets weren't previously revealed (since the catalogue reveal was a mistake), and the Mandalorian show is a huge deal in the zeitgeist right now, so it makes sense they'd reveal a big Mandalorian set from the climax of Season 2. How they advertised LEGO Con and why they did or didn't target certain demographics is another matter. But kids are online more than ever, so I wouldn't say that only teens and adults would've known about this.

To be fair the catalog wasn't a mistake.

They release a catalog twice a year - one on January 1st, the other on June 1st. That means that someone from Lego not only approved to market those sets in the catalog, but also hired multiple designers to make those pages for the catalog. Then even more people had to approve it again, and release that catalog.

Then on June 1st it just had to release. That means that they approved and accepted the fact that those sets were marketed in their catalog.

[jimmynick]

17 hours ago, Gremer2 said:

Oh, the PPP ratio is certainly very good for Star Wars. It's just more about the size. It's barely bigger than the one from BoCC and I thought that maybe looked like a $25 set

I agree — for me the gold standard Slave I is the 6209: sizeable set with modest piece count at the expense of detail. This new one seems just a bit too small, and it's a shame there's a gap between the canopy and the rest of the hull.

[Clone OPatra]

23 minutes ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

To be fair the catalog wasn't a mistake.

They release a catalog twice a year - one on January 1st, the other on June 1st. That means that someone from Lego not only approved to market those sets in the catalog, but also hired multiple designers to make those pages for the catalog. Then even more people had to approve it again, and release that catalog.

Are you based in Japan and/or do you know for a fact that the Japanese catalogue always comes out on June 1st? You might be right, but I wouldn't know.

Of course catalogues are made in advance, though. Somebody "approved" catalogue advertisements for the Eternals sets too, but that was obviously a mistake and LEGO didn't even address it. It could similarly be that the LEGO Japan catalogue had these sets when it wasn't really meant to, and if anybody realised, it was too late. LEGO has proven themselves less than perfectly coordinated especially when it comes to advertising materials, so it wouldn't surprise me if the team behind LEGO Con in Denmark simply wasn't connected at all to the team in the Asia Pacific office responsible for a Japanese catalogue. Plus, if LEGO at large had really been cool with unveiling the Mandalorian sets so early, the sets would've appeared in more than one catalogue for one market.

 

[BrickBob Studpants]

35 minutes ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

To be fair the catalog wasn't a mistake.

It definitely was a mistake. Why else would they take it down and re-upload it soon thereafter with those few pages removed? 

[Clone OPatra]

Just now, BrickBob Studpants said:

It definitely was a mistake. Why else would they take it down and re-upload it soon thereafter with those few pages removed? 

Heh that's much better proof than all of my theories. But again, same as with the Eternals sets, the people making and putting out the catalogues clearly aren't equipped to always know about what's supposed to be revealed when.

[TeddytheSpoon]

2 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

To be fair the catalog wasn't a mistake.

They release a catalog twice a year - one on January 1st, the other on June 1st. That means that someone from Lego not only approved to market those sets in the catalog, but also hired multiple designers to make those pages for the catalog. Then even more people had to approve it again, and release that catalog.

This is something I never understood - most LEGO waves are in June, and yet Star Wars (and I think Marvel until recently) are the only ones to release two months later (or at least I believe so - someone correct me if not). Is there a reason for this such as the licensers' requirements? It would surely be cheaper and easier from a marketing POV to have everything release at once, even if it makes Star Wars less 'special'.

Edited June 28, 2021 by TeddytheSpoon

[THELEGOBATMAN]

1 hour ago, BrickBob Studpants said:

It definitely was a mistake. Why else would they take it down and re-upload it soon thereafter with those few pages removed? 

Why would they make catalogue pages for those sets in the first place then? A lot of people had to approve those, it's not like a single person decided "alright, let's use those sets in the new catalog."

2 hours ago, Clone OPatra said:

Are you based in Japan and/or do you know for a fact that the Japanese catalogue always comes out on June 1st? You might be right, but I wouldn't know.

Of course catalogues are made in advance, though. Somebody "approved" catalogue advertisements for the Eternals sets too, but that was obviously a mistake and LEGO didn't even address it. It could similarly be that the LEGO Japan catalogue had these sets when it wasn't really meant to, and if anybody realised, it was too late. LEGO has proven themselves less than perfectly coordinated especially when it comes to advertising materials, so it wouldn't surprise me if the team behind LEGO Con in Denmark simply wasn't connected at all to the team in the Asia Pacific office responsible for a Japanese catalogue. Plus, if LEGO at large had really been cool with unveiling the Mandalorian sets so early, the sets would've appeared in more than one catalogue for one market.

 

They are catalogues for 2HY, which is June 1st to December 31st. Obviously they have to release not a day later than June 1st.

[Clone OPatra]

15 minutes ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

Why would they make catalogue pages for those sets in the first place then? A lot of people had to approve those, it's not like a single person decided "alright, let's use those sets in the new catalog."

They are catalogues for 2HY, which is June 1st to December 31st. Obviously they have to release not a day later than June 1st.

You know the first point about how many people approve a catalogue... How? And you know there won't be multiple versions of a 2HY catalogue, again how?

Are you trolling sarcastically? It's hard to tell now. "Obviously" a catalogue can release whenever and especially online versions can be updated over time.

[THELEGOBATMAN]

3 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

You know the first point about how many people approve a catalogue... How? And you know there won't be multiple versions of a 2HY catalogue, again how?

Are you trolling sarcastically? It's hard to tell now. "Obviously" a catalogue can release whenever and especially online versions can be updated over time.

The first one is an assumption, I don't work at Lego. But would you really expect a huge company like Lego, with over 20 thousand employees, to let one person make a decision like this? 

I'm not sure what you mean by the second question tbh.

Of course they can update online versions, but the main purpose of this catalogue is to send paper versions of those to retailers, which give them out so people buy more sets. Seeing as they are catalogues for products which release from June 1st, it's only logical that they send at least some of those before June 1st.

[jdubbs]

2 hours ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

The first one is an assumption, I don't work at Lego. But would you really expect a huge company like Lego, with over 20 thousand employees, to let one person make a decision like this? 

I'm not sure what you mean by the second question tbh.

Of course they can update online versions, but the main purpose of this catalogue is to send paper versions of those to retailers, which give them out so people buy more sets. Seeing as they are catalogues for products which release from June 1st, it's only logical that they send at least some of those before June 1st.

Please stop making assumptions and passing them off as facts. I don’t work for LEGO either, but even I have seen multiple versions of multiple catalogs throughout almost every year. There are catalogs that include licensed IP sets, and catalogs that don’t. Catalogs with generic gray boxes, catalogs with placeholder images, and catalogs with final product shots. Catalogs for big retailers, catalogs for small retailers, and catalogs for consumers. Catalogs for this country, and catalogs for that country. Summer catalogs that include the fall sets, and summer catalogs that don’t. The list goes on. 

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that somehow, catalog variant A got published instead of catalog variant B. It didn’t take 20,000 LEGO employees to approve this. It took 1 employee… to push button A instead of button B. it was a mistake. They happen. 

People here are complaining because LEGO didn’t announce  anything “new” when they said beforehand that they would. But the fact is, they did… they announced  three sets that, barring leaks, we would have never seen prior to this event. If you want complain about something, maybe you should be complaining that LEGO’s big reveal got spoiled… by a leak… something everyone here craves and consumes like catnip. 

How different would the narrative be the morning after LEGO CON, if those leaks had never happened? You’d all be falling over each other to gush about the Light Cruiser, and Fennec’s dual-molded helmet, and so on. But instead, it’s a lot of griping that the “new” things that got leaked two weeks ago no longer feel  new, and now you want something newer. Cry me a river.
 

[Utinni Utinni]

Man, y'all need to stop hating on each other. 

[hondohnaka]

fun fact none of us know jack shiitake mushrooms about what goes on with lego's marketing department they're absolutely insane as proven by the way they didn't reacted to the marvel leaks. 

so has it been confirmed that the Armory is coming out Sep 1? also  the fact that they didn't reveal the gunship makes me wonder if it's set for Sep 15 rather then what we previously thought with August 1. 

as far as the sets go, I don't see what yall are saying with the slave one being a good set. it looks like a glorified microfighter IMO. Boba will definitely be in sets later on down the line. maybe I'll change my mind if I saw one in person but seriously it's such a rough looking set. on the other hand, i think you're being very harsh on the Cruiser. with the exception of those ridiculous cannons the outside looks great, and the inside was never going to be very big because of the bizarre shape of the ship. I wish the imperial transport had been one of the dropships from the Tython episode because then they could have thrown in another dark trooper or two, but for what it is it's all right. will be army building with it. 

10 minutes ago, Utinni Utinni said:

Man, y'all need to stop hating on each other. 

TRUUUUUUUUU this is a forum about children's toys stop screeching holy smokes batman. 

ETA: ohhh man I'm watching a review of the S1 and MAAAAAAN the color difference on Boba is rough. also it's idiotic that they still haven't made a Din Djarin head. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by hondohnaka

[THELEGOBATMAN]

13 minutes ago, Utinni Utinni said:

Man, y'all need to stop hating on each other. 

I've literally just written how I think this catalogue stuff went down and suddenly out of nowhere people become passive-agressive like my assumptions personally offended them 

20 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

Please stop making assumptions and passing them off as facts. I don’t work for LEGO either, but even I have seen multiple versions of multiple catalogs throughout almost every year. There are catalogs that include licensed IP sets, and catalogs that don’t. Catalogs with generic gray boxes, catalogs with placeholder images, and catalogs with final product shots. Catalogs for big retailers, catalogs for small retailers, and catalogs for consumers. Catalogs for this country, and catalogs for that country. Summer catalogs that include the fall sets, and summer catalogs that don’t. The list goes on. 

It doesn’t take a genius to understand that somehow, catalog variant A got published instead of catalog variant B. It didn’t take 20,000 LEGO employees to approve this. It took 1 employee… to push button A instead of button B. it was a mistake. They happen. 

People here are complaining because LEGO didn’t announce  anything “new” when they said beforehand that they would. But the fact is, they did… they announced  three sets that, barring leaks, we would have never seen prior to this event. If you want complain about something, maybe you should be complaining that LEGO’s big reveal got spoiled… by a leak… something everyone here craves and consumes like catnip. 

How different would the narrative be the morning after LEGO CON, if those leaks had never happened? You’d all be falling over each other to gush about the Light Cruiser, and Fennec’s dual-molded helmet, and so on. But instead, it’s a lot of griping that the “new” things that got leaked two weeks ago no longer feel  new, and now you want something newer. Cry me a river.
 

Well now it's you making assumptions. If you don't work at Lego yourself, how do you know it was one person's fault? Your guess is as good as mine.

"How different would the narrative be the morning after LEGO CON, if those leaks had never happened?." That doesn't matter, at all. The "leak" (or however you wanna call it) had happened, so the "reveal" on Lego Con sucked. Simple as that.

[jdubbs]

3 minutes ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

I've literally just written how I think this catalogue stuff went down and suddenly out of nowhere people become passive-agressive like my assumptions personally offended them 

If you identified those assumptions as assumptions upfront, instead of presenting them as facts and then back-tracking later, perhaps people wouldn't take issue with your posts. 

[Clone OPatra]

Who is hating? People need to stop thinking that having a detailed back and forth on a subject constitutes some massive argument. Some of us enjoy debating this sort of subject as part of the hobby.

Personally I waded into the catalogue discussion because, at the end of the day, adults were disappointed that nothing "new" for Star Wars was revealed at LEGO Con when in fact it was a mistake that led us to see what they revealed in advance. If somebody else wants to think it wasn't a mistake, fine, but I'm going to debate that opinion because talking about this sort of thing is part of the hobby. A forum is for discussion, which includes debate, not just one person saying an opinion after another and everyone else nodding.

[TeddytheSpoon]

2 minutes ago, Clone OPatra said:

Personally I waded into the catalogue discussion because, at the end of the day, adults were disappointed that nothing "new" for Star Wars was revealed at LEGO Con when in fact it was a mistake that led us to see what they revealed in advance. If somebody else wants to think it wasn't a mistake, fine, but I'm going to debate that opinion because talking about this sort of thing is part of the hobby. A forum is for discussion, which includes debate, not just one person saying an opinion after another and everyone else nodding.

*nods in ironic agreement*

For the gunship I had always assumed it was a September release rather than August since UCS sets always seem to release out of phase with the main waves. The question then becomes when the AT-AT (?) will be released, and I would guess sometime in November in time for the holiday season.

[jdubbs]

12 minutes ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

Well now it's you making assumptions. If you don't work at Lego yourself, how do you know it was one person's fault? Your guess is as good as mine.

I don't know that it was one person's fault. Nor did I say that. I said it only takes one person to make a mistake. No matter how many people LEGO employs, no matter how many people there are in an approval workflow... one person is all it takes.

[BrickBob Studpants]

14 minutes ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

The "leak" (or however you wanna call it) had happened, so the "reveal" on Lego Con sucked. Simple as that.

What should they have done then? Scrap all plans and quickly reveal another set instead? That’s not realistic in the slightest, especially since that would have required approval from Lucasfilm too  If you were expecting the Gunship, frankly, that’s on you. Falconfan and others have said weeks ago that we shouldn’t expect it to be revealed 

[THELEGOBATMAN]

Just now, BrickBob Studpants said:

What should they have done then? Scrap all plans and quickly reveal another set instead? That’s not realistic in the slightest, especially since that would have required approval from Lucasfilm too  If you were expecting the Gunship, frankly, that’s on you. Falconfan and others have said weeks ago that we shouldn’t expect it to be revealed 

I'll elaborate on that, cause that's not what I meant.

I didn't expect the Gunship, to be honest I expected The Mandalorian sets. They couldn't have done anything, as you've said it's not like they'd change their plans.

The point is, it was disappointing nevertheless. The catalogue was their fault, so the reveal was also their fault.

13 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

If you identified those assumptions as assumptions upfront, instead of presenting them as facts and then back-tracking later, perhaps people wouldn't take issue with your posts. 

Or maybe just stop nitpicking when I didn't elaborate on what I meant.

5 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

I don't know that it was one person's fault. Nor did I say that. I said it only takes one person to make a mistake. No matter how many people LEGO employs, no matter how many people there are in an approval workflow... one person is all it takes.

That's like... the opposite of what you've actually said: "It didn’t take 20,000 LEGO employees to approve this. It took 1 employee…"

[jdubbs]

5 minutes ago, THELEGOBATMAN said:

That's like... the opposite of what you've actually said: "It didn’t take 20,000 LEGO employees to approve this. It took 1 employee…"

...to push button A instead of button B. It was a mistake. They happen.

If you're gonna quote me, quote the full context.

[THELEGOBATMAN]

3 minutes ago, jdubbs said:

...to push button A instead of button B. It was a mistake. They happen.

If you're gonna quote me, quote the full context.

This literally changes nothing.

When replying to me you've written "it only takes one person to make a mistake", which is an assumption.

But originally you've written "It took 1 employee" and "It was a mistake", which is a fact.

You've literally pointed out my mistake and then done the exact same thing.

This doesn't seem to be going anywhere, I'll just drop it.