LEGO Star Wars 2010 Pictures and Rumors

[-Tilius-]

UCS sets are supposed to be just a version of the set that is larger and more detailed than previous incarnations. There is no rule that says a UCS set has to have a high piece count. If TLC released it without the UCS label, then AFOLs would wonder why it didn't have a label when it had a UCS-type stand and was obviously UCS-scale, and kids would wonder what in the world they were supposed to do with a Starfighter that doesn't seat a normal minifig. Adding the UCS label defines it as a set primarily for older builders who want to display it. There are only so many pieces one can fit into a space dogfighter. They were purposely designed by ILM to be small in the first place.

This is getting quite frustrating now.

This set does not have the level of detail you'd expect from a UCS set. Forget piece counts, forget the inclusion of a stand, just look at the model for a moment. It's slightly bigger than the old one, not minifig scale, but doesn't look like a UCS set because it lacks any actual detail. That is what I'm saying. It's pretty obvious what I mean by saying this could almost pass as a non-UCS set (yes, if you took away the stand, obviously). Okay?

[cavegod]

This is getting quite frustrating now.

This set does not have the level of detail you'd expect from a UCS set. Forget piece counts, forget the inclusion of a stand, just look at the model for a moment. It's slightly bigger than the old one, not minifig scale, but doesn't look like a UCS set because it lacks any actual detail. That is what I'm saying. It's pretty obvious what I mean by saying this could almost pass as a non-UCS set (yes, if you took away the stand, obviously). Okay?

now im not just saying this but it doesn't look finished is the picture a prelim and not the finished model? it's got potential with a few mods though!

[Klaus-Dieter]

Thank you very much for this picture, whung!

The UCS Jedi Star Fighter looks good.

But since I'm not interested in UCS sets, I don't care.

Isn't it strange that there'll be two huge UCS sets this year but no big exclusive set with minifigures (like last year's Tantive 4)?!

But since more than the half of 2010 is over now, I highly doubt that there'll be a third big exclusive set. Apart from that there have never been more than two big Exclusives (150+ Euros/Dollars)in the last years. What do you think?

Klaus-Dieter

[cavegod]

some hi res pics

i do like it

Edited July 21, 2010 by cavegod

[RoryoCox]

Okay my opinion has totally changed on this set. The engines and the entire back section look sleek and beutiful

The wings look much better in these new pictures. Thank You for them, cavegod

[legolandia]

Think about it, your really just paying that high price for the box. If they come disassembled instructions will end up floating g around the internet, and you can build your own.

Plus they don't look good. IMO

Cute, but not $75 cute (not to mention the price they will sell for on ebay afters). I very much hope that the instructions will be posted somewhere. Fingers crossed.

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

This is getting quite frustrating now.

This set does not have the level of detail you'd expect from a UCS set. Forget piece counts, forget the inclusion of a stand, just look at the model for a moment. It's slightly bigger than the old one, not minifig scale, but doesn't look like a UCS set because it lacks any actual detail. That is what I'm saying. It's pretty obvious what I mean by saying this could almost pass as a non-UCS set (yes, if you took away the stand, obviously). Okay?

What are you talking about? The new one is 18", and I'm pretty sure that's almost twice as large as the system one. How about you actually look at the new pics, and you'll see the details. Maybe it's just that you don't see a lot of detail because frankly there aren't many details that they could have put into it. I mean, it's a small, so it's not like there are many opportunities for greebling like the ISD or the MF.

Sorry, I wasn't going to comment on this, but you really are frustrating me (and likely others} with your uneducated posts.

[Derek]

Isn't it strange that there'll be two huge UCS sets this year but no big exclusive set with minifigures (like last year's Tantive 4)?!

1)You think this new JSF is HUGE?

2)The Imperial Shuttle is a "big exclusive set with minifigures".

[Edmond Dantes]

This is getting quite frustrating now.

This set does not have the level of detail you'd expect from a UCS set. Forget piece counts, forget the inclusion of a stand, just look at the model for a moment. It's slightly bigger than the old one, not minifig scale, but doesn't look like a UCS set because it lacks any actual detail. That is what I'm saying. It's pretty obvious what I mean by saying this could almost pass as a non-UCS set (yes, if you took away the stand, obviously). Okay?

It's actually 2.5 times too large to be minifig scale. The ship is said to be 8 meters and assuming minifig scale is ~ 1:42, then the ship should be ~0.19 meters long (19 centimeters) and thus at 47 centimeters is ~2.5x minifig scale.

[-Tilius-]

What are you talking about? The new one is 18", and I'm pretty sure that's almost twice as large as the system one. How about you actually look at the new pics, and you'll see the details. Maybe it's just that you don't see a lot of detail because frankly there aren't many details that they could have put into it. I mean, it's a small, so it's not like there are many opportunities for greebling like the ISD or the MF.

Sorry, I wasn't going to comment on this, but you really are frustrating me (and likely others} with your uneducated posts.

Thanks.

What I originally said was a passing comment. You just said yourself that it's small - yes, bigger than the previous version, but still small. Since it's small, uses few parts, and has few details, it barely passes as a UCS set. It could be released without people thinking 'this should be a UCS set', even if it isn't minifig scale. Surely you comprehend that? It's very much on the border - it doesn't quite fit as a minifig scale set or as a UCS set. And neither does the old Naboo Starfighter, before you bring that up.

But oh my god, it was literally a simple passing comment. One that I thought people might agree with, or might at least understand (especially having explained it several times now). I realise it's bigger than the old one, and isn't minifig scale, but I don't think it's the quality expected of a UCS set.

I mean, look at the Imperial Shuttle. There's not really a huge amount of detail they could add to that ship, because it's basically just smooth and white, but they still made it big and obviously a UCS. This is just a slightly upscaled minifig set. That's all I'm saying. A passing comment. I really don't understand how people disagreed/didn't understand in the first place, and I don't see why this has escalated so much.

And I'm sure you're frustrating everybody else due to your inability to understand a simple passing remark. But hey, make me look like the frustrating one.

Edited July 21, 2010 by -Tilius-

[XimenaPaulina]

Tilius, I understand where you're coming from. You view this "UCS" JSF as smaller than previous UCS sets, this one having less parts and details, and hence you argue that it could pass as a non-UCS set and could just be a regular one. That is YOUR opinion, and I totally respect that.

However, other people don't have the same opinion as you. I, for one (and probably the majority of people here), see it as a UCS set because in OUR opinion, the larger size, more parts and details relative to a system set JSF justifies it to be a UCS set. And that's most probably TLG's logic too, that's why they released it as a UCS set. It's as simple as that.

Let's just respect each other's opinions and move on.

[The Legonater]

Okay- so that IS a Ep. 3 JSF cockpit. Interesting.

[-Tilius-]

I realise we have different opinions, my problem is that people have replied without even attempting to understand where I'm coming from. That's what annoys me. Respecting opinions means listening to them and trying to understand them - which people haven't done here. I'm not the one disrespecting others opinions - I've just been trying to explain mine in a way that people might understand, and have so far failed in doing that.

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

Tilius, I understand where you're coming from. You view this "UCS" JSF as smaller than previous UCS sets, this one having less parts and details, and hence you argue that it could pass as a non-UCS set and could just be a regular one. That is YOUR opinion, and I totally respect that.

However, other people don't have the same opinion as you. I, for one (and probably the majority of people here), see it as a UCS set because in OUR opinion, the larger size, more parts and details relative to a system set JSF justifies it to be a UCS set. And that's most probably TLG's logic too, that's why they released it as a UCS set. It's as simple as that.

Let's just respect each other's opinions and move on.

Exactly. Thanks for saying that for me.

I realise we have different opinions, my problem is that people have replied without even attempting to understand where I'm coming from. That's what annoys me. Respecting opinions means listening to them and trying to understand them - which people haven't done here. I'm not the one disrespecting others opinions - I've just been trying to explain mine in a way that people might understand, and have so far failed in doing that.

The only reason that I showed you no respect in my post because you repeatedly showed no respect for other's opinions. You deserve no more than you give. And just because I argue with you doesn't mean I don't respect your opinion.

[-Tilius-]

Quote me showing 'no respect' for other people's opinions.

[Orcasek]

The problem is that this is barely detailed enough to qualify!

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

Quote me showing 'no respect' for other people's opinions.

Fine. Mods take note, I'm only doing this because he asked me to. So let's refer to your original post, shall we?

1. The actual set itself could easily be released as a regular set without people going 'Wow, this should be a UCS', whereas this and this could not. 2. Regardless, most UCS sets have at least 1000 pieces. 3. Plus, compare it to the regular version. It has the same level of detail, only it's a much flatter shape, to keep the cost down. 4. This is really just the same step up as the Slave I had from this to this, but being passed of as UCS, when really it's just a bit of an update.

Oh, but it has a stand....I must be completely wrong, then.

The Droid dome is definitely bigger - you can tell it's at least 3 studs wide from the pic.

1. No, it can't. As has been shown in this thread, people connect it with UCS. You may think that it's not UCS, but you can't think that everyone else will agree with you.

2. It's a smaller ship. Smaller ship=less pieces. What do you want, a ridiculous over-sized scale? I think that TLG probably got the actual 'measurements' from Lucasarts so that it would be at a similar scale to most other UCS's.

3. It may have the same amount of details, but where as the System set achieved it with small plates and printed pieces, the UCS does it with technique and style that people associate with UCS.

4. No, those were both System. While the jump of details are due to bad design, the UCS starfighter cannot fit a minifig. It's kinda hard to explain.

You may have a few ounces of respect, but being sarcastic and saying things like "oh my god" and "just look at the model" are NOT the right attitude. I'm just going to leave at that.

[XimenaPaulina]

Ok guys I think we should stop this seemingly endless debate and get back on track. Points have been raised, heard, and hopefully understood by all sides. This ain't entertaining no more and pls. give consideration to other members who only want to know more about the new SW sets and not continuous arguments.

The UCS Obi-Wan's JSF: UCS or Non-UCS, Love it or Hate it, it is what it is... So buy it if you like it, or don't if you don't like it.

Edited July 22, 2010 by KielDaMan

[-Tilius-]

1. No, it can't. As has been shown in this thread, people connect it with UCS. You may think that it's not UCS, but you can't think that everyone else will agree with you.

I didn't say it isn't UCS. I said that it could pass as a non-UCS set. Not minifig scale, but not big enough to truely be in the league of the other UCS sets (Naboo Starfighter aside).

2. It's a smaller ship. Smaller ship=less pieces. What do you want, a ridiculous over-sized scale? I think that TLG probably got the actual 'measurements' from Lucasarts so that it would be at a similar scale to most other UCS's.

Right. Isn't Vader's TIE smaller than this ship? That had loads more pieces - yeah, more detail, but still. It made an effort to 'be' a UCS, whereas this seems like a mild upgrade from the previous version.

3. It may have the same amount of details, but where as the System set achieved it with small plates and printed pieces, the UCS does it with technique and style that people associate with UCS.

I'd disagree. There's not a huge level of difference between the two, really. This level of detail is what I'd associate with a modern regular Lego set. It's not quite in league with the UCS standards.

4. No, those were both System. While the jump of details are due to bad design, the UCS starfighter cannot fit a minifig.

Ignoring the minifig thing here, the Slave I redesign was a similar step-up to this redesign. The original starfighter had few pieces, flat panels and lacked the shape of the actual ship, just like the original Slave I did. Both of these ships had these problems fixed for their redesign, and both gained a similar number of pieces, yet the Starfighter is UCS whilst the Slave I is not.

Which brings another point up - why make a UCS of a pretty forgettable ship when they still haven't made a UCS Slave I? Seems silly, but anyway.

You may have a few ounces of respect, but being sarcastic and saying things like "oh my god" and "just look at the model" are NOT the right attitude. I'm just going to leave at that.

I only started that after a load of posts had seemingly completely ignored what I meant. Rather than responding with a 'Yeah, I can understand what you mean to an extent - it's not to the same piece count/detail/whatever of other UCS sets', I got a 'NO, YOU'RE WRONG, IT'S UCS BECAUSE IT SAYS ON THE BOX AND IT HAS A STAND' reply. Which is a clear example of somebody not listening or considering what I've said at all. And then I'm apparently the bad guy.

[The Legonater]

Quote me showing 'no respect' for other people's opinions.

Frankly, he just did.

[-Tilius-]

Frankly, he just did.

Expand.

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

I only started that after a load of posts had seemingly completely ignored what I meant. Rather than responding with a 'Yeah, I can understand what you mean to an extent - it's not to the same piece count/detail/whatever of other UCS sets', I got a 'NO, YOU'RE WRONG, IT'S UCS BECAUSE IT SAYS ON THE BOX AND IT HAS A STAND' reply. Which is a clear example of somebody not listening or considering what I've said at all. And then I'm apparently the bad guy.

Are you kidding me? No one ever said that or implied it. It's in your own little mind that makes you think that whenever some one disagrees with you that they have no respect for you.

EDIT: And no, you were sarcastic from the beginning.

Edited July 22, 2010 by ThatGuyWithTheBricks

[The Legonater]

Expand.

Simple- you're saying no one's respecting your opinion. Meanwhile, you're ignoring everyone ELSE'S opinion about USC.

[-Tilius-]

I think calling someone 'uneducated' because they disagree with you is pretty disrespectful.

All I said was that this set doesn't seem as UCS-like as you'd expect from a 2010 UCS set.

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

Edited July 22, 2010 by -Tilius-

[ThatGuyWithTheBricks]

OK, let's get back to the OT instead of arguing our brains out. Tillus, if you're looking for a fight, I'm not going to give you one.