10214: Tower Bridge

[Kettchy]

See the people around the base of the tower? This picture alone sums up every reason why people were hopelessly optimistic to expect this in minifig scale.

Frankly I prefer it like this - weird squashed-up and out of scale versions of large things are ideal for star wars, but not exactly suited to models of famous landmarks.

[Odyssey]

Well, I daresay it's pretty much as I expected it to be, micro scale and without the towers at both ends of the bridge. But I'm still totally amazed at the design. I guess, making this a minifig scale building but would've been pretty impossible (just imagine all the details and greebling you'd have to add...).

And considering the expected size (~1 meter?) I wouldn't yet rule out actually using it in minifig scale displays. It might probably be usable with just slight adjustments if it's placed well.

[-JD-]

Why do great sets have to be so expensive nowadays?

It looks very nice, with lots of neat details. That little Bus is adorable.

Thanks for the pics!

[Yendred]

I'm disappointed they did not model the smaller towers at each extremity of the bridge.

[davee123]

Here are the Microscale, Minifig Scale, and 1:1 Scale pictures:

The funny thing is that the one at MiniLand looks to be VERY close to minifig scale. By a quick measurement, the towers should be about 35-40 studs "wide" in minifig scale, and the miniland model's towers are about 30-35 studs wide, judging from various pictures online. Of course, the miniland model's also proportionally squished, too, so it's even further out of scale ... for MINIFIGS. Let alone miniland scale!

DaveE

[Artifex]

Hail, friends!

By no way I was ever expecting this set to be minifig scale. But close to it would be nice. As I said before, if it was just one of the towers by box, you could just get a bigger thing by buying multiples.

But on second thought, I'm not probably being reasonable. Tower Bridge has 2 bridges, and if only one tower comes out, people will just say "1 tower, really? Don't they know there's a second one too?"

[Mrlegoninja]

does anyone think that power functions could be used to lift the bridge? :pir_yoda: :pir_yoda:

[Yendred]

does anyone think that power functions could be used to lift the bridge? :pir_yoda: :pir_yoda:

I was hoping the model had the fonctionality to lift the center bridge manually (if not motorized). But it seems this is all static. Too bad.

[AndyC]

But on second thought, I'm not probably being reasonable. Tower Bridge has 2 bridges, and if only one tower comes out, people will just say "1 tower, really? Don't they know there's a second one too?"

Exactly. It's pretty much a certainty that I'll buy this set, wheras if it had only been half a bridge, even at minifig scale, I wouldn't have bothered. I most definitely wouldn't have bought two just to get a whole set. Sets at this kind of size and cost have to be very much a 'complete' product, or they just won't sell.

[Svelte]

I think throwing around the term 'minifig scale' is misleading in this discussion. Minifig scale doesn't even exist, but that's a debate that belongs elsewhere

What I was hoping for was what maybe would be better described as 'minifig interactive' scale - ie, at a scale where you *could* have a small car drive under the tower and have room for minifigs to stroll around or open a door into a tower without the set looking horribly contrived. Sure, you'd have to make some sacrifices between scale and detail to achieve this, but this happens already with these monument sets (look at the curved arches in the Taj Mahal which in no way resemble any of the zillions of pointed arches on the real thing, not to mention the choice of colour scheme such as medium blue through-line or red-brown roof, neither of which exist in the real building).

Without some level of interaction, the monument sets for me just become expensive, repetitive-to-build and not particularly accurate display sets which I can live without.

Personally I think with this set they'd have been better to drop the suspension cables and make the towers more detailed and impressive. The level of architectural detail which the original towers has seems lost in this model. They also need to produce better baseplates for these AFOL-sets - how about navy blue for a change? (Or considering the Thames, murky gray-brown )

[lightningtiger]

With all this complaining and to and fro'ing, I say....more picture's please......how can we really judge this set by one small picture. How many of us have put a set down and then when more picture's come out do an about face on it and cry out in praise of that same set.

Can we assume that this is an openning bridge and can be posed in an open or raised form ?

I'm a conformist! !

[Hewman]

With all this complaining and to and fro'ing, I say....more picture's please......how can we really judge this set by one small picture. How many of us have put a set down and then when more picture's come out do an about face on it and cry out in praise of that same set.

Can we assume that this is an openning bridge and can be posed in an open or raised form ?

I'm a conformist! !

Exactly, I'm sure there are masses of little details we can't pick up in this one pic and I'm sure there will be plenty of pleasant surprises when more detailed pics are released.

[Corvus]

Looks good, but not terribly good. This is a sort of hit-or-miss set that I'll get if there aren't any other UCS sets. However, I still have to get the Imperial Flagship and (eventually) the UCS Jedi Starfighter and Imperial Shuttle. So, this goes at the bottom of the list.

It would have been nice if they kept an even baseplate size and maybe added a few boats.

[NeuroMimetis]

Thanks a lot for the pics. This set looks good and I'm now waiting for some more detailed pictures. Pretty quite sure it will be mine.

Neuro

[dr_spock]

It doesn't look bad. Based on the responses, I don't think most of us are the intended target market for this set.

[Derek]

Based on the responses, I don't think most of us are the intended target market for this set.

Umm...Then who is???

[Yendred]

It doesn't look bad. Based on the responses, I don't think most of us are the intended target market for this set.

As were the Eiffel Tower or the Taj Mahal, these sets are obviously intended for AFOLs. What child would ask his parents a Taj Mahal replica for Xmas ?

[Skalldyr]

As were the Eiffel Tower or the Taj Mahal, these sets are obviously intended for AFOLs. What child would ask his parents a Taj Mahal replica for Xmas ?

good point! But maybe a TFOL. But these are mostly AFOL equivalent!

Edited July 24, 2010 by Skalldyr

[dr_spock]

Umm...Then who is???

I believe the target are people who like building major landmarks and don't care for mini-figs.

[squidman85]

Looks cool .A lot of tan.

[DLuders]

Well, whung's photo got "taken down" from Post #1 at the request of The Lego Group . This is the second time this has happened; Amazon.com Japan had a picture that was taken down too in June. What's the deal with this set? Is the design still changing? I don't recall having so much secrecy with any other recent set.

Anyway, whung's photo was reposted by VWBeetle on this Brickshelf gallery: http://www.brickshel...y.cgi?i=4576615 . If you're thinking about buying this set, recommend copying the image to your hard drive because TLG seems to be on a purge campaign!

Edited July 27, 2010 by Svelte
Image removed by request of TLG

[Svelte]

dluders, TLG has also asked us to remove the pics of Tower Bridge and Winter Bakery from our forums, so please don't repost it here. Thanks!

That said, anyone with the ability to comprehend google search should be able to find it without too much trouble

[DLuders]

dluders, TLG has also asked us to remove the pics of Tower Bridge and Winter Bakery from our forums....

Did TLG say "why" they wanted the images removed? It can't be that they expect MegaBlocks to produce something similar. There's GOT to be a reason. Jacking-around AFOLs (the very people with the money to buy these sets) makes for poor customer relations, in my opinion.

[Fugazi]

What makes you think that the photo was legally acquired in the first place? If it wasn't, then TLG have all the rights to ask for it to be pulled off. It's just like if I stole a pic from your computer and posted it online.

[gotoAndLego]

Jacking-around AFOLs (the very people with the money to buy these sets) makes for poor customer relations, in my opinion.

Don't be a drama queen. Removing a photo is hardly jacking around, especially when the photo is low res and doesn't show much in the way of details.

Edited July 27, 2010 by gotoAndLego