LEGO Star Wars 2011 Pictures & Rumors

[Fallenangel]

I don't think the bottom of the Executor's front has the prominent angles seen on the top. In fact, it looks almost flat in some shots. It seem to become more angled about half way along the base:

Side Profile

Citing the Essential Guide as a reliable source - hey, that's pretty funny.

I dunno, even that looks basically flat right at the front. We've not seen enough of the UCS model to know whether or not it gets angled further in.

Here are some shots of the 277cm Executor studio miniature used in Empire and Jedi:

Can you see the angle? (I know I can.)

Naahh! That angle which can be clearly seen at the rear follows all the way through to the front, just like a regular Star Destroyer. The underside 'cityscape' simply interrupts it and gives the illusion that its flatter. This image may help convey what I mean. I've also a heap of shots of the studio model on my hard drive which confirm it. Heaven knows how this UCS model conveys that angle on the underside....

Agree, see pictures above.

[Lasse D]

I was wrong about the size. It is pretty close to the one I built size wise.

Guys! Analyze the picture closely. From what I see, the bottom isn't angled at all. It's completely flat. The top plates are angled, but the bottom plates are straight (on the X axis), so that is probably the floor. This is obviously a playset, and I just hope it has a detailed interior, like the death star. I really hope they do something about the flat bottom, or at least add the greebs...

It hints more at stability concerns than of a playset. I tried to make the angled bottom strong in order to support the frame. This worked, but the added weight made it very hard to connect to the upper half. A flat bottom should be much lighter. I wonder how they have fixed the problem that will occur at the engine bay.

Perhaps I should use this as a hint and start making the 1:1 model?

That is. 1:1 compared to the original model, not the depicted ship... which would use some trillion bricks.

[Aeroeza]

Agree, see pictures above.

Thanks FA, they're actually some of the shots I was talking about on my hard drive. I've a few more which show the profile in grand detail but I think you saved me the trouble of uploading those....

It hints more at stability concerns than of a playset. I tried to make the angled bottom strong in order to support the frame. This worked, but the added weight made it very hard to connect to the upper half. A flat bottom should be much lighter. I wonder how they have fixed the problem that will occur at the engine bay.

Perhaps I should use this as a hint and start making the 1:1 model?

That is. 1:1 compared to the original model, not the depicted ship... which would use some trillion bricks.

We could all start donating a trillion bricks if you like!

Edited April 14, 2011 by Aeroeza

[Artanis I]

That is. 1:1 compared to the original model, not the depicted ship... which would use some trillion bricks.

good luck with that venture, anyone!

[cavegod]

Maybe just maybe they have included the figs for us AFOL to sell to the young uns to compensate the cost of this set.

i agree though if there is no where to put the figs there seems no point to them,a bit like the stormtrooper in 10212.

but we need more pictures before any more speculative comments.

[simonjedi]

We've not seen enough of the UCS model to know whether or not it ______________

This is the best point and should be repeated.

[Supersonic]

Why would it be a bad thing if a UCS set contained playset features? As long as it looks as good as it should from the outside, most collectors shouldn't care. And if there really is a way to fit a room for the figures in there, it would at least be great for those who care about functions as well.

It's only when the set looks bad because of the play features (*cough* 8039 Venator *cough*) that it's a bad thing.

[slimninj4]

Will I buy this yes. Just like I did the UCS MF. I might have to sell a few older sets though to not piss off the misses though.

I just wonder if this will be as strong as the MF for me to hang on the wall too. Love to throw some LED lights on the engine bays.

[Aeroeza]

Why would it be a bad thing if a UCS set contained playset features? As long as it looks as good as it should from the outside, most collectors shouldn't care. And if there really is a way to fit a room for the figures in there, it would at least be great for those who care about functions as well.

It's only when the set looks bad because of the play features (*cough* 8039 Venator *cough*) that it's a bad thing.

You've made some fair points but I feel your position maybe a bit of a slippery slope or as they say 'the thin edge of the wedge'...

The UCS range to date has been aimed at AFOL who enjoy model making, so their purpose is not simply 'play' but form, aesthetics, detail and a level of accuracy achieved within the confines and choices made available with bricks supplied by TLC. Its sculpture pure and simple! If you throw in little play scenes then the purpose of the set changes, becoming more of a toy than a rendition of the studio model meant only for display. An analogy might be going to your favorite up market restaurant only to find they're serving fast food (Hey, it looked great on the outside but gave me heart disease anyway)!

No more sushi for you, only KFC!!!

On a less emotive level its just a waste of bricks. If a UCS is meant only to be a sculptural piece then utilizing bricks for any other purpose is compromising detail elsewhere on the build and adding to the cost unnecessarily.

So keep playability, interiors and figures for system scale vehicles and playsets or get rid of the UCS label altogether. Don't mash the two together unnecessarily....

[KimT]

Yeah, and that's why I wrote 'UCS.' Obviously playsets aren't to scale. Obviously most UCS sets aren't to scale. But when UCS sets aren't to scale, they have always not included figures, until now.

Are you not counting the Imperial Shuttle as a UCS set?

It has plenty of figs...

The same can be said about the Tantive IV.

Both are 10XXX numbered sets.

And the shuttle even has an info sticker like the 'regular' UCS sets.

[Brickdoctor]

Are you not counting the Imperial Shuttle as a UCS set?

The shuttle is minifig-scale. He's saying there has never before been a non-minifig-scale UCS set that had minifigs.

[legolandia]

I'm glad Lego is releasing a SSD. It's bout time.

I think though that Lego should have used some translucent light blue bricks in the city scape in order to give the impression that the lights are on. After all the SSD is always in space which is always dark so the lights are always on and therefore it would have made sense to use those bricks.

[Commander Keller]

Yes Legolandia, that would be pretty cool. Luckily, we have the ability to greeble our hearts on it and make it beautiful. This ship will definitely battle my MF for the honorary model spot in my room.

[KimT]

The shuttle is minifig-scale. He's saying there has never before been a non-minifig-scale UCS set that had minifigs.

Meh!

Mkay, I think that what I'm trying to point out is that, eventhough we nerds like to think otherwise, I kinda doubt TLG takes this whole UCS versus 10XXX sets very seriously.

They make what they think we want - UCS scale or no scale - same thing different sombreros

The Super Star Destroyer has been made, because they think there's a market and to add some cool icing - they even threw in some iconic figs.

[Brickdoctor]

Mkay, I think that what I'm trying to point out is that, eventhough we nerds like to think otherwise, I kinda doubt TLG takes this whole UCS versus 10XXX sets very seriously.

They make what they think we want - UCS scale or no scale - same thing different sombreros

The Super Star Destroyer has been made, because they think there's a market and to add some cool icing - they even threw in some iconic figs.

Yeah, I understand the choice, seeing how popular new minifigs have become. It's just unusual.

[Solscud007]

I really think there must be a way to incorporate the figs into the Executor. I dont mind if it has just one storage location underneath the dorsal city. As long as it looks like a UCS set that is all that matters.

[CommanderFox]

Wow, the super star destroyer looks fantastic, just the price won't be as fantastic i bet.

Looking forward to close ups!

CF

[Redjack Ryan]

I've been looking forward to this set for a long time! I think it looks awesome now, and look forward to when we are finally able to see some high resolution photos.

I hope the Imperial Officer minifig included with the set is not just a generic officer and instead is Admiral Piett.

[StoutFiles]

Even though he was dead by the time the bridge scene happened, there's a slight chance the officer could be Ozzel.

[Fallenangel]

Why would it be a bad thing if a UCS set contained playset features? As long as it looks as good as it should from the outside, most collectors shouldn't care. And if there really is a way to fit a room for the figures in there, it would at least be great for those who care about functions as well.

You wouldn't expect any 'functions' in a display model outside of those that contribute to features on the 'real' ship (hence the rotating quad lasers on 10179, opening hatch on 7181, etc.), so as Aeroeza said play features in a set like this would just be unnecessary use of bricks. Also, remember why there is no cockpit in 10174.

Now 10212 is the oddball since it did have something akin to a play feature (flip-open head), but I suppose we could just dismiss that as a way for the casual observer to appreciate the cockpit detail.

The UCS range to date has been aimed at AFOL who enjoy model making, so their purpose is not simply 'play' but form, aesthetics, detail and a level of accuracy achieved within the confines and choices made available with bricks supplied by TLC. Its sculpture pure and simple! If you throw in little play scenes then the purpose of the set changes, becoming more of a toy than a rendition of the studio model meant only for display. An analogy might be going to your favorite up market restaurant only to find they're serving fast food (Hey, it looked great on the outside but gave me heart disease anyway)!

No more sushi for you, only KFC!!!

On a less emotive level its just a waste of bricks. If a UCS is meant only to be a sculptural piece then utilizing bricks for any other purpose is compromising detail elsewhere on the build and adding to the cost unnecessarily.

So keep playability, interiors and figures for system scale vehicles and playsets or get rid of the UCS label altogether. Don't mash the two together unnecessarily....

Agreed. LEGO already makes S@H exclusive sets with great playability; that aspect doesn't need to spill over into AFOL-oriented sets.

I guess this means that I have to change my mind about the minifigures; since they are collector's items to many AFOLs it in fact does make sense for LEGO to include them.

Meh!

Mkay, I think that what I'm trying to point out is that, eventhough we nerds like to think otherwise, I kinda doubt TLG takes this whole UCS versus 10XXX sets very seriously.

They make what they think we want - UCS scale or no scale - same thing different sombreros

The Super Star Destroyer has been made, because they think there's a market and to add some cool icing - they even threw in some iconic figs.

Let's all try and remember what a UCS really is:

...only sets marked as "Ultimate Collector's Series" items are apart of the UCS. This does not necessarily mean they do or do not include a plaque or stand, it simply will say "Ultimate Collector's Series." In addition, we also have several sets that are collector™'s items such as the Death Star (#10188), Imperial AT-ST (#10174), or Motorized Walking AT-AT (#10178) but are not included in the UCS.

EDIT: The Devastator WAS in Empire.

The linear array between the scanner globes was modified for TESB; it was in a more upright position in ANH.

Edited April 15, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Aeroeza]

Let's all try and remember what a UCS really is:

... and to avoid long posts which unnecessarily debate the matter I'd like to point people to what Sweeden and KimT surmised about the murkiness of it all in May of 2010.

... I think that what I'm trying to point out is that, eventhough we nerds like to think otherwise, I kinda doubt TLG takes this whole UCS versus 10XXX sets very seriously.

Shop@Home has renamed its 'UCS' section as 'Exclusives'. Which would seem to suggest that they realized calling everything UCS was messing with our heads!!!

Some TLC from TLC after all!

(Sorry but that pun was a long time coming...)

[Fallenangel]

... and to avoid long posts which unnecessarily debate the matter I'd like to point people to what Sweeden and KimT surmised about the murkiness of it all in May of 2010.

Who started the whole 'UCS=10XXX' thing anyway? (Other than S@H, that is.)

Shop@Home has renamed its 'UCS' section as 'Exclusives'. Which would seem to suggest that they realized calling everything UCS was messing with our heads!!!

Some TLC from TLC after all!

(Sorry but that pun was a long time coming...)

Indeed.

Back on topic, did anyone notice that the bridge on the Executor in 10221 and the bridge on the Imperial are exactly the same? I think that's great.

Edited April 15, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Brickdoctor]

Back on topic, did anyone notice that the bridge on the Executor in 10221 and the bridge on the Imperial are exactly the same? I think that's great.

I agree. Great to see TLG paying attention to that sort of thing.

On that note, it's rather obvious that an Executor can be made at a smaller size; do you think TLG chose this scale so they could include the ISD?

[Aeroeza]

I agree. Great to see TLG paying attention to that sort of thing.

On that note, it's rather obvious that an Executor can be made at a smaller size; do you think TLG chose this scale so they could include the ISD?

Yep! I reckon so.

I think the inclusion of the ISD really hammers the scale of the SSD home. Its great thing when you think about it! Imagine the dinner parties you could host where you'd place 10019, 10030, 10221 and 10143 on display all at once and educate trapped and hungry guests on their scale differences i.e.

'This my friend is the 'big version' of the Rebel Blockade Runner, there is its 'mini' hiding under that big Star Destroyer, whose own mini representative (with four others of course just to complete the fleet) is next to that huge model of the Super-duper Star Destroyer, whose mini is actually dangling off the side of that mammoth half completed Death Star (please don't touch that without first washing your hands)! And how large is a human being in relation to that Blockade Runner I hear you ask? Well let me draw you a picture and yes there will be a test on this before you leave...'

Can't wait!

[Brickdoctor]

'This my friend is the 'big version' of the Rebel Blockade Runner, there is its 'mini' hiding under that big Star Destroyer, whose own mini representative (with four others of course just to complete the fleet) is next to that huge model of the Super-duper Star Destroyer, whose mini is actually dangling off the side of that mammoth half completed Death Star (please don't touch that without first washing your hands)! And how large is a human being in relation to that Blockade Runner I hear you ask? Well let me draw you a picture and yes there will be a test on this before you leave...'

Just remember to start off the conversation with the Minifig-scale Tantive IV that you will build.

Okay, back on topic.

EDIT: Better link.

Edited April 15, 2011 by Brickdoctor