LEGO Star Wars 2011 Pictures & Rumors

[Fallenangel]

This ship will never look great at System scale because of the cockpit size, but decent is acceptable.

You could always just build a cockpit with bricks or use a mold.

[Ki-Adi-Mundi]

Thanks fallenangel for sharing this good in depth analysis. Getting that deep into details, 7965 might indeed appear a little awkward. Cockpit and mandible attachment could have been done much better. Still, i like the overall design, decisions on compromises and also wish to give credit to what TLG has done right.

As for the interior, the shown MOC isn't very much playable, IMO. I do not go so far to insist on the Falcon being a freighter with cargo holds but there ought to be some room - and be it for figs to be placed and user's hands to play inside. The MOC offers much to look at but is stacked totally full. I don't think that children would have much fun with it.

We will certainly see some photo shots and funnies created within the interior of the new Falcon. It closes the gap between the 'ancient' Falcon which basically was an empty hall (with a good top cover in regards of playability) and a fully detailed MOC (with even a toilet!) where Luke's saber practices would have destroyed everything on a spot and where no two persons/figs could pass each other.

I buy the LEGOs for display, too, but a good LEGO needs features and the capability to be used as a toy, IMO. I am not speaking of UCS sets which adress a special audience (within a special audience?!) anyway. Summed up, i like the new MC. I just look forward to some good MOC ideas for the mandible and cockpit attachment.

[Brickdoctor]

As for the interior, the shown MOC isn't very much playable, IMO. I do not go so far to insist on the Falcon being a freighter with cargo holds but there ought to be some room - and be it for figs to be placed and user's hands to play inside. The MOC offers much to look at but is stacked totally full. I don't think that children would have much fun with it.

That is the entire reason why the set does not look like an MOC. TLG places a great amount of emphasis on strength and playability, and an MOCer doesn't have those restrictions imposed on him. You can't really criticize either the set or the MOC in comparison for the playability factor, because they have different goals. The comparison is used in that analysis to show realistically how accurate a LEGO model of that size could be. Edited May 24, 2011 by Brickdoctor

[Ki-Adi-Mundi]

That is the entire reason why the set does not look like an MOC. TLG places a great amount of emphasis on strength and playability, and an MOCer doesn't have those restrictions imposed on him. You can't really criticize either the set or the MOC in comparison for the playability factor, because they have different goals. The comparison is used in that analysis to show realistically how accurate a LEGO model of that size could be.

Sry, if i wasn't clear enough. I do not want to criticize anything. As the comparison was brought up i just went up to the more general approaches which are different. IMO TLG didn't do a bad job while following their design policy. A playset needs a selling proposition. A MOC does not. This is self explanatory.

[Lord Of The Fries]

Anyone got a pic of the back of it yet? (the falcon that is)

No. Don't think so. Hope we get one in a review though

[Commander Keller]

I like the look of the new falcon more-so than the previous models. Obviously the mandibles look a little out of whack but a little reworking will easily fix that for me. As for interior, I just add stuff myself.

On a side note:

I think we are being a little too critical of something that is aimed at as a children's building toy. That's why we go the UCS Falcy

[Fallenangel]

I think we are being a little too critical of something that is aimed at as a children's building toy.

Bah! What is a 'new sets' thread for?

There's no need to join in on a discussion if you don't think it's worthwhile. Besides, how are we being too critical? All we're doing is commenting on the aesthetics of the set. 6212 X-wing and 4500 Rebel Snowspeeder have already proven that a LEGO set can look like crap while still selling well for being fun and playable, and 7965 is no exception. As Ki-Adi-Mundi had mentioned, even if 7965 doesn't look as much like the Falcon as some of us would want it to, it's still got a lot of playability, and anyone wishing to fix the look of the set can just Flail it. Now, if you're saying that we shouldn't even mention things like the mandibles and the cockpit, I will say again, why else would this thread be here? To talk about minifigures?

Edited May 24, 2011 by fallenangel309

[Lego Otaku]

How big is the new UCS Executor going to be?? I looked at the picture (so I can drool while waiting a few more months for it to come out) and I decided to try to count the studs. I got around 150, the back part was hard to count.

If it is about 150 studs long, the ship would be quite huge, about 4 feet long. *oh2*

Edited May 24, 2011 by Lego Otaku

[AndyC]

If it is about 150 studs long, the ship would be quite huge, about 4 feet long. *oh2*

Sounds about right, the UCS ISD was 1m long and I'd expect the Executor to be a similar length.

[Lego Otaku]

Sounds about right, the UCS ISD was 1m long and I'd expect the Executor to be a similar length.

I found someone's MOC of the Executor: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=425848

About similar size, I was able to count about 144 studs long.

Better clear the biggest table and lock away any pets and little kids before working on this. It could be in the 4,000 pieces range.

[Fallenangel]

How big is the new UCS Executor going to be?? I looked at the picture (so I can drool while waiting a few more months for it to come out) and I decided to try to count the studs. I got around 150, the back part was hard to count.

If it is about 150 studs long, the ship would be quite huge, about 4 feet long. *oh2*

According to Anio, roughly 1.22m.

[Lego Otaku]

According to Anio, roughly 1.22m.

That would be 4 feet give or take a quarter inch.

[pedro]

I think we are being a little too critical of something that is aimed at as a children's building toy. That's why we go the UCS Falcy

Bah! What is a 'new sets' thread for?

There's no need to join in on a discussion if you don't think it's worthwhile. Besides, how are we being too critical? All we're doing is commenting on the aesthetics of the set. 6212 X-wing and 4500 Rebel Snowspeeder have already proven that a LEGO set can look like crap while still selling well for being fun and playable, and 7965 is no exception. As Ki-Adi-Mundi had mentioned, even if 7965 doesn't look as much like the Falcon as some of us would want it to, it's still got a lot of playability, and anyone wishing to fix the look of the set can just Flail it. Now, if you're saying that we shouldn't even mention things like the mandibles and the cockpit, I will say again, why else would this thread be here? To talk about minifigures?

DAKKA-DAKKA-DAKKA... BOOM! And that's you told.

What fallen says is absoltutely right though. While LEGO try to achieve a balance between accuracy and playability, they don't just sell to children. There is an expectation within the AFOL community of what these sets could and should be and as such this is an open forum to discuss and critique new LEGO sets.

As far as the accuracy of 7965 goes, I don't think the the position of the mandibles and cockpit would have any effect on playability and structural strength if they just positioned them correctly and worked around that template. To me it's just a little bit sloppy. I wouldn't say it's a deal breaker though, and for those who don't have it already it's looks like a great set to own. If one feels strongly enough about the inaccuracies there is always the option to mod it. That's the beauty of LEGO. It's something I personally have done to many of my sets.

I own 4504 already, which while no 10179, is a superb set. I may forego buying 7965 and try and source some of those minifigs by other means insetad.

[StoutFiles]

It looks like the new MF will be a tougher mod regarding the mandibles. The circular part of the Falcon looks to have a larger diameter, which means the mandibles will need to be widened as well as shortened. This will only make the 2x2 circular tiles look that much worse. Cockpit shouldnt be too difficult to move back though.

On a side note:

I think we are being a little too critical of something that is aimed at as a children's building toy. That's why we go the UCS Falcy

Problems with the mandibles and cockpit are just laziness, they could make it accurate without altering piece count or playability. I'd love to ask the designers why they design sets the way they do sometimes.

Edited May 24, 2011 by StoutFiles

[Churchill]

The only Falcons I have are the midi and the UCS. Do those "flaps" for access to the interior really hold up to swooshing? I would think in time they would become loose anyway. Not that I swoosh.... um, my kids do.

[Commander Keller]

Bah! What is a 'new sets' thread for?

There's no need to join in on a discussion if you don't think it's worthwhile. Besides, how are we being too critical? All we're doing is commenting on the aesthetics of the set. 6212 X-wing and 4500 Rebel Snowspeeder have already proven that a LEGO set can look like crap while still selling well for being fun and playable, and 7965 is no exception. As Ki-Adi-Mundi had mentioned, even if 7965 doesn't look as much like the Falcon as some of us would want it to, it's still got a lot of playability, and anyone wishing to fix the look of the set can just Flail it. Now, if you're saying that we shouldn't even mention things like the mandibles and the cockpit, I will say again, why else would this thread be here? To talk about minifigures?

Well first of all, I apologize if I offended you with my post. I agree with you that the aesthetics of the ship itself are off. We should definitely talk about proportions and things that are right and wrong with the upcoming sets. I just don't like seeing a lot of hate. I much prefer happy times.

Problems with the mandibles and cockpit are just laziness, they could make it accurate without altering piece count or playability. I'd love to ask the designers why they design sets the way they do sometimes.

Haha I am with you on that!

[CF Mitch]

Huh, apparently I've missed some links with pics and stuff..

Anyhoo.. w0000tt! Wolffe's faceprint is awesome I love it so much, now I'm definitely gonna buy the Republic Frigate

After giving this some thought, that set will be the only one I'm buying. I wanted to buy the Geonosian Starfighter as well, but only for Ki-Adu Mundi actually, as I have little interest in the vehicle or the Geonosian fig. So I decided to just leave that one be. Considering I really don't have the place and money for it...

Regards,

Mitch

Edited May 24, 2011 by CF WeaZZel

[Mr Man]

I'm not too keen on any of 4504, 7190, 10179, or 7965. The Falcon is a hard ship to get right and non of TLC attempts have been that close (maybe 10179 but that had no canopy), dull fig selection as well.

[Ki-Adi-Mundi]

Bah! What is a 'new sets' thread for?

*snip*

To talk about minifigures?

Yepp, that's it. Above that, I also hope that TLG community and marketing managers sometimes take a peek inside here. They'd better do if they intend to adress AFOL customers who spend big money on their hobby. These fora blend a good deal of common opinions. Reasonable opinions by fairly to insanely dedicated people who add to the popularity of TLG's products.

As to minifigs - they belong into the discussion, too. I share your stance that they hopefully won't make up the bulge of talk, though.

*snip*

As far as the accuracy of 7965 goes, I don't think the the position of the mandibles and cockpit would have any effect on playability and structural strength if they just positioned them correctly and worked around that template. To me it's just a little bit sloppy.

Well, you have a point here, a good one actually. One reason we can be happy that talented people like Brickdoctor and so many others put effort into their excellent designed MOCs. Besides us TLG might again have a look to learn from those ideas and solutions.

I wouldn't say it's a deal breaker though, and for those who don't have it already it's looks like a great set to own. If one feels strongly enough about the inaccuracies there is always the option to mod it. That's the beauty of LEGO. It's something I personally have done to many of my sets.

*snip*

Yeah, perfectly agreed. The set is a great basis for improvements and it also has the stuff to become a classic not only among AFOLs. Just imgaine that this one might be the last [fourth] iteration of a LEGO MF we will ever get. This does already make it look even more desirable, IMO.

[Brickdoctor]

Well, you have a point here, a good one actually. One reason we can be happy that talented people like Brickdoctor and so many others put effort into their excellent designed MOCs. Besides us TLG might again have a look to learn from those ideas and solutions.

The problem is that, as I've said before, many of those solutions are not acceptable for TLG's standards of set design.

[Anio]

The problem is that, as I've said before, many of those solutions are not acceptable for TLG's standards of set design.

But it seems that some models may inspire them...

haha.

[Gregorovich]

IMO, the new Millennium Falcon is okay, but just okay. The exterior looks alright, however inaccurate. I think it looks quite good, and it looks nice and durable. The interior is very boring and lacking, though. The 2004 version's interior wasn't spectacular either, but the engine at the back looked much better (it had those beautiful trans-blue heads!), but this one looks awful. Apart from the rather poorly designed beds, the new MF has nothing new in the interior.

As much as I've complained about the interior, I still think that this set is overall very nice. But be that as it may, it still doesn't justify the £140 price tag .

[Snowspeeder Pilot]

Hi guys, I managed to have another look at the upcoming Hoth Echo Base set and this time I made sure I stared it for a good few minutes to memorize everything I see. Here are the highlights:

Minifigures: 2 x Snowtroopers, 1 x Han in Hoth outfit with Tauntaun, 1 x Chewbacca, 1 x Princess Leia in Hoth outfit, 1 x Red Protocol Droid (Red C-3PO), 1 x Medical Droid (2-1B), 1 x Luke Skywalker (half naked in Bacta Tank). Surprisingly there are no Rebel Troopers...

Vehicles: 1 x Snow Speeder Bike, 1 x E-web Heavy Repeating Blaster

Description of set: It's like a kind of foldable structure. One side consists a battery of guns for defence and the other side is a command center with a medical area that holds the Bacta Tank.

Number of pieces: Looks like a 700-800 piece set (Think Battle Of Endor size)

I confirm and certify the source is very reliable and please don't ask me to reveal my source coz I can't. No date of release and information on price yet. I hope this helps.

Thanks for the information.

I do not know why Lego does not include General Rieekan, Toryn Farr, Wes Janson (Wedge's Gunner), they are basic in Hoth Battle, sadly the same figures, except for New Luke, or what about Hobbie Klivian (Hoth Rebel Pilot)?

[CMP]

Hmmm. Still gonna try to get this Falcon, although now that it's mentioned, its mandibles do look rather long and narrow. But I like blank interiors. More room for modding.

[pedro]

The problem is that, as I've said before, many of those solutions are not acceptable for TLG's standards of set design.

You don't necessarily need excessively complicated building techniques to make a model accurate. Just a good understanding of what you're building.

But it seems that some models may inspire them...

haha.

It seems that some other models should inspire them too!