Star Wars Miniland to come in LEGOLand California

[Fallenangel]

FBTB found a video of the Miniland models:

Falcon and AT-AT are but X-wing and T-47 are

[Anio]

Honnestly, smaller ships (official sets or MOCs) are much more accurate and detailed. :/

[willybob]

Honnestly, smaller ships (official sets or MOCs) are much more accurate and detailed. :/

Well i believe that here accuracy is not the point, at this scale and inserted into some dedicated universe that you need to admire from some distance, those models will do the trick.

But i agree that when you see all available MOCs and UCS on the market, one could think that those models are not so impressive except by their size

[Anio]

Well i believe that here accuracy is not the point, at this scale and inserted into some dedicated universe that you need to admire from some distance, those models will do the trick.

But i agree that when you see all available MOCs and UCS on the market, one could think that those models are not so impressive except by their size

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant.

[Brickdoctor]

MegaBloks, that T-47 is ugly!

The MF and walkers are looking pretty good, though. X-wing doesn't look as bad as the T-57 IMO but still needs a some serious work.

[prateek]

MegaBloks, that T-47 is ugly!

The MF and walkers are looking pretty good, though. X-wing doesn't look as bad as the T-57 IMO but still needs a some serious work.

Agreed. I've got a hunch that the designers are all a bunch of Imperial scum

[KimT]

Thanks for the videolink fallenangel.

The models are just as I'd expect them to be.

Very miniland stylish

blogged

[Fallenangel]

Honnestly, smaller ships (official sets or MOCs) are much more accurate and detailed. :/

Nah. Sets for the most part are pretty bad, and the majority of MOCs are so-so.

MegaBloks, that T-47 is ugly!

The MF and walkers are looking pretty good, though. X-wing doesn't look as bad as the T-57 IMO but still needs a some serious work.

I don't know, that X-wing looks just a bit too blocky for me... reminds me too much of the UCS set (which was a great set for its time but has many obvious flaws).

Am I the only one bothered by the lack of a tow-in on the Falcon's mandibles? They just look too far apart! The cockpit also looks too long in comparison to the stubby cockpit you see on the original 5' model. Considering that this model is actually larger than studio scale (the Falcon model, like the X-wing and Y-wing models, was built close to 1/24 scale - yes guys, the Falcon is, in fact, more than 100 feet in length) I find that somewhat disappointing.

EDIT: Link fixed; one of the Falcon models I linked to was actually a miniature and not the 5' model. The obvious differences in detailing should have been a dead giveaway. Oops!

Edited January 21, 2011 by fallenangel327

[Brickdoctor]

Am I the only one bothered by the lack of a tow-in on the Falcon's mandibles? They just look too far apart! The cockpit also looks a bit too long in comparison to the stubby cockpit you see on the original 5' model. Considering that this model is actually larger than studio scale (the Falcon model, like the X-wing and Y-wing models, was built close to 1/24 scale - yes guys, the Falcon is, in fact, more than 100 feet in length) I find that somewhat disappointing.

Maybe they're using a different source. That's the same thing they did for all three System sets and the UCS.

[prateek]

Am I the only one bothered by the lack of a tow-in on the Falcon's mandibles? They just look too far apart! The cockpit also looks a bit too long in comparison to the stubby cockpit you see on the original 5' model. Considering that this model is actually larger than studio scale (the Falcon model, like the X-wing and Y-wing models, was built close to 1/24 scale - yes guys, the Falcon is, in fact, more than 100 feet in length) I find that somewhat disappointing.

I think you're the only one in the whole world that can find the smallest of inaccuracies in something so epic. You should be a food critic. You get the world's best food for free, just to say bad things about it

[Fallenangel]

I think you're the only one in the whole world that can find the smallest of inaccuracies in something so epic. You should be a food critic. You get the world's best food for free, just to say bad things about it

I swear, it's pretty significant. And besides, what I'm doing is just the tip of the iceberg. Other people know a lot more about these things than I do. Although to be completely honest I suspected the elongated cockpit from the start but didn't want to ruin the moment for everybody.

Brickdoctor, do you have any ideas on what reference they may have used? I think that the schematics featured in the Essential Guide may have played a part. (It's evident from the details in the schematics that they're based off the 32" model from Empire, but that model has a tow-in too. What's more, many panel lines have clearly been omitted, though I guess that may be due to printing costs. You can also see from this picture that they goofed on the structures right next to the innermost "hole" in the starboard mandible.)

[Brickdoctor]

Brickdoctor, do you have any ideas on what reference they may have used?

Honestly, I have no idea.

I just noticed they keep making the same mistake even though they use different scales and designs, and put two and two together.

As for the tow-in, that's got to be a pretty hard angle to accomplish with LEGO, and for structural reasons they probably left it straight. One of the things the model makers do when building stuff for the parks is they have to consult with the person who's going to build the steel inner structure to hold it up, and the straight mandibles have to be easier to fit to the steel than angled ones.

[Cooper]

The L.A. Times has a photo gallery up of the new Star Wars Miniland

[prateek]

It seems that even in Miniland scale, designers seem to mess up the colour scheme of Luke's Landspeeder.

[The Legonater]

That looks incredible so far! Currently the only thing I don't like is the T-47, and the size of R2.

[Brickdoctor]

The T-65 and X-34 look as bad as ever.

Although I think we can all agree that the T-47 is the worst of all. It and the T-65 seem to share the blunt-nose syndrome.

[XimenaPaulina]

Yeah those may not be the best models around, but let's view them in context as Miniland structures, in which they are pretty good representations IMO. If those were non-Miniland builds, then we could start talking about accuracy issues.

[Fallenangel]

It seems that even in Miniland scale, designers seem to mess up the colour scheme of Luke's Landspeeder.

Really, what is up with that? Why did they discontinue sand red, anyway?

Gallery is very interesting...

What the - that Falcon is bottomless! And the rear landing skids on the X-wing are connected to the fuselage instead of the engines!

Actually, the X-wing doesn't look too bad except for the blocky nose, which is truly an eyesore. They've actually made the top half wider than the bottom half and for some strange reason the taper stops well short of the sensor cone, which is itself kind of stubby ( all of which are glaring inaccuracies to me :sick: ).

The chin cannon on the AT-ST looks really weird, like it's got its mouth open. The head is a bit too blocky for my liking, but I guess it's the best they can do without using SNOT there.

I really wish these models were displayed better so they wouldn't have to be so blocky... I mean, if they were to put these behind a glass wall, imagine how far out they'd be. 1/20 scale...

[Henchmen4Hire]

Judging by how well some of you can detail the flaws in models, I'm surprised you guys aren't working for lego already as a set designer. Have any of you tried to apply?

I'd love to see the perfect models you guys can make, so we can tell you how horrible and inaccurate it looks to us

Yeah those may not be the best models around, but let's view them in context as Miniland structures, in which they are pretty good representations IMO. If those were non-Miniland builds, then we could start talking about accuracy issues.

That should be the only thing needed to be said, I think.

When models like these are made for Legoland, does TLG announce that they will be most detailed incredible sack-burstingly awesome models ever? If not, then I see no reason to complain about them, it's not TLG's fault our expectations are so unreasonably high.

If they decided to make Red Sonja out of LEGO I'd be swearing up and down about how they didn't capture the subtlety of her glinting chainmail or the perfect curves of her body

Edited January 27, 2011 by DrNightmare

[Brickdoctor]

Judging by how well some of you can detail the flaws in models, I'm surprised you guys aren't working for lego already as a set designer. Have any of you tried to apply?

I'd love to see the perfect models you guys can make, so we can tell you how horrible and inaccurate it looks to us

They'd impose all their regulations on us, which would make us go even crazier.

[Fallenangel]

Judging by how well some of you can detail the flaws in models, I'm surprised you guys aren't working for lego already as a set designer. Have any of you tried to apply?

I'd love to see the perfect models you guys can make, so we can tell you how horrible and inaccurate it looks to us

With the amount of restrictions the LEGO Group imposes on how LEGO sets should be designed (they don't like studless models, for example) and the way they want to stick poorly thought-out play features into models (7658 7661 and 7663 anyone?) I would hate working for LEGO and would never think of applying. LEGO might encourage creativity for the consumer but on the production side it's a different story entirely.

And I've never claimed that my MOCs were perfect. When there are major errors I try to acknowledge them. For example, I'm currently dissatisfied with the straight brickbuilt nose, skinny wings, squat rear fuselage, oversized astromech droid socket, and molded canopy on my last X-wing, among other things. Some of these are things that other builders have pointed out to me and the rest are things that bother me personally.

When models like these are made for Legoland, does TLG announce that they will be most detailed incredible sack-burstingly awesome models ever? If not, then I see no reason to complain about them, it's not TLG's fault our expectations are so unreasonably high.

Maybe not the most detailed models ever, but at 1/20 scale I think AFOLs would generally expect a significantly higher degree of accuracy than, say, System sets. And even in the UCS range, we're pretty lenient (only Anio appears to have said anything about the obscenely undersized cockpit ball, which would probably make a modeling kit fan cut his eyes out). And there is such a thing as being too lenient. In the case of the T-47, the nose is distorted to the point that you can barely recognize the model from the front. And when the sleek, angular nose of the X-wing has been perverted into a blocky, square, almost phallic structure, I don't think that a Star Wars enthusiast making a few complaints about it would constitute "unreasonably high" expectations, even when we are talking about a medium that's based on blocks. It's not like LEGO doesn't know how to angle plates.

With Miniland models there's also the implication that these models will stick around for a while and be visible to the public eye of children and parents alike. It's only reasonable that as display models they should carry a sort of aesthetic appeal, and when I look at their T-47 and see the fat, exaggerated nose area and the squat cockpit I don't see that.

[Anio]

only Anio appears to have said anything about the obscenely undersized cockpit ball, which would probably make a modeling kit fan cut his eyes out

What ?

[Brickdoctor]

What ?

He's saying that in that topic you were the only one to point out that inaccuracy.

I think though, that Anio here is the perfect example of why we can't be satisfied with these official models. He subjects himself to the same regulations that TLG's builders do, and then proceeds to churn out models that are better. By a lot. That reminds me, Anio, you've never done a T-47, have you? I'd love to see your take on it.

[Anio]

He's saying that in that topic you were the only one to point out that inaccuracy.

But as far I can see, I didn't post in that thread, did I ?

I think though, that Anio here is the perfect example of why we can't be satisfied with these official models. He subjects himself to the same regulations that TLG's builders do, and then proceeds to churn out models that are better. By a lot. That reminds me, Anio, you've never done a T-47, have you? I'd love to see your take on it.

I am always pleased to see that some people notice that I try to do my best for my models to look good (at least to be well designed) both outside and inside. That's something important to me in the design process. But very detailled model outside and well optimised inside requires a lot of time.

It is regrettable that this huge Millenium Falcon is not better than 10179 in term of design and detail. But I think that this is fully understandable : the goal of a model which will be displayed in a Legoland is not the same of a model which will be produced and sold in thousands of copies. :)

That said, it is true that the Snowspeeder looks very weird. I think that it may be quite easy to achieve a better model, without spending hours and hours.

As for a T-47, I'm quite satisfied with my 10129. :)

[Brickdoctor]

But as far I can see, I didn't post in that thread, did I ?

Er, no. Perhaps it was in another thread and fallenangel was linking there to show pics of the set itself?

It is regrettable that this huge Millenium Falcon is not better than 10179 in term of design and detail. But I think that this is fully understandable : the goal of a model which will be displayed in a Legoland is not the same of a model which will be produced and sold in thousands of copies. :)

That said, it is true that the Snowspeeder looks very weird. I think that it may be quite easy to achieve a better model, without spending hours and hours.

Agreed. I understand some of the extra limitations for a Miniland model, but I always end up remembering the huge Mississippi paddle boat they have that's literally covered in miniscule detail, and I think they really could've put a lot more effort into this.

And as you say, there is the T-47 for which there is no excuse.