Fallenangel Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 A "full UCS line-up supplied by Lego"? Does this mean we finally get an official definition of what constitutes a UCS with 'exclusives' thrown in for good measure? Or will the 'true believers' find out their faith in the 'pure' UCS will finally be signed, sealed and displayed in all their non-playset glory?!? I'll be waiting with baited breath to find out the answer to this one.... ...and I bet they'll still get it wrong! Ooh - ah, it's all the way in England! Looks like another big event I'll be missing... I can imagine all the AFOLs now squabbling over which "UCS" sets are/aren't included. Quote
TheDarkness Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I can imagine all the AFOLs now squabbling over which "UCS" sets are/aren't included. One way or another, oen group of fans aren't going to be happy Quote
Aeroeza Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Ooh - ah, it's all the way in England! Looks like another big event I'll be missing... Ooh - ah!!! I trust that's in your best Southern English or Cornish accent then FA? Are you now truly traveling 'on stranger tides' off the coast of the Yellow Sea!?! One way or another, oen group of fans aren't going to be happy Actually I think I may have paraphrased Cavegod poorly in my earlier post. On a second read its clear only that Lego is supplying 10221. The other UCS' may be coming from another source. If they're CG's then I doubt we'll be seeing any playsets in the mix but regardless an 'official' collection may be in doubt... Quote
Ackbar Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I have mixed feelings about this one. One one hand I really like those big and heavy UCS models, I collect most of them and enjoy building them. But there's something about this set that makes me hesitate. First, where the hell shall I put it (I still have my USC Falcon and Jawa sandcrawler stuck under my bed)? I really want to put these sets on display, but they're so big it's not possible to display them all. Second, the model looks stunning but I the overall impression of the set is still quite bland. The greeble on the top is good, but a bit uninspired. And why minifigs? They feel out of place since the model is not in scale (which of course would be impossible with this one). If LEGO really wanted to include minifigs (to increase the price I guess), where's Zuckuss and 4-Lom? Two long-awaited figs! And the engines, orange??? Also feels a bit bland. I remembering seeing a MOC of this ship with red engines. Gives a lot more edge two the whole ship (this could easily be fixed though) and it's more movie-accurate. So, the overall impression is a bit uninspired. Ah well, it's still a beast and a worthy USC member but not among the best. If it goes on sale in the future, then maybe... Quote
Lobot Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I spoke to one of the really nice people in Lego Customer Services today (actually, they’re all great and always seem to have an amazing level of enthusiasm! ). She confirmed that this will be definitely available on the 1st September in the UK. However, there isn’t any pre-order available. Time to start saving I guess . Quote
gotoAndLego Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I wonder why they didn't close up the gap the same way they did on the Midi Star Destroyer. Quote
Skafte Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 I have all previous UCS sets, and of course I will buy this one. It's the longest one yet and the basic shape of the ship itself is great. Some flaws design-wise with the flat bottom, I agree, but I'm quite certain the designer has done the best he ever could, considering his assignment. He cannot use every LEGO piece that was ever made. He must build with as few pieces as possible - both by type and by number. He was obviously told to make up a way to include minifigs, because LEGO knows they will sell more copies of the set that way. Sure, some of us AFOLs will say "No way I'm getting that, it's no UCS with out of scale minifigs!", but a much larger number (not necessarily in the 16+ group!) will go "Wow, yeah, it even has the Bounty Hunter Scene in it, I'm so buying!" Yes, it would be more like a "classic" UCS set if there were no figs. This way, LEGO will make more money and will continue to produce sets from movies that are 30+ years old. I say thank you LEGO. And the price? Ridiculous amount of money, of course, but not surprisingly high. It's about 12 cents per piece. When were we really (really) thinking that 10 was the magic number? Feels like quite a long time ago. Our European prices are, as usual, even worse. Mind you, the two things I mainly collect are SW UCS and SW minifigs, so I am biased. Quote
Niku Posted June 21, 2011 Posted June 21, 2011 Uh, they did... that's what was being discussed further up the page. Sorry, my mistake. Quote
wokajablocka Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) I have mixed feelings about this one. And the engines, orange??? If you look at refrence pics on the net from what I could see you will notice the engines are red/orange. So this is accurite to the movie. I will be saving for a while for this set if Im going to pay Australian prices. Looks awsome and must have it. Sorry I stuffed the quote form Ackbar, my bad. Edited June 22, 2011 by wokajablocka Quote
Fallenangel Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I wonder why they didn't close up the gap the same way they did on the Midi Star Destroyer. 8099 has a gap too, in the same place... it's just smaller. As for this set, I would have liked to see the 'zigzag' solution that Lasse implemented in his build. Quote
Brickdoctor Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 As for this set, I would have liked to see the 'zigzag' solution that Lasse implemented in his build. I don't really like that solution. It makes it look like there are lines in the wrong places. (I mean, I'm sure you of all people know that on the studio model, that connection between the two plates is a straight line, right? Gotta be more accurate to the studio model.) Quote
Fallenangel Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I don't really like that solution. It makes it look like there are lines in the wrong places. (I mean, I'm sure you of all people know that on the studio model, that connection between the two plates is a straight line, right? Gotta be more accurate to the studio model.) Well, of course, there's that. On the other hand, Lasse's approach was a stroke of creativity, even if it wasn't entirely accurate, and (for me at least) it did help the aesthetics of the model more than a large, highly conspicuous gap would have. Then again, 10030 also had a gap down the middle (as did Anio's take on the Executor, though it was far less pronounced on the latter) so I guess it doesn't look that bad to most people. Quote
Brickdoctor Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Well, of course, there's that. On the other hand, Lasse's approach was a stroke of creativity, even if it wasn't entirely accurate, and (for me at least) it did help the aesthetics of the model more than a large, highly conspicuous gap would have. Then again, 10030 also had a gap down the middle (as did Anio's take on the Executor, though it was far less pronounced on the latter) so I guess it doesn't look that bad to most people. Not that it's impossible to eliminate the gap with this design. It's just a matter of matching the angles of the plates exactly. I assume TLG can't do that for structural reasons, but this model (see especially this view) does. The gap is still evident because with a model of that size the gap created by the space between the outer edges of the plates that's basically impossible to avoid creates a shadow that makes it look gappy even if the inner edges of said plates touch, but I imagine on a larger model that line would not appear so evidently. Quote
Anio Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 The gap has nothing to do with the size. The is a biiiig gap on the 10221, just because the wings are angle on the top, while they are flat on the underside. On that small model, the angle on the bottom wings seem to be very similar to the angle of the wing on the top. So there is no gap. On the contrary, the angle are very different on the 10221. So, there is a gap. Quote
Brickdoctor Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 The gap has nothing to do with the size. I'm not saying the gap is bigger or smaller because of the size, just that it appears bigger on smaller models since proportionately the gap is bigger compared to the size of the hull plates. Quote
P4trickvH Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Now listed at S@H release date 1 september 2011. Quote
Lobot Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Now listed at S@H release date 1 september 2011. It seems to have lost 7 pieces and gained a duplicated set of minifigures.....! Super Star DestroyerItem #: 10221 Ages: 16+ Pieces: 3145 Coming Soon on 1 Sep 2011 Dare to pilot Darth Vader’s™ deadly destroyer! The Super Star Destroyer Executor has arrived! This jaw-dropping vessel is the personal flagship of Darth Vader, and serves as command ship at both the Battle of Hoth and the Battle of Endor. With its classic dagger-shaped design, the Executor is among the largest and most powerful vessels in the Star Wars galaxy. With over 3,000 pieces, measuring nearly 50"" (124.5 cm) long and weighing nearly 8 pounds (3.5 kg), every aspect of this fantastic LEGO® Star Wars™ model impresses. •Includes 5 minifigures: Darth Vader, Admiral Piett, Dengar, Bossk and IG-88. •Includes 5 minifigures: Darth Vader, Admiral Piett, Dengar, Bossk and IG-88 •Features over 3,000 pieces! •Measures nearly 50 inches (124.5 cm) long and weighs nearly 8 pounds (3.5kg)! •Includes display stand and data sheet label! •Center section lifts off to reveal command center! Quote
gotoAndLego Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) The gap has nothing to do with the size. The is a biiiig gap on the 10221, just because the wings are angle on the top, while they are flat on the underside. On that small model, the angle on the bottom wings seem to be very similar to the angle of the wing on the top. So there is no gap. On the contrary, the angle are very different on the 10221. So, there is a gap. I wish they had used something to fill that gap a little, because I kind of expect clever parts usage on UCS models. Regardless of what you thought about its price, 10215 used some excellent techniques and I wish that kind of creativity was applied to fix this glaring visual issue. Those are the details that take a set from good to great. I actually like the little bounty hunter easter egg. They already included that scene in scale to the ship and its nice that they zoomed in so we can see the scene as well. Edited June 22, 2011 by gotoAndLego Quote
cavegod Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 i still can't help but wonder why they used Light Bluey instead of Dark Bluey for the hull. Quote
Brickdoctor Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 i still can't help but wonder why they used Light Bluey instead of Dark Bluey for the hull. Because people generally expect Star Destroyers to be light grey, and because the studio model is light grey. Quote
cavegod Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 it's anything but light gray in the film though. Quote
Ceroknight Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 That's like the Death Star booklet right? Also is this your picture, and if so will you do a review? Quote
Brickdoctor Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 it's anything but light gray in the film though. I think that's just the lighting, as in some of the shots on Wookieepedia it isn't that dark. We know the studio model is light grey and we know that that was the model used throughout the movies. Perhaps fallenangel can shed more light on this. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.