The Saga of the Broken Railing
Posted by CapnRex101,
LEGO designers are required to consider many factors when developing new sets and fans are familiar with plenty of these, including issues of budget, building experience and complexity to suit different age groups.
However, there are other factors less commonly discussed and some are quite unusual. A good example came up in conversation with César Soares, the designer of 75397 Jabba's Sail Barge, at Fan Media Days recently. An extract from our interview follows:
Brickset: I would like to highlight one of my favourite details, maybe in any LEGO Star Wars set, ever: the broken railing!
César: You have no idea how hard it was to include that one!
Just because it looks like something is missing?
César: Exactly. You may be aware that there is also a broken section at the back in the movie and I wanted to include that one too, but other departments said no. Some consumers will assume the broken railing is a mistake and I actually had several loops about this with the packaging team, who were convinced that an element was missing there.
I had to reassure them that is how the model is supposed to be and provide reference material to prove it. I have no doubt some people will think it is an error and consumer services has actually been prepared to receive calls about it. People may receive extras of the reddish brown clip, in which case they can add it if they wish, but those extras are not completely consistent, so there probably will be calls.
Anyway, I am glad you like it because I was very adamant about adding it, as you can clearly see the damage there at the front in the movie. The broken railing towards the back is less prominent, so I compromised and really pushed to capture this detail at the front. It was surprisingly hard to achieve though!
I will publish more from the interview in the coming weeks, but I thought this was a good place to start, showing how even minor details can be troublesome!
289 likes
56 comments on this article
Cool insight.
Boy, I wish someone at SW Lego would become adamant about vacant minifig stares, unprinted legs, fat Twilek head tails, and second quality protocol droids.
However, the model is a truly superior combination of form with fun minifigure functions. I was happy to buy it.
I assume it was a similar situation with the single missing sword from the neck in 76989, I have never played Horizon and I don’t know what it is referencing, but I thought the set had a missing piece when I first built it.
Neat detail! How does the instruction look for that part? Put a red circle around it and an arrow pointing at a frame of the movie in the instructions next to that step and it should be clear to everyone that this is intentional, right?
Edit: I checked out the instructions. No special mention of it. No red exclamation mark. Nothing. So of course my question is, why not?
I love those sort of insights by designers, it certainly adds to my appreciation of an already superb set.
"consumer services has actually been prepared to receive calls about it." "there probably will be calls."
They could have been prepared by indicating this in the building instructions, as the 18+ sets usually have information like this anyway. However, it's a cool detail.
This is the attention to detail I expect with all aspects of this company. If they are going to charge unbelievable prices then brag about how hard it is to accomplish tiny details like this (but they're still willing to do it) then there is ABSOLUTLY NO EXCUSE for things like waist capes and lack of printing. Period.
@ClutchPowers7306 said:
"I assume it was a similar situation with the single missing sword from the neck in 76989, I have never played Horizon and I don’t know what it is referencing, but I thought the set had a missing piece when I first built it. "
It's indeed intentional. Aloy uses these "swords" as plataforms to climb up to the Tallneck's head. However, every Tallneck climb is different, meaning some of them are broken or require different paths around the machine. A designer's foresight, for sure.
Is it me or is the wrong one "broken"?
Looks like from the front central one there are 3 before curving back on to deck, with the middle broken, though the model has the first one being the broken one.
Seems odd to have such a level of detail but also be incorrect in that detail.
@LegoMKB said:
"This is the attention to detail I expect with all aspects of this company. If they are going to charge unbelievable prices then brag about how hard it is to accomplish tiny details like this (but they're still willing to do it) then there is ABSOLUTLY NO EXCUSE for things like waist capes and lack of printing. Period."
The impression I get is that the designers who actually make the sets are a different team than the strategy folks who decide where money gets to be spent. I'm sure there's different folks with different priorities, and not all of them are going to be giving Brickset interviews.
I think that occasionally having notes in the margins of instructions, like they did with the Architecture Skyline sets, would really illuminate that what can seem to be random or even incompetent bits of design are actually ingenious additions. There are a number of experiments (such as including playlists of building music in the Marilyn Monroe Mosaic) which Lego tries and then never really explores to their full depth.
@Brickes_ficko said:
""consumer services has actually been prepared to receive calls about it." "there probably will be calls."
They could have been prepared by indicating this in the building instructions, as the 18+ sets usually have information like this anyway. However, it's a cool detail."
Yes, either flag it on the page where it is built, or have some blurb at the front of the booklet about the design and mention they have gone for detail including the broken rail. That way, people will look out for it when building it and will probably mention it to others when showing them the build. "Look at this, they even included the broken rail" ... and they will then watch the movie and pause at the right point just to see the broken rail they never knew was(n't) there.
I appreciate the attention to detail, but yeah, as others mention it's odd they don't call it out in the instruction manual. With the midi-scale Tantive IV missing one of its escape pods, I wish they would've included the extra couple of pieces (since c'mon, it's onscreen with all the pods for longer), but at least they explained it in the booklet.
@bnic99 said:
"Is it me or is the wrong one "broken"?
Looks like from the front central one there are 3 before curving back on to deck, with the middle broken, though the model has the first one being the broken one.
Seems odd to have such a level of detail but also be incorrect in that detail."
Good catch. It sure looks that way to me.
Looking forward to the rest of the interview!
Lovely details - not sure they are worth the price hike on the set though
@TheMikeStrikesBack said:
" @bnic99 said:
"Is it me or is the wrong one "broken"?
Looks like from the front central one there are 3 before curving back on to deck, with the middle broken, though the model has the first one being the broken one.
Seems odd to have such a level of detail but also be incorrect in that detail."
Good catch. It sure looks that way to me.
Looking forward to the rest of the interview!
"
Agree it does look to be the wrong one. It might be to get the correct curve on the tube though.
I'm not surprised it was difficult to include the broken railing in the final design, but I am surprised it's not called out in the instructions! 18+ sets usually have little blurbs about the set as you progress through the build and with the concern over the feature looking like a piece is missing, it seems strange to not mention that this is a specific detail in the instructions.
easy solution would have been to put a 1x1 stud with hole inserted on to the railing there to make it look intentional
@GirlWoman said:
"Neat detail! How does the instruction look for that part? Put a red circle around it and an arrow pointing at a frame of the movie in the instructions next to that step and it should be clear to everyone that this is intentional, right?
Edit: I checked out the instructions. No special mention of it. No red exclamation mark. Nothing. So of course my question is, why not?"
This could be coincidental or simply down to the sets I have built, but I have noticed a lack of those easter egg callouts in instruction manuals during the second half of the year.
@LegoMKB said:
"This is the attention to detail I expect with all aspects of this company. If they are going to charge unbelievable prices then brag about how hard it is to accomplish tiny details like this (but they're still willing to do it) then there is ABSOLUTLY NO EXCUSE for things like waist capes and lack of printing. Period."
There are 'excuses' for those things: that children apparently struggle with complex fabric pieces and budget. Whether we like those reasons is another matter though, of course.
@bnic99 said:
"Is it me or is the wrong one "broken"?
Looks like from the front central one there are 3 before curving back on to deck, with the middle broken, though the model has the first one being the broken one.
Seems odd to have such a level of detail but also be incorrect in that detail."
The railing supports have been moved a little in relation to the film, probably because the railing needed at least three secure anchors at either end, since the flexible hose is under some tension. The broken support is therefore in the right place, but another support that should be further forward has been moved back, almost certainly for strength. The supports placed at an angle actually serve no structural purpose, hence they could include the broken one.
All that is to say, I highly doubt it is a mistake.
So cool. Is the broken railing called out in the instruction booklet at all?
You're paying for one less piece? WHAT A RIP-OFF!!
@whw_iv said:
"So cool. Is the broken railing called out in the instruction booklet at all?"
Someone has been reading the comments!
@GoldenNinja3000 said:
"I'm not surprised it was difficult to include the broken railing in the final design, but I am surprised it's not called out in the instructions! 18+ sets usually have little blurbs about the set as you progress through the build and with the concern over the feature looking like a piece is missing, it seems strange to not mention that this is a specific detail in the instructions. "
My only guess is that maybe they want "true" Easter eggs--that is, things the hardcore fans will recognize as they're building and get extra joy out of ("Wow! How cool!"). If it's called out in the instructions, it's just "Oh. Cool."
A better way to handle including details like this is to provide all pieces for a wholly completed model and then include a call-out at the end of the instructions for modifying the build to match a screen accurate scene that the designer might of had in mind.
That way everyone is happy: folks that want to be able to build a pristine whole model can do so, hard-core fans can modify it to their liking, the designer's intent can be realized without having to die on some hill, different departments involved with getting the product to market won't have to balk at what's been designed, and customer support doesn't have to prepare for or field unnecessary calls.
I wonder if the price was intentional too! :P
@jedisquidwardagain said:
"I think that occasionally having notes in the margins of instructions, like they did with the Architecture Skyline sets, would really illuminate that what can seem to be random or even incompetent bits of design are actually ingenious additions. There are a number of experiments (such as including playlists of building music in the Marilyn Monroe Mosaic) which Lego tries and then never really explores to their full depth."
I loved the Botanical plants collection with all the random bits that had factoids about the real plants AND the build (like "we've never printed this piece in this color, but it worked here" type stuff.)
Pretty sure the shadowbox version has all the railings.
Really interesting detail and cool to get it explained by the designer himself!
Also interesting, that he mentioned extra parts are not totally consistent. Whilst this seems actually somewhat obvious if you think about it (one of the primary reason they exist is to avoid having missing tiny pieces in a set's bags), they seem fairly consistent both across various sets and years and across individual copies (judging by reviews and inventory sites). I only ever encountered a case where an extra part (usually seen as such) was missing - the minifig visor from my 4950 back in 1999.
This is an interesting interview question and response—it's easy to overlook the way that even an "accurate" feature could potentially be perceived as a quality defect by an end buyer if it's "accurately" recreating a flaw in the subject matter it's representing. A good reminder of how different buyers can have different expectations and how set designers have to balance those expectations to (hopefully) satisfy as many of them as they can.
@Atuin said:
"Really interesting detail and cool to get it explained by the designer himself!
Also interesting, that he mentioned extra parts are not totally consistent. Whilst this seems actually somewhat obvious if you think about it (one of the primary reason they exist is to avoid having missing tiny pieces in a set's bags), they seem fairly consistent both across various sets and years and across individual copies (judging by reviews and inventory sites). I only ever encountered a case where an extra part (usually seen as such) was missing - the minifig visor from my 4950 back in 1999."
The lack of consistency is actually why extras of small parts are included in the first place—the smallest parts can be light enough to slip past the weight testing that checks that each bag is properly filled, so including an extra beyond the "required" inventory helps to ensure that even if a small part is omitted the end buyer will have enough parts to complete the set.
@ohrmazd said:
"Pretty sure the shadowbox version has all the railings."
I kinda want a shadow box version, now. ;)
@StyleCounselor said:
" @ohrmazd said:
"Pretty sure the shadowbox version has all the railings."
I kinda want a shadow box version, now. ;)"
I thought it was the same?
@ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @ohrmazd said:
"Pretty sure the shadowbox version has all the railings."
I kinda want a shadow box version, now. ;)"
I thought it was the same?"
I have no idea why there isn't more discussion about the comparison to the shadow box version. Seems like a topic that hasn't been discussed nearly enough.
love how did/tried make it authentic
@Lyichir said:
"The lack of consistency is actually why extras of small parts are included in the first place—the smallest parts can be light enough to slip past the weight testing that checks that each bag is properly filled, so including an extra beyond the "required" inventory helps to ensure that even if a small part is omitted the end buyer will have enough parts to complete the set."
But then why allow their now-sister website, Bricklink, to include extras in the part outs of a set? When parting out a set, or when checking the part out value, you can click on "include extra pieces", which to me, means that all sets of the same set number have the same exact extra pieces.
@vjl said:
" @Lyichir said:
"The lack of consistency is actually why extras of small parts are included in the first place—the smallest parts can be light enough to slip past the weight testing that checks that each bag is properly filled, so including an extra beyond the "required" inventory helps to ensure that even if a small part is omitted the end buyer will have enough parts to complete the set."
But then why allow their now-sister website, Bricklink, to include extras in the part outs of a set? When parting out a set, or when checking the part out value, you can click on "include extra pieces", which to me, means that all sets of the same set number have the same exact extra pieces.
"
Lyichir is right, this is exactly what I meant with my first post. This whole thing was likely introduced in the early 1980s or mid 1970s to minimize consumer complaints.
In economic science it is commonly assumed that 100% accuracy in production is non-economic. I am no expert in this, so I can't tell you how they figured it out, but 95% accuracy seems to be the achievable goal for maximum economic output.
So TLG assumes there are 5% in-set polybags with faulty contents. They also assume that the majority of those faulty contents are caused by the most light weight, thus smallest pieces. This probably also explains why some of the smallest parts previously came on sprues (yes - even 1x1 round plates!). To accomodate this issue they just add +1 to each of those "problematic" parts to balance out the score further. The remaining faulty ones are tackled by consumer service or those types of customers who "just don't care".
Regarding Bricklink: Do consider that Bricklink is still a separate company, like Modulex was (or is?). If they were fully integrated into The Lego Group, they probably had access to the way more accurate archives in Billund, which seems not to be the case (btw did anyone notice the HUGE update to old set inventories in June this year :O ?). I am not sure how Bricklink even rules out those extra parts. Bricklink seems to have some very strange rules dating back to the old Lugnet days, like their definition of a minifig, as PurpleDave told me a while back...
EDIT:
Never realised it, but that still shot from RotJ makes the old 2000 C-3PO's color look so much better.
@Lyichir said:
"This is an interesting interview question and response—it's easy to overlook the way that even an "accurate" feature could potentially be perceived as a quality defect by an end buyer if it's "accurately" recreating a flaw in the subject matter it's representing. A good reminder of how different buyers can have different expectations and how set designers have to balance those expectations to (hopefully) satisfy as many of them as they can.
@Atuin said:
"Really interesting detail and cool to get it explained by the designer himself!
Also interesting, that he mentioned extra parts are not totally consistent. Whilst this seems actually somewhat obvious if you think about it (one of the primary reason they exist is to avoid having missing tiny pieces in a set's bags), they seem fairly consistent both across various sets and years and across individual copies (judging by reviews and inventory sites). I only ever encountered a case where an extra part (usually seen as such) was missing - the minifig visor from my 4950 back in 1999."
The lack of consistency is actually why extras of small parts are included in the first place—the smallest parts can be light enough to slip past the weight testing that checks that each bag is properly filled, so including an extra beyond the "required" inventory helps to ensure that even if a small part is omitted the end buyer will have enough parts to complete the set."
Not just if the small part was missing, but also if the buyer loses or cannot find the small part after tipping out a bag.
@vjl said:
" @Lyichir said:
"The lack of consistency is actually why extras of small parts are included in the first place—the smallest parts can be light enough to slip past the weight testing that checks that each bag is properly filled, so including an extra beyond the "required" inventory helps to ensure that even if a small part is omitted the end buyer will have enough parts to complete the set."
But then why allow their now-sister website, Bricklink, to include extras in the part outs of a set? When parting out a set, or when checking the part out value, you can click on "include extra pieces", which to me, means that all sets of the same set number have the same exact extra pieces.
"
That feature has always been at bricklink, long before lego bought it. The point of it is that the seller can opt in to parting out extras if they check they have them. Modern sets usually do have the same extras but in the past it wasn't always the case.
I'm confused. What shadowbox version?
@Ridgeheart said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @ohrmazd said:
"Pretty sure the shadowbox version has all the railings."
I kinda want a shadow box version, now. ;)"
I thought it was the same?"
I have no idea why there isn't more discussion about the comparison to the shadow box version. Seems like a topic that hasn't been discussed nearly enough. "
We're going to need some new shades first. "Blackish Brown", "Brownish Black", "Warm Black", "Sand Black" and of course, "Vibrant Black"."
Is “sand black” basically Old Dark Grey? We need that.
@560heliport said:
"I'm confused. What shadowbox version?"
It was the European version of a May The 4th GWP that was only offered at Comic Con. It has a single 1x1 plate that is color swapped from warm gold to ink gold, and it’s worth $650 more on Bricklink. I can’t seem to find the link.
@vjl:
If you go in saying that it’s impossible for every set to have consistent inventory, then there’s no reason to let anyone part-out any set for any reason. Part-out function is a time-saving tool, not proof that sets get packed flawlessly every time. Sellers are still officially responsible for verifying the contents of any set they upload using this function. That could include adjusting for shortages, or damaged parts, or receiving the wrong part in some cases. Some errors are one-offs, and others get baked into the entire production run (like the Indiana Jones Stunt Double minifig). Some sets also have inventory adjustments over their production life, which are frequently tracked as alternate inventories on BL.
@Atuin:
Part of the logic in TLG’s case is just that it costs less to throw a handful of extra parts in each box than it does to send even a single replacement part for each set. 10179 is the most extreme case I’ve personally encountered. My 1st Edition copy came with almost 25 extra _pairs_ of wedge plates because their janky bag sort resulted in a $500 MSRP set being shorted a single pair. The bag sort was so needlessly complicated that it was easier to just give you the entire required amount a second time in a separate bag than it was to attempt to adjust the original bag sort.
@ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @560heliport said:
"I'm confused. What shadowbox version?"
It was the European version of a May The 4th GWP that was only offered at Comic Con. It has a single 1x1 plate that is color swapped from warm gold to ink gold, and it’s worth $650 more on Bricklink. I can’t seem to find the link."
Thanks! I don't claim to know everything LEGO Star Wars, but I know a lot, and didn't recall this at all.
@560heliport said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @560heliport said:
"I'm confused. What shadowbox version?"
It was the European version of a May The 4th GWP that was only offered at Comic Con. It has a single 1x1 plate that is color swapped from warm gold to ink gold, and it’s worth $650 more on Bricklink. I can’t seem to find the link."
Thanks! I don't claim to know everything LEGO Star Wars, but I know a lot, and didn't recall this at all."
Apologies - I was spouting complete and utter nonsense. The shadowbox dad joke refers to 76252. That set includes a Batmobile which is similar to 40433. For a brief and wonderful time on Brickset, every fifth comment was someone asking how the “shadow box version” compares to the standalone Batmobile. The joke probably isn’t funny anymore, but I also probably won’t stop making it.
@StyleCounselor said:
"Cool insight.
Boy, I wish someone at SW Lego would become adamant about vacant minifig stares, unprinted legs, fat Twilek head tails, and second quality protocol droids."
Printed arms and legs are not the norm even if they're becoming increasingly common. I can understand wanting them in a $500 set but I think LSW AFOLs' expectations for EVERY minifigure in EVERY set to have printed limbs and real cloth are unrealistically high, even if mech armor Boba Fett was unreasonably good. The highest quality 3PO currently on the market should've absolutely been included though.
As for Bib Fortuna's lekku, they're using the one currently in production, same goes for Phase 2 clone helmets which they had to modify for Cody (and no one ever complained about helmet holes on Mando or Phase I clone helmets) There's no substitute for the 2012 Salacious Crumb that was presumably destroyed, so they made a new one. Bib's BOBF lekku are close enough, so they didn't. It's imperfect, I get it, but you have to consider whether Lego cares about sinking money into changing the BMI of one minor character's single-use headgear when they already have one on hand
@GirlWoman said:
"Neat detail! How does the instruction look for that part? Put a red circle around it and an arrow pointing at a frame of the movie in the instructions next to that step and it should be clear to everyone that this is intentional, right?
Edit: I checked out the instructions. No special mention of it. No red exclamation mark. Nothing. So of course my question is, why not?"
Lego sets with cinema source material sometimes do things like this. 76956 included several such callouts in its instruction manual.
@ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @560heliport said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @560heliport said:
"I'm confused. What shadowbox version?"
It was the European version of a May The 4th GWP that was only offered at Comic Con. It has a single 1x1 plate that is color swapped from warm gold to ink gold, and it’s worth $650 more on Bricklink. I can’t seem to find the link."
Thanks! I don't claim to know everything LEGO Star Wars, but I know a lot, and didn't recall this at all."
Apologies - I was spouting complete and utter nonsense. The shadowbox dad joke refers to 76252 . That set includes a Batmobile which is similar to 40433 . For a brief and wonderful time on Brickset, every fifth comment was someone asking how the “shadow box version” compares to the standalone Batmobile. The joke probably isn’t funny anymore, but I also probably won’t stop making it."
Ha!
Your "explanation" was quite plausible.
@ShilohCyan said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Cool insight.
Boy, I wish someone at SW Lego would become adamant about vacant minifig stares, unprinted legs, fat Twilek head tails, and second quality protocol droids."
Printed arms and legs are not the norm even if they're becoming increasingly common. I can understand wanting them in a $500 set but I think LSW AFOLs' expectations for EVERY minifigure in EVERY set to have printed limbs and real cloth are unrealistically high, even if mech armor Boba Fett was unreasonably good. The highest quality 3PO currently on the market should've absolutely been included though.
As for Bib Fortuna's lekku, they're using the one currently in production, same goes for Phase 2 clone helmets which they had to modify for Cody (and no one ever complained about helmet holes on Mando or Phase I clone helmets) There's no substitute for the 2012 Salacious Crumb that was presumably destroyed, so they made a new one. Bib's BOBF lekku are close enough, so they didn't. It's imperfect, I get it, but you have to consider whether Lego cares about sinking money into changing the BMI of one minor character's single-use headgear when they already have one on hand"
Well, that's a word salad.
Such a great detail justifies the $100 tacked on price at the very least!
@StyleCounselor said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Cool insight.
Boy, I wish someone at SW Lego would become adamant about vacant minifig stares, unprinted legs, fat Twilek head tails, and second quality protocol droids."
Printed arms and legs are not the norm even if they're becoming increasingly common. I can understand wanting them in a $500 set but I think LSW AFOLs' expectations for EVERY minifigure in EVERY set to have printed limbs and real cloth are unrealistically high, even if mech armor Boba Fett was unreasonably good. The highest quality 3PO currently on the market should've absolutely been included though.
As for Bib Fortuna's lekku, they're using the one currently in production, same goes for Phase 2 clone helmets which they had to modify for Cody (and no one ever complained about helmet holes on Mando or Phase I clone helmets) There's no substitute for the 2012 Salacious Crumb that was presumably destroyed, so they made a new one. Bib's BOBF lekku are close enough, so they didn't. It's imperfect, I get it, but you have to consider whether Lego cares about sinking money into changing the BMI of one minor character's single-use headgear when they already have one on hand"
Well, that's a word salad. "
100% correct, though.
@ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @560heliport said:
" @ForestMenOfEndor said:
" @560heliport said:
"I'm confused. What shadowbox version?"
It was the European version of a May The 4th GWP that was only offered at Comic Con. It has a single 1x1 plate that is color swapped from warm gold to ink gold, and it’s worth $650 more on Bricklink. I can’t seem to find the link."
Thanks! I don't claim to know everything LEGO Star Wars, but I know a lot, and didn't recall this at all."
Apologies - I was spouting complete and utter nonsense. The shadowbox dad joke refers to 76252. That set includes a Batmobile which is similar to 40433. For a brief and wonderful time on Brickset, every fifth comment was someone asking how the “shadow box version” compares to the standalone Batmobile. The joke probably isn’t funny anymore, but I also probably won’t stop making it."
I still find it funny. And also won’t stop making it.
@PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Cool insight.
Boy, I wish someone at SW Lego would become adamant about vacant minifig stares, unprinted legs, fat Twilek head tails, and second quality protocol droids."
Printed arms and legs are not the norm even if they're becoming increasingly common. I can understand wanting them in a $500 set but I think LSW AFOLs' expectations for EVERY minifigure in EVERY set to have printed limbs and real cloth are unrealistically high, even if mech armor Boba Fett was unreasonably good. The highest quality 3PO currently on the market should've absolutely been included though.
As for Bib Fortuna's lekku, they're using the one currently in production, same goes for Phase 2 clone helmets which they had to modify for Cody (and no one ever complained about helmet holes on Mando or Phase I clone helmets) There's no substitute for the 2012 Salacious Crumb that was presumably destroyed, so they made a new one. Bib's BOBF lekku are close enough, so they didn't. It's imperfect, I get it, but you have to consider whether Lego cares about sinking money into changing the BMI of one minor character's single-use headgear when they already have one on hand"
Well, that's a word salad. "
100% correct, though."
If by correct, you mean parroting the profit mongers at Lego. They're ALWAYS going to have reasons for what they do. What they 'do' is make money at our expense. It should be our role to push back on that.
It would be nice if it was more of a positive collaboration between producer and consumer. Lego definitely was better in the past. Now, profits predominate- especially with SW.
Reasons only become justifications if you buy them. I may buy their products. I don't buy their justifications for failure (See, again, Dune, Fortnite, D&D).
@StyleCounselor said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Cool insight.
Boy, I wish someone at SW Lego would become adamant about vacant minifig stares, unprinted legs, fat Twilek head tails, and second quality protocol droids."
Printed arms and legs are not the norm even if they're becoming increasingly common. I can understand wanting them in a $500 set but I think LSW AFOLs' expectations for EVERY minifigure in EVERY set to have printed limbs and real cloth are unrealistically high, even if mech armor Boba Fett was unreasonably good. The highest quality 3PO currently on the market should've absolutely been included though.
As for Bib Fortuna's lekku, they're using the one currently in production, same goes for Phase 2 clone helmets which they had to modify for Cody (and no one ever complained about helmet holes on Mando or Phase I clone helmets) There's no substitute for the 2012 Salacious Crumb that was presumably destroyed, so they made a new one. Bib's BOBF lekku are close enough, so they didn't. It's imperfect, I get it, but you have to consider whether Lego cares about sinking money into changing the BMI of one minor character's single-use headgear when they already have one on hand"
Well, that's a word salad. "
100% correct, though."
If by correct, you mean parroting the profit mongers at Lego. They're ALWAYS going to have reasons for what they do. What they 'do' is make money at our expense. It should be our role to push back on that.
It would be nice if it was more of a positive collaboration between producer and consumer. Lego definitely was better in the past. Now, profits predominate- especially with SW.
Reasons only become justifications if you buy them. I may buy their products. I don't buy their justifications for failure (See, again, Dune, Fortnite, D&D)."
I think you're taking toys based on a movie about glowstick space wizards a little too seriously. Yeah, Star Wars is overpriced. Arm and leg printing is nice but it doesn't make a set as exorbitant as this much better.
@ShilohCyan said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @PurpleDave said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Cool insight.
Boy, I wish someone at SW Lego would become adamant about vacant minifig stares, unprinted legs, fat Twilek head tails, and second quality protocol droids."
Printed arms and legs are not the norm even if they're becoming increasingly common. I can understand wanting them in a $500 set but I think LSW AFOLs' expectations for EVERY minifigure in EVERY set to have printed limbs and real cloth are unrealistically high, even if mech armor Boba Fett was unreasonably good. The highest quality 3PO currently on the market should've absolutely been included though.
As for Bib Fortuna's lekku, they're using the one currently in production, same goes for Phase 2 clone helmets which they had to modify for Cody (and no one ever complained about helmet holes on Mando or Phase I clone helmets) There's no substitute for the 2012 Salacious Crumb that was presumably destroyed, so they made a new one. Bib's BOBF lekku are close enough, so they didn't. It's imperfect, I get it, but you have to consider whether Lego cares about sinking money into changing the BMI of one minor character's single-use headgear when they already have one on hand"
Well, that's a word salad. "
100% correct, though."
If by correct, you mean parroting the profit mongers at Lego. They're ALWAYS going to have reasons for what they do. What they 'do' is make money at our expense. It should be our role to push back on that.
It would be nice if it was more of a positive collaboration between producer and consumer. Lego definitely was better in the past. Now, profits predominate- especially with SW.
Reasons only become justifications if you buy them. I may buy their products. I don't buy their justifications for failure (See, again, Dune, Fortnite, D&D)."
I think you're taking toys based on a movie about glowstick space wizards a little too seriously. Yeah, Star Wars is overpriced. Arm and leg printing is nice but it doesn't make a set as exorbitant as this much better. "
It helps the medicine go down. Good figs help to make good sets.
As far as my pontificating, Dave and I have a long history of it- which is why I bother. He's an apologist and I'm a critic.
We both have a pretty good time pontificating on BS about bs, and camaraderie. Nevertheless, some times we gotta disagree.
As mentioned in your original review and from the photos the colour is more dark blush grey than reddish brown. So I would be interested to find out from the interview why the difference? Too much grey in SW already?
@ambr said:
"As mentioned in your original review and from the photos the colour is more dark blush grey than reddish brown. So I would be interested to find out from the interview why the difference? Too much grey in SW already?"
The railing. In the image at the top of the page, the “grey” portions are where it’s shaded by the sails. Where it’s in direct sunlight (base of the broken post, and the base of the post immediately to the right), it’s quite brown.
Spotted it in the Barcelona store with the broken railing on both sides...
love these types of tidbits