Choosing Minifigures for the Sail Barge
Posted by CapnRex101,
The minifigures available in 75397 Jabba's Sail Barge have proven quite contentious, as some fans expected more and the accuracy of certain characters could be better.
I had an opportunity to ask the model designer, César Soares, about them at Fan Media Days.
Brickset: Perhaps the main criticism of this set has been focused on the minifigures, as this is a busy setting in the movie and I think some people were anticipating a few more. Were other characters considered?
César: Yes. At the beginning we had discussions about what the minifigure line-up would be and there are lots of possibilities, but it all comes down to frames* and budget.
I have seen a few people comparing the Sail Barge with sets at the same price point, like 10316 The Lord of the Rings: Rivendell. I can understand why, but I am not sure it is very accurate to do that because the minifigure selection here is much more complex than the minifigures with Rivendell. Beyond the many new prints, there are also several characters that are particularly expensive to produce.
Some of the figures included were a given from the start, especially Jabba and Leia, as you cannot really have the Sail Barge without them. C-3PO and R2-D2 were also guaranteed and we were pretty certain of including Max Rebo. For the rest, it was a situation of choosing from among the many options, taking what we already had available into account.
As you can imagine, that was an extremely lengthy discussion and if it was purely up to the graphic designers, everyone would be included!
I think part of the reason for some disappointment is that an equally bustling location, 75290 Mos Eisley Cantina, included far more minifigures, maybe even more than fans expected.
César: I understand that, but it all comes down to choices. As designers, we include everything we can, but we have constraints. In this case, from the beginning we had planned to include completely different minifigures in this set and in 75396 Desert Skiff & Sarlacc Pit, which maximises the quantity and variety between the two.
Was it ever considered to have Luke in both sets?
César: Not that I know of. That could be a bit awkward, just having one overlapping character.
While thinking about the Desert Skiff, the inclusion of Boba Fett based on The Empire Strikes Back there bothers me a little.
César: Turning the discussion around for a moment, why do you think we did that?
Beyond the obvious answer of that Boba Fett already being available and easy to re-use, I wonder whether Boba Fett from The Empire Strikes Back just has greater recognition and that is the costume people expect to see, even if not accurate to this scene.
César: I think you are along the right lines there! Again, if we could have included the accurate version, we would, but there are a lot of considerations.
Another issue people have discussed is Bib Fortuna's head component, returning from 75326 Boba Fett's Throne Room rather than using the old piece. Is that another case of budget being the reason?
César: Yes, although in a slightly different way because the original mould is gone. It is not easy to keep something like that in production. Taking a mould like Max Rebo as an example, how else could we realistically use that element? It is quite easy to justify developing something like a new Stormtrooper helmet because we know we are going to make millions of them, whereas parts with more limited use are much more difficult.
Ultimately, it all comes back to choices. If we recreate Bib Fortuna's older head piece, we may need to replace another minifigure with something simpler or even remove it.
* LEGO uses the term 'frame' to describe a slot for a new element, recolour or print.
Budget never feels like a very satisfying answer to questions about perceived issues with sets, but is obviously an integral facet of the development process. In relation to 75397 Jabba's Sail Barge specifically, we can see the result of over ten years passing since LEGO last produced a set featuring Jabba and his entourage from Return of the Jedi, as many essential pieces were long since retired.
I am not familiar with the specific cost breakdowns, but based on César's comments, I think we can assume that reproducing Bib Fortuna's original head piece would be equivalent to creating an entirely new element. The same was presumably true for Jabba, who has not appeared in a set since 2013, while Bib's older head piece last appeared in 2012. Returning to Jabba therefore requires three unique and highly specialised moulds immediately.
Of course, there are possible solutions to these issues and I would suggest that characters like Jabba the Hutt, or Hutts in general, should probably remain in relatively consistent production. I would love to see those elements used for Ziro!
What do you think of the characters in 75397 Jabba's Sail Barge and if you could have added one more, who would it be? Let us know in the comments.
105 likes
78 comments on this article
I appreciate them taking the time to sit down and answer all these questions about the barge! It’s an interesting insight to how we arrived at the set that was released.
In terms of justifying making a new piece, maybe it would’ve been better to do what they did in 2012/13 and have the Barge set be made alongside other Jabba-related sets? That could have spread costs for pieces, like for that of Jabba himself, while covering more scenes from the movie. But that’s just me being an armchair logistics guy.
I think whoever is in charge of overseeing this needs to re-think their approach. Zelda got a bunch of new moulds for a $350 set, and this is almost twice that. The type of people who want to drop over half a thousand dollars on an expensive collectors item will be the ones who notice these oddities and care about them. It’s not exactly something higher-ups should be so dismissive of.
@PixelTheDragon said:
"I appreciate them taking the time to sit down and answer all these questions about the barge! It’s an interesting insight to how we arrived at the set that was released.
In terms of justifying making a new piece, maybe it would’ve been better to do what they did in 2012/13 and have the Barge set be made alongside other Jabba-related sets? That could have spread costs for pieces, like for that of Jabba himself, while covering more scenes from the movie. But that’s just me being an armchair logistics guy.
I think whoever is in charge of overseeing this needs to re-think their approach. Zelda got a bunch of new moulds for a $350 set, and this is almost twice that. The type of people who want to drop over half a thousand dollars on an expensive collectors item will be the ones who notice these oddities and care about them. It’s not exactly something higher-ups should be so dismissive of. "
Zelda was also the first in its line, and with a different IP partner. And while this one is more expensive, the Zelda fans are a new market, whereas Star Wars fans have proven time and again that they'll shell out for whatever the newest, biggest set is. Until that changes, I think we can really only expect more in this direction
And sure, you could spread the cost of the mold throughout a wave, but then small-time fans will just get the smaller sets with him, and big-time fans will have 3 Jabbas
The only really relevant question to me is this: so you're creating a UCS (Ultimate AND Collector) edition of an iconic ship or location at a very high price point. What are the most important things you need to get right?
To me:
1) it needs to look like a Lego version of the 'real' thing (that's the 'ultimate' bit);
2) it needs to contain a complete cast of relevant characters (that's the 'collector' bit).
I think it gets 1 spot on - the model is brilliant. 2, however, is where it's clearly missing the mark with inaccuracies and straight up omissions (even if a case can be made for their exclusion).
From the interview, it sounds like budget is the primary reason for this. I'd be really interested in seeing how the cost picture would've changed for Lego if they kept the set at the same price point but fixed all those inaccuracies and omissions. How much more would it actually have cost to include Lando, another Gamorrean, Han, Chewy, and/or some side characters?, and how much would that have impacted on the bottom line? (I know I'm never going to get those figures, but hey.)
@fakespacesquid said:
" @PixelTheDragon said:
"I appreciate them taking the time to sit down and answer all these questions about the barge! It’s an interesting insight to how we arrived at the set that was released.
In terms of justifying making a new piece, maybe it would’ve been better to do what they did in 2012/13 and have the Barge set be made alongside other Jabba-related sets? That could have spread costs for pieces, like for that of Jabba himself, while covering more scenes from the movie. But that’s just me being an armchair logistics guy.
I think whoever is in charge of overseeing this needs to re-think their approach. Zelda got a bunch of new moulds for a $350 set, and this is almost twice that. The type of people who want to drop over half a thousand dollars on an expensive collectors item will be the ones who notice these oddities and care about them. It’s not exactly something higher-ups should be so dismissive of. "
Zelda was also the first in its line, and with a different IP partner. And while this one is more expensive, the Zelda fans are a new market, whereas Star Wars fans have proven time and again that they'll shell out for whatever the newest, biggest set is. Until that changes, I think we can really only expect more in this direction
And sure, you could spread the cost of the mold throughout a wave, but then small-time fans will just get the smaller sets with him, and big-time fans will have 3 Jabbas"
As an aside, with Jabba being three unique moulds (arm, torso?, tail), that brings the total number of moulds recreated/new for this set to seven - Leia's hair, Crumb, Wooof's helmet, Rebo, Jabba (3), so that is one more than Zelda (Zelda hair Link hair (x2), shield, sword , Ocarina)
@PixelTheDragon said:
"I think whoever is in charge of overseeing this needs to re-think their approach. Zelda got a bunch of new moulds for a $350 set, and this is almost twice that. The type of people who want to drop over half a thousand dollars on an expensive collectors item will be the ones who notice these oddities and care about them. It’s not exactly something higher-ups should be so dismissive of. "
Exactly this. Can't say its a matter of 'budget' they've not done something when you've so perfectly pointed out they've made alot of new moulds for other sets. Also as said, it tends to be the collectors rather then the casuals who buy these larger sets. Give the people what they want if you really want them to drop so much money on your products Lego.
It all comes down to a simple fact: LEGO Star Wars fans, especially those with deep enough pockets to buy these wildly overpriced sets, don't care enough about these things to NOT buy the sets. Period.
If those sets didn't sell, LEGO would put in more effort. Their margins are absurdly high as it is, and not including more or better figures is simply a conscious choice (like the designer confirmed), to keep the margins as high as possible. Somewhere all those billions of profit have to come from after all.
LEGO Star Wars fans love to complain, but they never decide to put the money where their mouth is and boycott a set that is not worth buying. As long as that doesn't change, don't expect any better from LEGO.
After all, be honest, if you were in their shoes, would you put in more effort if your product sold just as well without it?
@AustinPowers said:
"It all comes down to a simple fact: LEGO Star Wars fans, especially those with deep enough pockets to buy these wildly overpriced sets, don't care enough about these things to NOT buy the sets. Period.
If those sets didn't sell, LEGO would put in more effort. Their margins are absurdly high as it is, and not including more or better figures is simply a conscious choice (like the designer confirmed), to keep the margins as high as possible. Somewhere all those billions of profit have to come from after all.
LEGO Star Wars fans love to complain, but they never decide to put the money where their mouth is and boycott a set that is not worth buying. As long as that doesn't change, don't expect any better from LEGO. "
Hit the nail on the head. The higher-ups will absolutely be dismissive of it until it hits the bottom line, and LSW fans as a whole just haven't shown that kind of restraint.
@AustinPowers said:
"It all comes down to a simple fact: LEGO Star Wars fans, especially those with deep enough pockets to buy these wildly overpriced sets, don't care enough about these things to NOT buy the sets. Period.
If those sets didn't sell, LEGO would put in more effort. Their margins are absurdly high as it is, and not including more or better figures is simply a conscious choice (like the designer confirmed), to keep the margins as high as possible. Somewhere all those billions of profit have to come from after all.
LEGO Star Wars fans love to complain, but they never decide to put the money where their mouth is and boycott a set that is not worth buying. As long as that doesn't change, don't expect any better from LEGO.
After all, be honest, if you were in their shoes, would you put in more effort if your product sold just as good without it? "
I have been asking myself this same question for years now. How willing are fans to really "vote with their wallet" and say to TLG, "no, we are not spending $500 on this set that doesn't even include duel molded C-3PO legs for crying out loud, let alone accurate molds and prints."
I also don't like the dismissal of the Rivendell comparison. That was a $500 set that put forth extreme accuracy and detail at the forefront that created one of the most beautiful sets ever produced. Of course the sail barge wouldn't be beautiful, but awesomely epic? It could have been.
Strongly disagree about Ziro haha! I'd love the twins from Book of Boba Fett though.
For the insane retail price of this plastic brown cylinder there should be 0 excuses for why they knowingly made figures wrong or left some out. Period. I hope this set sells like the Hulkbuster so Lego is forced to put in high level effort for their high level products.
I read a lot of excuses regarding the minifigure selection for basic choices that should be considered from the beginning of a sets design. The most important is accuracy to the depicted source model and the minifigures are what drives people to buy LEGO in the first place. So compromises like this at insane price tags shouldn't even exist. If only the vehicle was what fans cared about, they would buy bricks from cheaper brands instead.
This working on a budget that is set in stone is an issue. Of course, designer must work within certain limitations, otherwise they would go completely bonkers with each set. But for "Ultimate" sets at these price point, budget should never ever be the reason to cut obvious corners. At some point in the design process should be an evaluation, checking if a product that lives up to the expecations can be done within the budget, and if not, either what changes would be acceptable without ruining stuff, or if the budget should be slightly increased. Or, in some cases, can be lowered so there's no need to throw in stuff just for the sake of meeting said budget.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I don't really mind paying top price for a pretty much perfect product, both in design and production quality. I do mind however when they make me pay that much on a product with very obvious flaws. But unfortunately that's way too often the case with Lego.
And it's still baffling to me how other brands can do tons of new moulds or prints with each set despite lower prices and surely much, much lower production numbers. But for a €500 Lego set, sorry, can't do...
But as our German/British superspy said: As long as people keep buying it nonetheless, Lego will keep trying how low they can go.
On a side note, what happened to James "Poshhammer" May? Haven't had any articles from him in months. Even when I not necessarily always agreed, I did really enjoy those!
Objection! I move to strike the witness' statement as nonresponsive. Further, I request the honorable court to admonish the witness to ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Thanks for trying Cap'n.
Wow! SW Lego is far worse than my most scandalous accusations. They truly just don't give a crap.
I don't get the hate for these figures; I think they look great. One in particular...
@Maxbricks14 said:
"I don't get the hate for these figures; I think they look great. One in particular..."
Max Rebo's got it going on
Well, our critics about the minifigs line are justified if we look to the last Star Wars UCS.
Of course, most of huge Lego Star Wars fans will buy such a set despite some lack o minifig. But would the sales be lower if they add 30€ more to justify 5 more nice figs? I don't think so.
The perfect Cantina UCS made high expectations for the minifigs line here, they had to think of this.
The Razor Crest had a clever minifigs selection, even with few.
It was the same for AT-AT with the addition few months latter of a perfect battle pack to enable people to have a full snowtrooper squadron.
It was clever to split the scene in two sets, without the same figures. But they should the job until the end, adding more guards, more aliens.
@brickwich said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"I don't get the hate for these figures; I think they look great. One in particular..."
Max Rebo's got it going on"
Oh, and him too I guess..
We know that you need to buy the Skiff to complete the set that's why none of those minifigures are repeating here. Slave Leia's skirt was much better when not dual moulded in previous sets and Fat Fortuna doesn't work.
But the set needed more figures, Lego could've thrown in a couple more Gamorrean guards to bulk it out.
Crud muffins.
These explanations are absolute crud muffins.
LEGO, you seriously need to rethink budgeting strategies. Stop driving up prices for inaccurate figures just because you want to turn a profit! If you hadn't been so obsessed with staying in the margins, the extra 100 overpriced bucks in this set could've gone towards better figures and figure quantity.
Hard hitting questions, great interview Cap!
It does seem to confirm what is supposed to be the “ultimate collector series” is inherently an imperfect product, and I more or less got the vibe that they know the old figures are better, which you could take as inferring using the old ones.
I don’t know how I feel about that, but the confirmation that it isn’t even partially a design choice, but wholly budgetary- does leave me with pause.
@StyleCounselor said:
"Objection! I move to strike the witness' statement as nonresponsive. Further, I request the honorable court to admonish the witness to ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Thanks for trying Cap'n.
Wow! SW Lego is far worse than my most scandalous accusations. They truly just don't give a crap."
And yet you still bought the set...
Either it's a big enough problem to not buy the product, or it isn't. If it's not a big enough issue to not buy it, I don't really get the ire
@WolfpackBricksStudios said:
"Crud muffins.
These explanations are absolute crud muffins.
LEGO, you seriously need to rethink budgeting strategies. Stop driving up prices for inaccurate figures just because you want to turn a profit! If you hadn't been so obsessed with staying in the margins, the extra 100 overpriced bucks in this set could've gone towards better figures and figure quantity."
And would the -100 in revenue from each set be matched by 4-5x more people buying the set? Cuz otherwise, it wouldn't make sense. TLG also could have afforded to put a gold minifig in every other box, but there isn't really a reason for them to do that.
I always feel bad for the designers in these situations, because they are working with these constraints, but ultimately will face the derision for them. I figure it makes for a bit of annoyance - LEGO is not going to be less restrictive unless profit motivation factors in, and the designers really likely don't get a big space to work with them. Less "hey, we have to have more new molds" and more "we are budgeted for 7, what can we make work?"
I really appreciate the designer taking time to talk through these and explain - especially since some of the process is opaque to the fans. Difficult to know what the realities of their molds, production costs, etc are as an outsider.
I think though that a fair bit of the fan frustration is justified. For regular retail sets, I think there's a lot more general reasoning that feels okay. For instance, reusing Boba Fett since new frames are better used on other sets in the wave. For UCS sets, this is just LEGO wringing money from them. The severely elevated price points alone should imply a higher standard of accuracy. My main point of critique is I don't it's unfair to go "why are we getting incredibly off model minifigures in a $500 set?" It's $500. It's not really even a set where I feel the $500 price tag is justified in the current state. I think I understand the comment about complexity with Rivendell as versus this set (more complex molds, higher costs, etc) - but why isn't this a factor in the budget for Star Wars sets? There should absolutely have been higher production costs factored into a model like this, because that's a known factor. There's always going to be a complaint about there being someone left out, but I really think the higher level of critique here is pointing to the cusp of a problem: these sets are simply too expensive to have these weird trade-offs. If this set was $100+ cheaper, I'd care a lot less. It's just wild to me that at a $500 price-point we still can't get Bib Fortuna right, because LEGO wouldn't make enough off of it.
Overall, I feel the core conceit here (which I guess everyone is aware of, really) is that LEGO's strict adherence to some of these internal guidelines feels ridiculous on their high profit collector's models. The issue for me is that while cost is a big factor - LEGO sure can eat that cost and still make significant money on these. This is them watching what they can get away with from a financial standpoint. It's just frustrating in a sense, and Star Wars feels like their biggest offender in that regard.
@Maxbricks14 said:
" @brickwich said:
" @Maxbricks14 said:
"I don't get the hate for these figures; I think they look great. One in particular..."
Max Rebo's got it going on"
Oh, and him too I guess.."
MAX REBO IS A BEAUTIFUL MAN
So many comments here just lightly naive people demonstrating they have no clue how large corporations operate to keep their costs under control.
They had no problem bringing the original Bib Fortuna head mold back after nine years in 2012. It was the exact same mold. They couldn’t bring it back after twelve years in 2024?
@WizardOfOss said:
"And it's still baffling to me how other brands can do tons of new moulds or prints with each set despite lower prices and surely much, much lower production numbers. But for a €500 Lego set, sorry, can't do..."
It's not just Lego competitors who seem to be able to beat them at doing new moulds lately. Others like Games Workshop with its kits getting beaten out by everyone, or If other people are mecha fan like me, look how cheaply they produce various Gundam/gunpla kits for. Can't really tell me that an entire set of multipart injection moulds costs less then those of a single peice for a hair mould.
As a long time Star Wars fan I have not bought any of these UCS sets. The only large Star Wars LEGO set I've ever bought is the Mos Eisley set. The only one I regret not buying is the Ewok Village though I probably dodged a bullet with that one over the brittle brown. I have most of the original classic trilogy sets and some of the prequel ones. I've added some of the less expensive ones over the years but I just can't justify buying every set they crank out. Due to the double whammy of the Star Wars & Disney taxes the prices on these sets just can't be justified when compared to almost every other LEGO set being produced.
All i read are excuses, excuses. Boohoo budget budget
"but I am not sure it is very accurate to do that because the minifigure selection here is much more complex than the minifigures with Rivendell."
Isnt it? yes Rivendell had less minifig molds, (Only Elf hair and Gimli Helmet / beard), but bringing up "many new prints" Rivendell also had lots of new prints, it also had a bunch of very detailed new molds for specific swords and axes for each character, generic ones probably would have been fine, and that is including an incredible Andúril.
"I think you are along the right lines there!"
Translation: yes! we can reuse the cheap ESB Boba that already exists, and besides, thats the more popular version anyway!
I hate to bring up the Clone "Pilot" but....
Also, if you knew this was coming, and budget is an issue, then use a bit of forward thinking and put a ROTJ Boba in the mech. makes collectors happy with the correct version in a collectors set. and clearly they think that most people dont notice (or care) about versions that it shouldnt make a difference to the mech set.
Summary: All the criticism is fair but budget made me do it.
@fakespacesquid said:
"And sure, you could spread the cost of the mold throughout a wave, but then small-time fans will just get the smaller sets with him, and big-time fans will have 3 Jabbas"
Nothing wrong with small-time fans being able to get the smaller sets with desirable characters, that's actually great when desirable characters aren't locked behind gigantic paywalls. And big-time fans who don't want to keep 3 Jabbas can sell the other two online, win-win.
@AustinPowers said:
"It all comes down to a simple fact: LEGO Star Wars fans, especially those with deep enough pockets to buy these wildly overpriced sets, don't care enough about these things to NOT buy the sets. Period.
If those sets didn't sell, LEGO would put in more effort. Their margins are absurdly high as it is, and not including more or better figures is simply a conscious choice (like the designer confirmed), to keep the margins as high as possible. Somewhere all those billions of profit have to come from after all.
LEGO Star Wars fans love to complain, but they never decide to put the money where their mouth is and boycott a set that is not worth buying. As long as that doesn't change, don't expect any better from LEGO.
After all, be honest, if you were in their shoes, would you put in more effort if your product sold just as well without it? "
I agree in general, but I would say loud or directly targeted complaints can get through as well. As an example, I think the LEGO Star Wars team learned a lesson from the reaction to 75309 Republic Gunship in relation to its various issues, primarily with the mistakes on the packaging and the minifigures. Even so, I get the impression that the set performed well in sales.
Unfortunately, I suspect they also learned never to run a poll like that again, which is clearly not the lesson fans intended.
"That could be a bit awkward, just having one overlapping character."
Laughs in bilions Harry Potters
Sorry but this is bullsh... They could EASILY include another Gamorrean Guard (as they say "its better to include same parts over and over" and better version of 3CPO.
@GrizBe said:
" @WizardOfOss said:
"And it's still baffling to me how other brands can do tons of new moulds or prints with each set despite lower prices and surely much, much lower production numbers. But for a €500 Lego set, sorry, can't do..."
It's not just Lego competitors who seem to be able to beat them at doing new moulds lately. Others like Games Workshop with its kits getting beaten out by everyone, or If other people are mecha fan like me, look how cheaply they produce various Gundam/gunpla kits for. Can't really tell me that an entire set of multipart injection moulds costs less then those of a single peice for a hair mould."
I'd recommend the YouTube channel "Johnny's World". Thorsten often explains in detail and quite candidly things like costs of new moulds etc. when talking about how his Kiddicraft sets are made (produced by Panlos) and which considerations factor into it. Also when it comes to his "Kiddiez" figures. Very interesting stuff. You need to understand German though.
Interesting too that his sets use higher quality ABS than LEGO's.
@AustinPowers said:
" I'd recommend the YouTube channel "Johnny's World".....
Interesting too that his sets use higher quality ABS than LEGO's. "
Or that is what Johnny tells you..........................
@bnic99 said:
""but I am not sure it is very accurate to do that because the minifigure selection here is much more complex than the minifigures with Rivendell."
Isnt it? yes Rivendell had less minifig molds, (Only Elf hair and Gimli Helmet / beard), but bringing up "many new prints" Rivendell also had lots of new prints, it also had a bunch of very detailed new molds for specific swords and axes for each character, generic ones probably would have been fine, and that is including an incredible Andúril."
There aren't that many new elements in Rivendell and they are much more reusable. The weapons are a multipack so they count as a single mold. There are two new beard pieces, a new helmet, two hair pieces with elf ears, and the fern piece. All those parts are much more reusable than any of the unique minifig elements from the Sail Barge. The least resuable are the weapons and the elf hair pieces, but even still Lego has had elves in other fantasy themes
@MrBedhead said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" I'd recommend the YouTube channel "Johnny's World".....
Interesting too that his sets use higher quality ABS than LEGO's. "
Or that is what Johnny tells you..........................
"
I have no reason not to believe him. I know him personally and would trust him over LEGO employees any day. Plus I have the products and can see the difference in quality firsthand.
While it's an interesting read, I feel bad for the designer to stand up for decisions clearly made by others, probably product managers. I understand that a company can only survive being reckless with the profit margin and that we might not even, ever get a set like this if they wouldn't. Having said that, I don't have to own every set and in this case I clearly voted with my wallet.
@AustinPowers said:
"It all comes down to a simple fact: LEGO Star Wars fans, especially those with deep enough pockets to buy these wildly overpriced sets, don't care enough about these things to NOT buy the sets. Period. "
This opinion is tiring to an extent, and I'm unsure whether it is one borne of jealously, because you keep moaning at people buying stuff, whilst you can appear virtuous by doing nothing. It is always someone else's responsibility.
There are some sets (like Black Panther, Queer Eye, HulkBuster, Icons of Women's Football) that sold badly and saw Lego not attempting to repeat with similar sets.
But for instance a gripe with this set is the dual moulding of Slave Leia, it's hardly worth a "boycott".
@MegaBlocks said:
" @AustinPowers said:
"It all comes down to a simple fact: LEGO Star Wars fans, especially those with deep enough pockets to buy these wildly overpriced sets, don't care enough about these things to NOT buy the sets. Period. "
This opinion is tiring to an extent, and I'm unsure whether it is one borne of jealously, because you keep moaning at people buying stuff, whilst you can appear virtuous by doing nothing. It is always someone else's responsibility."
It's definitely not jealousy. I can assure you I could easily buy any LEGO set I want. The fact that I have over 2,000 sets (plus almost 200 from alternative manufacturers) should speak for itself.
And I am not even interested in the sail barge to begin with, even if it came with twice as many figs that were perfect in every way.
My point was that I fully understand why LEGO consciously chose to release the set the way they did, because as long as enough people do complain but still buy the set, there's simply no reason for LEGO to do anything differently.
Thing is, Lego only rarely makes truly bad sets. Most are objectively (even when they just might not be your cup of tea) pretty decent, just not as good as they could, and considering the premium prices Lego is asking, should be. Question is: Will those flaws be enough to prevent you from buying it?
I mean, earlier this year I bought the McLaren MP 4/4, not a hugely expensive, yet considering what you get a quite pricey set. Which for most part is a fine set....except for the stupid rear wheels and some absolutely horrendous prints. Which are prety essential parts for the look of the whole thing. But it is likely the best we'll ever get, at least in the foreseeable future. So I still bought it, and worse, at full RRP directly from Lego (just to make the threshold for some GWP).....
We might not like that Lego cares more about saving a few pennies on a €500 set than about quality, but as long as they manage to keep it at that bare minimum, we all will keep buying the stuff. And in a case like this particular set, since Lego is the only company (legally) offering brick built Star Wars sets and thus has zero competition, they know they will get away with it.
Honestly seems like a lot of non-answers from him. "There are a lot of considerations," but he never says what they are. WHY did they not make the accurate version of Boba Fett? Only the best is good enough, right? I feel like the whole issue with this set is not the selection of minifigures, but the fact that so many of them are subpar (weird pupils on Salacious Crumb, inaccurate Boba, inaccurate Bib Fortuna, an inferior version of C-3PO in a premium set (whose best version is already being produced in two other premium sets)), and the fact that both this set and the Sarlacc pit are overpriced (really the Sarlacc pit should have just been part of this set, and then the $500 price tag would be much more reasonable).
@AustinPowers said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" I'd recommend the YouTube channel "Johnny's World".....
Interesting too that his sets use higher quality ABS than LEGO's. "
Or that is what Johnny tells you..........................
"
I have no reason not to believe him. I know him personally and would trust him over LEGO employees any day. Plus I have the products and can see the difference in quality firsthand. "
So you admit that you let personal bias get the better of you.
@AustinPowers said:
"I'd recommend the YouTube channel "Johnny's World". .......Very interesting stuff. You need to understand German though.
Interesting too that his sets use higher quality ABS than LEGO's. "
Only did German for a single year at GCSE, so its safe to say I don't understand it well enough or I'd definitely check it out.
@Fire said:
"Honestly seems like a lot of non-answers from him. "There are a lot of considerations," but he never says what they are. WHY did they not make the accurate version of Boba Fett? Only the best is good enough, right? I feel like the whole issue with this set is not the selection of minifigures, but the fact that so many of them are subpar (weird pupils on Salacious Crumb, inaccurate Boba, inaccurate Bib Fortuna, an inferior version of C-3PO in a premium set (whose best version is already being produced in two other premium sets)), and the fact that both this set and the Sarlacc pit are overpriced (really the Sarlacc pit should have just been part of this set, and then the $500 price tag would be much more reasonable)."
I did ask for further information about why Boba Fett needed to be in his The Empire Strikes Back garb and how guidelines have changed since 2017, when the correct version appeared in 75174 Desert Skiff Escape, but César could not discuss the details, unfortunately.
Speaking of which, in response to @bnic99 's earlier comment, the main reason for Boba's appearance is public familiarity with his appearance from The Empire Strikes Back. That does not really come across in the written interview, but that was what César responded to when I was talking about it. I kind of already knew the answer based on past conversations with Star Wars designers, which is probably why César turned the question around.
One area where LEGO could improve with interviews, not just for Star Wars but all themes, is trying to anticipate what kinds of questions will be asked. I am sure César had done to some degree, but the team should have known that lots of questions were likely to be asked about the minifigures and sent a graphic designer along too.
The answer to that Boba Fett question reminded me of the statement for the Republic Gunship a couple of years ago: 'Let's face it, all most people remember is that there was a Clone with yellow markings flying the ship'. Yeah right: let's also put an Ewok in the next Millennium Falcon, because all most people remember is that there was some hairy guy flying the ship.
I do find a lot of these interviews interesting, but there's always ones like these (a lot of the time from the Star Wars team) that just feel like a list of excuses. I think LEGO really needs to keep in mind that 'most people' aren't going to buy this set especially at that price. If that's the paywall you're going to lock it behind, the only people who will buy this (especially more obscure craft like the Khetanna) are hardcore Star Wars fans who have deep enough pockets. Of course these people are going to care if Salacious Crumb doesn't have pupils! I just wish LEGO Star Wars fans understood what 'vote with your wallet' really means.
If this interview taught me anything, it's that Rivendell is a substantially better set which even Cesar alludes to.
@CapnRex101 said:
"Beyond the obvious answer of that Boba Fett already being available and easy to re-use, I wonder whether Boba Fett from The Empire Strikes Back just has greater recognition and that is the costume people expect to see, even if not accurate to this scene."
I think you’re giving casual fans too much credit. Most people are going to fall into one of two camps, based on the specific question they’d ask after reading this:
1. Boba Fett had different costumes?
2. Why’d you pick the wrong costume…again?
Regarding the reuse of Disney Fortuna’s head, and Jabba’s, well, everything, most of the cost is probably tied up in cutting the mold, but as long as they still have the design archived on a computer somewhere, they would save a bit of expense in having someone work up a new design from scratch. The mold cavity itself is probably cut with a CNC mill, and it’s going to take a shocking amount of time to whittle away all the super hardened steel that doesn’t look like an elephant…I mean Jabba, or Fortuna, or Crumb for that matter. And it takes even longer if they happen to be running a multi-cavity mold, which they almost certainly are.
For the prints and such, I get that making both costumes concurrently is an added expense that will absolutely result in losing something cool in some other part of the set, but putting it bluntly, the Ep6 Fett costume looks so much more interesting than the Ep5 version. If they’re going to either/or, I really wish they’d be equitable about it and drop the Empire costume in favor of the Jedi one for a while.
@MrBedhead said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @MrBedhead said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" I'd recommend the YouTube channel "Johnny's World".....
Interesting too that his sets use higher quality ABS than LEGO's. "
Or that is what Johnny tells you..........................
"
I have no reason not to believe him. I know him personally and would trust him over LEGO employees any day. Plus I have the products and can see the difference in quality firsthand. "
So you admit that you let personal bias get the better of you."
Contrary to you of course who is always objective and always correct.
Plus I have to wonder why personal experience to you equals bias. Factual evidence doesn't seem to mean anything to you then. I wonder who is actually biased here.
How about Glup Shitto… I mean, Saelt-Marae, aka Yak Face? :D
@AustinPowers , hey you're criticising Lego.....by now you should know it's the best company in the world that only creates absolutely flawless products. If you think otherwise, that can obviously only be bias.....
@PixelTheDragon:
They may do just that, and follow this up with a Master Builder Series Jabba's Palace. 4480 and 6210 were released three years apart. 75020 was released the same year as 75005, which was the year after 9516. If you want to make the most out of a new mold, you try to stretch it out over a few years, rather than forcing everyone to pick which of half a dozen sets with Jabba they want to buy.
@fakespacesquid:
LoZ is also the only set in its theme, where LSW has to spread new frames and molds across a large array of sets. They can't have every set in the line call multiple new molds into production. Multiple sets under the same theme are absolutely going to cut into each others' markets, where one single LoZ set commands the entire market to itself.
@sirventricle:
Han, Chewie, and Lando never set foot on the main sail barge. They rode out to the Sarlaac on one of the skiffs.
@lordofthebricks614:
In 2012, it's somewhat doubtful that it was the same mold as before. It's equally as likely that they scrapped the original mold and recut it from the same computer file. The overall shape would be indistinguishable, and the only way to tell them apart would be to compare mold markings against each other. And you'd have to know with 100% certainty that you were looking at one or more examples of the original use, vs one or more examples of the reprisal. Unfortunately, I only have access to the second round sets at the moment.
@GrizBe:
Are these Gundam kits shipped on the runners, or are the pieces shipped loose? Are they made of much cheaper styrene, or of an expensive plastic not usually used for plastic model kits? And by Games Workshop do you mean wargaming miniatures for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K? Because something I was once told suggests that they run those for a specific number of saleable units before scrapping the molds. Essentially, I was told that you can't ever get replacement parts for them once they ship, because there's no means to produce them. This may indicate that they're using a cheaper grade of steel because they don't need the molds to last as long as a 2x4 LEGO brick.
@fakespacesquid said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
"Objection! I move to strike the witness' statement as nonresponsive. Further, I request the honorable court to admonish the witness to ANSWER THE QUESTION!
Thanks for trying Cap'n.
Wow! SW Lego is far worse than my most scandalous accusations. They truly just don't give a crap."
And yet you still bought the set...
Either it's a big enough problem to not buy the product, or it isn't. If it's not a big enough issue to not buy it, I don't really get the ire"
That's precisely why I have such ire, because I support the product so much with my hard-earned money. If you think about it, the opposite would be ludicrous. If someone didn't buy Lego, why would they bother to complain about shortfalls in the sets?
In fact, for me, this set is one of the best Lego sets of all time. It combines great design with the ability to have fun interactions with minifigs. It is everything that I love in Lego.
Except! The price is outrageous greed. The GWP (and the accompanying Lego SW market valuation) ameliorates that a bit. But, there is simply no excuse for the poor minifigs (quality and quantity) at this high of a price point. It simply makes Lego look like a cheaply made product.
The opposite behavior would not just drive sales of the Barge. It would push SW Lego sales to new heights driving the fandom of SW Lego and even Lego in general. People interact with the characters and their stories more than the ships and scenes. The continued failure to emphasize minifigs in SW Lego is a complete bone-headed, counterproductive position. Perhaps that is also why it is so infuriating.
I appreciate the journalism here and do think it’s useful/helpful, but this discussion, as with all things Star Wars, has grown so tiresome.
As a lifelong Star Wars / LSW fan, it seems to me the fans and the company (whether LFL under Lucas, Kennedy, or TLG) are perpetually locked in a mutually abusive relationship. Except one party’s laughing all the way to the bank.
@MrBedhead said:
"So many comments here just lightly naive people demonstrating they have no clue how large corporations operate to keep their costs under control. "
That is the corporation’s problem, not the customer. It is their job to make the thing the customer wants to buy, and meet the customer’s expectations. Whatever the reason for the minfigs not being up to par is not the buyer’s problem. If LEGO can’t provide what’s expected, they should either find a way to or not make the product.
I am shocked that Tessek didn’t make the cut given the Quarren headpiece from the other year.
@PurpleDave said:
" @GrizBe:
Are these Gundam kits shipped on the runners, or are the pieces shipped loose? Are they made of much cheaper styrene, or of an expensive plastic not usually used for plastic model kits? And by Games Workshop do you mean wargaming miniatures for Warhammer and Warhammer 40K? Because something I was once told suggests that they run those for a specific number of saleable units before scrapping the molds. Essentially, I was told that you can't ever get replacement parts for them once they ship, because there's no means to produce them. This may indicate that they're using a cheaper grade of steel because they don't need the molds to last as long as a 2x4 LEGO brick."
It depends on the quality/grade of the kit as to what some Gunpla kits are made from, but the majority are made from ABS plastic like Lego, and yes they do come on the runners (Sprue).
By Games Workshop, yes I do mean Warhammer. Again, they can't make a specific replacement part as they're also sold on the sprue, so can't make a singular part from it. I've been told that alot of their moulds will also have a 10 year service life, but not knowing specifics of how many of a kit they make over a time, I can't say how durable that makes them compared to Lego bricks.
Gunpla uses many different kinds of plastic (in some cases even dual/triple molded on a single runner!), including both polystyrene and ABS, very much depending on the purpose. But as a product it's pretty hard to compare with Lego. The majority of runners in every set is custom for that one set, even when they do reuse certain runners for multiple sets. And even when nothing needs to be glued, they still aren't really made to be taken apart repeatedly. Also joints are made in a variety of ways, cheap 300 yen (< 2 €!) SD kits surely won't be as durable as a €200 Perfect Grade kit. As for replacement parts.....we're talking model kits here, is that really a thing in the long run? But then again, how long can Lego offer replacement parts when we're talking about some very specific piece only used in a single set?
But it's comparing apples and oranges. That said, I am surprised by how cheap Gunpla are, or in case of more expensive kits, what they offer for that. They pump out a gazillion new kits each year, and unlike Lego it's not mostly a matter of putting existing pieces together, but a much more technical process. And keep in mind they even started this before the era of computers and CAD/CAM....
And obviously there are many other plastic model kit manufacturers, but none will put out that number of new sets, they usually need to be glued and painted, aren't meant to be posed or (at least partially) taken apart, and generally are quite a bit pricier. Much more craft kits, whereas Gunpla (even the most complex ones) are so much easier to build without special tools or skills, kinda bridging the gap.
@GrizBe:
Shipping on the runner significantly increases the material cost, but at an astronomical reduction in labor costs. Instead of having to sort out hundreds of pieces, they only have to produce, and pack, a handful of runners. What I was told about GW was around 25 years ago, and if the molds were kept in production for that long, they'd be fully capable of shipping replacement runners when needed. Whether or not they do now I don't know, but apparently they didn't back then.
As is often the case with articles like these, the comments feel like a wall of "that can't be valid, because otherwise it would justify doing things in a way I don't like."
@PurpleDave said:
"Shipping on the runner significantly increases the material cost, but at an astronomical reduction in labor costs."
Labor cost? Pretty sure this would be a fully automated process. Obviously more steps involved, more complicated and thus more expensive, but in the grand scheme of things we're still talking fractions of cents here. Gotta love scale benefits....
Like I mentioned before, despite both making plastic products, it's pretty hard to compare since the final product is completely different and thus involves very different steps to design and produce it, spending money on different things.
Idk. I'm paying for a premium product, not excuses. I won't blame the designer as the budgeting has nothing to do with him, but from a consumer standpoint the set is both overpriced, lacks in figures, and has that annoying sticker sheet for the "windows" of the barge (you apply the same stickers 13 times). Also some of the prints should have been better quality (more opaque).
edit: to be clear, I decided to not buy the set, I was pretty disappointed with the value.
@MrBedhead said:
"So many comments here just lightly naive people demonstrating they have no clue how large corporations operate to keep their costs under control. "
There's 'keeping costs under control' and then there's 'skimping on a premium collector product of an already premium brand while posting record billion-dollar-plus profits.'
I get it, they can't include 50 highly-detailed and unique minifigs in every set, but some of the blatant minifig inaccuracies, color variations in parts that are supposed to be the same color, ever more prominent mold marks on pieces, and minifig face/body prints that are consistently not opaque enough... Other companies are rapidly closing the quality gap while charging a fraction of Lego's prices and Lego needs to be held accountable to its consumers.
@HappyLEGOfan said:
"Idk. I'm paying for a premium product, not excuses. I won't blame the designer as the budgeting has nothing to do with him, but from a consumer standpoint the set is both overpriced, lacks in figures, and has that annoying sticker sheet for the "windows" of the barge (you apply the same stickers 13 times). Also some of the prints should have been better quality (more opaque).
edit: to be clear, I decided to not buy the set, I was pretty disappointed with the value."
When you mention applying the same sticker thirteen times for the windows, I believe you are thinking of 75020 Jabba's Sail Barge from 2013, not this iteration. The windows on this model are not stickered at all.
@WizardOfOss:
Rare is the process that's fully automated from one end to the other, and even when it is, time is still money. Dropping the complete runner in a stack makes it very easy for all of the attached parts to be packed into the box. Cutting all of those parts loose means you either have to bag them on the spot as a group, or you have to track, and pack, each part separately. Molding them individually just amplifies the cost.
Personally, I struggle to identify the business case for abandoning the practice of shipping certain parts still attached to the runners. In some cases, it was done to ensure they could be verified by weight during the packing process, but for the minimal cost of throwing the runner in with the parts, sometimes you save the expense of including any extras, and others you save the much higher cost of shipping one replacement part halfway around the world by itself. Mostly, I suspect, it was about reducing waste for environmental reasons, meaning, as they've recently demonstrated on multiple occasions, they're willing to sink some of that "greedy" profit into less obvious rewards.
"Turning the discussion around for a moment, why do you think we did that?"
Because you're greedy bas*&^ds!
Or, as JANG repeatedly puts it: "just a small, family-owned company struggling to make a mere two billion dollar yearly profit."
@PurpleDave , sure, even a fully automated process still will need some personnel to keep running. But considering the amount of staff versus the output of the factory, that's not big numbers either. Just like the kind of plastic used, I had a look at the cost of pellets, seems like polystyrene is about 25% cheaper. And doing a little math, even with the highest pellet prices (per tonne) I could find a huge set like the €680 Titanic would only contain about €15 worth of ABS. And considering Lego will surely buy in bulk at a much reduced price....
Also an interesting thing with Gunpla versus Lego: One thing I have noticed with Gumpla is that you often do need to put the runners in the box in a pretty specific way to make everything fit. Lego on the other hand simply uses oversized boxes they can just throw everything in. Probably save some in packaging, lose some in distribution, likely justified by more shelf presence in shops.
And compared to other manufacturers of plastic products, both obviously have a big advantage: Little to no assembly in the factory! How's that for a massive cost saving! And yet, I can get a fully assembled RC car for less than half the price of any Lego RC vehicle...
Obviously all those little bits do add up and as a whole aren't insignificant, but in the end the actual production cost still is just a rather small part of the set price. Also shown by competitors that nowadays offer similar or higher quality generally still at a significantly lower price, despite not having the sheer scale advantages Lego has.
And to get back to what this article was about: Turning what could have been a pretty much perfect "Ultimate" set into a somewhat flawed one for no other reason than saving pennies on production of a set with a massive profit margin that should represent the best the company is capable of.
@WizardOfOss:
Yes, plastic model kits of all types have runners that are carefully planned out so the contents will fill the box. Bulky parts need to be spread out throughout the box, even when they're spread out on different runners. One benefit is that transportation will be as cheap as possible, but it also keeps the runners from shifting around and damaging the parts.
TLG has tried to shrink their boxes, with little success. Parents typically think the model is shown 1:1 on the front of the box, so the smaller the box, the less value they see. You can shrink the thickness of the box without reducing the front surface, but you save almost nothing on packaging materials that way, the box can be difficult to keep standing up on the shelf, and you're just going to make it a lot more difficult to load the contents into the box. Make it too difficult, and you'll have to start having people hand-pack the boxes, possibly in a specific order. And there goes any savings you get on reducing the box size.
Cost of plastic is one of the smallest expenses in bringing a set to market. Polycarbonate is more expensive than ABS, and MABS is more expensive than both, but they've been able to save enough money on redundant mold production to justify switching almost all of their production to MABS. There's some savings to be had in logistics, too, but I don't know if they're quite there yet. From what I understand, they are currently running ABS, PC, and MABS simultaneously, which seems likely to increase their logistics budget rather than reduce it.
“Are you cheaping out on us?”
“Yes.”
“Are you going to stop?”
“LMAO no.”
Every question dodged and the C3PO one not even asked.
My goodness that’s pathetic. “Lack of budget” on an insanely overpriced set? What? They were more than aware Boba and Bib were wrong and their *only* excuse is budget. On a flagship UCS set where accuracy is the highest priority. Unacceptable. That’s really ground my gears this morning. They’re so out of touch with reality.
The part that really puzzles me is that this is only really even an issue because they retired the moulds in the first place. I get it with regular system pieces, or pieces developed for a licensed theme that’s not longer producing sets, or background characters (I’m not saying the mould for Wooof’s helmet should still have to exist in 20 years time). But for named characters that TLG is obviously going to make again (Jabba, Bib) then unless they seriously believe a different mould will be necessary to upgrade the figure sufficiently, I see no reason why such moulds should be destroyed. This is an issue that only applies to a small number of moulds, nearly all of them Star Wars related as it is only of the few long running themes that has moulds dedicated solely to it. If they’d kept the lekku and Jabba moulds, their costs wouldn’t be so high and we’d get a better product as a result. Just a thought, LEGO. Try some common sense.
@Chemistry2101:
One of the set designers revealed that it costs as much to store an existing mold for five years as it does to cut a new one to replace it. So at least once a year, they hold a big meeting to determine which molds have earned their keep, and which need to be culled. Y n the case of Bib Fortuna, his last OT appearance was 2012, so they would have paid the cost of 2.4 new molds by now if they’d kept that thing around, and there’s _STILL_ the possibility that they would have pulled it out of storage and discovered it had been rendered unusable like what happened to the original goat mold.
It's not just "keeing the molds". The molds need preservation (I assume at least a coating of oil, but I'm sure there's more to it), storage, regular inspection...
I think Boba Fett had to do with reuse, not the fact it's a more "recognizable" design. For a while most Fett figures were still the ROTJ costume, not the ESB version, and it seemed to be Lucasfilm's preferred "canon" design. I definitely think that was budget.
Bib Fortuna is the main one here that actually felt 'cheap' to me compared to anything else. I wish they had found the budget for that. I don't blame the designers, but it's a shame. I think including another Jabba-themed set with Fortuna and a Gamorrean at a lower price point could've been a good move to make more use out of some of these molds/prints. Maybe a Droid Dungeon? I don't think it'd need new parts.
@PurpleDave said:
" @Chemistry2101:
One of the set designers revealed that it costs as much to store an existing mold for five years as it does to cut a new one to replace it. So at least once a year, they hold a big meeting to determine which molds have earned their keep, and which need to be culled. Y n the case of Bib Fortuna, his last OT appearance was 2012, so they would have paid the cost of 2.4 new molds by now if they’d kept that thing around, and there’s _STILL_ the possibility that they would have pulled it out of storage and discovered it had been rendered unusable like what happened to the original goat mold."
Ah ok, fair enough then I guess, I had no idea it cost them quite so much. All the same, it would be nice if they kept some of these molds regardless if there was a clear and obvious reuse for them in the future. But I suppose a near exact replica will suffice.
If they couldn’t afford to keep or reproduce the original lekku mold in this set’s budget, and we accept that premise for a second (even though it’s absurd), the question remains: why didn’t they give the Bib Fortuna in the throne room set inaccurate thin lekku and then reuse the piece here? UCS sets have a longer design time as far as I’m aware, so I struggle to believe that when the lekku mold was finalised they didn’t know they’d be making a RotJ Bib a couple of years down the line. Yes, it would have been inaccurate in that set. But would that be a far superior compromise, especially given the reusability of the mold in other Jabba sets, compared to the fat lekku that has only one application? Given the barge is a UCS set, certainly.
@Chemistry2101:
I think most of us were shocked by the cost of simply setting a mold on a shelf for five years, except it has to be more than that. Setting the mold on a shelf and walking away is likely exactly where things went wrong with the original goat mold. The guy who founded Brickforge once told me how much his molds cost, and TLG’s have to be able to last a lot longer without going out of spec. More robust means it costs more, so you’re talking 6-7 figures just to let it sit around for half a decade. Storage space costs money, but not that much in that short a span. Minimum, they have to be pulling these on a regular basis to clean and inspect them. They might have to condition the mold surfaces, maybe hook up any hoses or lines and run something through them. I don’t know what exactly, but more than just parking it on a shelf.
@kg said:
"Every question dodged and the C3PO one not even asked."
I did ask about C-3PO and the answer was the same, that it was a matter of budget. I would love to know whether just using the minifigure with the dual-moulded leg and discontinuing the simpler figure would be more cost effective, but that is not something a designer is going to discuss on the record.
Also, none of the questions were dodged. We may dislike the limited budgets and I have no doubt designers feel the same way, but such is the reality of LEGO product development.