UCS Jango Fett's Starship announced!

NOTHING NEW HERE!
Only the colors have changed….

Minifigures were much more better in sooner UCS!

Cool set! Not for me, but I really like it.

Best Jango Fett minifigure we've ever gotten. That new rangefinder piece is interesting, too. Boba's hair looks terrible, though.

Also, the seismic charge is a nice touch.

@ShilohCyan said:
" This was basically the only opportunity to make a Lama Su minifig but okay guess we're letting the Kaminoan head mold go to waste

@Norikins said:
""Starship." So the Gag Rule is still in effect."

Never seen anyone complain about 75087 not being called Azure Angel or 7656 / 8095 / 75286 not being called Soulless One. "

I'm sure they would at least have their name spelled out on a plaque if they came with one.

@MegaBlocks said:
[[ @ShilohCyan said:
@Norikins said:
[["Starship." So the Gag Rule is still in effect.]]

Never seen anyone complain about 75087 not being called Azure Angel or 7656 / 8095 / 75286 not being called Soulless One. ]]

Probably because those haven't got some bizarre Disney directive banning the use of those names if they wanted to use them.

Not sure why this isn't Jango Fett's Huttslayer though. ]]

Doesn't t the name "Huttslayer" make an ethnic assumption that all Hutts are evil and deserve unaliving? Man, the people who wanted to paper over Leia's classic bikini name did *not* think that through.

It looks perfect. I'm undecided on whether I'll get it, though. I have the UCS Boba Fett Slave 1 already, and they are so similar, so I'm not sure if it is worth it for me.

"Not sure about the name though" Lando Calrissian Robot Chicken

Funnily enough, long time star wars fans are not a fan what it get named nowadays. It has nothing to do with people wanting its name restored also condoning slavery, as Disney may think, hence why they removed the name in the first place. It's a name of something that has been a part of Star Wars since 1980.

All I can say is - Use the plaque that came with the last UCS Slave 1, if you have it, as Disney are not able to visit your home and confiscate it, and with it remove some of Star Wars History

So, it's big. There's always a way to destroy these things.

Ship good. Figs good (Boba should have dual-molded, Hobbity-like legs). Price bad. No specific GWP, so no hurry to get it.

The stickers on the seismic charge and on either side of the cockpit (the yellow stripes) are highly disappointing.

The issue with the stickers on the seismic charge to me is that they'll be impossible to get lined up right. I understand why Lego would consider stickers on those pieces though, as most people are likely to keep the seismic charge stored in the back of the ship where it won't be as visible. The problem is that applying stickers to the parts they used for it is not a good building experience.

The yellow stripes could, and should, have been printed. It's a repeated design.

I also take some issue with the green/blue sticker on the panel. A blue triangle sticker would have sufficed and looked better in my opinion.

Who named it Slave 1- Jango? Or Boba? If it was Boba, then calling this one Slave 1 would be inaccurate.

I suggest we drop the word "slave" from the dictionary: nobody dares to use it anymore...

This is a completely different vehicle than Slave 1. Since it has a different name.

Ik like the colors of Boba's ship a lot more then these.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @Elrond said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"Never seen anyone complain about 75087 not being called Azure Angel or 7656 / 8095 / 75286 not being called Soulless One. "

Those aren't nearly as iconic as the Slave I though. That'd be more like calling the Millennium Falcon Han Solo's Starship. Every toy of that ship was called the Slave I until recently. That includes Lego sets too: 75243 , 75060 , 8097 , 7153 to name a few."

Except the Millennium Falcon is actually referred to as such on screen"

So is the Slave I, in Star Wars: The Clone Wars and many other sources.

The name being changed for marketing purposes does not really concern me. What does bother me is how poorly Disney has handled the change. If products based on the Slave I had all been branded as 'Jango Fett's Starship' or 'Boba Fett's Starship', that might be alright, but they have inconsistently tried to rebrand it as the Firespray, or indeed 'Jango Fett's Firespray-class Starship', which is the name used on LEGO.com currently.

I think it just sounds painfully forced and needlessly draws attention to the change. It reminds me of the difference between somebody referring to, for example, the 2025 Mercedes Formula 1 car and the Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport F1 W16 E Performance. The latter is technically the full and correct name, but somebody saying that would sound like they are either trying to show off or desperately avoid using the common name. That is how it comes across to me whenever I hear or read the full 'Firespray-class Starship / Gunship' name because it just screams 'I am trying not to say Slave I'."

I always read CapnRex's articles in Dee Bradley Baker's Australian accent for some reason.

$390 over here, no thanks.

@ecleme11 said:
"Darn wish we could have got a smaller cheaper version of this ship at some point
"

Wait for it....

I never liked the ship and I have yet to own one in Lego form ((I might have a polybag though), but this one looks pretty nice. Too many stickers and too many other choices to tempt me though.

Nice, but I'll keep waiting for my TIE Bomber. I'd also take Mando's N-1, but I don't have a lot of faith in that one happening.

Ugh, so similar to the earlier UCS. I usually pass on remakes. Not sure what to do here.

@ra226 said:
"Nice, but I'll keep waiting for my TIE Bomber. I'd also take Mando's N-1, but I don't have a lot of faith in that one happening."

Maybe for the Mando movie. Still, at least there was already a pseudo-UCS N-1 in 10026, but that's like saying the first UCS Slave 1 (Yes I use that name in conversation even though I understand why Disney doesn't) is a substitute for this one.

@ecleme11 said:
"Darn wish we could have got a smaller cheaper version of this ship at some point
"

hello apparently a smaller play scale version is releasing sometime later in the year.

Don't buy it then

An impressive set, just not my alley.

@Andrusi said:
[
Who the fork are Bossk and Dengar?

Edit: Oh, I read this wrong. Who the fork are Bossk, Dengar, Kit Fisto, and Plo Koon?]

Bossk and Dengar are both bounty hunters seen aboard the Super Star Destroyer in Empire Strikes Back, Fisto and Plo are Prequel Jedi

This build looks amazing, IMO. I bought the UCS Slave I in 2018 right before it retired and it was my first big Star Wars set and still my favorite. I'm not a huge fan of the franchise and have never seen the prequels but it's a cool ship and although I like the original color scheme better, I'm loving the display presence this set has and I'd love to pair it with my 2015 UCS. The Jango minifigure looks perfect to me and Boba looks good too, but I'm more interested in this for the build than the figures.

@Elrond said:
"Name controversy aside I'm surprised they picked a ship from AotC as this year's UCS. It's the 20th anniversary of RotS, I would have thought the UCS set this year would be based on that movie, I was expecting something like a turbo tank, an Eta-2 Jedi starfighter or a Mustafar playset."

I think this is a safe vehicle to do as it is a recolour of an OT vehicle. Not really many iconic ships in ROTS, and I wonder how well the Venator sold. OT UCS are safe bets.

Cosa fea...., parece una aspiradora moderna que se ven en los estantes de máquinas de limpieza...

I find official reveals to be quite funny because you can only imagine the reaction of TLG when they find every single Star Wars May 4th set has been leaked for some time now, with some reviews even being put out.

Would love to have a smaller version in the same size as 75243, but I guess we will get a more simplified set just like 75312.

Is Mace Windu ever called "Mace" in the movies? "Master Windu," yes.

I'm also now musing to myself that Quinlan Vos is referenced in Episode III but does not appear in the movie. (But there is a background character in EpI who was retroactively declared to be Quinlan.)

@Nokturn said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" This was basically the only opportunity to make a Lama Su minifig but okay guess we're letting the Kaminoan head mold go to waste "

Also a complete wasted opportunity to include a new Zam Wesell minifig, IMO. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic, but feels like they will never actually remake 7133 . Her inclusion would've been very welcome here. A lot of previous Slave I sets, UCS included, had extra figs even when they weren't 100% necessary.

"

Don't remind me ;-; For years we didn't have a good color for Zam, but lavender is almost as perfect as sand purple. On that note, I'd also love to see Bail Organa's speeder. and the second-ever Bail minifig.

Is this Young Boba after he found some hair styling gel.

@Andrusi said:
"Who the fork are Bossk and Dengar?

Edit: Oh, I read this wrong. Who the fork are Bossk, Dengar, Kit Fisto, and Plo Koon?"

Well I did say every fan knows who those characters are. They are extensively featured in other Star Wars media, the first two even are playable "heroes" in the Battlefront games. Now if you're a casual then you probably have no idea who they are.

The release of this and the discussions here reminds me that 75060 (aka Slave 1) was my 'one that got away' [read: just didn't buy]. It was on my wishlist but didn't quite get to the top, naming controversies aside, I am sure this is a very good UCS entry but it's not Boba Fett's and while I know there's a market (and fans) beyond the original trilogy, this is a set I can pass on without much fear of being wistful in 10 years. I did subsequently pick-up 75243 and for my desk 75344.

@Elrond said:
" @Andrusi said:
"Who the fork are Bossk and Dengar?

Edit: Oh, I read this wrong. Who the fork are Bossk, Dengar, Kit Fisto, and Plo Koon?"

Well I did say every fan knows who those characters are. They are extensively featured in other Star Wars media, the first two even are playable "heroes" in the Battlefront games. Now if you're a casual then you probably have no idea who they are."

So, "true fan" crap, got it.

Wonderful set, nearly no notes. I've always preferred the coloration of Jango's version of it over Boba's, and they got the circular detailing nearly perfect on this one. I'm confused when people mention this as a recolor of the 2015 one when its immediately visible how far some of the building techniques have gotten. It's a marvel!

In terms of the name, I echo what CapnRex101 said: the inconsistency is a big indicator, and it annoys me that it was changed for a sort of like, misguided attempt at sanitization. I get and fully agree that slavery is a real and serious topic, but I don't think the name alone is a huge problem here. At the same point, I think if they'd consistently used Firespray I'd also not care too much about the name change. Jango/Boba Fett's Starship rolls off the tongue miserably. Though, I'd have gotten a good laugh from "Jango Fett's Boba Fett's Starship"

Boba is likely my biggest nitpick - the hair is just a huge miss, and given that the Kamino GWP has the duel-molded boots, could we not have gotten different legs? Not an end all be all for me, but worth mentioning. I understand the issue with stickers, but find myself honestly not caring all too much. I'll put stickers on once and never think about it again. Would prefer printed, but how it is.

Easy day one purchase, though it's awkwardly on a Thursday. I prefer buying these in person, but am a little afraid the GWP may sell out. Perhaps I'll order online?

@MrBedhead said:
"And now the reality: this is the best UCS set LEGO have released in years, It is beautifully sleek, has a completely different build compared to the Slave 1, and its proportions are significantly more accurate. It even has some cool play features. The only blemish is the Young Boba minifig... "
Plus the fact that this time the cockpit doesn't rotate, which imho on this ship is an essential feature.
But perhaps that would have necessitated another 1,000 extra pieces and an RRP of 500 Euros.

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
[[ @MegaBlocks said:
[[ @ShilohCyan said:
@Norikins said:
[["Starship." So the Gag Rule is still in effect.]]

Never seen anyone complain about 75087 not being called Azure Angel or 7656 / 8095 / 75286 not being called Soulless One. ]]

Probably because those haven't got some bizarre Disney directive banning the use of those names if they wanted to use them.

Not sure why this isn't Jango Fett's Huttslayer though. ]]

Doesn't t the name "Huttslayer" make an ethnic assumption that all Hutts are evil and deserve unaliving? Man, the people who wanted to paper over Leia's classic bikini name did *not* think that through.]]

Justifiable Homicide? I mean, he did make her his Starship, after all.

I don’t even buy Star Wars sets anymore. Out of eight or nine new sets only ONE traditional type set. By that I mean a regular set (ship, vehicle, scene etc) with minifigures. Everything now is meant to be display sets. I mean, that’s all good for older fans who just like building then displaying what they’ve built, but kids enjoy building something then playing with it along with their “new” minifigures. The minifigures are another let down. Out of all the possible characters LEGO could include in their sets, they just keep regurgitating the same characters over and over. I’m not sure what their end goal is for the Star Wars theme is, but it definitely does not have the younger fans in mind. Star Wars has basically become a complete AFOL theme.

The "Prisoner with job I" returns!

I'm curious for the comparisons in construction between this and the older UCS one. Especially in the new parts usage

@Andrusi said:
" @Elrond said:
" @Andrusi said:
"Who the fork are Bossk and Dengar?

Edit: Oh, I read this wrong. Who the fork are Bossk, Dengar, Kit Fisto, and Plo Koon?"

Well I did say every fan knows who those characters are. They are extensively featured in other Star Wars media, the first two even are playable "heroes" in the Battlefront games. Now if you're a casual then you probably have no idea who they are."

So, "true fan" crap, got it."

Bossk and Dengar are characters that have featured as minifigures in previous Lego versions of the Slave 1.

This is an excellent set, except for the smaller minifig and the information card. The shaping of the base in particular is a night and day difference from the 2015 version, which I for one never particularly liked, and the linked ramp and door are ingenuous. I can't wait for the playscale version in August.

@Andrusi said:
" @Elrond said:
" @Andrusi said:
"Who the fork are Bossk and Dengar?

Edit: Oh, I read this wrong. Who the fork are Bossk, Dengar, Kit Fisto, and Plo Koon?"

Well I did say every fan knows who those characters are. They are extensively featured in other Star Wars media, the first two even are playable "heroes" in the Battlefront games. Now if you're a casual then you probably have no idea who they are."

So, "true fan" crap, got it."

Well yeah I must say I have yet to meet an actual fan who's never heard of Plo Koon or Bossk. I mean I have nothing against casual fans, quite the opposite, but those aren't exactly obscure characters either. They were in the Clone Wars show too, they're not from some unknown EU novel or a trivia on an action figure cardback.

@ShilohCyan said:
" @ra226 said:
"Nice, but I'll keep waiting for my TIE Bomber. I'd also take Mando's N-1, but I don't have a lot of faith in that one happening."

Maybe for the Mando movie. Still, at least there was already a pseudo-UCS N-1 in 10026, but that's like saying the first UCS Slave 1 (Yes I use that name in conversation even though I understand why Disney doesn't) is a substitute for this one. "

I do have that one and it's a nice set, but I'd love for something in the UCS scale and Mando's hot-rod aesthetic. Good call, though, hopefully the movie will bring us something better than the current minifig one. I just hope they don't blow it up like they did his last ride...

Decent looking ship.
But this UCS set would have been the perfect opportunity for LEGO to create custom/molded blasters for Jango that look movie accurate, instead of those regular parts which they've used now..

I will check out the built set in my local LEGO Store before I decide if I wanted or not..

@Andrusi:
Well, what do you expect? I'm pretty sure both Kit Fisto and Plo Kloon had their names mentioned and/or pronounced at least once each in SW:TCW or SW:CW. Did the casual viewer watch those? Maybe. Is the casual fan lining up to buy these sets? Not as likely. Did the casual fan manage to avoid learning these names in the merchandising blitz of 1999? Even less likely, unless they hadn't been born yet.

@BabuBrick:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0syEh_4MZhI

Looking through this clip, there's one shot at about 0:35 where it looks like Boba is sitting upright while firing the guns, but then he's shown pulling himself up to look out the cockpit and see what's going on. And towards the end, indeed, he pulls himself into the chair, NASA-style. Certainly in the original OT, we never get a good look inside the cockpit during takeoff, and given that only five years had passed, I doubt the SE version is shown doing something the Ep2 version appears incapable of.

My biggest question now, though, is what Boba could even see. He's firing the guns mounted to the tail, which sits way blow the cockpit in flight orientation. When landed, the hull slopes up from the cockpit as you move towards the tail. If he's shooting away from the cockpit, the idea that he can see _anything_ through the cockpit glass seems laughable.

@ShilohCyan:
Ewoks got a TV series, two made-for-TV films, and a metric crapton of merchandise back in the late 80's. I don't think it really mattered if they got namedropped in Ep6 or not.

Can't get excited for a recoloured 75060...

Slave I is my favourite ship in all of Star Wars, and I missed the 2015 one, so yes I’ll be getting this. One day. Maybe.

Unless of course, a play scale one is right round the corner.

EDIT: wait, why are there so many stickers!!

Nearly 1000 more pieces than Slave 1 UCS - how?

@AustinPowers said:
" @MrBedhead said:
"And now the reality: this is the best UCS set LEGO have released in years, It is beautifully sleek, has a completely different build compared to the Slave 1, and its proportions are significantly more accurate. It even has some cool play features. The only blemish is the Young Boba minifig... "
Plus the fact that this time the cockpit doesn't rotate, which imho on this ship is an essential feature.
But perhaps that would have necessitated another 1,000 extra pieces and an RRP of 500 Euros. "

Oooo thanks for that info. I was on the fence, but now knowing that the cockpit doesn't rotate it's a definite no.

@Reg said:
"Nearly 1000 more pieces than Slave 1 UCS - how?"

Presumably part of it is a larger number of smaller pieces all around than on the 2015 one, but it seems like there's also a factor of the back seeming a decent bit more cleaned-and-nicened-up on this one?

There's another part in that movie where Padme falls off the Republic Gunship into the sand dunes, while in pursuit of Dooku. Dooku flies off somewhere and she could not possibly know where. He goes to a hangar many miles away. A few minutes later they pick her up and she says "We have to get to that hangar!" Sometimes it's hard to remember these are movies and not documentaries lol

I have no plans to get this, but it's nice that they finally made another Slave I that's too big to be carried in someone's pocket. I probably won't get the playscale version people are talking about, either. But if Lego does a Microfighter version, I'll be all, "Shut up and take my money!"

@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
"Is Mace Windu ever called "Mace" in the movies? "Master Windu," yes.

I'm also now musing to myself that Quinlan Vos is referenced in Episode III but does not appear in the movie. (But there is a background character in EpI who was retroactively declared to be Quinlan.)"

Quinlan appears for like one panel in the comic adaptation of Episode III, when he shown dying.

@derekthetree said:"Can't get excited for a recoloured 75060..."

If you actually look at the pictures, you'll see that it's not.

@CapnRex101 said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @Elrond said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"Never seen anyone complain about 75087 not being called Azure Angel or 7656 / 8095 / 75286 not being called Soulless One. "

Those aren't nearly as iconic as the Slave I though. That'd be more like calling the Millennium Falcon Han Solo's Starship. Every toy of that ship was called the Slave I until recently. That includes Lego sets too: 75243 , 75060 , 8097 , 7153 to name a few."

Except the Millennium Falcon is actually referred to as such on screen"

So is the Slave I, in Star Wars: The Clone Wars and many other sources.

The name being changed for marketing purposes does not really concern me. What does bother me is how poorly Disney has handled the change. If products based on the Slave I had all been branded as 'Jango Fett's Starship' or 'Boba Fett's Starship', that might be alright, but they have inconsistently tried to rebrand it as the Firespray, or indeed 'Jango Fett's Firespray-class Starship', which is the name used on LEGO.com currently.

I think it just sounds painfully forced and needlessly draws attention to the change. It reminds me of the difference between somebody referring to, for example, the 2025 Mercedes Formula 1 car and the Mercedes-AMG Petronas Motorsport F1 W16 E Performance. The latter is technically the full and correct name, but somebody saying that would sound like they are either trying to show off or desperately avoid using the common name. That is how it comes across to me whenever I hear or read the full 'Firespray-class Starship / Gunship' name because it just screams 'I am trying not to say Slave I'."

Exactly. Disney was already censoring OT Star Wars (when was the last time you actually saw Jabba smooking a hookah?). I'm honestly more upset that "Fett's Firespray" is RIGHT THERE. But they went with "Fett's Starship" instead....

@cooljoe said:
"Exactly. Disney was already censoring OT Star Wars (when was the last time you actually saw Jabba smooking a hookah?)."

Same time that I saw that one of the RotJ outfits is a _teensy_ bit more revealing than you might think (but not as revealing as one of the RotJ:SE outfits). June 8th, 2024, when I finished watching the six movie Star Wars saga last year, with the original-original cuts of the OT.

@lippidp said:
"There's another part in that movie where Padme falls off the Republic Gunship into the sand dunes, while in pursuit of Dooku. Dooku flies off somewhere and she could not possibly know where. He goes to a hangar many miles away. A few minutes later they pick her up and she says "We have to get to that hangar!" Sometimes it's hard to remember these are movies and not documentaries lol"

That line always bothered me for that very reason.

@TheOtherMike said:
"

@derekthetree said:"Can't get excited for a recoloured 75060..."

If you actually look at the pictures, you'll see that it's not."

My comment was slightly tongue in cheek.

Yes, its quite different, but seeing as its a display model, from the typical viewing position, its a recolour.

Plus seeing as its meant to actually be the same ship between Ep 2 and 5, it should actually be a literal recolour.

This link from the article seems to return nothing:
https://brickset.com/sets/tag-Jango-Fett-Slave-I

Question, I'm not big Star Wars fan, in which one movie had this ship its first appearance? And in which one 75060?
THX

For the same piece count and 20 minifigs I rather have an update of Betrayal at Cloud City 75222.

@derekthetree said:
"Plus seeing as its meant to actually be the same ship between Ep 2 and 5, it should actually be a literal recolour."

Funny thing is, I believe microscale is the only example where they did do a literal recolor.

@P4tr1cius said:
"NOTHING NEW HERE!
Only the colors have changed….

Minifigures were much more better in sooner UCS!"

Is this meant to be a troll post? Are we not looking at the same pictures here?

@ambr said:
"For the same piece count and 20 minifigs I rather have an update of Betrayal at Cloud City 75222 ."

So do all who live to see such times. But, that is not for them to choose...

Oops, wrong thread, sorry. (not sorry)

@lippidp said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @MrBedhead said:
"And now the reality: this is the best UCS set LEGO have released in years, It is beautifully sleek, has a completely different build compared to the Slave 1, and its proportions are significantly more accurate. It even has some cool play features. The only blemish is the Young Boba minifig... "
Plus the fact that this time the cockpit doesn't rotate, which imho on this ship is an essential feature.
But perhaps that would have necessitated another 1,000 extra pieces and an RRP of 500 Euros. "

Oooo thanks for that info. I was on the fence, but now knowing that the cockpit doesn't rotate it's a definite no."

I'm definitely not an apologist for Lego or this set. However, the reviews show it has five minifigure seats, a removable bridge, and accessory storage behind the bridge. To me, that is better than a rotating bridge.

Nevertheless, I understand where you are coming from.

@AustinPowers said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"Hahahaha, another middle finger for SW fans. Stickers on curved pieces or even worse on cones is just plain ridiculous. And the second mini figure looks like a 20c City mini figure being without any printed arms legs and nothing dual molded.

I guess Lego is really testing how low they can go and people continue to buy this...
"
That's exactly what I thought.
This is definitely a test for the levels of self-denegration Lego Star Wars fans are willing to go to.
The set might look nice, but the amount of stickers (or the fact that there are any at all) at that price point are an absolute no-go for me.

Funnily enough, today I visited my mother and helped in clearing out the attic, when I came across my copy of 7153, which I will happily keep instead of buying this one.
Plus I also found my still unopened box of 75060 there today, so both versions of the ship right on the day when this new UCS set is announced. Quite the coincidence I would say. "

What a day?!! Those are two of the best SW sets. I can see why you'd pass on this one unless you are a rabid SW fan. (I'm guilty, as we all know).

I wish there was stuff like that at my mother's house. I'd visit more often.

@StyleCounselor said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @IgelCampus said:
"Hahahaha, another middle finger for SW fans. Stickers on curved pieces or even worse on cones is just plain ridiculous. And the second mini figure looks like a 20c City mini figure being without any printed arms legs and nothing dual molded.

I guess Lego is really testing how low they can go and people continue to buy this...
"
That's exactly what I thought.
This is definitely a test for the levels of self-denegration Lego Star Wars fans are willing to go to.
The set might look nice, but the amount of stickers (or the fact that there are any at all) at that price point are an absolute no-go for me.

Funnily enough, today I visited my mother and helped in clearing out the attic, when I came across my copy of 7153 , which I will happily keep instead of buying this one.
Plus I also found my still unopened box of 75060 there today, so both versions of the ship right on the day when this new UCS set is announced. Quite the coincidence I would say. "

What a day?!! Those are two of the best SW sets. I can see why you'd pass on this one unless you are a rabid SW fan. (I'm guilty, as we all know).

I wish there was stuff like that at my mother's house. I'd visit more often."
I visit once a week on average. She needs attention, especially after my father passed away. There are some other sets that I stored in my parents' attic years ago, one day I will have to catalogue them. I know there's a MISB 10241 and my second copy of 10246 , plus a still MISB copy of 6195 that I got as a bargain on ebay years back.

Starship? Can't call it the Slave 1 anymore because it has Slave in it? Unnecessary censorship. Looks nice though

People are going to Fett finger those curved stickers.

So far , the worst example I had with a set I built, was 80043 Yellow Tusk Elephant , where those shoulderpad "car" pieces have those golden stickers that go multiple angles, it's curved in multiple directions.

https://brickset.com/parts/6431001/front-display-3x4x1-2-3

I like the look of it, I really do. But the price makes it a firm "no" (as well as stickers, I hoped we were past that with UCS)

@gearwheel said:"I've seen Backstroke of the West - do you know what that is?"

I haven't seen it, but I'm familiar with it. "The geography that I stands compares you superior!" And, of course, "Do not want."

Are we all glossing over the 'Oovo IV' in Aurabesh easter egg hidden underneath the cockpit glass? Mentions of Jango acquiring the ship after a prison riot?

I thought Bounty Hunter was now considered non-canon - a great shame for such a great game and story - but this sounds like (part of) it is being re-canonized. What a lovely bonus to the first big LEGO SW set I will be getting since the UCS of Boba's version.

@gsom7 said:
"Question, I'm not big Star Wars fan, in which one movie had this ship its first appearance? And in which one 75060 ?
THX"

This version was first featured in Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

Boba Fett's version first appeared in Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back.

@Waksplat said:
"Stickers on cones? LOL "

I thought TLG had rules about not putting stickers across multiple axes? Curve + slope would seem to violate this. Given their struggles with printing astromech domes on level, though, maybe stickers are for the best!

@gearwheel said:
"What you're not getting is fandom is a spectrum, not a cliff. Ultras aren't the only fans, and calling everyone who doesn't meet an extremely high threshold of universe knowledge "casual" comes across as rude."

I said multiple times that it was absolutely fine if you just casually enjoyed the movies though. Nobody is expecting everyone to be a walking Star Wars encyclopedia. All I'm saying is that words have meanings and you have to draw the line at some point. I do agree that fandom is a spectrum but it still has to start somewhere.
What constitutes a fan then? Anyone who's seen at least one of the movies and didn't completely hate it? To me a fan (which is short for fanatic, let's remember that) is someone who at least enjoys the franchise a lot more than the average person and shows more interest in the lore, the alternative media or the merchs for instance. Because let's be honest, why would you call yourself a fan if you don't really care about the characters all that much, don't really discuss the lore, don't watch any content besides the very basic stuff everybody and their mother has watched, etc.
And again, I really didn't pick characters that were that obscure to begin with. The main point I was making before we got completely sidetracked was that not all relatively well-known ships or characters were named directly in the movies. Other examples are the Tantive IV or the Executor and Lego even made sets named after them.

@Andrusi said:
"So, a real fan is someone who was into Star Wars when Clone Wars was the new big thing. Got it.

I don't have a lot of patience for these types of purity tests, if you couldn't tell."

That's not what I said at all, the first two characters I mentioned appeared in the OT. Their names have been known since the 80s and they have appeared in various media since. That includes the Clone Wars show or even more recently the Battlefront games.
You're just being disingenuous but that's fine too I guess.

Sad thing is that only a day ago I was on YouTube and a review for this set appeared on my feed. I was curious and watched it, and only a day later it got revealed. I just don't know this keeps happening, because you'd think that Lego would wait at least 3 days before they reveal a set to ship it to other places. And would make sure to keep large reveals like this secret until revealed. Eitherway this is an amazing set at a great price, unfortunately won't be buying just because I'm nearing to buy others on my list for a while now. Great Jango figure, but Boba on the other hand... Still I love Jango's version of the ship much more and AotC is one of my favorite films of the series, watched it so much as a kid with my brother.

@Elrond said:
" @gearwheel said:
"What you're not getting is fandom is a spectrum, not a cliff. Ultras aren't the only fans, and calling everyone who doesn't meet an extremely high threshold of universe knowledge "casual" comes across as rude."

I said multiple times that it was absolutely fine if you just casually enjoyed the movies though. Nobody is expecting everyone to be a walking Star Wars encyclopedia. All I'm saying is that words have meanings and you have to draw the line at some point. I do agree that fandom is a spectrum but it still has to start somewhere.
What constitutes a fan then? Anyone who's seen at least one of the movies and didn't completely hate it? To me a fan (which is short for fanatic, let's remember that) is someone who at least enjoys the franchise a lot more than the average person and shows more interest in the lore, the alternative media or the merchs for instance. Because let's be honest, why would you call yourself a fan if you don't really care about the characters all that much, don't really discuss the lore, don't watch any content besides the very basic stuff everybody and their mother has watched, etc.
And again, I really didn't pick characters that were that obscure to begin with. The main point I was making before we got completely sidetracked was that not all relatively well-known ships or characters were named directly in the movies. Other examples are the Tantive IV or the Executor and Lego even made sets named after them.

@Andrusi said:
"So, a real fan is someone who was into Star Wars when Clone Wars was the new big thing. Got it.

I don't have a lot of patience for these types of purity tests, if you couldn't tell."

That's not what I said at all, the first two characters I mentioned appeared in the OT. Their names have been known since the 80s and they have appeared in various media since. That includes the Clone Wars show or even more recently the Battlefront games.
You're just being disingenuous but that's fine too I guess. "

So I looked up Kit Fisto on Wookieepedia and found out what he's actually in. This is the part where I want to sarcastically note that apparently being primarily interested in OT or sequel era stuff and less so on the prequel era makes one a "casual" but I'm not sure that isn't how you actually see it.

@Andrusi said:
"So I looked up Kit Fisto on Wookieepedia and found out what he's actually in. This is the part where I want to sarcastically note that apparently being primarily interested in OT or sequel era stuff and less so on the prequel era makes one a "casual" but I'm not sure that isn't how you actually see it."

Well this thread is about a prequel set...
So I suppose that makes you someone who isn't really a fan of the prequels, right? So the point still stands, you don't know who those characters are because you're not that much into the prequels.
Also I'll say it again, the first two characters I mentioned were from the OT. But I guess we're moving the goal posts again anyway.

I built 7153 while watching one of the original trilogy movies. Great set. This UCS version looks fantastic.

@Bagelwolf said:
" @Waksplat said:
"Stickers on cones? LOL "

I thought TLG had rules about not putting stickers across multiple axes? Curve + slope would seem to violate this. Given their struggles with printing astromech domes on level, though, maybe stickers are for the best!"

No stickers across multiple parts, no stickers for critical play deco (think faces on creatures, and Speed Champions is even shying away from stickered headlights), no stickers on insanely tiny surfaces (like the toe of a cheese wedge), and the one you're thinking of is no stickers on a compound curve. This isn't a compound curve. It's a section of a cone, which aren't fun, but won't cause the sticker to buckle.

@Elrond said:
" @Andrusi said:
"So I looked up Kit Fisto on Wookieepedia and found out what he's actually in. This is the part where I want to sarcastically note that apparently being primarily interested in OT or sequel era stuff and less so on the prequel era makes one a "casual" but I'm not sure that isn't how you actually see it."

Well this thread is about a prequel set...
So I suppose that makes you someone who isn't really a fan of the prequels, right? So the point still stands, you don't know who those characters are because you're not that much into the prequels.
Also I'll say it again, the first two characters I mentioned were from the OT. But I guess we're moving the goal posts again anyway."

Moving the goalposts? You're the only one setting up any goalposts to begin with.

@Andrusi said:
"Moving the goalposts? You're the only one setting up any goalposts to begin with."

Sure thing. Alright then there's no point in discussing this with you any further. It's an interesting topic but it was obvious from the start you didn't want to have any civil discussion.

@560heliport said:
"Putting those stickers on the astromech head parts (for the seismic charge) will be a nightmare. I don't mind stickers, but curves are tricky.
I sure hope we get a play-scale version soon."

Had it been a playscale version, it would've been a day 1 for me.

@BabuBrick said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @MrBedhead said:
"And now the reality: this is the best UCS set LEGO have released in years, It is beautifully sleek, has a completely different build compared to the Slave 1, and its proportions are significantly more accurate. It even has some cool play features. The only blemish is the Young Boba minifig... "
Plus the fact that this time the cockpit doesn't rotate, which imho on this ship is an essential feature.
But perhaps that would have necessitated another 1,000 extra pieces and an RRP of 500 Euros. "

I don't think the cockpit rotates in Attack of the Clones, though. Boba is shown in the cockpit while the ship is landed, and he's "seated" on his back."

It does not rotate. Whether LEGO excluded this function intentionally based on the movie is another question, but it does not bug me. I would rather have the five seats, the extended cockpit and the more accurate proportions of this one.

And maybe @AustinPowers should try to find some happiness in life instead of constantly bi4tching about LEGO sets.

@MrBedhead said:
"And maybe @AustinPowers should try to find some happiness in life instead of constantly bi4tching about LEGO sets."
Funny, since my comment about the non-rotating cockpit was based on a comment by Jangbricks in his video on the set reveal.
So perhaps you should give the kind advice you gave me to him as well.

Plus, I'm happy enough in life. Even happier as a matter of fact now that I hardly spend any money on LEGO anymore. :-p

@BabuBrick said:
" @AustinPowers said:
" @MrBedhead said:
"And now the reality: this is the best UCS set LEGO have released in years, It is beautifully sleek, has a completely different build compared to the Slave 1, and its proportions are significantly more accurate. It even has some cool play features. The only blemish is the Young Boba minifig... "
Plus the fact that this time the cockpit doesn't rotate, which imho on this ship is an essential feature.
But perhaps that would have necessitated another 1,000 extra pieces and an RRP of 500 Euros. "

I don't think the cockpit rotates in Attack of the Clones, though. Boba is shown in the cockpit while the ship is landed, and he's "seated" on his back."

I think Boba Fett modified the ship years later to have a rotating cockpit.

@AustinPowers said:
" @MrBedhead said:
"And maybe @AustinPowers should try to find some happiness in life instead of constantly bi4tching about LEGO sets."
Funny, since my comment about the non-rotating cockpit was based on a comment by Jangbricks in his video on the set reveal.
So perhaps you should give the kind advice you gave me to him as well.

...."

Then that should make you realize that you should not just believe what some random dude on the web claims ;)

And why should I comment on Jang's video? (1) I have not seen it (2) The Jang does not always take too kindly to the people that dare to criticize his work,

@MrBedhead: I have found Jang to be one of the most balanced and kind reviewers out there. From what I have found over the years by watching hundreds of his videos I can honestly say that few try to be as positive and neutral as he.
Even on highly controversial topics he stays on the rational side of things.
I really enjoy watching his videos. Contrary to all those rant guys (and yes, I definitely count "der Held" as one of those).

I do like this and probably will get it as I missed out on the first ucs slave 1, but I was under the impression there might be a new death star his year and was saving for that instead

@ecleme11 said:
"Darn wish we could have got a smaller cheaper version of this ship at some point
"

One is rumored for the August wave

Does anyone recall that this 'spaceship' was designed after streetlights in Los Angeles? I think it's one of Star Wars' greatest jokes.