Where is the LEGO Star Wars UT-AT?
Posted by CapnRex101,
75413 Republic Juggernaut has proven to be a contentious set for a number of reasons; among them its minifigure selection, which seems more suited to another vehicle from Revenge of the Sith.
The rarely-seen UT-AT was introduced during the Order 66 sequence, appearing only briefly on Mygeeto before Ki-Adi-Mundi's demise. Unusually, it has not really featured in canon content since, though the Unstable Terrain Artillery Transport remains a vehicle fans frequently discuss as a potential future LEGO set.
The minifigures found in such a set would probably have been the same as 75413 Republic Juggernaut, which begs the question: why did we receive the Juggernaut and not the UT-AT instead? Fortunately, I have been able to ask the LEGO Star Wars team that very question and have a little of my own speculation about the reasons for the decision too.
Brickset: The minifigures in 75413 Republic Juggernaut would perhaps be more naturally suited to a UT-AT, so why did you decide to make the Juggernaut instead of a UT-AT?
We decided to make the Republic Juggernaut because it is a very well-known and popular vehicle, as well as one of the very few in Star Wars with wheels! These make it a fun model to play with for kids.
The minifigures in the set we know have been highly requested, so we decided to add them to this set. Even though the troopers are not seen in Star Wars content with the Juggernaut, they could have used this vehicle.
The UT-AT is an interesting vehicle though and for sure, one we can consider as a future set.
There are no real surprises in that answer, as the Turbo Tank makes complete sense as a fun toy and one potentially superior to a UT-AT. However, while the response explains the positive qualities of the Juggernaut, it does not address any possible issues with a LEGO UT-AT, which could be equally decisive. On that basis, I have compiled a few potential challenges, shown in order of likelihood and importance.
1. Too obscure
Star Wars fans infamously focus on tiny details in the films and other media. Seemingly every character receives an extensive backstory and even quite obscure vehicles often become fan-favourites, such as the Dornean Gunship from Return of the Jedi. The same can likely be said for the UT-AT, as one of multiple Republic vehicles with very little screen time in Revenge of the Sith. Generously, it spends twelve seconds onscreen!
Moreover, the UT-AT has made vanishingly few appearances beyond Episode III, even in the Legends continuity. There have also been absolutely no products made based on this vehicle, from any manufacturer, as far as I am aware, which is quite extraordinary.
On that basis, I could understand LEGO's reluctance to produce a set depicting something so relatively obscure. We know it has been considered before, as a sketch model probably made in around 2009 appeared in the 2013 LEGO Star Wars Visual Dictionary, but that was an entirely different era of LEGO Star Wars, with different considerations when developing sets.
Note that the sketch model is mislabelled as an SPHA. Mistakes in DK LEGO books are not a new phenomenon.
There have certainly been other instances of obscure vehicles reaching the LEGO Star Wars range, with 75354 Coruscant Guard Gunship probably the closest equivalent in obscurity and price, although even that has the advantage of being a Republic Gunship, easily recognisable regardless of its colour scheme and appearance in a single episode of The Clone Wars.
2. Too difficult to play with
I think another possible problem is simply the nature of the UT-AT's design. In stark contrast to the wheeled Turbo Tank, the UT-AT moves on sixteen repulsorlift skis, which articulate to keep its weight evenly distributed. I doubt LEGO is currently developing any repulsor technology, so the model would presumably need to move on those skis or hidden wheels.
Either could be difficult. The six legs of an AT-TE or even eight supporting an AT-OT are clearly manageable, but sixteen seems excessive, particularly if they are required to articulate. Also, it would probably be near-impossible to hide wheels underneath, given the UT-AT's height above the ground, compared with many other repulsorlift vehicles in Star Wars.
I am sure a solution could be found, but designing a model with strong play value seems liable to result in compromises that may frustrate older fans.
3. Too little space inside
Practical issues continue inside, unfortunately. Internal space is clearly a desirable feature for play and one 75413 Republic Juggernaut demonstrates, including seats for seven minifigures and room for even more, despite the model's small size. The UT-AT lacks that accommodation, as only the forward section is really bulky enough for anything more than accessory storage.
I could be wrong, but I think a UT-AT of the size that LEGO would realistically make, similar to 75413 Republic Juggernaut or maybe 75337 AT-TE Walker, would have a fairly limited interior. There would hopefully be some degree of internal space beside the cockpit, although probably nothing like as much as other Star Wars sets of equivalent size.
4. Too similar to the AT-TE
Last and least important, from my perspective, is the possibility that the UT-AT could look too similar to 75337 AT-TE Walker on shelves. There are evidently many differences between the pair, but some visual similarities too, especially towards the front and around the cockpit.
We know LEGO dislikes sets appearing too similar to avoid confusion between them on store shelves, occasionally going so far as to update the colour of sets on occasion, so I do wonder whether even a vague resemblance to the AT-TE could have been a factor working against the UT-AT.
I can rationalise LEGO's decision, given the Juggernaut's inherent strengths as a play set and possible issues with the UT-AT. However, I still believe selecting the Turbo Tank was a mistake. Ignoring that a UT-AT could have been more exciting to long-time LEGO Star Wars fans, myself included, I foresee challenges should LEGO return to the UT-AT in the future.
Unless it appears prominently in some future piece of media, the UT-AT will remain a relatively obscure vehicle and one that needs the support of appealing figures to perform well. Welcome though Commander Bacara and the Galactic Marines are in 75413 Republic Juggernaut, I fear their availability with the Juggernaut will make it more difficult to justify producing a UT-AT.
Would you like to see a LEGO UT-AT in the future, or do you consider it too obscure? Let us know in the comments.
117 likes
74 comments on this article
I hope they never make a UT-AT. We’ve had all the clone vehicles that people care about in the last 5 years. Time to switch up the era. Give us a new b-wing, cloud city set, etc.
Since when has being too obscure ever been a problem for LSW? Dropship and AT-OT in 2009, this years may 4th gwp being a kaminoan ship thats seen in the background of AOTC for all of like 5 seconds. Heck a random resistance bomber finch dallow who had 10 seconds of screentime got put in a whole re release of a set and now goes for thousands of dollars. I suppose the play argument can kind of be made, but like, too obscure??? Seriously?
I had speculated it would have made the set explicitly based on Order 66, which the company seems to avoid. They’ve never put out a fully accurate Order 66 set with the appropriate clone/Jedi/vehicle combos, to my knowledge
I remember seeing the UT-AT in the Order 66 scenes. For me, those sequence of scenes in Revenge of the Sith were so incredible because it expanded the scope of the Star Wars universe like we had never seen before. I was in awe of the world building that George Lucas crafted.
During 2008-2011, I collected all the big Lego Republic Clone ground vehicles like the AT-TE, the AT-OT and the Turbo Tank. I was hoping that the UT-AT would get its own Lego set because of the close sequence and time frame in which they were all released, but it never came to pass.
All these years later, and my nostalgia for it is still there. I understand the obscurity of it, but I know I'm a fan of niche things like the UT-AT. Maybe one day it would make a good UCS model because it is hard to play with.
At least Lego is finally producing the clones from those Order 66 scenes that inspired my sense of wonder long ago.
"2013... that was an entirely different era of LEGO Star Wars, with different considerations when developing sets."
How sad, but true. That was the time of doing amazing, interesting things to draw weathly adults and their kids into the fun, creative Star Wars Lego community. Lots of new ships and colorful characters with a plethora of accessories.
Now, we milk said community for all we can. Everything is basic, redundant, tiny, and geared to the dumbest child in the room.
Give me kamas, or give me death!! (Well, death to my interest in SW Lego, anyway). ;)
@Echolord said:
"I had speculated it would have made the set explicitly based on Order 66, which the company seems to avoid. They’ve never put out a fully accurate Order 66 set with the appropriate clone/Jedi/vehicle combos, to my knowledge"
Well... 75378
@Retroblox77 said:
"Since when has being too obscure ever been a problem for LSW? Dropship and AT-OT in 2009, this years may 4th gwp being a kaminoan ship thats seen in the background of AOTC for all of like 5 seconds. Heck a random resistance bomber finch dallow who had 10 seconds of screentime got put in a whole re release of a set and now goes for thousands of dollars. I suppose the play argument can kind of be made, but like, too obscure??? Seriously?"
The AT-OT had also only appeared during the Order 66 scene
The Republic Dropship had been in multiple episodes of the clone wars.
The Kaminoan ship was intentionaly obscure, likely just done to go along side the clone cadets who also had been seen multiple times. A GWP is significantly less risky as a specific quantity are made and they will be "sold"
Finch Dallow, if I recall correctly, was due to the actor pointing out how inaccurate it was which led to LEGO correcting the set at the end of its life. People who had purchased the set prior were able to request a Finch Dallow briefly, which I did. Wish I got two.
We really need a break from clone sets.
I guess the only way we’ll see a UT-AT anytime soon is if they release it alongside another clone legion.. just not the Galactic Marines.
Also, if they were so set on making a new Clone Turbo Tank, why not base it on the Battle of Kashyyyk? Everyone loves 41st troopers, Commander Gree, etc..
Yeah this is pretty much what I thought. My bigger issue is the quality of the turbo tank. I feel like the people who want the UT-AT bad enough can easily find a MOC or alternate build instead.
"There have also been absolutely no products made based on this vehicle, from any manufacturer, as far as I am aware, which is quite extraordinary."
Not completely correct ;)
https://www.bluebrixx.com/de/prod/108339/futuristische-antigravitationsartillerie/
This is a lame excuse for an article; the reasoning for why this isn't a set is obvious: it looks too much like a modern tank.
@Retroblox77 said:
"this years may 4th gwp being a kaminoan ship thats seen in the background of AOTC for all of like 5 seconds."
You must be forgetting the extended sequence of scores of them attacking Obi-Wan and R4.
UT-OH.
@sipuss said:
" @Echolord said:
"I had speculated it would have made the set explicitly based on Order 66, which the company seems to avoid. They’ve never put out a fully accurate Order 66 set with the appropriate clone/Jedi/vehicle combos, to my knowledge"
Well... 75378"
That set feels different in that both Jedi explicitly survive, which no RotS Order 66 set would give us.
@Echolord said:
" @sipuss said:
" @Echolord said:
"I had speculated it would have made the set explicitly based on Order 66, which the company seems to avoid. They’ve never put out a fully accurate Order 66 set with the appropriate clone/Jedi/vehicle combos, to my knowledge"
Well... 75378"
That set feels different in that both Jedi explicitly survive, which no RotS Order 66 set would give us."
I suppose when it comes to cold-blooded (child) killing, LEGO draws the line at intent and attempt, with successful execution being too much.
@Broken_Cheese_Slope said:
"I hope they never make a UT-AT. We’ve had all the clone vehicles that people care about in the last 5 years. Time to switch up the era. Give us a new b-wing, cloud city set, etc. "
I would still love to get the red Blade-wing from Rebels, also.
I’m a Star Wars nerd and LEGO geek but the UT-AT is, in my opinion, just too dull. It’s a brick with a canon. It’s only in the movie for a few seconds because it doesn’t deserve any more than that
@Echolord said:
"I had speculated it would have made the set explicitly based on Order 66, which the company seems to avoid. They’ve never put out a fully accurate Order 66 set with the appropriate clone/Jedi/vehicle combos, to my knowledge"
I have seen this suggested for a number of years and I doubt that is a factor. The nature of LEGO Star Wars sets is such is that they rarely portray a specific scene or moment, instead featuring a vehicle with contextually appropriate minifigures, so sets explicitly focused on Order 66 would be inherently rare. Apart from the aforementioned 75378 BARC Speeder Escape, in which both Jedi admittedly survived, I think 7260 Wookiee Catamaran is the closest we have come.
@Sandinista said:
"This is a lame excuse for an article; the reasoning for why this isn't a set is obvious: it looks too much like a modern tank."
No.
So, I assume this vehicle has no role in the clone wars show or similar projects where it could be used outside of its RotS appearance.
I only know of two official products that feature the UT-AT - one was an issue of the De Agostini 'Starships and vehicles' magazine which included a die-cast model of the vehicle (actually a very good one). The only other appearance I know of was in the WizKids Pocketmodel series from around 2008 I think.
Never heard of the Dornean Gunship before!
Sounds like an unnecessary attempt to defend something indefensible. The UT-AT is now officially overdue at this point given the minifigs for it now exist. I think the designers just thought wheels are better than non moving parts and went with it. The turbo tank is doubly bad because its not a set anyone wanted (with the figs they cjose), awfully designed set, and critically overpriced. These are three points that cannot be argued against
There have been three AT-APs and three Republic Fighter Tanks. The UT-AT isn't more obscure than those.
@Sandinista said:
"This is a lame excuse for an article; the reasoning for why this isn't a set is obvious: it looks too much like a modern tank."
75152 exists though, which resembles a real life tank more than the UT-AT, so I don't think that reasoning is quite factual.
@Graupensuppe said:
"There have been three AT-APs and three Republic Fighter Tanks. The UT-AT isn't more obscure than those."
The Republic Fighter Tank has some notoriety due to being a common vehicle in Star Wars Battlefront 2 (the good one, 2005).
The UT-AT is so insignificant in most cases, LEGO made the right call not to produce it, but still made the wrong call with the Juggernaut as a set to include those minifigs.
Perhaps it would prove to be a little unstable, but we have been lacking an Octuptarra Tri-Droid, and I don't mean the little ones from the battle packs, I'm talking one of the big ones; ones that were seen in the Clone Wars movie, throughout the show, and one even blows up a UT-AT in the Order 66 scene featuring Ki-Adi-Mundi, Bacara, and the Galactic Marines. That's the set that should have been made.
Now a Juggernaut is not a bad call for a set. It's been since 2016 and Season 3 of The Bad Batch showcased that vehicle the best it's ever been just over a year ago, well within the bounds of when LEGO makes sets based off shows if they weren't given prior access to tie-in with episode releases, and a Juggernaut that came with the Bad Batch and some TK Troopers would have been incredible. That said, this latest model has been constructed in such a way that would not make the vehicle's feats in the episode safe to replicate during play, so there would definitely need to be some reworking.
But oh well, too late now. A larger Octuptarra Tri-Droid should definitely be on the list. If the Planet Hemispheres from the Planet Sets was still an option, it would make the main ball easy to work with, but it's probably been too long. There are also the hemisphere pieces used for the sun in that Technic Orrery, 42179 , meaning no new molds required, or overly complex building with tons of stickers that don't quite look right, the printing just needs to be alligned. I believe it can be done.
Star Wars fans will never have enough and will never be happy.
@Eightcoins8 said:
" @Sandinista said:
"This is a lame excuse for an article; the reasoning for why this isn't a set is obvious: it looks too much like a modern tank."
75152 exists though, which resembles a real life tank more than the UT-AT, so I don't think that reasoning is quite factual."
75152 was literally built on the chassis of a real life tank for the filming model. 75152 is literally a redressed flatbed Alvis Stormer real life tank.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvis_Stormer
https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/TX-225_GAVw_%22Occupier%22_combat_assault_tank
Yeah I just can’t see something that had only twelve seconds of screen time selling well. I doubt most Star Wars fans would even know what it is; the sort of fan who pores over every second of film footage are not the majority and quite possibly would nitpick the set to the point of not buying it anyway
Must be a slow news day haha.
@mr_skinny said:
"I’m a Star Wars nerd and LEGO geek but the UT-AT is, in my opinion, just too dull. It’s a brick with a canon. It’s only in the movie for a few seconds because it doesn’t deserve any more than that"
As another Star Wars nerd and LEGO geek, I not only agree, but I’m going to liken this article to the Seinfeld episode of the Bizarro Jerry gang when Elaine realizes they are focused on minutiae, only this is Lego Star Wars. Here for the comedy comments. =)
As the opposite of a Star Wars nerd I have to say, never mind 'Where is the LEGO Star Wars UT-AT?'....
Where is the Lego Thunderbird 2?
"I doubt LEGO is currently developing any repulsor technology"
This answer is really condescending...
I remember a few years ago seeing a picture of the LEGO Star Wars designer team and they looked like a bunch of old white guys that seem way past their retirement date and should get lost and let more creative people in charge. If Star Wars was the only thing LEGO did, you wouldn't notice, but with all the other set lines, licensed or not, that LEGO has, you see the creative desert that SW is, they are just here for the $$$.
Rant over...
@Timbus said:
"I only know of two official products that feature the UT-AT - one was an issue of the De Agostini 'Starships and vehicles' magazine which included a die-cast model of the vehicle (actually a very good one). The only other appearance I know of was in the WizKids Pocketmodel series from around 2008 I think."
Pocketmodels are a blast from the past for me! I was not aware of either of those, so thank you.
@KyloBen1012 said:
"Sounds like an unnecessary attempt to defend something indefensible. The UT-AT is now officially overdue at this point given the minifigs for it now exist. I think the designers just thought wheels are better than non moving parts and went with it. The turbo tank is doubly bad because its not a set anyone wanted (with the figs they cjose), awfully designed set, and critically overpriced. These are three points that cannot be argued against"
I am not seeking to defend any of the LEGO Star Wars team's decisions, nor am I suggesting that 75413 Republic Juggernaut is a good set. My conclusion on the topic outright states that I think choosing the Turbo Tank over the UT-AT was a mistake and I published a review of the Juggernaut last weekend: https://brickset.com/article/122967
As always, I am trying to understand why these decisions might have been made, whether or not I agree with them, which in this case, I absolutely do not.
LEGO made a few sets of the Republic Tank, and it isn't a canon vehicle as far as I am concerned.
While TLG (and Star Wars merchandising in general) hasn’t shied away from producing some obscure sets now and again, obscurity can only ever hurt a model’s chances of being successfully translated into a product for a mass-audience.
Obscure models, like the AT-OT, TIE Defender, etc., are exceptions that prove the rule.
It makes total sense why they didn't pick the UT-AT. At a distance, it basically resembles a AT-TE without legs. Its design means it doesn't have the same play potential as a Turbo Tank or Walker.
Since a lot of the rumors from several months ago suggested the vehicle would be a UT-AT, I can't help but speculate that they did plan on making a UT-AT, but scrapped it when none of the kids during play testing even touched the thing. Another commenter said that it's basically a brick with three cannons on it, and I can see how kids (the most important demographic for sets like this) would find it boring. That's just my theory, though.
On a separate note, I don't think I've ever seen a Brickset comments section with so many people wanting to be offended over claims the author never made.
Of the relatively obscure and redundant Republic tanks, the SPHA seems like a better set candidate than the UT-AT, as it has more screentime, multiple appearances across movies/television (Battle of Geonosis, Battle of Muunilinst, etc.), and is far more visually distinct from the AT-TE. That said, it definitely feels like Lego blew their one justification for making the UT-AT, as I don't see another Battle of Mygeeto set happening unless they decide to specifically do a set based on BF2 Classic, which is probably what made its brief appearance in ROTS stick in people's heads as the clip of it blowing up is the first thing you see when you start a campaign file.
Speaking of BF2 Classic, I'll defend Lego's repeated use of the Republic Fighter Tank as it appeared across at least four video games, three of which are quite popular in the community (Clone Wars, BF1 Classic, BF2 Classic, BF2 EA), as well as having inherent toyetic appeal due to its two-seat design, visual synergy with the very famous AT-ST, and being much smaller / more affordable than an AT-TE.
Re: clone fatigue, I kinda agree, but the clone fatigue is fairly specific - Phase 2 overdose. With how warmly the V-19 Torrent is being received between its subject matter and minifig, I think LEGO should pivot their clone nostalgia to earlier material (alongside giving the other two trilogies overdue playsets).
It looks hell ugly. Perhaps it’s for the best.
@Prof_Physika said:
"While TLG (and Star Wars merchandising in general) hasn’t shied away from producing some obscure sets now and again, obscurity can only ever hurt a model’s chances of being successfully translated into a product for a mass-audience.
Obscure models, like the AT-OT, TIE Defender, etc., are exceptions that prove the rule."
Tie crawler, droid tie, sandspeeder, everything from Freemakers, clone enforcer, Wookie attack flyer, Wookie catamaran, Wookie gunship, magnaguard gunship, all of Cad Bane's ships, pirate tank, Sith nightspeeder, Sith interceptor, Jedi scout fighter, rebel frigate, Black Ace interceptor, Vonreg's tie interceptor, Rogue Shadow, Azure Angel, stealth starfighter, bounty hunter gunship, defender class cruiser, Mandalorian speeder, Grevous' combat speeder, and Rex's AT-TE.
@StyleCounselor said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
"While TLG (and Star Wars merchandising in general) hasn’t shied away from producing some obscure sets now and again, obscurity can only ever hurt a model’s chances of being successfully translated into a product for a mass-audience.
Obscure models, like the AT-OT, TIE Defender, etc., are exceptions that prove the rule."
Tie crawler, droid tie, sandspeeder, everything from Freemakers, clone enforcer, Wookie attack flyer, Wookie catamaran, Wookie gunship, magnaguard gunship, all of Cad Bane's ships, pirate tank, Sith nightspeeder, Sith interceptor, Jedi scout fighter, rebel frigate, Black Ace interceptor, Vonreg's tie interceptor, Rogue Shadow, Azure Angel, stealth starfighter, bounty hunter gunship, defender class cruiser, Mandalorian speeder, Grevous' combat speeder, and Rex's AT-TE.
"
Most or all of these have had a longer screen presence than the UT-AT.
At any rate, yeah, the theme’s been going for a quarter century. It’s covered some obscure ground in between the countless x-wings, TIE Fighters, and Millennium Falcons.
I’ll repeat my point: obscurity only hurts a models chances of becoming a reality.
@Prof_Physika said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
"While TLG (and Star Wars merchandising in general) hasn’t shied away from producing some obscure sets now and again, obscurity can only ever hurt a model’s chances of being successfully translated into a product for a mass-audience.
Obscure models, like the AT-OT, TIE Defender, etc., are exceptions that prove the rule."
Tie crawler, droid tie, sandspeeder, everything from Freemakers, clone enforcer, Wookie attack flyer, Wookie catamaran, Wookie gunship, magnaguard gunship, all of Cad Bane's ships, pirate tank, Sith nightspeeder, Sith interceptor, Jedi scout fighter, rebel frigate, Black Ace interceptor, Vonreg's tie interceptor, Rogue Shadow, Azure Angel, stealth starfighter, bounty hunter gunship, defender class cruiser, Mandalorian speeder, Grevous' combat speeder, and Rex's AT-TE.
"
Most or all of these have had a longer screen presence than the UT-AT.
At any rate, yeah, the theme’s been going for a quarter century. It’s covered some obscure ground in between the countless x-wings, TIE Fighters, and Millennium Falcons.
I’ll repeat my point: obscurity only hurts a models chances of becoming a reality."
I understand your point. Yet, the contrary is necessary to revitalize a theme, and dare I say, a design team.
@CapnRex101 said: "the model would presumably need to move on those skis"
I think the best solution would be to have a mechanism to move the skis in a worm-like fashion - lift one up, move it forward and push it down, then repeat for the ski behind it and so on, all while the whole assembly moves slowly backwards. With independent control of each side it would be steerable with two motors. It would of course help greatly if Lego could just kill off that overpriced, over-engineered and over-complex PU system already and return to either PF or the two-wire 9V system. I don't know how hard it would be to adapt such a mechanism for simple push-along operation, I suspect it has to be exceptionally smooth as the individual skis needs to move pretty fast compared to the overall vehicle speed.
I'd have gotten excited to see an AT-UT on the shelves and even forked over my $180 to got it because it's unique and different. I'm not buying another Juggernaut. Especially a tiny one.
@StyleCounselor said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
"While TLG (and Star Wars merchandising in general) hasn’t shied away from producing some obscure sets now and again, obscurity can only ever hurt a model’s chances of being successfully translated into a product for a mass-audience.
Obscure models, like the AT-OT, TIE Defender, etc., are exceptions that prove the rule."
Tie crawler, droid tie, sandspeeder, everything from Freemakers, clone enforcer, Wookie attack flyer, Wookie catamaran, Wookie gunship, magnaguard gunship, all of Cad Bane's ships, pirate tank, Sith nightspeeder, Sith interceptor, Jedi scout fighter, rebel frigate, Black Ace interceptor, Vonreg's tie interceptor, Rogue Shadow, Azure Angel, stealth starfighter, bounty hunter gunship, defender class cruiser, Mandalorian speeder, Grevous' combat speeder, and Rex's AT-TE.
"
Most or all of these have had a longer screen presence than the UT-AT.
At any rate, yeah, the theme’s been going for a quarter century. It’s covered some obscure ground in between the countless x-wings, TIE Fighters, and Millennium Falcons.
I’ll repeat my point: obscurity only hurts a models chances of becoming a reality."
I understand your point. Yet, the contrary is necessary to revitalize a theme, and dare I say, a design team."
I’d like to see more variety, sure.
Not sure how picking the UT-AT over the Turbo Tank “revitalizes” the design team or is a refreshing change of pace from the clone stuff we’ve been getting since 2020, but the direction the theme is going in is personally uninteresting.
Still, they must be doing something right if they can get away with charging the prices they do. I’d imagine that’s owed to the aforementioned clone stuff that’s contributed toward the stagnation of the theme.
I personally believe the theory that we were gonna get a UT-AT but Lego got cold or perhaps Disney was like NO NO NO so they had to rush the Turbo-Tank's design which lead to it's faulty structure. Lego is often really really got about stability, so when a big set like this has some of the worst structural integrity I have seen in a long time, I feel a little bit shocked.
I still plan to get the new Turbo-Tank set, but my plan is that I'm not going to build it, I'm going to use the parts to heavily improve upon the 2016 Turbo-Tank
I dont like that Lego has looked at resale market for Star Wars Minifigures and decided to price their new sets with comparable pricing if it includes re-release of a valuable character. Really? I guess I can't blame them but still upsets me a bit
@Prof_Physika said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
"While TLG (and Star Wars merchandising in general) hasn’t shied away from producing some obscure sets now and again, obscurity can only ever hurt a model’s chances of being successfully translated into a product for a mass-audience.
Obscure models, like the AT-OT, TIE Defender, etc., are exceptions that prove the rule."
Tie crawler, droid tie, sandspeeder, everything from Freemakers, clone enforcer, Wookie attack flyer, Wookie catamaran, Wookie gunship, magnaguard gunship, all of Cad Bane's ships, pirate tank, Sith nightspeeder, Sith interceptor, Jedi scout fighter, rebel frigate, Black Ace interceptor, Vonreg's tie interceptor, Rogue Shadow, Azure Angel, stealth starfighter, bounty hunter gunship, defender class cruiser, Mandalorian speeder, Grevous' combat speeder, and Rex's AT-TE.
"
Most or all of these have had a longer screen presence than the UT-AT.
At any rate, yeah, the theme’s been going for a quarter century. It’s covered some obscure ground in between the countless x-wings, TIE Fighters, and Millennium Falcons.
I’ll repeat my point: obscurity only hurts a models chances of becoming a reality."
I understand your point. Yet, the contrary is necessary to revitalize a theme, and dare I say, a design team."
I’d like to see more variety, sure.
Not sure how picking the UT-AT over the Turbo Tank “revitalizes” the design team or is a refreshing change of pace from the clone stuff we’ve been getting since 2020, but the direction the theme is going in is personally uninteresting.
Still, they must be doing something right if they can get away with charging the prices they do. I’d imagine that’s owed to the aforementioned clone stuff that’s contributed toward the stagnation of the theme."
I'm one of the older dude who loves the clone stuff. First, I was able to see the Prequels through the eyes of my kid which gave me a new appreciation. Second, the Clone Wars and related media were done really well and fleshed out the essential story.
Moreover, you betray your bias towards the media rather than support your original point. You dislike the Clone Wars focus regardless of whether the vehicle is obscure or not.
Of course designing vehicles that have never been produced is more invigorating than doing another repeat- to the buying public as well as the design team.
DK misidentifying that vehicle makes me want an SPHA set to exist, even if I don't have the room for it, and would almost certainly never buy it.
@WokePope said:
"Never heard of the Dornean Gunship before!"
I hadn't either, and I've got a fair amount of obscure Star Wars trivia rattling around in my head.
@Broken_Cheese_Slope said:
"I hope they never make a UT-AT. We’ve had all the clone vehicles that people care about in the last 5 years. Time to switch up the era. Give us a new b-wing, cloud city set, etc. "
There's still a few left - it's been over a decade since we've seen a new V-wing or Republic Gunship (that isn't an obscure red variant at least - why they picked that over a normal version or the Shark deco is beyond me). There's also others like the SPHA, which was subtly prominent throughout and still has never received a set.
Really the problem is we need more Separatist vehicles as well to oppose the Republic. The MTT this year is the first set in *five years* which is primarily a Separatist (or even Trade Federation) build. There's at least a dozen other compelling and interesting sets from the era we need to see, but they're not being made if they're a villain set for whatever reason.
I don’t get the hype for a UTAT. It was literally in the movie for a few seconds and was only ever in the background. I would rather have a remake of an old CW set I missed out on.
If they “can” consider it for a potential future set, why haven’t they considered it in any past year?
They said something very similar about a crab droid and it’s been three years.
Among all this talk about prequel-era sets they aren't making for whatever reason, anyone else getting the feeling that we're going to get a UCS Vulture Droid before we ever get a new playscale one? You know, something for all of the Republic starfighters over the past seven years to shoot at?
@Eightcoins8 said:
" @Sandinista said:
"This is a lame excuse for an article; the reasoning for why this isn't a set is obvious: it looks too much like a modern tank."
75152 exists though, which resembles a real life tank more than the UT-AT, so I don't think that reasoning is quite factual."
Don’t know what tanks look like where you come from, but the UT-AT shown above looks much more like an actual real-life Tank than 75152!
And this is probably the MAIN reason why it will never be produced - it’s literally close to a modern tank, floating above the ground!
And 99% of LEGO fans - and probably 75% of LEGO Star Wars fans will (or should) say “who cares if LEGO actually releases an obscure vehicle with 12 seconds of screen time!”, and build their own MOC if they really want one!….
@CapnRex101 said:
" There have also been absolutely no products made based on this vehicle, from any manufacturer, as far as I am aware, which is quite extraordinary."
I decided to check, there was a Star Wars Pocketmodel card for the UT-AT that was made in the Order 66 expansion.
@lemish34 said:
" @Eightcoins8 said:
" @Sandinista said:
"This is a lame excuse for an article; the reasoning for why this isn't a set is obvious: it looks too much like a modern tank."
75152 exists though, which resembles a real life tank more than the UT-AT, so I don't think that reasoning is quite factual."
Don’t know what tanks look like where you come from, but the UT-AT shown above looks much more like an actual real-life Tank than 75152!
And this is probably the MAIN reason why it will never be produced - it’s literally close to a modern tank, floating above the ground!"
Just to reiterate a point made by an earlier commenter, 75152 is literally based off a real-life tank, the Alvis Stormer. I'm not sure you can get any more tank-like than that.
I'd just like to remind everybody who really wants LEGO to make a very obscure tank like build thingy that got just a few seconds screen-time, that there are two things exist that could rectify that. One is called Rebrickable, the other is something all humans possess: Imagination.
i.e Nobody is saying you can't build your own.
I somewhat understand the obscurity thing, but I think it's neat to have a couple of glup shippo sets each year to go along with the more recognizable vehicles.
@M_Jibril said:
" @lemish34 said:
" @Eightcoins8 said:
" @Sandinista said:
"This is a lame excuse for an article; the reasoning for why this isn't a set is obvious: it looks too much like a modern tank."
75152 exists though, which resembles a real life tank more than the UT-AT, so I don't think that reasoning is quite factual."
Don’t know what tanks look like where you come from, but the UT-AT shown above looks much more like an actual real-life Tank than 75152!
And this is probably the MAIN reason why it will never be produced - it’s literally close to a modern tank, floating above the ground!"
Just to reiterate a point made by an earlier commenter, 75152 is literally based off a real-life tank, the Alvis Stormer. I'm not sure you can get any more tank-like than that."
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ShapedLikeItself
@CapnRex101 said:
" @Echolord said:
"I had speculated it would have made the set explicitly based on Order 66, which the company seems to avoid. They’ve never put out a fully accurate Order 66 set with the appropriate clone/Jedi/vehicle combos, to my knowledge"
I have seen this suggested for a number of years and I doubt that is a factor. The nature of LEGO Star Wars sets is such is that they rarely portray a specific scene or moment, instead featuring a vehicle with contextually appropriate minifigures, so sets explicitly focused on Order 66 would be inherently rare. Apart from the aforementioned 75378 BARC Speeder Escape, in which both Jedi admittedly survived, I think 7260 Wookiee Catamaran is the closest we have come. "
There is another
9526
@RaiderOfTheLostBrick said:
"I'd just like to remind everybody who really wants LEGO to make a very obscure tank like build thingy that got just a few seconds screen-time, that there are two things exist that could rectify that. One is called Rebrickable, the other is something all humans possess: Imagination.
i.e Nobody is saying you can't build your own."
Or you can simply go to BlueBrixx and download their instructions (https://www.bluebrixx.com/de/prod/108339/futuristische-antigravitationsartillerie/) for free, and then use your LEGO parts inventory to build it. After all, contrary to the likes of Cobi or Mega, BlueBrixx uses the standard parts and colour palettes.
@M_Jibril said:
" @lemish34 said:
" @Eightcoins8 said:
" @Sandinista said:
"This is a lame excuse for an article; the reasoning for why this isn't a set is obvious: it looks too much like a modern tank."
75152 exists though, which resembles a real life tank more than the UT-AT, so I don't think that reasoning is quite factual."
Don’t know what tanks look like where you come from, but the UT-AT shown above looks much more like an actual real-life Tank than 75152!
And this is probably the MAIN reason why it will never be produced - it’s literally close to a modern tank, floating above the ground!"
Just to reiterate a point made by an earlier commenter, 75152 is literally based off a real-life tank, the Alvis Stormer. I'm not sure you can get any more tank-like than that."
Besides, even if you ignore the repulsors hanging down below, real tanks don't tend to have cockpits on the front, with plenty of glass to let the operators see out. I don't see any more real-world tank in the UT-AT than I do in the AT-TE.
@StyleCounselor said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
" @StyleCounselor said:
" @Prof_Physika said:
"While TLG (and Star Wars merchandising in general) hasn’t shied away from producing some obscure sets now and again, obscurity can only ever hurt a model’s chances of being successfully translated into a product for a mass-audience.
Obscure models, like the AT-OT, TIE Defender, etc., are exceptions that prove the rule."
Tie crawler, droid tie, sandspeeder, everything from Freemakers, clone enforcer, Wookie attack flyer, Wookie catamaran, Wookie gunship, magnaguard gunship, all of Cad Bane's ships, pirate tank, Sith nightspeeder, Sith interceptor, Jedi scout fighter, rebel frigate, Black Ace interceptor, Vonreg's tie interceptor, Rogue Shadow, Azure Angel, stealth starfighter, bounty hunter gunship, defender class cruiser, Mandalorian speeder, Grevous' combat speeder, and Rex's AT-TE.
"
Most or all of these have had a longer screen presence than the UT-AT.
At any rate, yeah, the theme’s been going for a quarter century. It’s covered some obscure ground in between the countless x-wings, TIE Fighters, and Millennium Falcons.
I’ll repeat my point: obscurity only hurts a models chances of becoming a reality."
I understand your point. Yet, the contrary is necessary to revitalize a theme, and dare I say, a design team."
I’d like to see more variety, sure.
Not sure how picking the UT-AT over the Turbo Tank “revitalizes” the design team or is a refreshing change of pace from the clone stuff we’ve been getting since 2020, but the direction the theme is going in is personally uninteresting.
Still, they must be doing something right if they can get away with charging the prices they do. I’d imagine that’s owed to the aforementioned clone stuff that’s contributed toward the stagnation of the theme."
I'm one of the older dude who loves the clone stuff. First, I was able to see the Prequels through the eyes of my kid which gave me a new appreciation. Second, the Clone Wars and related media were done really well and fleshed out the essential story.
Moreover, you betray your bias towards the media rather than support your original point. You dislike the Clone Wars focus regardless of whether the vehicle is obscure or not.
Of course designing vehicles that have never been produced is more invigorating than doing another repeat- to the buying public as well as the design team."
I like clone stuff just fine. Grew up with the Prequels and whatnot. I just think it’s been given disproportionate attention these past 5 years and I don’t think diving even deeper into the obscurities of the era is the way to freshen things up.
If anything, caving to fan demand has led the theme down the path it’s on right now. The set designers are business people, sure, but they should be allowed to be artists as well and not be so slavishly adherent to the free market.
Part of the reason some of the obscure sets you listed aren’t so obscure is because LEGO Star Wars trailblazed on that front. 3 AT-APs in 20 years means when I think of that walker, I think first of its adaptation into the medium of LEGO.
There was a time when the UT-AT would’ve been similarly trailblazing and likewise appreciated by the likes of me, but when we live in an era of the theme inundated by clone wars stuff that’s at any time so plagued by apparent insufficiencies while still being so obviously successful, I just don’t see how A) the vehicle is that fresh and B) how it could be done that much justice. The bar is too low.
It’s obvious when the designers have to make a set that doesn’t have a built in fan base, they have to work harder to make it acceptable. By that metric, TLG should get around to making a Duel on Exegol set. Or the Nabo
The only form of the UT-AT I own is the one from Star Wars pocketmodels. Hardly a toy, but might be the only one we ever get.
Hear me out on this: let's build the UT-AT so we can recolor the brick separator for use as repulsor skis.
@Prof_Physika said:"TLG should get around to making a Duel on Exegol set. Or the Nabo"
I think the length limit ate something. Were you about to suggest a Naboo Royal Starship? I would love that; the only one they've done is a micro-scale one in 9509.
@Bagelwolf said:"Hear me out on this: let's build the UT-AT so we can recolor the brick separator for use as repulsor skis. "
Yes! That would be great!
It's just not cool. How many kids would look at that and go awesome, I want one!
So glad I stop collecting this crap in 2010. I avoid checking out the lastest SW sets because it always a Clone War x100 remake and this would look hideous and probably end being a non playable set.
The ship not only doesn't have a lot of screentime but is seen mostly from a greater distance than some of the other vehicles that are only seen briefly in focus shots. I do think there's a difference between 'memorable close-up' and 'part of a large scene in the background'.
I think we dance a lot around the fact that 90% of the reason people are asking this question is because product leaks initially misreported the Turbo Tank as an AT-OT. I'm not sure we'd be having this level of conversation if the leaks reported correctly. A lot of people feel robbed of a promise that was never made.
Do we need a UT-AT. No
Did we need another poorly conceived Juggernaut. Nope.
Why did we get another MTT in a tiny scale when a recolour of the excellent 2007 release would've been perfect.
There are so many sets yet to see the light of day in the Star Wars range but they keep churning out bad versions of already existing sets.
Are we surprised by this. "No. Not really, no." :)
I'm not really into Star Wars, but this seems like the perfect vehicle for the old microscale ships like 4490
Why do lego fans keep complaining about the sets? Why can't we enjoy what we have?
Wait... still no Star Trek theme?! I completely agree with all the complaints
@LegoFan39 said:
"Why do lego fans keep complaining about the sets? Why can't we enjoy what we have?
Wait... still no Star Trek theme?! I completely agree with all the complaints"
Just so you know, the chances of a STAR TREK set are are no longer zero. Just be patient and keep your eyes open later this year, if rumors are to believed...