LEGO Star Wars 75457 Executor Super Star Destroyer announced!
Posted by CapnRex101,
10221 Super Star Destroyer was released in 2011 and now, fifteen years later, a modern version of Darth Vader's famed flagship has been revealed! The press release follows:
75457 Executor Super Star Destroyer
6,130 pieces, rated 18+
$799.99 / £649.99 / €749.99
Available at LEGO.com from 1st October
Exhibit the power of the Galactic Empire: The LEGO Group reveals LEGO Star Wars Executor Super Star Destroyer Set
Today, the LEGO Group unveiled the LEGO Star Wars Executor Super Star Destroyer (75457), a spectacular 6,130-piece building set designed for adult fans. This highly detailed Ultimate Collector Series (UCS) model invites builders to recreate the legendary flagship of Darth Vader, capturing the vessel’s vast scale and razor-sharp silhouette as seen in Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back.
Designed as a tribute to one of the saga’s most recognisable ships, the set gives fans a striking display piece worthy of a galaxy far, far away… Builders can showcase the completed flagship on its built-in minimal stand alongside a companion Star Destroyer built to scale, complete with a tiny Millennium Falcon on a 1x1 round tile as a playful nod to the Executor’s colossal proportions.
Measuring over 53.5 inches (136 cm) in length, this is the longest LEGO Star Wars brick-built model to date. To achieve this impressive feat, the design team engineered a LEGO System core with slender LEGO Technic outriggers that anchor the exterior panels, delivering strength without bulk.
Authenticity and detail are at the heart of this set, which features dense central greebling contrasted against sleek side panels. Among the 6,130 elements is a newly designed decorated tile graphic used 60 times to recreate the tiny hull lights and central detailing. The graphic works across multiple orientations and overlaps, allowing the repeated tiles read as organic 'random lights'. Controlled inversions are utilised to switch building orientation mid-build, exposing both stud and tube sides for richer detailing on the centre spine and underside.
The set includes seven Minifigures: Darth Vader and, for the first time in a single set, all six bounty hunters: Boba Fett, Dengar (featuring a refreshed backpack build), Bossk, IG-88 (featuring a brand-new moulded head), 4-LOM, and Zuckuss. The model includes a detailed minifigure-scale scene of the Executor's bridge, where builders can recreate the legendary moment these characters meet.
The LEGO Star Wars Executor Super Star Destroyer set (75457) is available for purchase starting 1 October 2026, priced at £649.99 / €749.99 / $799.99 via LEGO Stores or LEGO.com/Star-Wars.
Additionally, shoppers who purchase the set (75457) between 1 – 10 October 2026, will receive the LEGO Darth Vader's Lightsaber (40897) as a Gift with Purchase, available while stocks last.
I am very pleased to see an updated iteration of the Executor, greatly improving on the original model's proportions, as 10221 Super Star Destroyer was much too slender. My only concern is with its size because the 124cm-long 2011 design is already hard to accommodate and this one is even bigger! For comparison, this model is a centimetre longer than 10294 Titanic.
The minifigures look excellent as well, particularly Bossk with dual-moulded legs, though I miss Admiral Piett, who remains exclusive to 10221 Super Star Destroyer.
What do you think of the new rendition of the Executor? Let us know in the comments and via our poll.
116 likes
151 comments on this article
What a super day for reveals
Tan Bossk actually looks great. I was sceptical but I believe its actually a more accurate colour to the movie and his existing minifigures kind of twisted my perception of him
The lifestyle pictures made me realise it looks like a giant cursor ->
It's missing the open hangars underneath the ship but otherwise it's an awesome model
I don't usually care for UCS sets... but I kinda want this!!!
Most boring greeblings ever?
"The model includes a detailed minifigure-scale scene of the Executor's bridge"
The "bridge" has no detail whatsoever.
Day 1! Sold my sealed SSD a month ago in anticipation for this. Sold all the previous lightsaberd so will do the same here. Just a bummer there's not a better GEP with minifigs.
Everything looks sensational except the “cityscape” part on top. It looks so underwhelming and unfinished to my eye. Even if that’s what is required at that scale it looks incredibly…eh. I am ‘whelmed’ by this reveal and model.
Very nice, particularly as I missed out on the original. Not entirely sure whether I can afford it, and if I could, where I'd be able to display it but hey - first world problems!
Gray tiles: the movie: the LEGO set
While I don't plan on getting the set, I do want to get the seven minifigures.
Wow. They managed to make IG-88’s body look phoned in.
If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama.
Looks better than the old one, but I have neither the money to buy it nor the space to display it. Now we only need a Zuckuss microfighter in 2027 to sabotage the scalpers.
Not sure I like the "cityscape" consisting solely of LBG.
Now we'll wait and see who will be the first to make and sell custom printed New Republic Starbird sigils to turn this into the Lusankya.
The “will you buy this set” needs to have an option for “I like it , but I don’t have the space for it”
"Builders can showcase the completed flagship on its built-in minimal stand alongside a companion Star Destroyer built to scale, complete with a tiny Millennium Falcon on a 1x1 round tile..."
"Among the 6,130 elements is a newly designed decorated tile graphic used 60 times to recreate the tiny hull lights and central detailing. The graphic works across multiple orientations and overlaps, allowing the repeated tiles read as organic 'random lights'."
Are either of those parts in the photos? I don't see them
Would a capital ship of this size be a fun novelty to build, sure.
Will I ever need this many more light bluish grey plates in my inventory, probably not.
Honestly these all just look like big gray triangles to me.
@Zackula said:
""Builders can showcase the completed flagship on its built-in minimal stand alongside a companion Star Destroyer built to scale, complete with a tiny Millennium Falcon on a 1x1 round tile..."
"Among the 6,130 elements is a newly designed decorated tile graphic used 60 times to recreate the tiny hull lights and central detailing. The graphic works across multiple orientations and overlaps, allowing the repeated tiles read as organic 'random lights'."
Are either of those parts in the photos? I don't see them"
You can see a good pic of the falcon in the photo above the diorama photo, on the back of the miniature ship. The trans-blue tiles along the sides and top of the set are the hull light detailings.
A nice big dust collector with a great minifig group. Pass.
@fluffy39126 said:
"The “will you buy this set” needs to have an option for “I like it , but I don’t have the space for it”"
“No, but I like it” covers that, I think.
"This ship is too big. If I walk, the movie will be over."
A coffee table-sized coffee table!
I did get 75356 last year at a decent discount, so although it doesn't have the cool minifigure display, it also sufficiently overcomes my FOMO with the UCS. Whew!
$930 over here, just laughable
Generally, I think the "lots of gray" comments that pop up all the time are overwrought but in this case...that's a lot of gray. $800 and the selling point is "it's big". Yeah, it has a nice selection of figures, but the "diorama" is bland and lacking. Most of the detail is underneath, which you'll never see because it's frickin massive. In the end, I was never in on this so my opinion isn't worth much but it seems like a miss.
This will look great next to Cloud City.
FINALLY, a refreshed backpack build for Dengar! My dream has come true.
i'd only want it for the minifigures, that bit is awesome the rest is meh
This set looks really cool. I like the inclusion of the standard ISD and the Falcon for scale.
Great minifig selection too. Bossk and 4-LOM in particular look awesome.
Also, first time Dengar’s had leg printing.
@SpongeCordial said:
"Tan Bossk actually looks great. I was sceptical but I believe its actually a more accurate colour to the movie and his existing minifigures kind of twisted my perception of him "
I disagree. I think Olive Green is closer to movie Bossk. The dual-molded arms and legs are an improvement, though.
Front of the box with the wraparound photo looks bad, at least from the angle they provided.
So ALL of the bounty hunter scum is here?
"No disintegration!"
Coloring the outer shell in dark bluish gray would have looked sick. Inside could've been black/dark gray. Anyway, looks cool, the bounty hunter meeting is nice, so is the Star Destroyer with the Millennium Falcon, nice little detail.
@Rimefang said:
"This will look great next to Cloud City."
Imagine it crashing into a scale Death Star II.
No interior... That makes me sad. That was my favorite part of the old one.
OMG... just having a proper look now. Hadn't read the description, but just spotted the Millennium Falcon. What an awesome touch!
Love the Executor as a ship, and this set recreates it well, it just doesn’t interest me. Really is just big LBG triangle at the end of the day, and doesn’t seem to exciting to build.
The lack of Piett is frustrating. Sure he’s not in the iconic bounty hunter picture, but he’s part of the same scene, and is a character I’d associate strongly with the ship.
The last one had him and that figure really needs an update.
@J0rgen said:
"The lifestyle pictures made me realise it looks like a giant cursor ->"
You’ve got a point :~P
@PurpleDave said:
"Wow. They managed to make IG-88’s body look phoned in."
Yeah, IG-88 was better when his head was an inverted cone with two studs.
The side build is 20 times larger than the main build.
Darth Vader, "I build in medium stone grey, and sometimes medium stone grey!"
I really like that they went for the anti-stud technique for the greebling on top of the model!
Is this the first time we are seing this technique in the official set?
Meh. Looks as dull as the original (which I sold)
It's super impressive, but sets this large just aren't for me.
I know that tan is probably a more screen-accurate color for Bossk, but I prefer olive. I hope they put Zuckuss in a more affordable set eventually!
Are these proportions correct? Is this really what it looks like in the film? The old one looks a lot better to me, and the small diorama version they made as well. This one looks weird to me.
I'm sure there's an audience for this but man, this looks boring to me. It's a big grey wedge, accompanied by a small grey wedge. Oh, and of course some minifigures. Because... minifigures...
I just don’t like the UCS line, I think. The only one that’s really made me happy to look at it is the Death Slice, which is basically a giant collection of dioramas (yay!) in a fun frame (yay!) so it isn’t much of a surprise that it’s an exception, and even then I have no intention of getting it. They’re all just so… large.
I’m entirely happy with the midi line for my fun greebled spaceship (plus AT-AT) display set needs.
The minifigs are good. Not a huge fan of exclusive minifigs in big, expensive sets, but they’re good. Maybe Bossk will turn up in a Clone Wars era set now he’s back in production, that would be nice.
Already own all of the bounty hunters from older cheaper sets, and is perfectly fine with 75356.
If I ever want to update my original model from 2011, I think I'll go with an alt-brand version. Only around 250 Euros with the same proportions as this model and vastly superior greebling for the cityscape.
The "detailed" bridge is a joke, it looked so much better in the 2011 version which was neatly hidden in the main model.
The put the GWP into the main picture?
@strangeworld said:
"Already own all of the bounty hunters from older cheaper sets, and is perfectly fine with 75356 ."
Agree, I think I will be happy with 75356. To spend $800 and the space for this thing, you have to be more than a fan of Star Wars... you have to be a fan of _this ship_.
Damn that thing looks ugly and bit expensive for what looks like a grey cursor.
reddit is dunking on this set hard, and probably more hated than 76403. I admit this set isn't for everyone. It doesn't have the bulky presence that 75252 or 75367 has. GWP is cool but not part of the set so it doesn't sting as much if you miss it. Minifigure selection is just a repeat of 75167. No interior like 10221. Real estate nightmare due to length and needing table size display. Looks too flat, almost not like a ucs. 75356 exists
Personally, I saved up all year for this and have a ton of points banked, and never had the older one. So I will get it. Like if you have to choose between this or 75419, get 75419.
Maybe even 75192 debate.
75457 is only 2026 lego set i like so absolutely top priority for me. Not 75453, 75454, and 75459 which i haven't bought yet.
I really wish Lego would put a little effort into their stands for these enormous models. At over a meter long and and half a meter wide would it have killed them to cant this on an angle for better display-ability?
UUUUUUUUUGH. Another boring, grey triangle.
@ShilohCyan said:
"If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama. "
This is a toyline that's 27 years old, they kinda ran out of UCS fodder a long time ago, not to mention this is a 15 year turnaround lol. There's only so many popular Star Wars ships, and there's little to no market for 1/3 of the movies
the first picture looks so plain I though they were trying to lower the cost with a simplified design, absolutely shocked at the $800
@rebelpilotJYZ said:
"75457 is only 2026 lego set i like so absolutely top priority for me."
Have to ask... is there something you particularly like about the set? Are you a big fan of the ship itself, compared to something like the Falcon?
Impressive model but seeing it all in one single colour feels off. I might be wrong but it always seemed to me like the structures in the middle were of a darker colour. Other toys and models seem to confirm that too, I think it would have looked better with those parts in dark gray.
Also, no Admiral Piett? :(
@MVives said:
" @rebelpilotJYZ said:
"75457 is only 2026 lego set i like so absolutely top priority for me."
Have to ask... is there something you particularly like about the set? Are you a big fan of the ship itself, compared to something like the Falcon?"
Thanks for asking. Combination of insider points stockpile, not having 75252, star wars fan, lsw collector since 2009, and executor being major part of ESB, ROTJ. But I admit, this set is not for everyone. Speaking of falcon, yeah, next possible ucs remake probably downscaled and may not have minifigure cockpit or interior.
plus I have two previous sandcrawlers, 3 previous at-ats, 2 previous imperial shuttles. So yeah, obviously going to prioritize this over the other lsw releases. I only got the set with embo so far for summer lsw.
The only thing I don't like about this set is the $1300AUD price tag. So happy for this, the announcement for the midi scale one had me jumping for joy till I realised it's size lol, but very happy they have put out a UCS, just wish it was a little cheaper :D
My cat would immediately knock that over.
Still waiting for that 1 ship shown for 1 second in Episode 9 for the UCS treatment.
A monster of a review.
@Jotahesse1 said:
"My cat would immediately knock that over. "
Yeah that picture next to those stairs is making me nervous.
Well, shoot. I was hoping 4-LOM and Zuckuss would show up in another set to bring down their Bricklink prices...this ain't gonna help that!
As far as the set goes, meh? I love the SSD in-movie, and the set is giant for sure, but I dunno, it looks kind of plain and dull IMO. I think the latest UCS ISD looked much better.
@meclo said:
"Well, shoot. I was hoping 4-LOM and Zuckuss would show up in another set to bring down their Bricklink prices...this ain't gonna help that!"
I *think* there's a bounty hunter pack rumoured for next year? Granted it'll probably be $45 judging by how SW army builder packs are priced nowadays, but $45 sounds a whole lot better than $800 lmao
super duper ultra peakness
@Jotahesse1 said:
"My cat would immediately knock that over."
I'd watch that film.
Looks like a nice set but can we please get a new updated UCS B-wing next.....
I am begging LEGO to base UCS Series sets on ships that have actual color. This thing looks so boring.
I love how LEGO couldn't find a coffee table to actually fit this set for the lifecycle photos. And is anyone really going to try and display this on a banister/ledge? :o)
I just want Vaders saber. Really wish this was a whole series like the helmets.
Impressive… most impressive.
Stupid Cloudflare.
I was calculating how much the Kwik-E-Mart is. And now I want them to fix my ferris wheel
I don't care about the Lego lightsabers, so I can wait and hope for a sale on this.
@Nuclearxpotato said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama. "
This is a toyline that's 27 years old, they kinda ran out of UCS fodder a long time ago, not to mention this is a 15 year turnaround lol. There's only so many popular Star Wars ships, and there's little to no market for 1/3 of the movies"
There's been like 5 prequel UCS sets. Granted, us millennials are still working for the same wages as when we were in high school, but we buy SOME stuff.
@jkb said:
"The put the GWP into the main picture?"
Which main picture? Looks like the lightsaber photos are all separate
I think it looks awesome. 10221 was one of my dream sets I was never able to get, maybe I could try saving for this one.
I really struggle to understand how fans of Star Wars can be excited for such expensive grey slab. Visually it is the most boring set of the last 15 years.
The guts are more interesting looking than the finished model
@ShilohCyan said:
" @Nuclearxpotato said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama. "
This is a toyline that's 27 years old, they kinda ran out of UCS fodder a long time ago, not to mention this is a 15 year turnaround lol. There's only so many popular Star Wars ships, and there's little to no market for 1/3 of the movies"
There's been like 5 prequel UCS sets. Granted, us millennials are still working for the same wages as when we were in high school, but we buy SOME stuff.
"
yeah prequels suffered badly from the online vitriol. even back in the 2000s, lego almost completely ignored them for the ucs sets, and it was thanks to lucasfilm they even got made. Anyone browsing the catalogues back then can concur.
@rebelpilotJYZ said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @Nuclearxpotato said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama. "
This is a toyline that's 27 years old, they kinda ran out of UCS fodder a long time ago, not to mention this is a 15 year turnaround lol. There's only so many popular Star Wars ships, and there's little to no market for 1/3 of the movies"
There's been like 5 prequel UCS sets. Granted, us millennials are still working for the same wages as when we were in high school, but we buy SOME stuff.
"
yeah prequels suffered badly from the online vitriol. even back in the 2000s, lego almost completely ignored them for the ucs sets, and it was thanks to lucasfilm they even got made. Anyone browsing the catalogues back then can concur."
7181-1 TIE Interceptor 2000
7191-1 X-wing Fighter 2000
10018-1 Darth Maul 2001 PREQUEL
10019-1 Rebel Blockade Runner 2001
7194-1 Yoda 2002 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10026-1 Special Edition Naboo Starfighter 2002 PREQUEL
10030-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2002
10129-1 Rebel Snowspeeder 2003
10134-1 Y-wing Attack Starfighter 2004
10143-1 Death Star II 2005
10174-1 Imperial AT-ST 2006
10175-1 Vader's TIE Advanced 2006
10179-1 Ultimate Collector's Millennium Falcon 2007
10186-1 General Grievous 2008 PREQUEL
10188-1 Death Star 2008 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10212-1 Imperial Shuttle 2010
10215-1 Obi-Wan's Jedi Starfighter 2010 PREQUEL
10221-1 Super Star Destroyer 2011
10225-1 R2-D2 2012 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10227-1 B-wing Starfighter 2012
10240-1 Red Five X-wing Starfighter 2013
10236-1 Ewok Village 2013
75059-1 Sandcrawler 2014
75060-1 Slave I 2015
75095-1 TIE Fighter 2015
75098-1 Assault on Hoth 2016
75159-1 Death Star 2016 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75144-1 Snowspeeder 2017
75192-1 Millennium Falcon 2017
75181-1 Y-wing Starfighter 2018
75252-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2019
75275-1 A-wing Starfighter 2020
75309-1 Republic Gunship 2021 PREQUEL
75313-1 AT-AT 2021
75341-1 Luke Skywalker's Landspeeder 2022
75331-1 The Razor Crest 2022
75355-1 X-wing Starfighter 2023
75367-1 Venator-class Republic Attack Cruiser 2023 PREQUEL
75382-1 TIE Interceptor 2024
75397-1 Jabba's Sail Barge 2024
75409-1 Jango Fett's Starship 2025 PREQUEL
75417-1 AT-ST 2025
75419-1 Death Star 2025
75442-1 The Mandalorian's N-1 Starfighter 2026 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75457-1 Executor Super Star Destroyer 2026
:o)
@yellowcastle said:
" @rebelpilotJYZ said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @Nuclearxpotato said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama. "
This is a toyline that's 27 years old, they kinda ran out of UCS fodder a long time ago, not to mention this is a 15 year turnaround lol. There's only so many popular Star Wars ships, and there's little to no market for 1/3 of the movies"
There's been like 5 prequel UCS sets. Granted, us millennials are still working for the same wages as when we were in high school, but we buy SOME stuff.
"
yeah prequels suffered badly from the online vitriol. even back in the 2000s, lego almost completely ignored them for the ucs sets, and it was thanks to lucasfilm they even got made. Anyone browsing the catalogues back then can concur."
7181-1 TIE Interceptor 2000
7191-1 X-wing Fighter 2000
10018-1 Darth Maul 2001 PREQUEL
10019-1 Rebel Blockade Runner 2001
7194-1 Yoda 2002 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10026-1 Special Edition Naboo Starfighter 2002 PREQUEL
10030-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2002
10129-1 Rebel Snowspeeder 2003
10134-1 Y-wing Attack Starfighter 2004
10143-1 Death Star II 2005
10174-1 Imperial AT-ST 2006
10175-1 Vader's TIE Advanced 2006
10179-1 Ultimate Collector's Millennium Falcon 2007
10186-1 General Grievous 2008 PREQUEL
10188-1 Death Star 2008 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10212-1 Imperial Shuttle 2010
10215-1 Obi-Wan's Jedi Starfighter 2010 PREQUEL
10221-1 Super Star Destroyer 2011
10225-1 R2-D2 2012 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10227-1 B-wing Starfighter 2012
10240-1 Red Five X-wing Starfighter 2013
10236-1 Ewok Village 2013
75059-1 Sandcrawler 2014
75060-1 Slave I 2015
75095-1 TIE Fighter 2015
75098-1 Assault on Hoth 2016
75159-1 Death Star 2016 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75144-1 Snowspeeder 2017
75192-1 Millennium Falcon 2017
75181-1 Y-wing Starfighter 2018
75252-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2019
75275-1 A-wing Starfighter 2020
75309-1 Republic Gunship 2021 PREQUEL
75313-1 AT-AT 2021
75341-1 Luke Skywalker's Landspeeder 2022
75331-1 The Razor Crest 2022
75355-1 X-wing Starfighter 2023
75367-1 Venator-class Republic Attack Cruiser 2023 PREQUEL
75382-1 TIE Interceptor 2024
75397-1 Jabba's Sail Barge 2024
75409-1 Jango Fett's Starship 2025 PREQUEL
75417-1 AT-ST 2025
75419-1 Death Star 2025
75442-1 The Mandalorian's N-1 Starfighter 2026 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75457-1 Executor Super Star Destroyer 2026
:o)
"
The 1/3 I was talking about were the sequels, which offered very little in the way of being inventive or trying something new (outside The Last Jedi which I think will stand out with time as being the one that tried).
I don't think there's been a single UCS sequel set... And for good measure honestly, most of the designs that made it into the movies were just kitbashed old designs. The sequel trilogy representation mostly comes in the form of BB8 displays or advent calendars.
Hmmm. Looks like the forward batteries could do with being intensified … just in case, you know.
@Lego_a_gogo said:
"Hmmm. Looks like the forward batteries could do with being intensified … just in case, you know."
rofl
UCS Quadjumper would be pretty funny.
As I have the original and don't have a spare ~$1k kicking around, I'm glad that I actually like mine better. The bottom is improved, but the greebling on the top looks worse to me. Plus, it looks like a lot of the substructure is Technic, and I don't enjoy that kind of building as much. Still plenty of other things to tempt me though.
Just want the mini figures as a set
Even at this scale, it's still too small to properly represent smaller ships to play out great battles. That ISD, though, is spectacular. My favorite things about macros sets like this is the ability to incorporate smaller microbuilds like the underappreciated 76042 Helicarrier. This Executor is so big, though, that maybe Advent Calendar builds won't look too bad with it.
PIETT: Bounty hunters… We don't need their scum.
LIEUTENANT VENKA [yeah, I've learnt another Glup Shitto name!]: Yes, sir.
PIETT: Those Rebels won't escape us.
BOSSK [who heard the exchange]: *glarblgluah*
[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uq6C55ea9Ps ]
@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
""This ship is too big. If I walk, the movie will be over.""
Hopefully we'll get "Spaceballs: The LEGO Set: Spaceballs One" next year to celebrate the release of "Spaceballs: The New One" :D Maybe it'll even be longer than this one!
I like this ship, and I'll buy it on Day 1 just to snatch the GWP, otherwise I'd have waited — just like I'm still waiting on a good bargain for last year's Death Star, whose GWP wasn't desirable.
@Nuclearxpotato said:
" @yellowcastle said:
" @rebelpilotJYZ said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @Nuclearxpotato said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama. "
This is a toyline that's 27 years old, they kinda ran out of UCS fodder a long time ago, not to mention this is a 15 year turnaround lol. There's only so many popular Star Wars ships, and there's little to no market for 1/3 of the movies"
There's been like 5 prequel UCS sets. Granted, us millennials are still working for the same wages as when we were in high school, but we buy SOME stuff.
"
yeah prequels suffered badly from the online vitriol. even back in the 2000s, lego almost completely ignored them for the ucs sets, and it was thanks to lucasfilm they even got made. Anyone browsing the catalogues back then can concur."
7181-1 TIE Interceptor 2000
7191-1 X-wing Fighter 2000
10018-1 Darth Maul 2001 PREQUEL
10019-1 Rebel Blockade Runner 2001
7194-1 Yoda 2002 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10026-1 Special Edition Naboo Starfighter 2002 PREQUEL
10030-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2002
10129-1 Rebel Snowspeeder 2003
10134-1 Y-wing Attack Starfighter 2004
10143-1 Death Star II 2005
10174-1 Imperial AT-ST 2006
10175-1 Vader's TIE Advanced 2006
10179-1 Ultimate Collector's Millennium Falcon 2007
10186-1 General Grievous 2008 PREQUEL
10188-1 Death Star 2008 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10212-1 Imperial Shuttle 2010
10215-1 Obi-Wan's Jedi Starfighter 2010 PREQUEL
10221-1 Super Star Destroyer 2011
10225-1 R2-D2 2012 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10227-1 B-wing Starfighter 2012
10240-1 Red Five X-wing Starfighter 2013
10236-1 Ewok Village 2013
75059-1 Sandcrawler 2014
75060-1 Slave I 2015
75095-1 TIE Fighter 2015
75098-1 Assault on Hoth 2016
75159-1 Death Star 2016 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75144-1 Snowspeeder 2017
75192-1 Millennium Falcon 2017
75181-1 Y-wing Starfighter 2018
75252-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2019
75275-1 A-wing Starfighter 2020
75309-1 Republic Gunship 2021 PREQUEL
75313-1 AT-AT 2021
75341-1 Luke Skywalker's Landspeeder 2022
75331-1 The Razor Crest 2022
75355-1 X-wing Starfighter 2023
75367-1 Venator-class Republic Attack Cruiser 2023 PREQUEL
75382-1 TIE Interceptor 2024
75397-1 Jabba's Sail Barge 2024
75409-1 Jango Fett's Starship 2025 PREQUEL
75417-1 AT-ST 2025
75419-1 Death Star 2025
75442-1 The Mandalorian's N-1 Starfighter 2026 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75457-1 Executor Super Star Destroyer 2026
:o)
"
The 1/3 I was talking about were the sequels, which offered very little in the way of being inventive or trying something new (outside The Last Jedi which I think will stand out with time as being the one that tried).
I don't think there's been a single UCS sequel set... And for good measure honestly, most of the designs that made it into the movies were just kitbashed old designs. The sequel trilogy representation mostly comes in the form of BB8 displays or advent calendars."
I wish we could one day get a UCS Finalizer, who knows, maybe for "The Force Awakens"'s 20th anniversary in 2035 (which is not that far away when you think about it), or even a UCS Supremacy, although that one is more likely to appear as part of the midi-scale line — which is better than nothing. But then again, those would once again be large chunks of light bluish gray pieces…
[Clipped because that thread was getting WAY too long]
@Nuclearxpotato said:
[
The 1/3 I was talking about were the sequels, which offered very little in the way of being inventive or trying something new (outside The Last Jedi which I think will stand out with time as being the one that tried).
I don't think there's been a single UCS sequel set... And for good measure honestly, most of the designs that made it into the movies were just kitbashed old designs. The sequel trilogy representation mostly comes in the form of BB8 displays or advent calendars.]
I think a UCS of Poe's Orange/Black X-Wing or even just a standard T-70 would rock.
@Squidy74H said:
"The only thing I don't like about this set is the $1300AUD price tag. So happy for this, the announcement for the midi scale one had me jumping for joy till I realised it's size lol, but very happy they have put out a UCS, just wish it was a little cheaper :D"
Yeh, ridiculously expensive here!
:(
I’ve been waiting for a remake of this set for like a decade!
Still kicking myself for not buying one when I saw the old one in a shop for $340 I think at the time!
Well over 20 cents per part in A$, which is insane for mostly small greebling and pain grey plates and tiles! Few interesting parts, other than the great & plentiful minifigures!
I’m weighing up whether - if I have the cash in October - I buy this immediately at full price and sell the lightsaber to recoup $200-odd, or I wait until the inevitable 20-25% off sale at Amazon!
@Nuclearxpotato said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama. "
This is a toyline that's 27 years old, they kinda ran out of UCS fodder a long time ago, not to mention this is a 15 year turnaround lol. There's only so many popular Star Wars ships, and there's little to no market for 1/3 of the movies"
Speederbike and Soulless One are still on my list. I guess they could also do a Twin Pod Cloud Car.
@Nuclearxpotato said:
"I don't think there's been a single UCS sequel set... And for good measure honestly, most of the designs that made it into the movies were just kitbashed old designs. The sequel trilogy representation mostly comes in the form of BB8 displays or advent calendars."
Technically…71592…if you build it the wrong way.
I have the original and very little has changed, except the price.
What I find remarkable is that original struggled to sell. I'm sure I got it on clearance, and now everyone is desperate to buy it.
Proportions look off to me, too wide, but I have 10221 built and 75356 still boxed so I might be biased!
Construction looks much sturdier than 10221 (After a few months on display the nose sections started to pull apart, as they're only supported by those tube pieces iirc, and I had to use small elastic bands to hold it together)
I also like the tiny printed Falcon!
I won't be buying this one, but I would like the lightsaber GWP
Am I the only one who hopes for an Admiral Ozzel minifigure?
@fakespacesquid said:
" @jkb said:
"The put the GWP into the main picture?"
Which main picture? Looks like the lightsaber photos are all separate "
Just kidding; wanted to imply that detached vignette with minifigs has GWP character X)
For such a huge amount of pieces it looks, surprisingly, not that much detailed. Also, looks very flat
Why they did it so bad??
@Vorahk1Panrahk2 said:
"I am begging LEGO to base UCS Series sets on ships that have actual color. This thing looks so boring."
Grey is a color.
@yellowcastle said:
" @rebelpilotJYZ said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @Nuclearxpotato said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama. "
This is a toyline that's 27 years old, they kinda ran out of UCS fodder a long time ago, not to mention this is a 15 year turnaround lol. There's only so many popular Star Wars ships, and there's little to no market for 1/3 of the movies"
There's been like 5 prequel UCS sets. Granted, us millennials are still working for the same wages as when we were in high school, but we buy SOME stuff.
"
yeah prequels suffered badly from the online vitriol. even back in the 2000s, lego almost completely ignored them for the ucs sets, and it was thanks to lucasfilm they even got made. Anyone browsing the catalogues back then can concur."
7181-1 TIE Interceptor 2000
7191-1 X-wing Fighter 2000
10018-1 Darth Maul 2001 PREQUEL
10019-1 Rebel Blockade Runner 2001
7194-1 Yoda 2002 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10026-1 Special Edition Naboo Starfighter 2002 PREQUEL
10030-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2002
10129-1 Rebel Snowspeeder 2003
10134-1 Y-wing Attack Starfighter 2004
10143-1 Death Star II 2005
10174-1 Imperial AT-ST 2006
10175-1 Vader's TIE Advanced 2006
10179-1 Ultimate Collector's Millennium Falcon 2007
10186-1 General Grievous 2008 PREQUEL
10188-1 Death Star 2008 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10212-1 Imperial Shuttle 2010
10215-1 Obi-Wan's Jedi Starfighter 2010 PREQUEL
10221-1 Super Star Destroyer 2011
10225-1 R2-D2 2012 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10227-1 B-wing Starfighter 2012
10240-1 Red Five X-wing Starfighter 2013
10236-1 Ewok Village 2013
75059-1 Sandcrawler 2014
75060-1 Slave I 2015
75095-1 TIE Fighter 2015
75098-1 Assault on Hoth 2016
75159-1 Death Star 2016 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75144-1 Snowspeeder 2017
75192-1 Millennium Falcon 2017
75181-1 Y-wing Starfighter 2018
75252-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2019
75275-1 A-wing Starfighter 2020
75309-1 Republic Gunship 2021 PREQUEL
75313-1 AT-AT 2021
75341-1 Luke Skywalker's Landspeeder 2022
75331-1 The Razor Crest 2022
75355-1 X-wing Starfighter 2023
75367-1 Venator-class Republic Attack Cruiser 2023 PREQUEL
75382-1 TIE Interceptor 2024
75397-1 Jabba's Sail Barge 2024
75409-1 Jango Fett's Starship 2025 PREQUEL
75417-1 AT-ST 2025
75419-1 Death Star 2025
75442-1 The Mandalorian's N-1 Starfighter 2026 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75457-1 Executor Super Star Destroyer 2026
:o)
"
I dont count the busts as ucs sets (more like buildable character) and the first naboo starfighter was largely a metallic coated version. But it didnt take till like 5 years after revenge of the sith for them to make the ucs obi wan jedi starfighter. That set wasnt even that expensive and it didnt really sell.
Even when the clone wars was airing, people gravitate to original trilogy over prequel. Like people would get the 2011 millennium falcon over republic frigate. This lead to lower production runs on many clone wars sets and thus horrendous secondary market prices.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmm...greyyyyyyy!
I will shorten the height of the stand and devise a method to hang this on a wall oriented vertically...display space issue solved.
@Kre_O said:
"I have the original and very little has changed, except the price.
What I find remarkable is that original struggled to sell. I'm sure I got it on clearance, and now everyone is desperate to buy it."
Some newcomers want the full run, so they have to go back and pick up all the ones they missed. It’s also been about two decades since the first version came out, and I know I’m making better money than I was back then. When 10179 came out, I was the only member of my LUG who jumped at the chance to preorder it (for $100 off the $499.99 MSRP, no less), and several other members have since expressed regret at not getting in on the action. I know some of them have even dropped $500 retail on sets since then, and I don’t really hear that this is just too expensive for a LEGO set anymore (from them). I do hear that they can’t keep up with the massive pile of new sets coming out each year, but that’s a volume problem, not a size problem.
@rebelpilotJYZ:
What is and isn’t officially a UCS set has gotten pretty muddy. There are sets that don’t seem like UCS that got the official branding, either on the box or through press releases. There are UCS-looking sets that did not get the branding at all. There are character builds that got UCS-style plaques. 7784 got UCS-seeming branding right on the box…only for the SW dev team to claim that only SW sets are UCS. There are playsets released as UCS, and other playsets that got shifted to Master Builder Series instead. Basically, for every rule, you can find an exception without putting in much effort. It’s worse than trying to figure out exactly what counts as Modulars.
IMO the only thing I'd want out of this would be the Millennium Falcon tile. I don't suppose that might show up elsewhere. :D
@yellowcastle said:
" @rebelpilotJYZ said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
" @Nuclearxpotato said:
" @ShilohCyan said:
"If you count different paint jobs of the same ships (Slave I and N-1), 7 of the last 10 UCS sets are remakes.
LOVE that micro Star Destroyer though. Might need to make a couple for forced perspective on my mini Death Star trench diorama. "
This is a toyline that's 27 years old, they kinda ran out of UCS fodder a long time ago, not to mention this is a 15 year turnaround lol. There's only so many popular Star Wars ships, and there's little to no market for 1/3 of the movies"
There's been like 5 prequel UCS sets. Granted, us millennials are still working for the same wages as when we were in high school, but we buy SOME stuff.
"
yeah prequels suffered badly from the online vitriol. even back in the 2000s, lego almost completely ignored them for the ucs sets, and it was thanks to lucasfilm they even got made. Anyone browsing the catalogues back then can concur."
7181-1 TIE Interceptor 2000
7191-1 X-wing Fighter 2000
10018-1 Darth Maul 2001 PREQUEL
10019-1 Rebel Blockade Runner 2001
7194-1 Yoda 2002 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10026-1 Special Edition Naboo Starfighter 2002 PREQUEL
10030-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2002
10129-1 Rebel Snowspeeder 2003
10134-1 Y-wing Attack Starfighter 2004
10143-1 Death Star II 2005
10174-1 Imperial AT-ST 2006
10175-1 Vader's TIE Advanced 2006
10179-1 Ultimate Collector's Millennium Falcon 2007
10186-1 General Grievous 2008 PREQUEL
10188-1 Death Star 2008 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10212-1 Imperial Shuttle 2010
10215-1 Obi-Wan's Jedi Starfighter 2010 PREQUEL
10221-1 Super Star Destroyer 2011
10225-1 R2-D2 2012 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
10227-1 B-wing Starfighter 2012
10240-1 Red Five X-wing Starfighter 2013
10236-1 Ewok Village 2013
75059-1 Sandcrawler 2014
75060-1 Slave I 2015
75095-1 TIE Fighter 2015
75098-1 Assault on Hoth 2016
75159-1 Death Star 2016 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75144-1 Snowspeeder 2017
75192-1 Millennium Falcon 2017
75181-1 Y-wing Starfighter 2018
75252-1 Imperial Star Destroyer 2019
75275-1 A-wing Starfighter 2020
75309-1 Republic Gunship 2021 PREQUEL
75313-1 AT-AT 2021
75341-1 Luke Skywalker's Landspeeder 2022
75331-1 The Razor Crest 2022
75355-1 X-wing Starfighter 2023
75367-1 Venator-class Republic Attack Cruiser 2023 PREQUEL
75382-1 TIE Interceptor 2024
75397-1 Jabba's Sail Barge 2024
75409-1 Jango Fett's Starship 2025 PREQUEL
75417-1 AT-ST 2025
75419-1 Death Star 2025
75442-1 The Mandalorian's N-1 Starfighter 2026 TECHNICALLY PREQUEL
75457-1 Executor Super Star Destroyer 2026
:o)
"
By what logic do you call the Death Stars "technically prequel"?
I have no regrets selling all my UCS sets, this reveal is confirmation that I made the right call.
@560heliport said:
"By what logic do you call the Death Stars "technically prequel"?"
24–22 BBY: Early conceptual designs for an orbital battle station are discussed or passed among Separatist forces. Archduke Poggle the Lesser and the Geonosians finalize the preliminary tactical blueprints.
22 BBY (Attack of the Clones): Poggle the Lesser hands the official plans over to Count Dooku, who subsequently delivers them to Darth Sidious (Palpatine) on Coruscant.
19 BBY (Revenge of the Sith / Early Empire): Emperor Palpatine places Director Orson Krennic in charge of the project. Construction officially begins in orbit above Geonosis.
@Lego: If you can do an NCC1701 Enterprise, you can do a USC Droid Control Ship...
Im not an SW fan, hate SW but I did want to say this is one of the most boring models Ive ever seen.
Other UCS sets, while of zero interest to me, I can respect for building techniques or overall aesthetics.
But here its just big ugly flat grey thing with so many exposed studs it belongs in the 2000s.
Feels like someone started building a star destroyer and didnt finish the top half.
The minifigure display scene/background is also super boring. Ive seen enough of SW to know theres more than just generic grey archway on SW spaceships or locations/planets.
Great shaping but too many studs on top imho.
@yellowcastle said:
" @560heliport said:
"By what logic do you call the Death Stars "technically prequel"?"
24–22 BBY: Early conceptual designs for an orbital battle station are discussed or passed among Separatist forces. Archduke Poggle the Lesser and the Geonosians finalize the preliminary tactical blueprints.
22 BBY (Attack of the Clones): Poggle the Lesser hands the official plans over to Count Dooku, who subsequently delivers them to Darth Sidious (Palpatine) on Coruscant.
19 BBY (Revenge of the Sith / Early Empire): Emperor Palpatine places Director Orson Krennic in charge of the project. Construction officially begins in orbit above Geonosis."
I don't know if there's a hard rule here, but I tend not to think of something as "prequel" unless I'm seeing the prequel-specific version of it.
Obi-Wan Kenobi is OT. Any younger version of Obi-Wan played by Ewan McGregor is prequel Obi-Wan.
I'm hard pressed to think of Rogue One as "prequel." It's an independent project that isn't part of the prequel trilogy even if parts of it are set in the period just after the prequels. You want to call it "set in the prequel era," sure.
@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
" @yellowcastle said:
" @560heliport said:
"By what logic do you call the Death Stars "technically prequel"?"
24–22 BBY: Early conceptual designs for an orbital battle station are discussed or passed among Separatist forces. Archduke Poggle the Lesser and the Geonosians finalize the preliminary tactical blueprints.
22 BBY (Attack of the Clones): Poggle the Lesser hands the official plans over to Count Dooku, who subsequently delivers them to Darth Sidious (Palpatine) on Coruscant.
19 BBY (Revenge of the Sith / Early Empire): Emperor Palpatine places Director Orson Krennic in charge of the project. Construction officially begins in orbit above Geonosis."
I don't know if there's a hard rule here, but I tend not to think of something as "prequel" unless I'm seeing the prequel-specific version of it.
Obi-Wan Kenobi is OT. Any younger version of Obi-Wan played by Ewan McGregor is prequel Obi-Wan.
I'm hard pressed to think of Rogue One as "prequel." It's an independent project that isn't part of the prequel trilogy even if parts of it are set in the period just after the prequels. You want to call it "set in the prequel era," sure. "
It’s fun to discuss, though. :o)
Palindrome set number.
Seven minifigs seems a little on the low side for a set of such massive proportions - and price.
Then again, the budget probably didn't allow for more.
After all, how else to secure those record breaking profits...
I am not a star wars fanatic but i am a hard core lego fan. To me this looks like a basic technic internal structure with smartly placed angled plates and a small control command center to fit the featured minifigs. People will still buy this for sure! But if someone gifted me the millenium falcon i'll take it any time! haha!
@yellowcastle said:
" @560heliport said:
"By what logic do you call the Death Stars "technically prequel"?"
24–22 BBY: Early conceptual designs for an orbital battle station are discussed or passed among Separatist forces. Archduke Poggle the Lesser and the Geonosians finalize the preliminary tactical blueprints.
22 BBY (Attack of the Clones): Poggle the Lesser hands the official plans over to Count Dooku, who subsequently delivers them to Darth Sidious (Palpatine) on Coruscant.
19 BBY (Revenge of the Sith / Early Empire): Emperor Palpatine places Director Orson Krennic in charge of the project. Construction officially begins in orbit above Geonosis."
Technically, the second Death Star is also a sequel set, as it appears in "The Rise of Skywalker", because "even things are never really gone" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNTLC_uiGFA], despite clearly exploding to a billion pieces… (what a stupid idea it was from the writers…)
Shaping ... good.
Detailing ... bad.
Colour ... absent.
Size ... ridiculous.
Price ... as expected.
Purchase ... no chance. If I wanted to spend this much money on so much grey then I'd buy a flight back to Blighty in time for Winter.
Looks very sleek. I like the trans light blue details very much. Might give some cool lighting opportunities. The whole thing looks very much alike the real thing, with way better shaping than the previous version. The level of detail is just right imo: it is after all a 19 km long ship, scaled to 136 cm, a scale of about 7/100'000.
Minifigs look good, some very very good even.
Conclusion: I am happy with that. Price is a tad high, but the lightsaber GWP makes up for that (a tad).
@yellowcastle said:
"I love how LEGO couldn't find a coffee table to actually fit this set for the lifecycle photos. And is anyone really going to try and display this on a banister/ledge? :o)"
That's what a friend of mine has for the 75252 UCS Star Destroyer and it does fine.
It is good, I find it a little boring as far as ships go, not saying it not well modelled. Just its is a largely flat and featureless ship. I would has loved a Sphyrna-class Hammerhead corvette. Maybe next time.
Maybe just me, but I think 10030 did the "two wedges of plates back to back" better back in 2002............
A ship without its captain is not worth the money. Where's Admiral Firmus Piett? Or Admiral Ozzel? Or both? For the price of this beast, you'd think one or both could be included. Also, the structural gap in the middle of this ship suggests there is plenty of room to create the bridge scene within the ship, as the 2011 edition did. I feel this model is a major miss on many parts, but these are the two most egregious.
Same price as the Sagrada Familia 849,00 CHF for half of the pieces.
Sorry without me.
@Rimefang said:
" @yellowcastle said:
"I love how LEGO couldn't find a coffee table to actually fit this set for the lifecycle photos. And is anyone really going to try and display this on a banister/ledge? :o)"
That's what a friend of mine has for the 75252 UCS Star Destroyer and it does fine."
With so many little ones in the house not to mention an aging clumsy AFOL, this would leave my ledge and crash head first into the floor faster than you can say A-Wing.
@PurpleDave said:
" @Kre_O said:
"I have the original and very little has changed, except the price.
What I find remarkable is that original struggled to sell. I'm sure I got it on clearance, and now everyone is desperate to buy it."
Some newcomers want the full run, so they have to go back and pick up all the ones they missed. It’s also been about two decades since the first version came out, and I know I’m making better money than I was back then. When 10179 came out, I was the only member of my LUG who jumped at the chance to preorder it (for $100 off the $499.99 MSRP, no less), and several other members have since expressed regret at not getting in on the action. I know some of them have even dropped $500 retail on sets since then, and I don’t really hear that this is just too expensive for a LEGO set anymore (from them). I do hear that they can’t keep up with the massive pile of new sets coming out each year, but that’s a volume problem, not a size problem.
@rebelpilotJYZ:
What is and isn’t officially a UCS set has gotten pretty muddy. There are sets that don’t seem like UCS that got the official branding, either on the box or through press releases. There are UCS-looking sets that did not get the branding at all. There are character builds that got UCS-style plaques. 7784 got UCS-seeming branding right on the box…only for the SW dev team to claim that only SW sets are UCS. There are playsets released as UCS, and other playsets that got shifted to Master Builder Series instead. Basically, for every rule, you can find an exception without putting in much effort. It’s worse than trying to figure out exactly what counts as Modulars."
yeah big thing is lego as a company isn't really trying to appease collectors. Therefore, they will play around with the title. They are not like tcgs. brickodan made a good video on why there are so many remakes. they mainly target newer audiences over existing collectors. There is only like 2 ucs sets a year, and the may one is an oversized starfighter so some may skip. So anyone with a minimum wage job in the west can easily get the set they want. Maybe not all, but at least a few off their wishlist. I personally i got into lego harry potter cuz I don't need like 3 sandcrawlers, 4 at-ats, 3 shuttles. As someone who has collected like crazy during the sequels, I can safely say lsw got too repetitive and it made me look elsewhere outside the october ucs.
not surprising lego sales are up. millennials, gen x earn more. while economy is bad, not yet at financial crisis levels. internet made hobbies mainstream. people have busy lives so large sets get more use as display pieces. Sony, nintendo, ram companies priced kids out of video games annihilating entire generations out of that hobby.
I really don't like this set. For the fifth year in a row, I won't be buying the large USC set LEGO releases every fall (the last one being the AT-AT).
@Darth_Dee said:
" @Lego: If you can do an NCC1701 Enterprise, you can do a USC Droid Control Ship..."
They haven't done an NCC-1701 though...
@Andrusi said:
" @Darth_Dee said:
" @Lego: If you can do an NCC1701 Enterprise, you can do a USC Droid Control Ship..."
They haven't done an NCC-1701 though..."
There was the boldy NCC-1701-D…
Great, just when you start to think to sell your 10221 to free some space...
@BrickBob09 said:
""The model includes a detailed minifigure-scale scene of the Executor's bridge"
The "bridge" has no detail whatsoever."
It's a "detailed minifigure"-scale scene. All the detailing is on the minifigures that it's scaled to, not the scene itself.
(Fun with English grammar)
@yellowcastle said:
" @Andrusi said:
" @Darth_Dee said:
" @Lego: If you can do an NCC1701 Enterprise, you can do a USC Droid Control Ship..."
They haven't done an NCC-1701 though..."
There was the boldy NCC-1701-D…"
You need to type that with a bold “D”. Is that even possible here?
""Controlled inversions are utilised to switch building orientation mid-build""
Since when has Lego made it a selling point that a set needs to be flipped over for some build steps?
On the other hand, I suppose an "uncontrolled inversion" would be dropping it upside-down onto the floor, resulting in a rapid unscheduled disassembly!
@tne328 said:
[[[["Controlled inversions are utilised to switch building orientation mid-build"]]
Since when has Lego made it a selling point that a set needs to be flipped over for some build steps?
On the other hand, I suppose an "uncontrolled inversion" would be dropping it upside-down onto the floor, resulting in a rapid unscheduled disassembly!]]
I hadn’t read all the marketing text until now. There’s so much goodness there to pick apart. “For the first time in a single set” lol.
Have they used “greebling” before?
“the legendary moment these characters meet”…
Maybe when WE first met them but these hunters likely met each other long before that moment…at least in the hangar bay or mess hall.
@yellowcastle said:
[[ @tne328 said:
[[[["Controlled inversions are utilised to switch building orientation mid-build"]]
Since when has Lego made it a selling point that a set needs to be flipped over for some build steps?
On the other hand, I suppose an "uncontrolled inversion" would be dropping it upside-down onto the floor, resulting in a rapid unscheduled disassembly!]]
I hadn’t read all the marketing text until now. There’s so much goodness there to pick apart. “For the first time in a single set” lol.
Have they used “greebling” before?
“the legendary moment these characters meet”…
Maybe when WE first met them but these hunters likely met each other long before that moment…at least in the hangar bay or mess hall.]]
IIRC, Boba, Dengar, and Bossk worked together in at least one episode of The Clone Wars, and Zuckuss and 4-LOM are partners. All six might not have been together before this, but it seems likely they would have met prior to this.
As you say, surely they bumped into each other on the Executor.
Well, LEGO's press releases are notorious for inaccuracies.
@yellowcastle:
You can meet the same person multiple times.
@PurpleDave said:
" @yellowcastle :
You can meet the same person multiple times."
"the legendary moment these characters meet" would seem to insinuate a first, historic meeting. :o) I'm just saying, I think it's a bit presumptive that they all weren't hanging outside together in the corridor for a while, waiting for Lord Vader to finish a call with the big guy.
Mr. Potato Head, looking at the future owners of this set: "What's with him?"
Hamm: "Laser envy!"
The minifigs are awesome though.
Impressive as always, yet needless...
@Lego_lord said:
"Impressive as always, yet needless..."
Careful, there. You’re talking about most of the LEGO product history now. Not Jack Stone, because that was never impressive. But even Galidor was impressive for how excessively over engineered they were for what was basically action figures. But other than the face shields they were making for the medical community in 2020, you’d be hard pressed to argue that any product they’ve ever produced was truly necessary.
@whaleyland said:
"A ship without its captain is not worth the money. Where's Admiral Firmus Piett? Or Admiral Ozzel? Or both? For the price of this beast, you'd think one or both could be included. Also, the structural gap in the middle of this ship suggests there is plenty of room to create the bridge scene within the ship, as the 2011 edition did. I feel this model is a major miss on many parts, but these are the two most egregious."
I half wonder if LEGO is reluctant to make an Ozzel minifigure since his most iconic moment is getting Force-choked to death.
@SearchlightRG said:
" @whaleyland said:
"A ship without its captain is not worth the money. Where's Admiral Firmus Piett? Or Admiral Ozzel? Or both? For the price of this beast, you'd think one or both could be included. Also, the structural gap in the middle of this ship suggests there is plenty of room to create the bridge scene within the ship, as the 2011 edition did. I feel this model is a major miss on many parts, but these are the two most egregious."
I half wonder if LEGO is reluctant to make an Ozzel minifigure since his most iconic moment is getting Force-choked to death.
"
They made an Oola.
Just give me that Bossk.
@jh84007 said:
"Maybe just me, but I think 10030 did the "two wedges of plates back to back" better back in 2002............"
If you're referring to the greebled strip along the side where top and bottom of the ship meet, I agree it looked better on that one, but the 10030 has a greater angle between top and bottom to work with. Also, being a smaller ship, the scaling allows for a wider strip of greebling than here on the 75457.
I've already got one, the most-holy grail, don't you see.
After the Death Pancake, the Super Flat Mouse Cursor.
I have the original, I don't see a single good reason to buy this one. With a 20% discount that would bring it to its real-value price tag, I don't see a point in getting it.
Not to mention the flat design is outright incorrect. They went too far with it.
If you had both, it'd be fun to display this pointed at 75419. Also, I love that Millennium Falcon tile.
@J0rgen said:
"The lifestyle pictures made me realise it looks like a giant cursor ->"
I will never be able to unsee that.
ResIpsaLoquitur said:""This ship is too big. If I walk, the movie will be over.""
Spaceballs: The Reference!
@LEGOFanInPJ said:"So ALL of the bounty hunter scum is here?
"No disintegration!""
"As you wish." "But when he said 'as you wish,' what he was really saying..." Wait, wrong Eighties classic.
@SearchlightRG said:"Am I the only one who hopes for an Admiral Ozzel minifigure?"
Why? He is as clumsy as he is stupid.
The problem with so many sets these days (other than the price, stickers and lack of originality) is they're just so boring to build.
That's the first thing that comes to mind when I look at this thing. I'm not sure if I'd even finish building it.
I have the original (was the first set I bought as an adult) and was literally only thinking yesterday as I looked at it, it’s still my favourite set of all time. I guess maybe the dimensions of this new one are more accurate, but somehow the old one looks better to me (sleeker) and the greebling on the main section looks inferior on this (on photos at least). Twice the price - unnecessarily larger. Don’t really see any need to ‘upgrade’. Sure it’s great, but after getting to USC Falcon some years back, the idea of spending >£500 on any set now seems absurd.
Suoer cool, and I need Zuckuss (didn't buy the Slave I back in 2019).
Problem: No Admiral Piett or interior that's ACTUALLY INSIDE the ship.
Lego left out minifigures with the UCS Sail Barge, too :(
I might just buy the previous one instead.