Interview with Mike Psiaki, designer of 10497 Galaxy Explorer
Posted by CapnRex101,
Brickset visited the LEGO Campus in Billund last month, touring the new headquarters and discussing the 90th anniversary of LEGO.
The event included brief interviews with Mike Psiaki and Milan Madge, the designers of 10497 Galaxy Explorer and 10305 Lion Knights' Castle, respectively, although both designers had some influence on each model. Our conversation begins with the new Galaxy Explorer.
Focusing first on this reimagining of 497 Galaxy Explorer, or 928 Space Cruiser and Moonbase, was consideration given to including the moonbase mentioned in the original European set name?
Mike: Initially, we were considering including the ground structure, which also meant bringing back the old moon baseplate. We know that people love that plate and we certainly do too. There would be complications in doing that, but it is certainly not impossible. Nevertheless, including the crater baseplate ultimately seemed weird, especially as the vehicle had become bigger, relative to the original model. Also, the conflicting grey between the Galaxy Explorer and the baseplate could create issues, so we thought about changing the colour to tan because that complemented the ship, but updating the colour of something so iconic felt wrong.
In the end, we decided to focus completely on the spaceship. Looking across Classic Space as a whole, nobody would argue against the Galaxy Explorer spacecraft being an icon. The vehicle is clearly the most important design of its kind, whereas the small moonbase from the original set is probably not the best or most memorable base from Classic Space.
However, as designers, we would love nothing more than to see fans extrapolate the concept of 10497 Galaxy Explorer and apply the same enlarged scale to other Classic Space models. We increased every dimension by one and a half times to recreate the feeling of holding 497 Galaxy Explorer as a child, by holding 10497 Galaxy Explorer as an adult. The same technique could be applied to any Classic Space set, maybe realising the scale of Classic Space models shown in some inspiration books from the 1980s!
That brings me to the two alternative models, which recreate 918 One Man Space Ship and 924 Space Cruiser in the same enlarged scale. The instruction manual only shows the Galaxy Explorer, but instructions for the other vehicles will be available online and all the required bricks are included. Developing those models was actually quite helpful in interpreting certain aspects of Classic Space design, as there are consistent features between the original models and we wanted to maintain that consistency among the new ones.
I would love to see the ancestor of modern LEGO mechs, 6951 Robot Command Centre, with these bigger proportions.
Mike: Incidentally, we have started on that ourselves! We attempted to reimagine that robot using only the parts from a single 10497 Galaxy Explorer, but that was a bit of a stretch, so we have actually been using two sets instead. I doubt we will ever be able to share official instructions, or even pictures, of that, but I absolutely believe it can be done. I am ready to see every single Classic Space set following this bigger style!
Beyond its size, the most dramatic difference between the new Galaxy Explorer and its classic equivalent is probably its secondary cockpit, which now includes a much larger windscreen. What prompted that alteration?
Mike: We experimented with various cockpit arrangements. The very first concept for this model was actually designed in 2012, when I saw the X-wing canopy being developed in trans-yellow for 70816 Benny's Spaceship, Spaceship, SPACESHIP, immediately after I started working at LEGO. Originally, that canopy alone formed the forward cockpit, with smaller pieces comprising the rear cockpit.
As the design developed, we moved away from completely separate cockpits. Connecting the two canopies at this angle creates an essentially flat surface on top, so captures the essential shape of the original Galaxy Explorer and the large trans-yellow plate above the cockpit. The spirit of the classic design remains, between the twin cockpits and flat surface on top of the fuselage, but the new arrangement felt appropriate.
The minifigures are very faithful to the original set. Did you ever consider including a unique astronaut colour?
Mike: I think we did wonder about other astronaut colours early in development, but it has been so long since we had the red version, bringing him back was a necessity. Also, the messaging and communication around the set could become muddled if we introduced a new colour. We wanted this set to feel completely retro, although I could not resist adding the robot from 6809 XT-5 and Droid because we could assemble that without any design updates between the 1987 robot and this one.
Andres from Zusammengebaut also spoke to Mike and Milan about these celebratory sets. We avoided asking the same questions, so I recommend watching Andres' video for more information. Thanks also to Zusammengebaut for the main article image above.
Look out for our interview with Milan about 10305 Lion Knights' Castle very soon.
222 likes
111 comments on this article
Wait, it's also a 3-in-1?
Okay, now I really want it! Let's hope it will be available for a proper amount of time.
Great interview :)
LEGO designers come from around the world to work at Billund HQ. Do they use English to communicate internally or is Danish the primary language?
BRING BACK THE CRATER BASEPLATE!
The ship is HUGE !
Why "LL 928" on the sides, but it is not a LL 928?
Also: bring back the moon baseplate :o)
I always love the designer interviews. They help shed a lot of light on the set refinement process, and understanding the choices made and limitations present in putting the final product together helps me appreciate it more.
Also these interviews help remind us that there are human beings working at Lego. The AFOL community, like any other, can get pretty negative and nasty - it never hurts to get a reminder that there are real people working really hard to do their best for their customers. And maybe sometimes we all should chill out and appreciate that.
But I really would have liked a moon baseplate again ;)
@Nytmare said:
"LEGO designers come from around the world to work at Billund HQ. Do they use English to communicate internally or is Danish the primary language?"
The "official" language at Lego is English.
@John_Eff said:
"Why "LL 928" on the sides, but it is not a LL 928?"
Edit: I realise now that you might have meant: "why does it not say LL 10497 on the side?" That's a good question! Probably to add to the retro feeling? I'll leave my original answer up below for the other interpretation of your question.
---
Because both set 928 and 497 have LL 928 on the sides (the are the same set, with 928 the European version and 497 the US-version).
The more relevant question is: "why is the set number 10497 and not 10928?" :) The answer to that is probably marketing. Both set numbers were not planned to be used in the near future, since they are currently in the low 10300's range. Optimus Prime is 10302 , the loop coaster is 10303 , the castle is 10305 . Highest number currently allocated is 10311
@Arnoldos said:
"BRING BACK THE CRATER BASEPLATE!"
Buildable om baseplate
That recreation of 918 needs to be its own set. Probably too big to be a GWP, but certainly needs to be released as a companion to 10497.
@NatureBricks said:
"I'm really confused about the issue with color with the baseplate. Why wouldn't the colors match? Colors in LEGO sets no longer match anyways, so why would this be any different?"
They mean like double denim! :)
That is significantly bigger than I originally thought! I am definitely pre-ordering this!
Tan crater baseplate? Oof too bad that didn’t happen. I would love to have that
Whilst I think it was a stretch to expect the bases to be remade, I think an updated version of the little moon base building would have been feasible, especially if it doubled as a display base for the mini-figures.
"Also, the conflicting grey between the Galaxy Explorer and the baseplate could create issues, so we thought about changing the colour to tan because that complemented the ship, but updating the colour of something so iconic felt wrong."
What a lot of crap/bullsh!t. "AS IF" they cannot do the moon baseplate in the new blueish grey (which would then fit with the model). As proof, the baseplate of 10297 (modular of 2022) is light blueish grey - so definitely possible. Nothing wrong with tan moon baseplate - could most likely be used quite a bit for Star Wars (Tatooine - Jakku).
Also, if the original base was not exceptional, then it should have been relatively easy to do one which is better. Nothing fancy, just a small communication tower/outpost. Many examples available online if they ever run out of imagination.
Those are the situations where "only the best is good enough" is going out of the window. The "best" would have had a baseplate and an outpost/comm tower. The "better" would have had the ship and the outpost and the good got the ship alone - this is what we ended up with - a far cry from Lego's original motto. I pre-ordered anyway because we don't have the choice but take the small bits of scraps they are throwing at us every 40 years. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely happy with the ship - BUT they could have (easily) done significantly better than that. (key word here is: easily)
EDIT: Also very happy to hear that instructions for smaller versions will be available online. Unfortunately for my wallet this means I may have to buy more than one set.
It would be amazing if when they released it in Europe, they changed the set number to 10928. Then collectors would have to buy both! But then you can't really call it 'Space Cruiser and Moonbase" if there's no moonbase...
"We increased every dimension by one and a half times to recreate the feeling of holding 497 Galaxy Explorer as a child, by holding 10497 Galaxy Explorer as an adult."
A fantastic explanation from someone who understands AFOLs. We still want to swoosh it!
@NatureBricks said:
"I'm really confused about the issue with color with the baseplate. Why wouldn't the colors match? Colors in LEGO sets no longer match anyways, so why would this be any different?"
The issue is that the colours between the Galaxy Explorer and the baseplate would match, meaning the vehicle and baseplate would probably blend together on display.
Personally, I think they made the right decision to focus on the Galaxy Explorer, not least because the price has remained relatively affordable. In the alternate universe where the designers included 48x48 versions of the crater and landing pad baseplates, with the little moonbase structure, I imagine this set would cost approaching double.
I agree. I’d rather have this amazing spaceship for $100 than the spaceship plus the terrain and signal shack if the extra builds pushed the price higher than, say, $150.
Excellent interview. I’m so glad the instructions for the 918 and 924 B and C models will be posted online. I might end up getting another copy of the set so I can build all three ships at the same time. (The 918 would require a few pieces from the parts bin to be built at the same time as the 924).
So this summer my kids will play with a ship that is 150% of the "kid" size. (After I build it and swoooosh it, clearly).
Interestingly, when they grow up, they might demand a space ship that is again 50% larger than this already upsized model to make the proportions feel the same.
@JPKuiper said:
"The more relevant question is: "why is the set number 10497 and not 10928?""
Hover over 10928 and you have your answer. :) (109xx is allocated to Duplo)
Great interview - an impressive amount of substantive content in a short piece (not a complaint about the brevity - appreciate it!).
I have to say, I somehow missed the fact that we will actually be able to build the updated/re-imagined 924 and 918 models as alt. models! I remember reading something about how Lego showed those other two models as well at LegoCon, but I thought those were just for teaser/presentation purposes - I didn't realize they can be built from the 10497 set. I've pre-ordered 2x of the set, with the thought of keeping one sealed for posterity, but now I might have to crack them both open to build two of those ships at the same time. BTW, I like the updated 924, but because of its identical cabin width and huge rear spoiler, it doesn't seem as unique to me as the updated 918, which seems to be more of a true variation on the theme, so that seems like the alt. model to build!
@HOBBES said:
""Also, the conflicting grey between the Galaxy Explorer and the baseplate could create issues, so we thought about changing the colour to tan because that complemented the ship, but updating the colour of something so iconic felt wrong."
What a lot of crap/bullsh!t. "AS IF" they cannot do the moon baseplate in the new blueish grey (which would then fit with the model). As proof, the baseplate of 10297 (modular of 2022) is light blueish grey - so definitely possible. Nothing wrong with tan moon baseplate - could most likely be used quite a bit for Star Wars (Tatooine - Jakku).
Also, if the original base was not exceptional, then it should have been relatively easy to do one which is better. Nothing fancy, just a small communication tower/outpost. Many examples available online if they ever run out of imagination.
Those are the situations where "only the best is good enough" is going out of the window. The "best" would have had a baseplate and an outpost/comm tower. The "better" would have had the ship and the outpost and the good got the ship alone - this is what we ended up with - a far cry from Lego's original motto. I pre-ordered anyway because we don't have the choice but take the small bits of scraps they are throwing at us every 40 years. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely happy with the ship - BUT they could have (easily) done significantly better than that. (key word here is: easily)"
Blimey. Overreact much.
@NatureBricks said:
"I'm really confused about the issue with color with the baseplate. Why wouldn't the colors match? Colors in LEGO sets no longer match anyways, so why would this be any different?"
Seemed a really disingenuous answer, all the new gray pieces are medium stone gray, they're not going to bring back old light gray for one part, so why not make it in medium stone gray?
I had just watched the video last night. Wonderful video. I love the designers' enthusiasm.
@CapnRex101 said:
" @NatureBricks said:
"I'm really confused about the issue with color with the baseplate. Why wouldn't the colors match? Colors in LEGO sets no longer match anyways, so why would this be any different?"
The issue is that the colours between the Galaxy Explorer and the baseplate would match, meaning the vehicle and baseplate would probably blend together on display.
Personally, I think they made the right decision to focus on the Galaxy Explorer, not least because the price has remained relatively affordable. In the alternate universe where the designers included 48x48 versions of the crater and landing pad baseplates, with the little moonbase structure, I imagine this set would cost approaching double."
I don't quite agree with that. The whole idea of ??a reissue of a classic set is largely about reusing the limited color palette available at the time and the light gray baseplates are part of this color pack. As someone who actually played with the original 928 model back in the early eighties, I think the baseplate and communication base were very important, they were part of the story and playability. But I'm not going to complain about this, I'm very grateful to Lego for recreating this model.
@JPKuiper said:
" @John_Eff said:
"Why "LL 928" on the sides, but it is not a LL 928?"
Edit: I realise now that you might have meant: "why does it not say LL 10497 on the side?" That's a good question! Probably to add to the retro feeling? I'll leave my original answer up below for the other interpretation of your question.
---
Because both set 928 and 497 have LL 928 on the sides (the are the same set, with 928 the European version and 497 the US-version).
The more relevant question is: "why is the set number 10497 and not 10928?" :) The answer to that is probably marketing. Both set numbers were not planned to be used in the near future, since they are currently in the low 10300's range. Optimus Prime is 10302 , the loop coaster is 10303 , the castle is 10305 . Highest number currently allocated is 10311
"
I was going to ask the same thing! Though of course this ship shares a name with the original, it’s different, and I like the idea of it being another, even larger ship in the same universe as the original 497 / 928, rather than a re-imagining of that earlier ship. I kind of want to append an “A” or something to the end of the LL928, à la Star Trek’s Enterprise NCC-1701, Enterprise NCC-1701-A, Enterprise NCC-1701-B, Enterprise NCC-1701-C, etc. (though that franchise also recently reimagined the original NCC-1701, but never mind that..). Still, that quibble aside, I’m delighted by this, all the more do by the fact all the decorated elements are directly printed bricks, and that there are no stickers. I can’t wait for the one I’ve already ordered, and I’m thinking I’ll get multiples.
————-
I’m stunned to hear them say bringing back crater baseplates is even a possibility in this day and age. Now I very much want it to happen, though I do get why it was decided against here. And I’d very much like to see them in a variety of colors beyond grey.
Wish we had a baseplate, though I have a few already. The extra size isn't obvious. It's used well.
Being able to fit all four figures in the cockpit is fantastic. 4x the smiling, happy faces.
And I love being able to build other retro sets. The final set is about as good as we could hope for at $100.
Well I would've happily paid extra 40 EUR if the set had included exclusive 48x48 space baseplates and that TARDIS with antennas but the set is perfect even as it is.
I really hope LEGO pays Mike a worthy salary, because his creations (Saturn V; Titanic; Carousel etc) are just sublime.
Scaleable Landing pad sold seperately : 60304 : Road Plates ;)
" @Blondie_Wan said:
I’m stunned to hear them say bringing back crater baseplates is even a possibility in this day and age. Now I very much want it to happen, though I do get why it was decided against here. And I’d very much like to see them in a variety of colors beyond grey."
They may have been considering a brick built version as per 10266 rather than a new moulded baseplate. Especially given the size of this thing.
Thank you Mike to bringing back the most iconic spaceship , you did a great job. I think we are blessed, that TLG has decided to deliver not only the castle but a THE spaceship.
@tomthepirate said:
"So this summer my kids will play with a ship that is 150% of the "kid" size. (After I build it and swoooosh it, clearly).
Interestingly, when they grow up, they might demand a space ship that is again 50% larger than this already upsized model to make the proportions feel the same."
If they have to do that for every new generation, how long will it take until we get a Galaxy Explorer that is big enough for a human to sit inside it?
@HOBBES said:
""Also, the conflicting grey between the Galaxy Explorer and the baseplate could create issues, so we thought about changing the colour to tan because that complemented the ship, but updating the colour of something so iconic felt wrong."
What a lot of crap/bullsh!t. "AS IF" they cannot do the moon baseplate in the new blueish grey (which would then fit with the model). As proof, the baseplate of 10297 (modular of 2022) is light blueish grey - so definitely possible. Nothing wrong with tan moon baseplate - could most likely be used quite a bit for Star Wars (Tatooine - Jakku).
Also, if the original base was not exceptional, then it should have been relatively easy to do one which is better. Nothing fancy, just a small communication tower/outpost. Many examples available online if they ever run out of imagination.
Those are the situations where "only the best is good enough" is going out of the window. The "best" would have had a baseplate and an outpost/comm tower. The "better" would have had the ship and the outpost and the good got the ship alone - this is what we ended up with - a far cry from Lego's original motto. I pre-ordered anyway because we don't have the choice but take the small bits of scraps they are throwing at us every 40 years. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely happy with the ship - BUT they could have (easily) done significantly better than that. (key word here is: easily)
EDIT: Also very happy to hear that instructions for smaller versions will be available online. Unfortunately for my wallet this means I may have to buy more than one set."
... wait, and you still bought it?
Honestly surprised by the amount of demanding of moon crater base plates on this comment section!
Seriously, this reimagining of a classic space model is 100% ok for me, and is in the realm of affordability - something I believe a new baseplate design would have impacted.
What I really want to know though… is what was so mind blowing at the end of the video with the castle!!!
@TheOriginalSimonB said:
[[[[ @Blondie_Wan said:
I’m stunned to hear them say bringing back crater baseplates is even a possibility in this day and age. Now I very much want it to happen, though I do get why it was decided against here. And I’d very much like to see them in a variety of colors beyond grey.]]
They may have been considering a brick built version as per 10266 rather than a new moulded baseplate. Especially given the size of this thing.
]]
That had occurred to me (and I’ve no doubt many fans will make their own brick-built craters and landing pads and whatnot to accompany this, as many already do for Space MOCs in general; I certainly plan to myself), but the interview sounded like they gave consideration to actually bringing the classic baseplate element back into production. It wouldn’t be the first time an old part was reintroduced after many years out of production, though it would certainly be one of the most extreme examples.
Best way to bring back an imagining of Crater would be a remake of 6971: Inter-Galactic Command Base .
It covers multiple goals :
- Availability of Yellow Spacemen at the same time of 10497
- Blue and Black Spacemen
- Opportunity to make Crater looking build on the ground.
- Act as a Radar Base that's not in 10497 but 928 had a radar station on ground.
I hope the printed landing pad visible in the background of the picture of the three ships is included as a poster or something with the set...
I'd love to see official alternate builds for the castle too! That spaceship is so much better in terms of value per money.
While I love most of the castle, I think it is fatal that this 18+ set comes with 22 minifigs while the recent castle for kids came with only 2.5 knights. Because kids hate minifigs, right?
I won't get it in the end, just because I use my bricks to actually build instead of display them. If I ever break one of the shields in the process, it will cost me far too much money to replace it.
Hello All:
While I LOVE this reimagined nostalgia of Classic Space, I am perplexed by two items and they really bug me:
1). The ship should not be LL928, it should be LL928-A. This would have given a proper nod to the classic, while also making for better display, with both vessels, side-by-side. I still have my original Space sets and intend to do this.
2). What is the deal with, "Nevertheless, including the crater baseplate ultimately seemed weird, especially as the vehicle had become bigger, relative to the original model. Also, the conflicting grey between the Galaxy Explorer and the baseplate could create issues, so we thought about changing the colour to tan because that complemented the ship, but updating the colour of something so iconic felt wrong."
My thoughts:
a). Tan for space? vs. Grey which has always been used as the "moon" colour from the start, was an insane thought, happy that didn't happen!
b). Grey conflicting with the Ship was NEVER a problem before, why would it be now!
c). Size of the original Crater / Base would be too small relative to the new ship...well then, make a larger version of each...start with the existing 48 x 48 baseplate, add a crater and build base, done!
What I'm reading here, is an inclusive of a crater moulded baseplate seemed EXPENSIVE for LEGO to manufacture, so just say that, upfront! IMO, this is a mistake. They could have easily given us both crater and road baseplates for space to complete this set. If too cheap to make a new mould, then don't use a mould, remake the classic studded crater, instead. They went all-out on the amazing castle for Knights fans and Space fans get second fiddle IMO, with a single ship and no gift with purchase.
To recap, I am happy for this release, but...yet again, LEGO lacks good judgment in the delivery of a final product that would be free of less scrutiny had they gone the extra mile.
Best,
Ron
NOTE: I love the inclusion of living quarters in the back of the ship. As a boy, I took up a portion of the cockpit, removed the wall between the two areas and modded out the cargo area for this same purpose. =)
The real question: are the alt models able to be built at the same time?
I don't think so, they seem to share a bunch of parts.
At first I thought you’d be able to build both smaller ships with 1 set, but I don’t think that’s possible. Guess I’ll have to acquire a 3rd copy of this set(not complaining).
A moon baseplate would've been nice, but I don't think it's such big of a deal as I want to believe most "die hard" fans for this set have at least one, or can just get a used one from BL. For casual buyers, I don't think it matters. It also helped with keeping the price low.
I think you wouldn't need too many additional pieces to build both alternate models from one set. Not everyone will have the necessary pieces in their collection, but there's Bricklink and Bricks and Pieces (or whatever they call the new service.)
Business opportunity, Bricklink store owners: make a pack of all the parts necessary to add to one 10497 to be able to build both alternates at the same time.
They can potentially bring back a part not seen since 1996 in set 6190 but not a goat seen in the last decade?
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark...
I don't give a g**damn about the baseplates or antenna shack. I'm here for the ship.
$99 bucks? 3-in-1...ish? Retro packaging? Yeah, gimme a lot of these. Lean and mean, this set - can't get enough.
We need a leaked picture of 6951 remake.
@EvilTwin said:
"I hope the printed landing pad visible in the background of the picture of the three ships is included as a poster or something with the set..."
Yes indeed, that would be a good compromise. By the way, they did exactly that at the time for the small 918: One Man Space Ship. If you turn the inner box over, you had a print of a baseplate. Excellent idea!
Is this the greatest Lego set ever made? It certainly looks like it. Can’t pre-order for some reason, but it’s a day 1 for me.
@Nytmare:
According to Kevin Hinkle, English is the official language of The LEGO Group, but he often found himself having to clear his throat when two Danish employees were conversing with each other to remind them that they weren’t following company policy, and thereby excluding people in the room from their conversation. In a sense, it’s like a business in the US where some of the employees revert to speaking Spanish with each other, except that Danish is the official language of the nation, and the native language of probably the largest group of the employees in Billund. It’s got to be a weird issue over there, as well as many other local operations (I believe Virginia’s getting the first factory in an English-native nation since they shut down the Enfield plant, and I have no idea what staffing is like in their Asian HQ).
And digging through the official part names shows that English is not the sole language used there, but someone commented on a recent RPOTD that the name used a Dutch word, so the exceptions aren’t all Danish either.
@Blondie_Wan:
The Trouble With Quibbles
More Quibbles, More Troubles
Trials and Quibble-ations
@ronvining:
Tan was the traditional color of the barren planetary surface in box art for all vintage Space sets, excluding what was actual LEGO elements.
@Koentinius:
I see one logo slope used in all three models.
All I read was bla bla bla bla... 918 and 924 as B and C models...
Mic drop.
Seriously? LEGO actually listened to what fans wanted?
And made it?
And at a reasonable price?
My mind is totally blown.
Positively.
For the first time in what seems like ages.
I think I'll buy a whole armada :-)
By the looks of it, the reimagined 924 is about the same size as the original 928/497, while the reimagined 918 is about the same size as the original 924/487.
What I would love to see be a surprise in the set is four extra bricks (918 and 924) so you can properly do all three sets officially. The picture with the alternative builds all utilize the 928 brick.
Ky-eee on Flickr has already designed the 6929 Starfleet Voyager in this style:
https://flickr.com/photos/koalaexpert/52164203152/in/feed-48734254-1655907204-1-72157721624698494
I can't wait to see what everyone else will come up with.
From the Assembled interview video 00:01:47: "No stickers" (i.e. that's all printed tile, baby)
@OvoFox11 said:
" @HOBBES said:
""Also, the conflicting grey between the Galaxy Explorer and the baseplate could create issues, so we thought about changing the colour to tan because that complemented the ship, but updating the colour of something so iconic felt wrong."
What a lot of crap/bullsh!t. "AS IF" they cannot do the moon baseplate in the new blueish grey (which would then fit with the model). As proof, the baseplate of 10297 (modular of 2022) is light blueish grey - so definitely possible. Nothing wrong with tan moon baseplate - could most likely be used quite a bit for Star Wars (Tatooine - Jakku).
Also, if the original base was not exceptional, then it should have been relatively easy to do one which is better. Nothing fancy, just a small communication tower/outpost. Many examples available online if they ever run out of imagination.
Those are the situations where "only the best is good enough" is going out of the window. The "best" would have had a baseplate and an outpost/comm tower. The "better" would have had the ship and the outpost and the good got the ship alone - this is what we ended up with - a far cry from Lego's original motto. I pre-ordered anyway because we don't have the choice but take the small bits of scraps they are throwing at us every 40 years. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely happy with the ship - BUT they could have (easily) done significantly better than that. (key word here is: easily)
EDIT: Also very happy to hear that instructions for smaller versions will be available online. Unfortunately for my wallet this means I may have to buy more than one set."
... wait, and you still bought it?"
I do not quite understand why people see contradiction or even 'overreaction' to this post. I like the set, I really do and I pre-ordered it on day one (first time ever I do that). I like classic space, and regular space (i.e. real life space) I'll take whatever they throw at us. Now for what I wrote: (1) could it be better? certainly and EASILY: just add an outpost and even better add baseplates. (2) the colour issue is NOT an issue (they could produce whatever they choose to) - so whatever reasons provided are disingenuous - just say: "that would be outside the price-point we fixed". That's all - I like the set; could easily have been better; reasons for no baseplates is hogwash. Nothing against Mike either: big big fan of the Saturn V.
I usually have a personal rule about weighing in on debates like this, but I also consider myself one of the oldest and saltiest LEGO spacers, so I felt compelled. What they nailed with this set:
1) inclusion of CS minifigs with the appropriate CS logo in the right place
2) printed parts/no stickers
3) the overall design and price point of the set given the typical constraints of designing a LEGO retail set (alt models and going to the lengths to provide instructions online are gravy - I don't care that I need 3 copies for 3 examples of all constructed models - price of admission).
Would/could it be better if it came with free ice cream and a kiss from Ana de Armas? Sure. Do I feel in any way jilted, disappointed, or otherwise shortchanged by this set? No. No, I do not. This set makes my personal world better. End of story for me.
I really like the size of the ship, with a reasonable price to match. Well done, LEGO!
@HOBBES said:
" @OvoFox11 said:
" @HOBBES said:
""Also, the conflicting grey between the Galaxy Explorer and the baseplate could create issues, so we thought about changing the colour to tan because that complemented the ship, but updating the colour of something so iconic felt wrong."
What a lot of crap/bullsh!t. "AS IF" they cannot do the moon baseplate in the new blueish grey (which would then fit with the model). As proof, the baseplate of 10297 (modular of 2022) is light blueish grey - so definitely possible. Nothing wrong with tan moon baseplate - could most likely be used quite a bit for Star Wars (Tatooine - Jakku).
Also, if the original base was not exceptional, then it should have been relatively easy to do one which is better. Nothing fancy, just a small communication tower/outpost. Many examples available online if they ever run out of imagination.
Those are the situations where "only the best is good enough" is going out of the window. The "best" would have had a baseplate and an outpost/comm tower. The "better" would have had the ship and the outpost and the good got the ship alone - this is what we ended up with - a far cry from Lego's original motto. I pre-ordered anyway because we don't have the choice but take the small bits of scraps they are throwing at us every 40 years. Don't get me wrong, I am extremely happy with the ship - BUT they could have (easily) done significantly better than that. (key word here is: easily)
EDIT: Also very happy to hear that instructions for smaller versions will be available online. Unfortunately for my wallet this means I may have to buy more than one set."
... wait, and you still bought it?"
I do not quite understand why people see contradiction or even 'overreaction' to this post. I like the set, I really do and I pre-ordered it on day one (first time ever I do that). I like classic space, and regular space (i.e. real life space) I'll take whatever they throw at us. Now for what I wrote: (1) could it be better? certainly and EASILY: just add an outpost and even better add baseplates. (2) the colour issue is NOT an issue (they could produce whatever they choose to) - so whatever reasons provided are disingenuous - just say: "that would be outside the price-point we fixed". That's all - I like the set; could easily have been better; reasons for no baseplates is hogwash. Nothing against Mike either: big big fan of the Saturn V. "
The problem is that you are making the assumption that adding baseplates and a moonbase sidebuild would in fact make the set objectively better, when the article explains quite clearly why the designers felt that was not the case. In addition to the grey vs. tan conundrum (a reasonable debate to have since grey was used for the classic sets but tan was used predominantly for their boxart), they ultimately decided that the tiny, relatively insubstantial moonbase from the Galaxy Explorer set, even if redesigned to a modern standard, would ultimately make the set more expensive and dilute the stronger, more universal appeal of the spaceship itself. That reasoning isn't "hogwash" or "bullshit", and there's really no reason to insist that the designers have brought any less than their best to the table, or that they're lying about why they came to the decisions they ultimately settled on, just because you personally would have preferred a different outcome. "Only the best is good enough" has never meant that anything less than perfect, universal satisfaction is a failure, let alone that such a goal would even be achievable.
I am just falling more and more in love with this thing. I was imagining designing the 924 and 918 from these pieces, and here we are! And I love that it was designed larger specifically to invoke the feeling of holding the original in your hand when you were little. And speaking of, seeing it in his hands--that thing is bigger than I thought. What a model, what a love letter to the fans! Absolutely worth the wait (and a long one it was, though I certainly appreciated 70816 Benny's Spaceship!)
The more I hear about this set the more I want one.
@tmtomh said:
"Great interview - an impressive amount of substantive content in a short piece (not a complaint about the brevity - appreciate it!).
I have to say, I somehow missed the fact that we will actually be able to build the updated/re-imagined 924 and 918 models as alt. models! I remember reading something about how Lego showed those other two models as well at LegoCon, but I thought those were just for teaser/presentation purposes - I didn't realize they can be built from the 10497 set. I've pre-ordered 2x of the set, with the thought of keeping one sealed for posterity, but now I might have to crack them both open to build two of those ships at the same time. BTW, I like the updated 924, but because of its identical cabin width and huge rear spoiler, it doesn't seem as unique to me as the updated 918, which seems to be more of a true variation on the theme, so that seems like the alt. model to build!"
Ha. My exact thought about how many of this set I need. Now, it's 3!
How predictable are we? How hard is it really to make AFOLs happy? We just want to relax and play with plastic bricks, after all.
That's what gets us so riled and angry. We're generally pretty laid back and easy to please. Yet, Lego continually fails to do so. It seems that the vast majority of us get angry when the failure stems from obvious and unadulterated greed.
We have every right to be angry, and let Lego know. These are adult toys. They must meet the highest standards of corporate behavior to justify their existence... we do not NEED toys, boys (and grrrls))!
EDIT: Thanks Capn for the nice interview and article. Hopefully, you enjoyed your trip. Thanks to the designers for the strong work and insights. I would thank Lego for facilitating all this... but, that really is the bare minimum for a forward-thinking company.
I was really happy when Psiaki got hired at LEGO. He’s incredibly gifted and I think can just see the bricks as he’s thinking about a shape. None of his sets have disappointed me!
I can’t wait to hold this in my hands!
For what it’s worth, I already did my part with the embiggened Classic Space sets. I did FX Star Patroller, Gamna V Laser Craft, Lunar Patrol Craft, Twin Starfire, the Beta-1 command base, not to mention the landing plate.
And that was well over a decade ago! I was riffing on Pete Reid’s Neo Classic Space. It was fun times.
@paulvdb said:
"If they have to do that for every new generation, how long will it take until we get a Galaxy Explorer that is big enough for a human to sit inside it?"
Lego minifigs are approximately 1:25 scale, 50% increase every 44 years
= 308 years, or the year 2330. (That's for an adult--for a kid, more like 220 years)
A Lego minifigure without hat or hair measures 1 5/8" (sorry, metric users!) so more like 1/40 scale.
@Daveismyhero said:
"I really like the size of the ship, with a reasonable price to match. Well done, LEGO!"
i'm astounded at the size to price point, defs well done there - but it just looks too big for me (and too polished? smooth?). i'll likely pick it up just to make the B & C ships, though
@Binnekamp said:
"Wait, it's also a 3-in-1?
Okay, now I really want it! Let's hope it will be available for a proper amount of time.
Great interview :)"
Agreed!
"the two alternative models, which recreate 918 One Man Space Ship and 924 Space Cruiser in the same enlarged scale. The instruction manual only shows the Galaxy Explorer, but instructions for the other vehicles will be available online and all the required bricks are included"
This is the greatest news of all!
RE the baseplate and moon base question: personally I don't care, and in fact I greatly prefer the ability to pay $99 for this set (or I guess $198 for 2... or maybe $297 for 3... :-) - compared to if the inclusion of baseplates and the based had raised the price to $140 or more.
Folks also need to keep in mind 4 important points, 1 or 2 of which have been mentioned in prior comments:
1. 1.5x original ship size = 48-stud baseplate. That means a significantly higher price, not only for the plate but also for the necessarily increased box size and shipping costs.
2. 1.5x original moonbase = still a pretty small and kind of lame little base. The designer references this in the interview (or in the video - one of the two), and I agree. If we want a modernized space base that really does the form justice, then we need to ask Lego to reissue another Classic Space set like 6970 or 6971 where the base was the central feature.
3. Perhaps most importantly, a properly reissued Galaxy Explorer 497/928 with baseplate would not need just one 48x48 baseplate - it would need 2 of them. The original ship never was designed to fit on the beloved crater plate - that was where the moon base was. The ship had a 2nd, landing-pad baseplate. Imagine if Lego had issued this set with a single crater baseplate, an upgraded but still small and perfunctory moon base, at a price point of, say $150 or more (taking into account the baseplate and the parts for the moon base) - many of the AFOLs complaining now would have gotten just as upset because the new set only included one baseplate instead of two, and there still would have been nowhere for the ship to actually land because when you put the moon base on the crater plate, there's not enough room left.
4. Finally, IMHO it would make no sense to reissue the crater baseplate. For one thing, the original crater would look silly on a 48x48 plate, and making the crater 1.5x its original size would also look silly. For another thing, the new ship has all kinds of part upgrades, including brick-built white arrows on the side and multi-piece brick-built little thrusters, and so on. So the logical analog to that would be to provide a brick-built crater plate instead of a molded one, like with the 2019 Apollo Moon Lander set. But that base is smaller than a 32x32 baseplate, let alone a 48x48, let alone 2x 48x48. So the cost of this new 10497 set with a larger moon base and 2x brick-built 48x48 bases would likely be $200 or more, which IMHO would be a colossal waste of a value opportunity, which Lego has not in fact wasted by doing just the ship and pricing it at $99.
@560heliport:
If you exclude the stud (which you should, since it extends up into the hair or headgear), a minifig is exactly 1.5” tall, and 1:48 scale. Unless they’re balding, in which case they’ve grown taller than their hair.
I begun to admire Classic Space (and Town) not long after I joined here in 2009 at age 13. I bought Benny's Space Squad as soon as it started popping up in local stores (which there for months, stores were barren of them--even here in the SWVA coalfields), and I love this set. My sole complaint is that it really didn't need the 18+ branding.
Given how those silly road plates have really bumped up the cost and shrunk the footprint of a lot of recent City sets, the set is better without the crater baseplate.
However, I suspect that if they sold it on its own in the Xtra lineup, it would sell quite well.
@tomthepirate said:
"So this summer my kids will play with a ship that is 150% of the "kid" size. (After I build it and swoooosh it, clearly).
Interestingly, when they grow up, they might demand a space ship that is again 50% larger than this already upsized model to make the proportions feel the same."
Until future generations fly off kin life sized versions.
A remark about the moon baseplate.
As I agree with many of you that this baseplate as a strong nostalgic feeling, and I love It, but it is not adequate for a creator expert set.
Luckily new parts, larger size and new techniques allow to obtain a very good brick built result, such as shown in this well known New Classic Space MOC: https://farm4.static.flickr.com/3456/3400668423_f9e3391cdb.jpg
Ok, in the example there is a large wasting of parts, but a simplified one should do the job.
If LEGO would decide to refound the theme, the baseplate could be sold as a separate set (maybe including the little moonbase, or a pair of minifig and accessories at least), together with some other smaller set (classic space theme has many loveable little vehicles among its sets).
If including the baseplate would increase the cost, I'm glad they didn't include it. Some people need to get perspective.
One of the key standouts is just how affordable and value for money this set is, compared to almost every other set Lego releases these days. And now we know it's a 3 in 1 too? That's amazing.
Welp if it's a 3 in 1, it means i'll have to get 3 -.-
@PurpleDave said:
" @560heliport:
If you exclude the stud (which you should, since it extends up into the hair or headgear), a minifig is exactly 1.5” tall, and 1:48 scale. Unless they’re balding, in which case they’ve grown taller than their hair."
That assumes the average person is six feet tall! And you can't exclude the stud, it's part of their head.
P.S. regarding our discussion a few weeks ago about combs on hens, not just roosters: I found a photo from 1984 of our two Bantams. Sure enough, Gert has a comb, quite noticeable- just smaller than Spec's.
I haven't spent much time around live chickens in the intervening decades!
@Calabar:
They’ve made it quite clear that there won’t be any full theme revival. Rather, Creator will be where they produce occasional nods to classic themes.
As for the crater plate, various AFOLs have taken a stab at brick-built recreations of the original:
https://ideas.lego.com/projects/6c9e0f37-b196-4be6-ab3f-42edd52b7cc3/updates
https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-28422/PsiborgVIP/crater-baseplate/details
I know I’ve seen others, but I’m not having any luck digging them up. For this, scaled up 50%, the baseplates should both be 48x48, so the crater wall would have to be scaled up as well. I even ran across images of a 16x16 crater baseplate where the original crater wall was scaled down, so I wonder how much of a market there would be for 3rd party 48x48 crater and landing plates. Considering the expense of building some of these things from scratch, it might be more economical to just buy them molded and UV printed.
@560heliport:
6’ is an easy number to work with, since 1.5” is six quarter inches. It does create a difficulty with one of my LUG’s members, who builds to a scale of one stud per foot (1:38.4), where a 1x4 could either represent four feet (four studs) or five feet (1-1/4”). Still, 6’ is the standard to which Hollywood has long pretended, either making people stand on boxes or in ditches when necessary to make 6’ appear to be the average height. Well, for men, at least. I believe 5’9” might be the historical target for women.
As for chickens, my parents and I got shown around the old farmhouse my mom grew up in before it went on the market again, and the owner kept a few chickens (they laid eggs at random places in the yard and left them). We’ve also done state and county fairs where chickens were on display. I didn’t really pay any attention to them, other than to note that some clearly thought they were peacocks. Being around a thing doesn’t mean you automatically examine it.
^ To chime in, the internet told me 1:25 which was what I did my math with. But I think 1:48 is more reasonable. Unfortunately, it probably means closer to 350 years before we get life-sized 497 .
@Arnoldos said:
"BRING BACK THE CRATER BASEPLATE!"
Judging by the size of the ship, we will probably have to tile out one of those big grey 48x48 baseplates to get that effect.
@ra226:
Nine generations gets the minifig to 4.8’ tall, and ten overshoots to 7.2’. We’ve already gone through one generation, so somewhere between another 352 and 396 years.
Fingers crossed for a reimagining of the 6980 Galaxy Commander for the 100th Anniversary.
@devilhead:
I’m afraid there’s no love for the true flagship of Classic Space, or its color scheme, in Billund.
Considering that this absolutely amazing set is available at such an incredibly reasonable price, I'm going to be REALLY DISAPPOINTED in ALL OF YOU if this doesn't win Brickset's 2022 Set of the Year. That Castle 90th Anniversary set is crazy expensive, everyone's already forgotten about the modular building, nobody's talking about any Ninjago sets...
Get ready to vote for this set. It's head and shoulders above all the rest!
@PurpleDave:
I'd say 44 years is more like two generations. :)
The only thing I dislike about this set is the 6x8 ramp plates on top of the tail. The original uesd two 2x6 plates; scaling them up 50% gives 3x9, a little tricky, but I think the 4x9 airplane wing piece would look good, if they made it in bright blue.
@560heliport:
That was generations of set design, not people. 4G phones are fourth, and 5G phones are fifth generation. F-22 and F-35 planes are fifth generation fighter planes. Gaming consoles are currently split between eighth and ninth generations.
When I said it would take between 9-10 generations, that’s not counting the original 1st Gen set. This is the 2nd Gen iteration. In 2374, they should release the 10th Gen version of this set, which will be a cramped fit. In 2418, the 11th Gen version will be sized for NBA players.
Releasing bigger versions of beloved sets may just start a new gold rush for Lego. I can think of several 90’s sets that I would pay a nice chunk of change for if new versions were released.
Will these sets be available exclusively at LEGO or will they be released with third party sellers as well?
As a hardcore Classic Space fan, I'm incredibly happy to see this set. I think it looks great and there's a lot to love about it.
But of course, I think there are more things they could have done to service someone like me! The main thing I'd hoped for were red spacer minifigs - yay! - and a "parts pack" for all the printed parts from the original 928 model.
The blue "windscreen" with a logo (3939pr0003) on was my number 1 wish. I have a few of these 2nd hand, so it isn't the end of the world, but I'm left thinking that our only chance of getting these parts re-released has been missed. That's a shame.
But I'm still buying this and I'm still loving it.
Crikey. This was already a day 1 buy for me. But now that we know you can use the parts to make re-imaginings of 918 and 924, I'm going to have to buy 3!!!
Wow it's a lot larger than I was expecting! I wonder, with possible minor changes, whether you could make the updated 918 and 924 at the same time, as there seem to be enough pieces for both except the blue moon slope.
Rather than a moonplate, I would be tempted to collect as many of the unloved City road plates as possible and use those to build a landing pad, while using all the latest City space and moon sets to build an accompany space base.
I was wondering whether a single set of it is sufficient for completing both 918 and 924. Some parts seem to be carefully split for the 2 ships - the windscreens, engines, blue tail spoiler, landing gears.
Now I hope it won't be too long for the re-issue of black and blue spacemen.
@ambr said:
"Wow it's a lot larger than I was expecting! I wonder, with possible minor changes, whether you could make the updated 918 and 924 at the same time, as there seem to be enough pieces for both except the blue moon slope.
"
There are more shared pieces like the thrusters made out of buckets, the front nose cones etc, so 1 set isn't enough, even if you had a 2nd tile.
@Mr_Hankey said:
"Will these sets be available exclusively at LEGO or will they be released with third party sellers as well?"
In the US, it's up for pre-order from Walmart.com, so I'm inclined to think this set will (eventually - likely upon official release) be available at your usual LEGO third-party retailers.
https://www.walmart.com/ip/LEGO-Galaxy-Explorer-Building-Set-for-Adults-who-love-Space-10497/140718640?athbdg=L1100
@PDelahanty said:
"Considering that this absolutely amazing set is available at such an incredibly reasonable price, I'm going to be REALLY DISAPPOINTED in ALL OF YOU if this doesn't win Brickset's 2022 Set of the Year. That Castle 90th Anniversary set is crazy expensive, everyone's already forgotten about the modular building, nobody's talking about any Ninjago sets...
Get ready to vote for this set. It's head and shoulders above all the rest!"
Yes, I think this will provide some fierce competition for Set of the Year. There are some really great ones this year, and we are only halfway through. I truly am looking forward to getting this in August.
So excited for this set. Wish we could pre-order it in the UK too.
@B_Space_Man said:
"Releasing bigger versions of beloved sets may just start a new gold rush for Lego. I can think of several 90’s sets that I would pay a nice chunk of change for if new versions were released. "
Yeah, I'm sure sales for this (given the reasonable price) will be quite good. I hope this brings forth a whole line of re-imaginings of a set (or two) per year like how the modular building series started. 10184 Town Plan was a good try, but they should have kept going with more! I'd love to see a re-imagined 6390 Main Street one year, 4558 Metroliner another year, a castle (again), a pirate ship (again), and then back to another Classic Space set like 6980 Galaxy Commander or 6971 Inter-Galactic Command Base... I'd imagine as they move forward, we'd start seeing re-imagined sets from later and later years, eventually working through the 80s and into the 90s as we 80s fans start to get "too old" for this. Maybe some updated Ice Planet, Paradisa, or even Bionicle eventually. (Please no re-imagined 1853 Hypno Cruiser though.)
Cater to AFOL nostalgia and we will happily throw money at you!
“Looking across Classic Space as a whole, nobody would argue against the Galaxy Explorer spacecraft being an icon.”
I for one don’t understand the appeal. I grew up with classic space and this set didn’t register as a child. Iconic or nostalgic? Perhaps splitting hairs but whilst it is nostalgic for many, I just don’t think the original is that interesting a design.
@jsworpin said:
"“Looking across Classic Space as a whole, nobody would argue against the Galaxy Explorer spacecraft being an icon.”
I for one don’t understand the appeal. I grew up with classic space and this set didn’t register as a child. Iconic or nostalgic? Perhaps splitting hairs but whilst it is nostalgic for many, I just don’t think the original is that interesting a design."
Everyone has their own opinion and is of course perfectly entitled to it. But we don't have as much latitude when it comes to our opinion about what other people think. And it seems to me that there's quite a lot of evidence that a really significant population of AFOLs (not to mention Lego employees and designers) feel that the Galaxy Explorer set is not only nostalgic but also one of the best, most important, and most exemplary sets in all of Classic Space. So it is of course easy to argue that it's not a very interesting design, based on your own view - but I think it's very difficult to argue that it's not an iconic design, given what appears to be the broad appreciation of the set's design in much of the international Lego community.
pre-ordered two so i can build the three ships. i have been looking for a second hand benny spaceship to do a moc but now i dont! i will be interested to see what people come up with for additions (landing pad, moon crater and control tower). i will build my own, hope they do an update on a base.
The crater plates can be made easily enough with new plates and bricks.
The landing plates are harder. With round tiles you can only build an 8x8 circle. I suppose you could go for a mosaic patter for a larger landing circle but it might not look as nice.
@danth78 said:
"The crater plates can be made easily enough with new plates and bricks.
The landing plates are harder. With round tiles you can only build an 8x8 circle. I suppose you could go for a mosaic patter for a larger landing circle but it might not look as nice."
Yeah, it would be a challenge to accurately brick-build the look of the landing plate at its original scale, let alone at the enlarged scale necessary for this larger craft. Perhaps if the new road plate system ever introduces curves, those could be used for the circular central landing pad?
I was feeling slightly inspired by this interview (and Zusammengebaut's) at the possibility of MOCing other updated Classic Space subjects, including things like a ground base, but it's no easy task to update some of those sets to the impressive standard of this one! The open-backed design of most classic bases pales in comparison to this set's impressive enclosed cockpit and internal airlock, and it can be a challenge to make good looking transparent yellow windows or skylights at a 1.5x scale given the rarity of parts in that color. I don't think the challenge is insurmountable, but needless to say I'm not as skilled a builder as the designers of this set clearly are!
@danth78:
On a 32x32 it might look a bit rough, but you’d be scaling up to 48x48 to match the shop. The larger the circle, the cleaner a mosaic pattern looks. Also, you could tile the pad and leave a few key studs so you can add 1x1 tiles with clips on top, then lay a yellow flex-tube into a curved line using those clips.
The set is a-maz-ing looking...but I'm still going to 'mod' it:
-Cutting the 'vertical stabilizers' form 10 to 6, by removing the second and forth 'fins' from outside-in. (on each side, natch')
-Changing the space between the the canopies from white/'grey'(?) to either blue, or 'bee-stripe'...deciding...
-Reconfiguring the trans-green and trans-red into more of a 'nautical marking' style (red on one side, green on the other)...
-Larger 'nose-cones' on the fronts of the side-rockets, as at present: they look like 'jets'...
Anyone else thinking along the same lines?
It just occurred to me seeing the alternate builds, but it's a slight shame that this set doesn't include alternate printed bricks with "LL 918" and "LL 924", for the alternate builds. You could use the old ones, but not only are are the number bricks for the new set bigger (1x6 instead of 1x4), but good luck finding vintage bricks that are as fresh and clean as the bricks from a brand-new set.
I suppose it wouldn't be impossible to either print out a sticker or hire a custom printer. And I'm sure prints for an alternate model that's not even pictured on the box was pretty low on the priorities list for a set that's fantastic regardless. But it would've been pretty sweet to get all three numbers in one set.
@PurpleDave said:
" @560heliport:
If you exclude the stud (which you should, since it extends up into the hair or headgear), a minifig is exactly 1.5” tall, and 1:48 scale. Unless they’re balding, in which case they’ve grown taller than their hair."
But when you include hair, they're back up to slightly over 1 5/8". That's far too large for 1:48; scale height would be 6'6". And you can't ignore the hair. Not only do almost all of them have it, it fills the height of the stud, meaning that the stud is an anatomical feature you can't just ignore.
I use a scale of 1:42.6, which places them at a scale height of 5'10"—the average height of a Danish man.
https://allenmonroesmith.bitbucket.io/LegonianMeasurement/Legonian%20Ruler.pdf
@utlf said:
"Reading the comments here really makes me hate the Lego community, nobody is ever satisfied with what we're given, even when the designers put their "all" into it... how about you just be grateful they acknowledged Classic Space AND Classic Castle instead of just making a set based on one of those?
Also, why even bother writing an essay about what you don't like if you're just gonna turn around and buy it anyways?
I love Lego as a company but goddamn do I despise 99.99% of the community"
If you hate the Lego community, why do you read the comments?
@AllenSmith:
Height is measured to the peak of the scalp, not the soaring heights of the bouffant. Hair, hats, and helmets don’t count. And if a car has two studs in the middle of the roof, would you consider the studs to represent the height of the car, or the contoured surface they interrupt?
@PurpleDave:
If you're going to build a garage for that car, you probably should include those two studs on the top of the car!
@PurpleDave
“ @ronvining:
Tan was the traditional color of the barren planetary surface in box art for all vintage Space sets, excluding what was actual LEGO elements.”
Not sure what you are talking about. Every space set I bought during the 70’s and 80’s were grey.
Cheers!
Ron
@560heliport:
If failing to account for the height of the studs is that critical, I’m not parking in any garages you make.
@ronvining:
Every set has some sort of background for the box art that’s not the actual set. For years, Space themes had the sets displayed on tan ground with black sky full of stars. Scroll up to the top of the page and you’ll see two examples. The LEGO parts that form the ground (baseplates, when present) are old light-grey, but the baseplates are resting on a tan “planet”.
@Ridgeheart:
Modulars might be the lone holdout at this point. They’ll have a tough time switching those over because doing so will create a height imbalance and you won’t be able to pin the old and new Modulars together anymore.
I know this is probably a one-off, but I really hope this sparks a mini renaissance of remaking/reimagining original Lego Space sets. Classic Space is iconic of course, but it wasn't everyone's space theme growing up. People born in the late 80s or later are likely to be more nostalgic for one of the later themes. The late 80s to early 2000s Space themes were spectacular too and had their own flavor. I would love to see them go all-out with a reimagined Blacktron, Futuron, M-Tron, Ice Planet 2002, or UFO set.
A future question, I would love answered is was the first round of the designer program used as a test to determine how a 90th anniversary Bionicle set or a castle set would perform, or was the castle decided upon before that? Since you aluded to it being in development for 9 years at LEGOCON.
Secondly was it purposefully decided upon only making 2 finalists of the poll and why did you decide against making a Bionicle set or a Pirates set respectively?
Lastly did Bionicle originally taking first place suprise you?