Still, the price is inexcusable, it Lego wanted $500 they should release a set that is worth $500, as a UCS collector, I dont care about minifigs, I care about the build, which this focused to much on the minifigs, while it should have focused on the build, I would gladly spend $550-$600 for a death star that had paneling on the outside, but this just seems like a greedy cashgrab, and while some people felt harmed by bionicles end, I feel insulted with the amount of care that this set wasn’t given, this just shows more care about money than it does making a good set, which could get them MORE money.
1 Like
They need to include a lot for the buyer to have something to do with all the different rooms throughout the various movie. That was the main point of update because that was the most outdated.
Also, I truly think the price would’ve had to raise eventually due to licensing, they might as well polish up the super outdated parts of it first.
1 Like
That’s still pretty awful. I know it comes with newer figs and one more than the original set, but does it really warrant a $500 price tag? Heck, if they were going to raise it that much, I would’ve taken less minifigures and asked for something to round out the step-like walls of the model.
Now that would be a welcomed surprise, although the tiny changes in terms of the actual rooms leaves me a bit disappointed.
3 Likes
The issue with this is that the amount of rooms requires most of the minifigures to be included, since each room represents a scene of the movie that has distinct characters and suits.
Yeah, I don’t really understand why they didn’t do that. There must be a good reason though…
Agreed, but honestly, what could they have realistically changed?
2 Likes
Admittedly not much, although a specific room comes to mind:
This is more of a nitpick than anything else and if added wouldn’t add much, but the generator room just leaves me unsatisfied. Especially since it’s movie counterpart, depicted here:
looks nothing like what we got in this set.
I would’ve personally replaced the bright red jumper plates with the medium stone gray variants to make it pop out a bit less and add some much needed greebles to fill out the panels, but the latter would, of course, make it a bit less rounded.
5 Likes
I think it would have been better if the platform was just placed lower on the wall, because then there would have been room for the gimmick WHILE also making it taller (which would have made more room for detail).
1 Like
The red elements and small size of the thing definitely are problematic. Not sure why they didn’t change anything (I’m betting the red parts are due to internal piece regulations).
3 Likes
For those of you who want the actual videos:
Dang, Black Six/Andrew sounds really different on video compared to in-person.
JANGBRiCKS recently put out an in-depth blog post about the new Death Star, including breakdowns of the perceived value of the set as well as thoughts on some of the flak it’s gotten. What do you guys think? Do you agree or disagree?
2 Likes
I agree with every point he made.
1 Like
You know, if they’re gonna re-release the Death Star I don’t see the point of making it UCS. Should have made it a “Limited Edition” set instead.
And if you’re gonna UPDATE the figures why stop there?
3 Likes
Why?
There were some other minor changes to the set. I don’t think LEGO wants to fix something that isn’t broken.
2 Likes
I understand where Jang is coming from, and all of his points (both subjective and objective) are logical, but my original stance on the set still stands.
Don’t get me wrong, the '08 version was great for what it was. It took LEGO’s then range of pieces and created an outstanding model. With that said, that Death Star is a set of its time. Certain things that are common place today (e.g. rounded everything) were not so normal back then due to a lack of pieces, not knowing how to do so, or hit by a restrictive budget (although the latter still happens today) and for that, I find it hard to critique the original for those specific faults. But for a set in 2016? I find it a little irksome.
Now I’m not saying the set is terrible or shouldn’t have been released. It has a place in the LEGO Star Wars product range that darn near always needs to be filled and if you don’t own the original Death Star and want updated figs, then the model is worth the price. However, if you have one or both of the previously mentioned points, I personally wouldn’t advise you to get the set.
It’s probably due to the Death Star (both the '08 and '16 versions) acting more as a playset than a hyper accurate representation of the source material. I personally don’t find sets like this under the UCS mantle bad, but some other members of the LEGO community feel enraged by their inclusion.
2 Likes
I feel like we’re witnessing a ■■■■■ in LEGO’s “UCS” brand. They’re no longer defining it as “super detailed pricey mantelpiece displays”. UCS is now being associated with simply “extra-large playsets”. I have zero qualms with that (as long as they still continue to bring out the massive detailed vehicles/models we know and love).
Because completely redesigning the set would require a lot more work/much longer dev cycle. And as I understand it, this set has not taken up the second coveted “main UCS release” for the year.
I mean, I would describe the jagged edges as pretty “broken” in a 2016 SW set.
Which part of the biggest, most sickening problem brought up by this set and Attack on Hoth. The online AFOL community can act incredibly entitled to getting exactly what they think they want from a line like LEGO Star Wars. And anytime that a set falls out of their idea of what “the perfect LEGO Star Wars set is” then they begin to vehemently bash the set, the designers and anybody else who doesn’t share their same hate-filled viewpoint. It’s absolutely terrible. I’ve been to multiple conventions over the past few years. I’ve seen how joyful, fun and accepting the LEGO community can be. Why can’t that same positivity and enjoyment transfer over to our online interactions?
2 Likes
It’s mostly from the wider variety of people on the online community than, say, convention goers. This causes a whole lot more opinions to move around which in turn can influence others to believe what one dude said.
1 Like
Perhaps. But people with a wide variety of opinions can still discuss them in a civil manner (just look at the many heated debates we’ve had on the Boards over the years).
The problem is not what people have to say, but how they say it. Online forums for the most part allow people to do away with standard conventions of courtesy and politeness. When you’re interacting with someone online, you can see them as just an opponent to argue against rather then a living, breathing, loving human being with their own sets of wants, desires and feelings. You can wind up saying things to another user that you would never say to their face. Let’s face it: the internet can dehumanize people. The moment you stop seeing someone as a person is the moment you stop treating them like one.
I feel like the LEGO community has forgotten this in many places, which is why I enjoy (and work so hard to preserve) the safe haven for discussion this Message Bord is.
2 Likes
Exactly. This isn’t the 90s, Lego could have done a little more.
1 Like
Indeed. Would you guys have (hypothetically) been willing to pay more for a smoother build?
2 Likes
If I had the money, yeah actually.
3 Likes