Lego Millennium Falcon Goes On Sale 87
An anonymous reader writes "Lego just released its ultimate Millennium Falcon model for pre-order. This item should make any SW fan jump with joy. Some of its features include; over 5,000 pieces, 33" long, 22" wide and 8" tall, and it includes 5 minifigures: Han Solo, Chewbacca, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia Organa."
Ummm.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Don't underestimate the Lego (Score:3, Interesting)
Me, I'd rather spend that $500 on something that looks movie-accurate, like a ship from (now defunct) Code 3 Collectibles or (no longer holding the Star Wars license) Master Replicas, since to me Legos are kind of like a modern art...it looks like the Falcon but it still always looks like Legos. But that said I've spent several thousand on Lego sets for Star Wars and will eventually pick this one up. Someday. Hopefully for under $500
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
...just another lego fanboy here
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
$500 is pushing it, though, and I won't likely get the Falcon. I didn't do the Death Star, either, since I didn't feel $300 justified assembling a ball.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Never cared for the Lego models. Not quite Lego and not quite a model
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that some tank and airplane model parts and a dremel tool come in handy but damn, the detail on the X-Wing and Falcon models is just crazy.
That's no moon... (Score:5, Funny)
$500? Serious? (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You can even work out the design online and have them send you all the necessary parts.
Legoland Mom's Basement. Limited Edition. Limited time only...
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Unlimited virginity? Damn, my wife's going to be upset. Wait, mine, or hers?
Jump for joy ? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact is, despite the fact that I LOVE star wars and lego, I'm all kinds of n
Re: (Score:1)
$0.10 per piece doesn't seem too bad for me. This is a FIVE THOUSAND piece set. That's a big friggin' set.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, didn't think so.
Further, you conveniently gloss over the fact that this is part of the Ultimate Collectors Series. It isn't meant to get into everyones hands. It exists because there is actually a demand for these large scale sets.
Don't want to pay for the giant 5000 one? Then don't. But why bitch about it?
There is a smaller
Re: (Score:2)
Now if they'd just do some white and black I'd have all the goods for a mosaic or two.
This is said to be the first Lego model... (Score:1, Funny)
I'd swear Han says *12*. (Score:2)
Star Destroyer (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What? Is that the wrong way to use that unit?
Boring (Score:1, Funny)
I mean it looks like there's a lot of repetitive assembly required, with lots of similar ship sections.
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to the discipline of engineering.
My personal views? (Score:1, Interesting)
I guess the point I was trying to make is that the hours spent putting it together would justify the costs and the time spent with my son to put it together (and introduce him to the culture) would be priceless.
The question then becomes not a matter of price in my case but a need to b
WHO?! (Score:1, Funny)
Not a Pre-Order (Score:1)
The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (Score:4, Interesting)
Now, slightly off-topic, one thing that bugged me about the Star Wars prequels (among many many things) was the ships. They were all polished, aerodynamic, made of what seemed like crazy materials, etc. Yes I know they were going out of their way to show off the design capabilities and to add something fresh, but it made the ships all look so cheesy and fake. I mean, I remember one ship, though I don't know what it's name is, that looked like it was dipped in chrome. Not just parts of the ship, THE WHOLE THING. But it wasn't just that ship, it was almost all of them.
That irritated me because these were movies that were *supposed* to be about the past, the past in the Star Wars universe, PRIOR to IV, V and VI. And almost ALL of the ships in IV, V and VI all had rough edges, weird, not-always-symmetrical geometry, etc. They looked real, like real physical objects (yes I know they were, or were models), they looked like something someone would put together.... not some draftsmans proto-type look-alike for the latest rehash of super slick, polished turds that were the ships of I, II and III. In other words, we're expected to believe (in the Star Wars Universe) that designers and engineers decided that all these super polished and aerodynamic ships weren't up to snuff, so they scrapped and took 4 steps backwards design-wise to create the ships in IV, V and VI.
OK, I'm done ranting....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from that, i completely agree. The original ships were much more entertaining.
Re: (Score:1)
What he did (or more realistically, what th
Re: (Score:2)
Consider this...
Many things can explain the changes in ship design. Aesthetics and fashion can explain the changes in the civilian and government owned ships used. There could also be some complex advantages and disadvantages to having a chrome ship. At first one would think that chrome is somehow a futuristic characteristic, but not neccesarily so. The chrome can just be a fashio
The explanation I've heard is (Score:2)
The two strongest arguments against this are:
1. It seems odd that things technology and trading could have progress so far if most or all ships were custom made.
2. It doesn't make sense that every Ep. 1-3 era ship would be out of c
Re: (Score:2)
Episodes I-III took place during essentially peacetime - people probably had the time and money to make pretty spacecraft.
Episodes IV-VI took place during a long drawn-out war. Function over form would be the order of the day.
Re: (Score:2)
So yes, scavenged parts hacked together, and pretty battered stuff.
But in Ep V, when they get to the mine, they're still off-track, so the ships around still look battered, but the design of the floating mine ships look a lot like the prequels stuff: Curvy Flash Gordon stuff.
On tne oppsite, in the prequels we get to see some p
Others have pretty much said it (Score:5, Informative)
Your idea of a progression of technology is not what they were really going for. The stuff you see in all the movies (blasters, ftl travel, whatever) were invented a couple thousand years before any of the movies, and haven't changed a whole lot since, or have been evolutionary changes. In fact, if you go into some of the expanded universe stuff, you see some cyclical things or "long lost" technology - a concept you find in a lot of other science fiction. A progression from Golden Age -> War -> Dark Age -> Rediscovery.
So, to bowl it down: The reason all the stuff in the prequel looked nice, was because it was "The Golden Age" in the Star Wars universe. People with lots of money were flying around in fancy ships. It was the roaring twenties, and then there was 30 years of war and most people went more utilitarian. Hell, maybe there were still some rich people flying around after that, but nobody the camera was following around in Eps 4-6 were in that group.
In Eps 4-6 they talked about how great the old republic was (ie. the "more civilized age" quote) and the prequels were supposed to show this "golden age" and then show it fall apart. Now whether anyone thinks the movies suck or not (I was not super hot on them) is a seperate issue, but the reasoning behind the "nicer stuff in the past" is perfectly sound imo.
The Old Republic was more prosperous and stable, the civil war years less so.
Re: (Score:1)
lego "kits" (Score:2)
I always preferred the big box of parts (never with enough 8 and 10 long pieces!!!) and unlimited possibilities.
I wouldn't want my kids to start off with "this is what it is supposed to be like"
You always had a few silly custom parts with no use, and after you combined your stash with a new custom kit, it was always odd, as the colors never matched, and you had some weird-ass parts in t
Re: (Score:1)
Not a bad price, really (Score:5, Interesting)
Legos in sets have always gone for between 8 to 12 cents a piece. 5,000 pieces at 10c a piece is $500, which is about right.
Remember, a 200 piece set goes for between 18-22. The generic boxes of blocks are usually cheaper, running as low as 5c an element.
If you wanted to build a Falcon, this is probably the cheapest way to go. And you get 5000 elements that would work great on other spaceship projects, like the infamous Serenity.
yikes! (Score:2)
One of my quests right now is to come up with at least a couple of cubic feet of lego for my little ones. The standard little blocks, not the sets that tell you what to build. I'm not wedded to Lego brand; the off-brand stuff would be fine (well, the non-crummy-chinese-soft ones
btw, I've been amazed at the differences in how little girls & boys play with lego. My daughters almost always make something for a doll, horse, or stuffe
Re: (Score:2)
I've been trawling thrift stores and have scored a couple of large lots of Lego (as well as
Megablocks, K'nex...) for cheap. I also picked up a complete Mindstorms RCX kit for $9.99.
Cheap as in $5 for a bag weighing just over 8 pounds. A quick sloshing in soapy water, rinse, and air dry, and the kids have
Re: (Score:2)
Got a half dozen big rubbermaid boxes full of it, son's just about old enough to start inheriting it. Some is almost 40 years old, some is no more than a few years old. All of it works together perfectly
Re: (Score:2)
hawk
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget you also get a nice massive 4 lbs (just under 2kg) manual telling
Re: (Score:2)
You go to Lego and ask them to send you the missing piece [lego.com]. Lego are pretty good that way. You don't need to catalogue the pieces. You start building, and any missing pieces are pretty obvious after a while.
The funny thing about Legos.... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck on that. I've got four 25-gallon bins of Lego bricks, and I'm not sure I've got the parts to build it -- the Millennium Falcon has a lot of non-square surfaces, and those take unusual parts to build, and a great many hinges to hold everything at the correct angles.
Re: (Score:1)
If you're looking for a friend, I'm willing to oblige...
Re: (Score:2)
And that $2700 "shipping" charge is "shipping and handling". Given that the set comes pre-assembled (well, in 3 parts), I'm guessing that $150 is shipping and $2550 is what they're paying someone to put together the kit, although you'd think that would be included in the price of the item. I never understood this logic anyway. Why not just charge $30,00
Oblig Robot Chicken (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Lego pieces average a dime each. (Score:2)
$679 Canadian??? (Score:2)
Pricing (Score:5, Informative)
They must been using Excel 2007 to calculate their exchange rates... here are some of their international costs:
Based on actual exchange rates [xe.com], converting from USD$499.99 those prices should be:
Nice way to gouge your international customers...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The name 'LEGO' is an abbreviation of the two Danish words "leg godt", meaning "play well". It's our name and it's our ideal.
The LEGO Group was founded in 1932 by Ole Kirk Christiansen. The Company has passed from father to son and is now owned by Kjeld Kirk Kristiansen, a grandchild of the founder.
It has come a long way over the past 70 years - from a small carpenter's workshop to a modern, global enterprise that is now, in terms of sales, the world's sixth-largest manufacturer of toys.
(Source: Lego corporate website)
--
Toro (whose grandpa was named Torvald)
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with you people? Commonwealth again?
It's 549 too.
Joke apart, if they sold items online at a too low price, they would be doing unfair competition to their local retailers.
Re: (Score:1)
Ultimately, though, they are pro
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think I would call that gouging. Most companies that do business in mutliple countries, using multiple currencies, only do conversions every year or less.
You think? They're either gouging or they're incompetent. According to monthly data from the Reserve Bank of Australia [rba.gov.au], there have only been seven(!) months since 1969 when the USD/AUD exchange rate is equivalent to Lego's purported exchange rate (and they were all in 2001.) Maybe they think we're all backward yokels that don't understand such complex things as foreign exchange rates....
Ultimately, though, they are probably most concerned about getting their margins right for the US price, since it may well be their largest market. Even when the US economy is rocky, it is still a country with hundreds of millions of consumers, and a pretty significant per capita wealth.
I've no problem with their decision to charge a USD$499 price point. What is annoying is that the exchange rates
Re: (Score:1)
seven(!) months since 1969 when the USD/AUD exchange rate is equivalent to Lego's purported exchange rate (and they were all in 2001.) Maybe they think we're all backward yokels that don't understand such complex things as foreign exchange rates....
Did you consider that perhaps they made their pricing decision in 2001? Obviously I don't sit on the board at Lego, so I can't tell you how often they may decide to adjust their pricing for international markets. Nor do I know how large or small the Australian market is. But perhaps, just perhaps, they may have felt that the 6 year old exchange rate was close enough.
And beyond that, we're not even considering the additional costs of getting it to you. If Lego's are all made in Europe, they need to
Grow up (Score:2)
Millenium falcon vs star destroyer debate ... (Score:1)
Mohammed Ali is his prime was way better than anti-lock brakes!