Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Lego Millennium Falcon Goes On Sale

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the does-it-come-with-a-forklift dept.

Toys 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."

cancel ×

87 comments

Ummm.... (1)

PadRacerExtreme (1006033) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758395)

This has been in pre-order since the Spring catalog, so at least 4 months....

Re:Ummm.... (2, Informative)

roadkill_cr (1155149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758933)

Description is slightly off; it's been available for pre-order for a while, but people have actually been receiving their copies recently (see here [gizmodo.com] ).

Don't underestimate the Lego (3, Interesting)

Fierythrasher (777913) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758429)

It looks sweet. If there's one thing I've learned doing our Star Wars Collecting Podcast it's that I have always underestimated the loyalty of the Star Wars Lego collector. I thought the people were cute, but would never have guessed how many would buy a $300 or $500 lego set.

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:Don't underestimate the Lego (1)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758721)

I agree; you'd do better buying one of the Fine Molds plastic model kits of the Millennium Falcon (example listing on the Hobby Link Japan [hlj.com] website), which runs around $170 and has much better fidelity to the original.

Re:Don't underestimate the Lego (2, Insightful)

fractoid (1076465) | more than 6 years ago | (#20764139)

You fail at being a geek. Lego is automatically cool. Please leave your calculator and soldering iron on the desk to your left as you exit the club. :P

...just another lego fanboy here ;) ...

Re:Don't underestimate the Lego (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20758793)

I've spent several thousand on Lego sets for Star Wars and will eventually pick this one up.

you losers make me laugh.

Re:Don't underestimate the Lego (1)

Veetox (931340) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759349)

Someday, son, you'll understand, once you're able to progress past playing with your juvenile genitalia...

Re:Don't underestimate the Lego (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20761965)

i was at the theaters for this crap, son. it's not as good as what you think it is. it's a b-grade film that a bunch of fanbois hyped into something even worse.

Re:Don't underestimate the Lego (1)

yroJJory (559141) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758971)

What you fail to understand is how much fun putting together a $300 Star Destroyer is. I didn't expect to ever get one, but my fiancee bought it for me for X-mas a couple years ago. It took 3 solid days to assemble and is friggin' schweet!

$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:Don't underestimate the Lego (1)

HalWasRight (857007) | more than 6 years ago | (#20760035)

The bigger one better be more stable than the old one. We found it to be mighty shaky at best. It rapidly falls victim to the cats, let alone Empire Tie Fighters.

Re:Don't underestimate the Lego (1)

hurfy (735314) | more than 6 years ago | (#20761029)

But any cat will tell you, they are much better than some tie fighter....they can destroy the whole suit....

Never cared for the Lego models. Not quite Lego and not quite a model :(

Re:Don't underestimate the Lego (1)

Ucklak (755284) | more than 6 years ago | (#20760203)

I'd actually like to learn how to make the models that Joe Johnston and the other early crew at ILM made.
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... (4, Funny)

Aphrika (756248) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758449)

...it's just a really large toy!

$500? Serious? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20758467)

It doesn't even come assembled. The price of all those mass produced pieces can't even cost half that, let alone the price you'd pay with unlimited virginity were you to actually assemble that.

Re:$500? Serious? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20758529)

Word has it you can also build a 1:50 scale model of Mom's basement with the spare parts.

Re:$500? Serious? (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758735)

That's nothing.

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:$500? Serious? (1)

Veetox (931340) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759415)

Yeah, but at least with the Falcon, you can smuggle 10 oz. of goods under the floor boards... Mom's Basement only features a used hooka and a hemp rug.

Re:$500? Serious? (1)

spckdt (783472) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758749)

Well, as I received mine yesterday, I can say it is probably the darn instruction book that makes the cost so much. 314 large format pages with a spiral binding. The whole box weighs 24 pounds and the book is probably 10 of that...

Re:$500? Serious? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20762469)

At over 5000 pieces, that's less than 10 cents per piece, which is about average. There are certainly Lego sets that cost more per piece. I wouldn't be dissatisfied with the price.

dom

Re:$500? Serious? (1)

chrysrobyn (106763) | more than 6 years ago | (#20926609)

The price of all those mass produced pieces can't even cost half that, let alone the price you'd pay with unlimited virginity were you to actually assemble that.

Unlimited virginity? Damn, my wife's going to be upset. Wait, mine, or hers?

Jump for joy ? (3, Insightful)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758513)

Perhaps if the price weren't completely laughable.

Re:Jump for joy ? (1)

Rhys (96510) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758577)

The price:piece ratio of the falcon is within the "normal" range for other lego sets, so I'm not sure where you're coming from. Go buy 5k of bricks from other sets and let me know your total. Biggest problem I see with it is actually managing to find a large flat surface sufficient to display the completed model. The lego ISD has similar issues.

Re:Jump for joy ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20758653)

The lego ISD has similar issues.

For some reason I read that as IUD. Heh, good luck walking the wifey into that.

Re:Jump for joy ? (1)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759083)

What does the normal price range have to do with anything ? I'm sure there are a few people who would pay that much for the set but they are obviously either wealthy collectors with nothing better to do with their insane amount of money or they're die hard fans who ruin it for the rest of us by saving up for ages to be able to afford it rather than protesting the ridiculously over priced piece of plastic by not buying it.

The simple fact is, despite the fact that I LOVE star wars and lego, I'm all kinds of nerd and would absolutely adore to have that set ... I wouldn't pay that price even if I were wealthy and had the money. Think about what it actually costs lego to manufacture that set. I've seen similar batman sets going for around $50 ... the price is so high because it's the "Star Wars" brand and there are a lot of collectors willing to pay that high. I suppose in a sense it's worth it to the collectors. The high price will guarantee that few people will buy it and then a few years after it goes out of production it will see a return because there were only so many made and sold. That doesn't mean the price is any kind of sane for the rest of us.

Re:Jump for joy ? (1)

Kymri (1093149) | more than 6 years ago | (#20765773)

Somehow I doubt the 'similar' Batman sets had anywhere near the number of pieces (though I admit that might be possible) since, at 5000 pieces, this is the biggest Lego set of which I am aware. $500 is a lot of money for some people and a little for others (I fall into the former camp, and I still want one, though I doubt I'll buy it, as the cats would destroy it...)

$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:Jump for joy ? (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20768093)

I'll bet you one Lego Millennium Falcon set that you can't prove the existence of any 5000 piece Lego set that has retailed for $50 in the last 20 years. Care to take me up on that?

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 set of course...and even a mini set.

Suck it up, don't be so jealous. Sound like a 6 year old you do.

Re:Jump for joy ? (1)

Rhys (96510) | more than 6 years ago | (#20786353)

Well you're right, you could have gotten 5k pieces a few weeks ago -- I ordered 1350 bricks (on sale) for a grand total of $12.45. All 1x1 (light,dark) grey plates. Triple that plus a touch and you'd be under $50 for 5k bricks. Of course trying to construct much out of them might be a challenge.

Now if they'd just do some white and black I'd have all the goods for a mosaic or two.

Re:Jump for joy ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20765295)

Well, perhaps this one will be more your style, and budget. Millenuim Falcon keychain [lego.com]

This is said to be the first Lego model... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20758519)

...that has done the Kessel Run in 8 parsecs or less.

I'd swear Han says *12*. (1)

wild_berry (448019) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759553)

Is that eight instead of 12 because it's a scale model?

Chewie's attributes (0)

The Assistant (1162547) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758605)

I thought the article said 33 inches long, 22 inches wide and 8 feet tall!

Man, I better get a new pair of glasses before I get into some serious trouble!!!

Star Destroyer (2, Funny)

Grizpin (899482) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758763)

I'm waiting for the Lego Imperial Star Destroyer of the same scale as this Falcon.... based on specifications found online the star destroyer would be 165 feet long. How many Lego's is that?

Re:Star Destroyer (2)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758889)

How many Lego's is that?
Three but they're very large Legos. (Sorry, I was reminded of the old tootsie-pop commercials.)

Re:Star Destroyer (1)

Grizpin (899482) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759327)

It's actually over 300,000 Lego's. 33 inches = 2.75 feet, 165 feet / 2.75 = 60, 60 x 5,000 = 300,000 .... more when you consider the volume of the destroyer..... that's a lot of Lego's.

Re:Star Destroyer (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 6 years ago | (#20764069)

It's over nine thousand!

Re:Star Destroyer (1)

MooseMuffin (799896) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759489)

Enough to fill the Library of Congress!

What? Is that the wrong way to use that unit?

Boring (1, Funny)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758765)

It looks kind of boring to me, but then again, Star Wars is kind of boring to me.

I mean it looks like there's a lot of repetitive assembly required, with lots of similar ship sections.

Re:Boring (1)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 6 years ago | (#20776931)

I mean it looks like there's a lot of repetitive assembly required, with lots of similar ship sections.


Welcome to the discipline of engineering.

My personal views? (2, Interesting)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758811)

I am not really that much into the expense or the Legos these days and 500 clams is a lot for a toy of that type but the market value has changed in so many ways that I pay other inflated prices for the toys for my children.


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 be able to afford the time that building it would require.

Oh - am I missing something or does it not state what the exact total of the "production quantity" is?

WHO?! (2, Funny)

Kim Jong Ill (1033418) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758887)

What the hell is an aluminum falcon??!

Re:WHO?! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20768405)

Now get your seven-foot-two asthmatic ass back here, or I'll tell everybody what a whiney bitch you were when Padamamay, or Panda Bear, or whatever the hell her name was died! *whispering* Oh geez, he's crying.

Not a Pre-Order (1)

jlf278 (1022347) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758945)

According to the website these are "Available Now." According to eBay auctions, yes people did Pre-Order as long ago as 4 months, but they have started receiving this set already (to sell on eBay).

The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (3, Interesting)

$lingBlade (249591) | more than 6 years ago | (#20758955)

OK, to be on topic, I'd say this thing is a work of art. Extremely cool, but extremely expensive. Holy shit, I never realized Lego stuff could sell for that much ($499.99).

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:The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (1)

hondo77 (324058) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759069)

The rebel ships looked beat up because that's how rebels usually look. If they had money for shiny new ships, they'd be in power. MHO.

Re:The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759131)

It's more about the rendering...It's a hell of a lot easier to do a shiny smooth CG ship than it is to do a big chunky one. Pretty much broke the metaphor for me, with everything being way smoother and cleaner than it would ever be if it were "real".

Re:The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (1)

berashith (222128) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759197)

the easy explanation is that the rebels had been at war for 15 years or so. The last thing on their minds was waxing and buffing the planes, the goal was to get it up and flying to go blow stuff up.

Aside from that, i completely agree. The original ships were much more entertaining.

Re:The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (1)

Fierythrasher (777913) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759253)

Lucas had said back when he was making The Phantom Menace that the ships in the OT all had a certain look to them that he wanted to get away from; he wanted the ships in the prequels to be more retro, like 50's sci-fi. Truthfully, reading that statement before the movie came out, I thought that you'd have flying saucers, etc. But he did return to the "rounded edges, mirrored survace" asthetic found more in old Flash Gordon serials, etc. with The Phantom Menace.

What he did (or more realistically, what the hired Art Design team did), and this was actually very smart, was he started over for The Phantom Menace. No real ties to the Star Wars universe we knew from 30-plus years later. (They did this with "Young(er) Yoda" too, though, with mixed results.) Then for the next two movies you got to see an evolution of styles, as ships transformed from what was seen in Episode I all the way to what was seen in Episode IV. So you got to see fighters that evolved from an older style to be the TIE Fighters and X-Wings of the original movies, etc.

My wife always found the Queen's all-chrome ship to be very cool, although if it were in space and all chrome it would simply reflect blackness and stars and not really look as silver as it did on screen. Me...I liked the design and thought the chrome was cool but not the end-all-be-all. I really do like the Arc fighters, AT-TEs, etc. of the early movies, though. Some of the vehicle designs are the best parts of the prequels (except for Darth Maul)

Re:The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (1)

Telepathetic Man (237975) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759359)

I'm not a fan of they way the Star Wars prequels were done either. Yet I think I can help you with your ship style problems.

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 fashion of the time, or a specific style of Naboo, which is where most of the chromed out ships seemed to come from.

From the view of A New Hope and later, the galaxy just finished a huge war that sapped a lot of industry and collective ideas that were available before the war. The new civil war was just beginning, and new ship manufaturers were coming on-line and having to choose whether to support the military might of the failing republic\rising empire or to back the under-dog under-funded uprising. Most of the ships need to cost less because the buyers cannot really afford anything better. They just need something that works.

These are just surface ideas that easily explain the changes. I'm sure there are others.

The explanation I've heard is (1)

complexmath (449417) | more than 6 years ago | (#20760277)

that the victory of the Empire ushered in a new era of industrialization. So the ships you see in Ep. 4-6 are the product of early industrial engineering (ie. assembly lines for spaceships). By comparison, Ep. 1-3 were largely hand-made, and thus far more elegant and customized.

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 commission by Ep. 4-6, or that we wouldn't see any of them around.

Still, this is the most acceptable explanation I've heard.

Re:The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (1)

eth1 (94901) | more than 6 years ago | (#20760529)

Ok, I do agree with you, and it annoys me, too... But I think it could be plausible story-wise

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:The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (1)

imr (106517) | more than 6 years ago | (#20763313)

To me, another plausible explanation is that in ep IV-VI the non military ships we see are pretty much like the falcon millenium, ships of smugglers living on the fringe of the empire.
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 pretty uptown part of the empire, corruscant, alderaan, naboo but when it goes "back" to tatooine, the ships in the race have pretty much this "hacked together by Mc Gyver" design again.

Others have pretty much said it (5, Informative)

vecctor (935163) | more than 6 years ago | (#20760849)

Others have pretty much hit on the "canon" explanation, but I'll add my own 2 bits.

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:The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20761157)

yeah man, you're preaching to the choir - it's a widely known fact that the prequels all sucked, and sucked hard.

Re:The Thing about Star Wars Ships that Bugs Me (1)

Jarik C-Bol (894741) | more than 6 years ago | (#20761681)

on the exact same note, the part of this that stood out most to me, is the controls. in episodes I II and III, they are all star trek TNG touchscreeny things which get replaced by switches and levers in the last 5 minutes of episode III, to match up with the original episodes.

lego "kits" (1)

foodnugget (663749) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759223)

Sure, this isn't the point of the sale, but i never appreciated lego "kits", where you see what it is "supposed" to be.

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 there.

Re:lego "kits" (1)

The_mad_linguist (1019680) | more than 6 years ago | (#20764679)

What you do is build it according to instructions, play with it until it starts to fall apart, then take it completely apart and build something else.

Not a bad price, really (4, Interesting)

palladiate (1018086) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759437)

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! (1)

hawk (1151) | more than 6 years ago | (#20760397)

>Legos in sets have always gone for between 8 to 12 cents a piece.

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 stuffed animal, rather than something that stands on its own. It will be interesting to see if that holds up with the mindstorms I just picked up (and how).

hawk

Re:yikes! (1)

kent_eh (543303) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767677)

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

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 near unlimited play value for very little cash.

Re:yikes! (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767945)

Buy it used, but whatever you do, buy LEGO. I have never come across off-brand 'lego' that wasn't complete crap. Megablocks is the closest, and it's not that much cheaper, and it's garbage. LEGO will last decades.

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:yikes! (1)

hawk (1151) | more than 6 years ago | (#20771601)

We've had the truly horrible stuff, but we also ended up with a pastel set years ago that worked remarkably well. Held the girls' interest better, too :)

hawk

Re:Not a bad price, really (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | more than 6 years ago | (#20761503)

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.


Don't forget you also get a nice massive 4 lbs (just under 2kg) manual telling you how to put together those 5000 pieces into the huge Millenium Falcon.

My only concern is - what do you do if you're missing a piece? Cataloging 5000 pieces is a huge task in and of itself...

Re:Not a bad price, really (1)

deek (22697) | more than 6 years ago | (#20762737)

My only concern is - what do you do if you're missing a piece? Cataloging 5000 pieces is a huge task in and of itself...


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.... (1)

ChinggisK (1133009) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759457)

...is that you don't have to build what it tells you to build on the box, meaning you could probably build this thing out of random pieces from other sets and save yourself a couple hundred bucks.

Re:The funny thing about Legos.... (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 6 years ago | (#20761663)

...is that you don't have to build what it tells you to build on the box, meaning you could probably build this thing out of random pieces from other sets and save yourself a couple hundred bucks.


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:The funny thing about Legos.... (1)

Deaney (1014409) | more than 6 years ago | (#20764035)

I've got four 25-gallon bins of Lego bricks

If you're looking for a friend, I'm willing to oblige...

Not Even Close To Most Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20759817)

While the MF might be the largest and most expensive set available thru Lego itself, it pales when compared to the life-size Batman available thru FAO Schwarz.

http://www.fao.com/catalog/product.jsp?productId=6649 [fao.com]

Doesn't say how many pieces, but the finished "model" is 6'6" tall and weighs 500 lbs!!

Price? Try $27,000, plus another $2,700 for truck shipping...the shipping alone is over 5 times the cost of the MF set.

Re:Not Even Close To Most Expensive (1)

Bigboote66 (166717) | more than 6 years ago | (#20767649)

Where do you see it weighs 500 pounds? That seems a little excessive for a life-sized figure made of mostly-hollow plastic lego bricks. Maybe 50 pounds.

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 $30,000 and say "Free Shipping".

-BbT

Re:Not Even Close To Most Expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20772519)

Where do you see it weighs 500 pounds? That seems a little excessive for a life-sized figure made of mostly-hollow plastic lego bricks. Maybe 50 pounds.

A human being the size of Batman weighs around 200 pounds. Humans are mostly water, so their specific gravity (i.e. density relative to water) is about 1. For a life-size LEGO kit to weigh 50 pounds, it would need an SG of about 0.25; most woods and all metals are denser than this, only balsa is less dense (at an SG of 0.17). So it's definitely not 50 pounds.

ABS plastic (closest to what LEGO uses) has a specific gravity about 1.05, so it should weigh about as much as a person would, though the cape and costume a human wears will be much lighter than one made of LEGO. 500 pounds is either shipping weight (i.e. model + packing materials + crates), or it means tat it has a skeleton inside to keep it from collapsing under its own weight (likely).

I'm over halfway done with my MF and it's approaching a very unwieldy 20 pounds.

Why not just charge $30,000 and say "Free Shipping".

Because sale price is taxable and shipping is not.

Oblig Robot Chicken (1)

da3dAlus (20553) | more than 6 years ago | (#20759825)

What the hell is an "aluminum falcon"?!

Re:Oblig Robot Chicken (1)

Necreia (954727) | more than 6 years ago | (#20760191)

Who's "they" ?!?

RIGHT NOW... I'm building this beast. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20759857)

I preordered this months ago and it came in on Monday. I'm spending about 4 hours a day on it, and I'm about 1/4 way through the instruction book right now (2 days in). I figure it flies on Friday.

The skeleton this thing is built on is massive. They have parts and assemblies I haven't seen before, just to strengthen this thing so it doesn't collapse under its own weight, and I've done the previous Star Destroyer and Blockade Runner models. There's a lot about this kit that impresses me as an engineer, since LEGO sets aren't built with rivets, lock washers, or Loctite.

I have most of my living room (including couch and coffee table) covered with the sorted piles of parts. Thank God I don't have pets, children, or a spouse to mess it up.

The Star Wars mega-kits just keep getting bigger, bolder, and more expensive. I was wondering what would come after the Death Star II; this is it. The summary does not point out that this Millennium Falcon is done to the scale of the mini-figures, so about 1 meter = 2 LEGO grids.

Personally, I enjoy building these the way I enjoy building other model kits. They're not "toys" any more than the materials of other hobbies (model rockets, oil paintings, private aircraft, whatever) are toys. My main problem is finding places to put things when I'm done building them.

Lego pieces average a dime each. (1)

Russ Nelson (33911) | more than 6 years ago | (#20760271)

Lego pieces average a dime each, so with slightly over 5K pieces, yeah, this kit will cost $500.

$679 Canadian??? (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 6 years ago | (#20760865)

Obviously Lego hasn't been following the currency markets lately...

Re:$679 Canadian??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20766431)

you think that's bad?
the Australian Dollar is currently at about 89 US cents.
yet, a US $500 Millennium Falcon translates to AUD $979.95!! that's 51 US cents to the AUD $1. W.T.F.?

The aussie dollar hasn't been that low since the early eighties... absolutely shocking.

Pricing (5, Informative)

edwardaux (710732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20761443)

They must been using Excel 2007 to calculate their exchange rates... here are some of their international costs:

  • GBP = 349.99
  • CAD = 679.99
  • AUD = 979.95

Based on actual exchange rates [xe.com] , converting from USD$499.99 those prices should be:

  • GBP = 248.02
  • CAD = 502.25
  • AUD = 570.77

Nice way to gouge your international customers...

Re:Pricing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20762021)

US prices don't include taxes. Most other countries prices do. Not to mention that the US Dollar is particularly weak at the moment, so the ratios are even further from 'fair'.

Re:Pricing (1)

GeckoX (259575) | more than 6 years ago | (#20768149)

Er, CAD doesn't include tax either, and we're at parity with the US now for all intents and purposes.

Re:Pricing (1)

Torodung (31985) | more than 6 years ago | (#20763015)

Um. The U.S. are also "international customers" to Lego. Lego is a Danish-owned company.

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:Pricing (1)

imr (106517) | more than 6 years ago | (#20763447)

again? [slashdot.org]

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:Pricing (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20763757)

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. A good example can be found at your local newsstand - next time you're there, pick up a magazine. Most magazines sold in the US (at least in Northern states) have prices in US and Canadian dollars. But most of them are based on old conversions of $1US = $1.25CA. Some are even worse, based on $1US = $1.50CA.

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.

Re:Pricing (1)

edwardaux (710732) | more than 6 years ago | (#20764029)

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 they are using for their international currencies are not even close to reality.

Re:Pricing (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20771519)

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 then get them to you in Australia in some manner, and there aren't any options for doing that which I would expect to be both quick and affordable. And then of course there are tarriffs to pay as well...

Someone else pointed out that US prices are before tax, and many other countries are after tax. Most states charge sales tax in the US on the range of 6-10% - which could of course be up to $50 for this item. If you take that into consideration before accusing the company of gouging, you may see that their prices aren't all that bad.

And if it really irks you that much, you can always try to find an importer of your own to deal with it - pay the American price and then deal with Australian customs once it gets to you. That may or may not be worth the effort, I have no way to tell you that.

Also, I'll point out that its not all milk and honey up here, either. When I was looking for deposit accounts up here, I found your banks are paying about twice the interest (or better) than ours. So while our economy up here is currently geared towards importing and spending, you folks have a decisive upper hand on low-risk investment.

Grow up (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 6 years ago | (#20768007)

Oh my god, things cost different amounts in different countries and are not directly related to currency exchange values, call the National Guard!

$500 is a good deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20763357)

Compared to the Australian price: 979.95 AUD = 858.115 USD.

Ok it isn't a good deal, but is less insane than what Aussies pay.

Millenium falcon vs star destroyer debate ... (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#20763695)

You can have that debate to yourself. We already know the result of the more important debate.

Mohammed Ali is his prime was way better than anti-lock brakes!

Help this guy buy one (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#20809299)

Check out this guy: http://www.buymealego.com/ [buymealego.com] -- a little funny, but I guess 65 cents isn't a whole lot to get a link on the site. Got a ways to go, though. He's definitely counting on numbers.
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...