LEGO Star Wars: Character Encyclopedia In Hand

[Staff]

I received my complimentary copies of the LEGO Star Wars: Character Encyclopedia yesterday but finally got around to posting this tonight. Did you get yours yet? What do you think? I'll have a review done shortly with a giveaway tied in. Stay tuned.
---
Permalink: http://www.fbtb.net/2011/09/18/lego-star-wars-character-encyclopedia-in-hand/

[onions]

What do you think? Like? Dislike?

Find any errors? List them here so I can send a list back to DK Publishing for future print runs.

[mandrakus]

I didn't receive my Amazon order yet, but I'm excited to get it.

[Trooper10]

Got mine yesterday - it looks great and nice to see the appropriate credit in the back for our resident expert. The Han figure is a nice addition to the ceremonial Luke....I suppose any old Chewbacca minifig will make up the set, since HE DIDN'T GET A MEDAL!!!
Not an actual error but the slave Leia photo looks like she has been decapitated as her collar (light grey) blends into the background - I had to look very closely to work out what was going on. Also on p12 the main photo of Aldar Beedo looks out of focus - I don't think it is, I think it is just the weird effect of the not very sharp plastic molds. It just looks odd.
I was a little surprised at the smaller format but it works well with this book, and I rather liked finding out Admiral Piett's first name (and I thought I was was a real Star Wars nerd....shame on me).

[cas]

I plan on eventually picking one of these up. I got a very brief look it at Walmart, where I was disappointed to see all but one Han missing.

[jd-83]

I picked this up as soon as it became available at my local Barnes & Noble. I absolutely love it! The huge, detailed pictures of each fig are awesome! And I love how variations and different versions are mentioned for each minifig. I do have a few minor gripes, however:

1. There isn't a clear picture of the original Darth Vader minifig, which is arguably one of the most important minifigs in all of LEGO Star Wars. I do realize there is a small image of the LULS Vader with the original torso on page 61, but I would have preferred a larger, straight-on shot of the original, similar to how the original Leia and Luke figs are pictured on pages 66 and 67. I also wish we could have had something similar for Boba Fett on page 108. Cloud City Boba is neat and all, but I would have liked a straight-on shot of the original as well.

2.

Not an actual error but the slave Leia photo looks like she has been decapitated as her collar (light grey) blends into the background - I had to look very closely to work out what was going on.

I was a little taken aback by this as well. At first glance her head looks like it's just kind of floating there...

3. On page 173... there seems to be a small space between Nahdar Vebb's head and body. Perhaps his head was not fully pushed down onto his torso piece.

Aside from these minor setbacks, I love this book to death! Great work!

[dWhisper]

Just been flipping through. Despite looking at the Super Star Destroyer many times, I hadn't realized that Admiral Piett was a custom face (the torso is just a better printing of Tarkin's by the looks of it). What is curious is curious is the little blurb about the "Ultimate Super Star Destroyer" in the upper right corner...

[H]e Commands the imposing Star Dreadnought Executor warship

Who knew we were using the wrong name all this time?

[Mofo Jones]

I rather liked finding out Admiral Piett's first name (and I thought I was was a real Star Wars nerd....shame on me).

I know what his Piett's first name was/is. Guess I am a real SW nerd.

[fallenangel327]

Just been flipping through. Despite looking at the Super Star Destroyer many times, I hadn't realized that Admiral Piett was a custom face (the torso is just a better printing of Tarkin's by the looks of it). What is curious is curious is the little blurb about the "Ultimate Super Star Destroyer" in the upper right corner...

[H]e Commands the imposing Star Dreadnought Executor warship

Who knew we were using the wrong name all this time?

Whatever do you mean?

Star Dreadnought, sometimes spelled Star Dreadnaught, was a formal designation for some of the largest and strongest battleships in the starfleets of regional[1] and galactic governments.[2][3]

The term "Super Star Destroyer" was also applied colloquially to some of these ships by the Alliance to Restore the Republic and the Galactic Empire. In these cases, Star Dreadnoughts were noted as being the largest Super Star Destroyers.[3][4] In turn, the lower-case term star dreadnought could be used to describe Super Star Destroyers in general.[5]

The Technical Commentaries also refer to Super Star Destroyers as "Executor-class Star Dreadnoughts" - the fact that the former term is Alliance slang has been known for a while.

[dWhisper]

Eh, sounds a whole lot like history revisioning to me. Reading through the book made me appreciate how much I don't know, and don't want to know, about Star Wars. Maybe it makes me a bad nerd, but they're just making stuff up at this point.

[fallenangel327]

I don't want to seem like too much of a pedant, but again, the nomenclature has been around for a while:

Spoiler: show

In the movies, the Executor is only called a “star destroyer” or “super star destroyer” by loose-talking or stressed characters — never by naval experts in analytic circumstances. Princess Leia, a politician and not a naval expert, exhaustedly muttered “star destroyer” as she escaped from Bespin. Likewise, Lord Vader was upset when he called for a ship and left Cloud City. It isn't clear whether he meant to signal Executor directly or via a true star destroyer attending his flagship (somewhere off-camera). Admiral Ackbar, evidently floundering with human language, called the ship a “super star destroyer” in the heat of battle. However, calmer characters call the Executor a “command ship,” [Solo approaching Endor; Palpatine giving orders to Vader]. C-3PO [in Classic STAR WARS] says that it looks like an oversized “battlecruiser” — which implies battleship scale.

Executor's mass and power are orders of magnitude beyond a mere destroyer. It is the premiere warship of its time: a dreadnought — the top of the range of battleships. Therefore the term “super star destroyer” can only be slang. It is a widespread colloquialism, of rebel origin, covering warships exceeding destroyer scale: star cruisers, star battlecruisers and star battleships, including star dreadnoughts. [ITW:SWT]

Thus the term “Super-class” appears to be a corruption of slang. A “Super-class” of warships could only formally exist if the lead vessel had been named Super. In principle there could exist a class of five- or eight-mile warships with a first member called Super, but this class would not include the Executor (which is the lead ship of its own class). In any case, it would still be inaccurate to label such large ships as “destroyers.”

The colloquial term “super star destroyer” should be avoided. This is not mere pedantry; the term is actually misleading. In addition to its harmful contribution to the confusion over Executor's length, the term is overly broad. The description “super star destroyer” has been applied to vessels of widely varying classes and roles: e.g. Allegiance and Eclipse in Dark Empire. The only shared property of these warships is that they are slightly or greatly bigger than the most common, one-mile destroyers.

...

Last updated on 6 August 2004.

You're right that the 'Star Dreadnought' designation is revisionist - it's only been around since 2004. 'Super Star Destroyer' and 'Super-class Star Destroyer' were used before that - which means that the new nomenclature, like most things in the franchise, is a retcon. But all that fuzz exists only within the fabricated universe of 'Star Wars canon'.

Not really worth going back through all that... just call it Executor, because that's what its name is.

[etcknight]

Just been flipping through. Despite looking at the Super Star Destroyer many times, I hadn't realized that Admiral Piett was a custom face (the torso is just a better printing of Tarkin's by the looks of it). What is curious is curious is the little blurb about the "Ultimate Super Star Destroyer" in the upper right corner...

I'm a little disappointed with Lego Co and their "reuse" of minifig heads. I realize this helps them cut costs, and if the same actor were playing each role it might be more understandable. But Admiral Piett and Professor Snape sharing the same face is a little odd. AFOLs have also noted that Princess Leia and Priness Tamia, and Hermoine and Padme share the same faces - but these figures especially desire their own face print.

1. There isn't a clear picture of the original Darth Vader minifig, which is arguably one of the most important minifigs in all of LEGO Star Wars. I do realize there is a small image of the LULS Vader with the original torso on page 61, but I would have preferred a larger, straight-on shot of the original, similar to how the original Leia and Luke figs are pictured on pages 66 and 67. I also wish we could have had something similar for Boba Fett on page 108. Cloud City Boba is neat and all, but I would have liked a straight-on shot of the original as well.

I second the comment that it would have been nice to have a more "complete" timeline and reference of each iteration per character. I would have sacrificed the large size image of each character, for more photos per page depicting the other versions of each. At least for "completeness", I would say the anniversary poster from a couple years back showed more versions per character.

Aside from these minor setbacks, I love this book to death! Great work!

Other than those minor issues, really nice looking book and great job!

[jd-83]

1. There isn't a clear picture of the original Darth Vader minifig, which is arguably one of the most important minifigs in all of LEGO Star Wars. I do realize there is a small image of the LULS Vader with the original torso on page 61, but I would have preferred a larger, straight-on shot of the original, similar to how the original Leia and Luke figs are pictured on pages 66 and 67. I also wish we could have had something similar for Boba Fett on page 108. Cloud City Boba is neat and all, but I would have liked a straight-on shot of the original as well.

I second the comment that it would have been nice to have a more "complete" timeline and reference of each iteration per character. I would have sacrificed the large size image of each character, for more photos per page depicting the other versions of each. At least for "completeness", I would say the anniversary poster from a couple years back showed more versions per character.

I love the giant images in this book, but I agree with etcknight that smaller images of more versions/variations would have made the book feel more complete.

Another approach could have been to keep the larger images along with a second page of smaller images for major characters, and then have several pages with just smaller images of some of the lesser known/minor characters.

[Coret]

I don't want to seem like too much of a pedant, but again, the nomenclature has been around for a while:

Spoiler: show

In the movies, the Executor is only called a “star destroyer” or “super star destroyer” by loose-talking or stressed characters — never by naval experts in analytic circumstances. Princess Leia, a politician and not a naval expert, exhaustedly muttered “star destroyer” as she escaped from Bespin. Likewise, Lord Vader was upset when he called for a ship and left Cloud City. It isn't clear whether he meant to signal Executor directly or via a true star destroyer attending his flagship (somewhere off-camera). Admiral Ackbar, evidently floundering with human language, called the ship a “super star destroyer” in the heat of battle. However, calmer characters call the Executor a “command ship,” [Solo approaching Endor; Palpatine giving orders to Vader]. C-3PO [in Classic STAR WARS] says that it looks like an oversized “battlecruiser” — which implies battleship scale.

Executor's mass and power are orders of magnitude beyond a mere destroyer. It is the premiere warship of its time: a dreadnought — the top of the range of battleships. Therefore the term “super star destroyer” can only be slang. It is a widespread colloquialism, of rebel origin, covering warships exceeding destroyer scale: star cruisers, star battlecruisers and star battleships, including star dreadnoughts. [ITW:SWT]

Thus the term “Super-class” appears to be a corruption of slang. A “Super-class” of warships could only formally exist if the lead vessel had been named Super. In principle there could exist a class of five- or eight-mile warships with a first member called Super, but this class would not include the Executor (which is the lead ship of its own class). In any case, it would still be inaccurate to label such large ships as “destroyers.”

The colloquial term “super star destroyer” should be avoided. This is not mere pedantry; the term is actually misleading. In addition to its harmful contribution to the confusion over Executor's length, the term is overly broad. The description “super star destroyer” has been applied to vessels of widely varying classes and roles: e.g. Allegiance and Eclipse in Dark Empire. The only shared property of these warships is that they are slightly or greatly bigger than the most common, one-mile destroyers.

...

Last updated on 6 August 2004.

You're right that the 'Star Dreadnought' designation is revisionist - it's only been around since 2004. 'Super Star Destroyer' and 'Super-class Star Destroyer' were used before that - which means that the new nomenclature, like most things in the franchise, is a retcon. But all that fuzz exists only within the fabricated universe of 'Star Wars canon'.

Not really worth going back through all that... just call it Executor, because that's what its name is.

I love when people go back to change little things to cover their butt. You know like Han shooting first, Darth Vader saying "Nooooo" before throwing the Emperor over the railing, or giving ships a new classification. It makes the movies so much more enjoyable.........

[Robzula]

On the whole Star Dreadnought thing, I was under the impression they added this designation because there were getting to be so many huge warships, not all of them being Star Destroyer-type, that they couldn't just lump them all under the Super Star Destroyer classification. Even before the Star Dreadnought designation, they had to change the "classic" SSD to the Executor-class Super Star Destroyer because other SSSDs came out, such as the Eclipse-class. It really just makes sense and doesn't make any other names for these ships any less canon...

[minicoop4]

I think the book is excellent. There could have been improvements, but I think it is a great value for the money. I haven't spent too much time looking in detail, but I spotted two mistakes for K-3PO: Data File says year 2011 which is wrong (should be 2007). Index entry for K-3PO says it was in set 7879 which is also wrong (should be 7666).

[MrCRskater]

Just got my copy today, and I must say that I find this book quite impressive! While I haven't scoured it for every little typo, the formatting and quality of the photos make for some serious eye candy and it's a ton of fun to just leaf through. Very nice work, Ace.

I love the giant images in this book, but I agree with etcknight that smaller images of more versions/variations would have made the book feel more complete.

Another approach could have been to keep the larger images along with a second page of smaller images for major characters, and then have several pages with just smaller images of some of the lesser known/minor characters.

I agree that having images of all the variants for each fig would have really put this volume over the top. However, cramming them onto each page, or even inserting them between pages would have disrupted the formatting and flow of the book. A good solution would maybe be to include it as an appendix, just 10-20 pages containing smaller images of all the variants of each character, maybe with a release year under each image.

[dWhisper]

The only times I even remember hearing about Star Destroyers was in the first movie during the escape from Tatooine, and during the battle of Endor, when they were explicitly called Star Destroyers and a Super Star Destroyer.

On the whole Star Dreadnought thing, I was under the impression they added this designation because there were getting to be so many huge warships, not all of them being Star Destroyer-type, that they couldn't just lump them all under the Super Star Destroyer classification. Even before the Star Dreadnought designation, they had to change the "classic" SSD to the Executor-class Super Star Destroyer because other SSSDs came out, such as the Eclipse-class. It really just makes sense and doesn't make any other names for these ships any less canon...

The problem with your theory was that using the term Dreadnought doesn't even convey the right idea. There weren't many ships in that class historically (talking actual history, not Lucas' fantasy land). It was effectively a bridge between the Ironsides and Battleships, moving from the old movable cannons to fixed long guns. They weren't around that long, and were quickly outclassed. ISDs are obviously Destroyers, the SSD would be an analog to a Battleship or Carrier (though in reality, it was far larger than either one), and the Victory Class SD's would be similar to cruisers (since they're supposed to equal the Corvette, which would be a cruiser-style).

I got that the EU expanded on a lot of it, but I know the original history of the SSD was that it was Vader's personal ship, and being as badass as he was, he had to have an even more badass ship. The Eclipse, while retcon'd into EU (it first came out in Dark Empire, which still is the best of the SW Comics; don't agree, well, you're wrong), was an awesome ship and idea, but wasn't designed in the same mindset of the SSDs. If we're comparing it naval ships, well, it doesn't have one, per se. It's closer to a hypothetical retrofitted battleship that would house a rail gun, since it was basically just a stupid long ship that had a Death Star laser strapped on.

Which is why I don't read much into the history revisioning, because a lot of it doesn't make all that much sense. Stuff like this, or the insanely long back stories given to completely insignificant characters, add nothing to the story. The blurb could have called out the SSD and given us a lot of stuff people would recognize, instead of a name that you have to go to the Databank to check on because it sounds so wrong.

[Cradok]

I thought it was weird that there was no Shadow ARF given that it's been around out longer than the most recent wave, which did make it in. No 'Ian' Solo either, but that one's more understandable. And there's one of the 14k Threepio's pictured next to the blurb about the chrome one. It does mention the 14k at the end of the paragraph, but it's not clear which one it's a picture of.

As regards Mr Saxon, the man has the worst case of confirmation bias seen outside of moon landing conspiracy theorists.

[Ted495]

Re: the whole SSD thiing...

In 1995-1996 the EU books X-Wing series by michael stackpole, the first appearance of another ship like executor in any form to my knowledge, is called a super star destroyer by both sides.