Review: 75356 Executor Super Star Destroyer
Posted by CapnRex101,77904 Nebulon-B Frigate was developed for San Diego Comic-Con in 2020, reviving the appealing midi-scale range. I was incredibly impressed with the Rebel Alliance frigate, especially because the scale provides an opportunity to create a superb collection of vehicles.
75356 Executor Super Star Destroyer looks fantastic, recreating the mammoth Executor-class Star Dreadnought for only the third time in LEGO! This model seems remarkably detailed and its size should prove beneficial, as the Super Star Destroyer occupies limited space on display.
Summary
75356 Executor Super Star Destroyer, 630 pieces.
£59.99 / $69.99 / €69.99 | 9.5p/11.1c/11.1c per piece.
Buy at LEGO.com »
Despite some compromises, the Super Star Destroyer looks magnificent at this scale
- Generally accurate, for its size
- Exceptionally detailed
- Good size for display
- Imperfect proportions
The set was provided for review by LEGO. All opinions expressed are those of the author.
Reference
Source - starwars.fandom.com
The Completed Model
Star Destroyers are renowned for their dagger-like shape, which the Executor-class exemplifies better than any other. The sharp lines are outstanding and wedge plates are used to good effect on this model, minimising any gaps. Ideally, the structure would be marginally wider towards the stern, although a limited range of wedge plates are available, so I am happy with its proportions at this scale.
The vessel measures nearly 44cm in length, which is quite substantial and clearly surpasses the Nebulon-B Frigate. While evidently not in scale, I think these vehicles look marvellous on display together. After all, we do see an audacious Nebulon-B Frigate broadside the Executor during the Battle of Endor! Naturally, more colour variation would be nice, should the series continue.
Similar to 77904 Nebulon-B Frigate, the model is presented on an attractive base. The rounded shape is excellent and matches the frigate, while the black colour contrasts well against the Star Destroyer. I like the printed nameplate too, although the dark bluish grey pieces behind the plate should have been black. Moreover, a brick marking the fortieth anniversary of Return of the Jedi is attached to the base.
The nose narrows to the relatively sharp point, again considering the selection of wedge slopes available. I would have liked a few more of these exposed studs to be covered, as the armour is otherwise fairly smooth, but I think adding extra tiles could highlight the seam along the centre of the warship. Currently, the seam is reasonably subtle.
The transition between this seam and the 'cityscape' atop the Executor is nicely disguised under some inverted pieces, which perhaps represent a secondary command bridge. Several colourful 1x1 plates are found underneath, depicting Darth Vader with the assembled bounty hunters from The Empire Strikes Back! These are definitely a fun addition to the model.
Detaching the hull panels reveals a surprisingly simple structure inside. Each panel is connected to three reddish brown 2x2 rocker plates, which are angled using hinge plates. Clearly, there are some brightly-coloured pieces visible here, but these are completely hidden once the panels are re-attached, fortunately.
The angled internal supports correspond almost exactly with the rows of 2x6 wedge plates along either side. The flanks therefore look absolutely perfect, avoiding any gaps, but including a dark bluish grey band alongside some trans-light blue tiles. Additionally, I like the combination of tiles and occasional studs on the hull, complemented by 1x2 ingots.
For complete accuracy, similar panels would be fixed underneath the Super Star Destroyer. This would probably be quite complicated though, so layered wedge plates are a fitting alternative, in my opinion. There is even a hangar on the underside, although its design has been substantially simplified, compared with to the onscreen vessel.
A pair of Imperial-class Star Destroyers flank the Executor, emphasising its massive size. These are constructed from only ten parts, but their shape seems very accurate. The 2x4 wedge plates work well, while a 1x2 plate forms an authentic the command tower, with studs representing twin shield projectors. Technically, these Star Destroyers should be slightly smaller for scale, but they look fantastic.
Another 1x2 plate recreates the command tower of the Super Star Destroyer, looming above the intricate cityscape. Clips, grille tiles, ingots, brackets and other small pieces are used to produce complex texture. While obviously much smaller than 10221 Super Star Destroyer, I actually think this section looks better on the midi-scale version, which benefits from the wide range of smaller parts available nowadays.
The space between the cityscape and the hull panels is very narrow as well, as brackets occupy potential gaps. However, the shape of these panels could be improved towards the stern, where the armour should be angled further inwards. Again though, the range of available wedge slopes does not cover every eventuality.
While much of the underside is basic, the engine assembly is expertly detailed. Dark bluish grey elements highlight the engine nacelles, which are nicely shaped and glow with trans-orange 1x1 round plates. Thirteen engines are mounted here, also corresponding with the vehicle presented during the Original Trilogy.
Overall
As soon as 77904 Nebulon-B Frigate was released, I was excited for any subsequent models of the same scale. 75356 Executor Super Star Destroyer completely satisfies my expectations and looks stunning on display. Despite its relatively modest size, the dreadnought includes wonderful detail, while the accompanying Star Destroyers are useful in conveying the Executor's size.
Admittedly, the proportions of this model are not faultless, as the vessel should be wider around the command tower, before narrowing further towards the stern. Also, an Admiral Piett minifigure would have been welcome, but was not a necessity. The price of £59.99, $69.99 or €69.99 does seem quite expensive, although I still consider this a must-have, especially once discounted. Hopefully the series will continue.
190 likes
53 comments on this article
Oh that bounty hunter easter egg is too cool.
I have built this already and actually really loved the design as well as the build for the stand itself! I wish there was more holding the top plates than those 3 2x2's
10221 is the UCS Super Star Destroyer. What is the third SSD that is mentioned in this article?
Well, now I'm hating how inferior the mini-ISD is making the prior Advent Calendar ISDs look. (I'm recollecting we've had two variations, both relatively similar with minor modifications to the bridge. Edit: we've also had the First Order SD and the Imperial Light Cruiser. And a few Clone Wars era SD predecessors.)
I suppose this might make a nice centerpiece to display a bunch of comparable-sized Advent Calendar builds around.
...I'm not the only person here who's been keeping all their Advent mini-models intact since 2011, am I?
@bacon1986 said:
"10221 is the UCS Super Star Destroyer. What is the third SSD that is mentioned in this article?"
10143 included a micro version to go with the Death Star.
I think this is going to be my May the 4th buy, with either the Throne Room Diorama, The Fang Fighter vs Interceptor or a helmet set (I haven't picked up any of the new ones yet) and the Endor Brickheadz.
The consistent theme running across all SW Lego (and justifiably) is overpricing.
Star Wars must have the highest profit margins.
But if Lego were to change anything it would be to increase the prices on already overpriced sets.
They'll have to do more GWP to stop people buying the sets discounted at other retailers.
Would have preferred a new minifig version, 10221 is prohibitively expensive nowadays. But that new set looks great. However, it is also ridiculously expensive. I think I will get the parts at Bricklink and probably spend less than a 1/3 of the price (getting 10221 parts at Bricklink is also way less expensive...)
I really like this model, though it looks a little chunky. I am definitely in favor of an affordable line of midi-scale capital starships, even if the execution (heh) leaves a bit to be desired for me.
Can we get a Home One to match?
I find it odd that the dioramas get docked extra points for being too expensive, despite also being decent looking display sets with comparable value propositions, when the similarly-overpriced SSD doesn't include minifigs at all and gets called a must-have.
Wait, the normal Star Destroyer should be smaller to be in scale? Isn't Executor only something like 8x as long (can't remember off the top of my head from Complete Vehicles)? Lining up 8 of those Star Destroyers wouldn't equal Executor.
@MegaBlocks said:
"Star Wars must have the highest profit margins..."
Nope, that's City.
@ItisNoe said:
"Lemme guess, the imperfect proportions are that it's not long enough. "
Why guess when you can read the article?
@SketchBaws said:
"I find it odd that the dioramas get docked extra points for being too expensive, despite also being decent looking display sets with comparable value propositions, when the similarly-overpriced SSD doesn't include minifigs at all and gets called a must-have."
Okay, I'll call it overpriced. It looks *less* overpriced to me than the Endor diorama, but I wouldn't mind seeing a photo of both models side-by-side to see how they look next to each other. The SSD "feels" bigger to me despite still being a little outside my comfort zone. (Knock off $20, and I'd probably buy it.)
I think I would have preferred dark grey and black pieces instead of light grey and also more transparent blue "lights".
I absolutely adore this and have it on pre-order. I applaud Lego's efforts to introduce what are effectively mini-UCS sets - small, affordable, detailed, and easy to display!
I'm glad for y'all, you seem to really like this. I love Star Wars, and I like small scale... but this thing is hideous in design and execution (no pun intended).
And as always, about $30 too much.
sooooooo....is it ehks-EHK-yoo-tohr, like an executive, since its the highest class of ship where all the big wigs hang out, or EHKS-ehk-yoo-tohr, like an executioner, since its the deadliest ship?
Asking for a friend.
@ohrmazd said:
"sooooooo....is it ehks-EHK-yoo-tohr, like an executive, since its the highest class of ship where all the big wigs hang out, or EHKS-ehk-yoo-tohr, like an executioner, since its the deadliest ship?
Asking for a friend."
Emphasis is on the second syllable. It's Vader's flagship, and Vader is the executor of the Emperor and his decrees:
1.LAW
a person or institution appointed by a testator to carry out the terms of their will.
"Hugh appointed him an executor of his will"
2.a person who produces something or puts something into effect.
"the makers and executors of policy"
What an executor does NOT do is, well, execute people. That's an exeCUTioner. You know the stereotype: barrel chested, black hood, big axe.
Being as they are not the same thing, ehks-EHK-yoo-tohr (which is correct) should not use both pronunciations interchangeably.
So, scalewise, it looks like a bit longer than 56 studs, vs 6 studs. Either the ISD should be 4.5 studs, or the SSD should be 72, for the scales to match, at least based on current numbers (which are so much better than (5xISD=SSD), as WEG claimed. That was clearly inaccurate, just from looking at frames where an ISD was flying in front of the SSD.
@ItisNoe:
The scale has bounced around a bit, but three things are worth noting. The ILM designers scaled it to look 16 miles long, vs the ISD at one mile. The bridge design appears nearly identical, which should indicate when a given scale is way out of whack. There are also shots in Ep5 where you can see an ISD fly directly in front of the SSD, putting a firm limit on scale in one direction. Current numbers are 1600km vs 19,000km, so about one mile vs 12 miles.
@ohrmazd:
Linguistically, both pronunciations are legitimate. In terms of the ship’s name, we never hear it stated onscreen, so there’s no clear source for an official pronunciation (presumably all the survivors would quickly learn to use Vader’s preferred pronunciation).
This set is marked for preorder. will I be able to order it after it ships?
@PurpleDave said:
"So, scalewise, it looks like a bit longer than 56 studs, vs 6 studs. Either the ISD should be 4.5 studs, or the SSD should be 72, for the scales to match, at least based on current numbers (which are so much better than (5xISD=SSD), as WEG claimed. That was clearly inaccurate, just from looking at frames where an ISD was flying in front of the SSD."
For absolute precision, the Imperial-class Star Destroyers measure 4.2cm long and the Super Star Destroyer is 43.9cm long, so 10.45 times bigger. Ideally, the Super Star Destroyer should be 11.875 times longer. While not perfect, I think that is pretty good, considering the accurate shape of the Star Destroyers.
@moishe11 said:
"This set is marked for preorder. will I be able to order it after it ships?"
Yes, this will be available from LEGO.com like any normal set, although it is a retailer exclusive from Walmart in North America and Smyths in the UK.
@ResIpsaLoquitur said:
" @SketchBaws said:
"I find it odd that the dioramas get docked extra points for being too expensive, despite also being decent looking display sets with comparable value propositions, when the similarly-overpriced SSD doesn't include minifigs at all and gets called a must-have."
Okay, I'll call it overpriced. It looks *less* overpriced to me than the Endor diorama, but I wouldn't mind seeing a photo of both models side-by-side to see how they look next to each other. The SSD "feels" bigger to me despite still being a little outside my comfort zone. (Knock off $20, and I'd probably buy it.)"
Agreed. Definitely overpriced. No exclusive pieces (usually minifigs) other than the nameplates.
A good check to see how overpriced is to Bricklink it since there's almost nothing new here.
@AHYL88: My 10221 is on display since 2015 and doesn’t bend, flex. or break!
Random officer 1: "Sir! We've lost our bridge deflector shield!"
Admiral Piett: "Intensify forward firepower, I don't want anything to get through."
A-wing pilot: "I'm hit! AGHHHH!"
Admiral: "INTSEFITY FORWARD BATTERIES!"
Random officer 2: "TOO LAAATE!"
*fiery space collision and explosion*
(best scene of the film, hands-down.)
The midi-scale like this is the best scale for capital ships. It's large enough to be interesting but small enough to be manageable. You can look at the Bluebrixx Star Trek line to see what a great fleet of ships can be built up in midi-scale without breaking the bank. I'd love to see a whole fleet like that in Lego Star Wars. I hope there are many more sets like this to come.
I think i’ll buy this one.
This review is missing the VERY important detail that I NEED to SEE:
HOW MANY DO I NEED TO BUY TO FORM A COMPLETE CIRCLE?
It's an important detail.
I preordered this because I had to claim an outstanding vip gift a few weeks back. Now I'm trying to work out how to reach my 5/4th totals for gwp in 2 weeks...
@CapnRex101:
I’ve heard there’s an ugly rumor that this was set to be a one-and-done, but I have no idea where it originated. I didn’t see anything about the set announcement that indicated this would be likely, so I didn’t scramble to get a preorder in, confident that I’d have little trouble buying it at retail. It’s currently somewhere between nuisance and actual-problem that people manage to spread these rumors when there’s simply no basis for them. For years I heard that 10179 was getting rereleased (it wasn’t, and the release of a new design finally killed that rumor). Then there was a big scare about 76023 being limited to a single run. It wasn’t. Just this week, I’ve seen someone claim 10497 had its retirement date moved from 2025 to 2023. I have seen it on a list of sets that’s planned to be retired this year, but I’ve never heard of any set having a retirement date announced 2-3 years out, so I have no idea where the 2025 date came from. I know it’s unlikely to happen, but it’d be awesome if they would include retail availability in the initial press releases, including whether it will be limited to a single retailer (plus which ones), if it is planned for a limited run from the start, and if it’s a set that is intended for a one-year cycle vs a multi-year cycle.
@MegaBlocks said:
"The consistent theme running across all SW Lego (and justifiably) is overpricing."
Probably because of the massive licensing fees that LEGO has to pay to Disney
@MegaBlocks said:
"Star Wars must have the highest profit margins."
Possibly not, because of the massive licensing fees that LEGO has to pay to Disney.
@fourstud said:
"Oh that bounty hunter easter egg is too cool."
A surprise indeed but a welcome one.
I wonder if they’ll ever do the Supremacy-from The Last Jedi-in this style. Seems a bit more probable than us ever getting one at standard or UCS scale.
@Pitmonster said:
" @MegaBlocks said:
"The consistent theme running across all SW Lego (and justifiably) is overpricing."
Probably because of the massive licensing fees that LEGO has to pay to Disney
@MegaBlocks said:
"Star Wars must have the highest profit margins."
Possibly not, because of the massive licensing fees that LEGO has to pay to Disney.
"
Source of these massive fees claim?
@SearchlightRG said:
"I wonder if they’ll ever do the Supremacy-from The Last Jedi-in this style. Seems a bit more probable than us ever getting one at standard or UCS scale."
They already did- it's part 4286236! :)
@ItisNoe said:
"Wait, the normal Star Destroyer should be smaller to be in scale? Isn't Executor only something like 8x as long (can't remember off the top of my head from Complete Vehicles)? Lining up 8 of those Star Destroyers wouldn't equal Executor."
nope, it's almost 12x the size.
Imperial-class - 1600
Executor-class - 19000
The oldest stats from the WEG RPG were corrected later in accordance with the actual visuals from the OT. Sadly, the 8 kilometer figure was used in almost every EU novel up until 2005, and for some reason they were too lazy to correct it in reprints. I think even the NEGVV used the old stats.
Edit:
"In 1989, the roleplaying-game-based Imperial Sourcebook stated that the class was exactly five times the length of the Imperial-class Star Destroyer, and this figure was perpetuated for about 15 years, in game and non-game sources. Often, the accompanying Executor illustrations did not match the model used in the films, with the command tower being too large compared to the rest of the vessel, the tail section being truncated, and the ship having fewer engines (usually stated as nine)." (Wookieepedia)
"In 2004, the Inside the Worlds of Star Wars Trilogy reference book changed the Executor's length to 19 kilometers. It was explained by continuity checker Leland Chee to be more consistent with the films. Later books and reference guides mostly followed this number" (Wookieepedia)
@monkyby87:
The fact that they pay a massive fee for the Star Wars license is undeniable. No way George was going to let them have it for free (he owns a bit of Hasbro as a result of their own deal with him), and even less chance The Mouse would just give it away. The disconnect is in how they cover that expense. People have been claiming Lucasfilm got a percentage cut of every SW set sold for over two decades at this point. I first encountered this claim at a time when SW sets cost $0.09/pc, and World City cost $0.11/pc, but nobody was complaining about the city stuff having exorbitant fees tacked on. As a matter of fact, World City was getting nothing but praise at the time.
@Ephseb:
Ah! That's where the "8x" confusion comes from! I knew it had been clearly stated as only 5x the size (which is even more ridiculous when you're watching the asteroid belt scene). But 8000 is 5x 1600, and it puts the eight in your mind. I do still have to wonder why they picked 12x, when the people who made the model have said it was designed to look 16x. I'd expect they had the ratio on paper somewhere in their archives. It should have been a simple matter of pulling up the relevent documents.
Thank you for reminding me that this set exists. I was planning on getting 75347 and 75300 for May the Fourth (and 75333 if those two didn't meet the spend threshold), but I guess I'll be getting a different piece of Imperial hardware than one of those.
Looks like you could piece this together from your spare parts box in an hour so you're paying like $40 for a box, a sticker and a printed brick? Unbeliavable.
@CapnRex101 said:
" @PurpleDave said:
"So, scalewise, it looks like a bit longer than 56 studs, vs 6 studs. Either the ISD should be 4.5 studs, or the SSD should be 72, for the scales to match, at least based on current numbers (which are so much better than (5xISD=SSD), as WEG claimed. That was clearly inaccurate, just from looking at frames where an ISD was flying in front of the SSD."
For absolute precision, the Imperial-class Star Destroyers measure 4.2cm long and the Super Star Destroyer is 43.9cm long, so 10.45 times bigger. Ideally, the Super Star Destroyer should be 11.875 times longer. While not perfect, I think that is pretty good, considering the accurate shape of the Star Destroyers.
@moishe11 said:
"This set is marked for preorder. will I be able to order it after it ships?"
Yes, this will be available from LEGO.com like any normal set, although it is a retailer exclusive from Walmart in North America and Smyths in the UK."
Okay, thanks so much and great review! will definitely pick this set up, it's the perfect size for display!
@Rimefang said:
"(...)
HOW MANY DO I NEED TO BUY TO FORM A COMPLETE CIRCLE?(...)"
A little stud-counting and trigonometry later: the angle at the point is around 24° so you'd need 15 of these for a circle.
It would make an interesting roof for a truly grand carousel.
@Brickodillo said:
"I think i’ll buy this one. "
So be it. Jedi.
@Lordmoral said:
" @fourstud said:
"Oh that bounty hunter easter egg is too cool."
A surprise indeed but a welcome one."
Oh, that's just more bureaucratic bull$%@!
To me the big problem with this set is the forward bottom part of the hull. It should have a large plate frame similar to the top half. The "spear point" should be symmetric, like 8099.
So I got the Nebulon B, although I did that primarily because of its exclusivity, not that I ever plan to sell it. It looks good on display, but that’s all it is. The lack of minifigures, or really the inability of it to accommodate minifigures makes it just not all that interesting. I’d much prefer a microfighter edition of the ship, but at least this one didn’t cost too much.
This Star destroyer on the other hand is very expensive, especially considering there are no minifigures and I assume a ton of small parts. Had they doubled the price of this and made it accommodate minifigures I would have bought it in a heartbeat. This one seems like an easy pass.
This set looks absolutely terrible compared to the source material. The proportions are absolutely miles off and is not forgivable, in my opinion. Awful!
@pecadorl said:
"To me the big problem with this set is the forward bottom part of the hull. It should have a large plate frame similar to the top half. The "spear point" should be symmetric, like 8099 ."
I believe they couldn't do that like 8099. I have that one. Love it, looks clean and finished model on the underside.
The reason I believe is the SSD's rear engine placements. To keep it roughly in the same spots as the source material, they couldn't do that inner core build of 8099 where you can match top and bottom parts and do that arrow/spear tip top/bottom look.
I'm really excited for this. With capital ships I'm completely happy with midi-scale versions as no reasonable scale would house minifigures properly anyway and what is essentially a big grey wedge can be fairly accurately captured in a smaller scale. I would like to see more sets like this and was sad to miss out on the Nebulon-B a few years ago.
@legoDad42:
Maybe. Maybe not. I’m getting tempted to see what I can come up with for a mod, now.
@PurpleDave said:
" @legoDad42:
Maybe. Maybe not. I’m getting tempted to see what I can come up with for a mod, now."
Love to see it.
I think it might not work because this model is so shallow.
Star Destroyers are thicker and 8099 had enough space for the scale they did to have that inner core build where everything connects to get that wedge arrow head top/bottom. It's the first 7 pages (first 16 steps) in the instructions for 8099. That inner core is clever. Maybe you can mod that to this SSD.
Anyone find this at retail yet? It's on Walmart.com but I haven't seen it at my local Wally. They put out a ROTJ 40th anniversary Lego set display but it doesn't have a slot for this set.
I absolutely love the TESB Bounty Hunters' reference in the Executor-class, but that's, like I said, from Empire. Is this set not marketed as celebrating 40 years of RotJ?
@ItisNoe said:
"Wait, the normal Star Destroyer should be smaller to be in scale? Isn't Executor only something like 8x as long (can't remember off the top of my head from Complete Vehicles)? Lining up 8 of those Star Destroyers wouldn't equal Executor."
IIRC Executor is 19-odd klicks long, standard ISD 1.6. So about 12x. HUGE ship, what's surprising is they only gave 'em the fighter load of a paltry TWO ISD's for all that extra room and power.
I got this on Monday this week and I enjoyed the build immensely. The scale is slightly off, but not enough to make it a irrevocable disaster. I understand the desire for having perfection, but something has to give with the scale of the pieces Lego produces. Unless you can fit a micro scale piece for the conn tower and shield generators, this thing will never have perfect scale. It's good enough. I may try to mod the front a little to bring the upper points closer together.
On another point, yeah this set is $0.11 per piece which is pretty high. I believe this is due to the state of price hikes all around the world. The original release of 75192 cost $0.106 pp and now it is up to $0.113 pp. That's around a 7% increase. Give those figures, this set should maybe be around $64.99.
That all being said, I would buy it again without reservations, because it looks awesome at this scale, especially if you aren't a perfectionist.