| |
Steve Bliss wrote in message <371b913e.28601859@lugnet.com>...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 17:09:15 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > ... They have obviously been willing to go out of
> > their way to make new parts for the SW sets,
>
> ... more so for the EP1 sets ...
Note that I'm not complaining about the special pieces. Many of them are
great additions to the Lego building arsenal, and they seem to be designed
with multiple uses in mind. In the EP1 sets we see the laser cannons used in
two different non-laser cannon ways.
> > ...and the Mindstorms R2D2 seems to
> > have JRization on a whole new scale with its huge dome on top.
>
> That's not Jr., that's a good old-fashioned specialized piece. What *else*
> are you going to do with that thing, except use it as R2D2's face?
Put two of them together and play soccer? Perhaps Jr'ization is not the
correct term. But they've made a pretty big hunk of ABS just to make R2 look
more "realistic". I could see them doing the same for a MF.
> > ... It is _the_ SW ship, and no SW
> > line would be complete without it.
>
> I thought the X-Wing was *the* SW ship.
Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
-John Van
|
|
| |
On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:21:42 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
> that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
> central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
That's the problem with RotJ! The main characters don't spend enough time
flying around in their cool ships!
Steve
|
|
| |
You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
Death Star.
-John Van
Steve Bliss wrote in message <371c7e1a.2609035@lugnet.com>...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:21:42 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
> > that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
> > central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
>
> That's the problem with RotJ! The main characters don't spend enough time
> flying around in their cool ships!
>
> Steve
|
|
| |
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
> think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> Death Star.
:)
Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
already too derivative).
What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
*much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and • I
> > think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> > Death Star.
>
> :)
>
> Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
> already too derivative).
>
> What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
> *much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
> have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
> from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
> imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
> monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
> after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
> and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
> And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
I whole heartedly agree. How come the Ewoks got there own movie but no other
cooler aliens did?
>
> Steve
|
|
| |
Would you guys stop picking on the Ewoks :) Wicket was my second
favorite character. They got 1/2 of a movie because George Lucas
wanted to give them 1/2 the movie, duh :)
Ryan
"Build or build not. There is no try." - Lego Master Yoda
*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********
On 4/20/99, at 8:44 PM, Ryan Carr wrote:
> In lugnet.starwars, Steve Bliss writes:
> > On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> > <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and • I
> > > think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> > > Death Star.
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
> > already too derivative).
> >
> > What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
> > *much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
> > have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
> > from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
> > imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
> > monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
> > after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
> > and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
> > And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
>
> I whole heartedly agree. How come the Ewoks got there own movie but no other
> cooler aliens did?
> >
> > Steve
|
|
| |
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 16:00:13 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
>
> > You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
> > think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> > Death Star.
>
> :)
>
> Nah, that would have been too too derivative (having another Death Star was
> already too derivative).
>
> What if they had taken the Death Star planet-killer weapon, and put it on a
> *much* smaller platform (instead of an even bigger platform)? These might
> have been 10Km long, but only 1 KM wide. Kind of like the ultimate weapon
> from Star Trek (I don't remember the episode name, sorry). Anyway, the
> imperials could have started establishing a production facility for these
> monsters, and the Alliance would have had to destroy. They would succeed
> after a hard-fought battle, with the unfortunate loss of the Endor moon,
> and all of those wacky, loveable Ewoks would have been fried to a crisp.
> And Timmy was visiting the tree city at the time!
Then everybody could have sat around celebrating and eating fried Ewok.
A universally known delicacy.
-- Terry K --
|
|
| |
I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were just to
cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a whole,
the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
-- Terry K --
On Tue, 20 Apr 1999 13:50:13 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
<john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> You know, I've always wondered why I like RotJ the least of the trilogy, and I
> think you've hit it! Just think if half the movie was used attacking the 2nd
> Death Star.
>
> -John Van
>
> Steve Bliss wrote in message <371c7e1a.2609035@lugnet.com>...
> > On Mon, 19 Apr 1999 21:21:42 GMT, "John VanZwieten"
> > <john_vanzwieten@email.msn.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Compare X-Wing "face time" with MF "face time" in the Trilogy. My guess is
> > > that the MF would edge out the X-wing, though obviously the X-Wing plays a
> > > central role at least in ANH and ESB, and in SW computer games.
> >
> > That's the problem with RotJ! The main characters don't spend enough time
> > flying around in their cool ships!
> >
> > Steve
>
>
|
|
| |
Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
Jesse
__________________________________________________________________
Jesse The Jolly Jingoist
Looking for answers?
Read the rec.toys.lego FAQ! http://www.multicon.de/fun/legofaq.html
Power-search in Deja News! http://www.dejanews.com/home_ps.shtml
|
|
| |
On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:18:34 GMT, "Jesse Long" <LongJR97@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> > I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> > series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> > cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> > the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
>
> So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
> loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
A very valid question. One can only hope.
But one boy thrust into the center of galactic events could be a subject
handled without reverting to being cute. I hope so, anyway.
The Ewoks, on the other hand, were primarily portrayed as being cute little
fuzzy bear-type beings. Something that could appeal to toddlers.
-- Terry K --
|
|
| |
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:03:45 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:18:34 GMT, "Jesse Long" <LongJR97@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> > > I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> > > series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> > > cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> > > the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
> >
> > So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
> > loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
>
> A very valid question. One can only hope.
> But one boy thrust into the center of galactic events could be a subject
> handled without reverting to being cute. I hope so, anyway.
Very true. Interesting that the second trailer barely mentions Anakin (I
hate when movies change advertising, and make themselves look like an
entirely different movie!).
> The Ewoks, on the other hand, were primarily portrayed as being cute little
> fuzzy bear-type beings. Something that could appeal to toddlers.
Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
(er, -plated) one is a god.
Steve
|
|
| |
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:20:42 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 00:03:45 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 21 Apr 1999 22:18:34 GMT, "Jesse Long" <LongJR97@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Terry K wrote in message <371d72ba.4919104@lugnet.com>...
> > > > I think RotJ was the least appreciated because of the perception that the
> > > > series had done a cardinal sin by trying to be "cute". The Ewoks were • just to
> > > > cute, something I hate to see in a good movie. Taking the series as a • whole,
> > > > the presence of the Ewoks is a jarringly sour note.
> > >
> > > So what makes people think that TPM, which stars a child for crying out
> > > loud, isn't going to be just as cute and lame?
> >
> > A very valid question. One can only hope.
> > But one boy thrust into the center of galactic events could be a subject
> > handled without reverting to being cute. I hope so, anyway.
>
> Very true. Interesting that the second trailer barely mentions Anakin (I
> hate when movies change advertising, and make themselves look like an
> entirely different movie!).
I hate when the movie trailers are better than the movie. Or when they give
away what should be a pivotal plot point in the movie. I *HATE* knowing what
is going to happen from seeing the stupid preview.
(go ahead and insert Titanic sinking jokes here) <g>
> > The Ewoks, on the other hand, were primarily portrayed as being cute little
> > fuzzy bear-type beings. Something that could appeal to toddlers.
>
> Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
> plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
> (er, -plated) one is a god.
Yuck. I had forgotten that segment of plot drivel.
-- Terry K --
|
|
| |
On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:43:24 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:20:42 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> > Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
> > plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
> > (er, -plated) one is a god.
>
> Yuck. I had forgotten that segment of plot drivel.
Forgot to mention the most insipid part of it: Chewie being fooled by a
hunk of dead meat on a line. And the entire crew being hoist by a snare.
Steve
|
|
| |
On Fri, 23 Apr 1999 13:41:22 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 20:43:24 GMT, legoverse@geocities.com (Terry K) wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 22 Apr 1999 18:20:42 GMT, blisses@worldnet.att.net (Steve Bliss) wrote:
> > > Plus, there's the hokey plot-line problem. Natives discover white hunters,
> > > plan to do nasty things to white hunters, but then think the golden haired
> > > (er, -plated) one is a god.
> >
> > Yuck. I had forgotten that segment of plot drivel.
>
> Forgot to mention the most insipid part of it: Chewie being fooled by a
> hunk of dead meat on a line. And the entire crew being hoist by a snare.
Ouch! Ouch! OK! I give up! Uncle!
-- Terry K --
|
|
|
