 | | Re: Lego and Disney, a continued future?
|
|
(...) Not any more than having a town set or a vehicle set defeating the purpose of a child imagining his own version of those. Making sets more affordable is a good idea tho. The Disney sets were pretty expensive. (...) I dunno about that (...) (22 years ago, 1-Jun-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego and Disney, a continued future?
|
|
Ahui makes some good and persuasive points, but I have a few counter arguements. First, the Disney toy monorail SUCKS! It's clear though that Disney is open to the posibility of features of the park being modeled in toy stature. By the way, a little (...) (22 years ago, 5-Jun-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego and Disney, a continued future?
|
|
(...) well, it doesn't suck...it's not as good as it could be.:) (...) About 80-90% true. There are many licenses that are used (plush by Applause comes to mind, for example) for Disney Merchandise that is generally distributed. The park exclusive (...) (22 years ago, 8-Jun-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego and Disney, a continued future?
|
|
(...) Agreed, an over-reaction on my part, but what potential. (...) A former employee and an insider both told me that staff was down considerably and what mostly remains are people that oversee the independent contractors Disney highers to do the (...) (22 years ago, 10-Jun-02, to lugnet.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Lego and Disney, a continued future?
|
|
(...) and a good point...a Cinderella Castle was proposed, but was ruled too expensive to produce. If there was more support to the Monorail in terms of little figures and buildings, popularity would have been much higher. (...) Unfortunately, I'm (...) (22 years ago, 11-Jun-02, to lugnet.general)
|
