 | | Re: LEGO-Galidor Perspective In L.A. Times Article
|
|
(...) Doesn't this statement from Black seemingly contradict information presented in this recent article: (URL) the company reportedly announced that it had, "pledged to refocus on its core product - plastic bricks - after a disastrous foray into (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Andrew Black (was Re: LEGO-Galidor Perspective In L.A. Times Article)
|
|
Some kind soul sent me what was purported to be Andrew Black's email address at TLC. So, I forwarded my last post to him. I'll let y'all know if he responds. What are the odds? -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Goodbye Lego, hello Megablocks
|
|
Hi all, Well, as much as i love my lego, I think i am coming to the point that I will not be buying much more of it. After seeing the 2002 lineup, and mainly its incredible *lack* of focus, well, aside from the odd set, i think i am on the way out (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Galidor Debuts With A Whimper, Not A Bang
|
|
(...) Bad assumption. (...) We all watched it together as a family. My kids loved it. I thought it was much better than Digimon. I can't stand that nonsense. It was very well acted. There was actually a plot. Very well produced. The effects looked (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO-Galidor Perspective In L.A. Times Article
|
|
(...) Dear Lego, Please fire this guy and hire someone who realizes that these kinds of products (Bionicle, Racers, Galidor, even the Throwbots) are the wrong direction for your company. You make great contruction toys and the best bricks around but (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.dear-lego)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO-Galidor Perspective In L.A. Times Article
|
|
In lugnet.mediawatch, Matthew Gerber provided us with: (...) If "it's not just about bricks" anymore, the writing is plainly on the wall. Amusement parks, lifestyle products, and now this -- all I can say is that the end must surely be near. I've (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | LEGO-Galidor Perspective In L.A. Times Article
|
|
Andrew Black covers some of the burning questions many people are asking in other threads in this article from yesterday's L.A. Times: (URL) relevant quotes: "We're redefining Lego," said Andrew Black, president of the company's Americas division. (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: Galidor Debuts With A Whimper, Not A Bang
|
|
(...) Ok Matt, I will admit I watched it too. It is badly acted with lots of special effects. LEGO probably previewed the pilot and decided to save some money to cover future losses in July by not advertising. Let's face it, it is no Digimon, (...) (23 years ago, 13-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002’s good for Castle!
|
|
(...) much time and work go into each of these minifigs, but who would even spend $15-20 on a single minifig? Magnus (23 years ago, 12-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002s good for Castle!
|
|
(...) There's some okay pics of the two sets to come at the Marz Distribution site: (URL) the minifig pics currently reside at From Bricks to Bothans, which I'm sure you already know about. (URL) that helps! -Jay (the Rascal King) (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002s good for Castle!
|
|
Where can I see pictures of the spiderman sets? KEith (...) KEith ___...___ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. (URL) (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002’s good for Castle!
|
|
(...) Never mind. Somehow glanced past the other follow-ups. Personally, I don't mind the size, because I'm a sucker for removable helmets, and a sculpted head in the movie style wouldn't be very useful to me anyway (too mechanical-looking to pass (...) (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002’s good for Castle!
|
|
(...) Have you seen the Goblin from the movie? That IS what these sets are based on. My guess is it's removable (i.e. fits over a minifig head). Kevin (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002’s good for Castle!
|
|
(...) It is a good representation, but wouldn't you rather have a minifig head, instead of this helmet thing? Don't get me wrong, though, I see some uses for it. I just think it looks a bit absurd, as well as the frankenstein's monster hat peice (...) (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002’s good for Castle!
|
|
(...) Okay, a little follow-up: A friend showed me a pic, and the minifig head looks like a pretty good representation of the character's head. Is it a bit wide? Sure, but minifigs THEMSELVES are a bit wide. Jeff (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002’s good for Castle!
|
|
(...) It isn't "three times the size of his body." I'd say it is little more than 20% larger than a regular minifig head. I can't comment on how it looks compared to either the movie or the comic, since I have seen neither, nor do I plan to. (...) (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002’s good for Castle!
|
|
(...) I realize this, however TLC is responsibe for the Lego sets of the movie, therefore my complaints are directed correctly. I'm sure Sony Entertainment didn't say "Could you make Green Goblin's head three times the size of his body? Thanks." (...) (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002’s good for Castle!
|
|
(...) Since the Spiderman sets are based on the upcomig movie and not the comic, you'll want to direct your complaints there, rather than at Lego. Jeff (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002’s good for Castle!
|
|
Not only are the SW and HP sets looking awesome, but check out the better shots of the Monsters sets! #1380 werewolf ambush: (URL) curse of the pharoah (URL) vampire's crypt (URL) scary lab: (URL) sets look amazing! I'm dying to get my hands on the (...) (23 years ago, 11-Feb-02, to lugnet.castle, lugnet.harrypotter, lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch, lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: LEGO Company New Products at Toy Fair 2002
|
|
(...) Hey Mike! I forget where I read this, so don't quote me, but the arms of the new submarines in the underwater Alpha Team (namely 4793 and 4794) sets are "supposedly" the debut of Galidor peices in mainstream sets. If that is the case, then (...) (23 years ago, 10-Feb-02, to lugnet.mediawatch)
|
