 | | Re: next year
|
|
(...) Funny you should mention that, I had actually typed out a bit about the legendary third trilogy and deleted it as being less than on topic (along with a few other things). I do know that the third trilogy was about the rise of the New Republic (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: next year
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Eric Joslin writes: <Snip> (...) Rumour has it that the 3rd trilogy would have taken place about 25 years after the battle of Endor. The New Republic would be facing a dark new threat and the story would have been centered around (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
|
(...) I'd actually be suprised if they offer a Tie Bomber - again, not a tremendous recognition factor among non-enthusiasts. Granted, the Tie-Interceptor probably has less recognition than the standard Tie, but it also has better "lines," i.e. it's (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
|
(...) I agree with you, but I think they will release them in pairs, like the Xwing and Tie Interceptor. These two are not comparable in performance as the TIE-Interceptor was designed to go against the Awing, so they are not pairing them up by a (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: next year
|
|
(...) The "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." line is, in fact, meant to mean that this all happened a long time ago from when we are now, and in a galaxy far, far away from where we are now. That was meant to give it a thrust of (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: next year
|
|
(...) No, I don't think that you can draw that conclusion. There's nothing in the movie to date it (by our timeline) and while it seems to be a retelling of a story (at least from the intro scrolls with each movie) it's not a given. I know the (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.adventurers, lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
|
(...) I'm convinced that we're going to see a UCS A-Wing, maybe even next. Compact design. Maybe 700 pieces. Can be done in red and white, so cheap to produce with existing stock. Not many new molds necessary; maybe just a canopy. James (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
|
(...) The brilliant aspect of such sets is that they in a way become easier for kids to collect, and that the initial step would basically force parents into buying more of them later on. From a marketing perspective, very smart. From a collectors' (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
|
(...) <snip> (...) Yeah! That would be very cool. Maybe 4 or 5 small sets with Technic connectors, and perhaps one larger set with a "landing bay" for the Falcon or TIEs. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: What is with the Technic Stormtrooper?
|
|
(...) But this points out why the 2000 Technic droid sets 'worked': the EP1 droids were all skeletal and exposed mechanisms. Very TECHNIC-ish. The TECHNIC models were not accurate, strictly speaking. The bits were in the wrong places, the way they (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.technic)
|
