 | | 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)
|
| |
| | Re: What is with the Technic Stormtrooper?
|
|
"Selçuk Göre" <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote in message news:39FE7102.EA9612...ine.com... [snip] (...) IMHO, the Technic line is for building things out of Technic pieces -- nothing less, nothing more. (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
|
(...) What would you be willing to pay for that 13 minifig set, which should be roughly twice the size of the Falcon in order not to piss people off because of lacking scale etc? With a little luck, we'll get an AT-AT with some minifigs. And I'm (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
|
(...) That stinks. We need a ... minifig scale ATAT. with 2 pilots, 10 ST, and an officer (Veers). (...) Very weak. (...) Dear Lego....Get the clue. We don't want watto! We want..err..Stormtroopers!! (...) God I hope not... Rick (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
|
(...) Their license runs to 2007, doesn't it? We'll probably see Ep4-6 sets for the remainder of that time, with sets for the new movies being promoted more heavily just after release of the movies. And the bigger sets seem to come later in the (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: What is with the Technic Stormtrooper?
|
|
(...) First, Lego and Star Wars names on the same box had been a 20 year dream for me, which finally became true, so I will say a very strong NO to this one..:-) Besides, I don't agree that Lego is producing bad quality sets in Star Wars line. Lego (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars, lugnet.technic)
|
| |
| | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
|
(...) Actually, Lego did say that in an interview over at FBTB (for the link go to (URL) And I think this is an imperial year. There are no rebel sets (besides the escape pod which isn't from Episode 1 by the way). So the year couldn't get any more (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: 2001 Sets When???
|
|
"Jason F" <jfabisch@alphawire.com> wrote in message news:G39FEL.I5w@lugnet.com... (...) Its (...) As I don't have a ZB here in Amarillo, TX, I cannot compare the release of this model. But... (...) was (...) ...for the rest of the list, the only (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: That AT-ST Scout Walker.
|
|
(...) I agree. A small, standard, off the shelf mold base will cost you, about 3000-5000$. That doesn't even include the cost of the hot runner (or cold runner depending on the resin and how the part is gated.) Then you have to machine it. The cost (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: That AT-ST Scout Walker.
|
|
My comment was based on LEGO's propensity for taking the least expensive route to solve a given problem. The set is supposed to retail for $9.99. I would imagine that it's pushing that price point with the parts included. There already exists a mold (...) (24 years ago, 30-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: That AT-ST Scout Walker.
|
|
(...) I agree with Jay - Chewbacca scores more "loveable" points with kids and parents. I'm also suspicious that Lego may make us salivate for a while before we get really cheap Stormtroopers. I'm actually giving the clueless company the benefit of (...) (24 years ago, 30-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
