 | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Brian Stuhan
|
| | | Am I the only one here who LIKES the AT-ST? I mean it's not perfect, but for $10 it's a great set (and if it were much more, even as a better set, I probably wouldn't have bought it). I'm noticing less and less that TLC produces that I like, and so (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | (...) No. I quite like it, and I think it has many merits (both as parts and as a model), but I've decided to stop responding to every post bashing it. eric (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Kevin Knoot
|
| | | | | | (...) I like it, too. It's a cute, fun, set. Everything Lego should be. Not to say I wouldn't want to see a UCS version to minifig scale. Kevin (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Chris Gordon
|
| | | | | | CUTE??? Its an Imperial AT-ST!!! The designers designed it to look fearsome, deadly, and intimidating! Aauugghh! Ahem. Well I don't think it looks cute, I do think it is fairly good considering the price, and the fact that Lego Designers obviously (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | | | | (...) Oh, come on. It's *LEGO* for Pete's sake. Even Darth Vader is 'cute' as a LEGO minifig. (...) I don't know if it's a question of talent or not. Judging from some of the stuff I've seen, it might well be a question of the limitations they have (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Chris Gordon
|
| | | | | | | | | Jeff Johnston <sakura@mediaone.net> wrote in message news:G5sC88.725@lugnet.com... (...) fearsome, (...) He is? He looks very unsavory to me, grey skin, wrinkles, etc... (...) as (...) That is true, and some of Legos preliminary models have looked (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Brian Stuhan
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) I don't have a vadar minifig and don't intend on getting a set with one; could somebody post a link to a picture of the head under the helmet? (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Bryan Hodges
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | (...) From Bricks to Bothans has one in their set guide. Here's a direct link to the image: (URL) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) I was actually thinking with the helmet on...his stubby little legs and arms, his oversized head...he looks 'cute'. J (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —A. Mark Wilburn
|
| | | | | | | | (...) It's not a question of talent. These are all designs by LEGO designers (I'd have found more, but the new search is still down) (URL) of course, all the amazing models at the LEGO theme parks. So yeah, I think Jeff's probably right that the (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Aaron West
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) The only changes I would have made to an official model, from TLC for the AT-ST would have been to swap the black 6x4 stud double slope piece that connects the head with the legs to a black 4x4 swivel platform like in 4811 (done moc), and (...) (24 years ago, 20-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Tom Boucher
|
| | | | | | | | It's a real shame they didn't release the Darth Vader TIE Fighter that looked more like that mock up model that they had. A 2m super star destryoyer. Holy cow that would be fun. (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Kai Brodersen
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) being the star wars fan i am wouldnt a 2m superstar destroyer be off scale since a SSD in real life is 8 kilometers long? (...) (24 years ago, 21-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Chris Gordon
|
| | | | | | | | | | I dunno, the real model for the movies wasn't 8 km long :-) It was probably around 2 metres :-) ---...--- cg-88@home.com ---...--- IG-88 was nothing! CG-88 is all-powerful!!! kai brodersen <cbrodersen@mediaone.net> wrote in message (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —John D. Forinash
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) A little larger, but not a whole lot. I saw one of the models at the National Air and Space Museum in DC a couple years back. The detail, close up, is incredible. They must have kit-bashed about a zillion WWII battleship model sets to build (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Eric Joslin
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Unless the exhibit changed from when I was there, they didn't have the Super Star Destroyer at the "Magic of Myth" exhibit in DC. They did have one of the Star Destroyer models, however. At the "Art of Star Wars" exhibit at Yerba Buena Gardens (...) (24 years ago, 27-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —A. Mark Wilburn
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Amen (to both counts... and of COURSE a 2m long Star Destroyer is microfig scale. That goes for anything macroscopic like Babylon 5, Enterprise - D or E, the Death Star, A-Rod's paycheck...). Although if/when the UCS TIE Interceptor comes down (...) (24 years ago, 2-Jan-01, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Lindsay Frederick Braun
|
| | | | | | (...) Okay, I admit it. I like the AT-ST. It's great for parts, and as a model it's not bad! As far as Chris's complaints, remember that the unofficial name for the AT-ST after its first appearance in ESB, at least among the fans, was "Chicken (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Jeff Johnston
|
| | | | | (...) For some reason I had it in my head that the AT-ST was $15, so I was pretty happy when I saw it was only $10. I agree that the parts were great, but I really would have been happier with even a $15 set and just a little more - a better hip (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | (...) I doubt that a better AT-ST could have been accomplished at the $10 price point...the thing is...it shouldn't have been done at the $10 price point - it's just too complex to be done well with such frugality. The AT-ST simply requires a higher (...) (24 years ago, 19-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: 7106, 7126, 7166 —Aaron West
|
| | | | (...) I love it. I'm having AT-ST, AT-ST, AT-ST, AT-ST, AT-ST, AT-ST, spam and AT-ST for lunch. If LEGO can't give us the goods in the "way-over priced" range of old, at least they are making a bunch of these "decent as a main model but really good (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
