Subject:
|
Re: Question about 7128?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:15:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
537 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Brent Curtis writes:
> In lugnet.starwars, Sun Yun writes:
Snip
> >
> > maybe there was a set numbered 7120 that fell behind on the drawing board so
> > they had to release this first. . .
I like this theory best.
> >
> > hmmm, maybe there are bigger and better sets waiting for us down the road.
Bigger hopefully, better I don't know. These are the best models I have seen
from TLG in a long time (except maybe the Sith Infiltrator but still great for
parts) and to hope for better is asking a lot. We just have to remember this
is Lego which means if they can't make it better we can!!!
> >
> > a new hope,
> >
> > sun
>
> If I had to speculate and go way out on a limb (and a wishing star), I'd say
> that it was given that number to designate it as a ROTJ set. Since ROTJ saw
> the introduction of many new vehicles (skiffs, a-wings, b-wings, tie
> interceptors, shuttlecraft, and more), they gave it a different number
> sequence to make that available to them when they bring out the new sets.
> Again, pure speculation.
If this were the case why would the Snowspeeder be 7130? Wouldn't it be 7135
or something because it first appeared in Empire?
I do find it odd that 7128 is numbered as such. Some of my theories include:
1. 7120 - was going to be a set that included real Storm Troopers but they
fell behind or realized they did not have a ROTJ set ready yet so they had to
release this instead so they would have at least one set you could relate to
each movie.
2. Someone with blurry vision was keying in the set number and the 0 looked
like an 8. Just squint your eyes you'll see what I mean. :)
3. Someone wanted to distance anything ROTJ from the other movies because it
just wasn't up to the standards set by ANH and ESB and this was there way of
venting their pent up frustration with the cute little Ewoks. :)
Eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Question about 7128?
|
| (...) I like number 3, but I think the second part of number 1 (they didn't have a ROTJ set) is what happened. Maybe it was supposed to come out next year, and we'll see a bunch of 71X8 sets, along with 7120. ;) Jeff (25 years ago, 15-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question about 7128?
|
| (...) me (...) If I had to speculate and go way out on a limb (and a wishing star), I'd say that it was given that number to designate it as a ROTJ set. Since ROTJ saw the introduction of many new vehicles (skiffs, a-wings, b-wings, tie (...) (25 years ago, 14-Jun-99, to lugnet.starwars)
|
4 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
