LEGO SYSTEM™ Star Wars® : 5753


Star Wars / 5753

Star Wars a loss for Lego? —John Green

My boss's former boss plays golf with a Lego executive and found out that Lego has actually lost money on the Star Wars sets. Though the Star Wars sets have been some of the most successful Lego sets ever, expectations for them were even higher. (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Matthew Wilkins

(...) than (...) talking (...) I can't say that this comes as any sort of a surprise. I'm sure all the North American LUGnuts (probably the Europeans, too, but I can't vouch for them) remember the hoopty-doo over the release of The Phantom Menace (...) (25 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —James Wilson

In lugnet.starwars, Matthew Wilkins writes: (completely taken out of context) (...) Nor would I wish to!!! :) James (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Matthew Wilkins

(...) Thanks, I was trying to come up with a metaphor that wouldn't offend rabid animal lovers. *grin* -Cheese (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Franklin W. Cain

(...) I guess you could say I love animals. . . . Some of my best meals were animals. [ducking for cover] Franklin (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Lindsay Frederick Braun

(...) At least it's not the other variant, which involves swinging a dead cat. best, LFB (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Matthew Wilkins

This was my first choice, which I felt was a tad odious for a 'family' forum. *grin* -Cheese (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Christian Gemuenden

Hm, I would really get an official statement on this. Maybe only some of the Star Wars stuff is selling badly. AFAIK, the Star Wars Classic Sets released in early 99 were flying of the shelves and TLG had serious problem to deliver the sets to all (...) (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Eric Kingsley

(...) I have to agree with Christian on this one. Although I have no facts to justify it I think the Classics sets probably sold extremely well and that is why LEGO had such a hard time keeping up. I would not be supprised if the EP1 stuff did not (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Rose Regner

Eric Kingsley wrote in message ... (...) but I (...) but (...) of (...) Parents were annoyed with Jar Jar also. My three year old doesn't even like him. (...) a (...) for (...) I thought the new movie was rather disappointing. I believe one reason (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Matthew Wilkins

(...) The 2000 sets are rocketing off of the shelves in Portland, too. (...) See, now this is one of the only Episode I sets that I _do_ want a lot of; I am planning an MOC that uses several dozen of the 8x8 radar dishes. Though I may have to fill (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Steve Bliss

(...) LOL! Can Gungan futbollers use their ears? Steve (25 years ago, 4-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Nick Goetz

Meesa think so. <g> -Nick Steve Bliss wrote in message ... (...) (25 years ago, 4-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Matthew Wilkins

I was thinking that they would be spectators, but a Gungan futbol team bight be pretty cool (as far as anything that closely related to Jar Jar Binks could be, that is). -Cheese (...) (25 years ago, 4-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Matthew Wilkins

(...) Wheras I don't disagree with you that the first Classic sets flew off of the shelves; I do think that many of those sets were purchased by collectors, who may have thought that there would be further constrained availability of these sets. I (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Mike Clemens

In lugnet.starwars, Eric Kingsley writes: [...] (...) An anecdote to back this up: while browsing at Target yesterday for deals, I checked out teh SW section. Pretty much all the sets were stocked at theast 4 boxes deep except the Slave I, which was (...) (25 years ago, 7-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Gene C. Weissinger

This is probably due to the amount of money LEGO agreed to pay for the rights to even use the Star Wars paraphernalia. Wasn't it rumored to be around $50 million? I may be grossly out of whack here (over or under) ??? EC (25 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Charles Spindell

(...) That is why I have absolutely no idea why TLG is only releasing around 8-10 sets every year. I have a ton of money to spend, but I can only buy so many Naboo Fighters and X-Wings. If TLG put out more sets, including mini-fig packs and play (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Arnold Staniczek

(...) Does Lego think all those a-, b-, x- and y-wings should fight against Darth Vader's Tie only?? This is such a poor job, unbelievably! Give us regular tie fighters, interceptors, tie bombers, shuttles, all equipped with pilots, and storm (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Gene C. Weissinger

Maybe this should be a Lugnet.dear-lego topic? Think they will listen? EC (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)

Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego? —Mark Sandlin

(...) Yeah, no kidding. Especially when you have to pay $50-$60 to get the set with DV's TIE. I think it would be great if they released a set where you could build either a TIE or TIE Interceptor. But I suppose it'd keep profits up if they were (...) (25 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)