 | | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 1-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Matthew Wilkins writes: (completely taken out of context) (...) Nor would I wish to!!! :) James (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
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 (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
(...) Thanks, I was trying to come up with a metaphor that wouldn't offend rabid animal lovers. *grin* -Cheese (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
(...) I guess you could say I love animals. . . . Some of my best meals were animals. [ducking for cover] Franklin (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
(...) At least it's not the other variant, which involves swinging a dead cat. best, LFB (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
This was my first choice, which I felt was a tad odious for a 'family' forum. *grin* -Cheese (...) (24 years ago, 2-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
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 (...) (24 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
(...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 3-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
(...) LOL! Can Gungan futbollers use their ears? Steve (24 years ago, 4-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
Meesa think so. <g> -Nick Steve Bliss wrote in message ... (...) (24 years ago, 4-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
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 (...) (24 years ago, 4-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| |
| | Re: Star Wars a loss for Lego?
|
|
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 (...) (24 years ago, 7-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
