 | | 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)
|
| | | | |
