Subject:
|
Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 04:16:33 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
687 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Eric Joslin writes:
> I don't think LEGO ever said that, no.
> eric
Actually, Lego did say that in an interview over at FBTB (for the link go to
http://news.lugnet.com/starwars). And I think this is an imperial year.
There are no rebel sets (besides the escape pod which isn't from Episode 1
by the way). So the year couldn't get any more Imperial. You need to
remember that they have to save some of their license for the next year.
(That's probably why we haven't seen an AT-AT or a Jawa Sandcrawler or more
UCS sets.)
-Nick
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
| (...) Their license runs to 2007, doesn't it? We'll probably see Ep4-6 sets for the remainder of that time, with sets for the new movies being promoted more heavily just after release of the movies. And the bigger sets seem to come later in the (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
14 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
|
|
|
|
