 | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Nicholas Fezie
|
| | | (...) Actually, Lego did say that in an interview over at FBTB (for the link go to (URL) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Thomas Weigle
|
| | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Mark Sandlin
|
| | | | | | | (...) <snip> (...) Yeah! That would be very cool. Maybe 4 or 5 small sets with Technic connectors, and perhaps one larger set with a "landing bay" for the Falcon or TIEs. ~Mark "Muffin Head" Sandlin (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Thomas Weigle
|
| | | | | | | | (...) The brilliant aspect of such sets is that they in a way become easier for kids to collect, and that the initial step would basically force parents into buying more of them later on. From a marketing perspective, very smart. From a collectors' (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | (...) I'm convinced that we're going to see a UCS A-Wing, maybe even next. Compact design. Maybe 700 pieces. Can be done in red and white, so cheap to produce with existing stock. Not many new molds necessary; maybe just a canopy. James (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Jason Fabisch
|
| | | | | | (...) I agree with you, but I think they will release them in pairs, like the Xwing and Tie Interceptor. These two are not comparable in performance as the TIE-Interceptor was designed to go against the Awing, so they are not pairing them up by a (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | (...) I'd actually be suprised if they offer a Tie Bomber - again, not a tremendous recognition factor among non-enthusiasts. Granted, the Tie-Interceptor probably has less recognition than the standard Tie, but it also has better "lines," i.e. it's (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Bryan Hodges
|
| | | | | | (...) For UCS I'm putting my money on a Falcon, a TIE, an Imperial shuttle, and a Star Destroyer. Since there's no real scale to worry about with UCS sets, all of these are possible, and would make sense due to the "recognition factor." With any (...) (24 years ago, 31-Oct-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) Who at LEGO said that? --Todd (24 years ago, 2-Nov-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
| | | | |
