Subject:
|
Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 31 Oct 2000 21:16:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
958 times
|
| |
![Post a public reply to this message](/news/icon-reply.gif) | |
In lugnet.starwars, James Simpson writes:
>
> 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 tapered wings give it a more interesting appearance
> perhaps. I agree with you that we'll get the B-Wing, but I also think that
> the Bespin Cloud-Car and the Land Speeder are good possibilities.
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 luck we'll also get a UCS Death Star... Lego's already designed a
Death Star (as evidenced by the various displays around the world) and there
really is no reason for Lego NOT to release it as a UCS set.
A-Wings and B-Wings are both possabilities, but I don't think we'll see a
Land Speeder or a Cloud Car. While the Land Speeder is highly recognizable,
it's not really something that most people (including huge Star Wars fans
like myself) really care too much about. As for the Cloud Car, I wouldn't
even know what the thing was if I wasn't a SW fan... it's too obscure. It'd
be a great source for orange pieces, but I don't think we'll see it.
Of course, I think we'd all like to see UCS AT-ATs, AT-STs, Speeder Bikes,
Snow Speeders, and Ships from Episode 1 (Queen's ship, Naboo fighter, Droid
Control Ship, etc.)
Personally I hope that the UCS isn't limited to the Star Wars line... I'd
really like to see some UCS cars and military aircraft.
Anyway, we don't really know if Lego's going to be continuing the UCS line
at all... there's been no official word of anything yet.
-Bryan
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
![](/news/x.gif) | | Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?"
|
| (...) 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)
|
14 Messages in This Thread: ![Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Jason Fabisch (30-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Eric Joslin (30-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Nicholas Fezie (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Thomas Weigle (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Mark Sandlin (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Thomas Weigle (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -James Simpson (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Jason Fabisch (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -James Simpson (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/46.gif) ![You are here](/news/here.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/28.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Todd Lehman (2-Nov-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Rick Hallman (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/246.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Thomas Weigle (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif)
![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/x.gif) ![](/news/68.gif) ![Re: Didn't Lego state is was to be an "Imperial Year?" -Andrew Tyrone (31-Oct-00 to lugnet.starwars)](/news/x.gif)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|