 | | Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB
|
|
(...) Thanks Kevin. But one word...YUCH! Though that off-road Racer truck looks cool. LEGO never fails to dissapoint me. Thank god for those re-issues. (23 years ago, 29-Oct-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB
|
|
(...) is it just me or do some of the racers have POOP bodies, with a minifig head? look at 4582, 4583, 4593, 4595 & 4582. 4584 & 4585 seem to have normal minifigs but those other ones seem to have a single element for their bodies. I like some of (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | More POOPs and licenses (was Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB)
|
|
(...) Yep, looks like weird pseudo-torso pieces to me too. I wonder if they fly off on impact like the current Racers? Also, it looks like there is a back story, suggested by the background art. Does this come from the Racers software? (I've never (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: More POOPs and licenses (was Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB)
|
|
(...) Oh well... Just continuing the downward spin in terms of LEGO and Licensing. I remember when the Star Wars License was announced (TLC's First), that it was made clear that TLC was looking for long term relationships with products that have as (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: More POOPs and licenses (was Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB)
|
|
(...) I wonder about that every time I see a zillion of those sets still setting on the shelves. Could it be that, in order to secure the Spielberg/LEGO Studios deal, it was necessary to license Jurassic Park III? Is there any way to find out? Dave! (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB
|
|
(...) What's wrong with that? A full-sized mini-figure torso has no alternate uses either. I really want a few of the new figures because 1) A new figure is for once smaller than mini-figures, sort of in-between "mini-fig" and "micro-fig" scale. I (...) (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: More POOPs and licenses (was Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB)
|
|
(...) Here's some more info I tracked down : (URL) in Humanacy -- how good does that sound!! --DaveL (23 years ago, 31-Oct-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: More POOPs and licenses (was Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB)
|
|
(...) Yep, I remember that as well. Guess all the critics that this was the thin edge of a wedge were right after all. (...) Completely agreed on the risk. What a crock. I think the Bob sets will be a failure (or passable success) for the simple (...) (23 years ago, 1-Nov-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: More POOPs and licenses (Galidor)
|
|
(...) I don't know if this answers the issue as for Galidor, but here is a little more info... (URL) the article: "As merchandising rights owner, Lego holds master toy and software licenses and is currently negotiating with licensing agents. The (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: More POOPs and licenses (Galidor)
|
|
(...) I think this means they have most major toy categories locked up (including the "action figure" segment). On the one hand, it means they will be able to stand out better (unlike the Bob the Builder sets, as I mentioned previously), but on the (...) (23 years ago, 2-Nov-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
| |
| | Re: More POOPs and licenses (Galidor)
|
|
(...) I think more important is the first bit from the quote, which says that LEGO owns all merchandising rights. Any company that wants to make Galidor toys, has to get a license from Lego. Which means that Lego is on the upstream side of any (...) (23 years ago, 6-Nov-01, to lugnet.year.2002)
|
