Year 2002 : 159


Year / 2002 / 159	158 \| 160

Subject:	Re: More POOPs and licenses (was Re: 2002 catalog scans at FBTB)
Newsgroups:	lugnet.year.2002
Date:	Wed, 31 Oct 2001 20:28:30 GMT
Viewed:	1887 times

In lugnet.year.2002, Kevin Johnston writes: > New tidbit on another topic: Tim has a new news item that the "quest" > preview belongs to a new *LICENSE*. What's really annoying is that it's > some brand-new Fox cartoon show (Galindor or something like that). Is this > the first license attached to a property without an established following? 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 long a shelf life as LEGO and that they didn't want Licenses that would dry up like a fad. Well Star Wars has a long history, Harry Potter has a large following but not much history, Jurassic Park has a moderate following without much history, Bob Builder is popular with small children but has no history. This new license seems to have no history or following... Huge Risk in my oppinion. My feeling is that the Star Wars License was a good thing. Harry Potter was OK because of the huge following. Jurassic Park should never have been done, who needs a license to sell dinosaurs? Bob Builder probably wasn't necessary either although it definitly cuts down on R&D, which I guess is part of the point with Licenses. I fully think that if this is a new license for an unproven product that it is a big mistake. > > I was hoping this was some new in-house creation. But instead it means > there are NO NEW IN-HOUSE THEMES for early 2002; just extensions of a few > existing ones. Well as I alluded to R&D is expensive and these license do reduce that expense but in general I think most of us would rather LEGO went back to producing their own lines and for goodness sake Bring Back TOWN!!! Eric K.

Message has 2 Replies:

		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: 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)

Message is in Reply To:

		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)

68 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

Custom Search