prof1515

First off, it's not a Roman soldier. The helm is Corinthian design, ie. a Greek design, not that of a legionary. Furthermore, that's not the Roman pilum nor the shield a scutum. I like the design of the new skis. What appears to be a beret-wearing mini-figure might be a mime or possibly a stereotypical "artist". Also looks like the ringleader of a circus at the rear of the image.

I sincerely doubt that they were ever released as Pick-a-Brick. My guess is that there have been equal numbers of torsos and legs at one point or another. Perhaps someone stockpiled the legs for a MOC that they made multiples of for sale on eBay as well. I've only purchased one such figure in my life (a Roman legionary) and the torso and legs used in it came from two completely different figures (since that combination had never been paired to my knowledge). If this isn't the case then most likely they just didn't pair them with the proper torso because they didn't keep track of their inventory and which pair should be together.

They'd do it, and have done it, with a sticker. Already exists. There's a bugle but for purposes of Lego that's close enough. Egad, bagpipes? I thought you said musical instruments.

Animals: Male and female LIONS (different movable head, same body) Larger elephant ears (for African elephants instead of Asian elephants) Giraffe (preferably movable head/neck) Rhinocerus (preferably movable head) Hippopatamus (preferably movable head) Deer/moose/elk/antelope/gazelle (possibly same mold but with different attachable antlers) Archtectural: Gothic arches of assorted widths Capitals (Doric, Ionic, Corinthian) Solid house doors (without the "window" cutout) Roman and Gothic arched window/frames Gothic arched doors Various vaults including a groin vault Licensed Themes (Star Wars): Queen Amidala's headdress Bithian head (Cantina band) Rancor (multiple piece build like the Lego elephants) Ugnaught head

Clerk: That will be $87.18, ma'am. Customer: I'm sorry all I have are $100 bills.

Sarcastic, not ironic.

Probably straw, not hay.

Unlikely since they only got two years out of Indiana Jones, a theme with four films to draw from and a bigger following than Prince of Persia will ever have.

I'm with Klaus-Dieter; well put, sir. This is a great concept for a set adding a new type of vehicle Lego has never done as a system set before. While there appear to be a few small problems, it's still a solid set and appears to definitely be one of the best of the 2010 City line.

The AT-AT could qualify as iconic but I'm not so sure about the snowspeeder. To be iconic, it needs to be recognizable even by people who aren't intimately familiar with Star Wars. Take my ex-girlfriend N for example. She finally saw the Star Wars trilogy about five years ago. She could identify (not by name probably) the AT-AT as "that was in Star Wars" but something like the snowspeeder might not ring a bell "Is that from your Star Trek?" might be her response (she doesn't watch Trek either). I was referring to re-releasing new versions in the same scale such as what they're doing (yet again) with the landspeeder, snowspeeder and Slave-1. I'm not forgetting it at all. I have repeatedly said that they should release Amidala's starship. Every time they come out with a new version of the snowspeeder, Slave-1 or obscure stuff from the Clone Wars I ask why there hasn't been a single attempt at Amidala's starship. Every time they offer some no-name, unimportant background character like this year's lot of Jedi thrown haphazardly into set after set, I ask why we haven't yet seen Padme in her Queen regalia or the white jumpsuit or any other version of her. Hell, we haven't even seen her in the outfit they originally offered (back in the yellow-figure days) in 1999 in the new flesh tone. As for the rest of the rebel ships, they're barely on-screen in any capacity that makes them worth the price of a large set. They'd have been fine in the old mini scale treatment but to do them in any other scale would result in $120+ (since it's pretty clear Lego is upping costs, I doubt we'll ever see a ship like the Star Destroyer for less than $120 again) sets of ships that to call obscure would be to give them too much credit. Additionally, look at the complaints received about the Venator being "too small" or "too expensive for what you get". To make something like a Nebulon-B in such a fashion would elicit more complaints about the lack of playability because it'd be pretty fragile and would have very little internal space. They might do it as a small playset in the form of Home One but aside from the medical bay, we don't see any of the inside of it. That scene at the end of TESB is not exciting. How's Lego going to market it? "Kids can make Luke sit up in bed! Luke and Leia can look out the window!" At best, it'd be another Vader Transformation set without the "playability" since nothing really happens in the scene. A much better offering would be a playset of Grievous' starship from Episode III. Like Home One it could consist of two sections: a bridge and the room where Palpatine was held "prisoner". If they felt obligated to add a vehicle, they could toss on a skimpy hangar with a Jedi starfighter (after all, we've haven't gotten enough versions of that, have we? [/sarcasm]) Not everyone who buys Star Wars Lego are die-hard fans, as you point out. I'm a Star Wars fan but not a fanboi. I appreciated the original trilogy though I'm more critical of them now that I'm older and more experienced with film. The prequels weren't very good by comparison and the Clone Wars was atrocious. I've watched a bit of the animated series and while it's probably better than most animated shows on TV now that's not saying much. Lego's free to create whatever they want but there will be a larger market for sets that are more identifiable to a larger audience. In other words, I'm talking about sets based on the movies. Otherwise, why pay a lot of money for obscure Clone Wars (or even obscurse trilogy) sets when you can get equally unrecognizable sets in their Space Police line? To release sets based off of video games or the like but not sets like the aforementioned Amidala's Starship is sort of like a restaurant serving a plate with nothing more than the parsley garnish. Then they toss on some sides of stale offerings like rehashes of the snowspeeder. And hence it wouldn't be big enough to fit minifigures inside. So why do it like 6211? 6211 isn't really "in scale". It's an attempt to make a system set out of a vehicle too large to represent in scale to other system sets. They'd be better off doing accurate versions in mini-scale. By that, I mean ships like the Venator scaled to ships like 4488 instead of their 20007 version. Lego has repeatedly ignored the potential for sets without vehicles. Yoda's hut has to contain an X-Wing, the cantina has to have a landspeeder, Home One has to have an A-Wing and so on. That seems to be their thinking. They did well with Cloud City but the only other time they didn't add a vehicle, they had some hair-brained stick-control crap (Ultimate Jedi Duel).

Lego doesn't weigh a lot but there's a distinct difference between an empty box and one with pieces in it. If you can't tell the difference, you've got bigger problems than some missing pieces of plastic.

People remember the massive star destroyer that followed but not the little ship that first went overhead. The seemingly endless procession of the star destroyer across the screen caught people's attention because of its size and that's what sticks in their mind. Just to test, I called my mom and asked her what she remembered about the 1977 release of Star Wars (I was only 3 at the time so I didn't see it until one of its re-releases a couple years later). She remembered the star destroyer but completely forgot there was another ship before it. I also quizzed a bunch of friends over AIM and FB. Aside from a rabid Star Wars fan, none of my friends knew the name Tantive IV (or even the name Rebel Blockade Runner) and while they remembered a ship before the star destroyer they couldn't describe it other than to say it was smaller. I subjected this to the same test as the Tantive IV. It fared even worse in some regards because many didn't realize Vader's ship was any different than a regular TIE fighter. This vehicle did the best because of its extensive screen time in ROTJ. Aside from my avid Star Wars fan friend and a couple of the others, most didn't realize the AT-ST was in Empire Strikes Back (after all though (blink and you'd miss it) but they did all remember the AT-STs in the third film though the most prominent vehicle (aside from the Falcon, X-Wing, TIE fighter and Star Destroyer) from ROTJ was the second Death Star.

2100 in coins but I know I'm missing some, probably in with some sets I haven't touched in years.

If they only did iconic ships from the Star Wars films, there'd really only be the Millennium Falcon, the X-Wing, the TIE Fighter, the Star Destroyer and the Death Star. None of the rest really rest in the minds of non-Star Wars fans the way those ships do. A case could be made for the AT-ST and Darth Vader's TIE as secondary vehicles of modest recognizability. They're not iconic ships but it's really a no-win scenario between obscure vehicles or remakes of vehicles already released. Fact is, Lego has exhausted the Star Wars line of any original, worthwhile models. Obscure vehicles and rehashes of existing ones are all that's left. It's no more obscure than the Tantive IV or Slave-1. Why is the TIE Defender a "great idea"? You can't complain about Lego creating obscure vehicles and then praise something like that or any other EU garbage. Millions upon millions of people have seen the AT-ST or the Republic Cruiser. Only Star Wars fanbois know what the TIE Defender or Outrider are. You just contradicted yourself. The Nebulon-B isn't an iconic ship like the Falcon or X-wing. If Lego were to offer a "6211-scaled Nebulon-B" that would be a perfect example of one more of the "big sets of obscure ships". They've already released TWO system AT-ATs. While I agree that we don't need more snowspeeders, a minifig-scaled (if by that you mean like the UCS Millennium Falcon) AT-AT would be a very large and expensive set of a vehicle that's already been released before. Talk about redundant! They have thought of that. I suggest you spend several hours looking over Brickset's lists of sets. One of the most obscure ships imaginable, why do we need ANOTHER Slave-1 regardless of scale. There have almost been more versions of the Slave-1 released than it has SECONDS on-screen in the original trilogy. I hope Lego just lets the license die next year. They've dipped into the well too many times; it's dry. Find other licenses or, god forbid, create new ORIGINAL themes again. Lego likes to tout imagination and creativity. Building the third version of something seen in 30 year-old movies isn't either.

Return it to the store and inform them of what had happened. It's unlikely that they will act against the thief (probably too many returned items to sort through) but they'll probably let you exchange it for a new set. ALWAYS check the box for damage and if there appears to be any, don't buy it. If you do buy anything with a damaged box, ask the management if you may open in their presence prior to purchase. If they won't allow it, don't buy it.

It's funny but when I coined that term to describe such a potential Indy sets, I expected people to say it was a horribly corny title and now it seems to have been embraced, having seen it used several times since. Who'd have thought? I don't usually comment on MOCs but this is an excellent example of how TLG could and should produce this set. You've pretty much duplicated exactly what I felt was needed for a small ($10-$15) set. The only difference I'd make would be using 1x2 jumper plates below the flames instead of 1x1 cones. Nevertheless, very fine work!

Star Wars had 34 sets if you count the Technic, Mindstorms and UCS sets. I was only counting system sets since there have been no similar lines with Indy (and Star Wars has sporadic non-system UCS sets and Technic sets since that large initial release in 2000). Technically, I should have said 27 system sets since the four mini-figure packs and the podracer bucket are also system.

So far I've simply kept mine in the boxes and not on display with the exception of one Motorcycle Chase and one Ambush in Cairo. 5 Motorcycle Chase 1 Lost Tomb 1 Race for the Stolen Treasure 1 Temple Escape 1 Brickmaster Exclusive 1 Jungle Duel 1 River Chase 1 Jungle Cutter 1 Peril in Peru 1 Temple of the Crystal Skull 7 Ambush in Cairo 2 Chauchilla Cemetary 1 Shangai Chase 2 Venice Canal Chase 1 Fight on the Flying Wing 2 Fighter Plane Attack 2 Temple of Doom I haven't yet decided to get the ComicCon Exclusive given the cost of such a small set, part of which is just a duplicate of the Brickmaster one. I also regret not getting a couple copies of Race for the Stolen Treasure and Shangai Chase as I thought those were particularly fine sets. At some point I'll try to decide how I want to display these sets though I'll probably have to compliment them with some additions and modifications.

After Star Wars' first two years they only had a total of 22 system sets so it wasn't much more. Not true since the Star Wars movies merely revolve around the same characters while the Indiana Jones films typically introduce new characters in every film (especially the villains). The only reason Star Wars may seem like it has more characters is because most are unimportant background characters which EU crap and fanbois have named and elevated to prominence unworthy of their screen time. A valid point though talking with a few Star Wars fans I know (not all agree), stuff like that cartoon continue to drive their interest in Star Wars lower and lower. Ultimately people grow up and when they do they walk away from the increasingly juvenile Star Wars (a position I share as well). The thing that you have to remember though is that Lego sells non-licensed themes as well. Those do fine without films or TV shows to support them. If Lego produces quality Indiana Jones sets they'll sell on the basis of the content alone without support of a new film or TV show. So? Lego doesn't have to concentrate on vehicles nor have they done so with other themes. Look at Harry Potter, a licensed theme which mainly revolved around non-vehicle sets. Additionally, Lego has been resorting to recycling vehicles, often times unnecessarily (Slave-1).

It was not in the original landspeeder set.

I'm a bit disappointeed that the swamp speeder only comes with one clone. They should have left out one of the battle droids or the nobody Jedi and added a second clone or, for the price they're asking, added a sixth figure to the set.

Yes, thank you, that was probably it.

Is the 8403 City House a creator set? For some reason I keep thinking I read there was a new creator house coming this year.

I do if there are numerous errors to refute or points to illustrate. Apparently you don't as illustrated below. Already went over why this argument doesn't hold water. You're comparing the proverbial apples and oranges. I'll repeat it one more time so read carefully this time. They are not system-scale. It has been over five years since Lego produced a system-scale Falcon. The same can not be said about many other vehicles. Since Lego seems intent on offering redesigned versions of vehicles they've already produced, it's more than time for a new system-scale Millennium Falcon. There's more than just missing pieces. Worn and damaged pieces and smoke smell are just some of the reasons that a used set is not a safe option. You don't seem to grasp the big picture though. It's not what I want, it's a matter of good business. There have been numerous posts expressing a desire for a new system-scale Falcon. Combined with the general popularity and recognition factor, if there's one system-scale ship that will sell it's the Falcon. The UCS isn't a system-scale set and neither is the midi. The minis aren't either. The only system scale Falcons were 7190 and 4504, neither of which is securely available for a reasonable price. I didn't say that they're wrong for saying a new one isn't needed, I said their reasoning is flawed. They're entitled to their opinion but arguing that a new Falcon isn't needed because the old sets are easily obtainable or that there are suitable substitutes presently in production is a poor argument. Now, if they argued that next year should not bring a new separatist shuttle, that would be a reasonable argument since one is readily available at a reasonable cost. For those who simply want any model of the Falcon, the UCS or midi ones are fine. That's not the case for those who want a system-scale Falcon and Lego is missing an oppportunity by not releasing a new model. As for me, I'm content if Lego doesn't release a new Falcon. That's just one less temptation to spend money on for nothing more than a new model for the shelf. If they did release a new one though, I'd probably buy it which is more than I can say for another Jedi starfighter or another snowspeeder. That says something about the commercial wisdom of producing a new Falcon since getting people to buy something is the primary goal of any business.

Yes it is. Your point? Lego has done more than one remake of numerous vehicles (the snowspeeder, Slave-1, landspeeder, A-wing, speeder bike and vulture droids immediately come to mind). Aside from the UCS model (which isn't in keeping with the rest of the minifigure/system line in terms of scale or design), Lego has not yet done a Millennium Falcon with flesh minifigures. Bonus or not, it's still there and hence if someone wants one they can get it. Same goes for the snowspeeder, the fourth of which is coming with the Wampa Attack next year. However, regardless of being a "bonus", the A-wing is still a barely-seen vehicle and barely warrants one version, much less three. Not true. The snowspeeder was released twice with yellow figures as was the landspeeder (the second time with the cantina). The speeder bike saw two different versions during the yellow-minifigure phase and even more if you count the three color variations (brown, dark red and white) of the second one. There really aren't many vehicles left to make without resorting to Expanded Universe garbage. That stuff doesn't have the kind of identifiability and marketable value that sets like the Millennium Falcon possess. After all, what Star Wars fan doesn't want the Millennium Falcon? When you ask someone to name something from Star Wars, over 99% of people will say "Millennium Falcon" before they ever say "Outrider" and I'd wager over 90% of them wouldn't even know what the latter was (and even some of us that do couldn't care less). They're not remaking it every year. It's been 6 years since the last system-scale Millennium Falcon (and four years between 7190 and 4504). Also, why should a Millennium Falcon be a "'special' rarity" and not some obscurse thing like Slave-1? Additionaly, they are "generic plastic bricks". The only non-generic bricks are those special ones with specific purposes like the Wookie head/torso or a Darth Vader helmet. There's no reason Lego couldn't redesign the Falcon for a re-release. Look at the speeder bike. It's seen three major designs (1999, 2002 and 2009). With new bricks available, the Falcon's design could be improved further. Lego is in the business of making money. Simply put, a Millennium Falcon will make money and probably more than remakes of secondary vehicles like the A-wing or new vehicles based on obscure sources with far less appeal and visibility. In other words, every freeco speeder and PloKoon's starfighter they offer is money that stays in my pocket. Sure, there are kiddies out there who watch the Clone Wars cartoon and want these but those same kids would love a Millennium Falcon too. Make a set that sells only to a portion of the market or a set that appeals to all? From a business point-of-view, there's only one good choice.