Clone OPatra

I don't think the poster confirms anything, nor do I think that it is a correct assumption that we will get one for each of the fellowship. I think LEGO was merely copying the Return of the King poster as a bit of fun promotion: Just as they copied a Fellowship poster for the first LotR image. They did a similar thing with the Harry Potter film posters. I think it's likely we might see a LEGO-fied version of each film's poster.

I think the trailer for the next episode is the exact same scene that we saw a while ago, but I have to ask, why does Ahsoka say 'Death Watch' only after the final Mando has landed? She couldn't tell it was Death Watch after just the first one? And also, where did they come from? Were they hovering in the sky for a while? TCW should really be thought out better.

Though I don't actually think this thread is dying, some people have said it. I can't let my baby die! So, without further ado, I will present some new comics. With much fewer resources now, these funnies may be much more of a stretch, much stupider, but hopefully still somewhat funny. Come along for the laughs! As I used to do back in the day (the last time I made a new batch), I'm going to release these one at a time. To build suspense. I give you the dumbest first… New Cast

Yes it is.

After a lengthy hiatus (TCW's fault, not ours), we're back with a new CW episode review for Escape from Kadavo. Check it out here!

Bricklink calls them tan, but really I am nearly certain they are not the regular tan color. I have Luminara and I don't recall her being tan, but I can't compare right now. I have a new idea or two and the ability to make them, so I will try to make that happen soon.

No, Luminara's skin is an olive color, though if he was asking about figures that have a color that would believably be a skin tone, Luminara works. Sugi is currently the only one with LEGO's usual flesh color.

Additionally, the prototype Wolverine figure we saw earlier is in a comic-style X-Men outfit, something he did not wear in the Origins movie. It doesn't make no sense at all for it to be a Wolverine vs. Magneto set, since Wolverine is a favorite amongst the X-Men and Magneto is the main bad guy, but Deadpool is a little weird. I can only hope we'll see at least Cyclops, Jean, and Professor X in the future.

Which ones are you talking about?

I'm talking about longevity as a Licensed LEGO theme. I know that these characters have been around a heck of a lot longer than Star Wars or Harry Potter (the two longest running LEGO themes), but that doesn't mean they will have longevity as a LEGO Licensed property. I know that this Superhero license is also a multi-year agreement, but I highly doubt it will become endless as Star Wars is as a LEGO theme and I don't expect it to delve into the comic book world as deeply. Face it, I'm sure comic book fans have heard of all of these characters being discussed, but I highly doubt there are as many comic book fans in LEGO's target age range as there are Star Wars and (or were) Harry Potter fans. As comic books have been around for ages, they are never really a 'big thing' in the way that a more compact property like Star Wars or Harry Potter is. Movies, video games, and television shows can open comic books characters up to a more mass audience for an amount of time, but I don't think they have the continuing mass appeal on the same scale to children as Star Wars has.

I didn't say I'd never heard of Superman, I was referring to all of these enemies/teams of people. Yes, I've heard of Superman, Batman, the Flash, Justice League, Wonder Women, Lex Luthor, etc. but in all of the Flash comics I've read I don't recall ever hearing of Captain Cold. Granted, I haven't read so many, but I can't name any Flash arch-nemeses at all. I've never heard of Brainiac either. It's possible that they will deviate from just the top name heroes and their top name enemies, but I still don't count it as likely. To be honest I don't think a lot of kids will have ever heard of these characters, whereas they will have heard of Flash, Superman, Lex Luthor, etc. I can anticipate a counter to that that kids wouldn't know the more obscure Star Wars characters either, which could be true, but since Star Wars has such longevity it appears to me that LEGO has no problem catering to the AFOLs who know General Veers and Crix Madine since the sets tend to have something else that is more recognizable anyway. (A reason why SW sets based on the EU may not do so well - there's nothing recognizable to the average kid at all)

I have honestly never heard of any of these people, and I have read a bunch of comics over time. I think the problem with comics in general that won't allow LEGO to get into even this secondary level of territory is that there's so, so much out there. So many different comics, characters, etc. With the sheer amount of material, there is no reason for LEGO to go beyond the top level of characters that are more guaranteed for people to know.

Yeah, I'm not finding that one funny at all. You could basically do the same thing with any character that has three parts to their name, which accounts for quite a lot in Star Wars. The pane would have to be more geared towards the specific figure if you want to make a joke out of multiple copies. By changing one or two of them a bit, something could come out of it.

Guys, there's a topic for availability here. Availability also differs from country to country so when you speak vaguely and just say 'out at TRU' nobody knows where you are talking about. Remember this is an international forum.

Seeing this review has made me want to get this set more (though I'm still not too fond of the price tag, but I won't get into that). The ship looks really good, although of course it's a bit of an issue that it's way too big compared to the source material. Making ships to scale accurately with minifigures is always a bit of a problem using only official connection and for a set, but the Eta-2 in the film really is a small ship. A person basically fills the entire cockpit, whereas a minifigure looks pretty tiny in there (and R2 is too small for it as well). I guess there's nothing to be done about it, especially with that cockpit piece, but it still bothers me a little.

I would love it so much if they had Obi-Wan shave! But I have absolutely no faith that that would ever happen, since it doesn't seem to be within the CW animators' scope to actually alter characters from episode to episode.

I don't find the vehicle sets to be very exciting, but the Funhouse and the Batcave both look great to me. I never got the last Batcave, but honestly this one looks a bit more cohesive and better designed. The last one just seemed overly tall with all of the BURPs, and the jail was just huge! I also like the color scheme of the new one better.

All of that sounds good, but isn't really so true. What about Commander Fox in the Homing Spider Droid set? Fox never battled a spider droid at all. Cad Bane in the CTT is another example of something that makes no sense whatsoever, especially because Bane was in another set where he did make sense. Osi Sobek with an MTT does not seem unlikely to me at all; they are both related to the Seperatists, after all.

I like this MOC. It's nice to see a big capital-size ship MOC of some fresh material. I never had heard of this ship before, but it certainly has a Star Wars feel, especially with the Republic color scheme. Nice work.

Or Captain Jayfon in Cad Bane's Speeder. Cad Bane snapped that guy's neck! Or Even Piell, who is coming in the summer sets. More ARC troopers could certainly get made, but it's still way more likely that it will be Fives in an Umbara-related set.

Mr Man was misinterpreting the quote, since Capt. Dan had been talking about the ARF, not the ARC. However, the ARF could very well be from Rancor Battalion; this one. It looks like it to me. What I can't understand is why Wookieepedia never mentions Hammer anywhere, since the ARC clearly is him. Actually, they do, but not as Hammer. Wonder where that name comes from.

That's very interesting. If there is a game, it seems likely that there would be a couple of sets too, but who knows. If there are sets, those minifigures are either going to look very strange or have new head moulds.

I understand that. What I was trying to ask is what exactly you dislike about the plots in the Nolan films that makes you go 'gee, if Batman had an undercover suit, this would be so much better.' Or is it that you just don't like the plots at all, and think that if they had done Batman in a lighter suit they could've come up with better plots altogether? Because to me, there's nothing wrong that is caused by Batman's suit.

You're talking about Batman like he is a real person, or as if the comic books with the spandex-suited Batman are the Bible. It sure as hell isn't comic-book Spider-Man to spin his owns webs, but it doesn't hurt the story. You want Batman to be a detective, but he still can be and is to some extent in these films. Granted, the way he gets information is by scaring people with his huge imposing suit and gravelly voice, but is Batman actually supposed to go into a phonebooth like Clark Kent and change into his costume? How does he store the cowl anyway? It's just nonsensical to me that he has to wear a dumb-looking spandex suit because 'that's what Batman does.' How exactly is the story in the Nolan films impeded specifically by Batman's nontraditional suit?

From a film-making perspective, the fact that nobody has ever been 'true to the source' is probably a very good thing. Comicbooks are created to run and run and run, endlessly. Usually, that tends to make actual plots close to nonexistent, and characters often become one-note-ish. While you, as somebody who clearly likes Batman in his comic iteration, can argue that I'm quite wrong and all of these characters are very deep, I (as somebody who has never liked Batman as a character in the comics) feel that he would not transfer very well into film just as he is. The Bat-suit in the Nolan films I find to be just wonderful. Ok, so that's not how Batman is 'supposed to be' or whatever, but it looks fantastic. It is big, thick, and looks both strong and imposing. The average criminal with a gun doesn't have much against the Nolan Batman in his big imposing suit. If he was to wear some grey spandax with a bat symbol on it, it would frankly looks pretty dumb. It looked dumb in the old TV show and film, but worked since the entire thing was played for laughs. In an action movie with a serious tone, and where Bats gets into hand-to-hand combat, I think the new-style thick suit looks awesome. Why does the backstory of Batman have to be 100% the same as the comics? So long as he's still a billionaire who's parent die, and he wants to fight crime etc. he's still recognizably Batman. If it's done well (and the back story was handled quite well in Batman Begins, in my opinion), what's the problem? In the X-Men movies, they made Wolverine's claws come out of his knuckles and not silly holes in the middle of his hands. In the Spider-Man trilogy, Spidey actually spins and shoots web. Both of these are examples of deviations from the original concepts of the characters, but so what? I think both of these are cases of changes that work really well on film, and it's not like Peter Parker isn't Peter Parker anymore just because he didn't invent a device that shoots web-like substances. What I'm trying to say with this is that I don't find these so-called 'deviations from the source material' any problem whatsoever. As long as they are blatantly stupid to a casual viewer of the film (and I don't think any of the Batman changes are), there is no problem. Only those that truly are into the comics care about such things, What's wrong with a bit of a love story? Nolan actually gave Bruce somebody real to care about who wasn't another one of these super-villian people. I haven't read much of the comics so I don't know if there are other romantic interests to choose from, but inventing a new one doesn't present any problems that I can tell. In The Dark Knight especially the love interest was used to great ends: it connected Bruce and Harvey Dent, and then give Two-Face an actual reason for hating Batman (a bit illogically, but he's super angry, come on) other than Two-Face just wanting money. What harm did this love story do? As to believability or that these Batman films are 'realistic' - I don't think they are, but 'realistic' doesn't mean actually possible. It just means that Gotham looks like an actual place on Earth, that Batman drives a tank-looking vehicle instead of a silly car with fins, that Two-Face doesn't have a custom-tailored half-and-half suit for no other reason than it fits the silliness of his character. It's a mainstream action film, obviously it's not actually possible no matter how many times Nolan claims it is. But I don't see a problem with the stylistic choices that make it a bit more real-world-y than the older films especially. Let me not sound like I am absolutely in love with the Nolan films though, because that is not the case. Batman Begins, on multiple viewings, I quite like. I think the part in Tibet or wherever is just fine and a fun part, I don't mind Bale's stoney face (he is happy in the movie sometimes), etc. Really there isn't much that I dislike about Batman Begins. I have more problems with The Dark Knight. First of all, it's way too long. The whole part with Two-Face after the Joker is dealt with feels like it's tacked on and doesn't have that much to do with the main plot. It's not like it doesn't fit in with the story being told, but the way that the whole Two-Face part is handled doesn't make it flow very well. Or maybe they could've gotten rid of some other sequences and then it wouldn't be so bad. Another fault with The Dark Knight is the geography of Gotham. While it is kind of the same as it was in Batman Begins, we don't really see the underworld anymore, and the island where the prison and more slums were in Begins have just about disappeared. I liked how in Batman Begins even though Gotham looks 'realistic,' it still doesn't look quite like any actual city on Earth with its islands and the way the elevated trains are. It was still interesting to see a film where the villain is actually a terrorist whose goal is not something like world domination, but actually just to terrorize. I can honestly say I don't see that much in regular action movies; usually the bad guy just wants to take over the world or blow a lot of things up for some reason that doesn't really make sense. If Joker was true to his comic character than what, would he really be out to be in control of the mobs or get rich or something? Being a lunatic who wants to cause chaos because he thinks it's fun seems a bit more interesting to me.