Blondie-Wan

That's the usual problem I have, as well. I tend to find a lot of mostly the same accessories over and over - power saws (!), walkie-talkies, coffee mugs, pickaxes, push brooms and armor, mostly, IIRC. I've occasionally found other items, but not as different types or as often as I'd like. I did once find a flintlock pistol, which was great, but only one out of several trips to BAM stations. And as I think I've noted before, the Minifigures shop at LEGOLAND Florida has a BAM station that doesn't even offer accessories at all - just heads, torsos, hips/legs and hair/headwear. It's still $9.99, but one gets just twelve parts rather than fifteen. I certainly wouldn't expect to find anything chromed in BAM (or PAB) these days, but perhaps laptops and sausages might happen sometime. As it happens, I'll be at the Orlando LEGO Store at Downtown Disney this weekend, and I'll be sure to check the BAM stations; I'll try to report whatever interesting elements I find there.

I don't think "hypocritical" is the word; it's not like TLG is admonishing other toy companies for producing war toys and then turning around and making their own. "Inconsistent" would be a better fit, although even that doesn't exactly apply in a clear, cut-and-dried fashion - this is a one-off set of a historical machine, from about a century ago, and doesn't exactly reflect contemporary conflict situations kids are likely to encounter in real life. Contemporary war machinery and such is a different matter. Ugh, really? That doesn't bode well for the eventual return of LEGO Indy. I do know it was big in the US, though; hopefully that counts for something (i.e., the US sales offsetting the German ones), to the point it's deemed worth doing again if/when there's a fifth movie. Hopefully the fact any further productions will be set even later (and thus farther from WWII) would help swing it... Anyway... wow, what a beautiful set.

I thought you might mean something like that. Pfft. Considering the arms and hands aren't meant to be removed anyway, I can't really get concerned about that - if an arm or a hand comes off, to me that means the piece is broken, and the compatibility of broken parts with other broken parts isn't much of a concern. I've seen the discussions before, and I've noticed the translucency of certain parts, but it really doesn't affect everything in the line. The yellow heads in BAM may indeed vary (slightly) depending upon origin, sure, but it really depends upon the part. Generally I find that certain prints / patterns available in a BAM kiosk at a given moment will apparently be from one plant, while other prints and patterns are from others, so that the exact yellow(s) one gets with one's BAM minifigure heads depends upon what face prints one gets. That sounds like just a plain, flat-out print error affecting your specific cavewoman, I have to say, rather than a flaw affecting all of them. Have you compared yours to the photos here of other people's cavewomen?

Again, I have to say, how is this a problem? Your bricks didn't disappear when other people got theirs, did they? Isn't it a good thing if more bricks are widely available to more people?

Going over this thread and seeing all the people affirming the images' authenticity, and all the other people certain this is a hoax, I don't know what to think. Is there any new information about these yet (such as, most critically, whether they're real or not)?

"Incompatible"? What does that even mean? Surely you don't mean that the hands and arms aren't attached and came loose in the packet, and won't connect to each other or to the torso... I haven't seen any significant difference in the thickness of the plastic between the minifigures of the Minifigures line and those in other sets. How are you measuring the thickness? All of my cavewomen have fine printing, but I do know people get bad prints from time to time (in all themes, not just this one). Could you post a picture of yours?

Oh, I meant to follow this up a while ago, but forgot until now. Perhaps a couple months ago I saw these again at TRU, and they actually had both packaging versions - ones with a single "generic" minifigure included, and ones without. The ones that come with minifigures cost a few dollars more than the ones without - not really worth it, but of course that was TRU pricing, and I don't know whether the price difference would be the same from some other vendor. I wish these things were just a bit less expensive in general. I think I'd really like to get a bunch of them to use for the Minifigures minifigures (one case per series, naturally), but at over $20 apiece they're a little hard to bring myself to pay for at that rate (when I still have so many regular sets to catch up on!).

Erm... why is this a problem? __________ I've been planning to do something like this myself, using aspects from the designs of each of the last three minifigure-scale sets of the Slave I. As it happens, I've somehow managed to get each of the four official minifigure versions, and the second is definitely a huge improvement over the first, but the relative strengths and weaknesses of that second and the two after it are harder to figure (well, aside from the last two using the Episode V color scheme rather than the Episode II one from the second version ).

Right, but it's not just a generic chrome minifigure; it's a chrome Star Wars protocol droid, and chromed for a reason - the character is chrome. It's not just chromed to illustrate that TLG can chrome a minifigure, with the expectation kids will want to use the torso and legs to make a chrome cop or chrome firefighter - if it were, it'd have a less distinctive torso print (or none at all). The chrome is simply a characteristic of the character, who happens to be a Star Wars character. It may have been chosen for the promo because the chrome makes it a distinctive, flashy figure, but ultimately this is first and foremost a minifigure of TC-14, and the chrome is an aspect of that, rather than it being first and foremost a chrome minifigure who happens to be TC-14. Even if other kids want it just because it's chrome, the obvious, reasonable and natural expectation is that LEGO Star Wars fans will want it even more, because it's a Star Wars character and it's chrome.

I can confirm US availability. I saw them at the Toys 'R' Us here in Tallahassee, Florida two days ago, so they currently have Minifigures from three different series simultaneously (Series 5, 6 and 7 - each at a different price ).

Interesting. So, it's possible some of the Targets and/or Walmarts here might actually still have them, and just not have bothered to put them out? I should note there's still at least one place locally that definitely has them - Toy's 'R' Us. Of course, they're a little overpriced there so I'd rather get them elsewhere if possible, but at least I have the option. I'll also be going to the LEGO Store at Downtown Disney in Orlando next weekend, so I'm hopeful of getting some there, but it'd be great if I could still get them locally at Target.

(emphasis added)Well, okay, but if the Star Wars theme is a low priority for you, why does it matter so much whether you get one of these minifigures or not? Wouldn't you be more interested in figures (and other parts, and sets, etc.) from some other theme, anyway?

How's the availability of these? It seems to me they haven't stayed in stores as long as previous series; indeed, there are more stores here that still have Series 5 than there are with Series 6. S6 was in both of the Targets here, but not for very long, as far as I can tell, and the Walmarts seem to have sold out of them (or stopped getting them) as well. Additionally, one local indie toy/hobby store here specifically never got S6 (I'm not just guessing based on a few visits; I actually asked, and they said they weren't getting them, even though they do intend to get S7 and got all of the first five series). Does it seem to anyone else as though S6 hasn't lasted as long in stores as the S3 through S5?

The Minifigures shop at LEGOLAND Florida has a BAM station; unfortunately it offers only four parts per figure, not five (head, hair/headwear, torso, legs - no accessories). That said, each time I've been there (twice in October, when it opened, then again once in December - so, not in the last four months) they've had a bunch of Series 2 parts (headgear, heads, torsos and legs for the witch, pop star, pharaoh, disco dude, etc.). In fact, at least late last year, they had hardly anything else - nearly all the parts I saw were from Series 2 Minifigures.

You know, if the promotion really does wind up offering these minifigures only with the purchase of Star Wars sets (which may wind up not even being the case, but assuming it is), it's quite possible that it wasn't even TLG's decision at all, but LFL's. The minifigure is a LEGO Star Wars product, into which Lucasfilm has its input and approval just like any other Star Wars (or Indiana Jones) product LEGO releases. It's meant to promote LEGO Star Wars, from which both LEGO and Lucasfilm profit. TLG may not particularly care which LEGO product people buy in order to get one, but Lucasfilm certainly might. Why would Lucasfilm want to give away free Star Wars items with purchases of LEGO City or NinjaGo items? LFL may well have stipulated that these minifigures could be offered only for purchases of Star Wars material, and TLG would have to go along with that.

Green Lantern wouldn't have been an option, since this is in conjunction with the new Marvel sets and the release of The Avengers, and Green Lantern is a DC character. That said, it'd be nice if there were some release of Green Lantern minifigures other than through the ridiculously limited Comic-Con promo.

Perhaps, but I think the thinking is that some would prefer that the promo be limited to people who specifically want it (i.e., LEGO Star Wars fans), as opposed to people who'll get it just because it's a freebie, so hey, why not. The idea is that if someone is a fan of NinjaGo or Friends or City or whatever and usually doesn't care about Star Wars at all, then why should that person, who may not even have any idea who TC-14 is, get one of these desirable Star Wars minifigures, at the expense of someone who's a huge Star Wars fan and who may even have specifically longed and yearned and pined for a TC-14 minifigure for the last thirteen years, and yet might not ever get one if this is the only way TLG ever releases an official version of the character.

Apologies for my lateness in responding. Congratulations, and best of luck!!! And of course, May the Force be with you!

On the contrary, I don't see how making something accessible to more collectors negates "the collector part" - quite the opposite, if anything. It might negate the investment / speculator part, but the sets aren't really advertised or sold with that in mind, and TLG doesn't see a krone from that anyway. Collectors and speculators aren't the same thing (or shouldn't be, at least, and historically haven't always meant the same thing, though the former term does seem to be getting co-opted to mean the latter, but that's not TLG's fault or problem). The collectors who supported TLG long ago are already rewarded by having gotten nice LEGO sets, and having gotten to enjoy them earlier. At any rate, that doesn't seem to be the point of the topic query; it's clearly talking about redesigning sets, not merely reissuing ones. They could easily do a new set of an X-Wing Fighter, say, that has a totally different construction from 7191, and that's obviously the possibility being discussed. I do think there's ample room for redesigns, for at least some of the most iconic Star Wars vehicles (and characters, locales, etc.) represented in the line. The 7191 X-Wing is still a beautiful set, but does have some funky scale issues, as well as a cockpit canopy with notable variations from the "real" T-65 canopy in concession to LEGO geometry. There's a fair amount of room for improvement. Similarly, even the justly-celebrated 10179 Millennium Falcon isn't absolutely perfect; the cockpit in particular could probably be improved upon a fair bit, and of course there's the possibility of an interior, wholly unexplored with 10179 aside from those interior areas visible from the exterior.

That makes sense - it's one thing for them to invest in redesigning just the horses themselves, and the additional new articulation could easily justify that, but it's probably something else entirely for them to have to redo all the various bardings, saddles, etc. because of it. If they could produce a more articulated new horse while still fitting as many of the old equine accessory items as possible, that's presumably the way they'd want to go, for cost reasons.

I love it as well!

I'm a bit curious about all the statements about there being lots of spiders, snakes and rats. There are many individual sets with those animals, but most of the sets don't have more than one or two of any given one of those animals, with the occasional exception (such as Indiana Jones and the Lost Tomb, which has ten snakes). TLG has a couple different rat molds, but going by Peeron, one of them has been used only in a couple Harry Potter sets, and there aren't any sets that feature more than one of either mold. As an Indiana Jones fan who'd love more rats for some subterranean Venice MOCs, I've long wanted more rats, and in more colors (I'm glad they were finally just added to Pick-a-Brick, but they're in only one color and cost 70 cents apiece). One thing that's mystified me is how they decide what animals to create new variations of. For years there's been essentially one snake design, aside from the giant "basilisk" in a single older Harry Potter set; the new "missile" cobras in the current NinjaGo are appreciated if for no other reason than part variety always being appreciated, but I've long wanted a more "generic," non-rattle snake that can be used to represent all sorts of snakes. The NinjaGo cobras do at least give us a cobra, albeit one in a very specific position to facilitate use as a projectile. The classic rattlesnakes have appeared in numerous sets over the years, mostly in sets in which they're presumably representing other sorts of snakes (even in the Minifigures line, which uses so many new molds all the time even when there's no particular pressing need for them, they've retained the rattlesnake for the 'Egyptian Queen' when it actually would considerably benefit from a new snake mold). By contrast, they've done a variety of dinosaurs and other prehistoric reptiles in just a few themes (Adventurers, Studios, Dinosaurs, Dino Attack / Dino 2010, Dino) in a little over a decade or so, with each major dinosaur variety TLG has represented (tyrannosaur, triceratops, etc.) appearing in just a handful of sets overall, and yet they've started from scratch nearly every time. There are the Adventurers / Studios designs, the Dinosaurs ones, the Dino Attack / Dino 2010 ones and the current Dino ones, each of these "families" having its own totally new take on triceratops, tyrannosaurus rex, etc., for creatures that appear in just a fraction of the total number of sets featuring snakes (or horses, sharks, or most other animals that haven't gotten nearly so many revisions). This of course isn't even couting the Duplo dinosaurs (or the various Creator-style ones built fully with "generic" bricks and so on). One would think that if they'd create expensive new molds for animals that in some instances get used once in a single set and then apparently retired forever, they could invest in perhaps a few more snakes, say, for all the new sets that come out each year in a variety of themes that use snakes, but it hasn't happened (until NinjaGo, and even that was presumably driven by a specific functional requirement).

Pfft. I'll put pink stuff in there if I want. You can't oppress me! Actually, it's a moot point for me, since I don't yet have the Death Star, but I do hope to get one soon; if so, I'll definitely add plenty of minifigures to it, particularly additional stormtroopers.

Mmm... I wouldn't say it's completely different; at least it's a heck of a lot closer to Yoda's appearance in the OT than to the ugly puppet meant to represent a younger-looking Yoda in the original '99 release of Episode I. The only significant difference here from "classic" Yoda imagery is the fact that he is wielding a saber and that expression. But that said, I do read you, and I personally would rather have had a truly classic Yoda image (i.e., one modeled upon a classic scene from Episode V, say). Strongly agreed! Unfortunately, I doubt LFL/TLG would ever go with such art for toy packaging over something more action-oriented (that other kind of action :p ).

It's so hard to choose a year solely for the sets; each year has something great that the other years don't (though part of me is tempted to go with 2007 just for the UCS Millennium Falcon, a set I desperately wish I'd been able to get). I think I may go with 2002, simply because that's the year I finally succumbed and started getting LEGO sets again for the first time in eons, and did so thanks to Star Wars; it's also a year for which, remarkably, I've managed to get most of the sets (even though I didn't get all of them that year).