|
|
| |
In lugnet.licensed.spiderman, Dave Schuler wrote:
> In lugnet.licensed.spiderman, Ken Dowd wrote:
> > In lugnet.licensed.spiderman, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
> > > does anyone know if Lego will be doing any Spider-man 3 sets, or did they let
> > > the license go?
> >
> > Sorry, MegaBloks now holds the license for Spider-man 3.
>
> **snip**
>
> > I found it interesting that the sets were all named for the minifigure included
> > rather than for the vehicle itself.
>
> That has puzzled me as well, and it makes cataloguing a bit of a headache, when
> there are a dozen sets called "Spider-Man."
>
> > And I seriously doubt that any of the
> > vehicles will make an appearance in the movie. MegaBloks is no doubt trying to
> > make sets that appeal to kids, but I still prefer LEGOs approach of making sets
> > that actually reflect what is in the movies.
>
> I'm guessing that the #2004 Sandman's Bank Heist and #2002 Green Goblin's Secret
> Lab probably reflect a scene or setting in the film, so it's not as though
> they're ignoring the movie altogther. But a quick perusal of the toy aisle
> confirms that lots of licensed properties creep onto the shelves without ever
> having appeared onscreen. I don't recall, for example, a film version of the
> Star Wars/Transformers amalgamation, but now I can relive those epic adventures
> thanks to the Han Solo/Millennium Falcon Transformer battlesuit. Heck, Mego did
> this kind of freestyling for years back when they were putting out the 8 1/2"
> Marvel and DC figures; there is nothing new under the sun.
>
> > As for the minifigures, they are the new designs that have articulated knees and
> > elbows. I didn't compare the sets, but I'm almost certain that the Spider-man in
> > sets 1947 and 1926 are identical, as are the symbiote Spider-man in sets 1948
> > and 1927.
>
> That appears to be correct, though I haven't cracked open the newer sets to
> verify this. Of course, I don't know how else they'd do it: "Spider-Man with
> left sleeve torn;" "Spider-Man with left sleeve and right pants-leg torn;" and
> so on?
>
> Though I definitely *would* like to see a Peter Parker fig. Heck, for years
> I've been futilely calling for a whole "civilians" pack. That would be cool.
>
> > Presumably there will be larger sets forthcoming that will actually contain
> > villians.
>
> Yeah--that's the #2002 and #2004 I mentioned. I don't know if they'll have a
> larger set with the symbiote or not.
>
> Dave!
6 of the new sets are out now. New style Symbiote, Spiderman, Sandman, Young
Green Goblin, and Ravage are out. A number of the kits are what Mega calls
super-tech Mecha. They combine super-tech elements (done in weird bionical
style character kits released a few years ago) with Mecha elements used in the
Warriors series plus a new style cockpit for the pilot, which is designed for
old style minis but can accomodate (barely) the new fully articulated minis.
|
|
| |
In lugnet.licensed.spiderman, Ken Dowd wrote:
> In lugnet.licensed.spiderman, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
> Sorry, MegaBloks now holds the license for Spider-man 3. AFAIK LEGO hasn't said
> anything about letting the license lapse and MegaBloks hasn't issued any press
> releases about obtaining the license. However, in the last 2 weeks I have seen 5
> different MegaBloks sets at TRU bearing the Spider-man 3 movie logo. For the
> curious those sets are:
Licensing for Spider-Man has long been extremely complex, which is why it took
so long to make the first movie. The LEGO license for the movie sets was with
Sony who produced and held the license for motion picture merchandise. The Mega
sets were licensed by Marvel who held the rights to character related
merchandise. For the Spider-Man 2 movie, there were both LEGO and Mega sets on
the shelf, LEGO sets were specific to the movie, while Mega sets were more
generic.
That being said I would be really suprised if LEGO continued this license, in
the face of the prevelence of new Mega sets, including other Marvel movie moguls
like Fantastic Four, Wolverine, and the Hulk.
Scott
|
|
| |
In lugnet.licensed.spiderman, Ken Dowd wrote:
> In lugnet.licensed.spiderman, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
> > does anyone know if Lego will be doing any Spider-man 3 sets, or did they let
> > the license go?
>
> Sorry, MegaBloks now holds the license for Spider-man 3.
**snip**
> I found it interesting that the sets were all named for the minifigure included
> rather than for the vehicle itself.
That has puzzled me as well, and it makes cataloguing a bit of a headache, when
there are a dozen sets called "Spider-Man."
> And I seriously doubt that any of the
> vehicles will make an appearance in the movie. MegaBloks is no doubt trying to
> make sets that appeal to kids, but I still prefer LEGOs approach of making sets
> that actually reflect what is in the movies.
I'm guessing that the #2004 Sandman's Bank Heist and #2002 Green Goblin's Secret
Lab probably reflect a scene or setting in the film, so it's not as though
they're ignoring the movie altogther. But a quick perusal of the toy aisle
confirms that lots of licensed properties creep onto the shelves without ever
having appeared onscreen. I don't recall, for example, a film version of the
Star Wars/Transformers amalgamation, but now I can relive those epic adventures
thanks to the Han Solo/Millennium Falcon Transformer battlesuit. Heck, Mego did
this kind of freestyling for years back when they were putting out the 8 1/2"
Marvel and DC figures; there is nothing new under the sun.
> As for the minifigures, they are the new designs that have articulated knees and
> elbows. I didn't compare the sets, but I'm almost certain that the Spider-man in
> sets 1947 and 1926 are identical, as are the symbiote Spider-man in sets 1948
> and 1927.
That appears to be correct, though I haven't cracked open the newer sets to
verify this. Of course, I don't know how else they'd do it: "Spider-Man with
left sleeve torn;" "Spider-Man with left sleeve and right pants-leg torn;" and
so on?
Though I definitely *would* like to see a Peter Parker fig. Heck, for years
I've been futilely calling for a whole "civilians" pack. That would be cool.
> Presumably there will be larger sets forthcoming that will actually contain
> villians.
Yeah--that's the #2002 and #2004 I mentioned. I don't know if they'll have a
larger set with the symbiote or not.
Dave!
|
|
| |
In lugnet.licensed.spiderman, Jeff Szklennik wrote:
> does anyone know if Lego will be doing any Spider-man 3 sets, or did they let
> the license go?
Sorry, MegaBloks now holds the license for Spider-man 3. AFAIK LEGO hasn't said
anything about letting the license lapse and MegaBloks hasn't issued any press
releases about obtaining the license. However, in the last 2 weeks I have seen 5
different MegaBloks sets at TRU bearing the Spider-man 3 movie logo. For the
curious those sets are:
1947 Spider-man $6.99 (with 40 pcs. to build a 'Spider-car')
1948 Symbiote Spider-man $6.99 (with 45 pcs. to build a 'Spider-boat')
1949 Battle-damage Spider-man $6.99 (with 45 pcs. to build a 'Spider-plane')
1926 Spider-man $9.99 (with 92 pcs. to build a red and blue 'Spider-mech')
1927 Symbiote Spider-man $9.99 (with 85 pcs. to build a black and silver
'Spider-mech')
I found it interesting that the sets were all named for the minifigure included
rather than for the vehicle itself. And I seriously doubt that any of the
vehicles will make an appearance in the movie. MegaBloks is no doubt trying to
make sets that appeal to kids, but I still prefer LEGOs approach of making sets
that actually reflect what is in the movies.
As for the minifigures, they are the new designs that have articulated knees and
elbows. I didn't compare the sets, but I'm almost certain that the Spider-man in
sets 1947 and 1926 are identical, as are the symbiote Spider-man in sets 1948
and 1927.
Presumably there will be larger sets forthcoming that will actually contain
villians.
Ken
|
|
| |
does anyone know if Lego will be doing any Spider-man 3 sets, or did they let
the license go?
Jeff
|
|
|
