Marvel Superheroes 2022 - Rumors & Discussion

[mirkwoodspiders]

Hopefully the outcry over this set communicates to LEGO how much fans value accuracy and realism over features if there is ever a choice between the two (I'm generalizing, but I think most here would agree). 

Even without the comparisons to the movie character, it seems like people still think the model looks bad, which says a lot about how off it is.

Edited October 18, 2022 by mirkwoodspiders

[Fenghuang0296]

Hold on, what? The reason this thing looks so dumb is because they want you to also buy a separate set, the junky buildable Iron Man figure, and put it inside this one? This stupid, exaggerated price and they can’t even include the full set?

WTF, LEGO. I don’t know who’s running this show but they need to be replaced.

[LegendaryArticuno]

Best review of the Lego Hulkbuster... damn this guy held nothing back.

 

Edited October 18, 2022 by LegendaryArticuno

[Mandalorianknight]

3 hours ago, Fenghuang0296 said:

I don’t know who’s running this show but they need to be replaced.

This is me, just, in general.

 

I do like the duality of marvel being like "agh only 1 of our 3 D2Cs this year is any good" while DC is like 'Guys, we might get a minifigure next year! And not even of a batman character!". Don't get me wrong the BP bust and Hulkbuster are pretty atrocious, but hey, could be worse.

[Scarilian]

Unboxing/build video/timelapse:

 

[LegendaryArticuno]

48 minutes ago, Scarilian said:

Unboxing/build video/timelapse

There's way too much wrong with this set to list, but the 2 that stand out to me the most besides the proportions is the belly-button arc reactor and that awkward inverted cockpit piece on the back.

This is bad design.

[GoldenNinja3000]

2 hours ago, LegendaryArticuno said:

Best review of the Lego Hulkbuster... damn this guy held nothing back.

Lol, that's my video! This set really annoys me in case you can't tell 

Thanks for sharing!

[mirkwoodspiders]

Here's a theory I've been mulling: 

LEGO has seen record profits the last few years. 

In response, LEGO decides to make a variety of large/questionable sets with a limited production run in case they aren't well received.

In this category are Black Panther Bust, Humongous-buster, etc., which are experimental to test a market demographic.

If the sets tank: "Oh well; we have the capital to eat the loss fairly easily and we've explored some ideas that help inform future product choices." If they sell well: "Oh boy! A potential new-market has been discovered."

I don't know how far in advance LEGO needs to decide to produce enormous/iffy sets and how that coincides with financials. But, I think the theory has some plausibility.

[thebricksbear]

11 hours ago, cosmic said:

As someone who did not buy the Infinity War sets I gotta say, I am so intrigued by 76209 including the complete Gauntlet. I would otherwise have to buy each stone off bricklink. But considering the buildable Thor’s hammer has the complete infinity gauntlet with all the Infinity stones, might as well pick that up instead. The buildable model is a decent display piece as well. I gotta say I hate the derpy smile on Thor’s face and wish he had a more serious expression but I don’t really care for MCU designs regardless so that’s neither here nor there.

that said I really hope we get a dual

molded helmet/hair piece for comic Thor someday. I also hope we get Leg printing on Mysterio lol I hate that his crossed pattern doesn’t extend to his legs and we get no sight of his yellow boots.

I am one of the dolts that hunted down the stones on bricklink to avoid buying the entire Infinity Wars wave... the complete gauntlet (with sprues) was in last years Marvel Advent Calendar, and is pretty cheap on bricklink.

[Meaf]

Conceptually the idea of being able to fit a buildable figure inside a mech is absolutely awesome, but the actual execution here is just plain not good. As was pointed out above it's at least in part because Iron Man couldn't possibly fit in it in real life, but I think that's just more reason for them to have scrapped the figure in the mech idea.  I'm not opposed to seeing that concept again in the future, but they need to choose a fitting subject first (or make one up with a good design).

[PsychoBuilder]

1 hour ago, mirkwoodspiders said:

Here's a theory I've been mulling: 

LEGO has seen record profits the last few years. 

In response, LEGO decides to make a variety of large/questionable sets with a limited production run in case they aren't well received.

In this category are Black Panther Bust, Humongous-buster, etc., which are experimental to test a market demographic.

If the sets tank: "Oh well; we have the capital to eat the loss fairly easily and we've explored some ideas that help inform future product choices." If they sell well: "Oh boy! A potential new-market has been discovered."

I don't know how far in advance LEGO needs to decide to produce enormous/iffy sets and how that coincides with financials. But, I think the theory has some plausibility.

Yeah, I would buy this 100%. Considering how kind of out of the ordinary last year was, and how weird this year has been, I think they definitely are screwing around to see what works. In that regard, I really doubt we would see the results of this for a while, which might mean a bit of a delay on the inevitable D2C Avengers tower, which I do believe will come, but it may take a bit.

[Scarilian]

9 hours ago, mirkwoodspiders said:

In response, LEGO decides to make a variety of large/questionable sets with a limited production run in case they aren't well received.

If the sets tank: "Oh well; we have the capital to eat the loss fairly easily and we've explored some ideas that help inform future product choices." If they sell well: "Oh boy! A potential new-market has been discovered."

I think the theory is likely, but these are all going to underperform for varying reasons and this was all done idiotically during a global financial crisis that should have been evident was going to occur.

• The issues with the Hulkbuster mostly come from proportional aspects with the torso and the stupid decision to try and integrate a seperate full buildable Iron Man figure into it, sacrificing accuracy for said feature.
• The issue with the Black Panther bust mostly come from them picking a less popular character that is primarily black and without much detailing, the best starting choice would have been Spider-man because the amount of detail his mask offers to vary it.
• The issue with the Sanctum is that it's incomplete and the minifigure selection is fairly underwhelming in terms of detailing.
• The issue with the Thor's Hammer is a lack of detailing on the Hammer because they wanted to include a display base.

Conceptually Lego does have an audience for big mech sets, large scale busts, building focused accurate builds and tools/weapons of the characters. The trouble is they messed up the execution of every single one of these.

Lego are self-sabotaging this method of judging new markets via the incompetency on display, primarily from misjudging the appeal of big sets and what it takes for a customer to purchase them.

Edited October 19, 2022 by Scarilian

[LegendaryArticuno]

12 hours ago, GoldenNinja3000 said:

Lol, that's my video! This set really annoys me in case you can't tell 

Thanks for sharing!

Hahah! Wow I didn't even notice the same name! Honestly good review, in order for Lego to improve there needs to be people that aren't afraid to have critical opinion to highlight design flaws.

 

[Mandalorianknight]

10 hours ago, Meadius said:

Conceptually the idea of being able to fit a buildable figure inside a mech is absolutely awesome, but the actual execution here is just plain not good. 

The Exo-Toa was a thing back in 2002, which shows how bad the execution is. 20 years on and they couldn't do it any better.

[GoldenNinja3000]

3 hours ago, Scarilian said:

I think the theory is likely, but these are all going to underperform for varying reasons and this was all done idiotically during a global financial crisis that should have been evident was going to occur.

• The issues with the Hulkbuster mostly come from proportional aspects with the torso and the stupid decision to try and integrate a seperate full buildable Iron Man figure into it, sacrificing accuracy for said feature.
• The issue with the Black Panther bust mostly come from them picking a less popular character that is primarily black and without much detailing, the best starting choice would have been Spider-man because the amount of detail his mask offers to vary it.
• The issue with the Sanctum is that it's incomplete and the minifigure selection is fairly underwhelming in terms of detailing.
• The issue with the Thor's Hammer is a lack of detailing on the Hammer because they wanted to include a display base.

Conceptually Lego does have an audience for big mech sets, large scale busts, building focused accurate builds and tools/weapons of the characters. The trouble is they messed up the execution of every single one of these.

Lego are self-sabotaging this method of judging new markets via the incompetency on display, primarily from misjudging the appeal of big sets and what it takes for a customer to purchase them.

This is the perfect summary of everything wrong with Marvel's big sets this year. I forgot about the lack of detail on Mjolnir, but you're totally right. LEGO has messed up the execution of so many sets this year, even outside of Marvel.

[Agent Kallus]

If it's designed around fitting a Lego iron man action figure inside the  it should have included one in the price, make a different 'mark' to the set and boom.

[Legocentrico]

59 minuti fa, l'agente Kallus ha detto:

Se è progettato per montare una action figure Lego iron man all'interno del avrebbe dovuto includerne una nel prezzo, fare un "marchio" diverso al set e al boom.

many modular sets are designed for expansions to be purchased separately… surely including an action figure would help justify the price …….

[Scarilian]

4 hours ago, Agent Kallus said:

If it's designed around fitting a Lego iron man action figure inside the  it should have included one in the price, make a different 'mark' to the set and boom.

Did not even need to be a full figure, some of the toy versions included the upper chest and head of an Iron Man figure as opposed to the full version.

I also find it odd how Lego did not account for the Iron Man figure already having its own lightbrick, you already included that aspect and elongated the Iron Man figure to include it. It'd have made more sense that the chest of the Hulkbuster can only light up with an Iron Man figure inserted, using the lightbrick that's in the buildable figure. Otherwise the inclusion of the function is pointless because once you shove an Iron Man figure inside it's utterly irrelevant and unnoticable and changes no aspect of the display unless you have the helmet up, so his body/arms/legs are useless with only his head being visible. It's also unlikely that including him will fill the gaps in the torso, though not seen it displayed with the Iron Man figure in it yet.

You could have scrapped the other lightbrick and also the feature to 'push the front to activate' because now the activation method would be from the back justifying the cockpit piece being used to access the figures button and to remove the figure. Either that or perhaps allocated some budget to have lightbricks added to the stationary knees, which would help further justify why they can't bend. These are all aspects I'll be looking into doing if I wind up getting the set for a reduced price and with a promotional aspect to help offset the cost. Along with bulking the knees, fixing the torso length, altering the shoulder pads and fixing some layout issues on the arms.

[mirkwoodspiders]

2 hours ago, Scarilian said:

Otherwise the inclusion of the function is pointless because once you shove an Iron Man figure inside it's utterly irrelevant and unnoticable and changes no aspect of the display unless you have the helmet up, so his body/arms/legs are useless with only his head being visible. It's also unlikely that including him will fill the gaps in the torso, though not seen it displayed with the Iron Man figure in it yet.

This is a good point. Unless the designers wanted it to be "playable" (which it isn't, really), the figure doesn't do much of anything. I wouldn't display the Hulkbuster with the head open, since the whole point of making it to this scale is, I assume, to show off the Hulkbuster, not a figure inside.

[GoldenNinja3000]

I'll eventually get this set (even if I have to wait years for it to go on sale) and when I do I'll probably display it open. I like that it can open and since I don't like the dome head on this build I think opening up the chest to show off the Mark 43 would be a good look. But it's still pretty dumb to ruin the design of your entire model to fit another set inside it, no matter how cool that feature is.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we get a $200 UCS Spider-Man motorcycle to go with the new figures. 

[Fenghuang0296]

54 minutes ago, GoldenNinja3000 said:

I'll eventually get this set (even if I have to wait years for it to go on sale) and when I do I'll probably display it open. I like that it can open and since I don't like the dome head on this build I think opening up the chest to show off the Mark 43 would be a good look. But it's still pretty dumb to ruin the design of your entire model to fit another set inside it, no matter how cool that feature is.

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we get a $200 UCS Spider-Man motorcycle to go with the new figures. 

TECHNIC Spider-Buggy when?

[GoldenNinja3000]

4 minutes ago, Fenghuang0296 said:

TECHNIC Spider-Buggy when?

Wait, I've actually cracked LEGO's new strategy! We all know the concept of the $10 mech sets - one cool minifigure and one little mech build. Now LEGO's taking it one step further: a $25 buildable figure that's designed to go with a $350 mech each year. We got three Marvel D2Cs this year, so in 2023 I bet we'll see giant D2C mechs for the Spider-Man, Miles Morales, and Venom buildable figures. 

[cosmic]

So a few years late on this but how did I never notice how perfect the ears on the skrull from 76127 are for a Shrek figure? A custom Shrek would look great with those Skrull ears. I wonder if they were able to use the Genie ear piece because the mother company (Disney) owns the rights to both Marvel and the Disney cmf series? Or maybe licenses for specialized mould are more flexible than I originally thought? 

[PGBQW]

6 hours ago, GoldenNinja3000 said:

At this point I wouldn't be surprised if we get a $200 UCS Spider-Man motorcycle to go with the new figures

Spider Buggy D2C

5 hours ago, Fenghuang0296 said:

TECHNIC Spider-Buggy when?

Beat me to it

[Clone OPatra]

8 hours ago, Scarilian said:

Otherwise the inclusion of the function is pointless because once you shove an Iron Man figure inside it's utterly irrelevant and unnoticable and changes no aspect of the display unless you have the helmet up, so his body/arms/legs are useless with only his head being visible. 

To play devil's advocate, you could say this about any set that is fully enclosed and has an interior. Why have a detailed interior in the modulars when most people will just sit them on a shelf to display? Etc. Some people get a kick out of a thing being in a thing even if they're hardly every going to see it.

2 hours ago, cosmic said:

I wonder if they were able to use the Genie ear piece because the mother company (Disney) owns the rights to both Marvel and the Disney cmf series? Or maybe licenses for specialized mould are more flexible than I originally thought? 

It's not actually the Genie ear piece though, it's just very similar. The Genie one has a moulded earring and the skrull one does not.