Jump to content

The overbearing influence of Disney and its negative impact

TheDoctor

By TheDoctor
in LEGO Licensed

 Share

Recommended Posts

TheDoctor

TheDoctor

Posted
Posted (edited)

I'm not a huge collector of LEGO (space, money & kids!) but I closely follow new releases and news.

One thing that I see continually crop up is the sometimes excessive influence that Disney exerts over LEGO in the design process.

I've done my best to cobble together a list of examples and why they happened:

  1. Nightmare Before Christmas (21351, 2024)
    • What Happened: Fan-designed Jack Skellington’s house was made less angular and gothic, resulting in a “tamer” look compared to the 1993 film. In my opinion, the most egregious example that sacrificed the entire look of the set to appease.. who knows!?
    • Why: Disney pushed for a more playable, kid-friendly design to align with brand standards.
  2. Star Wars UCS Death Star (75419, 2025)
    • What Happened: LEGO had to persuade Disney/Lucasfilm to include two Rogue One minifigures (Galen Erso, Krennic), placed “off-build” on the display stand.
    • Why: Disney was hesitant since these characters aren’t in the original trilogy’s Death Star scenes, prioritizing canon consistency.
  3. Magic of Disney (21352, 2024)
    • What Happened: Fan design for Disney’s 100th anniversary focused on Mickey Sorcerer and Pinocchio but was changed to include modern characters (Bruno from Encanto, Lilo) and cut anniversary motifs.
    • Why: Released post-anniversary, Disney wanted broader, contemporary character representation for market appeal.
  4. Star Wars Boba Fett’s Starship (75312, 2021)
    • What Happened: Renamed from “Slave I” to “Boba Fett’s Starship” across multiple sets.
    • Why: Disney avoided “slave” due to cultural sensitivity concerns... (eye-roll)
  5. Captain Jack Sparrow’s Pirate Ship (10365, 2025)
    • What Happened: Renamed from “Black Pearl” to emphasize the character.
    • Why: Disney preferred character-driven branding for better marketability.
  6. Disney Princess to LEGO Disney (2017)
    • What Happened: Shifted from Duplo to System-scale minidolls and rebranded as “LEGO Disney” with more diverse characters.
    • Why: Disney targeted girls 5–12, focusing on "empowerment" and modern designs.
  7. Star Wars Mos Eisley Cantina (75290, 2020)
    • What Happened: LEGO proposed obscure aliens (e.g., Tonnika Sisters) but Disney swapped them for recognizable ones like Greedo.
    • Why: Disney prioritized iconic characters for broader fan appeal.
  8. Disney Castle (43222, 2023)
    • What Happened: Updated Cinderella Castle avoided a specific Cinderella minifigure, focusing on multi-film “Disney magic” nods.
    • Why: Disney wanted a universal park landmark, not a single-princess focus.
  9. Star Wars AT-AT (75313, 2021)
    • What Happened: LEGO’s playable interior was reduced for a film-accurate exterior.
    • Why: Disney/Lucasfilm demanded fidelity to The Empire Strikes Back.
  10. Frozen Ice Castle (43197, 2021)
    • What Happened: LEGO’s larger village design was simplified, cutting features like a light-up ice bridge.
    • Why: Disney requested a smaller, budget-friendly set for younger Frozen fans.
  11. Marvel Sanctum Sanctorum (76218, 2022)
    • What Happened: Darker Multiverse of Madness elements (e.g., zombie Strange) were removed for family-friendly figures like Wong.
    • Why: Disney/Marvel enforced a PG tone for younger audiences.
  12. Star Wars Millennium Falcon (75192, 2017)
    • What Happened: LEGO proposed more sequel trilogy figures (Rey, Finn), but Disney mandated a balance with original trilogy ones (Han, Leia).
    • Why: Disney emphasized the ship’s cross-era legacy for wider appeal.
  13. Star Wars R2-D2 (75308, 2021)
    • What Happened: Complex internal gadgets were simplified for a display-focused model.
    • Why: Disney/Lucasfilm wanted a sleek, collectible UCS aesthetic.
  14. Disney Celebration Train (43212, 2023)
    • What Happened: Early Disney characters were swapped for modern ones (Moana, Woody).
    • Why: Disney pushed for recognizable, current IPs for marketing.
  15. Star Wars Imperial Star Destroyer (75252, 2019)
    • What Happened: LEGO proposed named characters (e.g., Admiral Piett), but Disney limited it to generic officers.
    • Why: Disney kept the focus on the ship to avoid canon debates.

 

This obviously isn't a definitive list, just the main ones I could think of and research.
Disney are obviously not the only licensors to execute creative control, but they certainly seem to be the most involved and influential.
(Wouldn't be surprised if the sets cost so much because of 'consulting fees' with the Disney IP team!)
 

Other Licensors’ Influence:
  1. Universal (Jurassic World) – T. rex Rampage (75936, 2019)
    • What Happened: Detailed Visitor Centre and extra staff figures were cut for a T. rex and Jeep focus.
    • Why: Universal emphasized iconic movie moments for blockbuster appeal.
  2. Lucasfilm (pre-Disney) – Death Star (10188, 2008)
    • What Happened: Lucasfilm vetoed minor Imperial figures, mandating a mix of A New Hope and Return of the Jedi scenes.
    • Why: Created a “greatest hits” set for nostalgia.
  3. Warner Bros. (DC) – Wonder Woman vs. Cheetah (76157, 2020)
    • What Happened: LEGO’s larger Themyscira set was scaled down to focus on Wonder Woman 1984’s Cheetah and Maxwell Lord.
    • Why: Tied to movie promotion, avoiding spoilers.
  4. Nintendo (Super Mario) – Adventures with Mario (71360, 2020)
    • What Happened: LEGO’s brick-built Mario was scrapped for an app-driven, blocky design.
    • Why: Nintendo demanded digital gameplay and specific aesthetics.


Of all of them, Harry Potter seems to get off the lightest and have the most flexibility as long as it appeared in a film, they can make it within reason for both characters and locations.
They even let them slip in Easter Eggs from the books or extended lore.
Given the size of that IP, it must have its own independent team that deals with licensees, and it would appear they're very enthusiastic!

Edited by TheDoctor
Spelling
  • TheDoctor changed the title to The overbearing influence of Disney and its negative impact
Oky

Oky

Posted
Posted

Do you have any sources for these claims? A lot of them just seem like speculations that haven’t been confirmed. 

TheDoctor

TheDoctor

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Oky said:

Do you have any sources for these claims? A lot of them just seem like speculations that haven’t been confirmed. 

Here ya go, a lot of them are from designer interviews and conversations with LAN members...
 

Edited by TheDoctor
edit link
Oky

Oky

Posted
Posted

Thanks for providing some sources. However, as I suspected the statements in a lot of those articles are vague at best. For example, it says nothing about Disney wanting Jack Skellington’s house to be more tame and playable in this 18+ set, just that that they “insisted on a particular look” and also states that the designers also had issues with the stability of the original design which I think was probably just as big of a factor in the decision to change it. They also never officially said why exactly they renamed the Slave I and Black Pearl, only saying that it was a “creative decision”. Any reasoning for it is pure fan speculation. And as Brickbob pointed out, #11 is just wrong and it wouldn’t make any sense for them not to approve Zombie Strange for an 18+ set when they approved Zombie Cap for the CMFs. The link you provided doesn’t work and the review of the set I found on Brick Architect says nothing like this, so I have no idea what you’re talking about. 

Even if these were true, I agree with Brickbob that these are all fairly harmless changes/influences and actually resulted in better sets in some cases like Mos Eisley and the Magic of Disney. 

Karalora

Karalora

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, TheDoctor said:

Disney Castle (43222, 2023)

  • What Happened: Updated Cinderella Castle avoided a specific Cinderella minifigure, focusing on multi-film “Disney magic” nods.
  • Why: Disney wanted a universal park landmark, not a single-princess focus.

I want to address this one in particular...firstly, there is a Cinderella minifigure in the updated version of the set, in fact the only Cinderella minifigure (not minidoll) LEGO has produced to date. So I'm not sure what the actual complaint is here.

Secondly, the set is designed to replicate Cinderella Castle in Walt Disney World, not the castle that appears in the 1950 animated film Cinderella, which looks quite a bit different (compare here and here). As an icon of the theme park, it is considered a "home" for many princess and fantasy characters. The Cinderella name is fairly perfunctory; the fact that it's not "Cinderella's Castle" should indicate that she is not being credited with ownership. Again, not sure what the objection is. There are plenty of minidoll sets focusing on Cinderella if that's what floats your boat.

BrickBob Studpants

BrickBob Studpants

Posted
Posted (edited)

„Overbearing“ and „negative“ both don‘t apply here. The examples given are pretty minor, and of course the licensee has to listen to what the licenser suggests, it‘s their IP after all :tongue: And none of the changes are downright negative I think. Besides, there are instances where TLG got what they wanted, for example with Krennic‘s Shuttle, which Lucasfilm wanted to be the 4-winged hero shuttle instead, but the designers convinced them otherwise.

This seems to be more of a DIDNEY BAD kinda thing rather than anything objective.

Edited by BrickBob Studpants
Mandalorianknight

Mandalorianknight

Posted
Posted
On 9/17/2025 at 2:36 AM, BrickBob Studpants said:

„Overbearing“ and „negative“ both don‘t apply here. The examples given are pretty minor, and of course the licensee has to listen to what the licenser suggests, it‘s their IP after all :tongue: And none of the changes are downright negative I think. Besides, there are instances where TLG got what they wanted, for example with Krennic‘s Shuttle, which Lucasfilm wanted to be the 4-winged hero shuttle instead, but the designers convinced them otherwise.

This seems to be more of a DIDNEY BAD kinda thing rather than anything objective.

I mean, yeah, it's this guy's opinion on a forum. He didn't say anywhere in his post that this was some sort of tablet of unobjectionable truth.

 

That said I would say plenty of these are downright negative, at least in terms of not having any positive benefits. The continual and increasingly ridiculous denaming might not affect the physical contents of the sets themselves (though they're getting there with the Slave One plaque not being able to say slave one) but there's nothing positive from it. Nobody remotely rational is relieved that lego didn't call the Black Pearl by it's name.

BrickBob Studpants

BrickBob Studpants

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Mandalorianknight said:

[…] but there's nothing positive from it. Nobody remotely rational is relieved that lego didn't call the Black Pearl by it's name.

It didn’t say they were positive changes, they’re mostly neutral in my opinion :shrug_oh_well: For instance, the Black Pearl being renamed for marketing reasons (since the name isn’t trademarked) is a pretty neutral change since it doesn’t change anything about the set itself.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...