Disney Properties 2026 - Rumors & Discussion

[doclord]

I think Pluto (costume version) would be a clever exclusive as he's really only at Disney parks.

[BrickCity]

3 hours ago, doclord said:

I think Pluto (costume version) would be a clever exclusive as he's really only at Disney parks.

100% agree! This is the long overlooked minifigure from the Lego Disney theme 

[OttoRiver]

Let's say its a minifigure scale facade, ala Diagon Alley. That set had 12 minifigures and I doubt Disney would allow any more than that for this, so how would we want to breakdown to fall?

I could see 2 - 3 "tourists" with maybe 2 "cast members". Best estimates is it leaves us with 7 Disney figures, of which Mickey and Minnie would take 2 of those spots. What would we want for the other 5? Given how much I love the Mary Poppins and Bert Idea, I would want the following

1. Mary Poppins

2. Bert 

3. Merida

4. Mad Hatter

5. Fairy Godmother

[JeanGreyForever]

I agree with everyone saying a Disney Parks Pluto minifigure would be a good choice. 

Another thing I've noticed is we don't have a Disney Parks version of Donald. The original Disney Castle give us parks versions of Mickey, Minnie, and Daisy but they reused the Donald minifigure from the CMF series which was based on his classic animated look. Even Goofy technically has his classic animated look as a minifigure in keychain form. This would be a good opportunity to get a new Donald based on his parks outfit. Which is basically just his classic look but with white accents instead of yellow and white buttons on his shirt.

14 hours ago, OttoRiver said:

I could see 2 - 3 "tourists" with maybe 2 "cast members". Best estimates is it leaves us with 7 Disney figures, of which Mickey and Minnie would take 2 of those spots. What would we want for the other 5? Given how much I love the Mary Poppins and Bert Idea, I would want the following

1. Mary Poppins

2. Bert 

3. Merida

4. Mad Hatter

5. Fairy Godmother

I think Disney is strict about the type of characters who can pop up on Main Street. They only allow the Mickey characters or Mary Poppins and Bert since they fit the Edwardian theme. I don't think the fairy tale-type characters you listed for #3-5 show up on Main Street, so I don't know if they'd allow Lego to include those types of characters and intermix themes. If you look at the flagship sets so far, they've all stuck to a theme of characters. The original Disney Castle and the train station only featured Mickey characters, plus Tinker Bell who is included more along the lines of being a Disney icon like Mickey and Minnie. The new Disney castle only features princesses and princes. 

If the Main Street set features parade floats, then we could see the characters you listed. The Fairy Godmother and Mad Hatter seem the most likely since Cinderella and Alice in Wonderland are typically represented in parades.

[Aramar]

I think it's more likely that we get the Dapper Dans instead of Disney characters in a Main Street USA set

[OttoRiver]

3 hours ago, JeanGreyForever said:

I think Disney is strict about the type of characters who can pop up on Main Street. They only allow the Mickey characters or Mary Poppins and Bert since they fit the Edwardian theme. I don't think the fairy tale-type characters you listed for #3-5 show up on Main Street, so I don't know if they'd allow Lego to include those types of characters and intermix themes. If you look at the flagship sets so far, they've all stuck to a theme of characters. The original Disney Castle and the train station only featured Mickey characters, plus Tinker Bell who is included more along the lines of being a Disney icon like Mickey and Minnie. The new Disney castle only features princesses and princes. 

This actually sent me down a rabbit hole and turns out there IS a very specific list of characters that can pop up on Main Street. Had no idea it was a hardline. The following are:

Mickey, Minnie, Donald, Goofy, Daisy, Chip, Dale, Pluto, Winnie the Pooh, Tigger, Cruella De Vil, Dapper Dans, Mary Poppins, Bert

Former Characters: Alice, White Rabbit, Belle, Captain Hook, Eeyore, Aurora, Snow White, B'rer Fox, Ariel, Queen of Hearts, Mulan Gaston, Geppetto, Jiminy Cricket,  Pinocchio, Mad Hatter, Penguin Waiter, Mr. Incredible, Mr. Smee, Peter Pan, Wendy, Rabbit, Rapunzel, Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dee, Stitch

Bolding the ones we haven't gotten figures of yet and not sure if Disney would take a characters historical presence into account or not. Given they used the new colors of Cinderella's Castle for the reissue, my bets would be towards the more current.

Edited Monday at 08:01 PM by OttoRiver

[doclord]

Just got out of Hoppers, which was wonderful. I'm a little shocked that considering LEGO's desire to make animal sculptures more and more often, they skipped out on this for 2026. King George and Mable buildables seems like an obvious choice.

[hikouki]

The leak explicitly mentions, "...tourist minifigs with Mickey ears, Star Wars shirt..."

What if this D2C included only that? Two, or even just ONE minifig?!?!?!?

Remember when the Cinderella castle 2.0 was rumored? The leak for that said "...at least 8 minifigs..." and when it came out, it just had only 8!!!

Maybe this Main Street with have a parent minifig who is a SW fan, accompanied by a child wearing Mickey ears. That is, if we are getting at least two figs!

Wouldn't put it past Lego.

[DisneyLego]

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced this is going to be more in line with the mini haunted mansion & mini castle sets, which would make sense to have just a couple minifigs to go along with it.

I just can’t see how they do Main Street justice in a single set, in minifig scale, without it being insanely expensive which will sell but not as well as a $200-400 flagship set price point like the castles/train station.

As much as I’d love a minifig scale Main Street, I feel like it’d be extremely lacking at the price point they’re likely to put on it. I hope I’m wrong

[doclord]

2 hours ago, hikouki said:

The leak explicitly mentions, "...tourist minifigs with Mickey ears, Star Wars shirt..."

What if this D2C included only that? Two, or even just ONE minifig?!?!?!?

Remember when the Cinderella castle 2.0 was rumored? The leak for that said "...at least 8 minifigs..." and when it came out, it just had only 8!!!

Maybe this Main Street with have a parent minifig who is a SW fan, accompanied by a child wearing Mickey ears. That is, if we are getting at least two figs!

Wouldn't put it past Lego.

If it's a Diagon Alley type set (the first one) I think we will get half tourists and half characters, be it the barbershop quartet, Pluto, Poppins etc. If it's microscale it could just be those two. But I think playscale is more likely.

[hikouki]

59 minutes ago, DisneyLego said:

The more I think about it, the more I’m convinced this is going to be more in line with the mini haunted mansion & mini castle sets, which would make sense to have just a couple minifigs to go along with it.

I just can’t see how they do Main Street justice in a single set, in minifig scale, without it being insanely expensive which will sell but not as well as a $200-400 flagship set price point like the castles/train station.

As much as I’d love a minifig scale Main Street, I feel like it’d be extremely lacking at the price point they’re likely to put on it. I hope I’m wrong

 

21 minutes ago, doclord said:

If it's a Diagon Alley type set (the first one) I think we will get half tourists and half characters, be it the barbershop quartet, Pluto, Poppins etc. If it's microscale it could just be those two. But I think playscale is more likely.

They could always do Main Street part 1, then part 2... that way it is minifig scale and big enough, but would fit in budget. 

Lego could keep milking a modular line for Main Street if they keep including very much wanted figs. 

Edited Tuesday at 04:10 AM by hikouki

[DisneyLego]

10 hours ago, hikouki said:

 

They could always do Main Street part 1, then part 2... that way it is minifig scale and big enough, but would fit in budget. 

Lego could keep milking a modular line for Main Street if they keep including very much wanted figs. 

Wouldn’t be against that 

[OttoRiver]

Slinky Dog bookends leaked. The build is not quite what I expected and yet exactly what it would be. I feel like the ability to put both ends together to make Slinky whole is just a sneaky way to get yet another buildable into this wave, though the Slinky minifigure looks decent if blurry. It does seem like it might be more Friends styled than anything

[BacktoBricks]

Slinky looks distinctly worried to me and I can see why. Slinky can neither split in half nor insert books into the middle of his coils so the design just doesn't make sense to me. How else would they do Slinky as a bookend you might say? But then I think that just suggests that Slinky does not really work as a character for a bookend. It feels too forced to me unfortunately, like trying to get adult collectors to buy a set you can maybe use as decor so you can get the exclusive Slinky minifigure, when really Slinky would have just been better as a pure buidlable character, something Lego are not, after all, normally shying away from making and cost less because there are not two book builds included.

Edited Friday at 02:19 PM by BacktoBricks

[doclord]

If the books(? I think one is Tin Toy the short) attached to Slinky were better I would be more interested in the set. And maybe a better minifig than Woody.

[DisneyLego]

5 minutes ago, doclord said:

If the books(? I think one is Tin Toy the short) attached to Slinky were better I would be more interested in the set. And maybe a better minifig than Woody.

Agreed. I know it’s blurry but I could live with the slinky build but the books just seem out of place. Not sure if it’s the colors or just the blandness of the book builds.

[JohnTPT17]

On today's episode of "I wish that Lego Fortnite minifigure could be made in real life," there are now designs out for Meg from Herculese.

Hades looks just as cursed as he did back in Series 2, though.

[Kaijumeister]

4 hours ago, BacktoBricks said:

 But then I think that just suggests that Slinky does not really work as a character for a bookend. It feels too forced to me unfortunately, like trying to get adult collectors to buy a set you can maybe use as decor so you can get the exclusive Slinky minifigure, when really Slinky would have just been better as a pure buildable character, something Lego are not, after all, normally shying away from making and cost less because there are not two book builds included.

I know I tend to harp on about the decline in playscale sets in a lot of my posts, but part of me wonders why Lego’s approach towards Toy Story is either 4+, buildable characters, or a variant of buildable characters in the form of these bookends.

Is there really that much demand for buildable versions of Slinky and Lotso when you can just buy the normal toys / plushies for a fraction of the price? Do Lego really think that these would be more desirable than a few normal playscale sets? It doesn’t make sense to me, maybe I’m missing something.

And I agree a bookend set just…doesn’t make sense for Toy Story of all things. If the book builds actually had something interesting to them, say the rest of the cast of toys as minifigures you could store in the books or open up as mini vignettes similar to Wicked, then I’d be all for it. But in this case the book builds just seem to pad out the price for what could have just been a buildable character *or* a literal book end without fake books included. It strikes me as yet another ill-thought out attempt of an ‘elite’ adult-focused product.

My incessant whining aside though, the Slinky figure looks great as does the build itself. I’m crossing both sets of fingers that the Pizza Planet Rocket Ride is at least a solid playscale set with a good character assortment.

Edited Friday at 07:09 PM by Kaijumeister

[JeanGreyForever]

I hope the minifigure-scale Slinky won't be too expensive on the third market. That's all I'm interested in.

[Bobdapeach]

21 hours ago, BacktoBricks said:

Slinky looks distinctly worried to me and I can see why. Slinky can neither split in half nor insert books into the middle of his coils so the design just doesn't make sense to me. How else would they do Slinky as a bookend you might say? But then I think that just suggests that Slinky does not really work as a character for a bookend. It feels too forced to me unfortunately, like trying to get adult collectors to buy a set you can maybe use as decor so you can get the exclusive Slinky minifigure, when really Slinky would have just been better as a pure buidlable character, something Lego are not, after all, normally shying away from making and cost less because there are not two book builds included.

I agree it doesn't look great, and the design on his face looks off. As for the rest of what you're saying, I think you're going way too deep with it. There's a roller coaster at Disneyland that has Slinky as the literal rollercoaster, with the carts being fit in between his coils, there's scenes in the Toy Story films where Slinky has stuff in between his coils - saying "you can't insert books into the middle of his coils" is silly, and realistically, can be done. He's also a toy, there's no reason he can't split in half, either, lol.

Dog themed book ends have been a thing for a long, long time - with the head at one end, and the tail at the other - and given the long body type of a dachshund, they're a very popular and common design when it comes to dog book ends. Slinky is very obvious based on a dachshund, and the idea of Toy Story Slinky book ends have been done by other companies in the past. If you literally google "dachshund bookends" you'll find a tonne of listings, and (at least in my country) not just drop shipping sites like amazon, actual reputable retail stores selling them; using a character from a popular IP that is also a dachshund only makes sense.

Spoiler

I understand what you're saying, and sometimes a Lego set is bad simply because it's bad; this isn't one of them. This set is bad because it looks horrible and has poor execution, not because the entirety is bad. They could very easily have still made Slinky function as a pair of bookends, omitted the brick built books from the set, and used those pieces to make Slinky look better, or discard the pieces and lower the set price. Iirc, of all the Lego book ends/nooks we have thus far, Wicked is the only one to include brick built books, and that one at least has the books built into the design and functionality. Here, the books are there, quite literally, for the sake of it, and to ramp up the price and piece count.

Slinky can still be displayed as a buildable character, it's not like he can only be displayed as a pair of bookends - and even then, saying it's "bad" when we only have two low quality images of it, doesn't allow anyone to judge it fairly. Would the overall design look better if it was a dedicated brick built figure, not books needed? Maybe, maybe not, who can say. Regardless, trying to say using Slinky as a pair of bookends doesn't work or make sense, well that just comes across as petulant more than anything, IMO. There's literal data to back the concept, now if they were trying to do this using Bullseye, Rex, or Hamm, etc... fair criticism. You can't say that for Slinky.

I just don't think Slinky translates well from a character to a toy. He has dead eyes, and many toys made of him (even official Disney merch), just have him look dead inside. The idea of using Slinky as a pair of bookends is a great idea, It's a great idea, it works, there's a market for it, it makes sense, and the - I really don't think anyone can deny the idea of doing doesn't make sense on paper - unfortunately, the overall design, and execution of it, is absolutely abhorrent. 

Spoiler

 

Edited yesterday at 11:50 AM by Bobdapeach

[BacktoBricks]

4 hours ago, Bobdapeach said:

I agree it doesn't look great, and the design on his face looks off. As for the rest of what you're saying, I think you're going way too deep with it. There's a roller coaster at Disneyland that has Slinky as the literal rollercoaster, with the carts being fit in between his coils, there's scenes in the Toy Story films where Slinky has stuff in between his coils - saying "you can't insert books into the middle of his coils" is silly, and realistically, can be done. He's also a toy, there's no reason he can't split in half, either, lol.

Dog themed book ends have been a thing for a long, long time ...

Slinky can still be displayed as a buildable character, it's not like he can only be displayed as a pair of bookends - and even then, saying it's "bad" when we only have two low quality images of it, doesn't allow anyone to judge it fairly. Would the overall design look better if it was a dedicated brick built figure, not books needed? Maybe, maybe not, who can say. Regardless, trying to say using Slinky as a pair of bookends doesn't work or make sense, well that just comes across as petulant more than anything, IMO.

I wouldn't say it is going to deep when it was my literal first impression. But that is all it is, my impression, and I will stick by it because that was how I felt when I first looked at the set. I have however seen the same comment on other sites: works as a buidlable, but looks off as a bookend.

Of course you can realistically stuff things in between a slinky's coils, but stuffing things in and having books splitting two halves are different. Of course he is a toy and you could split him by cutting him, but having had a slinky as a child I know that would just leave you with two slinkys that you couldn't put back together and I don't think that is really what you would want for Slinky. As for the Disney ride, I have never been, but a creative ride is a bit different to something marketed for display and therefore by design, inherently desired as requiring more accuracy. Any product that splits Slinky in two seems like a wrong idea to me, but that's just my impression.

Which is why I never said Slinky was bad. I merely said that in terms of the Lego set the design feels forced. They could have done Slinky as a buidlable that could have split in two should people desire to use him as a bookend as may have been customary in other previous products, but they didn't need the book builds. The whole idea of bookends is to put real books in between. And if you don't have real books to go in between, but still want to display the character then I would have thought Slinky himself, rather than Slinky cut up by a couple of books, would be more desirable display piece, especially if those pieces could be used to make Slinky look even better. Like you say, the books are literally there to ramp up the price. That implies the design has been forced. I wouldn't say it is petulant to point that out, merely constructive criticism.

Either way, I won't be purchasing him. The Slinky minifigure is the only thing that holds any attraction here for me, as I believe it does for a lot of people. I could say I would rather they had used the slot for a TS playset rather than more buidlable adult focused display sets as a lot of adults seem to be asking for TS playsets, but that is a whole other discussion.

 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by BacktoBricks

[hikouki]

23 hours ago, JeanGreyForever said:

I hope the minifigure-scale Slinky won't be too expensive on the third market. That's all I'm interested in.

I wonder if there is the chance it might appear in another set???