Harry Potter 2021 - Rumors & Discussion

[Retro Brick Reviews]

17 minutes ago, Bainter-ban said:

I just feel the D2C being an expansion to Diagon Alley is unlikely because DA just released. The set is very expensive. I think it would take at least two years before they would release an expansion to it. 

That's not necessarily the case, there have been D2C expansions released one year after the OG set before. Ninjago City Docks comes to mind (in addition to the Modular Buildings, of course).

[Juve]

I hope the D2C is something stupid like buildable figures so I dont have to get it

[Jarreth2]

Wonder if the wizard cards are going to be lenticular to make them appear to ‘move’ ? 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Jarreth2

[BrickBob Studpants]

21 minutes ago, Bainter-ban said:

I just feel the D2C being an expansion to Diagon Alley is unlikely because DA just released. The set is very expensive. I think it would take at least two years before they would release an expansion to it. 

I think the opposite is the case, it actually makes it more likely  If a set mainly serves as the expansion of another, their windows of availability need to overlap as much as possible. Otherwise one will outlive the other, which is not ideal since new customers might not feel inclined to buy the second set if the first one already reached its EOL and is no longer available to them at an affordable price 

Btw, why is everyone more excited about CARDBOARD than actual minifigs? 

[Textorix]

33 minutes ago, Bainter-ban said:

I just feel the D2C being an expansion to Diagon Alley is unlikely because DA just released. The set is very expensive. I think it would take at least two years before they would release an expansion to it. 

Actually it makes more sense to release it now as those two sets will boost each other sales even more. Yes, its expansive but whoever could buy $400 DA set will 100% buy Gringotts or some DA expansion. If DA set was too expansive for someone than there is still a better chance that he will buy "cheaper" $250 set.

7 minutes ago, Lego-Freak said:

 If a set mainly serves as the expansion of another, their windows of availability need to overlap as much as possible. Otherwise one will outlive the other, which is not ideal since new customers might not feel inclined to buy the second set if the first one already reached its EOL and is no longer available to them at an affordable price 

This is pretty good argument for that

Edited March 28, 2021 by Textorix

[josh_a_123]

tbh if it is Gringotts, and they base it off of PS, then it makes sense since most of DA is based off of the first two films, so it would perfectly link. And if this is the case, i could see them doing an Ironbelly Dragon escape set kinda thing with Bellatrix's vault as a whole seperate set

[DocStrange]

24 minutes ago, Juve said:

I hope the D2C is something stupid like buildable figures so I dont have to get it

I am thinking the same thing! LOL! I would love for it to be a great set that I would love to buy, but my wallet is begging for it to be crappy. EIther way the money will be going to lego in some way, shape, or form.

[sebastian666]

I will just underline the fact that - from a marketing and sales perspective- a Gringott’s release this year makes much more sense than waiting until next year. LEGO will want to maximize revenue from the folks who bought Diagon Alley last year by selling them the (highly-demanded) expansion set as soon as possible. Also, they will want to still have Diagon Alley for sale for the folks who buy Gringott’s first and then decide they want to purchase the rest of Diagon Alley. The longer LEGO waits to release Gringott’s, the more potential revenue it loses - not least of which is in terms of cross-product  pollination and cross-product marketing potential.

[MaxHeadroom]

7 hours ago, Seaber said:

I made a board a while ago that was all 3x3 squares, which is eight studs smaller in each direction. Doesn't sound like much but the overall difference is quite a lot. I used a 1x1 plate in the middle with tiles surrounding it. That was it's easy to move pieces without them getting too attached to the board, as well as being able to rotate as they do in the films. I'd love them to use this size due to space, however 4x4 might be easier to work with, and the same rotating effect could be achieved by a 2x2 jumper surrounded by tiles. 

I never got as far as designing the pieces though, so not sure how accurate the pieces would be. 

I had considered 3x3 but while I'm sure the pieces will be scaled down they still need to be large enough for Ron to ride a horse which I'm not sure could be done at the 3x3 scale. 

[Textorix]

25 minutes ago, josh_a_123 said:

tbh if it is Gringotts, and they base it off of PS, then it makes sense since most of DA is based off of the first two films, so it would perfectly link. And if this is the case, i could see them doing an Ironbelly Dragon escape set kinda thing with Bellatrix's vault as a whole seperate set

This is exactly what I said in previous pages and I think it could work perfectly fine.

Edited March 28, 2021 by Textorix

[BrickBob Studpants]

While there are plenty of arguments why a Gringotts set would make sense, I still refuse to buy into that idea until we get more information  Businesses don't always follow the same logic as us customers 

[Textorix]

I wonder when we will find out. Lego wont be able to hold this secret for too long :D 

[Modal]

1 hour ago, Juve said:

I hope the D2C is something stupid like buildable figures so I dont have to get it

I’ve never understood this logic. Why not wish it’s the best set it can be and then use your adult senses to keep yourself from buying it if you can’t afford it. (Assuming you’re an adult lol)

Otherwise we should just wish every LEGO set ever is terrible so we never have to buy anything anymore 

I’m sure these comments are half-joking but still a pet peeve of mine lol

Edited March 28, 2021 by Modal

[Felkin]

The only buildable figures that Lego should tackle would be the puppet-style Three Brothers and Death from Deathly Hallows. Those would look terrible as minifigs, and wouldn't really lend themselves to a "normal" set anyway. Harry and Hermione makes no sense (unless you count Hermione reading the story to Harry...)

[yousif6224]

Unfortunately, if history repeats itself, we might get official images of the D2C on the day it's released, and most probably the information on the D2C will take longer than all the rest of the sets

[Retro Brick Reviews]

2 minutes ago, yousif6224 said:

Unfortunately, if history repeats itself, we might get official images of the D2C on the day it's released, and most probably the information on the D2C will take longer than all the rest of the sets

While the latter is likely, DA is pretty much the only D2C to have gotten such a late reveal. If I remember correctly, the D2C Hogwarts was revealed over a month before release, so there aren't any patterns here. Not to mention that DA still had advertising and buildup before the reveal.

[Seaber]

1 hour ago, MaxHeadroom said:

I had considered 3x3 but while I'm sure the pieces will be scaled down they still need to be large enough for Ron to ride a horse which I'm not sure could be done at the 3x3 scale. 

It can be done, but it's probably/possibly too cramped for a set. 

[Darth Shadowthrone]

34 minutes ago, yousif6224 said:

Unfortunately, if history repeats itself, we might get official images of the D2C on the day it's released, and most probably the information on the D2C will take longer than all the rest of the sets

We'll just have to hope history repeats itself and a sticker sheet for the D2C leaks just like Diagon Alley's stickers did! That also helped prepare us for the possibility that the Leaky Cauldron, Borgin&Burkes and Gringotts were all not included, though there were a lot of people hoping that there were more shops than the stickers suggested (myself included) 

[lego_guyon02]

I'm still convinced Diagon Alley's late reveal was done because the factory in Mexico, which supplies most of North and South America, was shut down because of the virus and caused a lot of availability problems. If less people knew about the set it would've been less likely to sell out instantly. 

[Brick Clicker]

2 hours ago, MaxHeadroom said:

I had considered 3x3 but while I'm sure the pieces will be scaled down they still need to be large enough for Ron to ride a horse which I'm not sure could be done at the 3x3 scale. 

I would think it would be something at least double the size 

[MaxHeadroom]

43 minutes ago, Brick Clicker said:

I would think it would be something at least double the size 

In a $70 set? If the board was reduced to 16 squares maybe that could work but it would still be 24x24. A full chess board would be 48x48 which would be insane for $70 set, especially one with such a large part count, unless the rest of the parts are all 1x1 tiles. A 48x48 base plate alone is sold for $15 and that's a assuming LEGO would use a base plate as the foundation rather than standard plates. 48x48 is the size of the LEGO art sets (if I've done my math right) which are nearly twice the price of this and don't include builds for chess pieces. 
 

I guess this means it won't be a full useable board and that the chess set will actually be a playset of a reduced chess board? Do you know something we don't or did you just massively underestimate the size of a chess board if the squares were all 6x6? 

[Brick Clicker]

7 minutes ago, MaxHeadroom said:

In a $70 set? If the board was reduced to 16 squares maybe that could work but it would still be 24x24. A full chess board would be 48x48 which would be insane for $70 set, especially one with such a large part count, unless the rest of the parts are all 1x1 tiles. A 48x48 base plate alone is sold for $15 and that's a assuming LEGO would use a base plate as the foundation rather than standard plates. 48x48 is the size of the LEGO art sets (if I've done my math right) which are nearly twice the price of this and don't include builds for chess pieces. 
 

I guess this means it won't be a full useable board and that the chess set will actually be a playset of a reduced chess board? Do you know something we don't or did you just massively underestimate the size of a chess board if the squares were all 6x6? 

It will be a lot more substanital than what people are thinking it may be in terms of how many squares/pieces etc...

[Bainter-ban]

You all have good counter-arguments 😄 well, we’ll just have to wait and see who’s right!

[THELEGOBATMAN]

24 minutes ago, MaxHeadroom said:

In a $70 set? If the board was reduced to 16 squares maybe that could work but it would still be 24x24. A full chess board would be 48x48 which would be insane for $70 set, especially one with such a large part count, unless the rest of the parts are all 1x1 tiles. A 48x48 base plate alone is sold for $15 and that's a assuming LEGO would use a base plate as the foundation rather than standard plates. 48x48 is the size of the LEGO art sets (if I've done my math right) which are nearly twice the price of this and don't include builds for chess pieces. 
 

I guess this means it won't be a full useable board and that the chess set will actually be a playset of a reduced chess board? Do you know something we don't or did you just massively underestimate the size of a chess board if the squares were all 6x6? 

It has nearly 900 pieces, I think it will be a pretty detailed and big build.

[Brickroll]

Just to double check, is the D2C supposed to come out around when the rest of the wave does?