Disney Princess 2015 Rumors and Discussion

[robuko]

Get well soon j2g!

I preferred the preliminary frozen set, the changes to the balcony and losing the white leaf are both downgrades, and the stickers are not as attractive on the pillars. I like that Olaf.

The Aladdin set could have been better but I still like it for the new prints or stickers.

I'm not too interested in the other sets.

[Dorayaki]

I'm abit surprised by TLG giving all heroines exclusive hairpieces. They could just give Aurora a blonde Emma hairpiece instead (well, though she would just look like another Heartlake resident as result). I wonder if these hairpieces have a chance to appear in generic sets, unlike LOTR dwarves whose beards are too specific for generic citizens.

The lack of King Triton is a mistake. Well I don't expect to see him, but his problem is just same as Gothel--- their best chance to appear in LEGO sets is their own residences. It doesn't feel like they'll get another chance if they don't appear in these sets.. Oh and btw, Alana's hairpiece is different from the leak version. But I think Will Turner's hairpiece could suit her more.

Yeah, the Jasmine set certainly is a disappointment. I didn't expect much from Raja since animals tend to be very inaccurate in this theme, but the absence of Aladdin is sorely disappointing. Even the carpet kind of sucks with all those extra bits for holding the figures in place. I think I will skip this set and hope we will get a proper palace with Aladdin and maybe Abu someday.

You don't have to be surprised since Cinderella's sets already provided too many mistakes for animals (including that Horse Jack). I can see Apu represented by a recolored Juliet/Rome.

It feels like TLG isn't really working hard on the animals who aren't mascot-equal and are simply normal animals from the real world. But this is a shame. The animals have been the beneactors of Disney films and they deserve better.

As predicted I don't think we'd see more than one characters in the two small sets. But there is still hope for Phillip and Aladdin in the next wave.

Another fact I care about is Jasmine's skin color. Yeah, the tanned flesh is very accurate for her, but I mean Tiana from P&F who should have the darkest skin as an African heritage. Would we see the very first dark skin minidoll in this case? (Or it could just be a minifigure, that's pleasant .)

Edited October 2, 2014 by Dorayaki

[strangely]

I'm of mixed emotions on this wave. On one hand I see a definite improvement on the builds, they're much more detailed, the stickers/decals definitely help the overall look of these sets. Also they've definitely got a good color mix going right now, a lot of darker colors mixed in with the lighter.

On the flip side though they're faces are still too generic, again it looks like Friends characters cosplaying. It just annoys me because each of these characters have pretty distinctive faces, so to have them look all so similar is a little bit insulting. And this wave had a much weaker character selection. Granted they gave us more animal companions, but most of them don't match the films, so other than the Ariel set the others ended up being pretty pointless additions. And oddly this wave didn't include any men (Other than animals and snowmen). This is especially peculiar for the Aladdin set considering both Aladdin and the genie were essentially the main characters (We get the genie's lamp, but no genie?). And no villains again, which bothers me more than anything, because without them there's not much of a story going on, there's little for the princesses to do.

I think the best set of the bunch is the Frozen one. Really all that's missing is Kristoff and his reindeer, but that's something they could easily include in another set down the line.

The worst is the Aurora set. No villain, no prince, and one boring room. No wonder she fell asleep for eternity, her only options were to eat, pet a rabbit or spin some yarn.

[gedren_y]

Since these sets will mainly be parts sets, I probably will try to get all but the Frozen set. I got sick of hearing about the song "Let It Go" long before the hype died down to ignorable levels.

[Dorayaki]

I'm of mixed emotions on this wave. On one hand I see a definite improvement on the builds, they're much more detailed, the stickers/decals definitely help the overall look of these sets. Also they've definitely got a good color mix going right now, a lot of darker colors mixed in with the lighter.

On the flip side though they're faces are still too generic, again it looks like Friends characters cosplaying. It just annoys me because each of these characters have pretty distinctive faces, so to have them look all so similar is a little bit insulting. And this wave had a much weaker character selection. Granted they gave us more animal companions, but most of them don't match the films, so other than the Ariel set the others ended up being pretty pointless additions. And oddly this wave didn't include any men (Other than animals and snowmen). This is especially peculiar for the Aladdin set considering both Aladdin and the genie were essentially the main characters (We get the genie's lamp, but no genie?). And no villains again, which bothers me more than anything, because without them there's not much of a story going on, there's little for the princesses to do.

The worst is the Aurora set. No villain, no prince, and one boring room. No wonder she fell asleep for eternity, her only options were to eat, pet a rabbit or spin some yarn.

For the Aurora set, I think it's pretty similiar with some bedroom decoration sets that TLG made for Friends heroines, not to mention it's exactly what the Duplo version was, so this doesn't really surprise or dissapoint me. I think the tower battle scene could be an actual set, but not sure what would TLG choose to do if they're planning a big set for Sleeping Beauty.

The issue could be that two small sets and two castles (that might not be big enough for historical FOLs) doesn't seem like a big wave compared with other licenses. Making it worse, minidoll sets usually include very few characters unlike the amount of characters DC JL sets are going to include next year. Also, we can see some more large figures for DC sets so there's no excuse why TLG can't make Rajah and snow monsters, I assume.

Judging from the previous TV ad, it feels like TLC want us to make

rather than allowing us to reconstruct the exact scenario from the film (where subcharacters and villains are necessary). However unlike Avengers or JL, "Disney Princess's" doesn't own any TV or film series that allow kids to imagine their interactions. I'd suggest LEGO to introduce one or two System sets for Sofia the First.

As for the faces, I don't have a good eyes so I can't tell. I think the four new heroines all have new faces while Alana's looks like Olivia's. The problem could be that they don't have veariable expressions to show personality. The TV ad above did actually show some interesting faces I want to see in the sets.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Dorayaki

[CptPJs]

That advert was actually really cute, and I love how they're encouraging girls to build their own things and make their own stories up--people are always complaining licenced themes aren't creative enough.

[Richila]

Now Frozen, thumbs up for a brick-built snowman comic relief.......though may have Lego missed the boat on this one ?

Lol, you don't live with a small child. "Let It Go" is still sung at least once a day in my house and we had to buy the movie digitally because she wore out the DVD.

[Dreamweb]

What I ilke about those Disney Princess sets is that they deliver minidolls in clothes that don't look modern. That way they can be incorporated into historic themes like Castle, Pirates etc. And since they mix pretty well with fleshtoned minifigs IMO, putting one of them on a Pirate-themed ship as a governor's daughter / kidnapped princess / whatever wouldn't be such a bad idea for me.

Edited October 3, 2014 by Dreamweb

[Shib]

Judging from the previous TV ad, it feels like TLC want us to make

rather than allowing us to reconstruct the exact scenario from the film (where subcharacters and villains are necessary). However unlike Avengers or JL, "Disney Princess's" doesn't own any TV or film series that allow kids to imagine their interactions. I'd suggest LEGO to introduce one or two System sets for Sofia the First.

This isn't really down to TLG but is in fact Disney's call. The Disney princesses merchandising rights do not allow for any villains, the idea is to focus on the princesses and at most on the romance elements of their story (which is why we have had a couple of 'princes' but no villains)

[Peppermint_M]

Lol, you don't live with a small child. "Let It Go" is still sung at least once a day in my house and we had to buy the movie digitally because she wore out the DVD.

Small child? My sister and I are in our 20s and were belting it out (we were on the mountain for a walk... it seemed appropriate after we had finished singing Misty Mountains...)

Looks like I will be picking up a Frozen set to work off for my own MOCs and maybe the other smaller sets.

[Sandy]

And no villains again, which bothers me more than anything, because without them there's not much of a story going on, there's little for the princesses to do.

Which shows you know absolutely nothing about how most young girls play. To them, mirroring everyday life in their playing is more typical than facing conflicts or danger - whereas to boys it is usually the opposite.

That's why these (and Friends) sets focus on hobbies, shopping, eating, doing make-up, taking care of animals, etc. But hey, at least Merida got to keep her longbow - after they made it glittering gold.

[strangely]

Which shows you know absolutely nothing about how most young girls play. To them, mirroring everyday life in their playing is more typical than facing conflicts or danger - whereas to boys it is usually the opposite.

That's why these (and Friends) sets focus on hobbies, shopping, eating, doing make-up, taking care of animals, etc. But hey, at least Merida got to keep her longbow - after they made it glittering gold.

But those hobbies aren't what these stories are about, they're about adventure, about good and evil. Fairy tales by nature are full of conflict and danger. So what's the point of making a theme centered on those fairy tales if the "tale" part isn't even included? And why bother making another theme showing girls practicing their hobbies when we already have the Friends theme doing just that? Isn't the point of having different themes to encourage different types of play, to inspire the imagination? It just seems shortsighted to limit the option of play.

Plus by that logic Lady Tremaine and mother Gothel should be included in these sets to mirror everyday life (because everyday life does include parents, stepmother or not).

[8BrickMario]

That may be what LEGO would do, but the license (the meaningless Princess franchise) doesn't allow for much else than happy scenarios with the Princesses only.

[strangely]

That may be what LEGO would do, but the license (the meaningless Princess franchise) doesn't allow for much else than happy scenarios with the Princesses only.

Yes, Disney is pretty unbending in that aspect. Really it baffles me that after the complaints Lego got with the Friends theme they'd take part in another theme that has the exact same stereotypes except this time with tiaras. Lego isn't really helping themselves when they keep on doing the same thing with the minidolls, at least the Elves theme holds some promise of diversity for the minidolls (Though seeing that a spa and a bakery is already in that theme I tend to think it won't be that trailblazing).

Edited October 4, 2014 by strangely

[Dorayaki]

This isn't really down to TLG but is in fact Disney's call. The Disney princesses merchandising rights do not allow for any villains, the idea is to focus on the princesses and at most on the romance elements of their story (which is why we have had a couple of 'princes' but no villains)

Which shows you know absolutely nothing about how most young girls play. To them, mirroring everyday life in their playing is more typical than facing conflicts or danger - whereas to boys it is usually the opposite.

That's why these (and Friends) sets focus on hobbies, shopping, eating, doing make-up, taking care of animals, etc. But hey, at least Merida got to keep her longbow - after they made it glittering gold.

Of course, the commercial products for girls are usually doing less with violence/fightint. Romance and hobby had played a very minor role in general LEGO themes (excluding Belville), so it's actually nice to have these in girls' theme.

The problem is referred here because this is a licensed theme. Fighting scenes do exist in original film stories and they're also responsible for how these films became famous classics. Unless the fighting part is too minor to talk about in a certain film, I think it's useless to neglect the fact that "the stories feature violence".

To me, if it's just that TLG don't think girls could be interested in fighting, that's another stereotype. It'd be nice to see LEGO playing an educational role to highlight the tough heroines, not to say that Sleeping Beauty is a pretty typical damsel-in-distress thing.

As for the sets so far, I dare not to say TLG intend to skip fighting. The only missing villain is Gothel just because she lives with Rapunzel. But if TLG ask girls to buy their hobby sets to play adventure stories, that's kinda...... confusing?

Edited October 4, 2014 by Dorayaki

[gedren_y]

There isn't much that could have done for an active Aurora from the original film. TLG had to do her, as she is a major character in the Disney Princesses franchise.

[Shib]

Of course, the commercial products for girls are usually doing less with violence/fightint. Romance and hobby had played a very minor role in general LEGO themes (excluding Belville), so it's actually nice to have these in girls' theme.

The problem is referred here because this is a licensed theme. Fighting scenes do exist in original film stories and they're also responsible for how these films became famous classics. Unless the fighting part is too minor to talk about in a certain film, I think it's useless to neglect the fact that "the stories feature violence".

To me, if it's just that TLG don't think girls could be interested in fighting, that's another stereotype. It'd be nice to see LEGO playing an educational role to highlight the tough heroines, not to say that Sleeping Beauty is a pretty typical damsel-in-distress thing.

As for the sets so far, I dare not to say TLG intend to skip fighting. The only missing villain is Gothel just because she lives with Rapunzel. But if TLG ask girls to buy their hobby sets to play adventure stories, that's kinda...... confusing?

Again, it's not really TLG's decision (aside from choosing to acquire the licence) as Disney sets the rules of what is allowed under the Princesses merchandise line. Any merchandise of those characters that features a villain will be under the branding for that specific film and not under the Princesses banner. This is Disney's rules for that merchandising licence. TLG might want to include some more exciting scenes in that line but are not allowed - the difficulty in saying perhaps they shouldn't have gone for that licence is, what other primarily girl friendly licence could they have gone for?

[Darth Punk]

Again, it's not really TLG's decision (aside from choosing to acquire the licence) as Disney sets the rules of what is allowed under the Princesses merchandise line. Any merchandise of those characters that features a villain will be under the branding for that specific film and not under the Princesses banner. This is Disney's rules for that merchandising licence. TLG might want to include some more exciting scenes in that line but are not allowed - the difficulty in saying perhaps they shouldn't have gone for that licence is, what other primarily girl friendly licence could they have gone for?

Agreed. One only has to look at all other Disney princess merchandise to see they focus on the princess and not on the movie. I'm not sure why there is need to have conflict in every line. If anything the friends line and it's huge success has proven that conflict Is not required for every demographic. Conflict does indeed exist but it isn't something that needs to be the focus all the time.

If one requires constant conflict in order to enjoy a set one can easy use one's imagination to make it so. The idea that a set is solely constrained by what is included in the box seems to miss the point of play. A point most children who will get these sets are familiar with and who while enjoying a framework also have fun creating new adventures.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Darth Punk

[Dorayaki]

Again, it's not really TLG's decision (aside from choosing to acquire the licence) as Disney sets the rules of what is allowed under the Princesses merchandise line. Any merchandise of those characters that features a villain will be under the branding for that specific film and not under the Princesses banner. This is Disney's rules for that merchandising licence. TLG might want to include some more exciting scenes in that line but are not allowed - the difficulty in saying perhaps they shouldn't have gone for that licence is, what other primarily girl friendly licence could they have gone for?

I don't deny that possiblity, but this saying is after all "uncodified" since it's not clearly written in references. Before it's clearly written and allows us to criticize, there is no need to say that rule must exist.

The main factor is LEGO's own property. It's more about reconstructing the exact buildings or scenes from the stories, and the characters are not always the stars. Meanwhile, other previous major commercial products of "Disney Princess" lacks of the need of involving the stories or subcharacters, since they're mostly authorized image or individual character dolls.

Well, other companies have done "doll houses" too, but they mostly made to be imaginary houses (for example, a place where all princess's having a party which never exists in films), while the LEGO line clearly focus on reconstructing the buildings from the films.

Again, if the rule you meant truly exists, the conclusion is just that this franchise doesn't really suit LEGO. The only problem TLG themselves face now is the diversity of minidolls, since more licensed characters would need more compatible molds with the minidolls. The blame is laid on them if they really intend to skip/neglect things to save the costs.

The fact is, the amount of characters and products is the major weakness for this theme for now. It's not praising-worthy no matter who is responsible for this.

Edited October 5, 2014 by Dorayaki

[Sarah]

Maybe it is not Lego's goal to avoid criticism. But, rather, to design and release successful products for segments of their chosen population, regardless of the criticism they receive for it?

Since they are releasing a second line of Disney Princess sets, I have to believe they have seen at least some success. and I fully expect to see the Frozen Castle fly off the shelves.

[Darth Punk]

Maybe it is not Lego's goal to avoid criticism. But, rather, to design and release successful products for segments of their chosen population, regardless of the criticism they receive for it?

Since they are releasing a second line of Disney Princess sets, I have to believe they have seen at least some success. and I fully expect to see the Frozen Castle fly off the shelves.

I think it will be very obvious come Dec 1 whether the princess line is successful or not by how readily they are available. Last year friends sets were wiped out by then.

Elsa's frozen castle might be one of TLG's biggest sellers next year based on how popular the movie has become.

[pixie]

Why not Mulan?

[Dorayaki]

Why not Mulan?

Not sure what the question is. If you're complaining TLG is not giving more Disney sets each wave, I agree. But since this is the amount they would provide, we can't see all princess or heroines ar once, that's for sure.

The left heroines among the official Disney Princess franchise are Tiana, Pocatonhas and Mulan. The three share a common point that they're all not typical European-style or fairytale princess's, but this means making these three in the same wave could be a bad combination. My concern is that the three stories are postponed or neglected for commercial reasons. It could be even worse if TLG choose to make other non-royal but popular heroines like Alice or Tinkerbell first.

Mulan is also the one least doing with "princess" (of course, she's not ), and her story is all about fights and wars. Not sure how TLG deal with this. Better not to just throw us a set like "Mulan's Chinese Backyard Garden" .

I'm sure Snow White would come if this theme continues. But judging from the progress of TLG, I doubt they'd make dwarves and their houses. Maybe just a small set called "Snow White's Forest Hide-and-seek" in the next wave.

I think it will be very obvious come Dec 1 whether the princess line is successful or not by how readily they are available. Last year friends sets were wiped out by then.

Elsa's frozen castle might be one of TLG's biggest sellers next year based on how popular the movie has become.

If it's about the very first licensed theme for girls, maybe. Hope that the next wave would not be postponed to 2016. Edited October 7, 2014 by Dorayaki

[plastic_ati]

The left heroines among the official Disney Princess franchise are Tiana, Pocatonhas and Mulan. The three share a common point that they're all not typical European-style or fairytale princess's, but this means making these three in the same wave could be a bad combination.

Totally agree if we talk about businness aspect (of course we talk about it as TLG wants money from it), but it's not so problematic in the AFOL-world. Who cares that they aren't typical. If the representation is good, I buy it, if it's bad, I leave it. Unfortunately the faces are simple Friends ones, nothing typical for the princesses, which is bad, and it degrades the whole thing (together with the not-so-beautiful buildings, ehhh)

Better not to just throw us a set like "Mulan's Chinese Backyard Garden" .

A lot of people would run away from the Earth... aaarrrggghhh...

I'm sure Snow White would come if this theme continues. But judging from the progress of TLG, I doubt they'd make dwarves and their houses.

It will be too sad for me if we won't get all the nice dwarves , and their house, or - at least - the mine with some beautiful crystals, and ores

[gedren_y]

I wouldn't mind a Mulan in the garden set. They could give us the 'great stone dragon' that falls apart. Mushu might be difficult to depict at that size. Or we could get Mulan and her father, either at the beginning of the film or at the end.