JeanGreyForever

If this is a comic-based FF/Galactus set I'm all in. I didn't even bother looking up the rumors since I figured it was an MCU set but a comic version changes everything. The FF have long been overdue. This set will go very nicely with the Daily Bugle and X-Mansion. I wonder if we might get a Fantasticar to go with the FF. I'm also wondering the decision to make it a comic set is because the Lego developers really want a comic-book based Human Torch minifig to go with Spider-Man in the Daily Bugle. We know Iceman and the Human Torch were both on the shortlist but rejected. Now Lego has managed to make sure we'll get Iceman, even if he doesn't technically belong in an X-Men '97 set, so wondering if this is why the FF set is going to be comic-based.

I wonder if there's any chance she'll get a new headmold with better printing. I'm sure it's as likely as Magneto getting dual molded legs in the X-Mansion.

There's a new Halloween GWP starting October 1st featuring a light-up pumpkin for anything over $120. Would make a good match for The Nightmare Before Christmas set as the pumpkin king can have his own pumpkin.

That's a pity. Angel would have been a good new character to include as well as he fits the Christmas theme. All of those builds are a great ideas. I think Iceman would be a fitting addition as well since there could be a build featuring an ice sculpture or snowman.

I actually enjoyed Black Widow but I know most people were meh about it. It felt less formulaic to me than the usual MCU movie. No Way Home was a disappointment for me as a big Sam Raimi Spidey fan. No Kirsten Dunst and I felt like Marvel was trying too hard to shoehorn Tobey and Andrew's characters in the MCU style of humor. I'd rather see continuations of the Raimi and ASM series rather than this one-off. I had high hopes for FF but frankly the female Silver Surfer has me convinced Marvel hasn't learned a single lesson. I'll wait and see what reviews are like. And I'm wondering what Spidey 4 is about since early claims were that it would heavily feature Daredevil and Kingpin but now there are rumors about Venom. I think the Avengers movies will be the best but I'm also not sure they'll be able to live up to Infinity War/Endgame. There's not enough anticipation and it's way too unclear what the direction of the MCU is right now. Has a Marvel advent calendar ever featured a new character? I was hoping for at least one but you're right that the most variation we'll probably get is Wolverine and Xavier in Christmas sweaters. I wouldn't mind some kitchen builds to replicate Jean and Gambit fighting over who makes Christmas dinner though. That would be neat. Another factor is that a new character like Jubilee probably wouldn't even look good with the budget of an advent calendar. She would definitely need a CMF series to be done justice to. Someone like Sunspot would be easier to create in minifig form with his white jacket look so I feel if we did get a new character, it would be someone rather basic to incorporate like him.

I think Sinister is still someone we could get in the future but I do feel that Bastion really only has one chance which is in a potential 2025 set. If not then, that's it for him. I hope the Advent Calendar is X-Mas themed to the X-Men, a rather obvious choice imo. Especially since the original show also had a Christmas episode. I also think Iceman and Jubilee would make great choices for the advent calendar with his ice powers and her firework powers. Just looking at the cover below, that's basically the X-Men '97 roster so there's plenty of material from the show and comics that can be used for inspiration.

Another Lady Liberty set, like the No Way Home set, but based on the first X-Men movie. Magneto holding Cyclops, Jean, and Storm prisoner, Wolverine vs Sabretooth on top of Lady Liberty and Rogue in the machine.

If you don't like Yelena, I don't recommend Black Widow then. You will not enjoy that movie at all since it's basically Yelena stealing the show. I agree with you on your larger thoughts about the MCU. Their golden age is over and I don't think any of the future projects have much appeal. There's not any hype for a Captain America who isn't Steve Rogers. Thunderbolts feels like it's full of all the MCU rejects. We don't even have an Avengers team or any idea of who might be an Avenger to interest us in what's coming next. Marvel bringing back Robert Downey Jr. was their "break in case of emergency" scenario. We'll have to see if that works in bringing back general audiences for the next two Avengers films.

Bishop is the only character left we haven't seen anything of. Besides the yellow blur of Xavier's hoverchair on the box. I wonder if Bishop will have the 90s mullet or the shorter hairstyle from '97. Oh okay, I thought the shows weren't canon but whatever characters the MCU brought in from them were. That means Daredevil: Born Again is a sequel to the Netflix Daredevil show?

Looks great. What are the chances we'll get dual molded legs though? I'm game for this but I'd add Elektra even if she hasn't appeared in the MCU yet. I hope Elodie Yung will be asked to reprise her role one day.

There was an article I read about how Disney's management has really changed, especially in the animation sector. After the John Lasseter #MeToo scandal, Disney pushed to replace all the old guard of animation with a younger, more diverse group of people. However, these artists don't have the same qualifications or schooling as the old guard of animators did. Most of them are Tumblr/Deviantart artists and this is why the storytelling for the latest films, particularly starting with Raya, has really gone down in quality. I think Encanto was started during John Lasseter's regime, which is why that film was still relatively well-received but Raya, Strange World, and Wish were all products of the new team. And apparently they have a very strict rule that their female characters will not be bogged down with romance. I've always liked Aurora. I can understand why out of all the princesses, she's the one considered the most a cipher with only 19 minutes of screentime, but I do think there's a good deal of personality there on the screen if someone's willing to pay attention. In the Maleficent film, whatever Elle Fanning did left no impression whatsoever. And what's worse is that she had more screentime to actually accomplish this. And even after one film, she got a chance in the Maleficent sequel but two films still don't leave her character any impact, which is one of the reasons it's hard to take Disney seriously when they make outlandish claims that Aurora will finally be a character now. At the end of the day, it's the 1959 version who is still a household name and sells merchandise all over the world. I've always heard that Emma Watson basically was Hermione, even off the set. In fact, they more or less cast the lead trio based on how similar they were to the real life characters because Rupert Grint is also very much like Ron. Or I should say the movie version of Ron. I know book fans think the movie Ron is awful and just comic relief and I think a great deal of that was Rupert's own personality shaping the writing for the character. So I think that's why Emma succeeded with Hermione because she was basically playing herself and I feel that influenced her choices when playing Belle except Belle is not Hermione. They have similarities but they're not identical. As much as I like Emma, as an actress I do feel she's a bit lacking and I think that's also why she's more or less given up acting now. I didn't realize that the dress in Goblet of Fire was changed from blue to pink to suit Emma. I suppose that makes sense because I always assumed they thought it would look better onscreen, but I guess it'll only look better onscreen if it looks good on the person wearing it. Like you said, there's a difference between Belle's gown and Hermione's dress which was only described in a book. And apparently the costume designer for BATB wasn't super happy with Emma's direction for the yellow dress but she was more or less told she had to follow Emma's choices. I know Rachel Zegler is an activist, like Emma Watson. But Emma Watson played one of the most iconic characters of the modern age and she has the credentials to back it up, like being a UN spokesperson. Rachel Zegler is basically an unknown and most of her films haven't even done well at the box office. It's very hard to take her seriously compared to Emma. She made a statement that she hears people online saying that this Snow White remake is the PC Snow White, and she said that "yeah, because we need one." Based on that, it seems like Rachel accepted the Snow White role specifically because she feels the character is outdated and she can be part of the "solution" to fix her. I'll just say then that I don't even blame Rachel so much as Disney because Disney is the company giving her that vehicle to do this. They're the ones making a project with the intent of "fixing" Snow White. If they made it clear that this was going to be the classical take on the character and they weren't going to essentially "upgrade" the character, I doubt Rachel would have agreed to play the part. So while I don't agree with her take on Snow White at all, the fact is that Disney is the one giving her the platform here so I consider them more culpable. And this is actually something they had planned for a while. Before we got the live-action Cinderella by Kenneth Branagh, the original plan was to make a live-action Cinderella that would feature her becoming a warrior to save her kingdom. Basically a revisionist action heroine like Snow White and the Huntsman. I think when Branagh got onboard, that was scrapped for a more classical take on the fairy tale. So Cinderella was really more a fluke and I think a lot of people, including myself, assumed that was going to be the set standard for all the future live-action remakes. I think at this point, it seems unlikely we'll see Mickey and the gang in more sets outside of the occasional Mickey and Minnie in some new looks. I don't remember Donald and Daisy being that expensive from the CMF series but I also bought them a while ago so it's possible they're more pricey now. I remember Minnie was the one who was the most expensive out of Mickey, Minnie, Donald, and Daisy. As for Goofy, Lego has been really cautious about overusing him. The best recommendation I have for getting his minifigure is buying the keychain figure and removing the actual keychain since there are online tutorials for that. The head will have a hole in it but if you have one of the other Goofy minifigs they've released in cheaper sets over the years (like I have a BBQ Goofy wearing an apron from the fire station set), you can swap out that head. Keychain Goofy is not identical to the Goofy minifigure in the train station set which was Disney park themed. But the Goofy keychain actually features him in his classic outfit. I was hoping they'd release a non-keychain minifig version of him like that but they haven't in all these years. As for if they ever remake the train station set, I think that would be nice since they remade the castle. But I think the train station wasn't ever a big seller because it was so pricey and I remember even the first year it was released, it was heavily marked down for Black Friday. Since I own the original Disney castle, I was lucky that it came with Rapunzel's hair piece that features in her trunk. It's black and identical to Genie Jafar's hair. So I was able to just use that along with an extra gold stud. Agreed, I would like the Stitch spaceship eventually but it's not an immediate must. A BATB diorama set would at least get us a Beast minifig or so I'd hope. But we've been burned in the past so I'm not going to hope for anything in particular. I would like Geppetto's workshop especially if we can get Figaro and maybe even a Blue Fairy minifig. The same way the Peter Pan diorama set reused Peter and Tink but gave us Wendy as a new minifig. But based on the price for this unannounced set being only $65, I can't see how they could incorporate Geppetto's workshop in that price. Unless it's just a microscale facade like the Peter Pan diorama, showing Geppetto's workshop and Pinocchio's whole village.

Of course they wouldn't be. I doubt I'll be picking that set up then. Thank you, looking forward to seeing more tomorrow.

Any chance this comes with a Spider-Man minifigure also in his PS4 costume? It's not just you. I feel the same way. The Sentinel is basically the same height as the X-Mansion. I had doubts about how much they could fit into the interior but now I'm sure it's going to be disappointing just based on how the exterior looks. There's barely going to be room inside.

It could be a movie with an anniversary in 2025. That would be films like Pinocchio, Fantasia, Cinderella, Lady and the Tramp, The Aristocats, and Pocahontas. If it's not Lilo & Stich or Beauty and the Beast-themed, maybe it's Pinocchio so that Geppetto figure can be reused.

Iceman looks great (from the little we can see of him). I'm so glad they went with his classic white look instead. The height for the mansion feels a bit on the shorter side though. The Sentinel is basically as tall as the mansion.

Isn't 2027 supposed to be when the X-Men movie comes out? Is the implication that Magneto in the future movies will wear a costume that looks like classic comic Magneto?

I wonder how Lilo would look with Mulan's hair or Lucius Malfoy's hair in black. Mulan's hair would allow her to keep the pink flower.

I'm assuming not dual molded. We might have to wait for Morph to come in a future CMF series to get these legs dual molded.

I couldn't have said it better myself. It feels like these newer movies are more making lip service to what they think feminism is, which is a really narrow range of what's deemed acceptable. It's crossed over to the animated movies too because Disney's made it very clear now that the animated heroines aren't allowed to have love interests anymore. Apparently having a love interest makes you weak, which is why every Disney heroine now is cut from the same Marvel mold of action heroine with quippy lines to boot. Maleficent had some of the same problems in its promotion because I remember Elle Fanning made some derogatory comments about Aurora (although they're pretty mild compared to what the later live-action films said about the originals) and how she was going to be improved. But even with 2 live-action movies, she's still a generic heroine who leaves no impact on the audience. The original Aurora may be more of a cipher than a full-fledged character, but she's still iconic to this day. I think Lily James was perfect as Cinderella so I'm glad Emma rejected the role. Belle should have been a better fit for her, but even as a fan of Emma, I wasn't impressed with the final product. I admire her as a person and for her views but I think she imposed too much of her vision on Belle, to the detriment of the character. Disney must have been really desperate to work with her because they more or less gave her carte blanche to do what she wanted on the movie. She refused to wear a corset, came up with the idea of Belle wearing boots instead of ballet flats, and the ballgown design was completely hers. Which is why the dress became such a flop and had little basis in historical accuracy and just in general lacked any magic, because it was based entirely on what Emma wanted against the costume designer's plans. It felt like she was just reprising Hermione again but treating the Beast's castle like it was still Hogwarts. I remember she mused in an interview that if there was a BATB sequel, she would want the plot to revolve around Belle opening up a school in the castle for all the village kids. Emma also starred in Greta Gerwig's Little Women where she played Meg. I'm surprised she accepted that role since Meg is everything she doesn't really believe in but because there, she was only hired to act and not influence the production, she didn't try and change Meg's character into something she wasn't. Also while I love Emma from Harry Potter, the truth is that she never really grew as an actress and so even disregarding the changes she made to Belle, I don't think she did an all that great job just with the acting part. I think Disney should have tried to push her out of her comfort zone a little more. She rejected La La Land for BATB so I guess she felt this was the more important project and it certainly earned her lots of money (she had a deal in her contract that she'd earn a bonus if the movie made more than a billion, which it easily did) but I don't think in the long run it helped extend her acting career or grant her much prestige. Hence why she was cast in Little Women (in an ironic twist of fate, here she was replacing Emma Stone's role as Meg, whereas Emma Stone replaced her in La La Land) but as Meg instead of the main character Jo. I haven't watched Rachel Zegler in anything but I know online she was already unpopular because she was considered to have an attitude and be a bit brusque in asserting her opinions. And apparently in China, she's really hated because of a video that went viral of her snubbing a Chinese fan although I don't know if that's been taken out of context or not. What I don't understand though is why she agreed to play Snow White when she's openly admitted that she dislikes the character and thinks she's so regressive. Emma's Belle wasn't all that great but at least she liked the character (or how she viewed the character), while turning down Cinderella as she didn't feel emotionally connected to her. So don't worry about your "rant," because I'm prone to them too. Which Mickey characters are you missing? Goofy is probably the hardest to get your hands on if you're looking specifically for the regular version of Goofy rather than him in an alternate outfit since he was only in the now retired Disneyland Train Station set. I'm curious if we'll ever get a proper Haunted Mansion set rather than just the microscale one. I would have liked more parade floats too although considering how elaborate the Disney Parks ones are, I would have liked larger-scale ones more strictly designed on the park floats. But I'm sure that would be rather expensive. I didn't know they made another Genie type character in the Ninjago theme. It doesn't surprise me to hear the genie headpiece is retired now. I looked that character up and it does seem like Lego prefers this style of hair now. It works though so I don't mind it too much as long as there's some consistency. I wouldn't have had a problem with Genie Jafar not having that headpiece if they hadn't already established it as a piece.

If you mean the big Cerebro spherical chamber from the movies, that was an invention purely for the movies. The comics in the 90s and before that kept Cerebro as just a computer machine with a helmet. Iceman at least exists in the 90s show continuity so it makes sense to include him but the movie Cerebro chamber would seem really out of place in this particular X-Mansion. I personally don't see them going that route but that's my take. I can see Wolverine's room being included so that scene can be reenacted.

Cerebro is in the War Room in the show. So that's another room you can take out.

If you watch the interviews with the directors, cast, and crew for the movies you mentioned (Cinderella, Jungle Book, Alice), you'll see that they absolutely gush over the original films. Particularly for Cinderella and Jungle Book, everyone involved in those remakes made clear that they love the original films and wanted these remakes to be a loving tribute to them. With the Renaissance movies like BATB and TLM, it seems like they couldn't stop talking about how flawed the original films were and how they needed to be fixed and upgraded. Snow White sadly has gone the latter route. The remakes starting with BATB have all been about "improving" these classics for a new audience, rather than serving as a loving ode. Although it happened even before BATB, like with Maleficent where they pretended it would be more feminist and empowered. BTW, an interesting fact is that Disney wanted Emma Watson for Cinderella. She refused because she said she had no personal connection to Cinderella and didn't think she could play her. I have issues with her Belle but I applaud her for not taking a character she doesn't like and trying to force her to fit her vision like what's happening with Snow White now. Sequelitis is the path Disney is choosing now. We'll see how well it works out but I guess it's a safer bet than their original works lately which have really been awful. You can't sell their merchandise even heavily discounted. I agree with you there that I think Lego could be doing a lot more with the Disney franchise. Not just big sets but a lot of smaller sets too. I think they've completely given up the Mickey Mouse themed sets they used to make. I wasn't that impressed with the sets they did make but they at least had some good things going for them. I always wanted Lego to make a Lego Toontown like in the Disney Parks. Sets for Mickey's house, Minnie's house, Donald's houseboat, Chip and Tale's treehouse, Scrooge's money bin, etc. You could put them all together to build your own Toontown. I'm guessing the Up and Peter Pan sets were only being made for Disney's 100th Anniversary and there was never a plan for more similar sets like more dioramas. I know people thought the train set with parade floats would mean more sets like that but I always had a feeling that was going to be a one-off. Yeah, the fact that the Genie headpiece wasn't seamless with his head was something I saw a lot of people complain about. I can see why they dropped it then. Thank you again, it really wasn't anything at all inventive on my part. I just copied what they did with Genie Jafar so they could both stand next to each other and not look off. In general, I prefer accuracy too which is why I did wish they had made the headpiece for Genie Jafar but alas, that doesn't seem likely now.

That's all right. I'm glad you're better now! Lol yes, I couldn't help myself by making that Raya/JLo comparison. The fact that we went from Mowgli to Belle felt like a regression. Maybe if BATB had come out first, Belle to Mowgli would have felt more like a natural progression where she has a skill that doesn't amount to anything in the end and then the next movie actually builds on that skill. But with the actual release order, it makes more evident that Belle is a downgrade. I think with Frozen, parts 3 and 4 are meant to be a two-parter. Although I don't know when Frozen IV is coming out but Frozen III comes out in 2027 so we'll see if there's a year gap or longer. Disney doesn't usually plan multiple sequels at once for their animated films so this is new territory for them. But what often happens with 2-parter films is that the first part is really just set-up and doesn't always work as its own standalone movie which I can see being the case here. Even the upcoming Moana 2 was originally a Disney+ series which was at the last minute rehauled into a feature film. Which probably also explains the lack of sets. I don't get it either. Maybe Disney or Lego prefers to have Disney sets feel more special if they're only released occasionally, like an event. Perhaps there's also the fear of flooding the market with too many similar sets because the average consumer won't get them all if they're released back to back. I remember a lot of people thought the Snow White cottage wouldn't happen since Lego already released a Disney cottage with the Hocus Pocus set. Similarly, I'm even surprised that the Hocus Pocus and Nightmare Before Christmas sets will overlap in terms of shelf life since they both cater towards the 90s nostalgia demographic. I think the original Genie headpiece was slightly jarring because it was obviously a headpiece that didn't mesh enough with his head. He probably should have gotten a new molded head. I did like the headpiece though and wish they would have retained it for Genie Jafar. But the lack of consistency bothered me which is why I resorted to just removing the headpiece from Genie. I'm glad you like the change though. It took me a while to get used to at first because Genie felt naked without his ears and bulging headpiece.

Jean looks much better with Rex's arms from Lego Movie 2. The blue printing to represent her gauntlets makes a world of difference, especially when paired with flesh tone hands. Too bad the arms are yellow instead of yellow-orange so they don't quite match the rest of the Jean minifig. All the costumes from the show come straight from the comics. The big difference with Jean (besides what @wesker already pointed out with her different belt and the blue stripe that goes down the crotch being removed for this show) is the ponytail. She never wears a ponytail in the comics whereas in the show, that's her main hairdo. Magneto's purple costume is one of those infamous costumes from the comics that nobody ever liked or wanted to see again. The show used it because that was the costume he wore during his trial (which was adapted for episode 2 of this series) which started his reformation period. So the only reason we're seeing such an unpopular and obscure costume in Lego form is because the show brought it back since it was intent on reforming him.

Same. Especially since the pointed ears always gave Genie Jafar a very devilish look in the movies which is missing on the final minifig.