Alexandrina

The thing is, the first Winter Village set was twelve years ago. There are only so many things they could put in a village, and an increasing number of people who don't have the older sets. Sooner or later they'll either start releasing things they've done before or bring the village to a close. Now, maybe it won't be for a while - and it doesn't need to be a pretty direct upgrade like the Toy Shop - but I'd be very surprised if they never cover old bases.

Are there all that many options for a new fantasy-esque winter set? It seems like the Elf House/Gingerbread House have covered most of the bases, unless they're going to go with a Nutcracker theme. I'm wondering if it's getting about time to revisit some of the older sets. The Toy Shop got a remake in 2015. Perhaps one of the older sets - the Bakery or the Post Office, perhaps - might get a revisit.

Most licensed pieces are going to be exclusive to the sets because of the restrictions of the licenses themselves. Obviously discontinued parts aren't available at Pick a Brick (imagine if you could still buy brand-new cypress trees in the shop!) and to be honest I'd be surprised if their full complement of in-house pieces was available for purchase. Lots of pieces - baseplates, BURPS/LURPS, wall panels - are going to take up a lot of space, so while they might make room for a few larger pieces they're not going to have them all. And when you start counting all the unique parts in all the colours they're made in, it quickly adds up to an amount so big Lego would need entire stores devoted to Pick a Brick alone. My understanding is that they just choose common pieces/colours, updating their selection periodically - and I believe specific Lego stores will carry a slightly different selection, though it's been a long time since I went to one so I'm not sure.

Those have already been confirmed by @Brick Clicker if I'm not mistaken.

I could not agree more on this point. It's true that in real-life medieval history, strong women weren't abundant - but they definitely existed. Eleanor of Aquitaine, Matilda of Flanders, Joan of Arc, Queen Matilda of England... these were the heroes of their stories. And so what if they were the exceptions? Stories are always about the exceptions. Not all Hobbits had boundless courage and crossed the known world to destroy the powers of evil and their artefacts - but Frodo did, and so we get the Lord of the Rings. We're also living in the modern world, with the modern state of the fantasy genre. Much as Lego aren't ever likely to make Game of Thrones sets, it's still a fact that A Song of Ice and Fire is one of the modern-day titans of medieval-inspired fantasy - and it features many women in positions of power. There's no reason a revived Castle theme, especially one with multiple factions, would need to avoid having powerful female characters. But the worry would be that Lego would fall into the trap of thinking strong = badass fighters. There's room for women skilled at sword and bow, shieldmaidens and huntresses, but I think it's equally important to see representation for women who have and exert power while also being feminine - in all that entails in the medieval context. So many of the real-life female icons of the Middle Ages played the roles expected of them by society, but played them well. Ideally a Lego theme would have at least two major female characters - the warrior and the lady. Over time, they can develop into more rounded characters less defined by their archetypes, but having those two starting points is a good jumping-off point.

That's his "Dumbledore said calmly" outfit from the Goblet of Fire, isn't it?

That's a very good point - and also illustrates how little variety of minifigures we got with those early sets.

Based on the prices for the exclusive bricks (or indeed the lack of evidence that they've ever been sold) I'm not sure it is out there - at least not in the hands of anybody who wants to sell.

I'm sure the leaker said that Quirrell and Hooch were packaged together, and hence that he assumed they were in the same set. A mirror confrontation would be good though.

Fair warning, it's a vintage one

I doubt Lego would stoop low enough to give us Great Halls in two successive waves within the same year, and I don't believe we ever see her office in either film or book (and Zoe Wanamaker's insistence on a higher wage for Philosopher's Stone actually helps us narrow down the set she might appear in, since Hooch doesn't come back). I can't see past it being a Quidditch set, with the most likely being a Quidditch match (if Quirrell's in the same set, it's really got to be the game where he was trying to curse Harry) and the least likely being an accessory pack (nobody has any use for two Hooches, and unlike students you can't just swap her head and hair and have a new character - there was only one flying teacher at Hogwarts). Of course, she could be in a set not based on Philosopher's Stone. I don't rememebr if she ever does anything much in the books, but her appearing in a different film's set could actually be a pretty significant thing - characters not being bound to the films they appeared in, but instead cropping up in events they were present for in the books only, is one step closer to the advent of book-only minifigures.

How many of those complaints were from kids, and how many from AFOLs? I doubt Lego would do a story-driven theme - Castle or otherwise - aimed at adults (though I would be down for it if they did!) I wasn't around the community in 2013, so I'll not profess to be an expert, but many of the complaints I've seen - particularly those that still recur recently - are more aimed at the childish design of the 2013 wave, particularly in regard to the heraldry, rather than that the sets were copies of previous runs.

If it's indeed a Quidditch match set we're getting, then colour me excited. I never got round to getting the 2018 version, partly because of the disappointing figure choice for me personally (the 2010 Quidditch set was the only flesh-toned Harry Potter set I ever got from the previous releases, so having Harry and Malfoy in Quidditch robes and another Oliver Wood appealed far less than sets full of heroes I'd never had). I won't make the same mistake this time. I hope, though, that there's a good selection of minifigures. I don't expect two full Quidditch teams, but having three or four players from each team would be fantastic. Harry is a given, and Malfoy too if it's a Chamber of Secrets set. I can't see how a Quidditch Match set wouldn't include Marcus Flint either, since minor as the rest of his role is, he's the only recognisable face on the Slytherin team in each of the first two films. Any other Slytherins would probably have to be randoms, unless they fancied making a Terrence Higgs. As for Gryffindor, I personally think the Weasleys should be omitted. Maybe not in Quidditch robes, but they're in both a CMF series and a currently-available set, and I'm sure they'll appear again in the future. For the same reason, Oliver Wood (who has already appeared) and Katie Bell (who I feel is an inevitability for a future HBP set) should also be left out. Were I picking minifigures, I'd go for Madame Hooch, Quirrell, Snape, Hermione, Harry, Flint, Angelina Johnson and Alicia Spinnet. If there's room for another fig, add Terrence Higgs. My reasoning is simple: if they get missed out of two Quidditch sets, neither Angelina nor Alicia are ever going to be released in minifigure form. Alicia Spinnet has literally zero contribution off the Quidditch pitch in the films, and Angelina's in about one (insignificant) scene that would never be turned into a set.

Fingers crossed that's a portent of things to come and we have a cool Castle theme on the way.

Aside from the aforementioned Remembrall, it could be an opportunity to bend the truth from the films and give us new characters - be that members of the Gryffindor Quidditch team or students in Harry's year. They might also give us the cool statue Neville briefly gets caught on when he has his fall, which would be cool imo

Not necessarily for this wave of sets, but I would like to see a revival of the old sand red colour used for Lockhart's torso in the original Chamber set. While much was to be desired in the early minifigures, that torso colour was spot on in my book.

It's good to know the data - thanks! It's odd to me that Lego never tried another fantasy castle theme, but perhaps they thought it hewed too close to Lord of the Rings!

The thing is, City has kept going throughout by repeating the same standard sets and just changing the setting slightly sometimes. There will always be people who eat up every Castle set that comes out even if it's making the same thing as a previous set, and there will always be kids just getting into Lego/people who missed the last set, for whom Lego having done something in the past is not enough. For example, I don't own a Castle. I own plenty of medieval sets, but no castles, since they were either before my time or came out in the years when I could only afford the smaller sets. I think Castle - and yes, I include fantasy in this - is absolutely ripe for picking. In the past they've always sidelined female characters - but there's a huge market of young girls (and boys) who are more interested in princesses than knights, but who can still be well served by a good Castle theme. It doesn't have to be all about swords and slashing - a well thought out theme can unite the traditional Castle audience with the Friends/Belville audience, perhaps by accepting that many people won't want all the sets and designing accordingly. By this, I don't mean to suggest that half the sets should have minifigures and half should have minidolls. But rather than having a theme full of knights fighting knights, have say a Lady's Bower set, with a princess minifigure and a lady-in-waiting, maybe a Knight too. Some of the Knights audience won't be interested, but there will be a lot who want anything medieval, and a whole new audience who might overlook Castle otherwise. I've deviated, I think, from the original point here! Easy to follow my rambling train of thought.

Those of you who have the Room of Requirement as well as one or more of the Hogwarts sets, have you had success combining the RoR with the rest of the castle? Mine is connected with Tehcnic pins right now, but my Room itself is next to the whomping willow and exposed to the elements! I have played with the idea of mocing the corridor outside the room to serve as a better connection point - has anyone else done this?

If you take away the grounding in a medieval aesthetic, you run the risk of a theme not feeling like Castle at all. I have read and played my fair share of fantasy - certainly far more than the average consumer who will be buying potential sets. Just because I maybe haven't read the same things as you doesn't mean I have no interest in the genre. I'm well aware of that. However, discussion about the form a possible Castle TV show might take is not outside the remit of the thread, and is something I have a personal interest in, so I wanted to contribute in that regard. I'm not trying to say your ideas are terrible or anything, and if I came across that way then I'm sorry, but this is a public forum and posting here means you open your ideas up to be engaged with by other members of the community - across the full breadth of the topic. In any case, I specifically mentioned in my own comment that I was also talking generally - particularly about AFOLs' tendency to focus on what they want (myself included) - and using your comment as a springboard for discussion. The truth is that I am really enjoying this thread, so I try to engage with it as much as I can. There's no need to be rude. Yes, I read what you said. I synthesised a response based on what you said, too. And argue? No, I took what I and built a comment off that. If nobody was doing that, this thread would just be people saying what they want to see with no engagement from the community and it would fairly quickly wither and die. I'm enjoying reading it, so I want to engage with people and keep the thread alive. What I would be wary of is Lego's past. Fantasy Era lasted a couple of years, not really noticeably longer or shorter than any other Castle subtheme, but they went immediately to a more grounded theme in Kingdoms. I wonder if internal data suggested that sales were poor or kids weren't responding well to the fantasy elements. (This, of course, is pure speculation.) I would personally prefer a highly grounded theme with no non-human characters, but anything swordish would have my money provided the sets were good.

It's the best day of the year to reveal a new product. If the fans don't like it? "Surprise, April Fool!" (And then overtime to redesign the product at lightning speed.)

I would say that Castle is a theme encompassing the Middle Ages (5th to 15th Century roughly, with some leeway) and fantasy elements inspired by that. Castles themselves wouldn't be strictly necessary - but the broader state of a feudal system with kings and lords and knights, combat primarily using sword and axe and bow rather than guns, and technology at a pre-industrial level is what defines the genre. There's definitely room to blur the lines a bit - Fantasy Era, for instance, bridges the gap between Lord of the Rings and classic Medieval - but there's only so far those lines can be blurred. If say a Victorian theme with no castles or knights qualifies as Castle, it starts to beg the question "why are sets split into themes at all?" You're not alone in appreciating historical minifigures and sets from periods and places other than Medieval Europe. I would love sets based on the Classical Era, or early Japan/China (I'm not clued up on the history of other parts of the world, so I don't know what there is to possibly get - but I don't see any reason why say African history couldn't make good sets either). I just don't see them as being Castle sets.

That's too vague a definition really, though. Are the various Soldiers' Fort sets from Pirates actually Castle sets? The Death Star? When Lego did Vikings, they did it as its own theme rather than as a subtheme of Castle, even though Vikings had a lot in common with Castle - the periods were simply too distinct. If they ever did Rome, or Greece, or Victoriana, or Aztecs, they'd surely do the same.

Didn't the first part of Deathly Hallows come out in 2010? Dobby looked pretty dead on the outside in that too!

I agree with you here in terms of the sets not needing a companion app to sell (underscored by the demise of Hidden Side - I have a number of those sets for the parts and never downloaded the app, and I doubt I'm alone in this). But technology as a general category definitely helps Lego. I'm thinking video games. When I was younger, I went through a childhood Dark Age - between 2002 and 2007, I only had two new sets (and as they were also released packaged together, I suspect I only got one) but I adored the Legoland game and that kept Lego in my vernacular. Later, Lego Star Wars II became all the rage at my school, so I got it. Played it. Loved it. Wanted some sets. Within six months of getting my first Star Wars set, directly as a result of playing the game, I was an avid Lego fan. I'm only one consumer, but I've spent easily four figures' worth on Lego (possibly as much as five figures if sets bought for me when I was younger count towards my total) and have no plan to slow down. Video games are very useful for hooking the kids in the next generation who are like me. And they're also really fun to play!