0tter

I'll be getting this and the next modular building! I missed out on the UCS Millenium Falcon because I thought it was too much money to spend on LEGO. I will not be making the same mistake again.

Really? I think this is the perfect solution. Park castle exterior that everyone has their picture taken in front of and can readily identify? Check. Internal details of secret suites that only the very elite can stay in, let alone be familiar with the details of, or staff access only areas? Nah, bin that! Put in some details from the Disney movies that peole know and love! Granted there are movies I would have preferred to see referenced over the ones we got... but who cares?! This thing is fantastic...... ... Of course, you can't please all of the people all of the time.

She's fine with normal legs. She's a cast-member, dressed as the character. At least that's how I see her. It's Disney World.

Wow, I didn't notice that. I had to Google it, and am glad to see that the included Daisy appears to be more "park accurate": pink top with a lavender bow. Although the pink shoes of the CMF release seem more appropriate than the (what appear to be) lavender shoes of the set. Is this getting too pedantic? :)

I think it'll just be a Disney set, like Ghostbusters or The Simpsons. It's clearly not a Princess set.

Children learn pre-determined gender roles (like what society deems a "girls' toy") at a very early age. Research suggests around 4 or 5. So by 6 and 9 those attitudes would be firmly entrenched. It's true because you (and your community) made it true. And generally parents are oblivious as to how they shape these beliefs, so it continues. It's hard to say if we are moving beyond it: the successful Friends line appeals directly to these preconceived notions of gender (which I feel is a shame and reinforces these views, but it cannot be argued LEGO have been making some great business decisions and that seems to be one of them; it's an indictment of the market rather than the company). All that said, I think this is clearly a gender neutral set. And then that said, it is clearly not aimed at young children. So the original argument (the ratio of male to female figures to appeal to boys or girls) seems moot anyhow.

Just picked up some Disney CMFs in anticipation of this set. Hope we see a series 2, my wife will have to have a Belle and Beast to go with this set.

No Little Mermaid nod? :(

Words fail me... I was going to get it for my wife regardless of how it turned out. But I want that for my collection. Congratulations LEGO, and all of us.

Sounding good. That'll be really expensive in Australia, but I'm taking that as a good sign it'll be awesome. :D

Very good. Thank you, sir. I keep checking back to learn more. LEGO play things pretty close to the chest, don't they?

If this is due for release late September, when should we expect to see some images? Do LEGO do SDCC?

Ours will really only be for display, so an interior is not important, and I'd rather see everything put into the facade, but I know a lot of people would appreciate some play features.

Having given it a bit of thought, and given we don't have a lot of confirmation on any details (was the $400 price tag ever confirmed?), I wouldn't be surprised to see something of the same size and scope as the Kingdoms Joust 10223 set from a few years ago, complete with open back, and priced a bit more expensively. And I'd be quite happy with that.

I don't think this is from the Castle set. Aren't we supposed to be getting Minnie in a red dress? Or was that just pure speculation? If this is included in the set I'd be disappointed that we didn't get Mickey in his tails.

Works for me.

Yup!

Well, that is welcome news. :)

You make some good points. Certainly the logic hasn't applied to the licensed minifigures, and LEGO must be absorbing the licensing fees elsewhere. But there certainly are cases of licensed products at the same price point containing less "stuff" than non-licensed stuff (currently City's Fire Utility Truck: simple vehicle, three minfigures, trailer, small tower; vs Jurassic World's Dilophosaurus Ambush: simple vehicle, three minifigues (granted one of them is a dinosaur) and a small build gyrosphere), so there is certainly a precedent. I hope that the costs can be spread over a higher production run, or absorbed elsewhere, and we will get a large, detailed set at what is popularly perceived to be a "reasonable price"... I just doubt that it's likely. And a lot of the talk so far has been "I would love to see..." and "It would be great if..." pie-in-the-sky sort of stuff. I'm just trying to ground the conversation a little so when the final product is revealed we don't have a lot of disappointed prospective customers, and the "LEGO missed a great opportunity", "total pass" kinds of comments. If we want big sizes, high piece-count, lots of detail, lots of minifigs, fronts-backs-and-sides we should be prepared to pay for that. If we want "reasonable" price, we should be prepared to compromise on some of the other stuff. Sometimes collectors can be their own worst enemies.

Licensing fees are passed onto the consumer. Production costs + profits + licensing fees > production cost + profits. I think it's safe to assume it would cost more than an unlicensed LEGO set, and would therefore be quite expensive if it were as large/detailed as a modular.

Remember that modulars aren't licensed. There will be a significant price increase on any Disney castle compared to a regular LEGo castle, or modular.

Doesn't CM4Sci keep saying that it isn't that big? Why do we keep raising expectations?

When can we expect to see some pictures?

Same here. This is... perfect.

Like the resurrection of Black Falcons using the new heraldry! :D