THELEGOBATMAN

Not to mention the use of bold, coloured (no idea how to do this one—let's just pretend it's red), and UPPERCASED words! The horror! It's all coming together! (Insert obligatory Kronk GIF.)

We actually don't know a single set name beyond May of this year. So no, no Summer set name or anything really has leaked.

Right now we have no reason to assume anything other than that it's fake. It sounds way too good and comes from a random person on Instagram without a track-record. Two huge red flags.

Best design: Sanctum Sanctorum, X-Mansion, Avengers Tower, Daily Bugle Best deal: Avengers Tower, Daily Bugle, Sanctum Sanctorum, X-Mansion Which ones I'd rather have: Daily Bugle, X-Mansion, Sanctum Sanctorum, Avengers Tower

But how do you objectively judge whether the music fits the scene? You can't. One person will say it's perfect, another will say it's over-the-top. Both of them are right—because art is subjective. What if Scorsese said the score in a certain movie is weak, but Spielberg said that it's amazing. Is one of them wrong? Will you tell Martin Scorsese "Sir, the music in this movie is objectively good and perfectly fits the atmosphere." For what? He still won't like it. "How do you think film criticism works?" Subjectively, obviously. Why do you think there's such a big discrepancy between the reviews for every single movie to ever exist? Is one critic wrong while the other one is correct? Obviously not. We judge movies according to our personal feelings. We can't detach from them anymore than we can get out of our bodies. "Tell me why people pay money to take film making and screenwriting classes?" Same reason people take art classes—you'll be presented with different ways of approaching making movies so that you can help internalise your own process while having a vast knowledge of past works. I don't think you know how film classes work—it's not a mathematical school where they tell you a certain universal formula and you learn how to use it. They teach you knowledge which you can use, but they don't give you a recipe for making a movie. "Why bad films exist?" Exactly my point—because there's no recipe for a good movie. If there was, in your "objective" reality, all movies would be good. They aren't because filmmakers use their own knowledge, techniques, experiences to make every single story they're a part of. Just because Francis Ford Coppola made some of the most well-received movies ever made doesn't mean he can't also make ones like Megalopolis. There are no good and bad screenwriters—everyone is capable of making something good and bad. "By your own admission, there are good movies and bad movies, meaning that yes, quality can be quantified." No idea how you're came to that ridiculous conclusion. Never did I mention that there are good and bad movies—there are just movies. Let's indulge you—I think Aftersun is better than The Godfather. Prove me wrong. How would you even approach that? Why would I be wrong in saying that? Quality can't be objectively quantified, because the so-called "objective quantifiers" are also man-made. Art isn't a naturally-occuring law of physics—someone had to create the generally-accepted standards in the first place. Why would people do that? All his Guardians movies, The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker were extremely well-received, loved by both fans and casual cinema-goers. Everything presented so far for Superman looks amazing, and makes people feel excitement for a comicbook movies that they haven't felt in years. Stop telling people how they're supposed to feel. Are you going to tell people to "slow down on the Nolan praise" when talking about his 2026 Matt Damon movie? Why? He's just made an Oscar-winning movie (just as Gunn is on an almost-flawless comicbook movie/series streak). Let people be hyped, even though you might not be. Gunn is not the creator of this universe—he's an overseer. He's making a single movie to open the new phase, but that's the only one he'll direct. He's not writing more scripts, he's not telling other directors exactly what they have to do. He's actually working with Peter Safran and various comicbook creators to make something special. Ironic that he's directing a movie about the DC icon of hope, and you're basically saying "Stop being hopeful!"

No, there can't. Who's even the indicator of objectivity? How is one movie framed better than the other? It's a personal prefernce and an artistic choice. You can't just say "Killers of the Flower Moon is shot better than Aftersun." (I mean you can, but it doesn't make it objectively true.) They are two completely different movies shot and framed with different intentions. Their styles will resonate with different viewers, but it's a personal preference. Pacing is a personal thing—some movies will flow flawlessly for one person, but be uneven for another. There's no such thing as a "recipe for good pacing"—otherwise all movies would be perfectly paced. (But surprise, they aren't.) Now you lost me completely at scored. Music is quite possibly the most individual, open-to-interpretation form of art there is. A movie can't be scored better than another movie. How would you even measure it? So you're saying that "Oppenheimer" is the best-scored movie of 2023 because it won an Oscar, right? That's what objectivity means. If not, who would be the judge of that? Because for one, I can name you at least five movies which I think have a better score than Oppenheimer—but it's a subjective opinion. The only way you can even try "objectively" judging a movie is according to a certain film school—how a script is supposed to be structured, the exact way a movie is "supposed to" be shot etc. But the thing is, one film school is not equal to the other. You can't just classify all movie by a single measure, it's impossible. If you could quantify a movie's quality, that literally means we'd only be getting good movies—since no one actively wants to make bad movies, they'd just use the objective measure to make a good one. How simple!—only it isn't. It was a joke, and no one's insulting your intelligence. Don't take debates like this personally, they're not an attack. No, Krypto is based on Krypto, the comicbook character. Just because he's influenced by Gunn's experiences doesn't make the interpretation any less valid. Do you think Krypto always acts in the same way in every comic he's been in? No, because every writer takes a slightly different approach, using their own experiences and knowledge to write a good story. And honestly, please stop with this "I'm gonna convince you that the movie's not gonna be as good as you think it is" attitude. No one even mentioned a perfect comicbook film, and even if they did, it's a personal measure. You're not one to say what's perfect for a single person—no one is. Maybe I will consider it a "perfect" comicbook film—and that'd that. It's a subjective opinion, and no one will try to convince to love it as much as one does. "Gunn will do his own thing. Just like Snyder. You may like it more, but it's still just Gunn's take on things." Yes, that's actually what every single director on Earth does. That's all that directing is actually about. Nolan's Batman movies are widely considered to be the best DC movies there are—but they're exactly that—"just Nolan's take on things." Same for Burton, Schumacher, Jenkins, Ayer, Wan, and so on. That's what directors are for. Ones will resonate more with some people, others with some other people. That's all there is to it.

I don't get how it's a problem. It really isn't. It's not like he completely made a new character and based them on his own life. He still uses the comicbook Krypto. But just like every writer on this planet, he made a creative choice to fit an adapted character into his movie. I really don't see why you think it's a bad thing. Also, you're still completely ignoring his reasoning, acting like he makes choices like these for their own sake without any justification. No one's treating you with hostility. We're here to discuss things, it's not a personal attack on your views and ideals. It seems that most people don't get your POV at all, so we're trying to understand and explain why it's the opposite for others. No one says that you have to like Gunn's story decisions, but it seems like you're a single man trying to convince everyone here that Gunn's movie is not going to be good (or at least as good as most people think). I don't get this attitude. If you want to use "objectivity" (no such thing in experiencing art), all his projects have been "objectively" well-received and the bast majority of people love them—whether it's Guardians, Suicide Squad, or Peacemaker.

Or, hear me out, not everything needs to be perfectly accurate. Who are you to say what kind of dog breed fits the story best? Why is it so important for Krypto to be bigger and less hairy? Complaints like these sound so petty. He literally has explained why he's made that choice and how Krypto fits into the story. If you think real-life inspirations (which is basically how nearly every screenwriter works) make scripts worse, then I really have no idea what else to say.

If by one-note you mean that he has a certain style of making movies, then yeah, I guess. Just like Nolan does, or Tarantino, or Leitch. And so on. I don't get this point. Yes, the Guardians' movies are consequential in style and themes, obviously. But his Suicide Squad is fairly different. Both being comicbook movies about a morally-questionable group of misfits make for an easy easy to compare those. Peacemaker also deals with completely different themes. There's also Slither, which further proves Gunn has much more range than you're giving him credit for. If you think Star-Lord is an utter buffoon you clearly need to pay more attention to the movies. Sure, he's silly and clumsy at times, but when lush comes to shove, he can instantly lock-in and become super-focused. That's actually why he works so well as a character—he has a lot of issues which he buries under a thick layer of humour, so some people don't treat him seriously. But when someone he loves is in danger? This man will do anything to help them, he becomes focused and stops joking around until the goal is achieved. I also have no idea how you're interpreting Guardians as a bunch of joke characters. Rocket is an ironic megablock, but his character arc in GotG Vol. 3 is one of the most emotional things MCU has ever done. Groot is Groot, obviously, but he'll always be there for others to protect them. Drax is dumb, and I agree that after GotG until GotG Vol. 3 no one had any idea what to do with him, but he gets a pot of tender moments (especially in the last movie when he's the only one who understands kids). I'm not even gonna mention Gamora because you can't be serious. Your worst crime? Using "objectively" when talking about movies. Ridiculous. Movies aren't mathematical calculations, they are a form of expression of human emotions. I can say that The Suicide Squad is objectively better than Hell to Pay. I've seen both, and I've enjoyed the former thoroughly more. Does that make it true? No—because it's subjective. A movie can't be objectively better than another movie. If you could objectively calculate how well a movie is made, that means there'd be a formula for a well-made movie. Which means that all movies would be "objectively" good. Are they? No, and there's no such thing. *local man discovers that screenwriters use their own experiences to write scrips* You truly can't be serious. Have you seen the movie? Then do answer me, what part of his personality or personal life did he pour into Superman?

Between this and Kai's mech rider, I absolutely love how weird the vehicles are getting. The mech is awesome. It looks like a total mishmash, but at the same time it somehow works really well. I love that Riyu keeps growing with each season, he will look awesome with those wings.

I'm fairly sure they use different colours. It's particularly noticeable on Nya—parts of her hood are dark grey in contrast to the rest that's azure. Lloyd's using dark green as the secondary colour.

You can still give valid criticism while praising the set. Yes, it's absolutely amazing, but at the same time it is overpriced, and they have cheaped-out on the minifigures. Nothing wrong with pointing out things you don't like. It doesn't make you any less "worthy" of good sets.

Okay, I'm fully on board with this set now. It looks absolutely spectacular. The build looks fantastic from every angle. Its interior is filled with details, and I love how you can separate all the sections of the mansion. The minifigures aren't nearly as bad as I thought. Lack of dual-moulding is holding them back, but they all look really good together. Gambit and Cyclops are clear standouts (they'd look much better with dual-moulded legs though). Professor X using the generic Lex Luthor face is admittedly hilarious, and I love it.

The Malfoy Manor looks awesome. I love how detailed the façade is, and the use of sand green bricks. The inclusion of a gate and a smaller sidebuild is also a nice touch. The minifigure selection is impressive, nine minifigures is a lot (well, maybe not for 150€—the set is overpriced anyway). I especially like Harry with his puffed face faceprint. Now, a question remains—why isn't Ron here? They even put Voldemort on the balcony, who's not even present in this scene. But they omitted Ron, skipping his forest outfit, when both Harry and Hermione get one? I don't like the Diagon Alley. The shops are fine, but nothing particularly spectacular. The overall shape is awful, seems like a huge waste of space when you're displaying it.

I wouldn't trust a random Instagram leaker without a track record. Just saying. A BTAS Arkham sure does sound nice. Just like the Tower of Fate did.

Wow, this wave looks fantastic and really fresh. The ninja suits are weird and awesome at the same time—not so sure about the mask, I'll have to see more angles of it. The villains looks fantastic. Not what I was expecting, but the dragon attachment is incredible. Now, for the individual sets: Kai's Dragon Spinjitzu is great. Glad they're sticking to having two minifigures instead of just one, really adds value to the set. The spinner looks pretty amazing, and so does Kai's suit. (Really curious how Sora's will look, since they're still using her S1 suit.) Lloyd's Forest Dragon is fantastic. Didn't expect it to look as good, especially in a 20€ set. The wings really make it complete. (It also feels like it could be from How to Train Your Dragon, which I adore.) Thunderfang Chaos Dragon (pretty rare to see March sets in October) is incredible. I love how beastly it looks, it's the opposite of some of the more graceful dragons we got recently. The colour scheme is an inspired choice, makes it stand out from all the other Ninjago dragons. The chains, the wings and the tail are all particularly great. I like the inclusion of a sidebuild and the minifigure selection. Didn't expect four Ninja, especially with Nokt as the villain. Bummer that Sora doesn't get a new suit. Overall, the sets are amazing. I absolutely love each Dragons Rising wave (well, maybe except the one from S2 P1, that one was weaker and more mech-focused). Can't wait to see the rest of the sets, especially the Arc Dragon, Dragonian Village and Zane's mech (the minifigure selection for a 10€ set is simply incredible).

The X-Mansion looks like a fantastic build. I love the overall look, the colours, and how it splits. The minifigures are a mixed bag, some of them look really rough. The Sentinel could also be improved. The price is too high, looks more like a 200–240€ set. The other two sets though (what a surprise, to see 2025 sets in October)? They're bad. The logo is as boring as I could've imagined. The holes in the sides look awful. The display poses are mediocre, and the minifigures don't interest me either. The Civil War set is a big disappointment though. I had high hopes for it, especially after the amazing Age of Ultron diorama. The build is bland, the Quinjet looks ridiculous, and Giant-Man is an awful downgrade (especially the head).

Wouldn't be surprised. But then again, it's a 60€ set, so I can't imagine it having any less than four minifigures. Unless they want to include Silver Surfer, it's very likely all four F4 members will be included (the Thing probably as a minifigure tho).

Right? It feels surreal. Now imagine if all the F4 members are included. Since there aren't any more sets releasing alongside it, this actually feels likely too.

Where did the original rumour for the price of the Shire come from? I'm seeing conflicting reports on Instagram. Some mention a 400€ price, while others a 300–350€ one.

I honestly really love the sound of the 1HY 2025 wave. There's a lot of variety, but in a good sense. (Unlike, for example, Star Wars. Helmets, midi-scale ships, Clone Wars, The Mandalorian and some buildable objects—with barely any regular sets in sight.) A few comic-based mechs with desirable characters. Some comic-based cars targeted for kids. Big movie-based dioramas for older fans. An Infinity Saga set based on a movie they haven't tackled yet. A helmet for adult collectors. And of course our first ever Spider-Verse and Fantastic 4 sets.

Updates for the 2025 from lego_minecraft_goat! The Fantasic 4 set is real and coming in April. (I know there's an updated list on the previous page, but I just listed everything he posted today.) January: • 76307 Iron Man vs. Ultron ($15, 101 pcs) • 76308 Spider-Man Mech vs. Anti-Venom ($15, 107 pcs) • 76309 Spider-Man vs. Venom Muscle Car ($30, 254 pcs) • 76311 Spider-Verse: Miles Morales vs. Spot ($40—might've changed to $50, 375 pcs, 9+) • 76314 Captain America: Civil War Action Duel ($100, 736 pcs, 10+) April: • 76312 Hulk Monster Truck ($30, 229 pcs, 7+) • 76315 Iron Man's Hall of Armor ($55, 384 pieces, 8+) • 76316 [Fantastic 4] ($60, 427 pcs, 9+) • 76327 [lron Man Helmet ?] ($70, 18+) May: • 76323 [Avengers: Endgame Final Battle] ($100, 621 pcs, 10+)

In two months. Maybe slightly less, but around that time.

Right? I used to limit myself to like 40€ Ninjago sets at a certain point, but the bigger ones are so much better and common recently. Like, you either get an amazing dragon with 9 minifigures for 80€, or a crappy buggy with 3 minifigures for 40€.

Apparently the third March Ninjago set (71837) is another big, 3000–4000 piece Dragons Rising set (like the Tournament Temple City). All the recent rumours are coming from "lite" on the Ninjago Discord channel—which means we'll see if he's truly reliable or not in the coming months.