sammy_zammy

kingnono said there is no such situation this time All this talk about replacing Lavender with Queenie's head makes me tempted to get some Fantastic Beasts minifigs, I wasn't planning on collecting them (been getting them on Bricklink) but hmm

Yeah, they're hardly the most interesting/unique looking characters - it's just gonna be nice to have them represented!

I edited my post to make this clear after you'd started typing it seems - I meant eventually, at some point, if they continue doing Hogwarts modulars. Not as part of the Astronomy Tower.

I didn't quite realise till the other day what the Astronomy Tower actually was, and what a unique shape it is. I was expecting it to be similar to the tower by the Great Hall but wider, but it's super different, so will probably look really interesting. How tall do you guys think they'll make it? I'm hoping they do that courtyard with the square towers around it at some point. I'm not sure what they're called (if anyone knows feel free to let me know!), but they're at the front of this photo (ironically a Lego MOC) https://rebrickable.com/mocs/MOC-30884/Playwell Bricks/hogwarts-castle-71043-epic-extension/#comments I think they look really elegant with lots of opportunity for texture and interesting building techniques, and the courtyard would allow for a deeper build. They'd also have lots of room inside for classrooms that we're still missing.

I assumed it was given that that was an alternate face, but that was just me guessing. I'm not actually sure what a Rey minifig looks like!

Ah that makes sense. Although with modern Lego I don't think intricacy is an excuse! But the flexibility I understand now. Thank you again

Thank you all for the clarification. I didn't realise they are the same hairpieces! Hmm. I didn't know rubbery hairpieces existed until Cho (I guess I forgot Exo-Force) and was kinda disappointed. Is there a reason they use these? Edit: Oh and I didn't know the original Hagrid had rubber as well until the other day. I guess it's been around a long while and I've never been exposed to it.

Wait, how can it be a friends hairpiece, I thought Friends had different sized heads? Oh, is it soft like Cho's in the CMF?

Yes, so therefore there are two faces, exactly as I said...?

One has its teeth bared the other has its mouth shut

@Guyon2002 Someone mentioned there were two centaur faces - account lego_harry_potter_934 just posted photos of both faces. So that's great. Interestingly, they look like they're different skin tones, but I expect that's just lighting...?

They did not take money out of the "Lavender budget pot" and put it in the "Luna budget pot".

Ah sorry, was an exaggeration, but I guess I misinterpreted everyone's opinions as one or two's, my bad

And a better look at Luna. I can't think of anything interesting to say about Lavender and Ron. They're minifigures. The detailing's nice. But... meh. I don't get the hate on that Luna figure, I think it's awesome!

It is possible. But I don't think there's any substantial argument either way on whether this year is the last year compared to whether last year is the last year. I personally doubt it'll retire, especially as there's still the two DH movies to cover - I personally would love it to continue for years to come. It seems to sell pretty well. I could see them giving Fantastic Beasts another shot. It clearly didn't sell as well due to its early retirement, in fact I kinda wonder if it was just an "excuse" to bring back Harry Potter - people see the FB film, buy the FB sets and then move onto the HP sets - and so they just didn't need to continue with FB as there was clearly demand without it. I didn't buy Newt's Case, and every time I regret it, I think "but how would it fit in with the others?" and therefore I remember - just because the set exists doesn't mean I have to buy it. Same with the FB CMFs. I did buy the carriage - but that was solely to get the thestral and carriage, since it's very similar to the ones the students take to Hogwarts. So I bought it without FB even in mind. The good thing about this set is you could argue I have "two" thestrals now - one for Harry and Luna to be with in OotP and one invisible one pulling the carriage! Which is a pretty weird concept but makes sense. It's a shame that I feel this way about it - I think in terms of the Wizarding World, the FB plot is just as important as the HP plot (with Grindelwald, Dumbedlore, etc). But having only two sets from two movies allows little of this to realised.

Okay, and I would prefer B&B compared to other shops for which had barely any screentime. Let's leave it there though?

I do get that, but at the end of the day, if I had to choose between B&B at all and other shops, then I'd absolutely choose B&B and make my own other shops. But I'll end it here as this is going nowhere lol Yes, definitely. It wouldn't make sense not to include them, frankly it would feel like a cash grab. Like when companies release a video game and say they have "planned DLC". It just wouldn't make any sense for TLG to do this, for them (as people wouldn't buy it) and for us (as DA would be incomplete without the expansion). Oh ok, never mi- Oh, really, I'll take a look! Definitely the summer wave as cool as the D2C sounds - with the summer wave you can buy them gradually, whereas with the D2C it would all be over after a big purchase. Why?

Maybe they'll have two-sided faces so they'll technically be the same but easily be made different?

The book releases September. So the D2C could be in it but why would they show that on this unreleased book before the reveal? Although we’ve had long discussions about books Not hinting towards future sets, it is reasonable for this one to as it contains info about sets. it could also contain 2011’s DA though or a MOC. Thank you! It makes sense in a hypothetical situation but if the thing being replaced has not been confirmed to exist or not exist, it doesn’t make sense

I know. But I’d rather it were included here than not included at all. We’ve discussed this before. Just because they’re big enough to be their own sets doesn’t mean they would be. For a D2C Diagon Alley, lacking Gringotts, the most important building in DA, wouldn’t make a very good Diagon Alley and would be a kick in the face; “Hi everyone here’s Diagon Alley oh it’s not all here by the way, if you want the rest you’ll have to buy it separately and wait a year or so”. Not only would it seem a cash grab it would be a huge disservice to fans in a fan-service set. This set will have Gringotts, if there is no Gringotts then there is no Diagon Alley set. This set will hopefully have WWW, but if there is no WWW then there is likely never going to be a WWW. As we discussed before, the only things that seemed feasible to be separate would be the underground parts of Gringotts which could work as a standalone set and B&B (conformed not the case). Well it’s clear they don’t mind redoing old stuff. Did you expect them not to do a third Great Hall? A fourth Hagrid’s Hut? And like I said, if the path didn’t take too many pieces, then it’s not going to be a very interesting path, but okay...

Ok I do get that argument, but... the fact that B&B is included in this set kinda suggests that there won't be a separate "expansion"/Knockturn set, and there was likely one never planned. Surely you'd rather have B&B at least exist compared to other shops? I guess you could say I'm missing the point, as it was hypothetical anyway, but you can see what I'm trying to say I hope - there's no point being disappointed when it's not confirmed what is/isn't coming in this set or future sets.

As others have said, can't compare licenced and non-licenced prices really. And also the bookshop is very narrow - I don't see DA shops being that narrow. Maybe bookshop dimensions but swap length and width would be nice. My thoughts exactly. I'd rather have Diagon Alley Shops than Diagon Alley Walls. I would be disappointed with 3 - however, to justify 3, Lego would have put TONS of detail into them. Like, each building would have to be worth Great Hall PLUS a third. I think three is being pessimistic but better to be surprised than disappointed lol. I would be happy with 5. Aha, thank you! I'd say F&B is more obscure yes but not on the same level as those, which don't even appear in the film except outside. Sorry, I see you realised your mistake now lol. But Ollivanders was released in the 2011 set. Saying B&B lowers the chances of getting builds which we'll probably never get as standalone sets doesn't really make sense as an argument imo. These separate sets are unlikely to exist anyway. So the fact that B&B is included means that at least B&B isn't getting shafted to not getting released, and I'd much rather B&B than the above less important shops like QQS. Look at it this way - you're hoping that B&B isn't included in this confirmed set as there's a possibility (based purely on wishlisting and speculation) that it could have been released separately. I'd much rather a guarantee that it's included in some form. Also I feel asking for street is kinda an oxymoron. Street would waste a lot of pieces (or a boring addition if it didn't) - and would be easy to add yourself. Wouldn't you rather that be used for more shops?

Something that large would not fit many buildings into $400...

I don't think the buildings will be very deep. That would not make access easy at all and also make the buildings really dark inside.

You mean, exactly the same as the 2019 one lol?