NovaBricks

True, but the fact that we got one large tower makes a second less likely I would think. The DB is more prominently featured in the Raimi trilogy (not to mention OsCorp isn't a tower in those) and I suspect people are more familiar with it and its employees like Jameson and Robbie Robertson. Plus LEGO managed to stack the DB with easter eggs.

I've never quite understood where the idea behind an OsCorp Tower came from. It's relatively un-iconic, there's arguably only one famous event that happened there (and even the spider bite happening there is dependent on which universe you're talking about), and is only depicted in one film series that was not well received. Without OsCorp existing in the MCU, I highly doubt we ever see it in LEGO form.

I mean, it's clear that LEGO has little interest in producing non-film inspired sets for either company outside of each of their main heroes (Batman/Spider-Man). With the coming reset in the DC Universe, it makes sense that they'll temporarily retire anything non-Batman related. I don't think it really precludes the theme from returning in short order if/when Gunn turns it around, but why bother having designers attached to a theme that's functionally dead?

Because LEGO is averse to anything not film related. Even on the Marvel side, it's almost all MCU stuff. Some non-MCU 4+ Spidey stuff but even that's based on other media. I have a hard time believing that Eternals sets sell more than generic Batman sets but there's clearly some reason LEGO is pumping out stuff for even the worst MCU movies. Almost have to wonder if LEGO is contractually obligated to do at least one set per movie.

How dare you suggest something that LEGO could sell to the masses instead of giving out as a promo at SDCC? …but yeah they actually did that.

DC (ok, well, mainly Batman) has quite a few iconic locations that *could* be modulars, although I'm not necessarily saying that they should be. Arkham is the big one, but the Iceberg Lounge, the Daily Planet, and some others would work. They would need to basically just take inspiration from multiple sources but they could be done. It's not like the Daily Bugle has some definitive design to it that LEGO had to work with. It's just a building with the name on it, and LEGO filled in the rest. That being said, I think DC lends itself more to dioramas but like everything else LEGO if you aren't Star Wars, you're second tier. Joker going into the chemicals, The Trial from BTAS, really anything from the Nolan trilogy would all fly off shelves.

I've mentioned it before, but I think any Batcave needs to be diorama-esque, particularly at a high price point. The previous sets have always struck me as kind of weird because obviously it's difficult to capture the cavernous feeling of the Batvcave without walls/ceilings/etc. If you created three walls around it may be workable, but Batcaves with just a few floating pieces are best left to the lower piece count, child focused sets. Arkham however...well, there's untapped potential there for a large D2C with a Bugle-like fig selection. I know they've done a few in the not so recent past, but we also get a weekly Hulkbuster so why not? Make it BTAS themed and watch the money fly in. There's certainly a piece of the puzzle we're missing, be it low sales or some sort of understanding between LEGO/WB about the direction of the line. Doubtful we'll ever know.

Guess I’ll jump in on the rankings. Mine are live action only (Conroy is the GOAT but animation just goes in a different bucket for me). 1.) Bale. Despite the ridiculous voice and meh suits in the last two movies, he’s the closest we’ve come to someone pulling off both sides of the character while looking the part. He gets lost a bit in the latter two movies but there isn’t an actor in the world who wouldn’t have been overshadowed by that Ledger performance. 2.) I’ll take Keaton here. He’s not the ideal Bruce, but he’s a great Batman and his movies are the closest we’ll get to comics. 3.) I’m gonna take Pattinson here as a leap of faith. He may end up being higher or lower. His Batman was really good, almost an Arkham Origins take on the character. No Bruce to speak of hurts, but that’s on Reeves, not him. As long as his movies show some progression on the Bruce front, I suspect he’ll be up there fighting with Bale for too spot. 4.) Kilmer. He’s actually really solid but it is jarring to see a blonde Bruce. He suffers from the same thing as Bale where Batman’s villains are more interesting. Well, Jim Carrey is more interesting. Tommy Lee Jones is more…”interesting” 5.) Batfleck. So much potential, so little execution. This is nothing against Affleck as I think he’s great here, but his movies are so bad I can’t put him higher. He would’ve been so good in a comic-style universe that focused on Batman arcs and not universe ending nonsense. 6.) West. His stuff is so weird it’s almost hard to justify him on the list. Almost feels like he should be off on the side with Conroy. It’s just comparing apples to oranges and I didn’t grow up with the show so I have no nostalgia for it. 107.) Clooney. Whatever.

ItsAJoke.jpg But in all seriousness it isn’t a conspiracy to suggest that budget, resources, and time had to be dedicated to three Marvel D2C’s and those things aren’t Infinite. Had to come from somewhere and Marvel and DC share the superhero’s line. Not exactly a conspiracy to point out that Marvel got extra D2C’s this year and DC didn’t even get the usual Bat-vehicle.

Lego DC died for...this?

We’re getting the bat-cycle from The Batman next year. No chance we get two Batman themed bikes in a year.

The Hulkbuster is a set I’m looking forward to seeing in the store window but not buying. Could be really big and cool, but not something I’d be willing to shell that kind of money for.

The Batman cowls are ehhh for me. The '66 is better cause it has multiple colors but the black one just looks weird because of the hole where the mouth goes. I guess they could do these type of busts, or just more detailed cowls, for each of the different Batmen. But they would have to be WAY more detailed than the two that have come out to make them discernable from each other. At the end of the day, I'm not really sure you could hold up Keaton's cowl next to Bale's in LEGO form and have the average customer tell the difference. The two we have now just feel like we got one generic Batman one to cover every Batman, and the Adam West one because it's the only truly distinct one. All of this being said, it's BAFFLING to me that LEGO put that much budget into a Black Panther bust and nothing into Batman this year. That set is going to sell terribly.

Baffling

Yeah I’m with you. I’m biased as Batman is easily my favorite hero between DC/Marvel, but I’m at the point where I wish they would just give up the pretense of having a “DC” theme and devote the budget and time to Batman. There’s no way a large, mini-fig rich Arkham or Wayne Manor wouldn’t be in the top few sellers of either Marvel or DC sets. I would love to have Batman display piece opposite my Daily Bugle.

This almost certainly has to be a collection of vehicles, right? Vehicles is like the last thing I think of when I think MCU, but the use of the word "includes" means it's either a collection, or it's a scene that has a BP vehicle. A $500 UCS-type vehicle seems totally irrational. I don't think LEGO quite realizes that vehicles aren't really synonymous with superheroes outside of Batman. Like, sure they have them. But they're iconic to Batman because he has no powers. A $500 Marvel vehicle is already a huge stretch, but a $500 BP vehicle is just nuts.

Maybe I just REALLY don’t have a good pulse for what vehicle would be considered “iconic” enough for a $500 set, but based on all these conditions I can’t think of a single thing. Something listed above either isn’t true, or LEGO is about to trot out a very expensive vehicle most people will just go “oh yeah I guess that was in the MCU” at.

Doubt it. The movie wasn’t “devisive” so much as it was pretty universally hated. I don’t see LEGO doing a $200+ set based on a commercial bomb. The Batmobile design is decent, but like you said, ‘66 is next if anything comes out. I also don’t see them doing “The Bat” as it’s kind of weird looking. Maybe an updated minifig scale one but def not D2C.

Yeah the Pattinson one is a nice build but doesn’t quite look like the on screen car. Not sure what extra can be done for the Tumbler. Anyways, it’s all theoretical and the fact that there’s no hint of a D2C vehicle by November suggests that they’re probably dead for the foreseeable future.

Well, playscale batmobiles are $30 that usually come with two figs. Even with a display, not sure where the extra $120 is coming from.

Yeah if the Keaton Batmobile is indeed like 75% of the set or whatever, it's pretty easy to rework. I think at this point with all that's going on at WB/DC, LEGO is probably waiting to see if Keaton even shows up in a project. It's not a certainty at this point.

Would be nice for people who didn't pick up the '89 Batmobile to be able to get Nicholson Joker. Or for people who want that version but didn't get the GWP scale one.

I mean, if it really was/is an updated '89 Batmobile it's a pretty easy pivot. Just replace the non-Batman minifigs and call it a re-release of the GWP or something. Hell, they don't even need an excuse. They put out a Tumbler from 2005 last year. Nothing wrong with just dropping a minifig scale '89 Batmobile. I wouldn't mind if they swapped out The Flash with a Michael Gough minifig!

For the most part I won’t be upset if it goes to Marvel. I’ve made peace with that. I just hope it’s minifig scale and a cool location. A new helicarrer would be a MASSIVE letdown.

Different set. $500 for a hulk buster would be a bad business decision on LEGO’s part