brickbride

Kingpin's bald. (Not that I think we'd get him, the character's generally associated with violence the same way Deadpool is.) All Miles Morales figs so far had no hairpieces, and Spider-Man figures in general don't. Some of the character designs like Spider-Ham and Noir look a bit more interesting and I could see them working even for non-fans because a pig Spider-Man's funny in the same way a lobster-eating bathrobe-wearing Batman is funny, and the Noir one just looks cool. But it's still a parade of spider-themed red-and-blue heads (mostly with very similar eye shapes) and legs and torsos (Peter Parker, Peter B. Parker, Spider-Ham, Spider-Man 2099), even if one of them has a pig's ears and snout and the last one's blue with red printing for a change. And then some more red-and-blue for Spider-Man India and Scarlet Spider. Yes, there's variety of a sort, but it's still variety within a very narrow frame, do you know what I mean? It's not the colourful chaotic mixture that CMFs are usually known to be. Even the Batman one didn't have a single all-black Batman! They'd have to include villains like Tombstone in order to at least break it up a bit which, do they usually do that? The only one I can recently think of is Agatha (and that might have been with a view towards her eventually becoming the heroine of her own series, same as with Echo).

Visually, yes. I'm trying to think of what I'd want from a CMF series whose theme I don't much care about. A minifig consisting of legs, torso, head, not hair or headgear just seems lazy. (Yes I know that's not all of them but it's some of them at least.) Especially for a CMF series. and Uh, no. It's called having different tastes. Snobbery is telling people that your taste is better than theirs, which is what you are doing, not what I'm doing. I'm not saying that you liking animated movies is wrong in some way! I'm saying I personally don't care for them as much as I care for non-animated movies. I also have only a limited amount of spare time and a large stack of stuff I do want to watch that I've been putting off due to lack of time. You going "But they're great movies! Every professional critic says they're great movies! If you don't want to watch them you must be a snob!" is exactly what I meant when I said that this theme doesn't have as much of a target group as others, and that you can't magically increase the target group by shoving it down people's throats. Honestly, it depends on the characters' visual appeal. The X-Men ones were very popular. And Agatha, for example - many people might not have known who she was but they saw a cool dress and hair and a fun facial expression, plus witches are interesting in general. Regular CMF series often have pretty random characters (like a potter or a knitter or an olympic medalist) but they're visually appealing with cool accessories. And the D&D characters, again, were popular with people who just liked fantasy in general. So if LEGO could find visually appealing Disney+ characters like, say, God Loki or Wiccan (with the crown) I don't think it would be a problem.

I'd be down for that. ;-) As for the CMF series: The fact that this forum is so divided about the very concept highlights what I've said about it not being a great idea. I haven't seen the animated movies (though I have seen "Madame Webb"), and while I'm sure they're very fine movies if you like that sort of thing, telling people to go watch them will only do so much. Plenty of people (myself included) just don't care a lot for animated series or movies. The second Marvel CMF series might not have been that great, but at least a majority of us were looking forward to it when it was announced. Same with the D&D and Space series - while not everyone might have liked the execution, people were going "Space! Finally!" all over the internet when it was announced. This time, even the Marvel appreciation forum here seems pretty divided, and that's not counting regular CMF collectors. I vaguely remember some of the Batman variants, like Batman in his bathrobe eating lobster. Those worked, I think, because they were visually striking and also because the general population know who Batman is and find the thought of him in his bathrobe eating lobster (while still wearing the mask) funny. But Spider-Man variants aren't that visually exciting to a regular collector for the most part, I mean most of them would not even have hair/headgear unless unmasked. And while the general public might vaguely know who Spider-Man/Peter Parker is, they might not care about a bunch of other Spider-people that aren't Peter Parker. I'm not saying, though, that the rumors are wrong. LEGO works in mysterious ways - I still can't believe anyone there okayed the Sorting Hat or the builable Chewbacca over at Star Wars. ;-) For everyone making lists, if this rumor is true then I'd expect there to be around 50% female characters. Partly because LEGO want us to know they care deeply about female representation (unless they're too busy giving us outdated misogynistic fantasies like Slave Leia, or ... well I'm trying not to go on a rant here). And partly because, like I've said, male Spider-Man variants aren't all that visually interesting. At least the three future Spider-Women from "Madame Webb" would have interesting hairpieces to make them more attractive to casual collectors.

Fair enough. I like it though, it's just the right shade of ostentatious to me. 😉 In other news I've recently seen the new Great Hall fully built. I have to say that in the flesh it does look much deeper and less cramped than the 2021 system. However that's kind of the problem for me because it doesn't really do anything with all that space. We get a large enclosed courtyard that's empty, also the troll bathroom looks really bad if you take the troll out (since the front half is clearly just meant to provide a place for it to stand). I guess it works better as a playset for moving around figs and such, but it's way too expensive for that, and for a display I actually prefer the old system. (Though you'd probably have to increase the Great Hall 's height to twice a module's height the way they did later with the Room of Requirement.) The new Hall looks pretty bare too and the sky ceiling isn't that attractive (even if I like the general idea). Also why is it daytime during a feast? That would have been the perfect opportunity to put on some reverse 1x1 round bricks in pearl gold (for stars) and a glow in the dark "boat stud" for a full moon.

By the way, I've recently seen the X-Mansion fully built next to other sets (specifically flanked by the UCS Burrow and Orthanc, with the Natural History Museum nearby) and it still looks way overpriced to me. I got the feeling that its volume is about equal to the Burrow (if you imagine the Burrow horizontal rather than vertical) which is of course also licenced yet way cheaper. The back alley of the Mansion looks bad too - like "large panels with sticker" bad. The figs and the Sentinel seem to be the only draw at least from the outside.

Didn't they do a series with Batman variants for one of the LEGO Batman movies some time ago? I wonder how that one sold. Because while I'm glad you can all get your favourite characters, I too doubt the average CMF collector needs a bunch of Spider-people. Plus Morbius is already available as a fig, we're getting actual Spiderverse sets, and the Madame Webb movie isn't exactly a blockbuster either. Odd choice in my opinion.

Well, the concept could still be improved if you want to combine all the desirable elements. How about, say, robot Spider-Man in a police car vs flying space dinosaurs? 😉

For those who want to add more nefarious characters to their Wizarding Worlds, I've recently acquired an older fig that might work: nex067 Ruina from Nexo Knights. The head is probably a bit much for HP, but look at that witchy dress and Bellatrix' hair in Bright Light Blue! Right now I'm thinking shopkeeper or customer in Knockturn Alley, what about you?

Me neither. The Big Bad was just an example. As of now, we barely have any ideas who the new Avengers are going to be (unless you count the post-credits scene of "The Marvels" where Kamala visits Kate Bishop and mentions Cassie Lang)! Surely the remaining movies in between now and the fifth "Avengers" movie will have to establish some kind of continuity, whether it is introducing the Big Bad, introducing the new Avengers, or something else. And Deadpool and Wolverine can still be in "Secret Wars" as long as you give them some kind of introduction for the kids in the audience who don't know Deadpool (I'm assuming everyone knows Wolverine). I'm not saying that the R-rated portions of the MCU have to be entirely self-contained. Just that it won't work making most of the MCU R-rated since you'd lose too much of your target audience group. That's an interesting theory. But I can't really see it. The Thunderbolts are all B- or C-listers in my opinion; and Falcon!Cap's really not much better. Is that enough to replace the likes of Tony Stark? Plus why would Marvel have spent to much time introducing us to teenaged replacements of the old Avengers if none of them feature in the roster? I'm assuming that Spider-Man's in the Avengers for sure, and probably Kamala, Kate Bishop, Cassie Lang. (America I'm less sure about since she'd have to go from "novice sorcerer" to "full-fledged sorcerer" basically off-screen in order to replace Dr Strange.) Of course they might always be a second team of Young Avengers or something, so we'll see. The newly "improved" quote made my day! And you're absolutely right. I've said before that R-rated Marvel movies - no matter how well they do at the box office overall - would cause Marvel to lose out on a significant portion of their box office target audience - but of course merchandising partners like LEGO would lose out to. I'm not saying that a Deadpool set rated 18+ wouldn't do well but we already know they won't make one. And I very much doubt that, say, enough grown men would buy enough Deadpool shirts, briefs, gloves, caps, bed sheets, and pajamas in adult sizes to make up for the loss of Marvel-branded stuff normally sold to kids.

Honestly that sounds like a rather better concept than "Thor: The Dark World" ;-) I don't think we'll ever get Mobius, to be honest. I like the character a lot, but appearance-wise he's just a guy in a brown suit. The same holds true for most of the Loki cast. I've said before that I can only see us getting visually appealing characters from there (say, Renslayer in period dress, Sylvie in her McDonald's uniform, Old Loki or of course God Loki). After all the CMF series has to appeal not only to Marvel fans but to CMF collectors as well. The problem isn't just whether you can "bust the box office with an R-rated movie". Obviously you can, or else there wouldn't be much of a market for, say, hardcore horror or erotic thrillers. The problem is that the MCU usually builds its universe from one movie to the other (excepting obvious outliers like the Deadpool movies). Marvel Studios are already in a bind because they had to scrap the Kang storyline, so much of what would have been the build-up for the next Avengers movies (like Kang's appearances in "Ant-Man 3" and "Loki") no longer counts. They've only a couple of movies left to get us invested in a new Big Bad. Which was probably the main rationale behind choosing Dr Doom, as they had an upcoming FF movie and would have been hard-pressed to shove another antagonist in it. But R-rated movies can't really establish continuity because a significant portion of the MCU's current audience - from the teens who like Spider-Man and Ms Marvel to the "family outing" crowd - will be prevented from watching them. Again, there's clearly a market for Deadpool movies, but I don't think it overlaps all that much with your everyday MCU movie-goer.

I'd think so,too. She isn't exactly important to the movies. Her only iconic scene is the Mandrakes one, in which case the ear protection makes sense. But if you want to MOC her, any curly gray hairpiece should do!

You can always think of them as a lot of owl droppings if that helps. ;-) Or, alternatively: Within the same set (2024 Great Hall) it's Halloween in the dungeons and Christmas in the Hall. And it gets worse if you sub in the Potions Class as recommended because then Snape is holding lessons during either of these feasts. If LEGO doesn't care about timelines, why should you? ;-)

They weren't all, though. For example, the Disney Maleficient Dragon set was pictured as a diorama with minifigures, and ended up as a playset with minidolls. The Medieval Market Square had way more animals in the survey than the finished product has (which seems comparable to complaints about missing X-Men figures to me). They might also have taken the survey results into account - for example, @JeanGreyForever told us that he complained about the lack of Jean Grey in the X-Men set. If enough people did, that might have convinced them to change the line-up. (Though I'm half convinced that most of the survey users had to have been trolling them - I mean would you really get a bunch of random people who aren't even necessarily into LEGO to go "Buildable Sorting Hat that looks like a turd and squeaks out 'Gryffindor'? Yeah, I'd totally pay EUR 100 for that!") Also, the usual place currently has a leak up of cancelled sets. Some of them were cancelled completely and at least one was cancelled, then released under a different set number. So there's clearly a lot going on behind the scenes that we can't even guess at.

Regarding the construction figures: Harry Potter reportedly gets a buildable Hagrid and Harry with a motorbike in January. That sounds like an awful idea to me on so many levels (HP is heavily tending towards builable crap over minifigure playsets anyway, and apart from the very high-priced ones they are mostly very badly designed; Hagrid is half-giant with a very bulky stature, while Harry's a slender teenager or possibly a baby in this scenario; and the figs have to be poseable enough to sit on the motorbike/in the sidecar) but it seems that they're trying to do more with buildable figures instead of less. Of course, they also seem to be trying to shove Dreamzzz down our throats lately (Dreamzzz minifigure parts in BAM, Dreamzzz taking up excessive space in the catalogue including the front cover ...) and I've heard people say that Dreamzzz isn't doing all that well. I certainly see their sets warming the shelves often enough. So it could be a last-ditch effort to recoup their investment in both cases. We just don't know.

Maybe they've realized that plenty of people will buy any set for the figs as long as they are new variants?

This! Captain Marvel's one of my favourite Marvel characters and I might well be the only person here who genuinely liked "The Marvels", but I didn't even consider getting the set. Not only was it absurdly priced, but also Yet Another Space Ship just didn't appeal to me. If they had to go that route with just a single set for the movie - and I can see why they did, given the current state of the MCU -, they should have put in one or two figs (say, a new Captain Marvel plus Kamala or even Dar-Benn) with a cheap, small build for the Hoopty, since I strongly suspect that no-one bought the set for the ship build anyway. That could have been EUR 20-30 or so and would surely have found some takers.

Yeah, but there's also a reason why Spider-Man does very, very well. Obviously there's a target group for both. The thing is, Deadpool is not representative of the MCU as a whole. No-one I know was looking forward to Deadpool & Wolverine for the story, characterisation, or anything like that - they wanted stupid one-liners and senseless violence. It's a one-off thing that somehow works, but you can't build an entire cinematic universe on it. And the same is true for Spider-Man, in a way - you cannot build an entire cinematic universe on Peter's juvenile problems along the lines of "OMG! The girl I like is sitting next to a guy who might also like her!". Previously, the MCU used to have a balance where both of these were outliers, and the actual backbone of the universe were people like Tony Stark and Doctor Strange who had adult lives and adult problems. I think that this would still work now, post-Endgame - except Marvel Studios seems to be systematically replacing the remaining adults (like Dr Strange, Captain Marvel, Ant-Man, Hawkeye) with teenagers (like America, Ms Marvel, Cassie Lang, Kate Bishop). The problem is not that most of them are female. The MCU definitely needs more female characters! It's that they're very underdeveloped characters (America especially could have easily been replaced with a literal silver suitcase in Dr Strange 2) with juvenile problems (like an army of Spider-Men, if you want) and that Marvel's preferred way of introducing them seems to consist of their berating and being at odds with the more established characters (which doesn't endear them to the audience either). Honestly, as an adult viewer the only one I find remotely tolerable is Kamala, and I wouldn't want to see an entire movie about her either. I'm here for what remains of my favourites - that is Dr Strange, Star-Lord, and Captain Marvel. If those three aren't in the next Avengers movie I might not even bother going. But for me that's not about PG-13 humor and violence. For me it's about the lack of characterisation. Making everything grittier and more violent won't help at all, in my opinion.

Not really? Just take a look at the leak for Malfoy Manor (76453). That set's EUR 150! Yet you can already see from the leak that probably only one figure (Dobby the elf) has dual-molded (apparently unprinted) legs and everyone else seems to have plain unprinted ones. Besides, I own quite a few HP sets and unprinted legs have definitely been the norm there recently. So while I agree that LEGO's skipping corners with Marvel that's not to say they don't do the same with HP.

German LEGO News Blog zusammengebaut has a review up of the Wednesday dorm set. In case anyone wants to get a look at the gargoyles that will also be used for Malfoy Manor:

Oh, absolutely! But it still looks like a better deal to me than that Manor, so that should tell you something. ;-)

That! I was questioning before how you could make a modular of a mansion that was 1.000 pieces less than the museum and somehow also included a large side build (the Sentinel). Now we know the answer is "You can, but it won't look good" :-( .

There's your LEGO crane. What do you mean it shouldn't cost EUR 680??? I think that might well be the first thing on this forum that we both agree on. ;-)

Hey! God Loki is not Disney+ trash. Well he's Disney+ but certainly not trash. (As for the rest I couldn't care less.)

If you like your LEGO sets as facades, that's of course fine. I personally don't. But I also don't see how what we get here is worth EUR 150 or 1.600 pieces. In my mind I compare it to, say, the 2021 Chamber of Secrets, Grimmauld Place, or the Hidden Side Haunted High School. All of those were cheaper (at least originally) and had fewer pieces, in some cases considerably fewer (and both Grimmauld Place and the High School had in-built mechanisms that needed extra pieces/space) but still looked at least as impressive. That's what I really mean by LEGO being cheap - I don't so much mind the price point but I just don't see the value here.

Grimmauld Place at least had a good excuse since the mechanism to hide the house required a certain room layout. This here just feels like LEGO being cheap. But like I've said, really shallow facades are the new normal. Just look at Gru's House from Minions (75583) from the back!