brickbride

I've posted earlier about WWW being on this year's EOL list and what this might mean for the future of the playset Diagon Alley series. For what it's worth, both Hogsmeade Village Visit and the Shrieking Shack (with the Whomping Willow) are on the EOL list, too. This probably means the end of further Hogsmeade expansions at least in the current iteration (since three of the most popular locations go EOL and one of the remaining ones is a pub which LEGO seem to have serious reservations about). Currently, all that's left on shelves of Hogsmeade will be the station (with the Hogwarts Express). Also on the list are the cobbled-together Forbidden Forest: Magical Creatures set and the Draco polybag, both of which didn't even make it a year from their March 2024 release date (though I'm less surprised by a polybag not having a long shelf life). Expecto Patronum, the Quidditch Trunk, and the Second Task from the Triwizard Tournament didn't make it all that much longer (as did the latest expansions to the 2021 modular Hogwarts, but in their case it makes sense to clear the shelves for the new system).

'Tis the time of year again for Christmas wish and EOL lists, and 2023's Diagon Alley: WWW is on the latter. I wouldn't have expected this. Shouldn't a Diagon Alley set have a longer running time? The 2020 D2C is still on shelves! And WWW was followed by Ollivander's and Madam Malkin's just this year! If the information is right, I can think of three scenarios: 1) LEGO are continuing with the Diagon Alley playset series but are weaponizing FOMO (Fear of missing out), wanting us to buy each new entry as soon as it hits the shelves instead of stopping to think of the price or how the end result (the completed Alley) might look. If you're a latecomer who only starts collecting in 2025 and therefore misses out on one of the most iconic shops? Tough luck. 2) WWW sold way below expectations and they are discontinuing the series. One piece of evidence for this might be that the newer set is in fact just called "Ollivander's and Madam Malkin's", not "Diagon Alley: Ollivander's and MM's" the way WWW was. 3) They are going to reboot the Diagon Alley playset series already starting (again) with WWW, the most iconic location next to Gringotts. 3) sounds unlikely to me, since that would mean we'd either get two different WWW's within the space of three years or there'd be no WWW on the shelves at all despite Diagon Alley sets doing well (since if they were intending on redoing it later than 2025 they could push back the EOL date by at least a year). 1) and 2) sound about equally likely to me, leaning slightly towards 2) based on purely anecdotal evidence. It's worth noting that WWW is among the sets currently discounted for LEGO's Insiders Weekend at least in Germany. This might point to it not selling that well, though it's currently one of only two discounted sets that have sold out (the other being the beloved Ninjago City Gardens). What do you think?

I think it's an amalgamation. It certainly doesn't match the layout of the newer LEGO sets (for example the Magical Menagerie came with Gringotts in 2023, but is now located elsewhere, and Madam Malkin's came with Ollivander's in 2024 but they're not even on the same side of the street) and only partly matches the layout of the 2020 one (for example Fortescue's is still next to Flourish & Blotts and Ollivander's is next to Scribbulus, but QQS looks completely different now and doesn't seem to adjoin the Daily Prophet either). Nor does it match the layout of Wizarding World Florida where, for example, QQS would be located next to WWW. That said, @Accio Legohas already identified a lot of the shops. If I'm right about the Owl Post Office that would mean all the playset shops starting from 2023 are in there, and it would then make sense to me that LEGO are using the same layout here that will be the eventual endgame of the playset line. So we should definitely get Sugarplum's (which has been teased in the WWW set) as well as the Daily Prophet (which has not yet been identified here but was in the 2020 set and should therefore eventually show up in the playset line. Plus then they could reuse the existing Rita Skeeter figure).

Sugarplum's (for which we had a sign in the 2023 WWW set) is pink at the bottom according to photographs, so I guess it could be one of the unidentified buildings to the right of QQS. Another one that's pink at the bottom is the Fountain of Fair Fortune, I guess that could be the one next to it? Wiseacre's is indeed blue and could be either of the unidentified blue buildings (next to either QQS or Ollivander's). The Owl Post Office could possibly be the tall, narrow facade next to Flourish & Blotts. The gold in the windows would fit, though I don't actually see any owls in the microscale set. https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-owl-post-in-diagon-alley-at-the-wizarding-world-of-harry-potter-expansion-73591439.html We're also missing the Daily Prophet from the 2020 DC, though that building's fairly inconspicious (I'm always going by the previous set/Florida Wizarding World versions). Any ideas where it might be?

Nope. For the record I wouldn't have bought it with minifigs either, vehicles simply aren't my thing. But given that minifigs are LEGO's best argument against people turning to other brands I don't understand their reluctance to include them in sets from a business perspective. And the Icons Hedwig looked great and I actually own the Hungarian Horntail, I'm just against LEGO flooding us with brick-built crap that either doesn't need to be brick-built or should never have been made, period (like the Sorting Hat) at the expense of everything else. The set is plain ugly. It looks like a cheap knock-off. We're allowed to feel this way.

Thank you! Good spot on the kitten, too. The gray made it hard for me. And that's supposed to be a phone booth? Honestly I wouldn't have guessed but it makes sense. Going by the sets we have had so far, the Daily Prophet (from the 2020 Diagon Alley set) and the Owl Post Office (from 2023's WWW) should be somewhere in there as well. As well as Sugarplum's based on a sign in the WWW set.

I'm baffled that it's 2.750 pieces, from what it looks like it feels like a lot less. @Accio LegoCould you tell me which shops you can identify? I'm especially curious which one's QQS, since the pink front from the 2020 Diagon Alley set seems to be missing entirely.

It's not stylish, just horribly inconsistent to me. Hagrid has proper hands, Harry has 1x1 round plates/tiles instead. Hagrid has a brick-built face with no printing, not even for the eyes; Harry has a single piece with an awful eye print on it. They're both ugly in my opinion, but they also don't even look like they belong in the same set. And to make it worse Hedwig not only looks just as bad but has a much more elaborate print than Harry (he doesn't have a nose or mouth but she has a beak) for yet more inconsistency. To me it appears like the designer was completely overwhelmed by the task of designing three vastly differently sized brick-built figs, and the result looks like a hot mess. Hagrid alone wouldn't have been nearly as bad.

My first thoughts: hahahahaha they can't be serious. Those faces! Whoever thought this was a good idea? A better idea than the Battle of Seven Potters with actual minifigs? On the bright side, Hedwig at Privet Drive is no longer the worst version of Hedwig ever. And I'm baffled they even included her given what happens to her in that very scene.

Honestly I cannot believe that anyone doesn't think this set is overpriced. Compare it to the Natural History Museum if you like that better - yes that one's not licenced either, but it's way bigger and just looks way better, too. Or else compare it to other licenced sets like the UCS Burrow, the result's the same. I've seen the X-Mansion in person next to other sets, it's tiny and the back looks really cheap, all stickered panels. I know that LEGO like to increase prices for licenced sets, especially for Disney Princesses and Marvel, and blame it on licence costs. That might very well be true but it doesn't always mean they're worth the extra money (in my opinion, of course yours may differ) and it doesn't mean we as buyers should encourage it. If you always pay for what you get, you'll always get what you pay for. Or, if enough Marvel fans keep buying overpriced Hoopties and X-Men-Jets and X-Mansions because "licenced sets just are this expensive", don't be surprised when LEGO continue seeing what they can get away with during the next wave.

2025's modular building (Tudor Corner) has leaked. It has about 200 pieces more than the X-Mansion and costs EUR 100 less, just in case anyone was still wondering whether the X-Mansion is overpriced.

For a little variety, the beanie-and-hair combo is also available in red-and-blond (6490731). (Sorry @Yperio_Bricks, now you have to edit the smilie again ... ;-))

It's of course fine if you feel that way. And maybe I'll watch it someday when I have the time (after I've reached the end of my stack). But different people like different things a different amount, and there are simply things I like more than animated movies. On the other hand, I think that "Agatha All Along" was great, a close second to "Loki". I liked "The Marvels". I even thought "Madame Webb" was fairly decent within its limitations and had more interesting female characters, even/especially supporting ones, than most Marvel movies. (Though the ending was terrible and needed more precise foreshadowing and some of the plot holes were at least Marvel-sized.) More people should give that movie a chance if you ask me! But I don't get offended when strangers on a forum don't like those things or don't even plan on watching them, and I definitely wouldn't call them snobs for having different tastes. (Though I know that was Agent Kallus, not you.)

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? ;-)