brickbride

1. Nobody disagrees. 2. Yes, I know. The point is that battle-packs contain MULTIPLES of ONE thing. The "otter battle-pack" has two otters, the "seal battle-pack" has two seals, Santa's Sled (also known as the "reindeer battle-pack") has a whopping four reindeer, and so on. The general idea is that you can buy multiple sets to build yourself an army (or a herd, or a colony, or a bevy, or whatever). But I've never heard of a "battle-pack" that contains only one each of several different creatures. And as you've said, battle-packs are supposed to be good value for money, which this one clearly isn't, either. The term just seems misplaced here.

Do you mean you doubt that they have those parts lying around from unsold sets? Yeah, I didn't mean that literally and I'm sure the original poster @icm didn't either. It makes no real sense to imagine that some employee would sift through unsold Sirius Black's Rescue sets, taking out the hippogriffs and discarding all the other pieces. :-) That said, if the Sirius Black set sold well, I'm sure it's solely because people wanted the hippogriff. The set doesn't really have anything else to recommend it. The Thestral Carriage is different. I don't own it because it's not to my tastes, but as I've written before - two popular figs, two large molded animals (including an entire new mold), and a substantial build for EUR 20? That ticks a lot of boxes. When the Forbidden Forest set with buckbeak was announced, I called it right away that they'd use a Cornish Pixie and a baby Thestral as well, as they hadn't gotten all that much use out of these molds previously. I find it weird, though, that the designer calls it a "battle-pack". For one thing, battle-packs usually have several of the same, not a random assortment of one each. For another, it's way overpriced for a battle-pack. Who's going to buy multiples of this? And if they are - for a herd of baby Thestrals with no adults, or a herd of hippogriffs that for some reason all look identical to Buckbeak -, what are they to do with all the Rons and Hermiones? Play Hogwarts: Clone Wars?

Given that the hippogriff was only in the poorly designed and overpriced Sirius Black set, that part at least wouldn't surprise me at all.

I'm pretty sure the Black Panther bust had more to do with the actor's death, not that anyone at TLG would say so out loud. And anyway - given that their gamble with the bust (based off one very popular film followed by a much less successful sequel) clearly hasn't paid off, I very much doubt they'd do it again. Especially for Captain Marvel, since The Marvels seems to set new records for the least-grossing MCU movie, though admittedly that's with the MCU as a whole in full downward swing. That's not to say there won't be large D2Cs based off older, high-grossing movies. But I'd expect them only for movies with a bankable main character (in Marvel, basically Iron Man or Spiderman or, just maybe, the Guardians as a group).

Are we sure about that? What about the inconsistencies? Say, the white windows in the Hospital Wing vs. the black windows elsewhere. Or the fact that the "Great Hall" was just the height of a regular room, but the Room of Requirement was double that. Or the glowing Nearly Headless Nick in the Chamber of Secrets to go with the non-glowing Gray Lady (who in turn fit with the non-glowing Nick from the old Great Hall set). I got more of a feeling that they were making it up as they went along. Funnily enough, when I pointed out how inaccurate the boats for the boathouse were, everyone here piled on me like "Why are you so negative, sure they shouldn't have paddles and sure they ought to sit four, but LEGO doesn't have to be accurate!". To each their own, is all I'm saying.

There was a Potions classroom in 2020's Astronomy Tower, so, not that long ago. That.

I'm not entirely new to LEGO, thanks for asking. I also don't quite get what you mean by your comment. The boats in this set are BRICK-BUILT. If they used the standard molded boats like in, say, the 4709 Hogwarts, those obviously couldn't sit four and I wouldn't complain - but there's no reason they couldn't include one brick-built boat that sits (or at least stands) four as opposed to two that each sit or stand two. And with the addition of not-needed paddles and the additional addition of McGonagall instead of Hagrid or at least Grubbly-Plank, it makes for some truly odd and Un-Canon choices.

Wow. A boathouse without doors would seem pretty useless to me, especially in a Scottish winter. But what do I know. Here's a pic confirming that in the movies (as in the books), there's more than two students to a boat and they don't freaking ROW them, either. Obviously. https://harrypotter.fandom.com/wiki/Hogwarts_boats (I can't link the pic directly, so you have to click on the article.) The article even quotes that the boats move "without the aid of paddles"! By the way, I called it that they wouldn't have gone all the way up to the Battle of Hogwarts AND released the "complete modular Hogwarts" picture if they hadn't finished with the old modular system, and that seems to in fact be the case. (The Chamber of Secrets going on sale this Black Friday fits with that, too.) I'm curious how the new Hogwarts will look, the Owlery alone is hardly a very good indicator. Plus it's clearly a winter scene, so does that mean we're getting an entire Winter castle - or is that the reason they wintry aspect is so subdued compared to, say, Hogsmeade? So they can add on non-wintry parts and it will still look fairly cohesive?

First impressions: Flying Car - looks just as boring as I imagined. Privet drive - I'll admit my first thought upon seeing the picture was "HAHAHA THIS IS THE WORST VERSION OF HEDWIG SO FAR". I mean, so far the smaller buildable creatures haven't been great - the Patronus-mech thingie and Dobby -, but I thought LEGO could at least do owls. No, thanks. (That's not a criticism of the designer, by the way. As I've said before, it's our FOURTH buildable Hedwig within a few years, and obviously the one with flappable wings and the big Icons one had a much higher parts count and therefore looked much more finished. It's more a criticism of LEGO thinking we needed another one, AND then opting for THIS kind of scene.) Boathouse - How is that a "HOUSE"? It doesn't have DOORS! And nothing about it is (book) Canon; McGonagall shouldn't be here, it's four kids per boat not two, and they don't ROW - the boats move by magic! Who'd even expect first-years to know how to row across a lake? That doesn't make sense. That said, five figs for a set at this price point is really very good. Hagrid's Hut - not sure where the almost 900 pieces went on this (maybe the double floors?). I mean, that's about the same piece count as for the Great Hall! I'm also disappointed in Fang who looks ugly and blocky. I do like the figs (apart from a standard Draco) and Norbert. Owlery - that one actually looks pretty decent for the parts count; the wintry setting is not as overdone as in the Hogsmeade sets; we get more interesting figs than just the usual Trio, and WAY more owls than I'd expected. Definitely the best of the lot. Forbidden Forest - I called it that they'd use the baby thestral and the pixie in addition to the Hippogriff! And are the spider and the mushrooms glow-in-the-dark? Other than that, the trees are ugly as expected but the colours are nice for a night scene. The figs are boring. I wouldn't buy it at that price but it would make a good parts pack at a discount. Yeah, the Sorting Hat is still missing.

We-ell, we had the Owl Post with the Diagon Alley WWW set and that one had a whopping TWO. One of which was the SHOP SIGN! I wouldn't get my hopes up too high is all I'm saying.

Yeah, that's why I mentioned the No Way Home set: It's a well-received set from a very high-grossing movie. Another weird entry is Rivendell, which someone has mentioned in this thread despite it not being Marvel. It's a well-received set based on a reaaaally popular and timeless property. AND it's more or less exclusive. AND they said upon its release that other LotR sets would depend on its success, and we're allegedly getting another one next year, so Rivendell ought to have hit its sales targets - yet it STILL ends up discounted! (Repeatedly, at least on Amazon.de). Basically, my takeaway is this: These days even well-received sets based on popular movies should have no trouble hitting minus 35 percent or, in the case of exclusives like Rivendell, at least minus 20 percent. If either of those isn't true - if either the set or the movie isn't that popular -, well, let's see how quickly we get to those 50 percent. Though in the case of something like the Hoopty, LEGO clearly have been stacking the deck to begin with: "We fear there might be backlash against the movie, so the set will have to go on clearance! I have an idea: Why don't we make it 50 percent more expensive than it should be, so we'll still make a tidy profit when it's sold on clearance? That way, everyone's happy!"

I'm pretty sure you'll get your wish, but how does that reflect the results of the movie? The other day I saw the Spiderman No Way Home final battle for more than 35% off, and that movie's the third highest grossing in the MCU (and the only non-Avengers movie in the top five). Black Panther was well-received. The Black Panther bust was not. On the other hand, Thor 4 was hardly a fan favourite, but the Goat Boat seems to be.

Are we sure now that it's a legitimate leak and not a fake? Last I heard, that was still unclear. It does over in HP. The most obvious example is the lack of Goyle in the new Room of Requirement. Even though they already had a ready-made Goyle face and hair (from Polyjuiced Harry in the Polyjuice Potions Mistake set) and even though Goyle casts the fire spell which features very prominently in the set. But they might handle it differently across themes, fair enough.

Yes, I think they have a more mainstream audience than superhero movies or even Indiana Jones. Which is fine, but those probably aren't the sort of adult viewers to get excited about LEGO sets. And again, the movie's absolutely unsuitable for kids. The smallest new set, the Ilu Discovery, is 8+, but who'd let their eight-year-old watch that movie? So you'd just get "two little blue men and a fish-dragon-thingie". I think most kids would prefer the cooler-looking Ninjago dragons and figs, or even Dreamzzz. Bottom line: I can see SOME of the Avatar sets appealing, like the Soul Tree, if they look cool enough on their own. But not the majority. And I wonder if LEGO knew what the movie was going to be like when they agreed to make sets for it. The cast of figs for the Mako Sub (one character who kids might actually like, one school bully, one character who dies in the movie, and the main bad guy) makes me doubt it. /OT AoU came out in 2015, nearly ten years ago. If they haven't made an AoU set with Quicksilver by now, they're clearly not in a hurry to. It might have to do with the fact that he dies in that movie? LEGO seem to shy away from that for the most part (not always, though). Also, Quicksilver would actually be well-known to casual X-Men fans from the more recent movies. And he's not played by the same actor as the MCU Quicksilver or even the same character, really, so I doubt many moviegoers would consider the two "the same". Scarlet Witch is clearly associated with the MCU due to several appearances in movies that were either huge box office successes (Infinity War) or fairly recent (Dr Strange MoM), plus her own streaming series. If - like MCU Quicksilver - she'd only ever appeared in one movie several years back, I doubt we'd be getting figs of her today.

While the movies are definitely blockbusters, do we actually know that Avatar LEGO sets sell well? I just notice them on clearance a lot. I'm also not quite sure who'd buy them, given that the second movie is absolutely not suitable for kids.

Tell that to the Hufflepuff banner! ;-) (Though I fully accept your correction about the Room of Hidden Things. In fact, I own the set now and look forward to building it, and the Pixies is a cute detail even if not something I'd have associated with the Room at all.)

I'm not so sure about that (and the Mario one, too). Can you imagine showing off your collection to fellow flower enthusiasts? "Here's my new rose bouquet ... Here's the wildflower bouquet in a vase ... There's the daffodils ... The tulips, of course ... Oh, and here's a screaming baby someone's stuck into a pot!" One of these things is not like the others, is all I'm saying.

A Niffler. Yes, one, in singular. And it's on a sticker. That would be my guess based on empirical evidence, anyway. EDIT: On a slightly more serious note, I wouldn't be surprised by a Cornish Pixie. Those are hardly native to the Forbidden Forest, but LEGO wouldn't care - they've already stuck them into two previous sets where they didn't belong, they might as well get some more use out of the mold, especially since I'd guess the Chamber of Secrets set they'd made it for (and really the entire modular Hogwarts) is nearing EOL. And/or a baby Thestral. That's another mold that hasn't seen much use, and the Thestral Carriage set won't be around forever, either.

Fourth Hedwig, actually. Don't forget the pencil holder one!

StoneWars has a list, too. Maybe that helps? https://www.stonewars.de/news/lego-pick-a-brick-eol-2023/

And Dreamzzz is apparently the new HP - the cheapest set in its leaked summer wave amounts to EUR 30. 'Cause nothing says "targeting kids" like exclusively making sets you can't afford on an allowance. Regarding the mandrake: I called it some time ago that HP 2024 would be buildable objects galore, but this is getting ridiculous very fast. If we HAVE to have buildable potions ingredients, at least give us Snape's jar of creepy-crawlies he keeps in his office! A lot of us adults work in offices and like Snape. I'm just saying. ;-)

Just popping in to say: For those interested, German youtuber Held der Steine has a video review of the Hoopty up. Apart from the price - obviously -, he also complains about the build. Specifically, the lack of boat studs on the underside (it just stands flat on the table) and the lack of design for the overhanging part of the roof in the back, which isn't prettied up on the underside - the same for the inside of the cockpit walls. The slit on the roof, while necessary, also looks bad. I have to say, looking at it in the video it does seem like a truly lackluster design. As if the price alone weren't bad enough! And of course the name. I mean, I realize that last one isn't LEGO's fault. But if you HAVE to put an overpriced vehicle called "a heap of junk" on the shelves, the design had better be beyond reproach, just so you're able to avoid the really, really obvious headlines. Still no idea what they were thinking with this one.

But again, would kids want them? Maybe Fleur, I guess, but all of them have fairly minor roles, and both Percy and Scrimgeour aren't well-liked. The average HP advent calendar has only six figs. Generell, I'd expect two to three of these spots to go to the Trio, and at least one or two others to well-known characters (Draco, Dumbledore, Snape ...). I read "brick-built basilisk" and immediately thought of the one in the 2018 Great Hall set. Am I the only one? 😉 By the way, I saw Gringotts assembled in person the other day. It looks impressive but not, to me, EUR 430 impressive. I did like the detail (a sticker, unfortunately, I think) of an ad on the side-build where it says "Multiply your fortune". With a picture of golden cups next to it. 😉

How about the camping trip in DH? It's apparently popular with AFOLs and you can't get any more boring peaceful than that. Most days' builds would be a tree. Paired with the occasional new minifig variant like Sulky Ron or Whiny Hermione. (Yes, DH is absolutely my favourite book of the series, just in case you couldn't tell.)

Well, over at Star Wars they did have a 4+ set with an AT-ST on the Ewok Homeworld, so you don't know what goes on in their heads: "It's never too early to introduce kids to slaughter!", maybe? Also, like I've pointed out before, the official description of 75951 wants YOU to be Grindelwald ("Flap the Thestral’s wings to make a flying escape!"), so yeah. But on the whole, I agree that an AC based on the wedding, or anything DH really, is not that likely.