brickbride

Could be. Though I could also see them doing the passage to connect with a set that doesn't yet exist, like the kitchens or the Chamber of Secrets. Or even Snape's classroom. The old one (4705) did have a secret passage after all.

I'm not sure about the auto-translation, but I gather that Buckbeak won't be in the tradition of Hedwig, Fawkes, and the Horntail with flappable wings - more in the tradition of maybe the patronus set? (The way I understand it, you can move the wings but there isn't a mechanism for it.) Also the Great Hall seems to include dungeons of a sort (for the troll), but not Snape's classroom (as that's extra) nor the Chamber of Secrets (which isn't year one and also surely would have been explicitly mentioned)?

So, what about that leaked Quicksilver torso from some time ago? When I mentioned that I wasn't sure it was legit, I was immediately shot down. But there's no Quicksilver anywhere in this line-up ... Anyone knows about productions times, that is, would it be likely for a torso to have been leaked some time ago for a set that can only come out in 2025 at the earliest? 'Cause all that we're missing for 2024 now is the X-Mansion, right?

For those interested, German Youtuber Held der Steine has reviewed the X-Men jet. He calls it the worst set of the year and worse than the Hoopty. Apart from the price - obviously -, he particularly criticises the lackluster figures. I have to say that the printing on Rogue and Wolverine especially does look pretty bad in his video.

Why? The fact that nearly everyone in JK's world is white, heterosexual, and able-bodied is an oft-mentioned source of criticism. Surely in this age and climate, and with JK being JK, they'll take this into account. I fully expect them to go the diversity route - but as I've said, JK's setting doesn't lend itself to it without some changes. Why do you think LEGO is that fond of minor characters like Blaise and Professor Sinistra, will put random diversity students into the Hogwarts Express over story-relevant characters such as adult Ron and Hermione, or will include a student in a wheelchair in sets even though there isn't one in either the books or the movies? And I've seen a ton of fanfics reimagining Harry as of Indian descent (apparently solely based on his having black hair) and Hermione as biracial (apparently solely based on her having bushy hair). The demand for more diversity in HP is clearly there. And LGBTQ representation is the best way for them to prevent activist groups from calling for a boycott of a JK adaptation. It just makes sense commercially.

According to leaks, the next LEGO Diagon Alley set 76439 will feature a Hogwarts student in a wheelchair. That's why I used this specific example. I wouldn't actually mind seeing a flying wheelchair, but I'd expect a TV show to at maximum stick a wheelchair-user in the background of a group scene with no regard to how that would work in practice. That's what I meant re: low expectations, I apologize if it wasn't clear.

Yeah, I'm in two minds about that show. On the one hand, as has already been pointed out, the movies weren't great and could do with a makeover. For example, Alan Rickman, God rest him, was completely wrong for the role of Snape. I want my angry thirty-something Snape from the books, not a sixty-ish guy suffering from terminal ennui. And some explanation about the name Half-Blood Prince would be nice, too! On the other hand: The books aren't that great, either, and could do with a makeover, which I'm not sure a TV Show can or will provide. For example: I'm sure they'll throw in more diversity and representation, but that would also necessite changes in the setting. Does Hogwarts have dorms for non-binary students? If we're so inclusive, why do all the girls have to wear uniform skirts? How would a wheelchair user (as we've seen in one recent LEGO set) even get around Hogwarts with no elevators and all the moving stairs? It would change the look and feel of the setting, not sure if WB wants that. And then, the story has been done to death (quite literally in many cases). Sure I'd like them to delve deeper into Snape's character and background, but am I going to watch and get invested just for him to be killed off again in such a wasteful manner? I expect many people feel the same about Sirius. Who's going to be excited for Harry/Ginny or Ron/Hermione, the two main pairings that didn't work that well even in the books? At least Fantastic Beasts or Game of Thrones had the element of surprise! I think if they do this, then all bets should be off - yes, Harry will defeat Voldemort, but it won't happen the same way. Maybe some characters will survive, maybe others will die, maybe Hermione will marry Viktor Krum - we don't know. JK clearly has no problem butchering her own Canon as seen from FB vs HP, so why not reboot things? And from a LEGO perspective, such a reboot would also give us a ton of new set options, akin to Marvel's What If series. (I fully expect this to be a controversial proposal, but I really think it makes the most sense in term of creating and maintaining audience interest. Cue the disagreements.)

Thank you for that useful and constructive comment./s Luckily I don't need your approval in order to enjoy what I enjoy.

Just popping in to say that I've finally seen "The Marvels" - and I really liked it, way more than I thought I would! I mean it's certainly not the greatest movie ever, but it's equally certainly better than, say, "Eternals" (which I didn't think was that bad either, just way too slow-moving, giving everyone ample time to ponder the amount of plot holes in its script) or the awful disaster that was "Quantumania". I think the box office figures have more to do with the lack of promo (due to the strike) and the public's general fatigue with the MCU than with the film's quality. Also, the movie comes after "Secret Invasion" but ignores - and in many cases outright contradicts - all of it. Possibly this is due to timing (seeing as "The Marvels" has been delayed repeatedly, and at the same time the production process of "Secret Invasion" seems to have been a hot mess). But if Marvel wants us to watch all their Disney+ shows in order to understand the movies, that's bad enough; if the movies then contradict the shows, the resulting mess is not really doing anyone any favours. So yeah, to me it still feels as if the MCU is going downward fast. I'm just sad that it's taking Captain Marvel down with it, as I love Brie Larson's take on the character. And the scene underscored by the song "Memory" was just genius. ;-) LEGO-wise, though, they could have done so much more instead of just "Here's Carol's ship. our three heroines, and some Flerkins". What about Dar-Benn? What about a Skrull or two? What about a Kree ship, even? Even with only one set per movie, it would have been easy to make something that people would want for itself (regardless how they feel about the movie).

That's some really great planning by Marvel Studios. Not. First, let's introduce the new Big Bad for our cinematic universe in a Disney+ show (admittedly a very good one, but still, a tv show) and in what has to be the worst Marvel movie EVER (Quantumania) - and seriously, what about the box office figures of the previous two Ant-Man movies made them think people would want to watch this one? Even Ant-Man and the Wasp, which was by far the best of the lot AND came out right after Infinity War for a huge box office bonus, doesn't exactly have great box office numbers! Then you replace the aforementioned Big Bad (which by the way I agree with) and suddenly make an R-rated movie - with a main character even many adult moviegoers would find a bit too much - the new linchpin of your cinematic universe? Add to that the sliiiiiiight problem that by now, Marvel's retired or killed off nearly all of the characters moviegoers had ANY reason to care about, and replaced them with some B-Listers and a bunch of teenagers - yeah, I really don't think this is going to end well. Sorry for the movie-centric rant, but I think it does have some bearing on LEGO. We've already seen the downward swing of the MCU reflected in the amount of sets, I think Eternals and Wakanda Forever were the last ones with more than one set each (and I'm sure LEGO's regretting those decisions).

HP has what the designer claims is a battle pack (I don't agree): 76432 with two named figures (Ron & Hermione), one large named animal (Buckbeak the hippogriff), one medium unnamed animal (baby thestral) and three small unnamed animals (pixie, spider, bat). The total number of parts according to Brickset is 172, the price is EUR 29.99. Just putting this out there. On the other hand, the final product for the medieval market square has just leaked. It has about the same number of minifigs as the survey leak (eight), though they don't match the survey leak which mentioned a court jester amongst others. More importantly, the only large-ish animal in the final product is a goat when the survey leak ALSO included two sheep, a mother and baby cow, and a horse! So it can swing both ways.

Set 10332 Medieval Town Square leaked on Reddit. It contains eight figures, mostly civilians whose clothing might be of interest. As well as the goat from the latest CMF series, but in gray (dark bluish gray, I think?). Other stuff, such as details from the buildings or the various foodstuffs, might also be of interest.

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.