Dorayaki

I would say there is still sixteen since I can ignore Alien and Buzz firstly. I think Peter Pan, Stitch and Incredibles are the main issues cause they are all able to introduce female candidates but they don't. Despite I'm glad to see two villainess' this time, I really hope to see more non-princess heroines to shine. Hope next time we have Lilo, Tinkerbell/Wendy and Miss Incredible in series 2. As for Simpsons series 2, though it reintroduced the whole Simpsons members with new variations, I don't think Disney series 2 would do the same. We might see a Fantasia Mickey but the rest of seats should better be for the Mickey&Friends cast who don't appear this time.

I guess that is the main reason why this discussion thread have over 100+ pages. We could name exceptions of characters from several license (Simpsons is one of most the known cases from all) . Not to say this time Disney has way much more franchises than others and exceptions should be inevitable.To me, the ultimate ideal outcome is that newer figures could be visually compatible with the figure collection we had so far. Unless newer figures try to get rid of things we didn't like from older figures.

I would say I don't hate both hairpices.... but just why both? If there is a reason why LEGO cannot bring the original hairpiece from the minidoll into the blind bag, my doubt is the fact that we've really rarely seen the rubber hairpieces used for minifigure characters, especially the licensed ones. But in general, I would say LEGO should save the money for another Disney character and just let Ariel keep her rubbish hairpiece.I personally kinda dislike the fact that every human-like character use normal column head, I mean, not all of them work, there should be some special cases, and Genie is one of them. I don't need to say more words for Buzz, just wonder if a possible future return of regular lineup could make all TS characters have column heads, or this series is just a special case? Alien..... uh.... I'm sure you can at least do a variant version, can't you LEGO? Cheshire Cat also looks not appropriate as a minifigure considering the Palace Pet series we've seen where every Disney animal is made into a new mold, i would choose Rabbit instead since he is more a human type character. This might also say Chip and Dale have very big chance to be minifigures in later series... uh ..... and so as Pluto? Overall I do still like this series cause there are definitely many long-waited characters for us to see. The other thing I'm not glad to see is Sitch is lonely in the whole LEGO world lineup. Seriously, I can exchange this Buzz with Lilo.

The new car rocks and the ladies look so gorgeous!! My musthave among all LEGO licesned sets this year

I would say they do respectively have very strong licenses, and some like Barbie and Transformers are even exclusive to them. The smart thing they know is to ultilize their other toy brands into a brick theme (excpet My Little Pony which is my favorite ). But still my main concern about them is not having a unified scale of figure or brick system. It sucks that Monster High and Barbie are even not compatible. So their merging generally do nothing good to their existed licenses unless they plan to have a big revolution. If we haven't confirmed LEGO Disney CMF series, I think there is also a good chance for Mattel+Hasbro to take over Disney brick toys just like their doll line. I agree that the competitors can drive LEGO do go stronger in either their other licenses or original franchises. But the possible bad news is that we might see more Spongebob/TMNT cases.

Well I think you know what I mean about Disney . As for TLM and LD, the main point is that one certain character cannot freely changed from one figure to another cause not just kids but adult audience would be confused.Duplo figure for example, there are now Duplo Superheroes and TLM had some hints about Duplo system. However, the chance that Batman would be represented as a Duplo figure or minidoll in hie upcoming film or TLM2 is, I think, almost 0%. (But would an independent Duplo figure / Duplo-brickbuilt character be introduced? Let's see) At most the storyline can make all three kinds of figures coexist to make it a joke scene. If that is the basic rule LEGO want to follow, I think the rest of minidoll themes, Friends and Elves, would not be represented as minidolls in each kind of LEGO media work. Aside from gender marketing, I think the lack of abilities is the secondary reason why minidolls are not used for licensed action themes in the first place. Kids would focus on its movaility and they would find out minidolls cannot fulfill their needs despite the female characters are more goodlooking.Unfortunately it shows that minidolls are overlooked by LEGO despite they won't disappear in short time. Minidolls have own firm market, but it's not good to see that LEGO does not want to do favors to either the figures or the characters to acknowledge their existence. It almost feels like Belville time despite now minidolls should go stronger.

The hard part is usually the neck. If it has a hole that closely fits the neck then it couldn't work for a minifigure. Uh but why does he does have to appear in this line? To not be another Frozen case or any other skipped Disney franchise, would like to see a regular lineup for Moana.

The thoughts behind these discussion was to expect that the regular line could provide minifigures so that customers could have more choices. I would say there is no reason to keep LEGO from adding minifigures to their minidoll sets, so that expectation is not wrong.So back to the topic, the question was whether the Beast's Castle was an exclusive to the CMF line so that it should be minifigures-only, and now it shows not. Wonder if we could see anything else like Mickey Clubhouse or Aurora's Castle instead, although the latter could be less possible in the future for the same reason.

This.Not having kids or babies is strange, considering they did exist in previous Belville figure system and they still seem options for current minidoll themes. in Friends' case, Emma's brother escaping from home was the biggest joke LEGO made. I would say it's just fine to make the dwarves remain as minifigures (because of their height), but not sure if LEGO agree.

Thanx for info. So perhaps I should start to work again....I cannot understand the purpose of the Tangled set too much, too. I believe LEGO could manage to find other interesting and iconic scenes from the story. And if it's still based on the tower, I can only tell that Gothel is trolled again.

When it comes to a new head mold, the main problem is its neck. Just like you may not put Marge's head onto a minidoll housewife even if the image works. The Beast head is okay to me.As for the set..... there are some major problems. I remembered that there are many sticked windows in Megablok Barbie and I believe that thing should not happen in LEGO. I also agree with the fact that LEGO sucks in scale. Elves or Nexo Knight either give more pieces and details. If the Princess line remain like this then Junior or Duplo would be where it should go.

Just in general, the major benefits from the whole Friends theme are the buildings rather than the figures. So far Friends' subthemes have introduced some like Camp, Superstar, Jungle Rescue series and many of them were definitely original. However, the Superstar lineup could be an exception since it's all about Livi and very story-oriented. If she's not as hot as a real superstar, I kinda doubt that Ninjago or Superheroes FOLs would try hard to get her sets.You do point out the consistency issue. I believe that most new KFOLs can notice that both minidolls and minifigures are LEGO's properties, however, figures from other competitor brands, or even worse, clone brand issues are there. I think there is a reason why LEGO want to avoid that kind of thing cause they cannot encourage this happening. I personaly don't agree too much with the supermodel theory since minidolls were made to be cater to the market. Those characters who actually have the supermodel figure would still be minifigrues depending on which market group they're sold to. I'm a loyal FOL.... or I should say there's not too many other brick brands in my region so I cannot compare all of those figures. Anyway, just within K'Nex, if I guess right, is the franchise you meant called "Mighty Makers"? It looks like an extension from their own construction toy system despite their characters/figures look kinda like a copycat to me. Their Super Mario princess's also look very mini-dolly, but the Family Girls... not so much. LEGO is still one of they toy brands with most consistent figures, anyway. Megabloks is the classic reverse example, their Monster High figures are even different from Barbie despite they cover similiar market .Just in LEGO's viewpoint, as long as minidolls are safe for 5yo kids, they can do Junior minidoll sets. Just wonder why they spend several years to do pink Junior minifigure sets before a Junior minidoll set this year? For more market research? In earlier cataloge or advertisings, minidolls can stand with minifigures, but now since it's very possible that we're gonna see both minifigures and minidolls in certain franchises like Disney or Superheroes, the theory would be that every LEGO character can be presented as either minifigure or minidoll. And if we follow the "consistency" path, that means we may only see either a whole-minifigure world or a whole-minidoll world depending on the viewpoint we choose.And usually LEGO's inclination is to choose minifigures as their major viewpoint. So at this point, although I support Friends to join either LD or TLM by all means, I think it would be awkward to see that all characters from other themes are minifigures but just Friends remain as minidolls. But in a realistic view, it could also be that Finn's sister bring her minidolls (which is her preference) into her brother Finn's minifigure world. That makes sense although would be different from a pure LEGO world viewpoint. As for LD... yeah, like you say, if Disney eventually joins then they could probably overshadow both Elves and Friends.

Cinderella's animals showed you how least work LEGO can do , or, at least they have to apply some catoonic prints instead.

It might sound greedy, but could be abit dissapointing if this is the only DP set (I mean, either a new franchise or anything about official DP member) from this whole year, despite I'm glad they're willing to give much details to every main character from Belle's story. As for the Beast, not sure what it means. The first thing came to my mind was a typical Mattel doll which allows you to add the beast head (like a mascot costume) onto the humanbeing. In the minidoll case, it sounds like there is the human version minidoll Prince Beast and then there is a Beast head mold specifically designed to be put on a minidoll body? But in that case, I wish that the body could have been a different mold instead.

Well wonder if you have interests in my works (signature below). Overall minidolls' hairpieces are "thicker" than the minifigure ones, even though they're exchangeable. Some minigigure ones would also look weird on minidolls.

Sorry to bump up this topic after such a long time. I add some newer things based on recent issues, if this violates, please inform. And since minidolls have gone into different places, wonder if it could be moved to General LEGO Discussion?

I have been absent from here for long time, but one year ago I did a list in a Wikia page: http://lego.wikia.com/wiki/Hair Wonder if you guys have interests in complete all headgears from the last year?

To be quite honest, since the previous two large sets are not any typical wave of LEGO product lineup, I think it's rather weird to say that LEGO would consistently introduce more Simpsons sets. But overall, I agree LEGO do waste Simpsons potential in more medium regular sets. There are not just iconic characters, but also should be many iconic places to be highlighted.

Too late to see this.... to me, I always think the previous pink Juniors sets cover Friends' range, so if Ninjago is there, I don't see why Friends is not.I would imagine that Friends sets replace the pink boxes but keep them being minifigures. But since other Juniors Disney sets only bring minidolls, I think the chance is getting smaller.

The main concern is currently no Monster Inc sequel announce for LEGO to have a second chance. Some like WiR and Incredibles sequels are currently in progress. The Kubrick version is a possible result how to make all these Disney/Pixar characters by ignoring their relative sizes. But I think this is very depending.

Hagrid, mentinoed above, was a similiar idea that his head is the same from the minifigure line. Although Hagrid's body mold is basically a big coat and perhaps some other similar characters may not use it. As for the minidoll thing, the possible difference may be that a Beast with minidoll Belle could use the smaller minidoll neck, which means his molded head cannot be reused to a minifigure. But if the figure turns out very accurate or is attached to the body, we don't really mind. This topic is referred several times and let's make a rest here. I think everyone has there own ideal way of figure design, even if it's just within minifigure or minidoll's respective set. Generally, I'm inclined to say that oversize characters can get better treats in regular sets more than blind bags.

Be offtopic alittle bit: some of Boudon's designs for LEGO characters were not for Collectible Minifigures on purpose. The actual reason could be that LEGO didn't pass either the new figure idea or the new theme proposal, but instead they change Minotaur and Cyclops into the small versions. But suppose that reason is true, since Disney have established own regular line, LEGO's existed CMF characters may not be the examples for this case. Anyway, now since Beast would more likely be in regular set, he might have better details and a reasonable size let's hope that happen

Uhmm... just curious how big do you mean? There are different kinds of figures in minifigure scale and to me both of Sulley and Beast could be Hagrid's size. I wouldn't think they have to be any bigger, if you mean characters like Gorilla Grodd or Hulk?Anyway, if LEGO do see Beast's popularity, the best chance is that Beast could get a new body mold that a blind bag cannot contain. It might come out very well. As for Sulley.... not sure, since there's no possibility for LEGO MonsterInc sets. Thanx, I posted in the previous thread . Overall, maybe LEGO think the real actor version would not help too much on the sales of sets based on original animated films, so they don't have specific arrangement for the Disney products. For now, just hope that all the Disney Princess would eventually be in LEGO.

Well we're discussing CMFs, and I don't think we can ensure that most franchises included here (other than Mickey&Friends) would have a complete roster of characters. Most of the B&B characters are literally mascots, and Belle could at most only bring Chip with her in a blind bag.Regular sets would be able to complete characters from a single franchise, although sadly the current Disney Princess line hasn't done a good job so far. That theory makes sense, although the way I expect LEGO take is to make them in more later regular sets.I think the Beast should have a new body mold in the need of accuracy. In your aspect, I wonder what the minidoll line ask for? Does it want "goodlooking" or "accuracy"? Think that LEGO didn't do any job to promote the Cinderella movie, I don't think they would do that on purpose. And a regular set is good enough to do that, I guess. Well, licensed series and LEGO's originals would be different stories, remember TLM before Simpsons? So I guess a possible Disney series 2 would be right after the Ninjago series. And there would be two regular CMF series between Disney series 1 and Ninjago, I assume?

Uh well, that show is part of the Disney Junior line, and Duplo Disney has actually been activated for years. I think there's no clear evidence that Duplo Disney does affect the later System Disney things. Toy Story, Cars and Disney Princess appear in both scale, while others like Disney Junior shows, Winne the Pooh and Plane are only exclusive to Duplo lineup.On the other hand, I think the thing Warner Bros have very few franchises in Duplo is just due to that they don't have too many feasible candidates. Well, everyone has their own favorite, but maybe we could just say it in a more polite or tolerable way. As for me, I just like both figures and would love to see all of them keep going.And honestly, since the minidoll line came earlier than the minifigrue series (for Disney classics), I'm rather surprised that you think LEGO would love to do Belle as minifigure in the first place . Uh since a exclusive set is confirmed, how come Belle&Beast have to be in the CMF series? It's my assumption, if LEGO is willing to do an original Beast mold for both his body and head, the Beast could probably fit in both minifigure and minidoll circumstance and that would be a good figure. And as said from the beginning, we should already see that oversize characters are not the recommended choices for blind bags. If regular sets could give a favor, that should the best news for fans, shouldn't it?